DUST Search - Vehicles Deserve Better

All Channels

General Discussions

Vehicles Deserve Better

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DUST Fiend 18419	Posted - 2016.07.04 03:21:00 - [1] - Quote They deserve capacitors. They deserve spider reps. They deserve good physics. They deserve smooth entry and exit animations. They deserve a robust selection of weapons, armor, and variant hulls. They deserve energy vamps. They deserve fortified defenses to shatter and large swaths of terrain to traverse. They deserve weakspots that are exploitable by regular infantry, not just AV (think armor plates falling off the weakspot after X amount of damage to the hull.) They deserve RDVs that aren't Really Drunk Vehicles They deserve larger player counts to encourage troop transport and ensure that there's always enough opportunity for AV to cluster up and push off even large vehicles pushes. They deserve deployable turrets by infantry so that any and all players can easily call in help if they aren't spec'd for AV They deserve to exist. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Radiant Pancake3 Y.A.M.A.H 4770	Posted - 2016.07.04 04:06:00 - [2] - Quote My body deserves butter but i'm not getting butter. "A quantum super computer, calculating for a thousand years, could not even approach the number of fucks I do not give."
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 8340	Posted - 2016.07.04 04:12:00 - [3] - Quote I agree with all of this. I think Rattati just doesn't have the resources to make all of that happen and wants to do it right, not half assed. I'm willing to wait as long as it's done right. EVE: Phoenix - 'Rise Again' Trailer
Forever ETC Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 1728	Posted - 2016.07.04 05:08:00 - [4] - Quote Multi-Crew Vehicles AmarrFTW "The Hero got his feelings hurt for 9 hp... " Not For Sale- Sanders 2016
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 7877	Posted - 2016.07.04 05:16:00 - [5] - Quote The only way infantry should be able to take down a vehicle without AV is by climbing in and killing the crew. That being said, it should take a crew for a vehicle to be effective. No more 1-man armies in HAVs and ADSs Current state of the forums
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8264	Posted - 2016.07.04 14:21:00 - [6] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: The only way infantry should be able to take down a vehicle without AV is by climbing in and killing the crew. That being said, it should take a crew for a vehicle to be effective. No more 1-man armies in HAVs and ADSs ^ I will never stop preaching this. Personally, I would love a setup for EVE players producing Nova assets in bulk (controlled by NPC sell orders they have to sell cheaper than to make a profit) as part of what CCP Rattati said as far as gaining an economic link with EVE Online first. If suits and match payouts were both drastically reduced, we could set up an environment where vehicles were very powerful but very hard for the individual to afford, meaning that in most cases they would be bought by the player's Corporation and issued to them. A primary argument from most who used vehicles in Dust 514 is that vehicles should never require a separate gunner because the player who has to skill into them and buy them should be able to have total control. However, that just made them giant Dropsuits with special abilities. If vehicles are a Corporation-level asset, that means your average player isn't being forced to foot the bill for tanks or dropships. Requiring multiple players to operate would no longer mean having to grind for weeks to get enough ISK and SP to start using a vehicle only to have to get another player just to make full use of it. Now the vehicle would be provided to you via Corporate taxes similar to how Alliances handle disbursement of Capital ships in EVE Online. On another note, as far as we've seen the old EVE-style Skillpoint system seems to not be making a return in Project Nova. If you watch the FanFest interview, they seem to reference a system where using equipment provides a small amount of progression via your effectiveness in using that equipment. That being the case, players who are best at different roles in a vehicle can progress into those roles so your Corporation could have dedicated drivers and gunners and you could even have partnerships forged between drivers and gunners with good synergy. Terrestrial warfare and vehicles are not going to be in Dust at launch, and I would be VERY surprised if we were to see that kind of gameplay in tiny little maps with 32 players like we had in Dust 514. If CCP is going to do terrestrial warfare again, I think it quite safe to assume they will go back to their original intent with Dust 514, which was to increase player count as they had resources to do so. The only path to those resources is a game with excellent gameplay and an intriguing meta that brings players in and keeps them, thus securing resources for further development. If we all do our part to help CCP move in that direction, I foresee a far brighter future than Dust 514 ever offered. /endwalloftext Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Grimmiers 932	Posted - 2016.07.04 18:14:00 - [7] - Quote They need to start from scratch with vehicles and I already suggested that vehicles should have similar hulls with modular racial plating. The hulls being the same should make exit/entry animations a lot easier to do and with plating being a modular physical piece it would make for better destruction. I agree with the list though and hope that small turrets aren't as wonky when the vehicle is in motion.