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. 825	Posted - 2016.01.10 21:56:00 - [1] - Quote Lets just assume this will be a thing. They are doing the right thing to keep quite about it because we are a crowd of whining babies that complain about what we asked for. They can't safely ask for our input because it will show their hand. They would probably love to have that input though. So lets just give it to them. Lets start discussing what we want out of a port instead of just saying we want it. Start talking about features we think are realistic. Lets start thinking of solutions to problems people have brought up, or shortcomings that can be overcome with a more powerful machine. Lets not care about what machine it goes to, and just say what we want out of DUST Legion. That will help them decide what is best, and help them move forward.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 825	Posted - 2016.01.10 22:00:00 - [2] - Quote I myself want to be able to go to different stations and different systems. Even if all it did was put me in a different merc quarters it would have been a great way to make me feel like I am in a space station in space rather than just in a room. It would have been nice because I could have changed the atmosphere by going somewhere else. Not to mention the immersion aspect and DUST / EVE connection that could come from having DUST mercs being able to choose different systems to go and talk in local. Not to mention it would have opened up DUST to the idea of a market based on location. We would have seen if DUST mercs traded in Jita, or if they created their own trade hubs and spammed local with their own scams.
maybe deadcatz Serris Inc 2	Posted - 2016.01.10 22:12:00 - [3] - Quote There will be no dust legion. WoW has it but the trademark expired. Give up. CCP will do what CCP wants to do. Ha!You can't kill me! I'm already dead!
Radiant Pancake3 Celestial Phoenixes 3	Posted - 2016.01.10 22:24:00 - [4] - Quote 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? #WOLO
7th Son 7 Hakuna Matatah Inc 1	Posted - 2016.01.10 22:31:00 - [5] - Quote maybe deadcatz wrote: There will be no dust legion. WoW has it but the trademark expired. Give up. CCP will do what CCP wants to do. Hate to say it but kinda agree with Catz on this one. I'm thinking Dust will not be ported and I feel CCP has known since they dropped legion talk. What company would ever on any level think of their community as toxic? espesially in a war game(where those personalities exist everywhere). What game company would not be understanding considering the fact that you play their laggy game? If you tried to project the future success of Dust 514 to any new platform based off of the success of it on the ps3, well.. I think CCP will do what they can with their 1 or 2 devs they have left, then adios. Seriously, they don't care how upset anyone gets because in the end your going to be sad and upset anyway. Damn Only your complete and total awareness is needed, nothing else will do. ----- OSHO
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL RUST415 716	Posted - 2016.01.10 22:46:00 - [6] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: Lets just assume this will be a thing. They are doing the right thing to keep quite about it because we are a crowd of whining babies that complain about what we asked for. They can't safely ask for our input because it will show their hand. They would probably love to have that input though. So lets just give it to them. Lets start discussing what we want out of a port instead of just saying we want it. Start talking about features we think are realistic. Lets start thinking of solutions to problems people have brought up, or shortcomings that can be overcome with a more powerful machine. Lets not care about what machine it goes to, and just say what we want out of DUST Legion. That will help them decide what is best, and help them move forward. I want LAG. Small hills i can't climb 4 inch ledge i can't step over for a scout Long end screens smaller squads 2 man scotty retires instead you have been framed :) More invisable walls that can be shot threw but grenades can't be thrown through and can't walk through.
Atiim Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 16	Posted - 2016.01.10 22:53:00 - [7] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: we are a crowd of whining babies that complain about what we asked for. I'd be legitimately surprised if you can quote 10 actual players who asked for EVE: Legion. The 1st Matari Commando -HAND
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP 4	Posted - 2016.01.11 01:29:00 - [8] - Quote A login screen would be great for Legion. Any proof of existence would actually be best. o7 All #514InTheWind !@#$!#@!$$@@#$@$!$ Snap out of the Stockholm Syndrome guys.
SHADOWBlood ASSASSIN Eternal Beings I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth 348	Posted - 2016.01.11 02:55:00 - [9] - Quote This is operating under the assumption that a successor to DUST, Legion or no, will be happening. I reject your reality and substitute my (and all of the playerbase's) own. "When my nine in d-ck goes from your jaw to the back of your throat, please, do not f-cking complain!" -Makaveli
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 7	Posted - 2016.01.11 04:43:00 - [10] - Quote Atiim wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: we are a crowd of whining babies that complain about what we asked for. I'd be legitimately surprised if you can quote 10 actual players who asked for EVE: Legion. Yeah, not one of us expected them to announce they were moving the game to PC. They spent the whole time until FanFest building us up for "The Future of Dust 514" only to tell us that that future was EVE: Legion on the PC. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector

Richard Gamerich-R Prima Gallicus 226	Posted - 2016.01.11 07:20:00 - [11] - Quote I want a new of this game for the moment. #portdust514 Good bye DUST 514, officially retired
JudgeIsABadPilot Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic 114	Posted - 2016.01.11 07:36:00 - [12] - Quote Probably nothing. I've been boycotting this game for many months. You're all late to the party.
Mortishai Belmont Second-Nature 1	Posted - 2016.01.11 11:33:00 - [13] - Quote I expect nothing, because there will be no legion ._. (~..)~ Now on Youtube ~(..~)
james selim brownstein NECROM0NGERS 196	Posted - 2016.01.11 12:38:00 - [14] - Quote maybe deadcatz wrote: There will be no dust legion. WoW has it but the trademark expired. Give up. CCP will do what CCP wants to do. Most people understand this, but you decided to reply with a negative & smartass comment because you know information that someone else doesn't. n++Gòª¦¦¦¦-ç¦+¦+¦+¦+ WAITING FOR DEPLOYMENTGòñGöÇGöÇGöÇ Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ë
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 7	Posted - 2016.01.11 14:43:00 - [15] - Quote 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
DUST Fiend 17	Posted - 2016.01.11 14:46:00 - [16] - Quote Disappointment If any of my posts seem severely negative, it's probably because they are.
Foundation Seldon Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2016.01.11 18:46:00 - [17] - Quote They could literally port over Dust 514 1:1 to PC and so long as it maintained a frame rate at or above 60FPS you'd have a happy camper. Atiim wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: we are a crowd of whining babies that complain about what we asked for. I'd be legitimately surprised if you can quote 10 actual players who asked for EVE: Legion. I didn't ask for it but it's everything I ever wanted Dust to be.
maybe deadcatz Serris Inc 2	Posted - 2016.01.11 18:57:00 - [18] - Quote james selim brownstein wrote: maybe deadcatz wrote: There will be no dust legion. WoW has it but the trademark expired. Give up. CCP will do what CCP wants to do. Most people understand this, but you decided to reply with a negative & smartass comment because you know information that someone else doesn't. I have the upper hand here. Seeing as A) I paid attention to threads similar to this and B) I researched the fact that CCP let the trademark expire. So I get the right to be a negative smartass because I'm actually right. Ha!You can't kill me! I'm already dead!
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 253	Posted - 2016.01.11 19:10:00 - [19] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: I myself want to be able to go to different stations and different systems. Even if all it did was put me in a different merc quarters it would have been a great way to make me feel like I am in a space station in space rather than just in a room. It would have been nice because I could have changed the atmosphere by going somewhere else. Not to mention the immersion aspect and DUST / EVE connection that could come from having DUST mercs being able to choose different systems to go and talk in local. Not to mention it would have opened up DUST to the idea of a market based on location. We would have seen if DUST mercs traded in Jita, or if they created their own trade hubs and spammed local with their own scams. 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. :)
MrShooter01 Ustio Mercenary Squadron 2	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:03:00 - [20] - Quote All of my skillpoints A full set of basic FPS game weapon archtypes for each race, SMGs, shotguns, light AV, sniper/marksman weapons Weapon attachment system, at least for the rifles A full set of basic vehicles for each race, LAVs, HAVs, Dropships, MAV/APCs MTACs, because why not Vehicle roles beyond "lol u can't hurt me with ur ar die noob": Anti-MCC launcher suppression from vehicle fire, objectives destructible by vehicles and rebuildable with repair tools, etc More deployable equipment, motion sensors, sentry guns, teleporters No, really, every single one of my 100 million ***** skillpoints right on relaunch, the idiots who think "oh no think of the newbies we should reset character progression" and yet haven't put a second of thought into what happens for the newbies that show up a year later, 2 years later, etc, and would probably be mad if you reset their skillpoints every year or so "for the newbies" A less ** up skill tree, with less of a DPS/HP gap between vets and newbies, because yeah that's bad More match types, 24 - 128 player battles MAG-stlye multi-stage battles on a bigass map, with vehicle transport between objective zones VR support for the hell of it Achievements, because also why not Steam trading cards Full market trading for all the things so CCP can indirectly make money off of free players by incentivizing the second-hand sale of boosters, skins, etc by paying players for isk, which is incidentally how plex and skins work in eve AND IT SEEMS TO WORK PRETTY ***** WELL FOR THEM Minmatar knifegrenades that you can stab people with and/or throw at people and it sticks in their back and then 3 seconds later it blows up because all things minmatar should be loud and/or explosive and awesome Gallente AR renamed plasma rifle Arena mode for squad vs squad battles, can be spectated, spectators can bet on the outcome of the match

Georgia Xavier Incorruptibles 1	Posted - 2016.01.11 20:41:00 - [21] - Quote Alena Asakura wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: I myself want to be able to go to different stations and different systems. Even if all it did was put me in a different merc quarters it would have been a great way to make me feel like I am in a space station in space rather than just in a room. It would have been nice because I could have changed the atmosphere by going somewhere else. Not to mention the immersion aspect and DUST / EVE connection that could come from having DUST mercs being able to choose different systems to go and talk in local. Not to mention it would have opened up DUST to the idea of a market based on location. We would have seen if DUST mercs traded in Jita, or if they created their own trade hubs and spammed local with their own scams. 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. :) Eve is 10/10, will blind myself by warping to star again Click for an instant good day! (or atleast cheer you up a bit)
MrShooter01 Ustio Mercenary Squadron 2	Posted - 2016.01.11 21:06:00 - [22] - Quote Georgia Xavier wrote: Eve is 10/10, will blind myself by warping to star again I've got a couple of warpable bookmarks near the surface of and inside a few stars Its great for listening to people in a fleet shout in terror as you slowly exit warp
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 825	Posted - 2016.01.16 03:44:00 - [23] - Quote maybe deadcatz wrote: There will be no dust legion. WoW has it but the trademark expired. Give up. CCP will do what CCP wants to do. You are correct, it would be called something else then. I guess I will edit that.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 825	Posted - 2016.01.16 03:50:00 - [24] - Quote Atiim wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: we are a crowd of whining babies that complain about what we asked for. I'd be legitimately surprised if you can quote 10 actual players who asked for EVE: Legion. CCP stated that they want to give us all the things we ask for, but that the PS3 doesn't have enough RAM. They would have to take things out of the game to add more to it. So porting it to the PC was an attempt to give us what we asked for. I should probably go look up a list of all the things we asked for, and the got mad about being added to the game. This is all obviously because there is never one consistent voice for the community. We all have different ideas and can not all be made happy.
Apoleon II 119	Posted - 2016.01.16 03:53:00 - [25] - Quote What is legion? Sorry for my bad english :$ Port dust, ps5 next gen
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 825	Posted - 2016.01.16 03:56:00 - [26] - Quote Alena Asakura wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: I myself want to be able to go to different stations and different systems. Even if all it did was put me in a different merc quarters it would have been a great way to make me feel like I am in a space station in space rather than just in a room. It would have been nice because I could have changed the atmosphere by going somewhere else. Not to mention the immersion aspect and DUST / EVE connection that could come from having DUST mercs being able to choose different systems to go and talk in local. Not to mention it would have opened up DUST to the idea of a market based on location. We would have seen if DUST mercs traded in Jita, or if they created their own trade hubs and spammed local with their own scams. 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. :) I have played EVE online for years actually. I was also there and helped during the creation of the first DUST/EVE alliance in this game almost a full year before the beta released for DUST 514. You are correct, New Eden is a beautiful place. Have you ever flown into a star and looked up to see the all seeing eye look down upon your ships?
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 825	Posted - 2016.01.16 04:02:00 - [27] - Quote So what else do people think should be included in a port of DUST 514? I myself would love to see players talking to agents in different stations just as in EVE. I like the socket system that DUST already uses, and that system could be used to help generate randomish PVE maps with certain variables being chosen by the region and or system you are in. Caldari structures in Caldari space and such. Defending Caldari sites in PVE missions as missions from Caldari agents. I think it would be interesting to see people have the same system of having standings with NPC corporations and having that affect the reward for the missions. Hell, the standings would be great too as people choose what faction they prefer running missions for, or if they run for anyone with the ISK to pay them. It allows greater role play opportunity.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 825	Posted - 2016.01.16 04:04:00 - [28] - Quote Apoleon II wrote: What is legion? Legion was the name of a PC port for DUST 514 that CCP was planning on. They had to drop the name though because World of Warcraft decided they wanted the word for an expansion of their game. CCP has been rather silent about a DUST 514 port since they first announced it because the community took it badly. When they announced they were going to improve DUST 514 and move it to PC since the PS3 has very little RAM, people got confused and thought they were abandoning DUST.
MrShooter01 Ustio Mercenary Squadron 2	Posted - 2016.01.16 05:06:00 - [29] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: So what else do people think should be included in a port of DUST 514? I myself would love to see players talking to agents in different stations just as in EVE. I like the socket system that DUST already uses, and that system could be used to help generate randomish PVE maps with certain variables being chosen by the region and or system you are in. Caldari structures in Caldari space and such. Defending Caldari sites in PVE missions as missions from Caldari agents. I think it would be interesting to see people have the same system of having standings with NPC corporations and having that affect the reward for the missions. Hell, the standings would be great too as people choose what faction they prefer running missions for, or if they run for anyone with the ISK to pay them. It allows greater role play opportunity. I totally forgot about PVE Squad co-op and solo agent missions against npcs would be spectacular Limited player spawns, designed to take between 5 and 30 minutes depending on level and number of players multiple levels of difficulty and payout like eve Training missions: small payouts, available at start, teaches basic game concepts like shooting people, attacking vehicles with a weapon that will actually hurt them, and capturing points Includes a large number of slightly more difficult Level 1 missions that are thinly disguised advanced training missions (Destroy the uplinks left my enemy saboteurs! Capture the malfunctioning CRU and kill the insane clones! Fit a profile dampener to sneak into this base and hack the objective without being detected by enemy sensors!) Other missions that range from being soloable in standard gear to requiring squad play and planning, and missions requiring vehicles
Soto Gallente BLUEBERRIES WITH AUTISM RUST415 234	Posted - 2016.01.16 05:16:00 - [30] - Quote An economy that ACTUALLY affects the economy of EVE Ex-news reporter for The Scope

aussy sledge ScReWeD uP InC Devil's Descendants 26	Posted - 2016.01.16 20:51:00 - [31] - 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? This is the best thing I've seen in the forums.. You had me at the couch and the bed <3 Spreading freedom to all my fellow dust bunnies!
Radiant Pancake3 Celestial Phoenixes 3	Posted - 2016.01.16 20:57:00 - [32] - Quote aussy sledge wrote: 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? This is the best thing I've seen in the forums.. You had me at the couch and the bed <3 #WOLO
aussy sledge ScReWeD uP InC Devil's Descendants 26	Posted - 2016.01.16 21:01:00 - [33] - Quote Radiant Pancake3 wrote: aussy sledge wrote: 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? This is the best thing I've seen in the forums.. You had me at the couch and the bed <3 How's about we fix Caldari lol they run around squat running with unlimited ammo glitches and shooting you while they're dead haha Spreading freedom to all my fellow dust bunnies!
Apoleon II 126	Posted - 2016.01.16 21:50:00 - [34] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: Apoleon II wrote: What is legion? Legion was the name of a PC port for DUST 514 that CCP was planning on. They had to drop the name though because World of Warcraft decided they wanted the word for an expansion of their game. CCP has been rather silent about a DUST 514 port since they first announced it because the community took it badly. When they announced they were going to improve DUST 514 and move it to PC since the PS3 has very little RAM, people got confused and thought they were abandoning DUST. Thanks for the explanation man Sorry for my bad english :$ Port dust, ps5 next gen
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 12	Posted - 2016.01.16 23:16:00 - [35] - Quote What do I expect from a port? Great things because then this game is no longer held back by its ancient sarcophagus we call the PS3. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP 4	Posted - 2016.01.16 23:26:00 - [36] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: What do I expect from a port? Great things because then this game is no longer held back by its ancient sarcophagus we call the PS3. Bad code on PS3 = Bad code on a NSA super computer. Don't fall for the scapegoat. o7 All #514InTheWind !@#$!#@!$$@@#$@$!$ Snap out of the Stockholm Syndrome guys.
fragmentedhackslash WarRavens Imperium Eden 411	Posted - 2016.01.17 00:33:00 - [37] - Quote MrShooter01 wrote: All of my skillpoints A full set of basic FPS game weapon archtypes for each race, SMGs, shotguns, light AV, sniper/marksman weapons Weapon attachment system, at least for the rifles A full set of basic vehicles for each race, LAVs, HAVs, Dropships, MAV/APCs MTACs, because why not Vehicle roles beyond "lol u can't hurt me with ur ar die noob": Anti-MCC launcher suppression from vehicle fire, objectives destructible by vehicles and rebuildable with repair tools, etc More deployable equipment, motion sensors, sentry guns, teleporters No, really, every single one of my 100 million ***** skillpoints right on relaunch, the idiots who think "oh no think of the newbies we should reset character progression" and yet haven't put a second of thought into what happens for the newbies that show up a year later, 2 years later, etc, and would probably be mad if you reset their skillpoints every year or so "for the newbies" A less ** up skill tree, with less of a DPS/HP gap between vets and newbies, because yeah that's bad More match types, 24 - 128 player battles MAG-stlye multi-stage battles on a bigass map, with vehicle transport between objective zones VR support for the hell of it Achievements, because also why not Steam trading cards Full market trading for all the things so CCP can indirectly make money off of free players by incentivizing the second-hand sale of boosters, skins, etc by paying players for isk, which is incidentally how plex and skins work in eve AND IT SEEMS TO WORK PRETTY ***** WELL FOR THEM Minmatar knifegrenades that you can stab people with and/or throw at people and it sticks in their back and then 3 seconds later it blows up because all things minmatar should be loud and/or explosive and awesome Gallente AR renamed plasma rifle Arena mode for squad vs squad battles, can be spectated, spectators can bet on the outcome of the match There is anti AV suppression system. Ever flown a 1.8 million isk Caldari Logistics Dropship with a full 6 man squad on board and been blown out of the sky by a MCC launched missile? I have. More than once. Now we don't have logistics dropships. The state of this game has been yucky from the start, right now it's putrid. [49FYD FRAG] INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Radiant Pancake3 Celestial Phoenixes 3	Posted - 2016.01.17 01:43:00 - [38] - Quote aussy sledge wrote: Radiant Pancake3 wrote: aussy sledge wrote: 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? This is the best thing I've seen in the forums.. You had me at the couch and the bed <3 How's about we fix Caldari lol they run around squat running with unlimited ammo glitches and shooting you while they're dead haha Well... if it's the best thing you have seen on the forums... I suggest you read it... SoulPancake
MrShooter01 Ustio Mercenary Squadron 2	Posted - 2016.01.17 01:51:00 - [39] - Quote fragmentedhackslash wrote: MrShooter01 wrote: Vehicle roles beyond "lol u can't hurt me with ur ar die noob": Anti-MCC launcher suppression from vehicle fire, objectives destructible by vehicles and rebuildable with repair tools, etc There is anti AV suppression system. Ever flown a 1.8 million isk Caldari Logistics Dropship with a full 6 man squad on board and been blown out of the sky by a MCC launched missile? I have. More than once. Now we don't have logistics dropships. The state of this game has been yucky from the start, right now it's putrid. Sorry, let me clarify "Shoot the ridiculously named "null cannons" that are launching missiles at your MCC a couple of times with your powerful vehicle weapons to suppress it so that it doesn't fire for a while, buying your team time to catch up in damage with the enemy MCC without needing to capture the point"
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 828	Posted - 2016.01.17 04:38:00 - [40] - Quote MrShooter01 wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: So what else do people think should be included in a port of DUST 514? I myself would love to see players talking to agents in different stations just as in EVE. I like the socket system that DUST already uses, and that system could be used to help generate randomish PVE maps with certain variables being chosen by the region and or system you are in. Caldari structures in Caldari space and such. Defending Caldari sites in PVE missions as missions from Caldari agents. I think it would be interesting to see people have the same system of having standings with NPC corporations and having that affect the reward for the missions. Hell, the standings would be great too as people choose what faction they prefer running missions for, or if they run for anyone with the ISK to pay them. It allows greater role play opportunity. I totally forgot about PVE Squad co-op and solo agent missions against npcs would be spectacular Limited player spawns, designed to take between 5 and 30 minutes depending on level and number of players multiple levels of difficulty and payout like eve Training missions: small payouts, available at start, teaches basic game concepts like shooting people, attacking vehicles with a weapon that will actually hurt them, and capturing points Includes a large number of slightly more difficult Level 1 missions that are thinly disguised advanced training missions (Destroy the uplinks left my enemy saboteurs! Capture the malfunctioning CRU and kill the insane clones! Fit a profile dampener to sneak into this base and hack the objective without being detected by enemy sensors!) Other missions that range from being soloable in standard gear to requiring squad play and planning, and missions requiring vehicles Just imagine having Sansha Incursions affecting the local PVE. High level, high payout PVE missions that require the best of the proto gear in a squad based mission. It would make a difference between low level PVE which would be available almost everywhere, as in EVE, and high level PVE that requires more experienced players to use the star map to find out where Incursions are happening, and where to go. It would help give another connection between EVE and DUST actually. Make them both part of the effort to fight the Sansha Nation.

SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 828	Posted - 2016.01.17 04:48:00 - [41] - Quote MrShooter01 wrote: fragmentedhackslash wrote: MrShooter01 wrote: Vehicle roles beyond "lol u can't hurt me with ur ar die noob": Anti-MCC launcher suppression from vehicle fire, objectives destructible by vehicles and rebuildable with repair tools, etc There is anti AV suppression system. Ever flown a 1.8 million isk Caldari Logistics Dropship with a full 6 man squad on board and been blown out of the sky by a MCC launched missile? I have. More than once. Now we don't have logistics dropships. The state of this game has been yucky from the start, right now it's putrid. Sorry, let me clarify "Shoot the ridiculously named "null cannons" that are launching missiles at your MCC a couple of times with your powerful vehicle weapons to suppress it so that it doesn't fire for a while, buying your team time to catch up in damage with the enemy MCC without needing to capture the point" Did you ever play in the beta? In the original Skirmish the game was actually a proper defender and attacker style match. The defenders held a complex. The attackers had an MCC that slowly moved across the map until it was on top of the complex. It then turned until it was docked and the attackers won if the MCC did this. The match actually started up in a canyon type terrain and the attackers had to capture a couple control points in order to proceed to the compound and start the MCC actually moving. The Attackers then moved onto taking the complex and trying to turn off the Null Cannon before the MCC got destroyed. The Defenders obviously tried to keep the Null Canons online. The great thing was most things had HP and were destructible. Eventually people realised another viable tactic in the beginning for attackers was to use tanks to take out the two control stations in order to proceed when the defenders were too good. The Defenders on the other hand figured out, out Alliance leader at the time actually, that when the attackers held the complex and kept the Null Canons turned off a bunch of us could go and start shooting at the incomes MCC with all our Swarm Launchers and turrets on vehicles to destroy it ourselves. They deemed it broken and came up with what we have for easier balance. It is too bad they never kept that attacker defender model though. I think that with a port they could take the time to make it work.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 828	Posted - 2016.01.17 21:00:00 - [42] - Quote I wonder if you would see communities that keep DUST mercs in certain stations just to keep eyes on particular systems. It would be better than cloacky eyes watching local. The idea of the two being able to work together sounds great for both games. It just makes sense to the setting that a merc on a station could watch local just as well as a Capsuleer in station in their own quarters. The lore possibilities with that would be great.
Twelve Guage Random Gunz Rise Of Legion. 1	Posted - 2016.01.17 21:18:00 - [43] - Quote If dust is ported I hope most of the community gets scraped. It'll be the second best upgrade this game can get. I have no gun game.
Minty Essence DUST University Ivy League 16	Posted - 2016.01.17 21:33:00 - [44] - Quote Mainly lots more maps on different planet types and Amarr/Min vehicles.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 831	Posted - 2016.01.18 07:01:00 - [45] - Quote Minty Essence wrote: Mainly lots more maps on different planet types and Amarr/Min vehicles. The beta map was on a different planet type. So we know that is not hard to do. That would be a great addition as well. There was always the dream about fighting on ships. Being deployed as an anti Titan weapon that has DUST mercs waiting to carry out an attack mission on a Titan, defended by mercs paid to defend that Titan. I myself think the same concept could work for structures since they already have timers. It would give the Dust mercs a warning timer, much as PC already works, and they play on whatever structure type in order to receive payment for attacking or defending the structure. The battle could take place before the structure comes out of reinforcement and place a modifier on the structure making it harder or easier for the attackers to take it down after it comes out based on which team won.
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 3	Posted - 2016.01.18 10:19:00 - [46] - Quote Reserved PSN: saphireblue-7 #PortDust514
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 3	Posted - 2016.01.18 10:37:00 - [47] - Quote Reserved PSN: saphireblue-7 #PortDust514
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 3	Posted - 2016.01.18 11:00:00 - [48] - Quote Reserved PSN: saphireblue-7 #PortDust514
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 834	Posted - 2016.01.18 16:46:00 - [49] - Quote Well I must say I am against pre picking your suit type, as suits should be like EVE ships. Something you can change. I love that you have thought this out in detail though.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 12	Posted - 2016.01.18 21:00:00 - [50] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: What do I expect from a port? Great things because then this game is no longer held back by its ancient sarcophagus we call the PS3. Bad code on PS3 = Bad code on a NSA super computer. Don't fall for the scapegoat. I'm pretty damn sure you have been paying close attention on the forums long enough to know that when we saying something related to #PortDust514 we don't mean a straight port without any fixes in the code. In fact, we actually expect fixes during the process of porting because that is the best time to deal with the problems with the code. I'm pretty certain that the code is partly to blame as well, but you can't continue denying that the PS3 is not holding it back either. CCP Rattati and CCP Frame clearly stated that the game is as optimized as it can possibly be for the PS3 given the legacy code and that the PS3 has its limits. This is why a lot of people have been advocating for a port to either the PS4 or the PC because this not only means an opportunity to fix the legacy code or replace it entirely but also a chance to operate on better hardware. Even if the game were to somehow finally have its entire legacy code fixed and the with the game fully optimized, the PS3 will still hold it back. It's holding the game back because of its limited hardware. It's the reason why we don't have Amarr and Minmatar Tank models, MAVs, fighter jets (which were removed from the game during beta), why we still only use a fraction of the entire terrain (burn zone) even though the map is 5km^2 in size, we we still only have the Gallente and Caldari MCC models and not that of the Minmatar and Amarr. The same with missing races for the LAV and so much more. And besides, the PS3 has already begun living on borrowed time while the rest of the world has moved on to the PS4. We are already losing players from that alone. Sure, the PS3 has now become cheaper which enables more people to buy it, but the console has already entered its 10th year in its life cycle which is remarkable for a console. But such an influx of players will only be a short gain given the age of the system and talking about Sony possibly ending support this year or the next. The writing is on the wall. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy

Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 2	Posted - 2016.01.18 22:15:00 - [51] - Quote I would just want them to keep true to what has made this game survive so long among its cult, despite all its flaws. - Stay the most honest F2P model in the biz. - The social aspect of corporations and alliances - The market (with improvements of course) - Better RPG elements - much more customization - More interaction with EVE - More non-combat exploration/activities -etc I would buy a PS4 for this game if they stayed true to what's already good, and committed to improving what's not. Real CPM Platform
Soto Gallente 265	Posted - 2016.01.18 22:20:00 - [52] - Quote Talos Vagheitan wrote: I would just want them to keep true to what has made this game survive so long among its cult, despite all its flaws. - Stay the most honest F2P model in the biz. - The social aspect of corporations and alliances - The market (with improvements of course) - Better RPG elements - much more customization - More interaction with EVE - More non-combat exploration/activities -etc I would buy a PS4 for this game if they stayed true to what's already good, and committed to improving what's not. Yes! Ex-news reporter for The Scope
DUST Fiend 17	Posted - 2016.01.18 22:25:00 - [53] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: I'm pretty damn sure you have been paying close attention on the forums long enough to know that when we saying something related to #PortDust514 we don't mean a straight port without any fixes in the code. In fact, we actually expect fixes during the process of porting because that is the best time to deal with the problems with the code. I'm pretty certain that the code is partly to blame as well, but you can't continue denying that the PS3 is not holding it back either. CCP Rattati and CCP Frame clearly stated that the game is as optimized as it can possibly be for the PS3 given the legacy code and that the PS3 has its limits. This is why a lot of people have been advocating for a port to either the PS4 or the PC because this not only means an opportunity to fix the legacy code or replace it entirely but also a chance to operate on better hardware. Even if the game were to somehow finally have its entire legacy code fixed and the with the game fully optimized, the PS3 will still hold it back. It's holding the game back because of its limited hardware. It's the reason why we don't have Amarr and Minmatar Tank models, MAVs, fighter jets (which were removed from the game during beta), why we still only use a fraction of the entire terrain (burn zone) even though the map is 5km^2 in size, we we still only have the Gallente and Caldari MCC models and not that of the Minmatar and Amarr. The same with missing races for the LAV and so much more. And besides, the PS3 has already begun living on borrowed time while the rest of the world has moved on to the PS4. We are already losing players from that alone. Sure, the PS3 has now become cheaper which enables more people to buy it, but the console has already entered its 10th year in its life cycle which is remarkable for a console. But such an influx of players will only be a short gain given the age of the system and talking about Sony possibly ending support this year or the next. The writing is on the wall. I don't think anyone's denying that a port would be great, even with poor programming. It just seems like CCP has virtually no commitement to this game, as a company. Sure we have our little crew keeping it afloat but all signs point to them letting this trail off into memory. Of course we could be wrong, and **, I hope we are. I've just seen too much ** in this project to believe CCP wants to actually commit to making it what it always should have been, as opposed to simply making it profitable for them as a side gig. If any of my posts seem severely negative, it's probably because they are.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 12	Posted - 2016.01.19 05:02:00 - [54] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: I'm pretty damn sure you have been paying close attention on the forums long enough to know that when we saying something related to #PortDust514 we don't mean a straight port without any fixes in the code. In fact, we actually expect fixes during the process of porting because that is the best time to deal with the problems with the code. I'm pretty certain that the code is partly to blame as well, but you can't continue denying that the PS3 is not holding it back either. CCP Rattati and CCP Frame clearly stated that the game is as optimized as it can possibly be for the PS3 given the legacy code and that the PS3 has its limits. This is why a lot of people have been advocating for a port to either the PS4 or the PC because this not only means an opportunity to fix the legacy code or replace it entirely but also a chance to operate on better hardware. Even if the game were to somehow finally have its entire legacy code fixed and the with the game fully optimized, the PS3 will still hold it back. It's holding the game back because of its limited hardware. It's the reason why we don't have Amarr and Minmatar Tank models, MAVs, fighter jets (which were removed from the game during beta), why we still only use a fraction of the entire terrain (burn zone) even though the map is 5km^2 in size, we we still only have the Gallente and Caldari MCC models and not that of the Minmatar and Amarr. The same with missing races for the LAV and so much more. And besides, the PS3 has already begun living on borrowed time while the rest of the world has moved on to the PS4. We are already losing players from that alone. Sure, the PS3 has now become cheaper which enables more people to buy it, but the console has already entered its 10th year in its life cycle which is remarkable for a console. But such an influx of players will only be a short gain given the age of the system and talking about Sony possibly ending support this year or the next. The writing is on the wall. I don't think anyone's denying that a port would be great, even with poor programming. It just seems like CCP has virtually no commitement to this game, as a company. Sure we have our little crew keeping it afloat but all signs point to them letting this trail off into memory. Of course we could be wrong, and **, I hope we are. I've just seen too much ** in this project to believe CCP wants to actually commit to making it what it always should have been, as opposed to simply making it profitable for them as a side gig. I'm going to admit that the languid pace of development and the intense silence from CCP does give that impression, BUT I am not going to assume CCP has given up just because of silence. If you ever took a peak at the Microsoft Flight Simulator franchise (before Lockheed Martin bought the IP for it) and its history, the community has always been annoyed by Microsoft's utter silence which makes even CCP's lack of communication look like the Fat Lady is singing. Imagine waiting 5 years for a new iteration of the simulator to come through without a single peep from the development studio other than how helpful real-world pilots have been in advising the studio on the handling of the aircraft models. And when the new iteration finally comes in, people either complained about the new content or complained about a bunch of bugs that they will never see a hotfix for during the next five years. But... I have also seen Microsoft go belly up on the franchise by turning the simulator into a pathetic arcade game with laughable aircraft handling and a microtransaction model that will make your spine cringe so much and that was after years of no news from Microsoft. And this is from a company that has far more resources than CCP can ever dream of having. So maybe you're right to assume that CCP may have given up on Dust. But then again, CCP is not Microsoft is it? Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 837	Posted - 2016.01.20 19:01:00 - [55] - Quote I couldn't help but try and think of a way to make VR support work, but I guess that will have to stay with Valkyrie alone. I can't wait to try Valkyrie.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 837	Posted - 2016.01.20 19:02:00 - [56] - Quote I really hope to one day see an MTAC. It sounded like a fun and ambitious idea from CCP. It would be nice to see that idea realised in a port of DUST 514.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 840	Posted - 2016.01.21 19:13:00 - [57] - Quote If anyone is also familiar with the Contract system in EVE Online, can you think of any god ways to use it for, or with DUST mercs? I wonder if the contract system could be used between EVE and DUST players over things like paying DUST mercs to defend or attack POS's. I am thinking of how you can have transportation contracts with collateral put up, you could do the same with DUST mercs putting up collateral saying that they will defend a tower or something.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 843	Posted - 2016.01.29 01:16:00 - [58] - Quote A lot of people just seem to want "better," but I think we really need to come up with real ideas to help them work with. If there is work being done. They like to have our input, but our actions make it hard for them to communicate with us. I know people want to blame CCP, but I blame a lack of talk about a port on the community. They said let's port DUST, and we said no. So now that we are asking them to port DUST and not hearing anything it leaves us in the dark. Well we are the ones who smashed the light bulb, so let's all quit asking CCP to turn the lights back on and just trust them. I think one thing DUST has shown us that DUST has a significant need for it is large expensive items. I think we have seen that DUST corps can easily create enough revenue to purchase MCC's of their own and War Barges of their own. It is said that we each have a War Barge, but I do not remember buying it. I would love to see us being able to gather resources for large valuable items. Even the facilities that we have on these District. We should have to pay to put down new ones. After district has been taken the outpost can be considered destroyed. Maybe even create destroyed versions of these facilities to fight on if people have not replaced them before being attacked. I think a corp might care more about a particular district if they had to buy the facility that went there. I think it would also help when it comes to balancing the bonuses of these facilities if they facility has to be purchased. If the bonus is not automatic, and only after it is purchased and placed, then it would become active. Players may choose a specific structure for its bonus, or they may choose the structure for its defensive positions. It may even help with ideas about creating new facilities to fight on. Some could be constructed with a more defensive mindset. Offering no real bonuses other than being difficult to take. Another facility could have great bonuses for the corp, but not be a structure designed to be defended. This would rely more on the corps skill to defend it than the structure itself.
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 747	Posted - 2016.01.29 05:49:00 - [59] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: I myself want to be able to go to different stations and different systems. Even if all it did was put me in a different merc quarters it would have been a great way to make me feel like I am in a space station in space rather than just in a room. It would have been nice because I could have changed the atmosphere by going somewhere else. Not to mention the immersion aspect and DUST / EVE connection that could come from having DUST mercs being able to choose different systems to go and talk in local. Not to mention it would have opened up DUST to the idea of a market based on location. We would have seen if DUST mercs traded in Jita, or if they created their own trade hubs and spammed local with their own scams. Eve-Online Fanfest 2009 - Dust 514 Demo CCP planned on having merc quarters you could upgrade as SOCIAL SPACES, allowing you to invite other players to see trophies, achievements ect... The Corp Social Space was also an idea, where your corp mates could gather, like in the warbarge. A warbarge is so big it would deploy the MCC to the planet, be large enough to house merc quarters of hundreds of mercs and hold their gear. The integration problem began with console players being defenseless against eve pilots and any warbages in space would be hunted down ruthlessly keeping the dust players from being able to deploy at all. If the Warbarge is made invulnerable, then the pilots cry foul and throw tantrums in eve. Other ideas were to have a BREACH game mode where mercs could attack other warbages, titans and stations in Eve. As you can see in the above video, the hangars alone are large enough to where the fighting wouldn't be all hallways. However, there would be no vehicles used indoors. There is alot they could have done on PC or PS4 with Unreal 4 engine. We shall see what is in the future. http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 845	Posted - 2016.02.03 16:26:00 - [60] - Quote So to the PC we shall go. So, now that we know New Eden will continue to have an FPS game that is not limited to the hardware capabilities of a console, lets tell CCP the kinds of things we think would be nice to have in the continuation of the New Eden FPS experience.

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.

