DUST Search - What do we expect in DUST Legion?

All Channels

General Discussions

What do we expect in DUST Legion?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 852	Posted - 2016.02.03 19:38:00 - [61] - Quote Does anyone have any realistic ideas about what DUST players could expect from a tiered recognition of their time playing DUST 514 in the new FPS that CCP creates for the PC? What kinds of recognition would you like to see? Also, what kind of thoughts do people have on a possible beta for this new FPS vision for New Eden? Should all the DUST vets get in? Should all the DUST beta players who still play DUST receive invitations to the new beta?
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 852	Posted - 2016.02.05 06:37:00 - [62] - Quote So it turns out it was true. They were working on the new game and were just keeping quiet about it. So now that we know they will not be limited y legacy code and will be moving to Unreal 4 on the PC, what do we expect to see from this game? What do you want to tell CCP would be a good idea to think about in this new game? What experiences in DUST 514 do you think CCP should consider when they are developing the new title? What were the most important lessons that you feel CCP should take away from DUST 514, but also, what do you think the DUST community should take away from the experience over the past few years?
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2016.02.05 06:42:00 - [63] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Fighters. I don't care if they call them that or something else, but I want proper fixed-wing aircraft. Variable-geometry wings are cool too, though, but if they're forward-swept AND variable I might have a heart attack. You'll be happy to know that me, Darth and Kirk are pushing firmly to flush the ADS concept and replace with a proper VSTOL attack aircraft in a fighter style. For those of you who are unfamiliar with VSTOL, basically a harrier jump jet, only more maneuverable. And doesn't look like a flying brick. Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper. Embrace your destiny.
Murder Medic Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 560	Posted - 2016.02.05 06:47:00 - [64] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Fighters. I don't care if they call them that or something else, but I want proper fixed-wing aircraft. Variable-geometry wings are cool too, though, but if they're forward-swept AND variable I might have a heart attack. You'll be happy to know that me, Darth and Kirk are pushing firmly to flush the ADS concept and replace with a proper VSTOL attack aircraft in a fighter style. For those of you who are unfamiliar with VSTOL, basically a harrier jump jet, only more maneuverable. And doesn't look like a flying brick. Why can't we have both? Dropships are great fun right now, what's the point in totally removing them? ESPECIALLY if the game gets bigger maps with more players, removing Dropships / ADS would be a terrible step back. We should be expanding upon vehicle play, not further limitting it or changing things for the sake of change. Farewell DUST
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2016.02.05 06:50:00 - [65] - Quote Murder Medic wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Fighters. I don't care if they call them that or something else, but I want proper fixed-wing aircraft. Variable-geometry wings are cool too, though, but if they're forward-swept AND variable I might have a heart attack. You'll be happy to know that me, Darth and Kirk are pushing firmly to flush the ADS concept and replace with a proper VSTOL attack aircraft in a fighter style. For those of you who are unfamiliar with VSTOL, basically a harrier jump jet, only more maneuverable. And doesn't look like a flying brick. Why can't we have both? Dropships are great fun right now, what's the point in totally removing them? ESPECIALLY if the game gets bigger maps with more players, removing Dropships / ADS would be a terrible step back. We should be expanding upon vehicle play, not further limitting it or changing things for the sake of change. Also, GIVE ME MA DAMN SPEEDER!!!! Never said anything about dropships. I said flush the ADS and replace with a proper VSTOL attack aircraft. Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper. Embrace your destiny.
