I missed none of it. I just don't like the answer given.

Before I continue, I'm going to point out a few major flaws in your thought/post process.

1) Your thought process behind vehicles being a waste of space is false, or at least no more true than it would be for any other suits. Case and point, was the commando suit necessary? Not really, an assault or a scout could have done their job of AV in PC. Was it necessary to have a pistol for every race? Again, I don't think so. It was nice, no question, but the game had a possibility of thriving or failing just as much with or without those.
So while it may be true that vehicles took up a lot of unnecessary resources, it can be seen that it's no more true for anything infantry related.

2) Vehicles are not a required aspect of an FPS. Were this any other shooter, I would have no good argument, I'll grant that. But this is New Eden, the two sister games to Nova are Eve, and Valkyrie. Both of these games pretty much require you to play in vehicles. You may argue that spaceships and star fighters are not vehicles, but the term vehicle applies to a very broad term, mainly objects used to transports goods or people.
Taking this into account, if the plan of CCP is to combine those games, as I recall they've stated, Nova will eventually have to interact with vehicles, albeit from a different game altogether. So in Novas case, that is false.

3) Maps were enlarged to accommodate vehicles. While this may have been CCPs intent, it was not necessary, and to be frank, annoying even to the pilots. Map size and redline has robbed pilots of kills we earned many times over, and saved us when we shouldn't have been saved. I've made threads practically begging CCP to reduce map size/flight ceiling. Vehicles would have thrived just as well on a smaller map. Don't believe me? If you played a PC in a vehicle, and were stationed in the city, all you need to use is the city to be effective, for it has cover, and the city isn't even 20% of the map size in most cases.

4) Pilots wanted god mode. Another falsehood, most of us didn't want that in the slightest. At least not the true ones. We wanted to have balanced and fun fights as much as the enemy. I've personally made many threads regarding vehicle and AV balance, a decent portion which was well received, not all were good ideas, I'll admit.

If you wish to have the last word in this, I'll let you have it now. But I won't respond to you after this, it will only devolve into an insult match, and I like to avoid those.

Marston, going to try to nto turn this into a massive quote/response thread because they annoy me, so forgive me if I'm unclear or miss a point.

I'll start off by saying that I think a large part of this particular issue is tied to personal preference and I fully understand that everyone will not agree with me and that the game is not made specifically for me...so If I don't agree with another player or the way the game is design, that doesn't mean it's inherently wrong, it simply means I don't particularly agree with that aspect.

---


SO! Let's take a looksie...

So the nerfing bit, I wont argue able to reason behind nerfing because I think there are some really good, and really bad examples of balance choices made and it's not always clear cut. As for new player experience, it's actually rather common for games to require you to play a certain role in order to level it up, and while certaintly not ever game is successful, there are many that are. Either way the existance of such a progression system does not innately create a poor NPE.

That being said I don't feel that requiring a player to start from square one when they want to change roles will make the new player experience a bad one. And even in that case, "square one" isn't entirely accurate since non-role specific points such as Electronics, Shields, ect. will most likely be shared between roles.

---


I apologize if I wasn't clear the point I was trying to make. I was stating that telling a player "Oh don't worry, just don't play for 2 months and then skill into something new." isn't exactly a good argument to make a player enthusiastic about the game. I'm also not entirely sure how the current system avoids this issue anyways, unless you're reffering to players stockpiling SP to then spend on something else as soon as the current role gets nerfed.

In this case, the only real difference is that you grind SP on the current role to spend on a different role, or you grind SP on a different role. If you're grinding to stockpile SP to ultimately spend on something else, it stands to reason that you more or less have nothing else to level up on that role...in which case wouldn't you want to try something different anyways since you ultimately plan to spend the SP on it in the future?


---

Now this point is where we clearly differ. I personally find very little accomplishment in switching to something and isntantly being top tier in something. The process of starting from close to nothing and working my way up to the final result is where I get the enjoyment...not in having the final result simply because I spent the time doing something unrelated. If I'm able to seize the final result immediately, it takes the sense of accomplishment out of it for me and thus the overall enjoyment.

So while you may think my story or example is stupid, what I was trying to get at is "I'm the kind of person that enjoys starting over and learning something new from the ground up, so this sort of system appeals to me and it is not entirely unrealistic." So while, again, I understand that the game is not specifically designed for me... I'm simply trying to state I personally prefer a system where I have to actually play and earn my progression within a role because I think its far more rewarding overall.

Lots of stuff.

When you can tell me and CCP Rattati both how to perfectly balance vehicles in Nova from release onwards without ongoing nerd and buff cycles I think you'll really have traction with that vehicle complaint.

As of right now no existing dust vehicle should transition into Nova. Not a damn one is worthy.

I feel like if they aren't able to figure out balance by now, then adding them "later" isn't going to change that. They're just going to have an infantry only game that suddenly gets vehicles and it will be even worse than it already is.