Murder Medic Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 570	Posted - 2016.02.05 18:36:00 - [91] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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. Oh I'm well aware, started playing in the second wave of Beta invites. I just meant that my description sucked. Farewell DUST
AldnoahZero Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 10	Posted - 2016.02.05 19:32:00 - [92] - Quote Soto Gallente wrote: 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. SOCOM was the thinking man's shooter in 2002.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.05 19:54:00 - [93] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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. The diference from flying a rifter and tackling is different to being apart of a fleet comp and carrying out a precise role such as triage. High sec is lolpubs, low sec FW and general pirating, null sec is on your own or you betting bring friends but then again even if they let in fairly powerful vehicles because pilots can make them with various fits and teamwork into high sec MM needs to be implemented. But everything i wrote stands, EVE into an FPS setting with that amount of customization for vehicles alone will make general infantry scared but for me if it is not included it is not a New Eden game, this FPS has to be EVE complex with the customization or it is pointless doing it. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3	Posted - 2016.02.05 20:47:00 - [94] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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. The diference from flying a rifter and tackling is different to being apart of a fleet comp and carrying out a precise role such as triage. High sec is lolpubs, low sec FW and general pirating, null sec is on your own or you betting bring friends but then again even if they let in fairly powerful vehicles because pilots can make them with various fits and teamwork into high sec MM needs to be implemented. But everything i wrote stands, EVE into an FPS setting with that amount of customization for vehicles alone will make general infantry scared but for me if it is not included it is not a New Eden game, this FPS has to be EVE complex with the customization or it is pointless doing it. That's not because it would be un balanced, not particularly difficult. Just mildly boring. FPS's are supposed to fast paced, with limited "in-match" fidelity. Simpler version could be implemented sure, but it wouldn't be anywhere near the level of fidelity that EvE players get, it's to slow for FPS Combat. 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
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.05 21:13:00 - [95] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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. The diference from flying a rifter and tackling is different to being apart of a fleet comp and carrying out a precise role such as triage. High sec is lolpubs, low sec FW and general pirating, null sec is on your own or you betting bring friends but then again even if they let in fairly powerful vehicles because pilots can make them with various fits and teamwork into high sec MM needs to be implemented. But everything i wrote stands, EVE into an FPS setting with that amount of customization for vehicles alone will make general infantry scared but for me if it is not included it is not a New Eden game, this FPS has to be EVE complex with the customization or it is pointless doing it. That's not because it would be un balanced, not particularly difficult. Just mildly boring. FPS's are supposed to fast paced, with limited "in-match" fidelity. Simpler version could be implemented sure, but it wouldn't be anywhere near the level of fidelity that EvE players get, it's to slow for FPS Combat. Completely disagree. Pilots in chrome had alot more than what vehicles have now and there was micro managing to a point and even back then it was simple when at most you had about 3/4 active modules with 5+ requiring some concentration and this is not including map watching/positioning along with orders and fighting while watching your mods. Infantry is far simpler in general, if infantry want a nice simple game then let them but i feel that vehicles should be alot more complicated aslong as they recieve the EVE treatment starting with the capacitor and ending with a vast array of mods/turrets/rigs/skills/hulls/skill bonuses. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2016.02.05 22:15:00 - [96] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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. Refined and defined roles, yes. Ability to customize and potentially kit a dropsuit for alternative use going away? No. I feel the suits should EXCEL in their intended roles. But removing the ability to use them for other purposes in a pinch strikes me as a step in the wrong direction. Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper. Embrace your destiny.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3	Posted - 2016.02.05 23:19:00 - [97] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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. The diference from flying a rifter and tackling is different to being apart of a fleet comp and carrying out a precise role such as triage. High sec is lolpubs, low sec FW and general pirating, null sec is on your own or you betting bring friends but then again even if they let in fairly powerful vehicles because pilots can make them with various fits and teamwork into high sec MM needs to be implemented. But everything i wrote stands, EVE into an FPS setting with that amount of customization for vehicles alone will make general infantry scared but for me if it is not included it is not a New Eden game, this FPS has to be EVE complex with the customization or it is pointless doing it. That's not because it would be un balanced, not particularly difficult. Just mildly boring. FPS's are supposed to fast paced, with limited "in-match" fidelity. Simpler version could be implemented sure, but it wouldn't be anywhere near the level of fidelity that EvE players get, it's to slow for FPS Combat. Completely disagree. Pilots in chrome had alot more than what vehicles have now and there was micro managing to a point and even back then it was simple when at most you had about 3/4 active modules with 5+ requiring some concentration and this is not including map watching/positioning along with orders and fighting while watching your mods. Infantry is far simpler in general, if infantry want a nice simple game then let them but i feel that vehicles should be alot more complicated aslong as they recieve the EVE treatment starting with the capacitor and ending with a vast array of mods/turrets/rigs/skills/hulls/skill bonuses. Well I suddenly remember why I gave up talking to you. It's not a case of it being a "simpler" game. It's a case of it being a faster game. EvE takes care of navigation and aiming for you. Now granted the new game being on PC would be easier. But do you really want to be monitoring 10+ modules +Weapon Energy Levels +Movement +Aiming at the same time? I don't why I'm asking, I know what you'll say. I would say vehicles would benefit most from the fractured space way of dealing with things. You have your capacitor, using modules drains your energy level dependant on effect. Use too much and you can't activate new powers. But at the same time you don't need to sit there tweaking shield booster consumption by 5% to allow you to activate your hardener permanently. It's meant to be faster paced and the fidelity should reflect that, otherwise you might as well not actually participate in an FPS game. 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
Living Rock 523 Intara Direct Action Caldari State 58	Posted - 2016.02.05 23:57:00 - [98] - 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. I was drooling over fighters from the moment I set foot in New Eden. Still am. I'm still personally against a fighter craft hovering (PC Dust should have more than enough map room for proper runways), but that is a discussion for another time, right now I just want fighters. Because with fighters, I can have what I soon came to realize was the thing I really wanted. Bombers. Dive or level, it matters not (both). I personally feel you absolutely need to have bombers if there are fighters, and fighters if there are bombers. Regardless, the idea of epic air battles (something beyond 2 dropships drunkenly accosting each other among waves of ground fire) going on above the ground battles is something I would love to see
Murder Medic Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 582	Posted - 2016.02.06 01:55:00 - [99] - Quote SPECTATOR MODE HELP US MAKE MOVIES CCP Farewell DUST
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.06 02:26:00 - [100] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Well I suddenly remember why I gave up talking to you. It's not a case of it being a "simpler" game. It's a case of it being a faster game. EvE takes care of navigation and aiming for you. Now granted the new game being on PC would be easier. But do you really want to be monitoring 10+ modules +Weapon Energy Levels +Movement +Aiming at the same time? I don't why I'm asking, I know what you'll say. I would say vehicles would benefit most from the fractured space way of dealing with things. You have your capacitor, using modules drains your energy level dependant on effect. Use too much and you can't activate new powers. But at the same time you don't need to sit there tweaking shield booster consumption by 5% to allow you to activate your hardener permanently. It's meant to be faster paced and the fidelity should reflect that, otherwise you might as well not actually participate in an FPS game. Movement and aiming are already in, 3-5 modules is already in, adding in a capacitor is just one more thing. Infantry has the basics already and a capacitor for suits would not fit well, vehicles are not 360noscoping machines thus quick gameplay is not always required. EVE can give you orbit but you need to know the range of your weapons, the weapons tracking speed with guns, missile speed, range, enemy ships speed, enemy orbit speed etc EVE is anything but simple and dust in comparision is very simple, even with adding everything i want to add it still will be simple for infantry but for vehicles will have more variety and be a tad harder. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''

Viktor Hadah Jr 0uter.Heaven 10	Posted - 2016.02.06 02:30:00 - [101] - Quote A well placed integration of dust progress moved over to new FPS. I'm not saying SP or ISK which i believe they should not even move a single point of over. But i'd be upset if they did something like. well we see you played dust before here is a AR BPO. I would like something along the lines of well you put in 1,000 hours of game play in here is a special vanity skin that no one else but this special group of people who put the time in can get. Along with other similar rewards. I stop playing video games, I don't "retire" Buying dead and inactive corporations
SickJ D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N 136	Posted - 2016.02.06 05:48:00 - [102] - Quote I have my fingers crossed for more variety in maps - different types of planets, moons, stations, etc. And, of course, some special bling for Dust vets. I saw my life flash before my eyes! It was awesome!
Summa Militum The Naughty Ninjas The-Office 2	Posted - 2016.02.06 06:00:00 - [103] - Quote I want 'Quafe'. Thukker is Love, Thukker is Life
abdullah muzaffar Random Gunz The-Office 1	Posted - 2016.02.06 07:11:00 - [104] - Quote All I want is a completely fresh start for all new and veteran players alike, exception being a Veteran reward for having played Dust on PS3. Something permanent. Having steam integration would be great, waaaay easier trading, a lot better than PSN. Retain the ability to chat with eve pilots and join corps. Complete rethinking of PC battles, and ads mechanics. Raw input for Mouse, with customizable Mouse accel(Forgegun FTW) No more Skill boosters etc that give a huge P2W advantage. Instead, implement visual customization(works for CS, so why not dust?) My Trades
SickJ D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N 136	Posted - 2016.02.06 10:30:00 - [105] - Quote abdullah muzaffar wrote: Having steam integration would be great I've heard bad things about playing EVE through steam, so I'm gonna vote 'no' on that. I saw my life flash before my eyes! It was awesome!
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 396	Posted - 2016.02.06 10:40:00 - [106] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: MrShooter01 wrote: fragmentedhackslash wrote: MrShooter01 wrote: Vehicle roles beyond "lol u can't hurt me with ur ar die noob": Anti-MCC launcher suppression from vehicle fire, objectives destructible by vehicles and rebuildable with repair tools, etc There is anti AV suppression system. Ever flown a 1.8 million isk Caldari Logistics Dropship with a full 6 man squad on board and been blown out of the sky by a MCC launched missile? I have. More than once. Now we don't have logistics dropships. The state of this game has been yucky from the start, right now it's putrid. Sorry, let me clarify "Shoot the ridiculously named "null cannons" that are launching missiles at your MCC a couple of times with your powerful vehicle weapons to suppress it so that it doesn't fire for a while, buying your team time to catch up in damage with the enemy MCC without needing to capture the point" Did you ever play in the beta? In the original Skirmish the game was actually a proper defender and attacker style match. The defenders held a complex. The attackers had an MCC that slowly moved across the map until it was on top of the complex. It then turned until it was docked and the attackers won if the MCC did this. The match actually started up in a canyon type terrain and the attackers had to capture a couple control points in order to proceed to the compound and start the MCC actually moving. The Attackers then moved onto taking the complex and trying to turn off the Null Cannon before the MCC got destroyed. The Defenders obviously tried to keep the Null Canons online. The great thing was most things had HP and were destructible. Eventually people realised another viable tactic in the beginning for attackers was to use tanks to take out the two control stations in order to proceed when the defenders were too good. The Defenders on the other hand figured out, out Alliance leader at the time actually, that when the attackers held the complex and kept the Null Canons turned off a bunch of us could go and start shooting at the incomes MCC with all our Swarm Launchers and turrets on vehicles to destroy it ourselves. They deemed it broken and came up with what we have for easier balance. It is too bad they never kept that attacker defender model though. I think that with a port they could take the time to make it work. I hate the way CCP changes things that aren't broken. What you describe of the early game sounds great to me. I hate what we have now. Even better would be to go to a completely free-form sandbox.
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 396	Posted - 2016.02.06 10:51:00 - [107] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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. The diference from flying a rifter and tackling is different to being apart of a fleet comp and carrying out a precise role such as triage. High sec is lolpubs, low sec FW and general pirating, null sec is on your own or you betting bring friends but then again even if they let in fairly powerful vehicles because pilots can make them with various fits and teamwork into high sec MM needs to be implemented. But everything i wrote stands, EVE into an FPS setting with that amount of customization for vehicles alone will make general infantry scared but for me if it is not included it is not a New Eden game, this FPS has to be EVE complex with the customization or it is pointless doing it. That's not because it would be un balanced, not particularly difficult. Just mildly boring. FPS's are supposed to fast paced, with limited "in-match" fidelity. Simpler version could be implemented sure, but it wouldn't be anywhere near the level of fidelity that EvE players get, it's to slow for FPS Combat. Completely disagree. Pilots in chrome had alot more than what vehicles have now and there was micro managing to a point and even back then it was simple when at most you had about 3/4 active modules with 5+ requiring some concentration and this is not including map watching/positioning along with orders and fighting while watching your mods. Infantry is far simpler in general, if infantry want a nice simple game then let them but i feel that vehicles should be alot more complicated aslong as they recieve the EVE treatment starting with the capacitor and ending with a vast array of mods/turrets/rigs/skills/hulls/skill bonuses. I love the idea of adding a capacitor for use with discharge of weapons, etc, similar to EvE ships, this makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that the level of detail would not be a hindrance for an FPS. While I do think that the general FPS player would find the EvE skilling system and level of skill detail somewhat daunting, I can't see how that necessarily translates into a slow game play. It's only how you come to the level of skills you have that's slow, not the skills themselves or their use.
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 396	Posted - 2016.02.06 11:06:00 - [108] - 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. I'll be looking forward to seeing the new Pilot suits! Count me in for flying these attack craft. I think dropships as they currently exist, are ridiculous.
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 396	Posted - 2016.02.06 11:12:00 - [109] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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. Refined and defined roles, yes. Ability to customize and potentially kit a dropsuit for alternative use going away? No. I feel the suits should EXCEL in their intended roles. But removing the ability to use them for other purposes in a pinch strikes me as a step in the wrong direction. I want to see tighter integration of racial suits and weapons, and more serious bonuses for using weapons and suits that are racially matched. Racial weapons should necessarily be more compatible with the suits that are designed to power and control them. It's unreasonable to think that weapons can be used on any suit with impunity and without any real penalty, at least without significant "cross-racial" skilling. Edit: Sorry if this topic is inappropriate here. I just thought of it reading this post. Perhaps there is another thread it could go into, which I'll do later if I find it.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2016.02.06 11:14:00 - [110] - Quote doesn't need a penalty. Just needs to completely lose any incentives you'd get for using the racial weapons. Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper. Embrace your destiny.

Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 396	Posted - 2016.02.06 11:19:00 - [111] - 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. Ah, you mean like the Wyvern in Ace Combat?... Is that where your name comes from?... ;)
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 476	Posted - 2016.02.06 11:34:00 - [112] - Quote I would like something more than just an FPS to be honest. I know this may turn off hardcore FPS fans but I would like more of an openworld game to be honest with depth and choices. You start off in a safe(ish) city with facilties like cloning, factories and other beings of the same faction/bloodline. Of course there is an arena mode where you can join a matchmade(lol) battle that is in a areas where people can watch and place bets maybe. But imagine a game where you are an immortal being (like now) but you will have the ability to go out on your own or with a fireteam/squad and scan and find mineral deposits and set up structures to mine them (this must be collected and moved to a factory to make dropsuits and weapons) it would also involve some pve as the deposits would be infested to npc drones. if someone else wants your resources they can wardec you and try to take them. There would also be a chance here for CCP to expand on in EVE mechanics like incursions. Planets within the incursion zone become infested and players can join together to beat the npc's back. Planets would have a command centre which is owned by an npc corp/faction but in lowsec these factions can by allied depending on your corp standings. And in 0.0 players can fight over the command centre to conquer the planet. It would have features like base building, manufacturing and ownership of land not just items. Please dont give me another game where the only one method of play and the alternative is being in my quarters or switching it off. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 774	Posted - 2016.02.06 14:47:00 - [113] - Quote Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: A well placed integration of dust progress moved over to new FPS. I'm not saying SP or ISK which i believe they should not even move a single point of over. But i'd be upset if they did something like. well we see you played dust before here is a AR BPO. I would like something along the lines of well you put in 1,000 hours of game play in here is a special vanity skin that no one else but this special group of people who put the time in can get. Along with other similar rewards. Yeah, I agree bro. Some token bullshit like that would feel more like an insult, a petty half-hearted scrap thrown to the stray animal in your yard. I don't need that type of thanks, you know what I appreciated? The time and effort that went into my Valor Scout, Raven Assault and SVER Logi BPO's. I had to buy them, but the recognition of the MAG community was much appreciated. Also a stupid patch on my arm or helmet that 99% of the players will never see or recognize would be a half assed thing to offer Dust veterans as well. Either let me transfer some exclusive shite or just give me guaranteed beta access. I don't want a pat on the head. http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 774	Posted - 2016.02.06 14:57:00 - [114] - Quote Alena Asakura wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: MrShooter01 wrote: fragmentedhackslash wrote: MrShooter01 wrote: Vehicle roles beyond "lol u can't hurt me with ur ar die noob": Anti-MCC launcher suppression from vehicle fire, objectives destructible by vehicles and rebuildable with repair tools, etc There is anti AV suppression system. Ever flown a 1.8 million isk Caldari Logistics Dropship with a full 6 man squad on board and been blown out of the sky by a MCC launched missile? I have. More than once. Now we don't have logistics dropships. The state of this game has been yucky from the start, right now it's putrid. Sorry, let me clarify "Shoot the ridiculously named "null cannons" that are launching missiles at your MCC a couple of times with your powerful vehicle weapons to suppress it so that it doesn't fire for a while, buying your team time to catch up in damage with the enemy MCC without needing to capture the point" Did you ever play in the beta? In the original Skirmish the game was actually a proper defender and attacker style match. The defenders held a complex. The attackers had an MCC that slowly moved across the map until it was on top of the complex. It then turned until it was docked and the attackers won if the MCC did this. The match actually started up in a canyon type terrain and the attackers had to capture a couple control points in order to proceed to the compound and start the MCC actually moving. The Attackers then moved onto taking the complex and trying to turn off the Null Cannon before the MCC got destroyed. The Defenders obviously tried to keep the Null Canons online. The great thing was most things had HP and were destructible. Eventually people realised another viable tactic in the beginning for attackers was to use tanks to take out the two control stations in order to proceed when the defenders were too good. The Defenders on the other hand figured out, out Alliance leader at the time actually, that when the attackers held the complex and kept the Null Canons turned off a bunch of us could go and start shooting at the incomes MCC with all our Swarm Launchers and turrets on vehicles to destroy it ourselves. They deemed it broken and came up with what we have for easier balance. It is too bad they never kept that attacker defender model though. I think that with a port they could take the time to make it work. I hate the way CCP changes things that aren't broken. What you describe of the early game sounds great to me. I hate what we have now. Even better would be to go to a completely free-form sandbox. Yup, it was this attack/defend gameplay that most of the MAG veterans got excited about as that was our style. It added a layer of complexity over normal lobby shooters. http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
STYLIE77 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 774	Posted - 2016.02.06 15:11:00 - [115] - Quote abdullah muzaffar wrote: All I want is a completely fresh start for all new and veteran players alike, exception being a Veteran reward for having played Dust on PS3. Something permanent. Having steam integration would be great, waaaay easier trading, a lot better than PSN. Retain the ability to chat with eve pilots and join corps. Complete rethinking of PC battles, and ads mechanics. Raw input for Mouse, with customizable Mouse accel(Forgegun FTW) No more Skill boosters etc that give a huge P2W advantage. Instead, implement visual customization(works for CS, so why not dust?) CCP has developed a new launcher that can launch multiple accounts at one time, integrating the use of Dust: Phoenix would be an easy thing to do. There is no real need for steam imho... http://caughtyouflinching.ytmnd.com/
Soto Gallente 862	Posted - 2016.02.06 19:19:00 - [116] - Quote AldnoahZero wrote: Soto Gallente wrote: 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. SOCOM was the thinking man's shooter in 2002. Lol, you're funny. Ex-news reporter for The Scope
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 404	Posted - 2016.02.06 22:14:00 - [117] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: doesn't need a penalty. Just needs to completely lose any incentives you'd get for using the racial weapons. I think it does actually need a penalty. You're just thinking of it as a game. I'm thinking of it from the point of view of suits that are designed to power and control the weapons - each race has its own technologies which have been refined for use with the suits and weapons of that race. Using the suits and weapons together will maximise the benefits of that integrated technology. Now consider using one race's suit with a different race's weapon. It will not be as easy to do, the technologies won't match. There's even an argument that they might not work at all, so there should be some sort of overhead (penalty) for using a weapon that was NOT designed for the suit you're wearing. Some sort of training could make the overhead less, but would never remove it entirely. Why do people believe they should just be able to use any weapon with any suit with impunity anyway? The suits power and control the weapons. It's not just a case of picking up a different weapon and using it. Your suit has to be able to interface with it. But you're right, the penalty as such can just be incorporated in the fact that you get a serious, respectable bonus for using the correct weapons on each suit. The bonuses should compound EvE-style, so that with each new skill, the bonus for that weapon on that suit would be even greater, but again, EvE-style, there would be no bonuses whatsoever for using cross-racial weapons. As it stands, suit bonuses are laughable.
Soto Gallente 863	Posted - 2016.02.06 22:19:00 - [118] - Quote Alena Asakura wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: doesn't need a penalty. Just needs to completely lose any incentives you'd get for using the racial weapons. I think it does actually need a penalty. You're just thinking of it as a game. I'm thinking of it from the point of view of suits that are designed to power and control the weapons - each race has its own technologies which have been refined for use with the suits and weapons of that race. Using the suits and weapons together will maximise the benefits of that integrated technology. Now consider using one race's suit with a different race's weapon. It will not be as easy to do, the technologies won't match. There's even an argument that they might not work at all, so there should be some sort of overhead (penalty) for using a weapon that was NOT designed for the suit you're wearing. Some sort of training could make the overhead less, but would never remove it entirely. Why do people believe they should just be able to use any weapon with any suit with impunity anyway? The suits power and control the weapons. It's not just a case of picking up a different weapon and using it. Your suit has to be able to interface with it. But you're right, the penalty as such can just be incorporated in the fact that you get a serious, respectable bonus for using the correct weapons on each suit. The bonuses should compound EvE-style, so that with each new skill, the bonus for that weapon on that suit would be even greater, but again, EvE-style, there would be no bonuses whatsoever for using cross-racial weapons. As it stands, suit bonuses are laughable. Actually yeah it does. This is a sandbox (or supposed to be) and any race should be able to use any weapons, just like how Amarrian ships in EVE can use Caldari Rail Gun techonology. Ex-news reporter for The Scope
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 406	Posted - 2016.02.06 22:22:00 - [119] - Quote Soto Gallente wrote: Alena Asakura wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: doesn't need a penalty. Just needs to completely lose any incentives you'd get for using the racial weapons. I think it does actually need a penalty. You're just thinking of it as a game. I'm thinking of it from the point of view of suits that are designed to power and control the weapons - each race has its own technologies which have been refined for use with the suits and weapons of that race. Using the suits and weapons together will maximise the benefits of that integrated technology. Now consider using one race's suit with a different race's weapon. It will not be as easy to do, the technologies won't match. There's even an argument that they might not work at all, so there should be some sort of overhead (penalty) for using a weapon that was NOT designed for the suit you're wearing. Some sort of training could make the overhead less, but would never remove it entirely. Why do people believe they should just be able to use any weapon with any suit with impunity anyway? The suits power and control the weapons. It's not just a case of picking up a different weapon and using it. Your suit has to be able to interface with it. But you're right, the penalty as such can just be incorporated in the fact that you get a serious, respectable bonus for using the correct weapons on each suit. The bonuses should compound EvE-style, so that with each new skill, the bonus for that weapon on that suit would be even greater, but again, EvE-style, there would be no bonuses whatsoever for using cross-racial weapons. As it stands, suit bonuses are laughable. Actually yeah it does. This is a sandbox (or supposed to be) and any race should be able to use any weapons, just like how Amarrian ships in EVE can use Caldari Rail Gun techonology. Exactly my point. Any weapon can be used by any ship (suit) but with the "penalty" that comes from using the "wrong" type of weapon for that suit.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.06 23:39:00 - [120] - Quote Alena Asakura 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. I'll be looking forward to seeing the new Pilot suits! Count me in for flying these attack craft. I think dropships as they currently exist, are ridiculous. I like my dropship or should i say the old Eryx and Prom logi DS with built in MCRU. The place for the dropship does exist as a mobile troop carrier, a flying APC if you will but it eventually got shafted into some kind of attack DS which did work in the early days but eventually got hit with nerf bats. Pilot suits have to work with all vehicles too, LAV should have a roof for this purpose. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''