Murder Medic Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 560	Posted - 2016.02.05 06:54:00 - [66] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Never said anything about dropships. I said flush the ADS and replace with a proper VSTOL attack aircraft. Fair enough. In what way do you see dropships being able to defend themselves against nimble attack craft? Do dropships gain signficantly more tank now that they lose their primary offensive role? Will these new fighters be useful for attacking infantry / installations or will they be more AV focused? How do you see AV being balanced against slow moving dropships while still being able to take out fast fighters? If we raise tank on dropships to keep them from insta popping to new fighters, does this lead to fighters being one hit by AV? Should AV be split? I'm just curious as to some of your thoughts on how this could potentially balance out. Farewell DUST
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2016.02.05 07:14:00 - [67] - Quote Murder Medic wrote: [quote=Breakin Stuff]In what way do you see dropships being able to defend themselves against nimble attack craft? By letting the squad you're carrying shoot from the dropship at oncoming attack craft in addition to the side port guns. Sure a dropship's easier to hit if you attack from the side. But what happens if that side has a forge gun, or an autocannon-loaded sentinel parked right there? All in all there's a lot of considerations that can be had. But I think dropship pilots will absolutely need a "flush the bay" butan to force-deploy a squad into a conflict area. No more of this "sit in dropship all match" BS. Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper. Embrace your destiny.
Murder Medic Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 560	Posted - 2016.02.05 07:18:00 - [68] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Murder Medic wrote: [quote=Breakin Stuff]In what way do you see dropships being able to defend themselves against nimble attack craft? By letting the squad you're carrying shoot from the dropship at oncoming attack craft in addition to the side port guns. Sure a dropship's easier to hit if you attack from the side. But what happens if that side has a forge gun, or an autocannon-loaded sentinel parked right there? I'm strongly opposed to letting infantry fire from inside a dropship. I think there are FAR too many ways for that to be abused prolifically, particularly against infantry. However it's just as bad against vehicles because now you've got logis inside using their repair guns on your dropship while 2 guys are launching swarms, another is firing your railgun and a breach forge gun is all but immune to damage as he picks off any opposition. That's an extreme example of course, but far from unreachable. Also if it's a nimble attack craft, infantry inside probably won't be able to hit it very well anyways unless they use swarms. It just reaks of abuse and as a full time dropship pilot I strongly oppose the idea. Farewell DUST
Murder Medic Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 560	Posted - 2016.02.05 07:31:00 - [69] - Quote RANDOM THINGS I WANT Completely remove team specific redlines. Each map has 1 or 2 primary staging zones that are heavily defended orbitally deployed fortresses with force fields blocking reds from entering. MCRUs should be made larger with these same force fields, allowing you to spawn inside with multiple doors out. Handheld stasis webifiers, web mines, and webifier modules for vehicles. I think vehicles should be more meaty, particularly if player counts go up, but this means they need ways to be slowed down or outright stopped. Capacitors for vehicles. I think this would be awesome and would really help to tie this game further into the EVE universe. Plus, it's more skill oriented than a cooldown system, and also allows for things like energy vamps. The Armory: A training area with rudimentary AI that allows you to test any piece of equipment or vehicle in the game, free of charge and without the SP invested. This lets people get a feel for what they want without actually having to get all the way there just to decide if they actually want it. Also it gives pilots a much needed place to learn how to fly without bankrupting them. MTACs and Speeder bikes because rule of cool, and MAVs if player count is increased. The original concept pictures were awesome and they'd be a great tactical addition to the game. Skirmish 2.0, very vague but a game mode with movement and progression is just really fun to play. Having to take various objectives in order to move forward and having to fall back when you've lost your outer defenses is a lot of fun and helps give purpose to otherwise grindy matches. If nothing else, station boarding to help flip stations in EVE. This is me dreaming but a total reworking of the PI system in EVE so that null sec PI directly influences any given map, giving EVE players the ability to place permament installations and the like in whatever way they see fit. Deployable Installations, this has been a tab since the game first started and it's shown time and time again in the videos, this has to be a thing. Personal drones that are controlled remotely, as well as AI drones / AI fighters that help to further fill matches with things that shoot back. Vehicle skins Various movement modes such as sliding, vaulting, and climbing over ledges / railings. Also the ability to go completely prone, however it takes a few seconds for the animation to play. Speaking of animations, enter and exit animations for all vehicles. Logistics turrets for vehicles. Remote infantry reps and target painters are just a couple ideas, letting a separate player control this might add a bit more of a dynamic to the battlefield. If we bring back remote vehicle reps, only the driver should have access to it. Farewell DUST