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 8341	Posted - 2016.07.04 18:59:00 - [8] - Quote People can talk about moment to moment stuff till their blue in the face, but I think the only way I'll be satisfied is if vehicles have a much clearer and obviously defined role on the game. Like Dropsuits, I think in many ways vehicles suffered from an identity crisis and never felt like that had a specific role they needed to fill. It was always "Well I blow stuff up". Problem is that a lot of other things blew stuff up, so it ultimately turned into the argument of "Well why does he blow stuff up better than I blow stuff up?! I want a buff so I can blow him up better than he can blow me up." And if we're going to go back to a situation where that argument dominates the whole conversation, then don't bother at all. It needs to be "Oh **, we need someone to bring in an HAV because to get the objective we need something done that ONLY that HAV can do". And at the same time the HAV pilot needs to be saying "Oh , I need the infantry to do something that ONLY the infantry can do so I can complete the task they need me to do." They need to be distinctive roles that have no overlap, no means to "fake it" and perform infantry roles with a vehicle and vice versa. So yeah, we can talk about capacitors and multi crew and bobble heads for the dashboard all day....but if the design ultimately leads to "Who blows up ** better", then I'd rather have nothing at all. EVE: Phoenix - 'Rise Again' Trailer
DUST Fiend 18422	Posted - 2016.07.04 20:24:00 - [9] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: ...but if the design ultimately leads to "Who blows up **** better", then I'd rather have nothing at all. This is still a matter of opinion though, I agree completely with the rest but with no vehicles I see no reason to play the game. That's just me and some other dedicated pilots, but I just don't see the appeal of an infantry only game. I've got too many of those that I'm playing as is lol Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 8341	Posted - 2016.07.04 21:26:00 - [10] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: ...but if the design ultimately leads to "Who blows up **** better", then I'd rather have nothing at all. This is still a matter of opinion though, I agree completely with the rest but with no vehicles I see no reason to play the game. That's just me and some other dedicated pilots, but I just don't see the appeal of an infantry only game. I've got too many of those that I'm playing as is lol I get that but what's the point if it just turns into a complete shitshow like it was in DUST? I'm with you 100% man, I just want it done right. I can't handle the headache of trying to make it work in a half assed system. I mean the most fun I personally had was fitting an HAV for Logistics and repping another HAV taking insane AV fire. I felt like I had a defined purpose and it was awesome. I want more of that purpose, but I don't want them to half ass it just to get it in the game and left half satisfied. No one likes getting just the tip wet, am I right? EVE: Phoenix - 'Rise Again' Trailer

Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 14071	Posted - 2016.07.04 21:37:00 - [11] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: They deserve smooth entry and exit animations. That take more time the bulkier dropsuit exiting the vehicle. I propose a 24 hour timer specifically for HMG sentinels. My advice to you, playa.
Nervan Catos Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 12	Posted - 2016.07.04 22:47:00 - [12] - Quote I think vehicles should serve as an infantry support role; they should be used to get from objective to objective safely and help eliminate heavy targets if need be. This changes the question from Quote: Well I blow stuff up to "Well I keep you from blowing up." If anyone has played Helldivers think of how the APC/HAV is used.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 8341	Posted - 2016.07.04 23:28:00 - [13] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: They deserve smooth entry and exit animations. That take more time the bulkier dropsuit exiting the vehicle. I propose a 24 hour timer specifically for HMG sentinels. DUST Fiend wrote: I mean the most fun I personally had was fitting an HAV for Logistics and repping another HAV taking insane AV fire. I felt like I had a defined purpose and it was awesome. Your purpose in that scenario is removing any possibility of infantry being able to destroy a HAV... you aren't making me want vehicles in Nova very much... like at all... You mean by doing exactly what a Logistics suit does for a Sentinel? Double standards for the win! EVE: Phoenix - 'Rise Again' Trailer