Operative 1174 Uuali True Companion Planetary Requisitions 1	Posted - 2016.02.06 23:57:00 - [121] - Quote Whatever it is, I want them to be able to continue to implement what they say they are going to implement and not keep announcing and showing trailers of what they dream of doing. I also want to see nothing less than an alpha demo at this year's Fanfest after they had two years since announcing this direction to produce at least that. No trailer; a working alpha demo. Nothing fancy, just show you actually have something for having cancelled DUST. CCP logic GÇô We fix what doesn't need breaking.
el OPERATOR Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2016.02.07 00:30:00 - [122] - Quote TP/OTS view. So I can see me doing the cool **** I'm doing. Open-Beta Vet. CAPCRO Nomad. DUST514 is WARFARE, not WAR-FAIR
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 877	Posted - 2016.02.08 03:26:00 - [123] - Quote Murder Medic wrote: SPECTATOR MODE HELP US MAKE MOVIES CCP This is an amazing idea. Anything to help with the creation of nice looking Youtube videos that would help us promote the game.
Soto Gallente 878	Posted - 2016.02.08 03:31:00 - [124] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: Murder Medic wrote: SPECTATOR MODE HELP US MAKE MOVIES CCP This is an amazing idea. Anything to help with the creation of nice looking Youtube videos that would help us promote the game. I would love to see some Dust 514 sfms, I bet they would make tf2 sfms look like kiddie shows. Ex-news reporter for The Scope
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 878	Posted - 2016.02.08 03:35:00 - [125] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Movement and aiming are already in, 3-5 modules is already in, adding in a capacitor is just one more thing. Infantry has the basics already and a capacitor for suits would not fit well, vehicles are not 360noscoping machines thus quick gameplay is not always required. EVE can give you orbit but you need to know the range of your weapons, the weapons tracking speed with guns, missile speed, range, enemy ships speed, enemy orbit speed etc EVE is anything but simple and dust in comparision is very simple, even with adding everything i want to add it still will be simple for infantry but for vehicles will have more variety and be a tad harder. As someone who has played EVE for years, and been in null sec,and played DUST since the start, I can say they are different. EVE is more complex for the FC, but DUST is more complex for the average grunt. In EVE the FC has a vast amount of information to go through quickly to determine how to fight or flee in a given battle. The average pilot just follows FC order. I know that can be beyond many pilots, but I use to see 40 man fleets with 30 console playing noobs have no problem aligning and warping and applying dps where and when told. (How to Stay Aligned is playing in my head now...) In DUST I would say the leader have an easier time. Only giving direction where and when needed. That said a DUST ground leader doesn't get to see everyone they are giving orders too. Now the average grunt merc though has to take general orders given by someone who can not see where they are fighting, and know how to adjust those orders to fit the situation. While the average EVE pilot is setting orbit and shooting at what the FC says to shoot at in the Overview, the DUST pilot has to be very situationally aware. That right there is a complex thing to describe and requires a lot of learned skill. EVE is more complex in general to play, but combat is not easy to compare.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 878	Posted - 2016.02.08 03:37:00 - [126] - Quote Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: A well placed integration of dust progress moved over to new FPS. I'm not saying SP or ISK which i believe they should not even move a single point of over. But i'd be upset if they did something like. well we see you played dust before here is a AR BPO. I would like something along the lines of well you put in 1,000 hours of game play in here is a special vanity skin that no one else but this special group of people who put the time in can get. Along with other similar rewards. I myself mainly just hope they let us start accounts with our old player names if we use the same email or something. I would love to have my original character name and character creation date that predated the release of the new game.
Aikuchi Tomaru Subdreddit 2	Posted - 2016.02.08 03:39:00 - [127] - Quote I would be content with what they announced they wanted to add in Legion. Mainly PvE and the ability to steal **** from other players doing PvE. Sign up for Caldari FW and defeat the evil Gallente Overlords!
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 881	Posted - 2016.02.08 03:43:00 - [128] - Quote Alena Asakura wrote: I love the idea of adding a capacitor for use with discharge of weapons, etc, similar to EvE ships, this makes a lot of sense to me. I agree that the level of detail would not be a hindrance for an FPS. While I do think that the general FPS player would find the EvE skilling system and level of skill detail somewhat daunting, I can't see how that necessarily translates into a slow game play. It's only how you come to the level of skills you have that's slow, not the skills themselves or their use. Yeah, I think it can be made to work with a fast paced FPS game. I could see it mainly coming into play with some energy weapons. Maybe having the Forge Gun and other energy weapons taking some energy from a capacitor so that you may have to stop after some sustained fire. It could give a new way to help to balance a weapon.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 882	Posted - 2016.02.08 03:49:00 - [129] - Quote Aikuchi Tomaru wrote: I would be content with what they announced they wanted to add in Legion. Mainly PvE and the ability to steal **** from other players doing PvE. PVE would be huge, I would love PVE so much. Especially squad based PVE.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 3	Posted - 2016.02.08 12:40:00 - [130] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Well I suddenly remember why I gave up talking to you. It's not a case of it being a "simpler" game. It's a case of it being a faster game. EvE takes care of navigation and aiming for you. Now granted the new game being on PC would be easier. But do you really want to be monitoring 10+ modules +Weapon Energy Levels +Movement +Aiming at the same time? I don't why I'm asking, I know what you'll say. I would say vehicles would benefit most from the fractured space way of dealing with things. You have your capacitor, using modules drains your energy level dependant on effect. Use too much and you can't activate new powers. But at the same time you don't need to sit there tweaking shield booster consumption by 5% to allow you to activate your hardener permanently. It's meant to be faster paced and the fidelity should reflect that, otherwise you might as well not actually participate in an FPS game. Movement and aiming are already in, 3-5 modules is already in, adding in a capacitor is just one more thing. Infantry has the basics already and a capacitor for suits would not fit well, vehicles are not 360noscoping machines thus quick gameplay is not always required. EVE can give you orbit but you need to know the range of your weapons, the weapons tracking speed with guns, missile speed, range, enemy ships speed, enemy orbit speed etc EVE is anything but simple and dust in comparision is very simple, even with adding everything i want to add it still will be simple for infantry but for vehicles will have more variety and be a tad harder. Who said EvE is easy? But once again EvE is not fast paced, so all those variables have time to be considered.That level of fidelity will be too high for fast paced combat. Especially if you consider LAV and fighters. It's also entirely incompatible for V/AV balance, since their will be effectively 2 levels of combat. 1 which can tweak power levels and energy consumption for better survivability against another which can only apply straight damage. At that point you might as well segregate the 2 theaters of war entirely. To which you eventually end up with lobby shooter V2 and EvE world of tanks. There needs to be a relative amount of parity in terms of fidelity. You effectively need to be able to just get in a tank and drive it, without having to assign power distribution first. Like I said perhaps some more arbitrary power system that limits the number of successive module activations in return for faster cooldown. At the end of the day it comes down to what you believe the tanks or most specifically the vehicles role in the game should be. My understanding of your view point is that there should be minimal actual interaction between vehicles and infantry. Meanwhile I am of the opinion that vehicle/infantry interaction should be specifically ingrained into the meta, specifically for larger matches. 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

SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 883	Posted - 2016.02.08 23:58:00 - [131] - Quote What kind of ideas outside of combat mechanics do people have for the new PC version of DUST? I loved the idea of having some social spaces to meet up with people. Maybe somewhere to discuss battles, or decide what to do next. I know we have comms to chat with each other, but it would be nice to meet up and actually walk around the people you are talking to.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2016.02.09 00:12:00 - [132] - Quote A well written conclusion to the Dust 514 arc of New Eden Lore and a well rationalised continuation of the same thing in the new game with emphasis on operative freedom and links to PI/Orbital Infrastructure. "That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space." - Unnamed Gunnery Chief, The Citadel
da GAND Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2016.02.09 00:27:00 - [133] - Quote I expect the game I was first expecting when I got into the beta, a New Eden FPS not like Dust514 which didn't feel like I was in New Eden at all. I also expect to not get stuck on stupid shite as much as I could in Dust514, weapons to have actual weight. And good maps, the maps in Dust514 just felt bad. Hopefully they got rid of whoever thought these maps were good ideas. Finally we're getting this shite off of the ps3
Draxus Prime Nos Nothi 4	Posted - 2016.02.09 00:30:00 - [134] - Quote putting the mmo in the mmofps. No lobby system or semi lobby system with openish world elements "Spilling floor cleaner only makes the floor cleaner." - Draxus Prime Closed Beta Vet Scout
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 886	Posted - 2016.02.09 07:02:00 - [135] - Quote True Adamance wrote: A well written conclusion to the Dust 514 arc of New Eden Lore and a well rationalised continuation of the same thing in the new game with emphasis on operative freedom and links to PI/Orbital Infrastructure. Good point. This should be a significant step in the lore. Something that shows these mercs branching out fro a smaller limited role into something larger. There must become a point when the DUST merc stop being simply immortal soldiers, but demi gods just as the pilots of the ships among the stars.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 886	Posted - 2016.02.09 07:08:00 - [136] - Quote Actually, I would love to see the stories of the DUST community captured in that lore. We created our own political struggles that shaped our own portion of New Eden. There was connections to many EVE pilots, and we made our mark in history. I would like to see CCP write the lore of DUST 514 in a way that captures the story of the DUST mercs, and the first battles for control of Districts within Molden Heath. The EVE pilots have created their own lore and history in New Eden, and so have the DUST mercs. In some similar way that EVE players own politics has been included into the story of New Eden, the stories of the DUST mercs should be mentioned within the lore. They should be seen as part of the path to becoming the demi gods they become during the new game.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2016.02.09 09:53:00 - [137] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: True Adamance wrote: A well written conclusion to the Dust 514 arc of New Eden Lore and a well rationalised continuation of the same thing in the new game with emphasis on operative freedom and links to PI/Orbital Infrastructure. Good point. This should be a significant step in the lore. Something that shows these mercs branching out fro a smaller limited role into something larger. There must become a point when the DUST merc stop being simply immortal soldiers, but demi gods just as the pilots of the ships among the stars. I'm more inclined to say the opposite really. Something that takes us back from being demi gods and puts us into a believable, useful, and desirable role. We're super soldiers sure but that's face value. Who needs a goddamn super soldier when 1000 regular soldiers could do the same job for less. We're the guys you send in when things get so complicated it becomes to expensive to send in the regulars or the technology required to do something doesn't exist for mortals. Part Immortal, Part Warrior, Part Astronaut. People who can reliably operate Planetary Infrastructure and defend it if need be. People willing to make the one way trip into a ships corridors though the midship hull. Operators who can continue to salvage and fight even while being irradiated by reactors or suffering from lethal temperatures. Demi Gods are boring. Their contrived. They're what we were. That wasn't fun. We're supposed to be goddamn professionals, the best at what we do, and what we can't do in combat no one can. *Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. The path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
Axel Giatsu The Naughty Ninjas The-Office 195	Posted - 2016.02.09 12:54:00 - [138] - Quote Being able to keep all of your skill points in Dust An anti blueberry system Being able to use same character in Dust and possibly same loadouts? Nerf Gallente Hp for all suits Nerf Experimental Better trading system Better PC system as well and lastly the most important thing GIVE ME ALL MY SKILL POINTS(unallocated and regular) also some bonus for sticking with Dust even through all the **** it's been through would be nice. (maybe an APEX or something thats exclusive for people that have played Dust and have at least 5 mil sp, hell i'd even take a skin.) Creator of the Slayer Scout and Slayer Assault Logi Now averaging 1k+ WP per match and 3k+ using Slayer Assault Logi ;)
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.09 18:17:00 - [139] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Movement and aiming are already in, 3-5 modules is already in, adding in a capacitor is just one more thing. Infantry has the basics already and a capacitor for suits would not fit well, vehicles are not 360noscoping machines thus quick gameplay is not always required. EVE can give you orbit but you need to know the range of your weapons, the weapons tracking speed with guns, missile speed, range, enemy ships speed, enemy orbit speed etc EVE is anything but simple and dust in comparision is very simple, even with adding everything i want to add it still will be simple for infantry but for vehicles will have more variety and be a tad harder. As someone who has played EVE for years, and been in null sec,and played DUST since the start, I can say they are different. EVE is more complex for the FC, but DUST is more complex for the average grunt. In EVE the FC has a vast amount of information to go through quickly to determine how to fight or flee in a given battle. The average pilot just follows FC order. I know that can be beyond many pilots, but I use to see 40 man fleets with 30 console playing noobs have no problem aligning and warping and applying dps where and when told. (How to Stay Aligned is playing in my head now...) In DUST I would say the leader have an easier time. Only giving direction where and when needed. That said a DUST ground leader doesn't get to see everyone they are giving orders too. Now the average grunt merc though has to take general orders given by someone who can not see where they are fighting, and know how to adjust those orders to fit the situation. While the average EVE pilot is setting orbit and shooting at what the FC says to shoot at in the Overview, the DUST pilot has to be very situationally aware. That right there is a complex thing to describe and requires a lot of learned skill. EVE is more complex in general to play, but combat is not easy to compare. The main difference between the 2 is that the DUST merc is allowed to make choices on there own to a larger extent, in EVE you just cannot run off and try to flank from the otherside unless it is pre planned but even then that means the fleet has to be cut in 2 and warp from different areas but even then get scrammed and the tactic is scrubed but even that can fail from the start due to directional scanners and scouts. There is no cover in EVE, there is what is on your screen which is updated in real time, on DUST you can hide and effectively go dark to then attack or defend from a different area. Because of the differences a FC in DUST can choose to micromange everything or allow squads/soliders to make there own choices which can make things alot easier or harder but also does depend on other factors such as the overall gameplan/enemies/map etc. I would say EVE FC is harder in general because they have to do everything but also you need a line of capable FCs as backup for when the primary FC dies and gets podded and if the FC is well known to the enemy then sometimes that will happen alot because if you can cut the head of the snake then the fleet may fall but with DUST you respawn and more importantly got to look at the map as you did respawn and had a chance to see what was happening for a brief moment. None of this even looks at the enemy setup, if EVE it is not predetermined but generally the fleet will pick a setup such as a drake fleet for a example but if they die the respawn is very slow unless you have a clone very close to the battle area with a ship ready, in DUST you die and 10secs respawn back in and with the ability to bring out a completely different setup. Entire teams could swap from shield based dropsuits to armor and explosive weapons and then swap back again. Both games can be hard and easy at the same time but mainly it does depend on the player more so than the mechanics, it can be the side with the players which understand the mechanics better than the enemy which win the majority of the time. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.09 18:46:00 - [140] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Who said EvE is easy? But once again EvE is not fast paced, so all those variables have time to be considered.That level of fidelity will be too high for fast paced combat. Especially if you consider LAV and fighters. It's also entirely incompatible for V/AV balance, since their will be effectively 2 levels of combat. 1 which can tweak power levels and energy consumption for better survivability against another which can only apply straight damage. At that point you might as well segregate the 2 theaters of war entirely. To which you eventually end up with lobby shooter V2 and EvE world of tanks. There needs to be a relative amount of parity in terms of fidelity. You effectively need to be able to just get in a tank and drive it, without having to assign power distribution first. Like I said perhaps some more arbitrary power system that limits the number of successive module activations in return for faster cooldown. At the end of the day it comes down to what you believe the tanks or most specifically the vehicles role in the game should be. My understanding of your view point is that there should be minimal actual interaction between vehicles and infantry. Meanwhile I am of the opinion that vehicle/infantry interaction should be specifically ingrained into the meta, specifically for larger matches. Frigate fights are the fastest paced battles you will fight in EVE apart from gate/station camping fools who will alpha you in a second before your screen loads up and yet you do have time to activate modules and manouver about for a brief while before one of you die. Once you start climbing the ladder then the bigger ships even with more firepower but with better defences start to take time to melt unless you focus fire and have 10ships on it for example. There is no 2 levels, it is a choice, do you go cap stable or do you not go cap stable, the difference between the 2 is generally on for PVE and the other for PVP. Most of the time the cap stable fit will be more to running defensive modules non stop while the unstable fit will have modules which may increase defences for a shorter while but be stronger or active a module or 2 to hit harder or trap the enemy. It is all about what the pilot wants out of there vehicle, how they want to run it and fit it up. If you want to jump into a tank fine but dont expect to be able to ignore the game mechanics, you cannot ignore cap in EVE thus you have to learn about it and what it means for you and your ship and as you gain a greater understanding you begin to become better. Quote: Like I said perhaps some more arbitrary power system that limits the number of successive module activations in return for faster cooldown. Completely disagree, if i put all the lights on in my house it does not take them longer to come back on after i turn them off so why should that be applied to cap and vehicles? capacitors is just an energy meter of sorts, you activate 3 modules and it will take x amount of cap per cycle per module and if it is more than your cap recharge rate then you will slowly lose all your cap, but if you only activate 2 and it uses the same or less amount of cap compared to the cap recharge rate then you can perma run them. Capacitors are a completely balanced mechanism already, modules uses x amount and cap recharges at x amount and whatever is outcome is you get stable and unstable builds. This does not include the modules already which do have a cooldown timer in EVE, some you can turn on and off at will while others will need to finish the current cycle before they can be put on again. Quote: At the end of the day it comes down to what you believe the tanks or most specifically the vehicles role in the game should be. My understanding of your view point is that there should be minimal actual interaction between vehicles and infantry. Meanwhile I am of the opinion that vehicle/infantry interaction should be specifically ingrained into the meta, specifically for larger matches. Infantry - vehicles - AV - infantry - vehicles - AV - infantry - vehicles etc That is what it is supposed to be generally on a very basic level. Capacitors in any way shape of from from EVE do not effect that in the slightest. How would capacitors lead to minimal action with infantry? they do not, what does though is having vehicle weapons having a minimal effect against infantry while on the other foot having powerful AV being able to combat all vehicles. Capacitors lead to more weapons being able to be used, more modules to be made, more ways to counter x with y and being able to develop new tactics. Capacitors also lead to more vehicles being able to successfully combat other vehicles which then gives vehicles a larger role and not just the simple role of farming infantry but if no other enemy vehicles pose a threat or are even put onto the battlefield then farming infantry is what they will do unless the enemy put a stop to it. LAV, Logi LAV, APC, MAV, HAV, SHAV, Marauders, Logi DS, APCDS, Fighters, Bombers, Helis etc Vehicles can easily have enough roles with enough abilities/modules/skills/bonuses/hulls/turrets to do more than just interact with infantry. It starts with the capacitor. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2016.02.09 19:42:00 - [141] - Quote I do feel like whatever new FPS CCP creates could benefit from vehicle capacitors. It's arguably the best way to allow vehicle users the flexibility to use their modules however they see fit while also forcing them to manage those modules or risk a complete shut down. Also for reference in EVE it sucks to be Energy Neuted..... not being able to fire or use even simple propulsion modules makes you a sitting duck for just about everyone. Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
Living Rock 523 Intara Direct Action Caldari State 75	Posted - 2016.02.09 20:53:00 - [142] - Quote How would capacitors work with a passive module style of play? My favorite DS build was always armor stacked, no active modules (aside from 1 build that carried a scanner). Would a vehicle focused on passive mods have an advantage, maybe be considered OP? Or would it be underpowered, or simply not possible (if nearly all mods were active)? Obviously we don't know the answer, but what would be the ideal situation? I've been informed that active is the way to go currently in Dust, at least for dropships, but sometime around jan/feb of 2014 all passive mods on a dropship was very possible and very effective (affective? I always screw those up), and I still get much more enjoyment from flying a passive 4800-6k+ armor block than I ever did flying lighter craft and managing cooldowns. I've played a bit of EVE so I have somewhat of a grasp on capacitors, and I'm not against having to go all active for an aircraft in the next Dust. But I do enjoy the simple elegance (in any game) of relying on passive skills and a clear understanding of the role you are geared for, and I'd like to see that option available in the next Dust.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.09 21:26:00 - [143] - Quote Living Rock 523 wrote: How would capacitors work with a passive module style of play? My favorite DS build was always armor stacked, no active modules (aside from 1 build that carried a scanner). Would a vehicle focused on passive mods have an advantage, maybe be considered OP? Or would it be underpowered, or simply not possible (if nearly all mods were active)? Obviously we don't know the answer, but what would be the ideal situation? I've been informed that active is the way to go currently in Dust, at least for dropships, but sometime around jan/feb of 2014 all passive mods on a dropship was very possible and very effective (affective? I always screw those up), and I still get much more enjoyment from flying a passive 4800-6k+ armor block than I ever did flying lighter craft and managing cooldowns. I've played a bit of EVE so I have somewhat of a grasp on capacitors, and I'm not against having to go all active for an aircraft in the next Dust. But I do enjoy the simple elegance (in any game) of relying on passive skills and a clear understanding of the role you are geared for, and I'd like to see that option available in the next Dust. Your passive armor DS was made possible due to CCP removing active armor repairers and replacing them with passive ones. I do not see why you could not have passive armor repairers but even so with the right fit and skills you could perma run an active repairer which would repair at a much better rate. Also module management on a KB would be far superior in general compared to the wheel. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 890	Posted - 2016.02.09 21:43:00 - [144] - Quote Some things can be considered passive if they just add armor. Some things can be considered passive if they do not take energy faster than your capacitor recharges. So Some people figure out what are called "Cap Stable" fits. Ones that can continue, just not as strong as fits that go hard until the capacitor runs out. That right there introduces whole new balances for items and vehicles, and I would say even mercs. It allows people to decide between a sustainable fit and a all out fit which burns out fast. Capacitors are an interesting idea in many ways. Even if instead of mercs having capacitors on their suits certain weapons themselves had capacitors.
1913 DfLo ScReWeD uP InC Devil's Descendants 1	Posted - 2016.02.09 21:57:00 - [145] - 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? Mmmm Jara's Big Ass She better be back CCP *DIPLO* *SUinc Mission* *514 Surplus*
Living Rock 523 Intara Direct Action Caldari State 75	Posted - 2016.02.09 22:31:00 - [146] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Your passive armor DS was made possible due to CCP removing active armor repairers and replacing them with passive ones. I do not see why you could not have passive armor repairers but even so with the right fit and skills you could perma run an active repairer which would repair at a much better rate. Also module management on a KB would be far superior in general compared to the wheel. I was referencing straight armor plates, as opposed to reppers. I traded self repair ability for max HP, and used a trip to the depot as my cooldown. I've always gravitated towards passive abilities (Diablo 2 Barb is the best example I can give atm), but if I need to go active that's fine, as long as AV/Vehicle balance is realized, that's all that matters. And yea, outside of basic shooting and moving/flying I'd much rather have a KB lol so I'm looking forward to that
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2016.02.09 23:03:00 - [147] - Quote Living Rock 523 wrote: How would capacitors work with a passive module style of play? My favorite DS build was always armor stacked, no active modules (aside from 1 build that carried a scanner). Would a vehicle focused on passive mods have an advantage, maybe be considered OP? Or would it be underpowered, or simply not possible (if nearly all mods were active)? Obviously we don't know the answer, but what would be the ideal situation? I've been informed that active is the way to go currently in Dust, at least for dropships, but sometime around jan/feb of 2014 all passive mods on a dropship was very possible and very effective (affective? I always screw those up), and I still get much more enjoyment from flying a passive 4800-6k+ armor block than I ever did flying lighter craft and managing cooldowns. I've played a bit of EVE so I have somewhat of a grasp on capacitors, and I'm not against having to go all active for an aircraft in the next Dust. But I do enjoy the simple elegance (in any game) of relying on passive skills and a clear understanding of the role you are geared for, and I'd like to see that option available in the next Dust. The ideal away I imagine capacitors workings is almost exactly as they do in EVE. They are a pool of energy representing your capacitors output beyond what it required to operate the basic systems of the vehicle that regenerates on a second by second basis. E.G- Your vehicles Capacitor produced/stored 1000 MW of energy. You regenerate 10 MW a second. Your Capacitor Recharge time is 100 seconds. Passive Modules are modules are those modules that provide statistical increases without the player having to manage them. Their features are that their effects are constant, comparatively lesser that active modules, and do not or barely penalise your capacitors recharge values. Examples of Passive Modules include Standard 90mm,150mm, and 210mm Armour Plating, Shield Extenders, Resistance Armour Plating, Shield Ward Fields, Heat Sinks and Turret Modifications, CPU and PG Extenders, Capacitor Rechargers, Profile Dampening Armour Weaves. Active modules are those modules that players choose to activate in combat and must actively manage/monitor or risk consuming their capacitors. Their features are comparatively more powerful than passive modules, pulse based, and quite significantly tax your capacitor. Examples of Active Modules include Armour Repair Systems, Shield Boosters, Armour Hardeners, Shield Hardeners, Remote Armour Repair Systems, Remote Shield Boosters, Propulsion Modules, and Specialist Modules such as Bastion, Triage, or Cloaking Modules. The ideal system in my mind would be to allow passive fits to be combat viable yet not quite as powerful in terms of yield as active fits. It would also encourage and reward combinations of active and passive modules to create fittings that can sustain their capacitors either indefinitely or for longer durations of time. That said it's a bloody complicated system that I honestly have no idea how to implement. Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
Living Rock 523 Intara Direct Action Caldari State 78	Posted - 2016.02.10 02:38:00 - [148] - Quote My biggest concern is simply how are they going to balance vehicles? I was around for some pretty heavy AV/Vehicle thread wars here, and both sides had some pretty valid points. How can it be acceptable that a single suit can near single handedly take on a vehicle, and on the flip side how can it be acceptable that a vehicle can just become a very large suit and demolish infantry unchecked? Overall I never really felt good with any of the builds I played, as they seemed to swing wildly between vehicles enjoying near dominance and infantry having near dominance. Add to that the proto factor, which (as has been previously feared) could create a "it's simply not feasible to run anything but proto" situation in the AV/V game. I personally think the ideal situation is maps that are sectioned in a way to cut down on forced infantry/vehicle interaction. My (super rough) example would be a map in which your team must cross a large swath of "no man's land", areas that are wide open and give vehicles the edge on maneuverability/line of sight, and thus an overall edge in general in said area. Once your force reached any fortifications/objectives/building clusters the edge would switch to infantry due to vehicles being ackward to maneuver in tight spaces and the amount of cover available to infantry. I know we don't like to drag rl into theoretical discussions on how game play mechanics should work, but obviously in rl mechanized forces fair much better in open spaces, though we have to go back to WW2 to get an honest assessment of proper armor tactics/infantry interaction (that's my opinion at least, hasn't been a fair/real clash of armor since WW2). To this day taking an Abrams into a city is a risky proposition simply because a tanks job is to kill tanks, and if your armor has pushed into a city more than likely it has already pushed through enemy armor, or enemy armor is non existant. Once in the city some of a tanks greatest attributes are completely nullified: firing on the move/long range. Targets switch from lumbering hunks of metal to single soldiers that disappear just as fast as they appear, yet pack almost as much firepower as a tank. In my mind (keeping the thought of an old thread involving Medium Attack Vehicles being armored troop transports in mind) the thing to do is have mechanics set where when you start a match, vehicles are called in, infantry is loaded up, and a single mechanized force advances to a point where the infantry can disembark their vehicle under cover fire from vehicles, and from there the vehicle/infantry fighting somewhat seperates, with vehicles duking it out in the open areas around a city/objective, and infantry doing the fighting and hacking inside the city/objective. A lone tank wandering into a city would be nearly a sitting duck, even with infantry support (column of tanks rolling through the middle of a city? Hit the first and last then rain the pain on the rest of the now trapped convoy), and a lone merc or 3 wandering into the open land outside a city/objective would be wiped out. Unfortunately there is still some heavy issues, because after everything I just said, what if the people of 1 team all pull out tanks? Or if they are loaded down with dropships and infantry? What if you have situations where one team consists of mainly lone wolf players? Do you limit vehicles? Force teamplay? I haven't even touched AV/V balance in all my babbling, how does that change the scheme of things? There are so many variables, so many people looking for that quirky little edge or trick that totally destroys balance. I do not envy CCP in regards to giving us what we want, but still balancing everything they give us. Another example I like to use is the supposed fighters. In 1 thread a while back, fears of fighters targeting infantry and questions of small arms effectiveness vs fighters came to light. This, to me was an immediate wrong step. It's not even fumbling right out of the gate, it's fumbling on the way to getting into the gate. Fighters should have no business targeting ground anything, and if the maps are big enough this could be counteracted simply by the speed of a fighter, it should go too fast to target ground. And if you do that, the fighters need a reason to exist, which would be bombers. My point is that so many things in Dust have been able to be geared towards fighting so many other things, it's made balance near impossible. I can almost guarantee with 100% certainty that had fighters been introduced to our Dust, dropship kills would not be the only victims of fighter attack. Pretty much anything other than tanks would have been fair game. So I guess the issue becomes do you force a general balance onto everything in game across all professions/allow for casual and or lone wolf as well as hardcore and teamplay, or do you force people to remain in a role/play tightly as a team? I'm personally down for hardcore team play, as well as imbalance when it makes sense (1 dude vs 1 tank on open ground/1 tank vs 1 dude in a tight city street). On top of all of that stuff, what's the general idea/vision of what CCP wants, overall and mechanics wise? And what kind of limitations do they have due to technology? I'm just rambling at this point (sorry, I've got 2 roommates trying to chat me up while I'm typing this, my brains locking up), so I'll just end this and say CCP has a hell of a job on their hands and I really hope they can pull it off because I am still fully hooked on their vision, and the idea of full blown virtual warfare is just.........AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!! It would be awesome.
Lost Apollo Moose Knuckle Pros Devil's Descendants 318	Posted - 2016.02.10 08:01:00 - [149] - 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. Are you serious? A new game would quickly become unbalanced if bpo/SP/ISK were to be transferred. Nobody wants that. I undsrstand that people earned their SP and everything else. For the sake of balance, I hope they wipe our slates clean. Just more stomps. Also, let the damn myo-scrubs stay with Dust 514... My armor is weak, but my shields are relentless. State 'Rasetsu' Assault Born - April 1, 2013
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.10 13:50:00 - [150] - Quote Living Rock 523 wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Your passive armor DS was made possible due to CCP removing active armor repairers and replacing them with passive ones. I do not see why you could not have passive armor repairers but even so with the right fit and skills you could perma run an active repairer which would repair at a much better rate. Also module management on a KB would be far superior in general compared to the wheel. I was referencing straight armor plates, as opposed to reppers. I traded self repair ability for max HP, and used a trip to the depot as my cooldown. I've always gravitated towards passive abilities (Diablo 2 Barb is the best example I can give atm), but if I need to go active that's fine, as long as AV/Vehicle balance is realized, that's all that matters. And yea, outside of basic shooting and moving/flying I'd much rather have a KB lol so I'm looking forward to that You should be able to do that no problem. If we get triage vehicles then fine, add in infantry repair kits and again fine. EVE overall has many of these problems solved for vehicles, all CCP need to do is also make infantry versions of some of these items. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.10 14:24:00 - [151] - Quote Living Rock 523 wrote: My biggest concern is simply how are they going to balance vehicles? I was around for some pretty heavy AV/Vehicle thread wars here, and both sides had some pretty valid points. How can it be acceptable that a single suit can near single handedly take on a vehicle, and on the flip side how can it be acceptable that a vehicle can just become a very large suit and demolish infantry unchecked? 1 to 1 is what AV used to say, the problem is that if the 1 AV can stand upto and destroy the single most powerful vehicle in the game then all other vehicles by default are useless and will be wiped off the battlefield even quicker making pilots a thing of the past. On the otherhand if a vehicle is used for mainly and is fitted out for wiping out infantry as its sole purpose then generally we should have a vehicle that is fitted up for AV to come out and take out that vehicle or somekind of infantry AV force. Of course this does not take into account maps, positioning, weapons, team setups, vehicles etc My view is that vehicles should be able to counter vehicles first and foremost with AV infantry being a compliment as and when needed, this view does not mean AV infantry would be useless it just means that vehicles and infatry would have to work together to take out tricky/hard targets. Think of a 3 man AV squad in a LAV circling a HAV or having 6 man AV squad in an APC setting up ambushes or even a lone AV man setting up a trap for the enemy vehicle for there team. Both vehicles and infantry should have the capacity to work together but also the capacity to hammer each other to a point but this in organized competitve teamplay such as PC, random matches will always break whatever you are trying to do because of the simple fact of 1 6man team on one side against 16randoms on the other. Proper matchmaking needs to be implemented and even some restrictions such as only basic level meta 1-3 items allowed in high sec for instance and also proper designed maps/vehicles with clear ideas and purpose. Living Rock 523 wrote: Overall I never really felt good with any of the builds I played, as they seemed to swing wildly between vehicles enjoying near dominance and infantry having near dominance. Add to that the proto factor, which (as has been previously feared) could create a "it's simply not feasible to run anything but proto" situation in the AV/V game. . Random matches caused this mostly because matchmaking was never implemented, during the very early days of PC vehicle gameplay was balanced, vehicles and AV gameplay was more balanced, vehicles in general had alot more to offer in skills/bonuses/modules/turrets/hulls etc which lead to a variety in gameplay. The problem was that when organized teams and pilots ended up in pubs they destroyed the balance and hammered it home that squads>randoms and in the end all the balancing ended up being for the randoms while the results in PC were ignored. Living Rock 523 wrote: I personally think the ideal situation is maps that are sectioned in a way to cut down on forced infantry/vehicle interaction. My (super rough) example would be a map in which your team must cross a large swath of "no man's land", areas that are wide open and give vehicles the edge on maneuverability/line of sight, and thus an overall edge in general in said area. Once your force reached any fortifications/objectives/building clusters the edge would switch to infantry due to vehicles being ackward to maneuver in tight spaces and the amount of cover available to infantry. Skirmish 1.0 was proberly the closest thing we ever had to what you are mentioning, it started in a large canyon or sorts which then opened up to a big installation but in them days if you could not capture the early points then outright destroy them and everything else which gave a role to vehicles which helped teams which may have not had good enough infantry. A HAV in the city in some places are useless but had to go in sometimes due to an enemy HAV anyways, but we never had the middle ground APCs anyways and LAVs are just too weak (not the logi LAV) so the reason for vehicle in a built up areas never really existed. In PC most of the time vehicles did protect the home point, HAV in the city to hammer other HAV and cause annoyance, ADS for being up top hitting high links or bombing on other HAVs and logi LAV during the time for hit and runs but various nerfs pushed the HAV out of the city, the ADS to the flight cap more often unless you were the very best and the logi LAV to the scrapyard along with skills/modules and turrets. Changes for randoms in pubs games punished those who took part in PC. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.10 14:44:00 - [152] - Quote Living Rock 523 wrote: I know we don't like to drag rl into theoretical discussions on how game play mechanics should work, but obviously in rl mechanized forces fair much better in open spaces, though we have to go back to WW2 to get an honest assessment of proper armor tactics/infantry interaction (that's my opinion at least, hasn't been a fair/real clash of armor since WW2). To this day taking an Abrams into a city is a risky proposition simply because a tanks job is to kill tanks, and if your armor has pushed into a city more than likely it has already pushed through enemy armor, or enemy armor is non existant. Once in the city some of a tanks greatest attributes are completely nullified: firing on the move/long range. Targets switch from lumbering hunks of metal to single soldiers that disappear just as fast as they appear, yet pack almost as much firepower as a tank. In my mind (keeping the thought of an old thread involving Medium Attack Vehicles being armored troop transports in mind) the thing to do is have mechanics set where when you start a match, vehicles are called in, infantry is loaded up, and a single mechanized force advances to a point where the infantry can disembark their vehicle under cover fire from vehicles, and from there the vehicle/infantry fighting somewhat seperates, with vehicles duking it out in the open areas around a city/objective, and infantry doing the fighting and hacking inside the city/objective. A lone tank wandering into a city would be nearly a sitting duck, even with infantry support (column of tanks rolling through the middle of a city? Hit the first and last then rain the pain on the rest of the now trapped convoy), and a lone merc or 3 wandering into the open land outside a city/objective would be wiped out. . Some of the maps we have now vehicles are useless in the city and make no difference, they can swan about outside but in the end if 3 of the 5 objectives are in the city and the infantry can lock it down then no amount of vehicles will change this, espc with the vehicles we currently have. Even a LAV will not do anything, maybe a APC with an MCRU could help as it relocates to a different part of the city and the team assaults an objective en mass but being able to that as a suprise would be hard unless it could move while cloaked and stealth attack or rarther than a cloak have a reduced profile which makes it harder to pick up but as we know proto active scanners are very hard to avoid as infantry let alone as a vehicle. Are the maps going to relect this? open ground with a city at the end or somekind of installation in which vehicles are weaker/not needed but that then seperates the 2 completely rarther than trying to work together. The maps themselves cause a problem as much as vehicles and infantry do because you want everyones playstyle to be useful in someway rarther than excluding x playstyle but sometimes it happens and it cannot be helped. Living Rock 523 wrote: Unfortunately there is still some heavy issues, because after everything I just said, what if the people of 1 team all pull out tanks? Or if they are loaded down with dropships and infantry? What if you have situations where one team consists of mainly lone wolf players? Do you limit vehicles? Force teamplay? I haven't even touched AV/V balance in all my babbling, how does that change the scheme of things? There are so many variables, so many people looking for that quirky little edge or trick that totally destroys balance. I do not envy CCP in regards to giving us what we want, but still balancing everything they give us. Another example I like to use is the supposed fighters. In 1 thread a while back, fears of fighters targeting infantry and questions of small arms effectiveness vs fighters came to light. This, to me was an immediate wrong step. It's not even fumbling right out of the gate, it's fumbling on the way to getting into the gate. Fighters should have no business targeting ground anything, and if the maps are big enough this could be counteracted simply by the speed of a fighter, it should go too fast to target ground. And if you do that, the fighters need a reason to exist, which would be bombers. My point is that so many things in Dust have been able to be geared towards fighting so many other things, it's made balance near impossible. I can almost guarantee with 100% certainty that had fighters been introduced to our Dust, dropship kills would not be the only victims of fighter attack. Pretty much anything other than tanks would have been fair game. So I guess the issue becomes do you force a general balance onto everything in game across all professions/allow for casual and or lone wolf as well as hardcore and teamplay, or do you force people to remain in a role/play tightly as a team? I'm personally down for hardcore team play, as well as imbalance when it makes sense (1 dude vs 1 tank on open ground/1 tank vs 1 dude in a tight city street). On top of all of that stuff, what's the general idea/vision of what CCP wants, overall and mechanics wise? And what kind of limitations do they have due to technology? . Matchmaking/meta levels and limits of squads and the use of high/low/null should sort out the above issues for pubs to PC matches. Fighters for A2A with some possible turrets for ground targets and likewise bombers for ground targets with some A2A turrets. Balance generally is always broken in PC, if something was too good it leaked into pubs, very rarely did anything from pubs leak into PC. PC was always the perfect testing ground, organized teams on voice against each other but then again pubs no matchmaking of any kind where noobs vs vets and proto vs basic. Teamplay is key to balancing in my book, you see what works well and what does not. PC highlights that. CCP should be making a New Eden vision, the same universe and on PC should be no limits except the imagination. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Avallo Kantor 1	Posted - 2016.02.10 16:00:00 - [153] - Quote My ideal for AV / V interplay was always based around the idea of slower tanks, that were significantly harder to kill. It would be balanced around far higher TTK where Tank v Tank has the lowest TTK. This would be matched however by making it more difficult for a tank to easily escape should things turn against it, where the tanks heavy defense and lack of mobility is the key points of it. AV then could do comparably less damage, but then have additional toolkit options to create kill zones or trapped areas that would effectively trap a tank. The larger TTK though could mean that were the tank supported by infantry, the Infantry have a reasonable chance of saving the tank from the AV before it died. To this end, I see AV being given all sorts of active equipment such as trip-wires (only via tanks), deployable statis zones, and capacitor-draining grenades that could effectively stop a tank dead in it's tracks. So when a tank moved into a certain area a large radius statis field could be generated slowing the tank speed by a massive amount, then various AV weapon types could have additional effects such as capacitor drain, movement penalty, and target painters that all make squad based AV far more effective in combination. "Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.10 22:54:00 - [154] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: My ideal for AV / V interplay was always based around the idea of slower tanks, that were significantly harder to kill. It would be balanced around far higher TTK where Tank v Tank has the lowest TTK. This would be matched however by making it more difficult for a tank to easily escape should things turn against it, where the tanks heavy defense and lack of mobility is the key points of it. AV then could do comparably less damage, but then have additional toolkit options to create kill zones or trapped areas that would effectively trap a tank. The larger TTK though could mean that were the tank supported by infantry, the Infantry have a reasonable chance of saving the tank from the AV before it died. To this end, I see AV being given all sorts of active equipment such as trip-wires (only via tanks), deployable statis zones, and capacitor-draining grenades that could effectively stop a tank dead in it's tracks. So when a tank moved into a certain area a large radius statis field could be generated slowing the tank speed by a massive amount, then various AV weapon types could have additional effects such as capacitor drain, movement penalty, and target painters that all make squad based AV far more effective in combination. While that is all good what about other ground based vehicles such as APCs, Logi LAV, Triage vehicles, LAV etc. Would the traps that are powerful enough to technically cripple a tank/HAV just outright immobilise and disable any other vehicles thus leading to a quick death with no chance to escape? Just say if that was the case then what would vehicles get to counter the effects or would we have specalist modules that other vehicles could use to 'cut the wires' so to speak and help out the vehicle. Also would some of these new equipment be thrown and have a homing mechanism such as the AV nade (which i do disagree with because normal mades do not have a homing mechanism against infantry and plus it means you do not have to aim, why cant you be forced to at least hit the hull with your aim?), would some be handheld and require LOS like the repair tool or be placed down like mines which could also be destroyed. There are other vehicles than just tanks (i hope) CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2016.02.11 01:24:00 - [155] - Quote There are and I think in any future product people are going to have to accept certain conditions when it comes to tanks. They'll be hard to destroy and be able to take multiple hits. But they'll hit hard like nothing else with main guns. They'll move accelerate and turn slowly. But their top speeds will be nothing to sneeze at. They won't offer pilots significant rates of fire or anti-infantry capabilities in their main turret. But they will offer range and AoE effects. They aren't going to have the same regenerative powers as they have in the past. But they will have heavy armour that must be managed. Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
Jenny Tales Eternal Beings I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth 4	Posted - 2016.02.11 01:32:00 - [156] - Quote QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING
da GAND Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2016.02.11 01:54:00 - [157] - Quote Jenny Tales wrote: QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING What did you just say?!! We are the testers for CCPs products and that shall never change because CCP, CCP never changes. Why did so many fools give CCP $$$ ?
AldnoahZero Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 14	Posted - 2016.02.11 18:46:00 - [158] - Quote True Adamance wrote: There are and I think in any future product people are going to have to accept certain conditions when it comes to tanks. They'll be hard to destroy and be able to take multiple hits. But they'll hit hard like nothing else with main guns. They'll move accelerate and turn slowly. But their top speeds will be nothing to sneeze at. They won't offer pilots significant rates of fire or anti-infantry capabilities in their main turret. But they will offer range and AoE effects. They aren't going to have the same regenerative powers as they have in the past. But they will have heavy armour that must be managed. So basically you want the pilots of tomorrow to have copy and paste tanks from this iteration?
AldnoahZero Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 16	Posted - 2016.02.11 18:59:00 - [159] - Quote Jenny Tales wrote: QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING They don't test their patches, what makes you think they'll open up a test server for us to test changes?
Soto Gallente 907	Posted - 2016.02.11 19:01:00 - [160] - Quote AldnoahZero wrote: Jenny Tales wrote: QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING They don't test their patches, what makes you think they'll open up a test server for us to test changes? How do you know they don't test their patches? Have you worked for CCP before? Do you know someone that works for CCP? Ex-news reporter for The Scope