Derrith Erador Fatal Absolution 4	Posted - 2016.02.05 07:34:00 - [70] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Murder Medic wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Fighters. I don't care if they call them that or something else, but I want proper fixed-wing aircraft. Variable-geometry wings are cool too, though, but if they're forward-swept AND variable I might have a heart attack. You'll be happy to know that me, Darth and Kirk are pushing firmly to flush the ADS concept and replace with a proper VSTOL attack aircraft in a fighter style. For those of you who are unfamiliar with VSTOL, basically a harrier jump jet, only more maneuverable. And doesn't look like a flying brick. Why can't we have both? Dropships are great fun right now, what's the point in totally removing them? ESPECIALLY if the game gets bigger maps with more players, removing Dropships / ADS would be a terrible step back. We should be expanding upon vehicle play, not further limitting it or changing things for the sake of change. Also, GIVE ME MA DAMN SPEEDER!!!! Never said anything about dropships. I said flush the ADS and replace with a proper VSTOL attack aircraft. To be honest, I always felt that ADS felt like a chopper in the way it handles (going by BF3/4 choppers). While I would like to see my craft get some change, I'm more fearful that changing it too much will screw up the design the pilots have gotten used to. Don't mistake that for disapproval, just worried that I'll become an old dog in a new cockpit. On another note, are you pushing for turrets and the way they operate to change along with the craft? 99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg Bittervet ADS pilot, redheads are hot.

Sequal's Back Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 2	Posted - 2016.02.05 07:54:00 - [71] - Quote I'd much prefer having a client side hit detection, just like in pllanetside 2 which works great. That is considering the game is well protected against hacks.. Client side hit detections makes for a more aggressive gameplay (which is great :3). All your shots land on the target you're shooting at. What's annoying about it is the fact that you see every other players with a bit of latency, so you can be shot while you were undercover. But the good part is that if you attack first, you get a small advantage over your target if he's a bit laggy. I love hit detection in planetside, please do the same thing in dust 2.0 ! Game over.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2016.02.05 08:14:00 - [72] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: On another note, are you pushing for turrets and the way they operate to change along with the craft? I'm pushing for a lot of changes to vehicle gameplay, but mostly because vehicles feel like they were shoehorned without a purpose. I want to have vehicles with an intended battlefield function, have that function built into the game, then add the vehicles. But that's just me. And yeah I want to change small and large turrets. Maybe someday I'll share the things I've pushed at, but the gist is "more turret classes" based on intended function. Not small turrets that are situationally useful on one vehicle/heavy turrets that have minimal suppression power/etc. As far as AV infantry, I would like to see AV-focused classes of infantry that can go toe to toe by design with the more heavy/difficult vehicles. With advantages and drawbacks, clear ones, that make the interplay dynamic and interesting. Long story short, I want vehicles to feel like they have power, but still counterable. Some vehicles intended for anti-ionfantry, some tankhunter vehicles, defined by preferred class of vehicle and loadout. I don't want people to feel like they have to run an HAV or fighter to have a viable vehicle role. Likewise on the infantry side, I would like to see Rock-solid AV roles built into various classes. So that rather than "everyone can 1v1 vehicles and be about even," the more anti-materiel-focused the actual dropsuit class, the more functional they are versus heavier vehicles/more difficult to kill vehicles. It goes with my oddball desire to see the dropsuit and vehicle classes be distinct by role, battlefield function and customizability. An LAV should be distinct and always play violently and vastly different from an HAV. an ADS should not feel like a dropship + 1 gun. Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper. Embrace your destiny.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.05 12:42:00 - [73] - Quote Capacitors for vehicles. Basically copy and paste EVE into an FPS vehicle wise at least with the vast array of modules active and passive and the expanded skill tree where they all have useful bonuses. But it doesnt matter because it wont happen anyways. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Soto Gallente 843	Posted - 2016.02.05 12:43:00 - [74] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Capacitors for vehicles. Basically copy and paste EVE into an FPS vehicle wise at least with the vast array of modules active and passive and the expanded skill tree where they all have useful bonuses. But it doesnt matter because it wont happen anyways. With a PC version, I say that there is a very high possibility of that happening. Ex-news reporter for The Scope
