DUST Search - Vehicle Balance Proposal or How To Never Be CPM

All Channels

General Discussions

Vehicle Balance Proposal or How To Never Be CPM

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 14:23:00 - [1] - Quote Lately IGÇÖve been considering running for CPM 2, but truth be told with a big move coming up in August and trying to go back to school in the fall I have entirely too much on my plate to be trying to add that to it. Thus, I shall remove myself permanently from consideration by posting the following: Redesigning Vehicle Progression (More Teamwork - Less Master Chief) I will reiterate a point I have made many times in the past that had me quickly shouted down by the GÇ£Pro TankersGÇ¥ of earlier years: the idea that a high enough skillpoint investment should render a single player nigh-unkillable is rather silly. What I would first recommend is the adjustment of HAVs to at minimum require a dedicated driver and dedicated gunner, and to redesign the Assault Dropship such that it has an additional internal seat that controls an independent turret under the nose rather than the current system. What this does is require that players who skill into these vehicles buddy up with someone good with a turret same as an LAV or Dropship pilot has to. The oft-used justification of it being a vehicle that is used to demand that multiple AV players be required to destroy it should involve a greater multiplayer requirement on the part of the user. I would also point out that this would allow the vehicles in question to prosecute targets while retaining full mobility, which would give them better survivability on the field. Part of why Lai Dai Packed AV Grenades are so deadly is because in most cases the HAV user who dies to them is stopped in order to aim accurately with his turret. With a separate gunner the driver can keep the HAV moving while the gunner engages targets. With this model, the driver is focused solely on maneuvering and module activation, and would also receive Vehicle Kill Assist WP for every kill by each of the vehicleGÇÖs turrets. If you were to combine that with running a scanner for Intel Kill Assist and also placing a Defend order on the vehicle for that bonus, the driver would be getting more WP per kill than the gunners doing the killing, making it well worth it for the driver. For anyone who hasnGÇÖt already hit Reply to start ranting about what a brainless moron who hates fun that I am, I now get to the more long-term section of this proposal: Solo Vehicles (Big Investment for Master Chief Status) What is one thing that both jets and mechs have in pretty much any game that features them? They only require one player. The idea here is that Fighters and MTACs would offer solo-playability in a vehicle in exchange for maxing out the section of the vehicle tree that comes before them. MTACs would also come in size classes such that they would be accessible without too much of an SP investment, but a player who wants the biggest and baddest one would need to invest a butt-ton of SP. For example. LAV V > Light MTAC MAV V> Medium MTAC HAV V> Heavy MTAC The size classes for aircraft made me think that we could redo the vehicle skill tree to have aircraft skills split by size class. The Fighters shown in the 2009 stage demo and concept artwork are the size of HAVs, but real-life jets are larger than tanks in any case, so the Heavy ones might actually be bigger than that. The Aircraft skills would unlock multi-person VTOL aircraft like with the ground vehicle skills, with Level V of each of those skills unlocking single-seater fixed-wing aircraft. Light Aircraft V > Light Fighter Medium Aircraft V > Medium Fighter Heavy Aircraft V > Heavy Fighter Now, while these Fighters and MTACs would allow solo vehicle play, they each come with drawbacks to counter the increased abilities MTAC Advantages: 1. Greater mobility afforded by legs (strafing, possibly limited jumping) 2. No requirement for a gunner 3. Greater variety in weapon fitting based on size class MTAC Disadvantages: 1. Taller than other vehicles in their size class which impedes use of cover 2. Lower overall HP as a tradeoff for higher mobility 3. Heavy hits to legs can cause them to temporarily stumble and slow Fighter Advantages: 1. Very fast 2. Can carry single-use weapons with varying abilities (bombs, guided missiles) 3. No requirement of gunner Fighter Disadvantages: 1. Very low HP 2. Limited ability to reduce speed in flight, leaving small attack windows 3. All guns are fixed so VTOL canGÇÖt be used to make weapons more effective This way a player can choose to make a very large SP investment in exchange for receiving solo vehicles, but those solo vehicles still retain enough balancing factors to prevent them from dominating the field. Now tell me how much I suck. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 14:25:00 - [2] - Quote Nightfury Wyrnspire wrote: -1 would not vote for CPM +1 Thank you for your support. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 14:37:00 - [3] - Quote Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote: your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements. Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down. You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 14:51:00 - [4] - Quote Nightfury Wyrnspire wrote: Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote: your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements. Do you understand how the sidegun mechanics work? There are numerous issues with them that wouldn't be present in a frontal gunner position. Yes, the nose gun model would actually be advantageous as a gunner. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 18:10:00 - [5] - Quote This is prompting some wonderful discussion! I realize this must seem very far flung, but the idea is not to try and change everything right now. The plan still relies on the presence of the other vehicles to provide a solo route as an option for the dedicated. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 18:41:00 - [6] - Quote A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote: With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate? an0kneemus wrote: mathematically if it is underneath it does not have a 360 degrees turning. i think u need to work on your maths before dust 514 If the turret is underneath of the ship such that it is beneath the entire body of the ship, it would be able to aim 360 degrees exactly like how a turret on top of a ground vehicle works. May want to try thinking before posting sarcastic comments. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 19:41:00 - [7] - Quote Zan Azikuchi wrote: +1, also if you ever played BF3-4 or whenever there was an attack helicopter, you'll know that it can very good to be the gunner, also another +1 because I like the tanker perspective of having to rely more on gunners and moving and modules, makes for more required teamwork and makes for more attentive gameplay and less crying since the main tank gunner can be shooting while looking behind itself without hitting any obstacles, because their separate seat's, plenty of time I shot and killed a tank with swarm's because they ran into the terrain trying to get away from me. You hit on the scenarios that prompted my recommendation. Having been a long time vehicle user myself, both air and ground, part of this is also based on what I wish I had. I want to see an end to the nerf-buff cycle. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:03:00 - [8] - Quote Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Michael-J-Fox Richards wrote: your idea is stupid bro. why have ADS require 2 people. why not use a cheapo sidegun ship. you tried shooting as a gunner. its harder cause you aint controlling the movements. Imagine using a turret mounted underneath the vehicle with 360 degree aiming as well as pitching up and down. You can aim completely independent of what the pilot is doing. No, no you cannot. As of right now, and has been since release, all shots fired from a moving vehicle get magically displaced through space in the INVERSE direction of travel. This means that if a dropship had said setup, and started flying downward, the bullet would originate inside the dropship, damaging the hull or killing any occupants. Vehicle turrets Never fire from their turret, but instead fire from a bizarre physics position that whips around behind the gun. This is why dropships usually slow down before firing. I'm well aware of the current state of projectiles fired from vehicles, as I have lost many a side gunner to their missile killing them via splash damage as I strafe toward the side they are on in my Python. We shouldn't be arguing against possible improvements in gameplay simply because a current bug might be troublesome. I'm also not entirely sure that's what that particular poster was opposing. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:28:00 - [9] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote: With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless. Skilling would be adjusted to match the current goal of applying turret stats based on the higher skill. If the gunner has more SP into turrets than the pilot, his bonuses are used. If not, the pilot's are used. As to your other major sticking point, I edited my post to include that this idea assumes the deployment of owner vehicle locking, which I would mention is in CCP Rattati's notes on Trello. This means that you can deploy into a battle in a squad with your gunner, lock your vehicle, and then only permit your gunner into the main turret. You can develop synergy with good gunners and be far more effective and survivable as a team than you could be on your own. This is aimed at you rolling with Corp members you trust, not with randoms. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:45:00 - [10] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Zan Azikuchi wrote: Void Echo wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote: With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless. So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know? Testing out this game killing idea is fine, but never should it be actually implimented, there is literally no incentive to spec into their side if this is what will happen. Did you read my response addressing your concerns? Again, the idea is that both vehicle classes would be available, and not that this be done right now. You would be able to trade maximum investment in HAVs for an extremely mobile solo armored vehicle with some disadvantages to balance it out. Part of the issue for me with the MTAC concept was it fit under the category of "Cool asset, bro" without actually adding anything. With this model team play is a greater factor in vehicle usage, and those who want can still push for a more balanced solo vehicle. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:58:00 - [11] - Quote Void Echo wrote: I will never accept this concept, no pilot would (back in closed and open beta this was brought up countless times) You noticed how I mentioned that, right? I remember you doing exactly this in one of my old threads on the subject. How far do you want this endless and frankly moronic conflict over Vehicles and AV to go on? Vehicle users and AV users both refuse to rethink the dynamic. We just keep bickering endlessly over damage output and vehicle regen when the fact remains that no matter how long we beat that dead horse it's not going to wake up and be rideable. You've been here as long as I have because I remember you all the way back in March when I first got in. You know as well as I do how many YEARS we have been flogging this dessicated corpse of what used to be a horse and we've never gotten to a state that didn't have one side or the other upset with the status quo and some people leaving the game based on their displeasure. We can't keep going like this. We need to be willing to look at tearing up the foundation and trying something new. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 23:13:00 - [12] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Something new is fine, but this suggestion isn't nor will it ever be an option. Your suggesting a mechanic that will literally eliminate the want or incentive to use HAVs, no game that has tanks is using this mechanic and for good reason, because they know that if they do it they might as well just remove tanks completely and make it like cod. Okay, I was willing to try and discuss this reasonably, but you're really going to pull the CoD card? Games like CoD and Halo use single-suit vehicles because of their more casual focus. I'm trying to find a way for vehicles to be a powerhouse without being an easy mode win button or helplessly shredded by clouds of easymode Swarms. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 00:59:00 - [13] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Then separate your dropsuits, one person to move your dropsuit, one to aim and the other to shoot your gun. You used that one already, you got anything else? See, the issue here is you're looking at this as me taking your tank away from you, but that's not the right way to see it, so picture two things: 1. Receiving a respec in associated vehicle trees just like they've done before so you can put your points where you want 2. A two-legged walker with more firepower and mobility than your HAV at the cost of lower base hitpoints. Got that? Now we get to the good stuff. This thing is composed of 5 different subsystems. Each category has at least 5 options so you can pick and choose your base functionality and then put modules on top of that to get an MTAC that performs exactly how you want it. I want you to imagine trading in your solo tank for a ***** Mech that can be tripped up by hits to the legs and is a little more vulnerable, but in exchange let's you truly be a one-man killing machine. See, what you want is tanks that are giant Dropsuits. I'm saying ** that. Just take a giant Dropsuit. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 02:39:00 - [14] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Yeah, your wanting to turn this into cod 514, with your suggestion tanking would die. There is no reward for being forced to deal with randoms with your class. There is no logical reason for your idea, its an excuse for ccp to say "let's get rid of tanks" when they see that 0% of players spec into having someone drive them around or shoot our of their own tank. I used to be specced into tanks, and this ruins them for everyone, I'm not gona waste millions of SP for some random ****** to drive me directly into a suicide nor will I do it just to drive around while some idiot gets all the kills leaving me with nothing. And Corp mates aren't on 24/7 so your basically saying that tanks should me nerves into the ground and only used when others are online, making the SP in it completely worthless. I get the feeling I'm not going to get anything but hostility from you. I had hoped that several years of the same crap would loosen up some of the "vets" but apparently there are some of you that just can't let go of the current meta. I want you to answer this for me: what gameplay is there in Dust that isn't available in any other game? You've made the point yourself that tank gameplay in Dust is virtually identical to that in every other combined-arms game, except that in this one you have people who can drive around going on murder sprees while demanding that an entire squad needs to work together in order to kill them. Has it not occured to you that you're basically demanding that your SP investment render you better than everyone else? Have you ever considered how much fun the infantry who are unable to stop you and that you're farming over and over again are having? This isn't just a game about tanks, Void, and part of what leads so many people to just blow this game off is that it has NOTHING to make them stay. Are you really so dedicated to keeping things as they are that you don't care about anyone else? Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 03:57:00 - [15] - Quote Void Echo wrote: And to answer your question, investment is the answer. In dust 514, you literally have to invest everything into what you want, we call it SP. There is nothing like it in any other game. In battlefield there isn't a mechanic that you get skill points to drive or shoot out of a tank or gun, in cod there aren't even vehicles, no other game besides eve requires complete personal investment. Your saying that we should force pilots to invest their stuff so that a completely random person has full access to it. There is no possible outcome that is good from your suggestion. Where did I ever say a completely random person? I actually specifically specified that vehicle users should be able to control access to their vehicles. Do you never play with anyone in your Corporation? Void Echo wrote: I really don't care about anyone else, staying up till 4 a.m with a knife under your bed at night waiting for your bastard father to try and do something eliminates feelings for anyone else. ...whoah...okay That went in a direction I did not expect. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 04:03:00 - [16] - Quote I thought you only did that once per thread? Are you actually checking the front page to make sure everything's getting rolled? Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 13:48:00 - [17] - Quote Nightfury Wyrnspire wrote: Void crying about even the idea of not being able to have a solo tank is hilarious. I mean I want to try and reach a middle-ground, and I knew it would be a hard sell, which is why I made that semi-satirical thread title. I guess I might be weird in this, but all I really want is to be able to have fun with my chosen asset without taking the fun away from other people. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 16:13:00 - [18] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Part of why Lai Dai Packed AV Grenades are so deadly is because in most cases the HAV user who dies to them is stopped in order to aim accurately with his turret. With a separate gunner the driver can keep the HAV moving while the gunner engages targets. Not at all. The reason why lai dais are so powerful is because they are homing nuclear baseballs with enough alpha to wipe things out in a three pack. Now tell me why someone with two types of homing weapons should be not only able to annihilate my ride, but also why I now have to depend on my turret operator to save my ISK. How is that engaging gameplay for me, as the vehicle purchaser? I've repeatedly made my stance pretty clear on how easy mode homing weapons are, but the issue is that they are felt to be necessary to counter how powerful single-seater vehicles are. Again, I'm putting this up not to say it's the only solution, but to try and prompt a discussion that looks outside of the current meta and examines a solution from new angles. This game rewards team play pretty highly, so I think our primary vehicle classes should require that team play and reward it just as heavily. I'll say again that I'm coming at this as someone who has used vehicles since the start of Mordu's Private Trials, so I'm not some butthurt infantry specialist who just wants to Nerf things. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 17:17:00 - [19] - Quote Mina Longstrike wrote: Sorry, I'm not in favor of any system that makes the large majority of my sp useless to me. As it is you need to have an incredibly stupid amount of SP into vehicles, particularly fitting optimization skills to mount a fit that's even **ing remotely okay. I've tried nurturing a community for vehicle users, and between dropship nerfs, sweeping tank changes (that started as far back as 1.7), and how powerful av feels to go up against... the vehicular community is essentially **ing dead. I'm not sure that I'd say that, but we have certainly become rather divided as a result of our displeasure with the current Meta. What if my concept didn't require maximum investment into each vehicle skill to unlock the associated MTAC? What if it only took Level III just like with Specialist Dropsuits? Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.07 01:32:00 - [20] - Quote Zan Azikuchi wrote: Perhaps, allow swarm's to be shot down, more often, by small turret's and give the top small turret more damage VS aerial vehicles and the bottom one more damage versus infantry? Seem's, also give blasters increased range, and give it back it's accuracy, that inverted dispersal isn't balancing the weapon, and it's more in-line with MIN weapon's, like the HMG. Just my 2 isk. Also because i'm a gunner not a vehicle specialist all the weapon's are made to function horribly and need to be re-thought of, or perhaps add variant's that give the turrets more capability in reduction of damage, so that 1 turret may be best against vehicles and another vs infantry, but small turret variant's would be mixed, they'd have the same damage to vehicles that they do infantry, but the variant's would be more, well, variable, fully auto small rocket shooter, charge variant small turret for major damage to vehicles and infantry, but may be best vs vehicles given their size, but like the CSR would 1 shot (the charge sniper rifle would 1 shot headshot anything with an EHP of 1.2k+) most individuals with an ehp below 600, and a burst ion blaster with blast radius. Once more i'd like to state I hate vehicle pilot's/driver's, their haughty attitude and self belief that their entitled to always be right when their clearly wrong, irritates me beyond measure, but naturally fairness is what I want to strive for, both for infantry and vehicles, also here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2807246#post2807246 a point about vehicle's vs swarms were made, be sure to read it, And Echo, if this was COD, vehicles would be easy mode, jump right in and be unstoppable (like back in chromosome), I truly despise your ignorance over this fact, and you would know if you ever played a COD game that vehicles would be an unstoppable force with hardly anyway to actually kill them, this game relates more to BF3-4 in terms of where vehicles are, not too hard, not too easy, which is the way I prefer. And I swear to god echo if you only read 1 part of this I would disown you of even being a tanker and see you as an out right troll. I completely agree that the Small Turrets have wonky functionality and would benefit from a design pass. Right now the only turret that's truly effective is the Missile Turret. The Railgun Turret has a good rate of fire and can be used to kill infantry, but vehicle motion throws off the projectiles entirely which makes it impossible to use on infantry unless sitting completely still. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.09 00:41:00 - [21] - Quote Gonna give this one bump to see if anyone else has anything to add. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.09 00:49:00 - [22] - Quote Harry Bawlss wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Gonna give this one bump to see if anyone else has anything to add. make shield tanks more OP please. They're OP right now? As far as I've seen they fold instantly up against perma-repping blaster tanks. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.09 01:04:00 - [23] - Quote Harry Bawlss wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Harry Bawlss wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Gonna give this one bump to see if anyone else has anything to add. make shield tanks more OP please. They're OP right now? As far as I've seen they fold instantly up against perma-repping blaster tanks. I want them more OP for me Oh. XD I'm afraid I can't help you there. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.09 01:50:00 - [24] - Quote Moochie Cricket wrote: As a hardcore pilot and hobby tanker since closed beta I would be cool with separating the gunner and driver into different roles if the vehicles/turrets were made much more powerful. Some of my favorite times in dust was flying Soul around in my myron while he racked up the kills. Same for me, which is part of why I was thinking about this. The important factor is the adjustment toward that with basic vehicles COMBINED with the introduction of the dedicated solo-vehicles for those who want to keep that playstyle. Every other combined-arms game in the industry has vehicle control dynamics exactly like Dust. I want to see Dust offer different and more cooperative gameplay as a default while presenting a far more unique and desirable experience for solo-pilots other than the standard one-man-tank with a seat or two for support guns that we have right now. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.09 02:22:00 - [25] - Quote Riptalis wrote: Disagree, I like soloing in my ADS plus it's my hard work and dedication I shouldn't need another player in my ADS. Soz Again, the idea is to enhance the Assault Dropships by replacing them with a gun-ship type platform that is more effective overall, and to introduce a single-seater asset for players who want to fly solo. The idea is to try and mix up the current somewhat boring mix of the familiar that is Dust's current vehicle dynamic. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.