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2016.02.11 19:40:00 - [161] - Quote AldnoahZero wrote: True Adamance wrote: There are and I think in any future product people are going to have to accept certain conditions when it comes to tanks. They'll be hard to destroy and be able to take multiple hits. But they'll hit hard like nothing else with main guns. They'll move accelerate and turn slowly. But their top speeds will be nothing to sneeze at. They won't offer pilots significant rates of fire or anti-infantry capabilities in their main turret. But they will offer range and AoE effects. They aren't going to have the same regenerative powers as they have in the past. But they will have heavy armour that must be managed. So basically you want the pilots of tomorrow to have copy and paste tanks from this iteration? Not at all. In this iteration we have HAV with fast regeneration, high EHP, and relatively low Raw HP (with the exception of Shield HAV which has all three of these things). These tanks accelerate and turn very quickly, their main guns are pitifully weak and inappropriate for a tank, they have barely noteworthy AoE effects, and absolutely no range projection. Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
Avallo Kantor 1	Posted - 2016.02.11 19:42:00 - [162] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Avallo Kantor wrote: My ideal for AV / V interplay ... -snip- While that is all good what about other ground based vehicles such as APCs, Logi LAV, Triage vehicles, LAV etc. Would the traps that are powerful enough to technically cripple a tank/HAV just outright immobilise and disable any other vehicles thus leading to a quick death with no chance to escape? Just say if that was the case then what would vehicles get to counter the effects or would we have specalist modules that other vehicles could use to 'cut the wires' so to speak and help out the vehicle. Also would some of these new equipment be thrown and have a homing mechanism such as the AV nade (which i do disagree with because normal mades do not have a homing mechanism against infantry and plus it means you do not have to aim, why cant you be forced to at least hit the hull with your aim?), would some be handheld and require LOS like the repair tool or be placed down like mines which could also be destroyed. There are other vehicles than just tanks (i hope) All good points. Ideally the traps would work based on the target's mass, which would explain why units such as infantry are unaffected, and lighter vehicles are less hampered by the traps as well. (So for example a LAV would only lose a bit of speed, where as a tank moves like it is in hot tar) The speed would be slowed down enough on a HAV that it would not be able to escape by normal movement in the time frame the trap lasts. However the trap would not have unlimited power, and would shut off on it's own in time. (Although a team could always have a series of traps through a certain narrow street) I would prefer to have the calculations work out so that the TTK for one AV against a tank would be higher than the trap's effect (and then some) so it would not allow sure kills by AV. The traps themselves could be destroyed (or maybe hacked?) to deactivated, but they would be easy to put in places a tank could not reach, thus requiring infantry support to clear them when set up in more urban environments. Where as a trap placed in the open would not be difficult to destroy. (Aka think of placing the trap trigger behind a wall, and then having some sort of "trip wire" that would stretch across the road so that a tank could trigger it.) I'm not a big fan of homing devices, and would like to think that if you can not hit a trapped tank (moving at a pitiful speed) then perhaps the FPS genre is simply not meant for you. The main interplay I am hoping for is that AV Infantry have ways to engage tanks in varied ways other than just "do lots of damage" so that it requires additional planning and strategy to properly kill a tank. Of course, a savvy tank could always find ways around traps, where as a savvy AV player can make traps in places that will have the tanks move into them, and not expect it either. So that Tanks vs Tanks will engage each other in head to head engagements, where as AV Infantry v Tanks will ambush, surprise, and ensnare tanks into positions that are not head to head engagements. However, those snares could easily be countered by infantry. "Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2016.02.11 20:40:00 - [163] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: [quote=Takahiro Kashuken][quote=Avallo Kantor] Pokey Grade Optimism. So long as I can shoot back and bombard infantry formations and emplacements I don't see why not. Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
Living Rock 523 Intara Direct Action Caldari State 84	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:19:00 - [164] - Quote I wouldn't mind traps effecting all vehicles the same, under certain conditions. Say traps (mines/trip wires/stasis fields, whatever) were fairly easy to detect and fairly hard to negate, require a sapper role to disarm (possibly place) traps, give a passive scan ability to a vehicle such as (assuming we get one) an APC (MAV)((LAVs/HAVs would require a Scanning Mod to detect traps independent of MAVs)), and traps take on an Area Denial vibe creating a situation where traps can become effective even without doing direct damage. Also this would (hopefully) reinforce teamplay as cohesive thrusts of forces would fair much better than random waves of troops/vehicles. Therefore equal trap damage to all vehicles would be less of an issue as the most viable counter would be avoidance as opposed to survival/HP. I also feel like damage to different parts of a vehicle is a must. Let, at the very least, damage to treads/axels/so on be independent of overall HP. For example a tank can take damage to its treads, and as damage increases movement performance decreases, up until zero health on the treads at which point the tank is immobilized. This opens possibilities for actual mechanic roles. Frenzied fight around an immobilized tank whIle the mechanics get movement ability back up and running? Yes please. Obviously zero HP on the movement section would not destroy a vehicle, this would require zero HP on a body section. This could be taken some steps further (seeing Front Mission 2 HP displays in my head) by letting, for example, a body section, high slot section, low slot section, turret section and movement section be allowed to take damage separately from each other. I feel like this would blow the AV/V game wide open, as you are no longer relying simply on raw damage to effect (affect?) vehicles. AV could do serious damage without a vehicles overall HP taking a massive hit, giving infantry a good chance of almost entirely negating a vehicle threat, but still requiring friendly vehicles to handle enemy vehicles properly. The risk/reward on vehicles going after infantry would also become a bit less appealing, I feel, if risking your vehicle going after infantry did not necessarily eliminate your main damage dealing/kill shot threat, and instead put you at risk of being immobilized when your main concern (enemy vehicles) does show up. Just brainstorming, haven't put too much thought into this stuff.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 899	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:44:00 - [165] - Quote I like how much people want inspiration from EVE involved in how the mechanics will be in the next game. I agree. EVE may have a very different style of play, but it should be the main source of inspiration. This is why I want Capacitors to be such a major part of the new game. They just add so much balance potential without having to do things like nerf damage or HP. I think we can look to EVE for more than just inspiration on the vehicles though. The kinds of battles that happen in EVE are greatly inspired by the types of things people do. You see the roaming gangs looking for a fight, and you see the people who camp on gates that are natural choke points in travel. You see people who go out to kick over other people's sand castles, and the castle builders themselves. You get the people out there who take advantage of those who are mining. In all of those actions the type of battle was not scripted. They were emergent properties of how people interact. It is that emergent game play that is important. It is what makes the feeling of the battle so much more real. So the major way that DUST failed this, and that the new version should not make the same mistakes, is the set battle. It is the arcade style match making. Having an algorithm establish the match instead of the players. The game world needs to be crafted in a way that people will have a reason to go out and acquire resources, or band together and build sand castles. We need people to want to go out and explore. This way we can also have the people who want to hunt the explorers, and poach the resources gatherers, and more importantly, band together to knock down castles. When people form their own social dynamics and reasons to fight they care less about the balance and more about the struggle. When people are allowed to choose the amount of people and resources they commit then battles become more than just K/D and win loss. ISK efficiency and all the propaganda and meta that emerges from EVE gameplay will emerge from the next New Eden FPS.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 899	Posted - 2016.02.11 22:49:00 - [166] - Quote So that said, I want to go mining in an FPS game. The demand is there, and people would do it. People would protect miners. It would be a glorious reason to fight. Even if a group of guys just joked around while no one came to fight. They would have fun. If a powerful pirate band came through and killed them and stole the resources they were collecting they would rage. It would be all the great stuff I know and love from EVE. In EVE we use to trap miners and get them to get on TS and sing happy birthday if they wanted to survive. Could you imagine getting a guy mining in the game to dance and sing for you or else yo kill him. Ransom in an FPS would make for some pretty funny videos. Just for that potential alone I hope you include a way to make the character dance if you make resource collecting. He needs a way to earn his freedom.
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13	Posted - 2016.02.12 05:23:00 - [167] - Quote Since it's now very likely that the Eve-to-FPS link will be the last thing they work on since obviously doing that link first didn't turn out so well for them on Dust for the PS3, I will put my idea related to that at the bottom of my list. 1. Stability <----MUST BE GIVEN THE HIGHEST PRIORITY AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE I don't want to be disconnected every other match anymore. No one does. I don't want to experience crashes as often as we did on the PS3. I don't want to have to deal with obvious UI bugs and terrain glitches that should have been dealt with early during development. The frame rates need to be stable. If I don't see a minimum of 30fps (constantly) then we will have major problems. Eve Online has the Singularity or Duality test servers. We should be able to use those as a testing ground for the New Eden FPS to look for bugs and other things there rather than encountering them in the final product. CCP, I can't possibly stress this enough. I understand that more content and an Eve link is desired, but those shouldn't ever have to take priority over stability. Nothing should. And since Sony will no longer get in the way of fast updates and iterations, accomplishing this shouldn't be a problem anymore. 2. Fully Fleshed Out Marketplace Eve Online's secondary market is vast but it was built up over the course of 12 years. Since CCP now has the experience and this New Eden FPS will be on PC, CCP can apply that experience to the new game by including a buy/sell order market system along with an item-exchange contract system similar to Eve Online. It will ensure a more secure trade between players. 3. Unleash the Rogue Drones Implement the Rogue Drones that CCP Rattati and his team were experimenting with in a horde-style game mode and maybe as part of a PvEvP system similar to Eve Online's mission system. Since we know they have the models, they shouldn't have a problem. 4. Fighter Jets We also know that CCP has the models of these things as well. Some of us vets miss them from closed beta and not all of us like to stick to just dropships. 5. OPEN THE DAMN DOOR! I prefer to walk around in my personal warbarge all day than just getting stuck inside my merc quarters. Besides, living in the warbarge gives us a better explanation (lore wise) on how a merc is able to bring their entire stockpile of dropsuits and vehicles to the matches and it would give the ability to choose which star system to visit rather than stay in one star system for the rest of my immortal life. 6. The Link Improve on the FW and PC link to Eve Online. The concept was great but the execution was horrible in Dust. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 428	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:10:00 - [168] - Quote Living Rock 523 wrote: How would capacitors work with a passive module style of play? My favorite DS build was always armor stacked, no active modules (aside from 1 build that carried a scanner). Would a vehicle focused on passive mods have an advantage, maybe be considered OP? Or would it be underpowered, or simply not possible (if nearly all mods were active)? Obviously we don't know the answer, but what would be the ideal situation? I've been informed that active is the way to go currently in Dust, at least for dropships, but sometime around jan/feb of 2014 all passive mods on a dropship was very possible and very effective (affective? I always screw those up), and I still get much more enjoyment from flying a passive 4800-6k+ armor block than I ever did flying lighter craft and managing cooldowns. I've played a bit of EVE so I have somewhat of a grasp on capacitors, and I'm not against having to go all active for an aircraft in the next Dust. But I do enjoy the simple elegance (in any game) of relying on passive skills and a clear understanding of the role you are geared for, and I'd like to see that option available in the next Dust. Capacitors are part of all energy management in EvE. The most common "active modules" that use capacitors are guns. That's the main thing I think would impact on capacitors in Dust 2.0.
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 428	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:14:00 - [169] - Quote Lost Apollo wrote: 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. Are you serious? A new game would quickly become unbalanced if bpo/SP/ISK were to be transferred. Nobody wants that. I undsrstand that people earned their SP and everything else. For the sake of balance, I hope they wipe our slates clean. Just more stomps. Also, let the damn myo-scrubs stay with Dust 514... Of course I want that! It's irrelevant that the game would be "unbalanced". EvE and Dust are both "unbalanced" already, based on the criteria you're using. It's what makes EvE what it is. I would want to see Dust the same way.
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 428	Posted - 2016.02.12 10:24:00 - [170] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Since it's now very likely that the Eve-to-FPS link will be the last thing they work on since obviously doing that link first didn't turn out so well for them on Dust for the PS3, I will put my idea related to that at the bottom of my list. If CCP *doesn't* do the link right at the start I think it's highly unlikely they would ever get to that point. The link, were it to occur would be far too integral with EvE for it to be added after the fact.