Amalepsa Zarek The Naughty Ninjas The-Office 3	Posted - 2016.02.05 13:40:00 - [75] - Quote I expect to keep: 1. Skill Points 2. ISK 3. Gear BPO/s This is already included in the EVE database and should there fore be easy to transfer. Any additional like: +aurum +loyalty rank +standings +boosters would of course be nice, but the top three are expected after the announcement at Fan Fest . Or there will be crying nerds. With tight wallets for the next run.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.05 13:42:00 - [76] - Quote Soto Gallente wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Capacitors for vehicles. Basically copy and paste EVE into an FPS vehicle wise at least with the vast array of modules active and passive and the expanded skill tree where they all have useful bonuses. But it doesnt matter because it wont happen anyways. With a PC version, I say that there is a very high possibility of that happening. I disagree tbh fam This is CCP and the FPS community we are talking about. The FPS community generally hate vehicles and cry, take this game they cried when a Surya with 3 armor hardeners, 180 poly plate and heavy rep could not get solo'd, when the top pilots in this game were able to micro manage there modules but also had the tactical and postional sense of when to engage and when to retreat and add in being in an organized group it used to devestate lolpubs. Also cannot forget about the vast array of skills and modules we had at the time, 40mil of SP dropped into vehicles and that was just for the essentials, spider tanking was a thing and it was fun and actually worked, it was teamwork. PC was different, organized teams against each other, focusing fire, top teams and individual players against each other, no complaints about OP vehicles, teams got on with it and hammered each other anyway they could and the best teams would adapt. Now it is moving to PC so lets justy copy and paste EVE skills/skill bonuses/turrets/rigs and modules into the vehicles along with capacitors, now the best pilots will adapt 1st and max out the core skills for all vehicles or maybe just for armor/shield then a turret and key modules that they use but the difference is that these modules now have a short activation time and can also perma-run until the cap runs out but if you are cap stable then it will never switch off until you switch it off. So lets take a Sagaris fit, pilot has max skills in everything lets just say, they put on a Heavy Shield Extender which also passively increases the shield regen rate by x amount, then they put on 2 Adaptive Shield Hardeners which give a flat 30% resistance to all types of damage so if both are together then its 55% roughly but these can be perma run so it is 55% resistance to everything all the time and then maybe another EM hardener that they pulse now and again if they come up against EM weapons, finally a Heavy Shield Booster that they put on now and again when needed because it drains the cap the most. Now it is time for Rigs, these mods are permenant on the vehicle that you put them on and can only be removed by destroying them but they also contain drawbacks such as higher PG requirements for turrets that you improve, they are just as numerous as mods and cover all areas so because the Sagaris is a shield based vehicle then it needs to plug the EM resistance gap so an EM rig is generally put on and then maybe also whack on 2 rigs for the turrets which can increase damage or rane or ROF at a drawback of 20% more PG usage for example. If that vehicle existed in Dust it would be nerfed hard and tears would flood the forums, they already got flooded because of the Gunlogi with 3 hardeners when vehicles were weaker and them modules included cooldown times and the community complained that they drove away when they had no modules. Add in spider tanking like they do in EVE with specialized triage vehicles and vehicle gameplay would hit new heights while infantry would **** a brick and mass complain. EVE is too complex for the FPS community, add in vehicles with EVE level of detail in skills/bonuses/modules/rigs/turrets/hulls and capacitors and we have really top notch vehicles with a variety of roles, problem is infantry would complain about 1v1 and the like and eventually it would become a very very watered down version with consistant nerfs. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Soto Gallente 847	Posted - 2016.02.05 13:46:00 - [77] - Quote Well the FPS community better get clever then. This is not supposed to be just any fps, this is supposed to be the thinking man's shooter. Ex-news reporter for The Scope
Amalepsa Zarek The Naughty Ninjas The-Office 3	Posted - 2016.02.05 13:54:00 - [78] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: EVE is too complex for the FPS community The console community is mostly not that smart. The whole skill point progression following through to the new game will motivate many console players to buy/move to PC gaming (and even EVE?). DUST 514 built up quite the loyal customer base and quite a few will convert to the full New Eden experience. Whatever changes you are talking about the most important is to grab the most paying players using continuity as a carrot to keep spending in the New Eden university. Taking the strong enablers and leaders from DUST 514 to the new platform, will make the rest follow.
