DUST Search - Nova's flaws

All Channels

General Discussions

Nova's flaws

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Derrith Erador Fatal Absolution 4169	Posted - 2016.05.10 04:34:00 - [1] - Quote Okay, I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for being this guy, but from what I'm seeing, Nova is headed for disaster. I also foresee that I'm going to be called... whatever derogatory term groundies have for pilots, as my main grievances are, obviously, vehicles, or lack thereof. I'll first start off with non vehicle stuff, and go straight to the suits: 1) Not much variety really: So I'll be honest, I may have just read the wording the wrong way on this one. But if I am reading this correctly, then without further ado: The way I read it, it states that people will have to constantly play the same role to receive the benefits and reap the whole rewards of constantly playing it, to a point. The problem with this is that it locks people in for that set class, giving them little variety to respond to various situations that may demand a different class. Solution: Keep in mind I probably read this wrong, but my idea is to give the player a choice between three separate suits, modules, and weapons (sidearm and main separate). Three was honestly a random number, but continuing... if the mercenary wants to suddenly change one of his classes, he can choose to eradicate one of his classes, and start anew with his new suit. Another idea I'd like to see is extra bonuses to using suit/weapon/module friendly fits that fit the race you're going for. Example: Amarr fat boi gets bonuses to lasers, and armor plates, and the mods/weapons get minor bonuses in turn. 2) Vehicles: I'm going to be honest again, hearing that we're not getting to be in Nova at launch was quite insulting to those who devoted time and SP to vehicles and piloting them. Along with the dedicated AV players as well, because without vehicles, why are you even here?! And to be blunt, the fact that I'm sober is the one thing keeping me from saying quite unspeakable things to you. In order to properly show you what a big mistake removing us, the necessary evil, is, I'm going to have to list all the reasons why it is a terrible idea to push us aside/save us for later: 1) Loss of playerbase: Without vehicles and AV, and no connection to EVE, we bittervet devoted pilots and demolition experts have no reason to play your game, and likely never will. 2) attracting different playerbase: Again, without capsuleers, and pilots/bloweruppers, you will attract a certain playerbase centered around ground combat, I call them COD players. And in the event that you do add us to the fold later, you will ** off not only your current playerbase with that crap, but you will off the vehicle/AV community even more, basically telling us that only now are we worth your time, which is even more insulting, I see this happening for two reasons: A) You take too much time. It's no secret that you guys took way too long to make dust even remotely playable, and by then it was too late. I predict about a year long wait for vehicles to make their dramatic entry, IF we get it. And by then, we'll have forgotten about Nova, and will move on to other things, like having a life. B) Your overly cautious approach. Ironically enough, the lessons you learned during the Rouge Wedding may actually cause Nova to fail. While I see it's hard to balance vehicles, stating this in some nerd newspaper will only solidify the opinion of your playerbase that your weak, and unable to commit. 3) Lack of originality: Without vehicles and our eternal rivals, AV, Nova will be a pretty game, and probably a good one. But it will fall right smack dab in the middle of "every lobby shooter ever". People will see this, get bored and leave, thus you're left with a tiny playerbase, who are COD fans, and will abandon you once Call of Booty, Bad Cops 4 comes out, or their mom buys them the latest console. 4) Bittervet anti-community. A lot of pilots will become immensely butthurt, to the point of playing your game, just to convince people to quit. Granted, you'll already face this, but it will become larger without us. 5) Lack of satisfaction: Any AV/vehicle pilot will tell you the best moments of dust was when they blew up a whole crapload of vehicles, or barely escaping a hellzone of enemy fire by the skin of their teeth. This type of satisfaction is hard to top in any other game, because we cost a lot of money. Blowing us up is the reason some people still play. Now onto the solutions of this crap: 1) Take the hard road, balance vehicles and keep us in Nova. It'll be a headache, but you actually have a few hidden aces, a CPM board with more than half a brain, and quite a few butthurt vehicle/AV players who are still willing to debate and give multiple feedback threads involving the balance. These two weapons are more useful than any software you can buy. All you have to do is use your hearing aids, and LISTEN TO US! 2) Don't bother with vehicles. Don't insult us by adding us in later. If you want this to be a pure ground shooter, make it that. You're liable to ** off more people with us in the picture later, than now. If you take this road, you'd also be best prepared to link Nova up to EVE and Valkyrie, and fucking quickly, you'll lose the ADHD players fast if you don't set Nova apart. 3) If you chose option 2, then you need to provide a place where we devoted pilots can get in the EVE universe. I speak of Valkyrie! By connecting Valkyrie to Nova, and to EVE, you can, in theory, successfully merge these three games together if done right. You'd have to add in ship types, of course. My idea is to have space fighters, atmospheric fighter (support for Nova fighters in FW/PC), and hybrid fighters, able to traverse both systems with ease. Also, don't forget about tanks and ground vehicles, which should stay in Nova. Anyway, enough of my rant, it's taking too much. 99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg Bittervet ADS pilot, redheads are hot.
Jenny Tales Eternal Beings SpaceMonkey's Alliance 148	Posted - 2016.05.10 04:48:00 - [2] - Quote Its not so much that Nova will be like CoD or anything. It's that they're abandoning that aspect of gameplay that so very much deepens the experience. When the RDV used to call in a vehicle almost anywhere, I would call in a LAV in the city map with my sentinel and drive around making sure the city was on lockdown. It's that kind of feeling you get with the interaction between infantry and vehicles that really will hurt Nova if they don't include it. Whatever happened to DS the Drunk Heavy anyway?
LOOKMOM NOHANDS 1019	Posted - 2016.05.10 05:52:00 - [3] - Quote Saying not much variety with nothing but the words from a few people that played a small test version and a couple of of dev interviews may be jumping the gun a bit. Just because it takes some time to skill up a role does not mean you can not skill up multiple roles. At least this way you cant refuse to use something until you have 100% maxed it out while using something else. Having little or no SP allocation to be done manually and naturally growing in the role you enjoy sounds like a great concept to me. I am more than happy vehicles are gone. They were a blight on the game just because CCP never figured out what force multiplier means. Yes CCP seriously boned the timelines on this whole thing. I don't understand why CCP, primarily the PR team, is just plain bad at making announcements. We all know the failures so I won't waste my time listing them out but just ask yourself, "Did CCP seem to learn any valuable lessons from the failures I have witnessed from them?"
Regnier Feros Pielords 1179	Posted - 2016.05.10 11:32:00 - [4] - Quote Fa.g, get on discord I LIKE PIE
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 22453	Posted - 2016.05.10 12:52:00 - [5] - Quote LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: Saying not much variety with nothing but the words from a few people that played a small test version and a couple of of dev interviews may be jumping the gun a bit. Just because it takes some time to skill up a role does not mean you can not skill up multiple roles. At least this way you cant refuse to use something until you have 100% maxed it out while using something else. Having little or no SP allocation to be done manually and naturally growing in the role you enjoy sounds like a great concept to me. I am more than happy vehicles are gone. They were a blight on the game just because CCP never figured out what force multiplier means. Yes CCP seriously boned the timelines on this whole thing. I don't understand why CCP, primarily the PR team, is just plain bad at making announcements. We all know the failures so I won't waste my time listing them out but just ask yourself, "Did CCP seem to learn any valuable lessons from the failures I have witnessed from them?" More so than that... vehicle roles did not exist and there technically were no tanks in Dust 514. They just didn't exist by the modern definition. Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 7999	Posted - 2016.05.10 13:06:00 - [6] - Quote I think that part of the issue here is somehow defining people who play infantry-only shooters and people who play combined-arms shooters as some kind of completely separate communities with conflicting tastes in games. There were plenty of people who came to Dust from infantry-only shooters and found the combined-arms aspect to enhance the gameplay. I think it quite safe to surmise that when Nova brings vehicles back into the game those same kinds of people will adapt and learn to enjoy them. Keep in mind also that one of the biggest factors in crafting a game that lasts through the years is a wide variety of experiences. While Nova will start out being infantry-only on ship interiors, even after planets come out there will be people who still like the ship interiors, and both will still be available. That means you keep the people that want an infantry-only experience while also giving a combined-arms experience to the people who are primarily looking for that. As a bonus, the infantry-only people are likely to try out planetary fights when they start wanting a new experience. Dust 514 was pitched to us in 2012 as eventually having Public Contracts, Faction Warfare, Planetary Conquest, some form of Arena-shooter mode with classic game types from other shooters, and various forms of PvE. Basically, it was supposed to have the same variety of experiences that has allowed EVE Online to be around for 13 years and still be going strong. However, many of those experiences were not initially part of EVE Online. Sovereignty didn't come in until at least a year after the game released, and Faction Warfare was put in in 2008, five years after the game released. It could be argued that if the CCP of 1999-2000 with their limited team and resources had tried to make EVE Online then with all the features it has now, it probably would have been trapped in development hell for years before eventually being shut down just like Dust 514. I was one of the people that was worried at the idea of vehicles not being in at first, but when I look at EVE Online as an example, I understand what they're doing. They want to take the slow-and-steady approach that has occasionally been lost but has most of the time been a guiding principle of EVE Online's development. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
maybe deadcatz Serris Inc 2769	Posted - 2016.05.10 13:49:00 - [7] - Quote Tldr. Also dont jump the gun. Although you are kinda late to that party.the whole passing judgement on a tech demo. Am ded.
Derrith Erador Fatal Absolution 4174	Posted - 2016.05.10 13:55:00 - [8] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: I think that part of the issue here is somehow defining people who play infantry-only shooters and people who play combined-arms shooters as some kind of completely separate communities with conflicting tastes in games. There were plenty of people who came to Dust from infantry-only shooters and found the combined-arms aspect to enhance the gameplay. I think it quite safe to surmise that when Nova brings vehicles back into the game those same kinds of people will adapt and learn to enjoy them. Keep in mind also that one of the biggest factors in crafting a game that lasts through the years is a wide variety of experiences. While Nova will start out being infantry-only on ship interiors, even after planets come out there will be people who still like the ship interiors, and both will still be available. That means you keep the people that want an infantry-only experience while also giving a combined-arms experience to the people who are primarily looking for that. As a bonus, the infantry-only people are likely to try out planetary fights when they start wanting a new experience. Dust 514 was pitched to us in 2012 as eventually having Public Contracts, Faction Warfare, Planetary Conquest, some form of Arena-shooter mode with classic game types from other shooters, and various forms of PvE. Basically, it was supposed to have the same variety of experiences that has allowed EVE Online to be around for 13 years and still be going strong. However, many of those experiences were not initially part of EVE Online. Sovereignty didn't come in until at least a year after the game released, and Faction Warfare was put in in 2008, five years after the game released. It could be argued that if the CCP of 1999-2000 with their limited team and resources had tried to make EVE Online then with all the features it has now, it probably would have been trapped in development hell for years before eventually being shut down just like Dust 514. I was one of the people that was worried at the idea of vehicles not being in at first, but when I look at EVE Online as an example, I understand what they're doing. They want to take the slow-and-steady approach that has occasionally been lost but has most of the time been a guiding principle of EVE Online's development. I'll be honest, I did not think of the spaceship interior maps when writing up this rant, so I can actually see that working out a bit. But I'm still kind of unsold on vehicles being saved for later, especially seeing as they're taking the slow approach. I, and I'm sure many other vehicle pilots/AV mercs have suffered quite a few headaches from Dust and all its issues. To tell us that we're being set aside for later is, in my opinion, rather insulting. Aside from that, the slow approach they're taking in my experience with them has lead to an insanely long wait time. I'm anticipating a year or more, and most of us devoted players don't want to wait that long for the only reason we ever played dust in the first place. I know it sounds like I want Nova to fail, but I don't. I'd like to see it succeed, I'd also like to be there when it does. I respect your optimistic view, and were this anything other than CCP, I would share it, but I lost my optimism with them long ago. Aside from that, if you don't point out the flaws, and buy into the hype, it may lead to a bad game (my opinion). 99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg Bittervet ADS pilot, redheads are hot.