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.12 14:13:00 - [171] - Quote Living Rock 523 wrote: I wouldn't mind traps effecting all vehicles the same, under certain conditions. Say traps (mines/trip wires/stasis fields, whatever) were fairly easy to detect and fairly hard to negate, require a sapper role to disarm (possibly place) traps, give a passive scan ability to a vehicle such as (assuming we get one) an APC (MAV)((LAVs/HAVs would require a Scanning Mod to detect traps independent of MAVs)), and traps take on an Area Denial vibe creating a situation where traps can become effective even without doing direct damage. Also this would (hopefully) reinforce teamplay as cohesive thrusts of forces would fair much better than random waves of troops/vehicles. Therefore equal trap damage to all vehicles would be less of an issue as the most viable counter would be avoidance as opposed to survival/HP. I also feel like damage to different parts of a vehicle is a must. Let, at the very least, damage to treads/axels/so on be independent of overall HP. For example a tank can take damage to its treads, and as damage increases movement performance decreases, up until zero health on the treads at which point the tank is immobilized. This opens possibilities for actual mechanic roles. Frenzied fight around an immobilized tank whIle the mechanics get movement ability back up and running? Yes please. Obviously zero HP on the movement section would not destroy a vehicle, this would require zero HP on a body section. This could be taken some steps further (seeing Front Mission 2 HP displays in my head) by letting, for example, a body section, high slot section, low slot section, turret section and movement section be allowed to take damage separately from each other. I feel like this would blow the AV/V game wide open, as you are no longer relying simply on raw damage to effect (affect?) vehicles. AV could do serious damage without a vehicles overall HP taking a massive hit, giving infantry a good chance of almost entirely negating a vehicle threat, but still requiring friendly vehicles to handle enemy vehicles properly. The risk/reward on vehicles going after infantry would also become a bit less appealing, I feel, if risking your vehicle going after infantry did not necessarily eliminate your main damage dealing/kill shot threat, and instead put you at risk of being immobilized when your main concern (enemy vehicles) does show up. Just brainstorming, haven't put too much thought into this stuff. We did have scanning mods which did pick up infantry but also mines and REs so they should still exist. You are now asking for WOT mechanics which in itself brings new problems, in WOT when your treads are hit they do not always break but when they do it will take x amount of time to repair or you use a repair kit, also the time repair is due to how good your crew is and what equipment you have on. So the question becomes will my repair kit also repair my tracks of lets just say 1000 damage even if the hull is undamaged? If the hull is also damaged along with my tracks what will take priority? could i choose what to repair? Could the tracks soak up damage even if they are destroyed which would otherwise hit the hull? Could AV weapons lock on to parts of the vehicle such as tracks/gun etc? Could infantry repair tools target damage areas and repair? Do my resistance modules extend to the tracks? The thing with having numbers attached to modules means that you could target the main gun or wheels all day long and effectively make it useless, with WOT there is a hint of RNG and chance, yes you can aim at the gun but does not mean you will always damage it. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13	Posted - 2016.02.13 03:36:00 - [172] - Quote Alena Asakura wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Since it's now very likely that the Eve-to-FPS link will be the last thing they work on since obviously doing that link first didn't turn out so well for them on Dust for the PS3, I will put my idea related to that at the bottom of my list. If CCP *doesn't* do the link right at the start I think it's highly unlikely they would ever get to that point. The link, were it to occur would be far too integral with EvE for it to be added after the fact. If by "right at the start" you mean at the day of the official release of the New Eden FPS for PC, then I agree with you. CCP should have the link ready by then. But what I meant in my last post is in regardless to early development. The link should be included but it should not be the prime focus for CCP. I'm just going by experience here. You and I personally experienced what happened when CCP focused too much resources on the Eve-Dust link back then before giving stability any sense of priority. It was not until CCP Rattati and CCP Rouge took over that stability was given priority but it was already too late for Dust 514. All I'm asking for is that CCP should focus primarily on stability and gameplay. The link to Eve Online should come later down the line before the new game's official release. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 445	Posted - 2016.02.13 11:31:00 - [173] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Alena Asakura wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Since it's now very likely that the Eve-to-FPS link will be the last thing they work on since obviously doing that link first didn't turn out so well for them on Dust for the PS3, I will put my idea related to that at the bottom of my list. If CCP *doesn't* do the link right at the start I think it's highly unlikely they would ever get to that point. The link, were it to occur would be far too integral with EvE for it to be added after the fact. If by "right at the start" you mean at the day of the official release of the New Eden FPS for PC, then I agree with you. CCP should have the link ready by then. But what I meant in my last post is in regards to early development. The link should be included but it should not be the prime focus for CCP. I'm just going by experience here. You and I personally experienced what happened when CCP focused too much resources on the Eve-Dust link back then before giving stability any sense of priority. It was not until CCP Rattati and CCP Rouge took over that stability was given priority but it was already too late for Dust 514. All I'm asking for is that CCP should focus primarily on stability and gameplay. The link to Eve Online should come later down the line before the new game's official release. I think it depends on what the finished product is going to look like, or perhaps it's the other way around. If the finished product is to be fully integrated into the EvE Universe, then the link has to be there right from the start of development. If they don't do that, and develop a game that's fundamentally DISconnected from the rest of EvE and only add the connection later on, we will end up with another disaster. What exactly do you mean by "gameplay"? This sounds to me like allusions to the same old lobby shooter. If Dust 2.0 were fully integrated into the EvE Universe, "gameplay" would become subservient to the general warfare of New Eden. Suits and weapons need to be developed well, of course, but how you use them is going to make all the difference.
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13	Posted - 2016.02.13 17:24:00 - [174] - Quote Alena Asakura wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Alena Asakura wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Since it's now very likely that the Eve-to-FPS link will be the last thing they work on since obviously doing that link first didn't turn out so well for them on Dust for the PS3, I will put my idea related to that at the bottom of my list. If CCP *doesn't* do the link right at the start I think it's highly unlikely they would ever get to that point. The link, were it to occur would be far too integral with EvE for it to be added after the fact. If by "right at the start" you mean at the day of the official release of the New Eden FPS for PC, then I agree with you. CCP should have the link ready by then. But what I meant in my last post is in regards to early development. The link should be included but it should not be the prime focus for CCP. I'm just going by experience here. You and I personally experienced what happened when CCP focused too much resources on the Eve-Dust link back then before giving stability any sense of priority. It was not until CCP Rattati and CCP Rouge took over that stability was given priority but it was already too late for Dust 514. All I'm asking for is that CCP should focus primarily on stability and gameplay. The link to Eve Online should come later down the line before the new game's official release. I think it depends on what the finished product is going to look like, or perhaps it's the other way around. If the finished product is to be fully integrated into the EvE Universe, then the link has to be there right from the start of development. If they don't do that, and develop a game that's fundamentally DISconnected from the rest of EvE and only add the connection later on, we will end up with another disaster. What exactly do you mean by "gameplay"? This sounds to me like allusions to the same old lobby shooter. If Dust 2.0 were fully integrated into the EvE Universe, "gameplay" would become subservient to the general warfare of New Eden. Suits and weapons need to be developed well, of course, but how you use them is going to make all the difference. You have to consider their perspective on the development of both Dust and the New Eden FPS for PC. They tried doing the link first for Dust and they got burned for it. Many players even felt that CCP focused too little on fixing the game while focusing too much on enhancing a connection that Eve Online players agree doesn't benefit them much and feels non-existent to them. But even if you are right that CCP should give the link attention at the start of the new game's development, CCP has to be careful not to give it too much attention or else it will be Dust all over again where bugs are rampant, disconnects are commons, and content missing. I doubt the Shanghai team would want to repeat that mistake. As to what I meant by gameplay, I was directly referring to the experience of the game itself. Is the game fun or interesting enough for me to give it my attention? Is it stable enough to not cause constant disconnects or crashes? How is the frame rate? How much content is available in the game? How balanced is matchmaking? How balanced are the items used in the matches? How friendly is it to new players who never heard of Eve Online? How effective are the tutorials? What else can I do in the game that isn't just simple lobby shooting? Is PvP separate from PvE or would it be more PvEvP like Eve Online has right now? Can I have an impact on this New Eden FPS for PC like Eve Online players do to each other? That kind of gameplay. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Living Rock 523 Intara Direct Action Caldari State 107	Posted - 2016.02.13 18:33:00 - [175] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: #1-So the question becomes will my repair kit also repair my tracks of lets just say 1000 damage even if the hull is undamaged? #2-If the hull is also damaged along with my tracks what will take priority? could i choose what to repair? #3-Could the tracks soak up damage even if they are destroyed which would otherwise hit the hull? #4-Could AV weapons lock on to parts of the vehicle such as tracks/gun etc? #5-Could infantry repair tools target damage areas and repair? #6-Do my resistance modules extend to the tracks? The thing with having numbers attached to modules means that you could target the main gun or wheels all day long and effectively make it useless, with WOT there is a hint of RNG and chance, yes you can aim at the gun but does not mean you will always damage it. #1- I would say assuming there was an introduction of different vehicle sections that could be damaged, as well as a "mechanic" infantry role, then a pure vehicle rep tool could be introduced. This would allow for repair of any vehicle part, no matter the damage level of any other part. #2- This could go either way, but thinking about it I think it would be cool to be able to decide which part to repair first. This would allow for strategic options (Don't rep the gun!! Rep the Fuel Injectors and let's get the f*ck outta here!!! or We have high ground and backup, rep the gun and get back in the turret, we can get the treads once the area is clear!!). The only basic options for vehicle repping when vehicle sections are in play would be A- all sections are repped at the same rate at the same time B- sections are selected randomly and repped one at a time C- Player chooses which sections to rep. Out of these 3 C would make the most sense, A would be acceptable but not as desirable, and B would suck. There is the possibility of having separate reppers that maybe behaved differently, but I think the base mechanic should be player selects section to rep. #3- Short answer, no. Longer answer- Part of the reason I feel like sectioning up vehicles would be good for AV/V balance is that, to me, it is stupid (struggling to stay civil) that the only method available to damage vehicles is simple raw damage, granted there are some modifiers thrown on from time to time (explosive vs armor type stuff, what ever it is), but at the end of the day it's all just raw damage. And when the time comes when a proto suit with proto AV and a proto tank with proto mods run into each other it's gonna be a problem (I feel). To me there is just not enough there to balance with. Anyway I got off track a bit there (ha, no pun intended), but with different vehicle sections the opportunity is presented for more specialized AV weaponry. As a very crude example, say there was a Swarm variant that fired a single missile in a straight line, and was purpose built for damaging mobility related vehicle sections. If a tanks tread section was destroyed and it was immobile, any hits by this Swarm variant would do absolutely no damage at the very least, and just for example we will say 5ish% of total weapon damage to any sections not related to mobility at the most. The latter makes more sense from a real world perspective, but either way can work on a basic level. So to sum it up, no, a destroyed section would not absorb damage that could otherwise effect a different undestroyed section. So let's say there was a Forge Gun that hit for X amount of straight damage spread evenly across all vehicle sections. If any one of those sections is already destroyed, that damage is redirect to an undestroyed part, still enabling full damage. Or as I said they could get fancy with it and take that imaginary Swarm I mentioned with X amount total damage and let it do 100% of that damage to mobility sections (or turret sections, or high slot sections or whatever), but still let it do 10% of total damage to other sections it is not designed to damage. To me this feels a bit more realistic, the thought of a tank being rocked by explosions but taking no damage because it's treads are already destroyed is a bit silly. #4- I would definitely say different vehicle sections could be damaged simply by using specific AV weapons. For actual Lock On weaponry, I personally don't know how I feel about that subject, and nothing I ever think of in my head sounds good. I won't lie I was never to crazy about the simplicity of the Swarm Launcher. I know it had its ups and downs, but overall the level of fire and forget it had/has seems to me a bit much. That's just my opinion, and it's definitely not a game breaking deal for me, more so an annoyance. Because of that I don't really feel I should be commenting quite yet on weapons with Lock On mechanics. I would like to see shot placement become a bigger thing. For example an anti tank rifle designed to damage turrets scoring a hit on a turret would obviously do full damage, but a hit to the treads would lessen overall damage by a decent amount (application of damage would remain the same, with the turret receiving a lessened amount of its full damage, and as I said in #3 other sections still only receiving their 5-10% of full damage done). But yeah, the player using AV would be able to target specific sections through weapon selection, actual shot placement, and maybe lock on. Or even some or all of these (all is probably the way to go). #5- I would say either let infantry repair tools rep very small amounts of HP on "body" sections (which in my head would simply be pure HP, Front Mission 2 style) or let infantry rep tools rep even smaller amounts spread over the entire tank, with no control over section. A mechanic role would allow for specific and efficient repairs. Require destroyed vehicle sections to be repped up to say 5% before they can become active again, to avoid cheese. #6- Short answer because I'm running out of room, yes.
Living Rock 523 Intara Direct Action Caldari State 107	Posted - 2016.02.13 18:48:00 - [176] - Quote On RNG and targeting specific parts with other vehicles, I'd say (obviously) no to any kind of RNG at all, and I'd say keep vehicle turrets more toward raw damage with damage spread more or less evenly across the all sections of enemy vehicles. Allow for the critical hit spots that (I think?) we have now, but it shouldn't be easy at all for one tank to say "I'll just target the enemy tank turret and wipe it out in 2 shots".
501st Synergy Intara Direct Action Caldari State 74	Posted - 2016.02.13 19:53:00 - [177] - Quote Jesus just read through all those pages O.O Anywho, I would love the ground combat to be more complex. Maybe not a capcitor and needing to manage my energy levels in the thick of a mess, but I love more to do in a fight. Makes it feel more rewarding when I master nuances. In other words, give me that "Thinking Man's Shooter" and make my head hurt too. I did it with Dust, and as rappers say, "Started at the bottom, now I'm at the top." Also, yes to all the vehicle ideas. I would be full vehicle just to get involved in all that haha
AldnoahZero Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 17	Posted - 2016.02.13 22:09:00 - [178] - Quote Soto Gallente wrote: AldnoahZero wrote: Jenny Tales wrote: QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING They don't test their patches, what makes you think they'll open up a test server for us to test changes? How do you know they don't test their patches? Have you worked for CCP before? Do you know someone that works for CCP? It's pretty obvious when a hotfix that is supposed to "fix" stuff just creates different bugs.
Soto Gallente 957	Posted - 2016.02.13 23:55:00 - [179] - Quote AldnoahZero wrote: Soto Gallente wrote: AldnoahZero wrote: Jenny Tales wrote: QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING They don't test their patches, what makes you think they'll open up a test server for us to test changes? How do you know they don't test their patches? Have you worked for CCP before? Do you know someone that works for CCP? It's pretty obvious when a hotfix that is supposed to "fix" stuff just creates different bugs. 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. Ex-news reporter for The Scope
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13	Posted - 2016.02.13 23:58:00 - [180] - Quote Soto Gallente wrote: AldnoahZero wrote: Soto Gallente wrote: AldnoahZero wrote: Jenny Tales wrote: QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING They don't test their patches, what makes you think they'll open up a test server for us to test changes? How do you know they don't test their patches? Have you worked for CCP before? Do you know someone that works for CCP? It's pretty obvious when a hotfix that is supposed to "fix" stuff just creates different bugs. 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. We'll likely get access to the Singularity Test server once the New Eden FPS for PC is up and running. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy

Shaun Iwairo Simple Minded People Pty. Ltd. 530	Posted - 2016.02.14 00:27:00 - [181] - Quote Soto Gallente wrote: AldnoahZero wrote: Soto Gallente wrote: AldnoahZero wrote: Jenny Tales wrote: QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING They don't test their patches, what makes you think they'll open up a test server for us to test changes? How do you know they don't test their patches? Have you worked for CCP before? Do you know someone that works for CCP? It's pretty obvious when a hotfix that is supposed to "fix" stuff just creates different bugs. 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. My work includes testing software in microcontrollers. +1 to this all day every day. Something is killing new player retention.
Seymor Krelborn Vengeance Unbound RUST415 2	Posted - 2016.02.14 00:28:00 - [182] - Quote I expect the same thing I expect from all their projects..... failure CCP = Can't Complete Projects this game makes me sad....
Shaun Iwairo Simple Minded People Pty. Ltd. 530	Posted - 2016.02.14 00:30:00 - [183] - Quote Don't know if it's been said in this thread yet, but: Cooldown for excessive match leaving. Something is killing new player retention.
Soto Gallente 959	Posted - 2016.02.14 00:32:00 - [184] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: 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. Ex-news reporter for The Scope
Maken Tosch Dust University Ivy League 13	Posted - 2016.02.14 00:47:00 - [185] - Quote Soto Gallente wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: 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. Damn, that was a burn. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Faquira Bleuetta Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 533	Posted - 2016.02.14 09:09:00 - [186] - Quote Amalepsa Zarek wrote: 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. hey hey hey come on man the console community is more smart than this StoneFoxMedia dude
Faquira Bleuetta Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 533	Posted - 2016.02.14 09:52:00 - [187] - Quote Soto Gallente wrote: AldnoahZero wrote: Soto Gallente wrote: 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. SOCOM was the thinking man's shooter in 2002. Lol, you're funny. My sides are now in orbit.
Seymor Krelborn Vengeance Unbound RUST415 2	Posted - 2016.02.14 15:16:00 - [188] - Quote Soto Gallente wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: 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. 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. this game makes me sad....
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 925	Posted - 2016.02.15 08:43:00 - [189] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: Soto Gallente wrote: Seymor Krelborn wrote: 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. 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. EVE is a very successful game. The arbitrary method you use to determine success doesn't seem to be a good measure. EVE has had a sustained presence for a very long time, and is one of the most successful MMORPG's out there. It is even included in a MET Art display of the top 50 games of all time in which a day in the life of new Eden is presented as an art exhibit. Even if we just base it on a business standpoint then both EVE and DUST were a success because they made a profit for the company.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 925	Posted - 2016.02.15 08:44:00 - [190] - Quote 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?

SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 928	Posted - 2016.02.17 07:01:00 - [191] - Quote Alena Asakura wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: I myself want to be able to go to different stations and different systems. Even if all it did was put me in a different merc quarters it would have been a great way to make me feel like I am in a space station in space rather than just in a room. It would have been nice because I could have changed the atmosphere by going somewhere else. Not to mention the immersion aspect and DUST / EVE connection that could come from having DUST mercs being able to choose different systems to go and talk in local. Not to mention it would have opened up DUST to the idea of a market based on location. We would have seen if DUST mercs traded in Jita, or if they created their own trade hubs and spammed local with their own scams. 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. :) 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.
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 928	Posted - 2016.02.17 07:02:00 - [192] - Quote 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?"
Lt Royal Subdreddit 2	Posted - 2016.02.17 09:28:00 - [193] - Quote * More diverse classes with bonuses and roles. * The missing racial vechicles; MCC's, LAV's, Derpships, Tanks, possibly Mech's and StarWars esk speeder bikes. * More diverse racial instillations including the ablity to orbital drop them at chosen placments upon the battlefield with WP's. * All "basic" racial weapon variants; meaning the missing racial HMG's e.g. (Amarr Gatling Laser) * All racial vehicle turrets. * Global district gamemode maps simular to the size and scope of PlanetSide2 as promised at fanfest years ago. * When super captials in eve get destroyed their "wreck" stays in space as a perminet feature untill salvaged. Have these wrecks be used as indoor maps to fight over the salavge spoils. * PVE content for solo or small squads as promised at fanfest. * Open the door in our merc quarters to maybe space stations or be used as a transition between our Dust > Eve acounts. * Have some sockets be used as planetary to orbital weapon batteries to maybe effect the battles raging ubove; be it PVE or factional PVP. * Guve us a trophy for our merc quarters or vertarin medallion on our dropsuits to show we have earned our stripes. * Either let us keep our paid for (with IRL money) BPO's or have then be used as exclusive rare skins. * Have it so the loyaly rank also takes into account as to how old and active accounts have been, rather than how much IRL money we have spent on the game. * Give all rewarded loyaty accounts closed alpha or closed beta codes for NotLegion. * Start everyone with fresh accounts (SP not carried over). Thats all I can think of from the top of my head o7 Gÿ£Gÿ¡GÿP ------- Gÿ£Gÿ¡GÿP
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 3	Posted - 2016.02.19 05:41:00 - [194] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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?" Simply have contracts with varying isk payouts that also correspond to the security. High Sec- Lowest payouts, only basic gear allowed. Simple contracts for keeping the peace against drones and moderate enemy mercs. You do not keep what you kill, as it is mostly trash anyway. *Could also be based around a meta level cap also so people can run SOME modules not basic, but not without gimping themselves. Only allowed for solo people as well, or groups of 2 Medium Sec- Payouts that can help you earn a profit if you lose a few Adv suits. Will probably require squadrons and fireteams as Drone Health is far higher, and squads are now allowed( 1, 2,4, 8). For those wanting more of a challenge. You also keep what you kill. Low Sec- Proto and Officer is allowed, this is where you go ham and hard. Payouts start immediately at 1 million isk. Squadrons who begin to earn streaks in this match type are also labelled with a bounty system, of which other squadrons can collect by joining the match and winning. Isk is non-transferable for 48 hours upon awarding to ensure that no scams/farms are being done. Corporation Prestiege also is affected based on how high of a streak its members embark on. You keep what you kill, no meta level limit -In this way, PVE and PVP would be in the same categories, and then if you don't want to accept contracts, you can just randomly find them on free roam like in Destiny. Allowing Dust 2.0 Bunnies to link to their EvE Accounts could allow for potential multipliers in the amount of time it takes to get to a planet etc. 07, feels good to be unbanned PSN: saphireblue-7 Dusty5678 stole this account.
XxBlazikenxX Kylo's Fist 4	Posted - 2016.02.19 06:47:00 - [195] - Quote Top Ten Things I want to See: 1. Better Beginner Tutorial 2. Open World with PVE 3. Corporation Headquarters where all corporation members can gather; can be attacked but severe consequences to the aggressors in highsec and low sec. Null Sec is free game. 4. War Declaration System 5. More Weapons 6. More Suits 7. More Vehicles 8. Better balance between weapons and suits 9. Power cores 10. Being able to board EVE Ships CEO of Kylo's Fist // Pub Chat: The First Order Join us in our quest for all of Molden Heath! #freebenandjerrys
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 529	Posted - 2016.02.19 10:59:00 - [196] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: Alena Asakura wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: I myself want to be able to go to different stations and different systems. Even if all it did was put me in a different merc quarters it would have been a great way to make me feel like I am in a space station in space rather than just in a room. It would have been nice because I could have changed the atmosphere by going somewhere else. Not to mention the immersion aspect and DUST / EVE connection that could come from having DUST mercs being able to choose different systems to go and talk in local. Not to mention it would have opened up DUST to the idea of a market based on location. We would have seen if DUST mercs traded in Jita, or if they created their own trade hubs and spammed local with their own scams. 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. :) 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. Oh yes, flying into stars, planets, even trying to navigate into the inside of a station, I've done it all. I must say it was a disappointment that I couldn't just fly into a station and fly around inside it... :)
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 529	Posted - 2016.02.19 11:06:00 - [197] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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. 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.
Alena Asakura Caldari Logistics Reserve 529	Posted - 2016.02.19 11:08:00 - [198] - Quote Alena Asakura wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13	Posted - 2016.02.19 23:33:00 - [199] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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? 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. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Skihids Random Gunz The-Office 3	Posted - 2016.02.20 02:29:00 - [200] - Quote 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. Give us true attacker/defender roles. Every game mode in DUST is completly generic. You have ZERO sense of whether you are on the attacker or defender side. Running from one Null Cannon to the next in an endless game of Whack-a-mole is boring! Give us maps which require dropships for troop deployment. They need a real reason to exist. Of course you will have to figure out how to do this with drop links being so easy to use. The transporter pretty much killed any need for the shuttle in Star Trek and the same is true for this game. Perhaps the terrain requires them for initial deployment as walking just won't cut it because of distance or open ground making it suicidal to walk in.

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.21 15:14:00 - [201] - Quote Skihids wrote: 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. The 'big suits' being pricy was never a problem when they were good and worked, the sagaris and surya proves that but what also makes the 'big suits' different was the modules such as spider tanking modules which got removed but also lack of vehicles in general is what made most pilots focus on infantry because that was all there was to do in the end. My HAV are no longer used to shoot infantry is because missles have pathetic non existant splash, rail requires a direct hit and blasters have random bullet spread and small guns the blaster has pathetic range, small misslies got nerfed again but are still useful ish and possible rails are another option option. If it requires 3 pilots for one HAV does it require 3 AV to kill it? Also with each additional crew member each wearing a pilot suit with various modules do i get more hp/resistance/cpu/pg/speed/regen/rep rate/rep amount etc You have FPS for vehicles, it is the point of the turret, TPV is fine for vehicles. Piloting does take skill, anyone can aim a gun not everyone can fly or drive but CCP even nerfed that so it was easier for everyone because at one time 40mil+ SP was needed to be dropped into the skills and that was a large amount for just one role, then it got nerfed hard and various skills/skill bonuses/modules/turrets/hulls got removed. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Skihids Random Gunz The-Office 3	Posted - 2016.02.21 15:53:00 - [202] - Quote 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.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.21 16:37:00 - [203] - Quote Skihids wrote: 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. Considering it always cost more ISK aswell as SP does not even put it on par with 1v1 in the infantry role. The HAV was always supposed to be the main vehicle to combat other vehicles but we had no other vehicles to combat the majority of the time but that was in pubs, take PC again where pilots first and foremost focused on other pilots and only were able to engage any infantry when the threat of the enemy vehicle was removed. Again you are not answering any of the questions that i have asked regarding a vehicle with a crew, i could easy have a 3man HAV crew or any vehicle for that matter with each pilot having all vehicle skills which have to be able to be used in the HAV/vehicle and contribute because if it is all on the SP the main pilot has in the vehicle then its a one man vehicle with 2 hitchikers and in pubs who cares it is broken because no matchmaking but in PC that 16man team has dropped down to 13 fro ground just so a HAV can be used let alone would it be useful. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 969	Posted - 2016.02.22 06:32:00 - [204] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: SILENTSAM 69 wrote: 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? 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. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about.
Skihids Random Gunz The-Office 3	Posted - 2016.02.22 19:35:00 - [205] - Quote And if CCP does it right they will require skills from each crew member.
Vong Gai Fatal Absolution 38	Posted - 2016.02.22 19:36:00 - [206] - Quote 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. "To crush your enemies -- See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"
XxBlazikenxX Kylo's Fist 4	Posted - 2016.02.22 20:51:00 - [207] - Quote Vong Gai wrote: 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. Actually, I believe someone did a survey on the forums and around 75% of people want to move to PC. CEO of Kylo's Fist // Pub Chat: The First Order Join us in our quest for all of Molden Heath! #freebenandjerrys
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13	Posted - 2016.02.23 04:29:00 - [208] - Quote Vong Gai wrote: 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'm not from the PC Master Race since I own both a gaming PC and a bunch of consoles and never stopped enjoying everyone one of them. Hell I even have a 3DS XL where I play Hatsune Miku: Project Mirai DX. Just putting that out there before I say the following. There is nothing wrong with going to the PC. Although it would have been nice to have the PS4 version as well, CCP Shanghai probably doesn't have enough money and resources to do both platforms. That being said, they probably had no choice but to go to the one platform they are good at working on. The PC. As an Eve Online player I can tell you there are plenty of Eve players out there who welcome us to the PC world because they want you and me to enjoy our FPS experience in a platform they feel comfortable in. By the way, to say "we already have pc games" is a flawed logic because then by that assumption you have no choice but to also say "we already have console games". It puts you into a sort of paradoxical situation that you can't get out of. Almost Catch-22 like. Also, you have to look at it from a practical point of view. Many of us felt that it would have been better if CCP had started on the PC first to take full advantage of the fast iterations and massive player base that was already available to them from the start and then port it over just in time for the PS4 release which would have helped Dust 514 become very competitive against the likes of Planetside 2 which then would have made YOU and me very happy. But of course that never happened. Sad Panda. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Vong Gai Fatal Absolution 39	Posted - 2016.02.23 17:17:00 - [209] - Quote 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. "To crush your enemies -- See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"
XxBlazikenxX Kylo's Fist 4	Posted - 2016.02.23 20:23:00 - [210] - Quote Vong Gai wrote: 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. Most people welcome PC because PC is consistent, unlike console gaming. CEO of Kylo's Fist // Pub Chat: The First Order Join us in our quest for all of Molden Heath! #freebenandjerrys

Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13	Posted - 2016.02.24 02:37:00 - [211] - Quote Vong Gai wrote: 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. Depends on what you mean by balance. In fact, whatever definition you come up with right now will only be applicable to you. To others, balance can be defined differently. I have a balanced life when it comes to gaming even though my hardware is predominantly console (Wii, WiiU, 3DS, X360, and PS3) versus my one and only gaming PC which is now 10 years old. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Heimdallr69 Negative-Feedback. 6	Posted - 2016.02.24 03:00:00 - [212] - Quote Wouldn't matter where dust goes..I have all the consoles and gaming pc's..the only thing is I don't like using kb/m for shooters =ƒÿÆ Don't see why dust can't be on ps4 as well...isn't Valkyrie on both?
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13	Posted - 2016.02.24 03:09:00 - [213] - Quote Heimdallr69 wrote: Wouldn't matter where dust goes..I have all the consoles and gaming pc's..the only thing is I don't like using kb/m for shooters =ƒÿÆ Don't see why dust can't be on ps4 as well...isn't Valkyrie on both? Valkyrie has a much bigger budget than Dust. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Heimdallr69 Negative-Feedback. 6	Posted - 2016.02.24 03:24:00 - [214] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Heimdallr69 wrote: Wouldn't matter where dust goes..I have all the consoles and gaming pc's..the only thing is I don't like using kb/m for shooters =ƒÿÆ Don't see why dust can't be on ps4 as well...isn't Valkyrie on both? Valkyrie has a much bigger budget than Dust. True..if they had given dust the budget from the start then maybe dust wouldn't have flopped..of course the PS3 was the dumbest idea they had..the game could be huge yet they'd rather take a chance with VR..
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2016.02.24 12:35:00 - [215] - Quote Skihids wrote: And if CCP does it right they will require skills from each crew member. Apart from skills being applied to the vehicle i would like to see pilots suits also interact with the vehicle and also stack and suffer from stacking penalties if all 3 crew members have the same module on. The need for vehicles can easily be made, they just need to make more vehicles and not take them out because if we had the Logi Lav and DS still around along with medium vehicles and heavy aircraft then that need would have been met a long time ago. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Skihids Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 3	Posted - 2016.02.24 20:00:00 - [216] - Quote CCP has to build the need into the game, they can't just throw vehicles in and hope for something to work. They proved that with the dropship. It was supposed to be a troop carrier, but drop uplinks and walking were better modes of travel and that killed the transport role before it began. The only unique role was getting on top of tall structures and CCP killed that by adding ladders to most buildings, ensuring the dropship's redundancy. Then to finish them off they glued a gun on the front so it would become just another assault suit.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 22	Posted - 2016.02.24 21:36:00 - [217] - Quote Skihids wrote: CCP has to build the need into the game, they can't just throw vehicles in and hope for something to work. They proved that with the dropship. It was supposed to be a troop carrier, but drop uplinks and walking were better modes of travel and that killed the transport role before it began. The only unique role was getting on top of tall structures and CCP killed that by adding ladders to most buildings, ensuring the dropship's redundancy. Then to finish them off they glued a gun on the front so it would become just another assault suit. To be fair though while including the advantages of verticality and high ground into the game it also was a huge ******* annoyance when players literally just roof top camped because they were too scared or lazy to get into the action. There shouldn't have been areas that were expressly accessible by dropship and not by foot bridge, staircase, or elevator especially overlooking objectives. Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13	Posted - 2016.02.24 23:28:00 - [218] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Skihids wrote: CCP has to build the need into the game, they can't just throw vehicles in and hope for something to work. They proved that with the dropship. It was supposed to be a troop carrier, but drop uplinks and walking were better modes of travel and that killed the transport role before it began. The only unique role was getting on top of tall structures and CCP killed that by adding ladders to most buildings, ensuring the dropship's redundancy. Then to finish them off they glued a gun on the front so it would become just another assault suit. To be fair though while including the advantages of verticality and high ground into the game it also was a huge ******* annoyance when players literally just roof top camped because they were too scared or lazy to get into the action. There shouldn't have been areas that were expressly accessible by dropship and not by foot bridge, staircase, or elevator especially overlooking objectives. The main problem was the small size of the maps. Skim Junction is by far the biggest map I can think of at the moment and that seems to be the only sizable map big enough to encourage some vehicle use for transport. But even then, once uplinks are spammed everywhere, their purpose as transports becomes meaningless. If CCP had opened up the maps to at least twice or three times the size of Skim Junction with the same team size, vehicles as a troop transport would have become important to the team's overall success as objectives become so spread out. Not only that, a bigger map would have meant that uplinks would have been spread thin across such large areas since even Amarr Logistics players would only be able to carry and sustain a finite number of active uplinks which could have reinforced the role of vehicles as transports. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 22	Posted - 2016.02.25 00:49:00 - [219] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: True Adamance wrote: Skihids wrote: CCP has to build the need into the game, they can't just throw vehicles in and hope for something to work. They proved that with the dropship. It was supposed to be a troop carrier, but drop uplinks and walking were better modes of travel and that killed the transport role before it began. The only unique role was getting on top of tall structures and CCP killed that by adding ladders to most buildings, ensuring the dropship's redundancy. Then to finish them off they glued a gun on the front so it would become just another assault suit. To be fair though while including the advantages of verticality and high ground into the game it also was a huge ******* annoyance when players literally just roof top camped because they were too scared or lazy to get into the action. There shouldn't have been areas that were expressly accessible by dropship and not by foot bridge, staircase, or elevator especially overlooking objectives. The main problem was the small size of the maps. Skim Junction is by far the biggest map I can think of at the moment and that seems to be the only sizable map big enough to encourage some vehicle use for transport. But even then, once uplinks are spammed everywhere, their purpose as transports becomes meaningless. If CCP had opened up the maps to at least twice or three times the size of Skim Junction with the same team size, vehicles as a troop transport would have become important to the team's overall success as objectives become so spread out. Not only that, a bigger map would have meant that uplinks would have been spread thin across such large areas since even Amarr Logistics players would only be able to carry and sustain a finite number of active uplinks which could have reinforced the role of vehicles as transports. Agreed but that doesn't really address the issue with infantry not being able to access building tops by foot. Sure some maps have ladders..... .... Ladders Not walkways complying with sci-fi health and safety protocols but enormous uncovered ladders without fall protection, or elevators, or teleporters, etc. .... Ladders Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 3	Posted - 2016.02.26 14:28:00 - [220] - Quote Vong Gai wrote: 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. They probably will port it over if Dust manages to turn a Profit on the PC and the next-gen consoles are announced. PS4 and so one have been out what? Two years already? Give another year and a half for Dust to be ported over with all the new features and horsepower add-ons. Then what? We are already at the 3--4 year mark on the life-cycle. Boom, Dev kits for the next consoles might already be released, and we'll be right back where we started with Aurum City and tons of late updates because Sony still charges for updates and all. PC sucks for the majority of us, but better to preserve the game now, and then potentially port it over to a console in the long run. We need to show that this project will be successful however, or we can kiss Dust goodbye. I'm saving up for a monster Gaming PC right now, I'm gonna get EVE Online and Dust 2.0, and I will show CCP that they will not get rid of me. I will master their new game, I will conquer the Universe, I will board Titans and bring the tears of a million enemies. I will make them want more people for me to farm. I will support that game so I can play with the true Dust 514 mercanaries. PSN: saphireblue-7 Dusty5678 stole this account.

SILENTSAM 69 KILL-EM-QUICK Rise Of Legion. 971	Posted - 2016.02.27 03:53:00 - [221] - Quote I read a piece lately about how EVE managed to stay alive for so long without a huge player base. The fact that they made a sand box and left the battle design to the players is what was great. If they give us the ability to build our own sand castles, and a sad box to do it in, we will organize our own wars. We will not need an algorithm to establish a match and worry about balance. We will just have opposing sides fighting it out. I really want to have the ability to so scavenging for loot out alone, and then coming across a group of enemies, and then be able to get on TS and get a group to come meet me and ambush them for no other reason than we could.
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven 3	Posted - 2016.02.28 03:18:00 - [222] - Quote SILENTSAM 69 wrote: I read a piece lately about how EVE managed to stay alive for so long without a huge player base. The fact that they made a sand box and left the battle design to the players is what was great. If they give us the ability to build our own sand castles, and a sad box to do it in, we will organize our own wars. We will not need an algorithm to establish a match and worry about balance. We will just have opposing sides fighting it out. I really want to have the ability to so scavenging for loot out alone, and then coming across a group of enemies, and then be able to get on TS and get a group to come meet me and ambush them for no other reason than we could. The resources however need to be macro-scaled. The things us mercs fight over need to mean something to us as we stock-pile them, but in the short-run mean very little to Eve Players. However, as we use those materials to build larger structures, and conquer land in FW via taking control( literally battling onboard) sattlelights and large drone ships, then Eve Players will enlist rival corporations to defend their interests. Soon, our structures in Planetary Conquest should be able to damage and threaten those of Cruisers and so on. Structures that in the eyes of military and strategic value would be a godsend, and would also provide untold wealth to mercs, which could then use that for some sort of meaning, something of the rarest suits, weapons, materials, things that would take thousands of hours, and not be sellable, but sought after, and truly OP and insane So before I lose myself in my rambles lol, Macro things to fight over, then have the intertwinings come true PSN: saphireblue-7 Dusty5678 stole this account.
The Jungian Brutor Vanguard Minmatar Republic 206	Posted - 2016.03.28 00:15:00 - [223] - Quote No free to play. 256+ player battles. Keep the best stuff from DUST514 Then this might happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FviNMJ5puU CCP COMMUNITY SPOTLIGHT: Jungian


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