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1469	Posted - 2016.07.04 23:47:00 - [14] - Quote Vehicles deserve their own game... 10/10 would play RDV simulator on my phone.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8265	Posted - 2016.07.05 02:30:00 - [15] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: People can talk about moment to moment stuff till their blue in the face, but I think the only way I'll be satisfied is if vehicles have a much clearer and obviously defined role on the game. Like Dropsuits, I think in many ways vehicles suffered from an identity crisis and never felt like that had a specific role they needed to fill. It was always "Well I blow stuff up". Problem is that a lot of other things blew stuff up, so it ultimately turned into the argument of "Well why does he blow stuff up better than I blow stuff up?! I want a buff so I can blow him up better than he can blow me up." And if we're going to go back to a situation where that argument dominates the whole conversation, then don't bother at all. It needs to be "Oh **, we need someone to bring in an HAV because to get the objective we need something done that ONLY that HAV can do". And at the same time the HAV pilot needs to be saying "Oh , I need the infantry to do something that ONLY the infantry can do so I can complete the task they need me to do." They need to be distinctive roles that have no overlap, no means to "fake it" and perform infantry roles with a vehicle and vice versa. So yeah, we can talk about capacitors and multi crew and bobble heads for the dashboard all day....but if the design ultimately leads to "Who blows up ** better", then I'd rather have nothing at all. Part of Terrestrial Warfare needs to be having hardened objectives that incentivize using vehicles to destroy them like we had in the Replication build of Dust. Vehicles would be ideal with as many of their own roles as infantry have. Vehicles in Dust 514 were always built around slaying infantry, and destroying each other. In that order. We need a REAL sandbox, and we need that sandbox to give roles to vehicles other than infantry slayers and blowing each other up, such as better providing long-range support for infantry, destroying hardened defensive installations, transporting and resupplying infantry, and repairing each other. As well, I think we need to look into the idea of vehicle capacitors. There was no real meta for vehicle fitting in Dust 514. As long as you trained for all Complex modules and fit multiple hardeners so you could always have on running, you were very effective in pretty much any engagement and required a lot of effort to destroy. Anything else you put on was just for flavor. I would much prefer to see a system where modules consume energy from the vehicle and using them requires balancing your power consumption. This would allow module cycle timers to be replaced. There also needs to be more useful and emphasized utility modules that provide viable alternatives for just stacking HP. Armor and Shield regen modules would be active ONLY and require a very large amount of energy, such that you would be best served to withdraw in order to repair yourself fully as opposed to how Dust 514 allowed you to regenerate while taking fire to the point it became nearly impossible to kill certain vehicle builds if the driver was paying even the slightest amount of attention. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Ripley Riley Incorruptibles 14071	Posted - 2016.07.05 03:18:00 - [16] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: They deserve smooth entry and exit animations. That take more time the bulkier dropsuit exiting the vehicle. I propose a 24 hour timer specifically for HMG sentinels. DUST Fiend wrote: I mean the most fun I personally had was fitting an HAV for Logistics and repping another HAV taking insane AV fire. I felt like I had a defined purpose and it was awesome. Your purpose in that scenario is removing any possibility of infantry being able to destroy a HAV... you aren't making me want vehicles in Nova very much... like at all... You mean by doing exactly what a Logistics suit does for a Sentinel? Double standards for the win! Yes, because those HP pools are totally similar and sentinels can absolutely fit active modules to maximize local resists and armor HP/sec. C'mon Pokey. I expect better from you :( My advice to you, playa.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 8342	Posted - 2016.07.05 03:58:00 - [17] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: They deserve smooth entry and exit animations. That take more time the bulkier dropsuit exiting the vehicle. I propose a 24 hour timer specifically for HMG sentinels. DUST Fiend wrote: I mean the most fun I personally had was fitting an HAV for Logistics and repping another HAV taking insane AV fire. I felt like I had a defined purpose and it was awesome. Your purpose in that scenario is removing any possibility of infantry being able to destroy a HAV... you aren't making me want vehicles in Nova very much... like at all... You mean by doing exactly what a Logistics suit does for a Sentinel? Double standards for the win! Yes, because those HP pools are totally similar and sentinels can absolutely fit active modules to maximize local resists and armor HP/sec. C'mon Pokey. I expect better from you :( And you're doing that annoying bitter vet thing where you're focusing on all the **** in the past instead of what I'm actually talking about. If you had actually read what I have been talking about you would know that I was speaking about wanting a role to fill and determining that before we tackle building the new statsof/balance of things. So conceptually the role is no different than a Logi suit prepping a sentinel. So kindly step off your high horse and actually listen to what I'm saying before you start to patronize me. EVE: Phoenix - 'Rise Again' Trailer