Derrith Erador Fatal Absolution 4174	Posted - 2016.05.10 13:56:00 - [9] - Quote maybe deadcatz wrote: Tldr. Also dont jump the gun. Although you are kinda late to that party.the whole passing judgement on a tech demo. Yeah, I do take a long time, so I'll sum it up for you. No vehicles?! Grrrr, very mad!!! Screw you CCP! Imagine that, but just slightly better worded. 99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg Bittervet ADS pilot, redheads are hot.
maybe deadcatz Serris Inc 2769	Posted - 2016.05.10 14:05:00 - [10] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: maybe deadcatz wrote: Tldr. Also dont jump the gun. Although you are kinda late to that party.the whole passing judgement on a tech demo. Yeah, I do take a long time, so I'll sum it up for you. No vehicles?! Grrrr, very mad!!! Screw you CCP! Imagine that, but just slightly better worded. Dunno. Seems rather silly to have vehicles in the demo. Am ded.

Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 2280	Posted - 2016.05.10 14:18:00 - [11] - Quote Leaving out vehicles at the start won't spell disaster for Nova. In fact it's probably a good idea. My understanding is they've decided to focus resources on making a good infantry shooter first. Yes it's a shame they don't have the resources to make good infantry gameplay and good vehicle gameplay at the same time, but there are always limits to resources. Focussed developement tends to result in better games. Yes, leaving out vehicles sucks for people who love vehicles. However there are plenty of people who enjoy infantry combat. If some people don't play because they only like vehicles, it's only going to be a minor hit on player numbers. Sorry, I know it sucks, but that's just how things are. There are loads of successful shooters without vehicles. Personally I hope CCP does make a good game mode for vehicles. They may be focussing on infantry first, but there was mention of the desire to bring back planetary surface combat. Perhaps if CCP can make a good infantry game based in interiors, they will be able to compliment it with a large scale, open surface mode. Where vehicles are the main focus. Everyone should be either piloting or riding in a vehicle for the majority of the time. Imagine the dream. Game one: vehicle combat. Everyone in vehicles. Move across a large area of open ground to disable defences and reach a facility. Game two: infantry combat. No vehicles. Take control of the facility. Probably result in much better vehicle gamplay than the strange juggling act that goes on in Dust. I'd love to be able to ferry people around a giant open world in a dropship. Maybe one day, but sadly probably not this time.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7731	Posted - 2016.05.10 15:02:00 - [12] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: Okay, I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for being this guy, but from what I'm seeing, Nova is headed for disaster. I also foresee that I'm going to be called... whatever derogatory term groundies have for pilots, as my main grievances are, obviously, vehicles, or lack thereof. I'll first start off with non vehicle stuff, and go straight to the suits: 1) Not much variety really: So I'll be honest, I may have just read the wording the wrong way on this one. But if I am reading this correctly, then without further ado: The way I read it, it states that people will have to constantly play the same role to receive the benefits and reap the whole rewards of constantly playing it, to a point. The problem with this is that it locks people in for that set class, giving them little variety to respond to various situations that may demand a different class. Solution: Keep in mind I probably read this wrong, but my idea is to give the player a choice between three separate suits, modules, and weapons (sidearm and main separate). Three was honestly a random number, but continuing... if the mercenary wants to suddenly change one of his classes, he can choose to eradicate one of his classes, and start anew with his new suit. Another idea I'd like to see is extra bonuses to using suit/weapon/module friendly fits that fit the race you're going for. Example: Amarr fat boi gets bonuses to lasers, and armor plates, and the mods/weapons get minor bonuses in turn. I think you are probably reading it wrong, or at least putting the enthuses in the wrong places. I don't think you will be locked into playing a single role constantly to receive its benefits. As with DUST it will be a matter of progressing faster if you specialize to start with. Just as with DUST I expect you will be able to switch back and forth from Sentinel, to Scout, to Logi fairly early if that is how you want to play, but the guy that plays only Scout will be competitive against veteran players 3 times faster than you. If you want to be a Jack of all triads, you will be a master of none, at least for a while. That is part of what makes progression for vets possible without making them OP against new players. If a new player specializes they can approach a vet's strength in a role, and at a certain point (was around 20 to 25 million SP in DUST) you get as good as you possibly can get in a role so that a 22 million SP specialist is equal in strength to a 95 million SP vet in their area of specialty. Then further progression involves having more options in the roles you can play, without making you OP in any single role. If you don't do it this way, then you have to have to segregate new players from vets and have level tiered battlegrounds like they do in WOW. I prefer CCP's approach where players who have played for a few weeks can take on players who have played for years. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7732	Posted - 2016.05.10 15:24:00 - [13] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: Okay, I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for being this guy, but from what I'm seeing, Nova is headed for disaster. I also foresee that I'm going to be called... whatever derogatory term groundies have for pilots, as my main grievances are, obviously, vehicles, or lack thereof. [...] 2) Vehicles: I'm going to be honest again, hearing that we're not getting to be in Nova at launch was quite insulting to those who devoted time and SP to vehicles and piloting them. Along with the dedicated AV players as well, because without vehicles, why are you even here?! And to be blunt, the fact that I'm sober is the one thing keeping me from saying quite unspeakable things to you. In order to properly show you what a big mistake removing us, the necessary evil, is, I'm going to have to list all the reasons why it is a terrible idea to push us aside/save us for later: 1) Loss of playerbase: Without vehicles and AV, and no connection to EVE, we bittervet devoted pilots and demolition experts have no reason to play your game, and likely never will. 2) attracting different playerbase: Again, without capsuleers, and pilots/bloweruppers, you will attract a certain playerbase centered around ground combat, I call them COD players. And in the event that you do add us to the fold later, you will ** off not only your current playerbase with that crap, but you will off the vehicle/AV community even more, basically telling us that only now are we worth your time, which is even more insulting, I see this happening for two reasons: A) You take too much time. It's no secret that you guys took way too long to make dust even remotely playable, and by then it was too late. I predict about a year long wait for vehicles to make their dramatic entry, IF we get it. And by then, we'll have forgotten about Nova, and will move on to other things, like having a life. B) Your overly cautious approach. Ironically enough, the lessons you learned during the Rouge Wedding may actually cause Nova to fail. While I see it's hard to balance vehicles, stating this in some nerd newspaper will only solidify the opinion of your playerbase that your weak, and unable to commit. 3) Lack of originality: Without vehicles and our eternal rivals, AV, Nova will be a pretty game, and probably a good one. But it will fall right smack dab in the middle of "every lobby shooter ever". People will see this, get bored and leave, thus you're left with a tiny playerbase, who are COD fans, and will abandon you once Call of Booty, Bad Cops 4 comes out, or their mom buys them the latest console. 4) Bittervet anti-community. A lot of pilots will become immensely butthurt, to the point of playing your game, just to convince people to quit. Granted, you'll already face this, but it will become larger without us. 5) Lack of satisfaction: Any AV/vehicle pilot will tell you the best moments of dust was when they blew up a whole crapload of vehicles, or barely escaping a hellzone of enemy fire by the skin of their teeth. This type of satisfaction is hard to top in any other game, because we cost a lot of money. Blowing us up is the reason some people still play. Now onto the solutions of this crap: 1) Take the hard road, balance vehicles and keep us in Nova. It'll be a headache, but you actually have a few hidden aces, a CPM board with more than half a brain, and quite a few butthurt vehicle/AV players who are still willing to debate and give multiple feedback threads involving the balance. These two weapons are more useful than any software you can buy. All you have to do is use your hearing aids, and LISTEN TO US! 2) Don't bother with vehicles. Don't insult us by adding us in later. If you want this to be a pure ground shooter, make it that. You're liable to ** off more people with us in the picture later, than now. If you take this road, you'd also be best prepared to link Nova up to EVE and Valkyrie, and fucking quickly, you'll lose the ADHD players fast if you don't set Nova apart. 3) If you chose option 2, then you need to provide a place where we devoted pilots can get in the EVE universe. I speak of Valkyrie! By connecting Valkyrie to Nova, and to EVE, you can, in theory, successfully merge these three games together if done right. You'd have to add in ship types, of course. My idea is to have space fighters, atmospheric fighter (support for Nova fighters in FW/PC), and hybrid fighters, able to traverse both systems with ease. Also, don't forget about tanks and ground vehicles, which should stay in Nova. Anyway, enough of my rant, it's taking too much. The way I see it, you can have a half ass attempt at vehicles early, which will have no clear role and will be impossible to balance, or they can get the rest of the game working and then focus on vehicles, giving them the attention they deserve. We won't be able to use vehicles on internal maps such as the insides of spaceships anyway, but when PC is developed they will be using the existing outdoor maps. Add in some destructible gates, walls, and equipment etc, then you have a reason to bring in heavy artillery such as tanks or bombers. They become a useful alternative to ample application of remote explosives. Once you need tanks, then you need vehicles to defend against tanks, and you can balance vehicles against vehicles instead of balancing vehicles against infantry. So: Infantry Combat > Planetary Conquest > Vehicles That development path makes sense to me. Each of those is a bloody big undertaking, so it make sense to concentrate on them one at a time. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Heimdallr69 Negative-Feedback. 7269	Posted - 2016.05.10 15:31:00 - [14] - Quote So what I gathered from this is that you have a steam and didn't add me? I see
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7732	Posted - 2016.05.10 15:39:00 - [15] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Dust 514 was pitched to us in 2012 as eventually having Public Contracts, Faction Warfare, Planetary Conquest, some form of Arena-shooter mode with classic game types from other shooters, and various forms of PvE. Basically, it was supposed to have the same variety of experiences that has allowed EVE Online to be around for 13 years and still be going strong. However, many of those experiences were not initially part of EVE Online. Sovereignty didn't come in until at least a year after the game released, and Faction Warfare was put in in 2008, five years after the game released. It could be argued that if the CCP of 1999-2000 with their limited team and resources had tried to make EVE Online then with all the features it has now, it probably would have been trapped in development hell for years before eventually being shut down just like Dust 514. I was one of the people that was worried at the idea of vehicles not being in at first, but when I look at EVE Online as an example, I understand what they're doing. They want to take the slow-and-steady approach that has occasionally been lost but has most of the time been a guiding principle of EVE Online's development. This is a very good point. If you try to add everything at once, then development will flounder and the game will never get released. But an infantry only game can be developed and polished by the team they have, be released and be successful. Then a new planet map based game modes (Planetary Conquest, along with some PUB or FW versions) can be developed and added onto the existing game. Then Vehicles can be developed and added into the Planet based game modes. Each can be perfected and build on the previous step. If they start making money off the Infantry Game while they are developing the Vehicle component, it just allows more resources to be available to get the Vehicle part right. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7732	Posted - 2016.05.10 15:47:00 - [16] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: But I'm still kind of unsold on vehicles being saved for later, especially seeing as they're taking the slow approach. I, and I'm sure many other vehicle pilots/AV mercs have suffered quite a few headaches from Dust and all its issues. To tell us that we're being set aside for later is, in my opinion, rather insulting. World of Tanks already exists, so it is not like starting with Vehicles only and then adding infantry later would carve them a separate niche, and NOVA is supposed to be an FPS first. DUST never got vehicles right. While I can understand your disappointment at having to wait longer for your chosen style of play, I think you are better off waiting for a better implementation of vehicles, than settling for getting a rehash of a failed vehicle system quickly. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Operative 1174 Uuali True Companion Planetary Requisitions 1658	Posted - 2016.05.10 16:33:00 - [17] - Quote I like locking players into a role based on time played, i.e. proficiency. See, part of the problem is that players can just jump around in roles as a match plays out. This allows for the protostomps. A battle shouldn't end up with everything being immediately countered the minute someone brings something like a tank onto the field. Battles will be better, more exciting when players plan ahead, play dedicated roles and are either limited by the roles they can field in one match or limited by how long and what roles they've bothered to actually focus on. As a vehicle user you should want that. You ahould want the guy popping AV at you to have actually wanted to focus on that role rather than just passively train the AV skills just so he can pull it out to immediately counter your tank then swap back to regular ol' run and gun boring shooty shoot now that the thing they hate is off the map. No, infantry should have to deal with my skilled up tank driver with skilled up AV both dedicated to their roles AND hopefully, limited to that role in that match if that is the role they are really wanting to play. A better method for non AVers to have spur of the moment counters would be to have power ups, weapon caches littered around the map or limited AV at depots to have basic counters to vehicles. Beyond that, do what I suggested before on the forums and have two role slots per match. You can then use one of those two pre-chosen fits. Therefore, planning and strategizing a team makeup beforehand would make the difference. Having a team that fields certain elements but not others, i.e. weaknesses makes for a more interesting battle. Not every army has everything. An army is only as strong as what it brings. CCP logic GÇô This isn't an actual product. This is only a project. We might not do it at all.