That really feels like something that needs to be baked in from day one, otherwise we'll end up with some watered down power up system like SW Battlefront. Guess we'll just have to continue the long standing trend of hoping removed assets get returned to the game.

The difficulty is determining what role vehicles have in Dust. Some pilots like what we have now. I'd call those players idiots.

Ads are ******* lame. Not attack choppers, not air to ground attack vehicles, nor even transports.

HAVE aren't tanks. End of story.

And LAV are like luxury cars with awkward and inefficient pop guns attached to them.

If and when Nova does vehicles we need clearly defined roles, limitations, and strengths for vehicles and not just as side shows.

What is a Vanguard? Also, I think talking bonuses is a bit premature since we don't even know if we'll have a level-based SP system in the next game or not.

The difficulty is determining what role vehicles have in Dust.

I agree completely. If we're going to have vehicles we need to go full EVE style with defined roles for each class and size to make sure they're all useful and balanced. What we have right now is an awkward mashup that results in constant FotM chasing and a sour aftertaste to most vehicle v vehicle and infantry v vehicle engagements.

This is why I personally don't trust the approach of nailing down the FPS first. It sounds like a sound plan, but I really fear that the team is more infantry focuses as is and if they continue to focus on infantry only while building the game, they're going to have an even HARDER time making vehicles worthwhile and balanced later on down the line. It really feels like something you put a lot of time and dedication into up front to ensure that everything works together.

I'm just really worried of getting a generic shooter with an EVE skin and maybe some vehicle power ups the year after release. Nothing but speculation at this point, just the whole thing puts me on edge.

I still want fighters - you know, real planes, with real physics, aerodynamics, you know, wings? Then I'll know they've created a realistic fully functional battle engine.

The game hasn't even been released and people are already criticizing the game. Dafuq?

The game hasn't even been released and people are already criticizing the game. Dafuq?

Do you even internet?

Seriously. People started saying Cyberpunk 2077 would suck right after the trailer showed maybe 3-4 years ago, and we won't even get the game until next year.

That game can suck all it wants I'm getting it either way lol.

And this is why video game quality has gone in the toilet, and the customers become paying beta testers.

CCP doesn't have to invest any effort in making a good game to get your money, so why would they?

And this is why video game quality has gone in the toilet, and the customers become paying beta testers.

CCP doesn't have to invest any effort in making a good game to get your money, so why would they?

Do you even internet?

What is this "Internet" you speak of?

If they bring Nova to console, it will have to be Xbox, or the new Nintendo system.

HAHA!

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have laughed. Perhaps you didn't follow what happened during Microsoft's E3 Conference where they announcement that for every game they will release as an Xbox One Exclusive they will also release that same game as a Windows 10 Exclusive. In other words, they just effectively removed any reason for me to buy the Xbox One and just stick to my Windows 10 computer.

Meanwhile, Nintendo featured The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild which effectively "One Punch Man"ed the competition.

What is a Vanguard? Also, I think talking bonuses is a bit premature since we don't even know if we'll have a level-based SP system in the next game or not.

The only vehicle that might have actually acted as intended might've been the dropship lol of they actually nail down vehicle, and anti-vehicle gameplay, then by all means, bring back planets, or introduce citadels so that vehicles have enough room to fit. Just make LAVs cost enough ISK to be taken seriously as an attack vehicle instead of a cheap ride.

I don't agree with trying to balance suits and vehicles at all along the lines of EVE ship classes.

There is no correlation between how they work.

EVE is point and click, DUST depends on your reflex acuity.

EVE ships actually somewhat behave like real world naval ships due to CCP opting for a fluid physics rather than actual vacuum with no gravity physics.

There is no correlation in behavior between a ship and an infantry, a ship and a tank, a ship and a fighter, etc. They should not ever be balanced as though one is a subcap and the other is a cap.

You can dogpile a supercap in EVE and abuse numbers. You cannot simply dogpile a tank in an FPS when there are even team counts in matches.

There is no behavior correlation between EVE and an FPS that translates from one to the other, so justifying making vehicles like caps and supercaps vs subcaps is absolutely unfair.

As long as there is a limited player count in matches, and teams are even there is no justification for making one player greater than another player. Doing so in NOVA would make it so infantry are the dumb people who didn't spec vehicles.

This is precisely the suggestion and mindset that has led to such idiotic imbalances between infantry and vehicles. I would rather cut AV/V entirely and not introduce them at all if the alternative was capital/subcapital balancing style.

You cannot balance dropsuits and vehicles as though they are EVE ships. It was tried before. What we got was DUST 514's eternal AV/V rage spitball hell show. And it was never balanced. Ever. It either favored vehicle drivers with a 50+ K/D rating and made infantry the poor tools who made the wrong skill choices, or they wound up being rolling deathtraps that were TOO easy to cut down.

But yeah, the attitude that vehicles should always be inherently more valuable and useful than infantry at all points was, in my opinion, just as toxic as the idea that "I have an AV weapon, that means tanks should be trivial for me to kill."