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13067	Posted - 2016.07.05 04:26:00 - [18] - Quote Vehicles deserve to be designed so they fit in well with the rest of the game, interact with a purpose and are as complex or simple as required to make them fit and be a valuable part of the game. As long as they aren't built half-assed just because "tanks are cool" I'm for vehicles. But they need to be designed as part of the greater game and exist in tandem with and supporting the infantry game, not existing despite the infantry game. So long as they're built with a purpose, with a role that isn't "Tanks are cool, we should make some" I'm for their re-inclusion into the game. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8266	Posted - 2016.07.05 04:57:00 - [19] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Vehicles deserve to be designed so they fit in well with the rest of the game, interact with a purpose and are as complex or simple as required to make them fit and be a valuable part of the game. As long as they aren't built half-assed just because "tanks are cool" I'm for vehicles. But they need to be designed as part of the greater game and exist in tandem with and supporting the infantry game, not existing despite the infantry game. So long as they're built with a purpose, with a role that isn't "Tanks are cool, we should make some" I'm for their re-inclusion into the game. Not going to get any argument on that one. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
The KTM Duke Send Hatemails After The Beep. Beeeeep 1287	Posted - 2016.07.05 12:50:00 - [20] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: People can talk about moment to moment stuff till their blue in the face, but I think the only way I'll be satisfied is if vehicles have a much clearer and obviously defined role on the game. Like Dropsuits, I think in many ways vehicles suffered from an identity crisis and never felt like that had a specific role they needed to fill. It was always "Well I blow stuff up". Problem is that a lot of other things blew stuff up, so it ultimately turned into the argument of "Well why does he blow stuff up better than I blow stuff up?! I want a buff so I can blow him up better than he can blow me up." And if we're going to go back to a situation where that argument dominates the whole conversation, then don't bother at all. It needs to be "Oh **, we need someone to bring in an HAV because to get the objective we need something done that ONLY that HAV can do". And at the same time the HAV pilot needs to be saying "Oh , I need the infantry to do something that ONLY the infantry can do so I can complete the task they need me to do." They need to be distinctive roles that have no overlap, no means to "fake it" and perform infantry roles with a vehicle and vice versa. So yeah, we can talk about capacitors and multi crew and bobble heads for the dashboard all day....but if the design ultimately leads to "Who blows up better", then I'd rather have nothing at all. HAV were always meant to take an advantage on enemies in my way to play, forcing enemies to pull out Av usually help infantry to slay and get to the point, if enemy had a tank doing that the best solution was calling in another tank to counter it and take that advantage. Things that ** all up? Infantry QQ about not being able to kill skilled tankers, rooftops masters because blaster accurancy went from god mode to ** and railgun shooting corner; these 2 things along with 1.7 killed tanks Made in Bergamo, exporting pain where-ever is needed Hatemails wont die w/ dust 21.10.15 the day that changed my life

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1471	Posted - 2016.07.05 16:23:00 - [21] - Quote Bigger maps would solve a lot of problems with vehicles not having a role. For me the main issue was how small the maps got towards the end, which I'm pretty sure was down to infantry complaining about how vehicles got to the objective before them, as they should, it's their main role "transport." With larger maps vehicles could be used as a way to stop infantry easily running between objectives, without taking a longer route or securing a road for their team to run across. Having more strategy to moving between areas of the map would be great, since the whole "we've got 'A' lets run to the other side of the map and get 'D'" got horribly simplistic. Of course vehicles being able to get into almost every nook and cranny was also part of the problem, we need more interiors and bigger walls. A tank should never be able to sit in safety and pew pew at an objective... Unless it's turret is like a massive plasma cannon that is difficult to aim and has enough recoil to force you to re-aim after each shot. Also more maps that are fun to fly through like "Caldari Production Facility" which actually forced you to use some skill to get into useful positions (other than the rooftop.) I'd be tempted to say vehicles shouldn't require speccing into anymore, so the whole "vehicles are imbalanced because our team only has militia vehicles vs your teams 1 protato tank" plus it would give reasoning to the heavy isk cost. I'd also be in favour of pilots not getting to use a turret, without switching seats to leave themselves vulnerable to butt ****. One last thing, vehicles should be the only form of mobile cru... No more equipment spam, would make things far more interesting.