FraggerMike G.R.A.V.E 340	Posted - 2016.05.10 16:54:00 - [18] - Quote Operative 1174 Uuali wrote: I like locking players into a role based on time played, i.e. proficiency. See, part of the problem is that players can just jump around in roles as a match plays out. This allows for the protostomps. A battle shouldn't end up with everything being immediately countered the minute someone brings something like a tank onto the field. Battles will be better, more exciting when players plan ahead, play dedicated roles and are either limited by the roles they can field in one match or limited by how long and what roles they've bothered to actually focus on. As a vehicle user you should want that. You ahould want the guy popping AV at you to have actually wanted to focus on that role rather than just passively train the AV skills just so he can pull it out to immediately counter your tank then swap back to regular ol' run and gun boring shooty shoot now that the thing they hate is off the map. No, infantry should have to deal with my skilled up tank driver with skilled up AV both dedicated to their roles AND hopefully, limited to that role in that match if that is the role they are really wanting to play. A better method for non AVers to have spur of the moment counters would be to have power ups, weapon caches littered around the map or limited AV at depots to have basic counters to vehicles. Beyond that, do what I suggested before on the forums and have two role slots per match. You can then use one of those two pre-chosen fits. Therefore, planning and strategizing a team makeup beforehand would make the difference. Having a team that fields certain elements but not others, i.e. weaknesses makes for a more interesting battle. Not every army has everything. An army is only as strong as what it brings. That would turn the sandbox into quicksand. "Open world is a term for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in regards to how or when to approach objectives, as opposed to other computer games that have a more linear structure to its gameplay. Open world and free-roaming suggest the absence of artificial barriers, in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity. Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in MMORPG or in other games adhering to the "open world concept". Their main appeal is they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behavior in the direction of their choosing. In these cases, there is often no concrete goal or end to the game. There are limitations to this autonomy through the rules of the simulation and its limitations. But the direction of gameplay may or may not rely ultimately upon the decision of the player, as in some cases this can be completely controllable by the player, the type depends on the requirements and availabilities of the game." CEO of G.R.A.V.E
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 8002	Posted - 2016.05.10 17:15:00 - [19] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: That would turn the sandbox into quicksand. "Open world is a term for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in regards to how or when to approach objectives, as opposed to other computer games that have a more linear structure to its gameplay. Open world and free-roaming suggest the absence of artificial barriers, in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally, open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity. Examples of high level of autonomy in computer games can be found in MMORPG or in other games adhering to the "open world concept". Their main appeal is they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behavior in the direction of their choosing. In these cases, there is often no concrete goal or end to the game. There are limitations to this autonomy through the rules of the simulation and its limitations. But the direction of gameplay may or may not rely ultimately upon the decision of the player, as in some cases this can be completely controllable by the player, the type depends on the requirements and availabilities of the game." Agreed. Forcing a player to "main" a role just to be able to play it right when they need it removes essential freedom from the game. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1426	Posted - 2016.05.10 18:35:00 - [20] - Quote Jenny Tales wrote: When the RDV used to call in a vehicle almost anywhere, I would call in a LAV in the city map with my sentinel and stand there for 5 minutes watching the RDV yoyo it, before an enemy tank finally got the balls to come out the redzone and blow it up. fixed.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 8176	Posted - 2016.05.10 19:37:00 - [21] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Agreed. Forcing a player to "main" a role just to be able to play it right when they need it removes essential freedom from the game. I'm not really sure how requiring a player to actually play a role in order to level it up is removing freedom. You can still skill your character into anything you want, you just like....actually have to actually play that role. To me that makes far more sense than "Weel I've been fighting as a sentinel for this whole time and never touched a logi suit...but now I'll just spend all my SP on logi **** and now I can use the best equipment in the general despite literally never using it before." EVE: Phoenix - 'Rise Again' Trailer
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 13929	Posted - 2016.05.10 20:04:00 - [22] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: "Weel I've been fighting as a sentinel for this whole time and never touched a logi suit...but now I'll just spend all my SP on logi **** and now I can use the best equipment in the general despite literally never using it before." Ssshhh now.... It was the nanites. #ProjectNova
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 15446	Posted - 2016.05.10 20:16:00 - [23] - Quote Your feedback was that of judging a demo as it was a full fledged game that just released. I can imagine you looking at the ultrasound of your first child and saying. "Well, that is no good, he can't get into a good college being that small. He is only the size of a peanut for Christ' s sake! How does he expect to open doors!" Look at it for what it was. A demo. One that was made about 6 months after they first started working on the game. That is pretty damn impressive speed if you ask me. As a foundation, they are getting it right. Dust had many, if not all, of the things you cried Nova is missing, and it failed miserably because its foundation was like building upon sand. Let them do it right this time, and maybe gain some perspective and context. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 13930	Posted - 2016.05.10 20:19:00 - [24] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: "Well, that is no good, he can't get into a good college being that small. He is only the size of a peanut for Christ' s sake! How does he expect to open doors!" I'm going to miss you OEK. I hope you somehow find a way to product nova. #ProjectNova
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 15447	Posted - 2016.05.10 20:22:00 - [25] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: One Eyed King wrote: "Well, that is no good, he can't get into a good college being that small. He is only the size of a peanut for Christ' s sake! How does he expect to open doors!" I'm going to miss you OEK. I hope you somehow find a way to product nova. I'll miss you too, and many other members of the community. Maybe they will let me at least sneak onto the forums... Working on maybe putting myself in position to make something PC gaming worthy, but that is a few steps down the line at the moment. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
LOOKMOM NOHANDS 1021	Posted - 2016.05.10 20:45:00 - [26] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: I think that part of the issue here is somehow defining people who play infantry-only shooters and people who play combined-arms shooters as some kind of completely separate communities with conflicting tastes in games. There were plenty of people who came to Dust from infantry-only shooters and found the combined-arms aspect to enhance the gameplay. I think it quite safe to surmise that when Nova brings vehicles back into the game those same kinds of people will adapt and learn to enjoy them. Keep in mind also that one of the biggest factors in crafting a game that lasts through the years is a wide variety of experiences. While Nova will start out being infantry-only on ship interiors, even after planets come out there will be people who still like the ship interiors, and both will still be available. That means you keep the people that want an infantry-only experience while also giving a combined-arms experience to the people who are primarily looking for that. As a bonus, the infantry-only people are likely to try out planetary fights when they start wanting a new experience. Dust 514 was pitched to us in 2012 as eventually having Public Contracts, Faction Warfare, Planetary Conquest, some form of Arena-shooter mode with classic game types from other shooters, and various forms of PvE. Basically, it was supposed to have the same variety of experiences that has allowed EVE Online to be around for 13 years and still be going strong. However, many of those experiences were not initially part of EVE Online. Sovereignty didn't come in until at least a year after the game released, and Faction Warfare was put in in 2008, five years after the game released. It could be argued that if the CCP of 1999-2000 with their limited team and resources had tried to make EVE Online then with all the features it has now, it probably would have been trapped in development hell for years before eventually being shut down just like Dust 514. I was one of the people that was worried at the idea of vehicles not being in at first, but when I look at EVE Online as an example, I understand what they're doing. They want to take the slow-and-steady approach that has occasionally been lost but has most of the time been a guiding principle of EVE Online's development. "Combined arms" is fine and really pretty good if done right but no way should first person shooting become a secondary role to vehicles and surely vehicles should not set the tone for the entire game. How can you call it combined arms when a person can skill into one thing and ultimately end up owning the battle field until they force a varying number of people (based on the current balance) to stop playing a FPS and start fighting vehicles while hoping to not get killed by the people still playing a FPS? Dust was pitched as a lot of things that mostly did not come true. Eve became what it did because it was not attempting to be slammed into some role and they just developed it out to be a better game as ideas came along. I believe they need to take that same stance with Nova and completely forget about any type of integration with Eve ever.
LOOKMOM NOHANDS 1022	Posted - 2016.05.10 22:04:00 - [27] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: One Eyed King wrote: "Well, that is no good, he can't get into a good college being that small. He is only the size of a peanut for Christ' s sake! How does he expect to open doors!" I'm going to miss you OEK. I hope you somehow find a way to product nova. I'll miss you too, and many other members of the community. Maybe they will let me at least sneak onto the forums... Working on maybe putting myself in position to make something PC gaming worthy, but that is a few steps down the line at the moment. The new stuff coming out is significantly lower the bar for entry to a competitive gaming PC. One example is the new GTX 1070 at $379 is more powerful than last years Titan X at around $1100. RAM is also on a very steep decline thanks to DDR4 becoming more of a standard. If the performance specs per core on the new AMD chips prove to be true a simple 6 core AMD chip should handle games quite easily. Power consumption on chips and on the graphics cards are on the decline meaning high quality 500w and less power supplies are really back on the table. This is also partly thanks to SLI and Crossfire no longer being the main options for going into the much higher end. My prediction is that by the end of this year or very early next year we will see the ability to build a full VR ready PC for between 6 - 700 dollars. To give you an idea on what kind of decline that is that would probably be equal to about an 1800 - 2000 dollar computer if you built it right this minute. Moral of the story: DO NOT BUILD A PC RIGHT NOW. You will be royally screwing yourself as we are about to see the greatest jump in price / performance ratio in history. I am personally struggling to not buy because I want to upgrade so bad but just have to wait until everything is able to progress.