Cosgar 9	Posted - 2016.02.05 14:55:00 - [79] - Quote Since CCP has fallen into the category of mainstream that onlh recognizes three games on the market, (Candy Crush, Clash of Clans and Call of Duty) I expect the same deadly sins of development to be repeated again with little to no remorse. Paid beta, cash shops with broken mechanics built around it, and selling hope as if it were the most premium of snake oil. Don't think for a second that this game's **** poor development was because of PS3 limitations. Call 1-800-345-SONY, press 2, then 2 again to get your money back if you bought AUR in the past 90 days.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3	Posted - 2016.02.05 15:01:00 - [80] - Quote A while back I did a series of posts with the tag line "gearing up for conquest" I outlined having MCC's that actually did things. 18 vehicle classes including a globemaster class transport. So that, plus a proper weapon roster. In a similar vein to how blacklight retribution does theirs. Constructing a weapon from component parts, plus attachments plus camps. I'll see if I can find those posts. They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3

Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3	Posted - 2016.02.05 15:11:00 - [81] - Quote Found Them. Gearing up for Conquest - Transport Vehicles: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=154338 Gearing up for Conquest - Artillery and Enforcer Tanks: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2036882#post2036882 Gearing up for Conquest - Command and Communication: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2040241# They call me the Monkey - I like to jump off sh** and piss RE's all over your tank! Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior Lvl 3
Avallo Kantor 1	Posted - 2016.02.05 16:40:00 - [82] - Quote I'd like to see more intricate mechanics for whatever the next iteration of districts will be. The way I envision it: Districts are a large area of a planet, full of various valuable material, land, and resources and is more fortified than a single base. Keep in mind that many districts could be the size of nations, they should be harder to take than a single base. I'd like to see a sort of battle map per district, that requires the taking of landing points, taking out various fortifications, supply points, and communications hubs before finally striking at the central command center and taking over the district. Districts could vary in size (think the difference between a country like Russia and france irl) and have mechanics to placing structures similar to Planetary Industry in EVE. Aka, the district has a command center that provides PG / CPU that other modules consume. The district owners can then place / remove / relocate the district modules as they see fit with each providing defensive, economic, and military boons to the owners. You could have a district set up for production, but doing so would make it less defensible, and open to raiding. Likewise you could set up a district for storage, or a more military mindset, or a healthy balance of each. This way each owner could truly customize the district, and those modules chosen would also affect what sort of battles would occur as attackers attempt to take those points after landing. District battles would become more spread out (a few fights in different locations potentially over the course of a few days) and allow for more participation even if match sizes were not to be significantly altered. As an example, a set up from the attackers that allowed 3 points to be attacked in union in a district, requiring the defenders to split themselves up accordingly. The overall conflict would become more tactical, and in my opinion, more interesting as a result. "Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
Radiant Pancake3 Y.A.M.A.H 4	Posted - 2016.02.05 16:42:00 - [83] - Quote Radiant Pancake3 wrote: Having sex with Jara, Duct tape vehicles to fuk the butterberries harder, even more racial parity, lags fixes, bug fixes, higher playerbase to fix MM, better graphics, new stuff, new maps, new everything, 60 FPS, More EvE and Dust connection, more impact on the Eve Universe, something something lorey type stuff, Merc quarters that are traverseable, being able to sit on the couch, being able to sleep on that concrete slab of a bed, OPEN MARKET TRADING! Did I miss anything? Well since OP changed the subject... I guess I need to edit said post. I have a Fan!