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 5366	Posted - 2016.07.05 18:25:00 - [22] - Quote They also deserve eject button and locked driving seat. Regressed to blueberry level =ƒÿ» #PortDaPort on Consoles PSN: ogamega
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8269	Posted - 2016.07.05 18:31:00 - [23] - Quote shaman oga wrote: They also deserve eject button and locked driving seat. Eject? Why? If you stay in until the last second you should die with your asset. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 5366	Posted - 2016.07.05 18:40:00 - [24] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: shaman oga wrote: They also deserve eject button and locked driving seat. Eject? Why? If you stay in until the last second you should die with your asset. Eject useless blueberry on passenger seats Regressed to blueberry level =ƒÿ» #PortDaPort on Consoles PSN: ogamega
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 8343	Posted - 2016.07.05 19:06:00 - [25] - Quote shaman oga wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: shaman oga wrote: They also deserve eject button and locked driving seat. Eject? Why? If you stay in until the last second you should die with your asset. Eject useless blueberry on passenger seats Can blueberries be forcefully loaded into the main gun and used as ammunition ? EVE: Phoenix - 'Rise Again' Trailer
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1471	Posted - 2016.07.05 19:13:00 - [26] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: shaman oga wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: shaman oga wrote: They also deserve eject button and locked driving seat. Eject? Why? If you stay in until the last second you should die with your asset. Eject useless blueberry on passenger seats Can blueberries be forcefully loaded into the main gun and used as ammunition ? Finally a good use for them!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations 8345	Posted - 2016.07.05 20:18:00 - [27] - Quote Place Uplink in Railgun chamber Blueberry thinks they're spawning on Mobile CRU Pilot gets maximum lulz. EVE: Phoenix - 'Rise Again' Trailer
LOOKMOM NOHANDS 1187	Posted - 2016.07.06 06:54:00 - [28] - Quote I will say it...... Vehicles killed Dust. If only dev resources that were used on constant balance and design had gone into infantry weapons and map design. If only maps could have been designed around infantry instead of vehicles + infantry. I can no longer say that CCP is unable to learn from their mistakes. GJ Rattati GJ FAREWELL 514 /// FAREWELL CCP UNTIL WE HAVE NOVA OR FOREVER WHICH EVER ONE COMES FIRST
DUST Fiend 18423	Posted - 2016.07.06 11:32:00 - [29] - Quote LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: If only dev resources that were used on constant balance and design had gone into infantry weapons and map design. If only maps could have been designed around infantry instead of vehicles + infantry. It would still be a buggy **** show with sub par graphics and a non existent connection to EVE. I mean it would have been good for the less skilled players unable to adapt, but it would have sapped any character out of the game. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
The KTM Duke Send Hatemails After The Beep. Beeeeep 1287	Posted - 2016.07.06 14:56:00 - [30] - Quote LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: I will say it...... Vehicles killed Dust. If only dev resources that were used on constant balance and design had gone into infantry weapons and map design. If only maps could have been designed around infantry instead of vehicles + infantry. I can no longer say that CCP is unable to learn from their mistakes. GJ Rattati GJ I've never heard closed beta vets complain about vehicles in ambush, yet a bunch of scrubs that couldnt deal with it moved ambush from a deathmatch to a camp the high ground game mode. Remove vehicles increase camping and thats a fact Made in Bergamo, exporting pain where-ever is needed Hatemails wont die w/ dust 21.10.15 the day that changed my life

One Eyed King Nos Nothi 15914	Posted - 2016.07.06 15:45:00 - [31] - Quote The KTM Duke wrote: LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: I will say it...... Vehicles killed Dust. If only dev resources that were used on constant balance and design had gone into infantry weapons and map design. If only maps could have been designed around infantry instead of vehicles + infantry. I can no longer say that CCP is unable to learn from their mistakes. GJ Rattati GJ I've never heard closed beta vets complain about vehicles in ambush, yet a bunch of scrubs that couldnt deal with it moved ambush from a deathmatch to a camp the high ground game mode. Remove vehicles increase camping and thats a fact You make it sound as if vehicle/AV balance never changed from closed beta until the end of the game. That is patently false. 1.7 ushered in major changes that often saw the first couple people to get tanks in the game to render the rest of a match meaningless. Those changes were lessened over time, but they were always present. Vehicles did not have a clear enough role to justify their continued usage in ambush, particularly given that whole squads would need to be used to take one just one. Balance is not ruining the game for the 80% or so that ran infantry to appease the 20% or less that ran vehicles. Vehicles shouldn't have a place if no role can be created, and if balance can't be achieved. I am afraid if you can't accept that, then you have gone full Spkr. Never go full Spkr. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