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 8005	Posted - 2016.05.11 02:36:00 - [28] - Quote LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: I think that part of the issue here is somehow defining people who play infantry-only shooters and people who play combined-arms shooters as some kind of completely separate communities with conflicting tastes in games. There were plenty of people who came to Dust from infantry-only shooters and found the combined-arms aspect to enhance the gameplay. I think it quite safe to surmise that when Nova brings vehicles back into the game those same kinds of people will adapt and learn to enjoy them. Keep in mind also that one of the biggest factors in crafting a game that lasts through the years is a wide variety of experiences. While Nova will start out being infantry-only on ship interiors, even after planets come out there will be people who still like the ship interiors, and both will still be available. That means you keep the people that want an infantry-only experience while also giving a combined-arms experience to the people who are primarily looking for that. As a bonus, the infantry-only people are likely to try out planetary fights when they start wanting a new experience. Dust 514 was pitched to us in 2012 as eventually having Public Contracts, Faction Warfare, Planetary Conquest, some form of Arena-shooter mode with classic game types from other shooters, and various forms of PvE. Basically, it was supposed to have the same variety of experiences that has allowed EVE Online to be around for 13 years and still be going strong. However, many of those experiences were not initially part of EVE Online. Sovereignty didn't come in until at least a year after the game released, and Faction Warfare was put in in 2008, five years after the game released. It could be argued that if the CCP of 1999-2000 with their limited team and resources had tried to make EVE Online then with all the features it has now, it probably would have been trapped in development hell for years before eventually being shut down just like Dust 514. I was one of the people that was worried at the idea of vehicles not being in at first, but when I look at EVE Online as an example, I understand what they're doing. They want to take the slow-and-steady approach that has occasionally been lost but has most of the time been a guiding principle of EVE Online's development. "Combined arms" is fine and really pretty good if done right but no way should first person shooting become a secondary role to vehicles and surely vehicles should not set the tone for the entire game. How can you call it combined arms when a person can skill into one thing and ultimately end up owning the battle field until they force a varying number of people (based on the current balance) to stop playing a FPS and start fighting vehicles while hoping to not get killed by the people still playing a FPS? Dust was pitched as a lot of things that mostly did not come true. Eve became what it did because it was not attempting to be slammed into some role and they just developed it out to be a better game as ideas came along. I believe they need to take that same stance with Nova and completely forget about any type of integration with Eve ever. Absolutely not. I cannot disagree more. Dust 514 from it's earliest was designed to be a part of the same living universe that EVE Online represents. The fact that trying to half-ass a connection resulted in one that wasn't as good as we hoped in NO way means we should just throw the baby out with the bathwater. The reason CCP Rattati has been saying what he has about developing EVE integration later in the game's life is because he and all of CCP no doubt realize the essential truth that unlike EVE Valkyrie, they cannot make a stand-alone shooter that competes with other games on the market without being a part of that universe. New Eden was one of the biggest draws of players to this game who actually stuck with the game instead of just trying it once and leaving. I also believe such a link needs to be both in a back-end (market) AND gameplay sense. You must remember the original pitch for Orbital Bombardments where EVE ships were a huge threat to ground forces, and thus Dust players would have surface based anti-orbital installations that could knock EVE ships out in orbit. I believe that taking that concept and designing it in a way that requires a more active approach and is more rewarding for both sides would address the issues of lack of participation that resulted from the sub-par implementation of OBs in Dust 514. I see Project Nova as the return of Clone Soldier technology in New Eden via the Upwell Consortium. First they start with ships because those can't be policed by CONCORD, and then eventually they use their massive economic influence to force legislation allowing us to be deployed on planets, opening the game up for large-scale battles and vehicle dynamics. As to what you said about AV weapons, very early on CCP stated their intent to set up Assault suits to carry 2 Light weapons specifically so that you could fit AV weapons on your normal suit as well as a rifle of your choice, similar to many other games on the market. That was also part of why I liked the concept presented in Features and Ideas Discussion at one point about the Amarr having a capacitor drain grenade, and suit and vehicles having capacitors for running their Active modules. You can develop assets for the sandbox that can be used against vehicles AND infantry similar to how Flux grenades work against both. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Richard Gamerich-R Prima Gallicus 449	Posted - 2016.05.11 04:04:00 - [29] - Quote In my person, I started to play DUST just for the DS and the tanks mechanics (active modules etc.), then for the infantry when I started the assault and the HMG. When CCP added the ADS, it was a second life for my DUSTer. It's so great and so epic when 2 of your team members jump out of your ADS and go for the hack with you who are helping them with a air support, with in the same time others ennemy vehicles who tried to shot your ship etc. Or even when you ask in urgence an extraction, and your ADS come in the next 10s front of you, ready to put you, I don't know that give some epic feelings ! The only problem with the vehicle for me is the "vehicle spam", for the love of god, 2 tanks and 2 ADS/DS max. in skirmish for each team, and 1 tank 1 ADS/DS for domination because there is only one objective. If CCP do that, this game has all his chances to become perfect. Indeed, more vehicles and that unbalance for some reasons the current power of AV infantry vs vehicles. (example : duna spam) I talk in my experience, I know for example that very good pilots in PC can make a very good dynamic in transitions between points, and just for this thing, DUST was for me the best game for the gameplay if we focus this type of teamplay. Just imagine : 2 teams fight very hard between them, but when a ADS come to the city to help his team, that make THE difference who permit to control the city. However in the same time, the pilot of the other team (in tank for example) put an uplink close to an outside point. Consequently all persons who are dead in the city respawn there and with the blaster support of the tank, they push the enemy point. Then when the point is OK, the team who is in outside try to come back in the city with the DS, but this time with also a forge gun to shot the ADS etc etc. And, I don't know for you, but for me it's so epic to see and to hear an ADS who give you an air support when you're at the ground, or even when he drop a full squad on your head. Anyway if CCP use well the vehicles in Nova, this new game will be very awesome and so epic at high level, but without that, I have to agree with Derrith, this game will not be complete in my sense of what I saw in DUST. #portdust514 Good bye DUST 514, officially retired
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13424	Posted - 2016.05.11 04:15:00 - [30] - Quote My replies are underlined in the quote below. Derrith Erador wrote: Okay, I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for being this guy, but from what I'm seeing, Nova is headed for disaster. I also foresee that I'm going to be called... whatever derogatory term groundies have for pilots, as my main grievances are, obviously, vehicles, or lack thereof. I'll first start off with non vehicle stuff, and go straight to the suits: 1) Not much variety really: So I'll be honest, I may have just read the wording the wrong way on this one. But if I am reading this correctly, then without further ado: The way I read it, it states that people will have to constantly play the same role to receive the benefits and reap the whole rewards of constantly playing it, to a point. [...] From what I understood, there will still be freedom of choice with weapons. Just imagine how Splatoon for the WiiU deals with progression for its clothing items and picture that being applied towards weapons as well. I know it's oversimplifying it but that's the best comparison I can come up with and so far the setup still allows for freedom. It doesn't lock you into a certain role. You're just expanding it based on how often you use it. That's how I understand it. I could be wrong though. 2) Vehicles: I'm going to be honest again, hearing that we're not getting to be in Nova at launch was quite insulting to those who devoted time and SP to vehicles and piloting them. [...] I have read a handful of recent articles covering project nova which is detailed in the link below. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=227484&find=unread So far, NOWHERE did it state that the game will not come with vehicles at launch. You, like some others I have seen, are overreacting based on a tech demo that everyone should already know by now based on the articles that the game is not finished yet. Hell, it hasn't even been green lit yet let alone gone into alpha testing. So please stop jumping to conclusions. You're just making up facts that don't exist. Just because CCP has not mentioned vehicles yet it doesn't mean they will definitely not include them at launch. So unless you can prove to everyone here right now that CCP explicitly states that vehicles will not be included at launch I suggest you stop parroting that rumor mill. Now onto the solutions of this crap: [...] Based on how you overreacted over vehicles, I can't take your solutions seriously. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy

Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 8005	Posted - 2016.05.11 11:30:00 - [31] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: My replies are underlined in the quote below. Derrith Erador wrote: Okay, I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for being this guy, but from what I'm seeing, Nova is headed for disaster. I also foresee that I'm going to be called... whatever derogatory term groundies have for pilots, as my main grievances are, obviously, vehicles, or lack thereof. I'll first start off with non vehicle stuff, and go straight to the suits: 1) Not much variety really: So I'll be honest, I may have just read the wording the wrong way on this one. But if I am reading this correctly, then without further ado: The way I read it, it states that people will have to constantly play the same role to receive the benefits and reap the whole rewards of constantly playing it, to a point. [...] From what I understood, there will still be freedom of choice with weapons. Just imagine how Splatoon for the WiiU deals with progression for its clothing items and picture that being applied towards weapons as well. I know it's oversimplifying it but that's the best comparison I can come up with and so far the setup still allows for freedom. It doesn't lock you into a certain role. You're just expanding it based on how often you use it. That's how I understand it. I could be wrong though. 2) Vehicles: I'm going to be honest again, hearing that we're not getting to be in Nova at launch was quite insulting to those who devoted time and SP to vehicles and piloting them. [...] I have read a handful of recent articles covering project nova which is detailed in the link below. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=227484&find=unread So far, NOWHERE did it state that the game will not come with vehicles at launch. You, like some others I have seen, are overreacting based on a tech demo that everyone should already know by now based on the articles that the game is not finished yet. Hell, it hasn't even been green lit yet let alone gone into alpha testing. So please stop jumping to conclusions. You're just making up facts that don't exist. Just because CCP has not mentioned vehicles yet it doesn't mean they will definitely not include them at launch. So unless you can prove to everyone here right now that CCP explicitly states that vehicles will not be included at launch I suggest you stop parroting that rumor mill. Now onto the solutions of this crap: [...] Based on how you overreacted over vehicles, I can't take your solutions seriously. Actually, in the interview he did after the presentation at FanFest, CCP Rattati personally said that vehicles would not be in the game at launch. That part isn't speculation. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 103	Posted - 2016.05.11 12:06:00 - [32] - Quote LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: Saying not much variety with nothing but the words from a few people that played a small test version and a couple of of dev interviews may be jumping the gun a bit. Just because it takes some time to skill up a role does not mean you can not skill up multiple roles. At least this way you cant refuse to use something until you have 100% maxed it out while using something else. Having little or no SP allocation to be done manually and naturally growing in the role you enjoy sounds like a great concept to me. I am more than happy vehicles are gone. They were a blight on the game just because CCP never figured out what force multiplier means. " 1 No I think being forced to use a crappy gun in order to use a decent one is a stupid concept maybe having skilling up as something to make it cost less would be appropriate so if you want to go straight to proto it will take longer than using the weapon to get it to proto but not drastically less like instead of taking 1 month of active SP for complete non-use to get to proto and 2 days of active use it would be like 3 weeks non-use to one week of use for proto maybe having it be harder to use just active sp for proficiency past 1 but very fast with active use "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 22456	Posted - 2016.05.11 12:16:00 - [33] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: Saying not much variety with nothing but the words from a few people that played a small test version and a couple of of dev interviews may be jumping the gun a bit. Just because it takes some time to skill up a role does not mean you can not skill up multiple roles. At least this way you cant refuse to use something until you have 100% maxed it out while using something else. Having little or no SP allocation to be done manually and naturally growing in the role you enjoy sounds like a great concept to me. I am more than happy vehicles are gone. They were a blight on the game just because CCP never figured out what force multiplier means. " 1 No I think being forced to use a crappy gun in order to use a decent one is a stupid concept maybe having skilling up as something to make it cost less would be appropriate so if you want to go straight to proto it will take longer than using the weapon to get it to proto but not drastically less like instead of taking 1 month of active SP for complete non-use to get to proto and 2 days of active use it would be like 3 weeks non-use to one week of use for proto maybe having it be harder to use just active sp for proficiency past 1 but very fast with active use That's more or less how to works in every game dude. To get the good stuff you have to use the not so good stuff. Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
DUST Fiend 18288	Posted - 2016.05.11 12:18:00 - [34] - Quote At this wait I'm just waiting to see CCPs ethereal "plans" actually manifest into reality. I'm like the poster boy for bashing on this project so I try to leave it at that. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire.