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 854	Posted - 2016.02.05 17:49:00 - [84] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: You'll be happy to know that me, Darth and Kirk are pushing firmly to flush the ADS concept and replace with a proper VSTOL attack aircraft in a fighter style.. So will you guys be working with CCP at all in developing new ideas for the new shooter? Well I hope this thread helps you guys see the ideas the community has as well.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 854	Posted - 2016.02.05 17:54:00 - [85] - Quote Sequal's Back wrote: I'd much prefer having a client side hit detection, just like in pllanetside 2 which works great. That is considering the game is well protected against hacks.. Client side hit detections makes for a more aggressive gameplay (which is great :3). All your shots land on the target you're shooting at. What's annoying about it is the fact that you see every other players with a bit of latency, so you can be shot while you were undercover. But the good part is that if you attack first, you get a small advantage over your target if he's a bit laggy. I love hit detection in planetside, please do the same thing in dust 2.0 ! I could very well be wrong, but I think client side hit detection is the easiest to hack. People can make it easy to automatically headshot anyone.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 854	Posted - 2016.02.05 17:55:00 - [86] - Quote Murder Medic wrote: Skirmish 2.0, very vague but a game mode with movement and progression is just really fun to play. Having to take various objectives in order to move forward and having to fall back when you've lost your outer defenses is a lot of fun and helps give purpose to otherwise grindy matches. That was actually Skirmish 1.0 that we had during the beta. It was great. Sadly it was considered too difficult to balance and so they gave us the Skirmish we currently have, which us old guys call Skirmish 2.0.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 854	Posted - 2016.02.05 18:01:00 - [87] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: It goes with my oddball desire to see the dropsuit and vehicle classes be distinct by role, battlefield function and customizability. Are you advocating for losing the suit and fitting system to instead give us defined roles? I really hope not. If anything I would love to see our suits given capacitors as well and made even more like how EVE ships are fit. I do agree though that suits shouldn't all be able to take on vehicles. Then again that was part of the original idea of the Heavy suit.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 854	Posted - 2016.02.05 18:04:00 - [88] - Quote Amalepsa Zarek wrote: I expect to keep: 1. Skill Points 2. ISK 3. Gear BPO/s This is already included in the EVE database and should there fore be easy to transfer. Any additional like: +aurum +loyalty rank +standings +boosters would of course be nice, but the top three are expected after the announcement at Fan Fest . Or there will be crying nerds. With tight wallets for the next run. What matters most to me would be the ability to log into our DUST characters and have the original name and character creation date for the character. I would actually want them to rework so much of the Skills and weapons that I would hope they wouldn't keep SP and BPO's and such. That or if they did keep BPO's make them like actual EVE BPO's that are only used to create the gear. This way we would still need the resources to create the gear. I actually dislike how our gear seem to come from nowhere. I would love to have to buy the resources collected form EVE players in order to have my suits and equipment created somewhere that I then have to pick up.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 861	Posted - 2016.02.05 18:08:00 - [89] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: EVE is too complex for the FPS community, add in vehicles with EVE level of detail in skills/bonuses/modules/rigs/turrets/hulls and capacitors and we have really top notch vehicles with a variety of roles, problem is infantry would complain about 1v1 and the like and eventually it would become a very very watered down version with consistant nerfs. I agree about those complaints. I disagree about EVE being to complicated for FPS players though. I have known FPS players to get in EVE and take part in Null Sec combat within days of starting a trial account. I think the best way to help with concerns about balance, and people upset for pub matches, would be to separate High, Low, and Null sec properly as it is in EVE. We can not take Titans into High Sec in EVE, and maybe vehicle, or some other restriction should be in place for High Sec, ie. pubs.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 861	Posted - 2016.02.05 18:12:00 - [90] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: A while back I did a series of posts with the tag line "gearing up for conquest" I outlined having MCC's that actually did things. 18 vehicle classes including a globemaster class transport. So that, plus a proper weapon roster. In a similar vein to how blacklight retribution does theirs. Constructing a weapon from component parts, plus attachments plus camps. I'll see if I can find those posts. Those sound like great ideas for the next game. I would love to see MCC's being bought and fit before going out. It would be nice to be able to bring a customisable set of assistance from the MCC. The only difficulty will be making different things to buy for the MCC that can complement different strategies. This way you dont get everyone fitting the MCC in the one way considered best.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.