That doesn't mean they don't test it. I know from personal experience that even if you test something a thousand times and it goes perfectly, something can still go wrong.

I expect the same thing I expect from all their projects..... failure


CCP = Can't Complete Projects

So EVE: Online is a failure? Valkyrie is a failure? Gunjack is a failure? Even Dust 514 was not a failure, which makes their only two failed projects Legion and World of Darkness.

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.

Lol, you're funny.

So EVE: Online is a failure? Valkyrie is a failure? Gunjack is a failure? Even Dust 514 was not a failure, which makes their only two failed projects Legion and World of Darkness.

yes eve is a failure.... never hit a million users... that's a fail for a game. Valkyrie is to new to be proven a success or failure yet... and most people never even heard of gunjack and its too new so yeah all failures.

Here's an idea - subscribe to EvE Online. You can travel to different stations all over the New Eden galaxy, yourself, on your own spacecraft, right from the very first day. It will take you probably about a half hour to get from wherever you are in New Eden to anywhere else you want to be, with the appropriate jumps.

New Eden is beautiful. You get to see a little of it from the ground - you probably don't look up much when you're in battle, but if you do you will see nebulae, stars, planets, moons. In New Eden, that's what we see ALL THE TIME. :)

DOes anyone have any ideas for how to apply security status in the new PC game? A way of making high sec, low sec, and null sec to meaningful separate people to prevent what we currently call "pubstomping?"

Been playing EVE on and off for over a decade. My current toon was started in 2009. Thanks for the advice though.

I must ask, have you ever flown into a star and looked up to see the all seeing eye looking down on you? Got to say the inside of a star was my favourite place to sit in a system.

DOes anyone have any ideas for how to apply security status in the new PC game? A way of making high sec, low sec, and null sec to meaningful separate people to prevent what we currently call "pubstomping?"

Pubs are by definition, in hisec. In hisec, if you attack someone, Concord will take you out. To get around that, you wardec the corp or alliance that you want to attack, and Concord will leave you alone.

Even if you pubstomp, they will leave you alone. There is no mechanism for stopping "pubstomping" in EvE.

In EvE, the whole concept of the sort of battles that we have in Dust is likely to change. I doubt that there will be the same stylised battles as we have now. EvE is much more fluid.

Of course, there is nothing to stop CCP from just remaking Dust just running on the PC. If they do that, they will have lost an incredible opportunity.

So one thing I notice in many of the responses are requests about "matches." Are people happy with the regular matchmaking style of game play for a high sec type of environment?

Would it not be better to have a different type of game that allowed battles to be emergent instead of established by strict matchmaking algorithms?

Vehicles need distinct roles. They never had a chance in DUST because they shared the EXACT SAME ROLE as any dropsuit, namely to kill individual infantry units. They were just big suits that could be "worn" by a single player so they had to be balanced one on one with a single AV suit. That was the only way to prevent one side from dropping 16 HAVs and destroying the other side. These big suits either cost too much or were too weak, they could never be what vehicles should be.

Nobody today uses a main battle tank to shoot infantry. It's not efficient. It shouldn't be efficient in EVE:Phoenix either. Make them good at destroying the smaller anti-infantry vehicles and fortifications. Let them blow holes in walls. Make them crap at killing individual infantry. By separating infantry from heavy tanks you can balance them much easier. If they don't compete one-on-one they don't have to be countered one-on-one.

Main battle tanks should require multiple crew members to operate efficiently. In the new game we can make it so individual players don't have to front the cost of these vehicles all by themselves. Have a range of vehicles from single pilot to multi-crew.

Give us a first person view! It kills immersion to have to run in third person and it alters the dynamic when you can see all around your vehicle.

Make piloting a player skill as important to flying and driving as it is to aiming your gun as infantry. Don't make flying to easy. Pilots are proud folks who want others to respect them for their skill. As such keep the current dropship flight mechanics and don't make the fixed wing aircraft arcadey like PS2 does.

Price is immaterial, you can't balance on ISK. The problem is that a vehicle can be piloted and fired by one player and it competes directly with that suit in the slayer role. That makes it logically equivalent to a suit. If it's equivalent, then it has to be balanced one-on-one, especially for low player count matches were any advantage is heavily felt.

You must change one of those two conditions before vehicles can require more than one AV suit to destroy them.

You can remove direct competition by reducing or eliminating its anti-infantry ability. A dropship with no guns could be tanked way up and not imbalance the game. A HAV with a rail turret could be great at destroying other big targets but be really bad at killing infantry. Smaller and more vulnerable vehicles could be better at anti-infantry, but be balanced closer to a suit. This approach requires more complex gameplay and probably destructible environments.

You can also require more than one player per vehicle for full use. Then you can balance on a 2:2 or 3:3 ratio. The vehicle still has a natural advantage because it forces coordination among its crew while the opposition has to have the discipline to provide it themselves. That gives them the edge in pub matches. The standard dropship and the LAV are examples which require a pilot and gunner to be effective. The LAV a little less so as you can easily park and switch positions in the blink of an eye.

Now that I think about it, an open world environment in the New Eden FPS for PC would be a great setting for this to happen. Eve Online demonstrated very well how that can work out. It's split up into high-sec, low-sec and null-sec.

For the uninitiated, High-Sec, Low-Sec and Null-Sec (aka Zero-Zero or 0.0) are different security status that divides space. High-Sec is where new Eve Online players join in and get use to the environment with a built-in space police (Concord) that ganks anyone that violates the simple rules of engagement with their god-mode guns. In Low-Sec space, you don't see them, but there are automated turrets that deal serious damage if you violate the rules of engagement nearby certain structures such as a station or a stargate. In both of these settings, the violator suffers a penalty in terms of security standings. The lower your security standings (aka Sec Status) the lower the security of the system you can safely operate in without being flagged.

In Null-Sec space, there are no rules and no penalties. But plenty of mob-style alliances that hold territory there. So watch out in space.

Something similar can be applied to an first-person shooter setting. But since it's difficult for a player to consciously avoid hitting innocent players with an Assault Rifle in a high/low-sec setting while trying to shoot at a criminal or war target, a system needs to be implemented.

So I put together this old idea back when Project Legion was a hot topic.
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1U6hArz8JY-QD3ZEGYxqXepq2v43ymPmP_-7eaZ9C0ic/edit?usp=sharing

What do you think?

PS: In Eve Online, area-of-effect weapons like smartbomb modules are designed to hit indiscriminately regardless of who it is. So Eve Online often warns you of what the consequences would be just before you click "OK" to accept the consequences should anyone other than a war target or criminal gets hit.

Leave the PC to the EVE players and send this to PS4. NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY DUST ON THE PC, WE ALREADY HAVE PC GAMES.

Leave the PC to the EVE players and send this to PS4. NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY DUST ON THE PC, WE ALREADY HAVE PC GAMES.

I would say that most people welcome PC, if it means that Dust survives. Sorry to be illogical but Dust is the best game out there. I have tried Planetside, Battlefront, Destiny,etc. and I cant honestly see me playing any of those for three years like I have Dust. Eve is the PC game and Dust is the console game, I need balance.