Marston VC SVER True Blood RUST415 1853	Posted - 2016.05.11 12:22:00 - [35] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Agreed. Forcing a player to "main" a role just to be able to play it right when they need it removes essential freedom from the game. I'm not really sure how requiring a player to actually play a role in order to level it up is removing freedom. You can still skill your character into anything you want, you just like....actually have to actually play that role. To me that makes far more sense than "Weel I've been fighting as a sentinel for this whole time and never touched a logi suit...but now I'll just spend all my SP on logi ** and now I can use the best equipment in the general despite literally never using it before." What happens to players when their role gets nerfed? Tough luck, I guess the last month you spent soley playing it was a waste. Oh wait, if only we had a system where we could save SP and be able to quickly change into a new role. Listen, I understand that it sounds good to "spec up what you use" but all its going to do is annoy the out of players. Seriously, you want to get people to quit? Make it so that they waste their time on something. World of tanks is a perfect example of how annoying this type of stupid system is. You want to drive the tier 8 Indian panzer tank medium tank? Well guess what, you have to grind through the crappy light tank line in order to get it, including the tier 7 light tank nicknamed by the community the "awful Panther" becauseeeeeeeeee it was generally considered awful. Only to then get a patch later that completely removed the awful Panther and rendered my grind through it completely wasted. OR the fact that some tanks force you to unlock pretty much useless modules before you can move onto the next tank. Only to then have the tank you got get slammed with the nerf bat. This is the type of thing that will happen in nova under this type of system. You'll ** a whole lot of people off when the old system was completely fine the way it was. I know some people said it encouraged flavor of the month. To that I say "so what?", towards the end of dust ccp more or less had the balance down pretty well. It's not like one specific set up was the best at everything. Who cares if people are able to quickly change roles? And just because they can doesn't mean they'll be proficient at it. Proficiency in anything comes with real world practice. Just because I had a maxed out forge gun doesn't mean I was good at using it, it just meant that I wasn't a completely useless sack of meat when a tank or ads came around. Marston VC, STB Director
Marston VC SVER True Blood RUST415 1853	Posted - 2016.05.11 12:33:00 - [36] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Slayer Deathbringer wrote: LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: Saying not much variety with nothing but the words from a few people that played a small test version and a couple of of dev interviews may be jumping the gun a bit. Just because it takes some time to skill up a role does not mean you can not skill up multiple roles. At least this way you cant refuse to use something until you have 100% maxed it out while using something else. Having little or no SP allocation to be done manually and naturally growing in the role you enjoy sounds like a great concept to me. I am more than happy vehicles are gone. They were a blight on the game just because CCP never figured out what force multiplier means. " 1 No I think being forced to use a crappy gun in order to use a decent one is a stupid concept maybe having skilling up as something to make it cost less would be appropriate so if you want to go straight to proto it will take longer than using the weapon to get it to proto but not drastically less like instead of taking 1 month of active SP for complete non-use to get to proto and 2 days of active use it would be like 3 weeks non-use to one week of use for proto maybe having it be harder to use just active sp for proficiency past 1 but very fast with active use That's more or less how to works in every game dude. To get the good stuff you have to use the not so good stuff. I hate this sort of mentality. "Everyone else does it so we should too" that's not true. Dust didn't do that lol. and even so, why does that sound like a good idea to anyone???? How is the new player experience going to be if people are forced to play through crap to get to something decent? That sounds like a recipe for destroying the player base again. Nothing turns a new player off more then getting sent into a game with militia gear and getting stomped by players who already have the good stuff unlocked. At least with dust a new player could quit for two months, come back with a boatload of passive SP and emediately jump into a proto suit/gun. But in this new type of system a new player will quit and just never come back simply because of the grind it'll take for them to get to a respectable set up. The best part is going to be when you have dedicated players who grind through this maze of bs anyway, only to have their role get nerf batted and have to go back to square one in order to find a new role. I mean literally square one. In dust, they might nerf your proto logi class and prompt you to want to skill into something else. But at least you still had a proto logi suit to play and save SP in. I mean, a nerfed proto suit will still be better then any basic frame suit. In this new system, every time you want to change roles, you'll have to start back in the militia/basic frame suit and completely not use any of the better stuff you spent so much time unlocking in the other role. And personally I think that's stupid Marston VC, STB Director
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 103	Posted - 2016.05.11 12:59:00 - [37] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: [quote=LOOKMOM NOHANDS][quote=Mobius Wyvern] As to what you said about AV weapons, very early on CCP stated their intent to set up Assault suits to carry 2 Light weapons specifically so that you could fit AV weapons on your normal suit as well as a rifle of your choice,. well then vanguards should have 3 light weapon slots and some type of bonus against vehicles and AV on top of the general damage bonus so we can have a special niche role of being the 2nd best Av and best killer of AV as well for example " Vanguard bonus: 5% to damage against vehicles and Anti-vehicle(has at least one weapon considered to be effective against vehicles except flux nades and maybe an extra 2% per level for each additional AV weapon so a vanguard would get a 35% bonus in damage against a sentinel with an AHMG and AV grenades when maxed out in skill) Gallente Vanguard bonus: current galmando bonus maybe higher" "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 8005	Posted - 2016.05.11 13:02:00 - [38] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: [quote=LOOKMOM NOHANDS][quote=Mobius Wyvern] As to what you said about AV weapons, very early on CCP stated their intent to set up Assault suits to carry 2 Light weapons specifically so that you could fit AV weapons on your normal suit as well as a rifle of your choice,. well then vanguards should have 3 light weapon slots and some type of bonus against vehicles and AV on top of the general damage bonus so we can have a special niche role of being the 2nd best Av and best killer of AV as well for example " Vanguard bonus: 5% to damage against vehicles and Anti-vehicle(has at least one weapon considered to be effective against vehicles except flux nades and maybe an extra 2% per level for each additional AV weapon so a vanguard would get a 35% bonus in damage against a sentinel with an AHMG and AV grenades when maxed out in skill) Gallente Vanguard bonus: current galmando bonus maybe higher" 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 8185	Posted - 2016.05.11 15:01:00 - [39] - Quote Marston VC wrote: True Adamance wrote: Slayer Deathbringer wrote: LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: Saying not much variety with nothing but the words from a few people that played a small test version and a couple of of dev interviews may be jumping the gun a bit. Just because it takes some time to skill up a role does not mean you can not skill up multiple roles. At least this way you cant refuse to use something until you have 100% maxed it out while using something else. Having little or no SP allocation to be done manually and naturally growing in the role you enjoy sounds like a great concept to me. I am more than happy vehicles are gone. They were a blight on the game just because CCP never figured out what force multiplier means. " 1 No I think being forced to use a crappy gun in order to use a decent one is a stupid concept maybe having skilling up as something to make it cost less would be appropriate so if you want to go straight to proto it will take longer than using the weapon to get it to proto but not drastically less like instead of taking 1 month of active SP for complete non-use to get to proto and 2 days of active use it would be like 3 weeks non-use to one week of use for proto maybe having it be harder to use just active sp for proficiency past 1 but very fast with active use That's more or less how to works in every game dude. To get the good stuff you have to use the not so good stuff. I hate this sort of mentality. "Everyone else does it so we should too" that's not true. Dust didn't do that lol. and even so, why does that sound like a good idea to anyone???? How is the new player experience going to be if people are forced to play through crap to get to something decent? That sounds like a recipe for destroying the player base again. Nothing turns a new player off more then getting sent into a game with militia gear and getting stomped by players who already have the good stuff unlocked. At least with dust a new player could quit for two months, come back with a boatload of passive SP and emediately jump into a proto suit/gun. But in this new type of system a new player will quit and just never come back simply because of the grind it'll take for them to get to a respectable set up. The best part is going to be when you have dedicated players who grind through this maze of bs anyway, only to have their role get nerf batted and have to go back to square one in order to find a new role. I mean literally square one. In dust, they might nerf your proto logi class and prompt you to want to skill into something else. But at least you still had a proto logi suit to play and save SP in. I mean, a nerfed proto suit will still be better then any basic frame suit. In this new system, every time you want to change roles, you'll have to start back in the militia/basic frame suit and completely not use any of the better stuff you spent so much time unlocking in the other role. And personally I think that's stupid Well typically speaking, a role is nerfed if it is OP. Are you worried about people having their crutch taken away and then not allowing them to jump to the second most OP thing instantly? And then passive SP? "having a rough time? Just stop playing the game for two months and come back or instant gratification that you did absolutely nothing to earn!" Is that really a good argument? And yes, every time you want to change roles you'll have to start from scratch. I didn't work as a civil engineer for years then decide to switch to solar design and expect to be a master electrician overnight. I had to start at nothing and work my way up. That's how how learning something new works. Not to mention having to start from the bottom up in a new role actually helps NPE because veterans can't sit comfortable at the top tier and freely switch into other top tier roles endlessly. At some point they'll have to get off their throne and plow the fields again every once in a while. EVE: Phoenix - 'Rise Again' Trailer
LOOKMOM NOHANDS 1024	Posted - 2016.05.11 20:41:00 - [40] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Slayer Deathbringer wrote: LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: Saying not much variety with nothing but the words from a few people that played a small test version and a couple of of dev interviews may be jumping the gun a bit. Just because it takes some time to skill up a role does not mean you can not skill up multiple roles. At least this way you cant refuse to use something until you have 100% maxed it out while using something else. Having little or no SP allocation to be done manually and naturally growing in the role you enjoy sounds like a great concept to me. I am more than happy vehicles are gone. They were a blight on the game just because CCP never figured out what force multiplier means. " 1 No I think being forced to use a crappy gun in order to use a decent one is a stupid concept maybe having skilling up as something to make it cost less would be appropriate so if you want to go straight to proto it will take longer than using the weapon to get it to proto but not drastically less like instead of taking 1 month of active SP for complete non-use to get to proto and 2 days of active use it would be like 3 weeks non-use to one week of use for proto maybe having it be harder to use just active sp for proficiency past 1 but very fast with active use That's more or less how to works in every game dude. To get the good stuff you have to use the not so good stuff. Exactly. Dust is the only game I know of where you can run logi all day and magically become a bad ass heavy or assault or whatever other completely different unrelated role. Sure the concept was fun but it creates proto stomping and hurts the development of players who have not skilled into a specific proto suit that generates lots of extra SP to be applied to other suits. There is also greater monetization in selling boosters that only apply to one suit and multiply the experience gained while using that suit.

Derrith Erador Fatal Absolution 4178	Posted - 2016.05.11 21:41:00 - [41] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: I have read a handful of recent articles covering project nova which is detailed in the link below. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=227484&find=unread So far, NOWHERE did it state that the game will not come with vehicles at launch. You, like some others I have seen, are overreacting based on a tech demo that everyone should already know by now based on the articles that the game is not finished yet. Hell, it hasn't even been green lit yet let alone gone into alpha testing. So please stop jumping to conclusions. You're just making up facts that don't exist. Just because CCP has not mentioned vehicles yet it doesn't mean they will definitely not include them at launch. So unless you can prove to everyone here right now that CCP explicitly states that vehicles will not be included at launch I suggest you stop parroting that rumor mill. Based on how you overreacted over vehicles, I can't take your solutions seriously. "Vehicles, a crucial aspect of Dust 514, will also be missing from Project Nova, which will instead focus entirely on infantry combat. Though +ürnason admits that there might be room to include vehicles in the future, he says their presence in Dust 514 often did more harm than good with all of the balancing issues they created." https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/25/project-nova-eve-online/ The link in which I found it. There will be no vehicles at release but the possibility at a later date is not off of the table. GÇ£WeGÇÖre not planning any vehicles for the first release; itGÇÖs the same philosophy that weGÇÖre approaching the rest of the game with that weGÇÖre not going to do something if we canGÇÖt do it well. You add complexity when you are capable of adding complexity.GÇ¥ http://biomassed.net/2016/04/24/what-we-know-about-project-nova-so-far/ Second link. I had to snippet a bit of the post, but I think I got the main stuff down. Anyway, my point, through all my admitted rage, was not that we were included in the launch of Nova, but the fact that the only way we have to possibly play Nova in our favorite role is based on a "maybe". Put yourself in a pilots shoes for a moment, if you were told that you would have to wait until later to enjoy (different from play) the successor to a game you spent years on, and even then, without a guarantee that your favorite role is in it, you'd be rather pissed as well. 99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg Bittervet ADS pilot, redheads are hot.
DUST Fiend 18290	Posted - 2016.05.11 22:05:00 - [42] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: Anyway, my point, through all my admitted rage, was not that we were included in the launch of Nova, but the fact that the only way we have to possibly play Nova in our favorite role is based on a "maybe". Put yourself in a pilots shoes for a moment, if you were told that you would have to wait until later to enjoy (different from play) the successor to a game you spent years on, and even then, without a guarantee that your favorite role is in it, you'd be rather pissed as well. This combines with my rage at the continuation of a small team with minimal resources and well, bitterness barely covers it :/ I guess I'm just pretty worn down from SOON(tm) Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire.
LOOKMOM NOHANDS 1024	Posted - 2016.05.11 22:36:00 - [43] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: Anyway, my point, through all my admitted rage, was not that we were included in the launch of Nova, but the fact that the only way we have to possibly play Nova in our favorite role is based on a "maybe". Put yourself in a pilots shoes for a moment, if you were told that you would have to wait until later to enjoy (different from play) the successor to a game you spent years on, and even then, without a guarantee that your favorite role is in it, you'd be rather pissed as well. What part of Dust is dead and Nova is a new game are you missing? There is no "we" because you are talking about a group of people on a game that will be totally gone in a couple of weeks. There are no vehicle operators in Nova and obviously will not be at launch. If you don't like it don't play it. Vehicles all but wasted an incredible amount of development time on Dust for what always ended up pissing off one side or another and are in no way a required aspect for a FPS so I can completely agree with Rattati's decision there. Were vehicles fun? Hell yea they were. But vehicles not only affect balancing and resource use but also completely change how maps need to be designed to accommodate them which ends up negatively affecting actual shooter game play. If you don't believe me just look at how stupidly big our maps were just for a total of 32 people making vehicles totally essential at the start of matches and in the event you had no alternate deployment closer to the fight. Go play world of tanks and cry that you don't have a god mode there.
DUST Fiend 18290	Posted - 2016.05.11 22:39:00 - [44] - Quote It's always fun watching people who can't kill vehicles get happy at the thought of COD 514 Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 15468	Posted - 2016.05.11 22:58:00 - [45] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: It's always fun watching people who can't kill vehicles get happy at the thought of COD 514 This is precisely the problem. A small subset of players, who enjoyed the fact their role was on the enjoyable end of over performance, feels that their right to play their role trumps the majority of others. V/AV was never balanced. Trying to cram it into a game with limited resources is foolish. Rattati is trying to make a balanced, playable, fun game, with limited resources. Its understandable to be angry. Its not understandable to be irrational. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
DUST Fiend 18290	Posted - 2016.05.11 23:22:00 - [46] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: project with limited resources And here is the primary problem. We can react however we care to, for some of us the only unique and memorable aspect of the game was that it was a combined arms game, it's not our fault CCP pulled the resources required to adequately program and balance that aspect. Then to compound issues, they use an untrained unpaid focus group to attempt to glean balance issues, leading to the endless run around we had. It's just sad to be fed yet another maybe while we sit on our hands and pray Nova isn't just a dumbed down shooter with an EVE skin. Double jump. Double kill. The mainstream is strong in this one. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13425	Posted - 2016.05.11 23:27:00 - [47] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: I have read a handful of recent articles covering project nova which is detailed in the link below. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=227484&find=unread So far, NOWHERE did it state that the game will not come with vehicles at launch. You, like some others I have seen, are overreacting based on a tech demo that everyone should already know by now based on the articles that the game is not finished yet. Hell, it hasn't even been green lit yet let alone gone into alpha testing. So please stop jumping to conclusions. You're just making up facts that don't exist. Just because CCP has not mentioned vehicles yet it doesn't mean they will definitely not include them at launch. So unless you can prove to everyone here right now that CCP explicitly states that vehicles will not be included at launch I suggest you stop parroting that rumor mill. Based on how you overreacted over vehicles, I can't take your solutions seriously. "Vehicles, a crucial aspect of Dust 514, will also be missing from Project Nova, which will instead focus entirely on infantry combat. Though +ürnason admits that there might be room to include vehicles in the future, he says their presence in Dust 514 often did more harm than good with all of the balancing issues they created." https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/25/project-nova-eve-online/ The link in which I found it. There will be no vehicles at release but the possibility at a later date is not off of the table. GÇ£WeGÇÖre not planning any vehicles for the first release; itGÇÖs the same philosophy that weGÇÖre approaching the rest of the game with that weGÇÖre not going to do something if we canGÇÖt do it well. You add complexity when you are capable of adding complexity.GÇ¥ http://biomassed.net/2016/04/24/what-we-know-about-project-nova-so-far/ Second link. I had to snippet a bit of the post, but I think I got the main stuff down. Anyway, my point, through all my admitted rage, was not that we were included in the launch of Nova, but the fact that the only way we have to possibly play Nova in our favorite role is based on a "maybe". Put yourself in a pilots shoes for a moment, if you were told that you would have to wait until later to enjoy (different from play) the successor to a game you spent years on, and even then, without a guarantee that your favorite role is in it, you'd be rather pissed as well. First off... holy **** how did I miss that bit of information? I'm starting to wonder if I'm going to need prescription glasses at this rate. Second, it is extremely rare for me to see someone actually take up my challenge of backing up their claims like you did. The majority of the time I get replies like "I'm not going to look it up for you. Google it yourself" or they just change subjects or ignore my request altogether. You, on the other hand, actually backed up your claim with actual sources. Bravo. I will now take your solutions that you posted seriously. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
LOOKMOM NOHANDS 1025	Posted - 2016.05.11 23:45:00 - [48] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: It's always fun watching people who can't kill vehicles get happy at the thought of COD 514 Or maybe no one wants to play a shooter where they have to throw away the ability to kill infantry and run around chasing some loser that's going to run into the red line to protect his precious k/d. Whats more fun is watching the scrubs with no gun game cry because they wont be able to keep their precious god mode into a totally new game. Rattati's plans are sending the tears flowing from the scrubs that killed Dust 514 so I am more sold on the concept than ever. Want to proto stomp? Too bad you get to play in a ****** suit to skill up that suit. Want to call in god mode and force several people to have to work together and kill just you weakening the rest of their team? Too bad go play something else. Many of these people will quickly argue its CCPs fault for designing it that way and now that they are fixing it they are crying even more so screw em. I can only hope that Rattati stays steady on this course and forces them to not even consider joining Nova.
Marston VC SVER True Blood RUST415 1854	Posted - 2016.05.12 00:38:00 - [49] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: [quote=Marston VC][quote=True Adamance][quote=Slayer Deathbringer][quote=LOOKMOM NOHANDS]Saying not much variety with nothing but the words from a few people that played a small test version and a couple of of dev interviews may be jumping the gun a bit. Just because it takes some time to skill up a role does not mean you can not skill up multiple roles. At least this way you cant refuse to use something until you have 100% maxed it out while using something else. Having little or no SP allocation to be done manually and naturally growing in the role you enjoy sounds like a great concept to me..... Well typically speaking, a role is nerfed if it is OP. Are you worried about people having their crutch taken away and then not allowing them to jump to the second most OP thing instantly? 1.) I'd argue against that "typically" statement 2.) Im not worried about "crutches" being taken away, I'm worried about player retention and the new player experience. Both of which are things ccp is notoriously bad at. More specifically, I'm worried about transitioning from class to class and from the new player experience to someone who's actually competitive. And then passive SP? "having a rough time? Just stop playing the game for two months and come back or instant gratification that you did absolutely nothing to earn!" Is that really a good argument? Well since you gave approximately zero substance in rebuttal to that point I'd say "yes" it is a good argument. You even contradicted your own statement. The fact a potential player WAITED two months to then come back and grab a specific role is far more then doing "absolutely nothing" they paid by waiting! FFS this is a video game! Having to wait two months for anything is a long time! They do this is in eve too with the passive sp system they have and eve online is one of the best mmos out there..... And yes, every time you want to change roles you'll have to start from scratch. I didn't work as a civil engineer for years then decide to switch to solar design and expect to be a master electrician overnight. I had to start at nothing and work my way up. That's how how learning something new works. Good thing we're playing a video game so we have the potential to avoid all that rubbish. "That's how learning something works"? Are you kidding me??? It's a video game! Your not actually learning how to operate combat rifles! Your literally grinding points in order to unlock the ability to use them! The discussion were having here is about "how" this grind works/should work. Saying "well the way it works in real life is crappy so it should also be that way in a video game" is literally a non-answer. You, in one paragraph, did exactly what I made the original comment for. "in real life it really blows that I spent 8 years specializing as a civil engineer and for one reason or another decided to become an electrician and had to waste another 6 years before I got the permit to legally call myself an electrician so therefore the same bs I had to deal with in real life should be mimicked in this video game" is all I read right there. If that actually sounds like a pleasing game mechanic to you then..... Well anyway. I don't have hard proof of it but I'd guess that most people arent playing video games for the sake of mimicking real life...... Not to mention having to start from the bottom up in a new role actually helps NPE because veterans can't sit comfortable at the top tier and freely switch into other top tier roles endlessly. At some point they'll have to get off their throne and plow the fields again every once in a while. Any benefit your theory might have is negated by the overall negative this type of skill progression system brings. The main one being that it's an annoying system. It's annoying because it makes it hard on new players, forcing them to grind, and it's annoying on vets too because they too have to grind if they do want to become more flexible. Grinding is the most annoying aspect of any mmo. It's one of the single largest factor that burns people put. And grinding exactly what this type of system will create. Eve online does not have this and the game has been running strong for 13 years. Dust was a hybrid that I liked a lot because you could always choose to grind and get things faster, or not play at all and come back a few months later to try something new. There were a lot of things wrong with dust. Their skill progress system was pretty close to the bottom in terms of priority issues. The only negative it had at all was how it was presented to new players in that it could be confusing, and the fact that it does allow for easier FOTM play. But I never had a problem with FOTM anyway. Super competitive players are always going to strive for the the most op weapon. FOTM is a result of those people, not the system itself. The only difference changing the skill system will have on it will be the time it takes for these people to switch from flavor to flavor being a bit longer then before. AT THE EXPENSE of literally everyone else who just wants to play the game normally and are now also forced to grind. Which is bad. Have I mentioned that grinding is bad? Marston VC, STB Director
DUST Fiend 18291	Posted - 2016.05.12 00:39:00 - [50] - Quote LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: I can only hope that Rattati stays steady on this course and forces them to not even consider joining Nova. You so hard, shunning players who enjoyed a part of the game that was sold to them from day one. Very badass, such vet, wow, much cool. Also only bads didn't have at least one vehicle friend and some AV, so really only bads got trolled by vehicle users Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire.

Marston VC SVER True Blood RUST415 1854	Posted - 2016.05.12 00:43:00 - [51] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: It's always fun watching people who can't kill vehicles get happy at the thought of COD 514 FEEL MY OPTIMISM ALREADY Marston VC, STB Director
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 15468	Posted - 2016.05.12 01:04:00 - [52] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: One Eyed King wrote: project with limited resources And here is the primary problem. We can react however we care to, for some of us the only unique and memorable aspect of the game was that it was a combined arms game, it's not our fault CCP pulled the resources required to adequately program and balance that aspect. Then to compound issues, they use an untrained unpaid focus group to attempt to glean balance issues, leading to the endless run around we had. It's just sad to be fed yet another maybe while we sit on our hands and pray Nova isn't just a dumbed down shooter with an EVE skin. Double jump. Double kill. The mainstream is strong in this one. Limited resources is a problem, but it is the reality. I would hardly call a group of PC gamers, dedicated enough to travel to Iceland for Fanfest untrained. And paid or unpaid is irrelevant. The feedback was not about balance or whatnot, but whether it was fundamentally sound, smooth, etc. It was about the foundation of the game, the skeleton of it, and nothing more. That the foundation of it got good reviews is wonderful news. How many times did we complain about all the fundamental aspects of Dust that got in the way of all the unique parts of it? Hit detection issues, poor framerate, falling through maps, all rendered the great aspects of Dust moot. If Dust is to be saved, for the long term, it must rest on a solid foundation. That is the important part first and foremost. I might not even get to play the game for being at this point in time, purely a console gamer, but even I recognize that this is the path that must be taken if I am ever to even have the opportunity to play the game I thought Dust could be. Being negative about the little ember of hope that is Nova will not fan the ember enough to produce flames adequately large to see combined combat. If you ever hope to have a good, viable, long term combined combat game THESE are the steps that must be taken. There are no shortcuts. There is no wand waving. There are no miracles. Be angry. Be frustrated. But be realistic. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13428	Posted - 2016.05.12 01:25:00 - [53] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: One Eyed King wrote: project with limited resources And here is the primary problem. We can react however we care to, for some of us the only unique and memorable aspect of the game was that it was a combined arms game, it's not our fault CCP pulled the resources required to adequately program and balance that aspect. Then to compound issues, they use an untrained unpaid focus group to attempt to glean balance issues, leading to the endless run around we had. It's just sad to be fed yet another maybe while we sit on our hands and pray Nova isn't just a dumbed down shooter with an EVE skin. Double jump. Double kill. The mainstream is strong in this one. Limited resources is a problem, but it is the reality. I would hardly call a group of PC gamers, dedicated enough to travel to Iceland for Fanfest untrained. And paid or unpaid is irrelevant. The feedback was not about balance or whatnot, but whether it was fundamentally sound, smooth, etc. It was about the foundation of the game, the skeleton of it, and nothing more. That the foundation of it got good reviews is wonderful news. How many times did we complain about all the fundamental aspects of Dust that got in the way of all the unique parts of it? Hit detection issues, poor framerate, falling through maps, all rendered the great aspects of Dust moot. If Dust is to be saved, for the long term, it must rest on a solid foundation. That is the important part first and foremost. I might not even get to play the game for being at this point in time, purely a console gamer, but even I recognize that this is the path that must be taken if I am ever to even have the opportunity to play the game I thought Dust could be. Being negative about the little ember of hope that is Nova will not fan the ember enough to produce flames adequately large to see combined combat. If you ever hope to have a good, viable, long term combined combat game THESE are the steps that must be taken. There are no shortcuts. There is no wand waving. There are no miracles. Be angry. Be frustrated. But be realistic. ^This Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
DUST Fiend 18291	Posted - 2016.05.12 01:51:00 - [54] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Being negative about the little ember of hope that is Nova will not fan the ember enough to produce flames adequately large to see combined combat. If you ever hope to have a good, viable, long term combined combat game THESE are the steps that must be taken. There are no shortcuts. There is no wand waving. There are no miracles. Be angry. Be frustrated. But be realistic. The question really is though, how long will we continue to wait to see even a glimmer of that original vision? And will it arive before the market is flooded with similar titles? Purely speculation at this point, but I lose faith when Hilmar repeatedly distances himself from the DUST IP and continues to keep resources low. Just because it's a reality doesn't mean we can't be pissed about it, or that we aren't being realistic. It's not incumbent upon us to stoke the flames of enthusiasm for CCP, it's their job to provide exciting and innovative content to get us excited for. I get that they have to build the foundation, that's not my gripe. My gripe is that they're trying to build a foundation with skeleton crew and clay bricks because that's all they've been given after all this time. Really though all the negativity and optimism in the world is entirely pointless if Hilmar ends up canning this project too. You could argue that it's up to us to build that excitement but I'm sorry, people were very clear they wanted Legion or for more to be done with DUST. It was very clear we have a passionate if not dysfunctional community that loves this game on both sides of the aisle. I guess it just boils my blood when Hilmar seemingly refuses to acknowledge the treasure trove he's sitting on as he repeatedly looks like he just caught Ebola whenever DUST is mentioned. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 8191	Posted - 2016.05.12 01:53:00 - [55] - Quote 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. EVE: Phoenix - 'Rise Again' Trailer
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 8191	Posted - 2016.05.12 01:55:00 - [56] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Really though all the negativity and optimism in the world is entirely pointless if Hilmar ends up canning this project too. You could argue that it's up to us to build that excitement but I'm sorry, people were very clear they wanted Legion or for more to be done with DUST. It was very clear we have a passionate if not dysfunctional community that loves this game on both sides of the aisle. I think we have a very different memory of how the player base reacted to the Legion announcement a Fan Fest 2014 EVE: Phoenix - 'Rise Again' Trailer
DUST Fiend 18291	Posted - 2016.05.12 02:00:00 - [57] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Really though all the negativity and optimism in the world is entirely pointless if Hilmar ends up canning this project too. You could argue that it's up to us to build that excitement but I'm sorry, people were very clear they wanted Legion or for more to be done with DUST. It was very clear we have a passionate if not dysfunctional community that loves this game on both sides of the aisle. I think we have a very different memory of how the player base reacted to the Legion announcement a Fan Fest 2014 That's because Hilmar all but shut down the game, without releasing anything other than a small video for a game that never came. What really fanned the flames too was players who spent hundreds of dollars to go to fanfest for the next big thing in DUST, only to be told to **** off by Hilmar. PLENTY of people wanted a port, wanted "Phoenix", wanted LongLiveLegion. We had what, two years of that with nothing but balance shuffles while we waited for more info? Yes, people were pissed, because CCP built us up only to tear us down in one of the worst PR blunders I've ever witnessed from a gaming company. The fact that so many stayed past that is testament to how much people love this game, and wanted it to continue. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13430	Posted - 2016.05.12 02:32:00 - [58] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Really though all the negativity and optimism in the world is entirely pointless if Hilmar ends up canning this project too. You could argue that it's up to us to build that excitement but I'm sorry, people were very clear they wanted Legion or for more to be done with DUST. It was very clear we have a passionate if not dysfunctional community that loves this game on both sides of the aisle. I think we have a very different memory of how the player base reacted to the Legion announcement a Fan Fest 2014 That's because Hilmar all but shut down the game, without releasing anything other than a small video for a game that never came. What really fanned the flames too was players who spent hundreds of dollars to go to fanfest for the next big thing in DUST, only to be told to **** off by Hilmar (Rouge?). PLENTY of people wanted a port, wanted "Phoenix", wanted LongLiveLegion. We had what, two years of that with nothing but balance shuffles while we waited for more info? Yes, people were pissed, because CCP built us up only to tear us down in one of the worst PR blunders I've ever witnessed from a gaming company. The fact that so many stayed past that is testament to how much people love this game, and wanted it to continue. We're masochists. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
DUST Fiend 18293	Posted - 2016.05.12 02:33:00 - [59] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: We're masochists. I believe that's been scientifically proven by this point. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire.
Derrith Erador Fatal Absolution 4178	Posted - 2016.05.12 03:01:00 - [60] - Quote LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: Derrith Erador wrote: Anyway, my point, through all my admitted rage, was not that we were included in the launch of Nova, but the fact that the only way we have to possibly play Nova in our favorite role is based on a "maybe". Put yourself in a pilots shoes for a moment, if you were told that you would have to wait until later to enjoy (different from play) the successor to a game you spent years on, and even then, without a guarantee that your favorite role is in it, you'd be rather pissed as well. What part of Dust is dead and Nova is a new game are you missing? There is no "we" because you are talking about a group of people on a game that will be totally gone in a couple of weeks. There are no vehicle operators in Nova and obviously will not be at launch. If you don't like it don't play it. Vehicles all but wasted an incredible amount of development time on Dust for what always ended up pissing off one side or another and are in no way a required aspect for a FPS so I can completely agree with Rattati's decision there. Were vehicles fun? Hell yea they were. But vehicles not only affect balancing and resource use but also completely change how maps need to be designed to accommodate them which ends up negatively affecting actual shooter game play. If you don't believe me just look at how stupidly big our maps were just for a total of 32 people making vehicles totally essential at the start of matches and in the event you had no alternate deployment closer to the fight. Go play world of tanks and cry that you don't have a god mode there. 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. 99% of what Derrith says is stupidity. -D3lta Blitzkrieg Bittervet ADS pilot, redheads are hot.

LOOKMOM NOHANDS 1026	Posted - 2016.05.12 03:23:00 - [61] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: 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. The commando suit is just another suit which does not require map changes to make it viable and certainly does not require special weapons to kill it. Your argument there is just not valid in anyway. So because EA makes a golf game they should put golf in madden? As for the transport aspect when you are not putting people and objects hundreds or thousands of meters apart then transport is not required. I would much rather be able to spawn into action and fight as oppose to wasting 3 - 4 minutes every time I die because we dont have anything for deployment closer to the action. No matter what maps are required to be bigger for vehicles to be functional. Just look at the map that was in the demo and tell me where there is any ability to even use a vehicle. Aside from just map size the overall design has to be seriously adjusted. I agree not all pilots want god mode but lets be honest the majority of tankers were nothing more than k/d padders.
Marston VC SVER True Blood RUST415 1854	Posted - 2016.05.12 07:13:00 - [62] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: 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. And that's the entire confusing part about this. How are they going to deal with the power grid and CPU/other broader skills? The answer is that they're either scrapping them all together, or they're going to have the same old skill system anyway and just make it so that you unlock "proficiency" bonuses through playing roles. Which wouldn't be such a bad thing. I'm not totally against a system like this. I play the crap out of world of tanks. Ill start a new playthroufh on fallout 4 just to get that starting new sensation and trying out a new build. But it's still annoying....... And I think Most people will feel the same way about it. I'll be fine either way, I just think the system they had in dust was superior to what they implied so far. GRANTED we have no idea how they're going to implement this new system. So much depends on the execution that it's hard to say weather or not it'll be good. Basically, if they do it like battlefield then I'll probably hate the game. If they do it like dust then I'll love it. If it's some sort of compromise that still maintains a fair level of complexity similar to dust then I'll be okay with it. But will just have to wait and see. Marston VC, STB Director
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 22465	Posted - 2016.05.12 07:54:00 - [63] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: 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. Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
DUST Fiend 18294	Posted - 2016.05.12 11:13:00 - [64] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Derrith Erador wrote: 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. But, that's what happens when a company doesn't want to commit to a game, you have to take the scraps you're given :/ Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 22465	Posted - 2016.05.12 14:49:00 - [65] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: True Adamance wrote: Derrith Erador wrote: 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. Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 8007	Posted - 2016.05.12 14:59:00 - [66] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: True Adamance wrote: Derrith Erador wrote: 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. 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 103	Posted - 2016.05.13 11:30:00 - [67] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: [quote=LOOKMOM NOHANDS][quote=Mobius Wyvern] As to what you said about AV weapons, very early on CCP stated their intent to set up Assault suits to carry 2 Light weapons specifically so that you could fit AV weapons on your normal suit as well as a rifle of your choice,. well then vanguards should have 3 light weapon slots and some type of bonus against vehicles and AV on top of the general damage bonus so we can have a special niche role of being the 2nd best Av and best killer of AV as well for example " Vanguard bonus: 5% to damage against vehicles and Anti-vehicle(has at least one weapon considered to be effective against vehicles except flux nades and maybe an extra 2% per level for each additional AV weapon so a vanguard would get a 35% bonus in damage against a sentinel with an AHMG and AV grenades when maxed out in skill) Gallente Vanguard bonus: current galmando bonus maybe higher" 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. a commando "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
DUST Fiend 18310	Posted - 2016.05.13 20:28:00 - [68] - Quote True Adamance wrote: The difficulty is determining what role vehicles have in Dust. 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. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist
Alena Asakura Rogue Clones Yulai Federation 973	Posted - 2016.05.14 07:50:00 - [69] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: True Adamance wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: True Adamance wrote: Derrith Erador wrote: 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. 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. 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.
Alena Asakura Rogue Clones Yulai Federation 973	Posted - 2016.05.14 07:53:00 - [70] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: True Adamance wrote: The difficulty is determining what role vehicles have in Dust. 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. This is why I'm concerned that Nova is only going to end up a FPS. The FPS junkies will love it. Everyone else will just see it as another FPS....

Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 8013	Posted - 2016.05.14 13:35:00 - [71] - Quote Alena Asakura wrote: 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. Those would be a role, yeah. I'm gonna level with you guys here and say that if CCP ever announces they've 100% cancelled fixed-wing aircraft, I am literally going to cry myself to sleep. Followed by drinking. DON'T DO IT CCP. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
SAMEERio Pug-Nus The-Office 366	Posted - 2016.05.14 14:21:00 - [72] - Quote The game hasn't even been released and people are already criticizing the game. Dafuq? Eat my Shorts!
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 8014	Posted - 2016.05.15 03:08:00 - [73] - Quote SAMEERio wrote: The game hasn't even been released and people are already criticizing the game. Dafuq? Yup. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
DUST Fiend 18316	Posted - 2016.05.15 13:58:00 - [74] - Quote SAMEERio wrote: The game hasn't even been released and people are already criticizing the game. Dafuq? Do you even internet? Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 8016	Posted - 2016.05.15 15:46:00 - [75] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: SAMEERio wrote: 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
DUST Fiend 18316	Posted - 2016.05.15 16:18:00 - [76] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: SAMEERio wrote: 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. I still hope Nova doesn't end up as a generic FPS cash grab, guess we'll just wait and see what road it ultimately travels. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist
Press Attache The Office of The Attorney General 407	Posted - 2016.05.15 18:04:00 - [77] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: 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? Forum representative for Mr. Hybrid Vayu: The Attorney General.
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 8016	Posted - 2016.05.15 20:46:00 - [78] - Quote Press Attache wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: 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? He was referring to Cyberpunk 2077, which we still know nothing about. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
DUST Fiend 18316	Posted - 2016.05.15 20:58:00 - [79] - Quote Press Attache wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: 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? This is funny because I'm basically the poster boy for bashing on CCP for the way they've handled this game and it's potential predecessors. My comment was simply eluding to the fact that Cyberpunk 2077 is an awesome concept and while yes, I could nitpick on specifics, the game has the right setting and tone for me to not really care all that much at the moment. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist
SAMEERio Pug-Nus The-Office 370	Posted - 2016.05.15 21:12:00 - [80] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: SAMEERio wrote: The game hasn't even been released and people are already criticizing the game. Dafuq? Do you even internet? What is this "Internet" you speak of? Eat my Shorts!

DUST Fiend 18316	Posted - 2016.05.15 21:33:00 - [81] - Quote SAMEERio wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: SAMEERio wrote: The game hasn't even been released and people are already criticizing the game. Dafuq? Do you even internet? What is this "Internet" you speak of? It's a magical land where everything tastes like salt and the tears flow like golden showers from way on high. PRAISE BE TO THE INTERNET, HARBINGER OF RANDOM OUTBURSTS AND CAT GIFS GALORE!!! Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist
Xeger's Hammer Paladin Survey Force Amarr Empire 32	Posted - 2016.06.30 23:39:00 - [82] - Quote I rarely say anything on the forums, but alas, I must open my fat mouth. While it's nice that CCP deleted dust514 from existence without any sort of replacement, which means they were losing money hanging on to dust, also means that the sacrifice of at most 2,000 genuine fans was worth it. Creating a new fps under the same flag as the people who said, " we have a ten year plan." Well they couldn't keep that promise, so anything else is at best: questionable. If they bring Nova to console, it will have to be Xbox, or the new Nintendo system. PlayStation would probably not want to have a game abandon their players. As far as graphics, they're stunning. Gameplay, and content is at best questionable. Since its a repackaged form of dust, he is right in assuming it it's going to be like dust. If you want to butter up a fan base, you only need to render 514 in a better quality engine. They already have all guns and suits, basically it would be the same as Dodge taking all of its 1970's charger engine parts and putting them in a 2017 body and calling it a new car. Nova in Spanish means 'No-Go'. Ask Chevrolet how nova sales did south of the border. You can't put a new name on an old piece of crap. It's still sh*t no matter what you call it. The best concept 514 has going for it is the whole immortal, 'Live, Die, Repeat, Tom Cruise thing. The concept is awesome. But just the fact that they used a polished dust match complete with an RCU, and acquisition terminal means to me that they haven't really put any serious thought into the actual game itself. If you people can't see that you're being trolled, in the same way squaresoft trolled final fantasy fans for decades, saddens me. This is equivalent off final fantasy vii, advent children. Will they release an outstanding fps, I think so. Will they do it soon? That's a big no. Not if Dust taught them anything. I played dust right at the end of open beta, from which dust never really left beta status. I have to assume that since ccp can even create dust means they are way smarter than me. I get that. I accept it. That being said I don't see them sticking their hand on a hot burner a second time. I once asked, I think it was ccp rattatti or logibro, which came first : the special effects and updates, the pretty sparkles; or the lag. Whichever it was responded that that was a good question. But to answer questions like that takes money, and processing power, and since my cell phone has more processing power than ps3, it's easy to see why it was scrapped. Jurassic park had 2,000,000 lines of code, even they pulled the plug. With ps3 shut down coming soon, I can't be mad about that. I can be mad about being trolled. I don't think for a second that I'm alone when I say I have great ideas on how to make Nova great. We all do. Do I think repackaging 514 is the answer, no I don't. Can it be argued that gran turismo was the greatest driving simulator in the late 90s and early 00s. It was the best. But there's only a few who have watched the documentary Kaz who know that he was developing the codes and physics used in his game all the way back on the original Nintendo. I feel like ccp is capable of competing with any fps out there. And they will come up with concepts that will amaze us. Infinite warfare is a good example of that. But you have to go all the way back to mw3 to know that they tinkered with weightlessness. And I can bet that when all is said and done, no one will recognize nova as 514. Personal treat: My ' I have a dream' vision. I can see Mercs being dropped out of a ship with mag boots onto the hull of a titan cruiser with the mission of capturing 2 of 3 points to disable the vessel. The defending team coming from out of the hull to get rid of the pesky invaders. Debris and hull damage constantly changing the look of the battlefield. Hull breaches blasting entire squads into space. The sudden battle to sabotage a caldari jump gate by gallente rebels to hamper caldari and amarr trading. Pirate squads ambush minmatar arms shipments leaving entire planets fubar'd. Mercy using thruster packs to fly about the map only to be shot down by a lone caldari sniper and his kaalakiota rifle head-glitching out of some maintenance tube. I know that there is a conceptual artist like myself who has all of already planned out. Maybe even the first wire mesh of some tropical plant, or maybe my dream of having innocent civilians randomly fleeing through corridors to get away, and killing civilians is like friendly fire, and cost you loyalty points when you kill one. I can dream. Moral of the story What they showed at fan fest was their way of trolling us. I think we're all jumping before the trigger on this one. Am I willing to wait for them. Yes. =ƒÄ¦...Ridin' through the system in a ship with no name...=ƒÄ¦
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 13582	Posted - 2016.06.30 23:56:00 - [83] - Quote Xeger's Hammer wrote: 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. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
LOOKMOM NOHANDS 1173	Posted - 2016.07.01 00:03:00 - [84] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Xeger's Hammer wrote: 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. Yea Microsoft seems to be planning to go in sort of the same route as the steam boxes. I would not be surprised if the next "Xbox" is basically just an Alienware Alpha with win 10 on it to please the console players. FAREWELL 514 /// FAREWELL CCP UNTIL WE HAVE NOVA OR FOREVER WHICH EVER ONE COMES FIRST
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13063	Posted - 2016.07.01 05:12:00 - [85] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: 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. If I recall correctly, the Vanguard is going to be the rename of the Commando suits. I haven't been made privy to final plans for classes then the Former Commandos might be joining the Assaults as the primary "Frontline" infantry dropsuits. Vanguard is, for those who don't follow military jargon, the first strike force of a given military group. Real life examples would include the US Marines securing beachheads and bases to allow the Air Force and/or Army to move in. So basically, were I to guess by the name change, the "Vanguard" dropsuit is likely to be a door-kicker of some variety rather than "This suit carries two light weapons." We'll find out for sure sooner or later. All I know is the class roles are supposed to actually be actual ROLES rather than "Just" a point on the HP/Speed/Ewar triangle. If I get cleared to dump anything on you guys I will. Until then, let's keep the speculation civil, please. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Joel II X Bacon with a bottle of Quafe 10362	Posted - 2016.07.01 08:46:00 - [86] - Quote 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. *Scouts United* Gk.0s & Quafes all day.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8262	Posted - 2016.07.01 13:23:00 - [87] - Quote Joel II X wrote: 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. Honestly, I think vehicles should never have been balanced and priced as an individual asset. I think they should have been expensive enough to be bought by Corporations using taxes and then issued to members of that Corporation. If you think about it, Dropsuits in Dust 514 were like sub-Capital ships in EVE, and vehicles were like super-powered oversized sub-capital ships. CCP Rattati said the first link he would consider for the two games would be economic. I would say that in that case, take the ISK cost of Dropsuits WAY down while leaving vehicles in the same cost bracket, as that would mean match Contract payouts as well could be reduced to make paying for large quantities of Dropsuits fairly easy while trying to buy even a Light vehicle would require a lot of saving. Before anyone freaks out, consider that MANY players in EVE Online specialize as Capital pilots, and many more probably will thanks to Keepstar Citadels allowing even Super-Capitals to be docked, meaning you don't need to sacrifice a character to them anymore. When a pilot of a Capital ship loses their ship in combat, they are issued a new one. That would basically be the way it would work in Nova, because the vehicles would be too expensive for an individual to afford, same as Capital ships in EVE Online. This would allow vehicles to keep their powerful nature while cutting down on "spam". Obviously other elements like map design, objective placement, and objective capture mechanics factor largely into how vehicles can project their power, but I think if we want truly powerful and customizable vehicles like we had in Dust 514, they need to be priced accordingly. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13066	Posted - 2016.07.02 00:57:00 - [88] - Quote 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." Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
DUST Fiend 18414	Posted - 2016.07.02 01:01:00 - [89] - Quote No matter how you slice it the game is still getting minimal resources put into it so no matter what you expect, keep it low. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8263	Posted - 2016.07.02 21:30:00 - [90] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: 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." Did you read what I wrote before making a knee-deep response? The point I was making is one of a balance of defense and offense versus infantry. People keeping locking on "EVE analogies are bad!" without even considering the point. What I'm saying is that vehicles in Dust were an upgrade from infantry with virtually no disadvantages. No matter how good you were in Dropships, a vehicle would kill more players with less risk. What I meant with my example is that one should examine how Capitals work in EVE based on their ability to defend against and attack subcaps. 5 Frigates shooting a Dreadnought will be hard pressed to take it down, but they can eventually succeed if they prevent that ship from escaping. Part of that is due to Dreadnought guns having a very hard time engaging smaller targets, meaning they need subcaps of their own to defend them from targets they can't hit. Regardless of nerfs in Dust 514 to Large Turrets, vehicles NEVER required infantry support to be effective. Their guns were always capable of mowing down infantry with even moderate aiming skills, and I say that as q CV.0 Gunnlogi operator who missed most of my Missile shots on infantry, but it only really takes one hit to get the job done. Move past the fact that I used an EVE analogy and consider that scenario. A group of players encountering an HAV should have a hard time killing it, but that should be balanced by that vehicle's primary weapon having a hard time hitting them. Beyond even that, keep in mind that 32 player matches in Nova are going to be infantry-only onboard ships. Rattati said he'll develop the game as far as he can take it, and I really doubt terrestrial warfare going to be 32 players. If we want the game design to be future proof, we need to plan vehicles around battlefields and player counts that can increase over time without resulting in un-balanced play. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector



Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [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.

I LIKE PIE