The KTM Duke Send Hatemails After The Beep. Beeeeep 1287	Posted - 2016.07.06 15:59:00 - [32] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: The KTM Duke wrote: LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: I will say it...... Vehicles killed Dust. If only dev resources that were used on constant balance and design had gone into infantry weapons and map design. If only maps could have been designed around infantry instead of vehicles + infantry. I can no longer say that CCP is unable to learn from their mistakes. GJ Rattati GJ I've never heard closed beta vets complain about vehicles in ambush, yet a bunch of scrubs that couldnt deal with it moved ambush from a deathmatch to a camp the high ground game mode. Remove vehicles increase camping and thats a fact You make it sound as if vehicle/AV balance never changed from closed beta until the end of the game. That is patently false. 1.7 ushered in major changes that often saw the first couple people to get tanks in the game to render the rest of a match meaningless. Those changes were lessened over time, but they were always present. Vehicles did not have a clear enough role to justify their continued usage in ambush, particularly given that whole squads would need to be used to take one just one. Balance is not ruining the game for the 80% or so that ran infantry to appease the 20% or less that ran vehicles. Vehicles shouldn't have a place if no role can be created, and if balance can't be achieved. I am afraid if you can't accept that, then you have gone full Spkr. Never go full Spkr. Well sayng post 1.7 tanks were stronger than previous ones is indeed wrong, after 1.7 a 2 dam mod sica could kill every tank and everyone could make 1. Vehicles in ambush have no roles? Then you never played ambush vs russians, if enemies were camping on roofs taking an advantage they called in Ads or tanks and moved the match in their advant+áge. I'm not sayng vehicles are a must but removing them just because pubstars cant deal with them is a loss. Anyway dont call me spkr, i dont need a second tank and a Jlav scrub to kill other tanks( and keep failing) Made in Bergamo, exporting pain where-ever is needed Hatemails wont die w/ dust 21.10.15 the day that changed my life
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1472	Posted - 2016.07.06 18:32:00 - [33] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: The KTM Duke wrote: LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: I will say it...... Vehicles killed Dust. If only dev resources that were used on constant balance and design had gone into infantry weapons and map design. If only maps could have been designed around infantry instead of vehicles + infantry. I can no longer say that CCP is unable to learn from their mistakes. GJ Rattati GJ I've never heard closed beta vets complain about vehicles in ambush, yet a bunch of scrubs that couldnt deal with it moved ambush from a deathmatch to a camp the high ground game mode. Remove vehicles increase camping and thats a fact You make it sound as if vehicle/AV balance never changed from closed beta until the end of the game. That is patently false. 1.7 ushered in major changes that often saw the first couple people to get tanks in the game to render the rest of a match meaningless. Those changes were lessened over time, but they were always present. Vehicles did not have a clear enough role to justify their continued usage in ambush, particularly given that whole squads would need to be used to take one just one. Balance is not ruining the game for the 80% or so that ran infantry to appease the 20% or less that ran vehicles. Vehicles shouldn't have a place if no role can be created, and if balance can't be achieved. I am afraid if you can't accept that, then you have gone full Spkr. Never go full Spkr. Wasn't 1.7 when tanks cried about dropships being able to blow them up... I recall the lack of redzone to hide in was terrible for tankers in ambush. So as he said, people failed to adapt, because I used to enjoy calling in my ads in ambush, purely to **** off the tank scrubs on the other team. Then they'd stop and send hate mail instead, while I pew - pewed the infantry because they couldn't aim their forge guns properly.
DUST Fiend 18424	Posted - 2016.07.06 21:00:00 - [34] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Wasn't 1.7 when tanks cried about dropships being able to blow them up... I recall the lack of redzone to hide in was terrible for tankers in ambush. So as he said, people failed to adapt, because I used to enjoy calling in my ads in ambush, purely to **** off the tank scrubs on the other team. Then they'd stop and send hate mail instead, while I pew - pewed the infantry because they couldn't aim their forge guns properly. I'll be the first to admit that balance has always been touchy between AV/V, but I attribute that largely to CCP pulling resources from the project and using an unpaid, untrained focus group to gather balance information. Aside from that though, much of it was infantry players simply flat out refusing to adapt to the match. I feel like that could have been eleviated slightly if CCP had just added in deployable turrets, ya know, like the menu said was possible since the game was in beta Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8273	Posted - 2016.07.06 21:29:00 - [35] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Wasn't 1.7 when tanks cried about dropships being able to blow them up... I recall the lack of redzone to hide in was terrible for tankers in ambush. So as he said, people failed to adapt, because I used to enjoy calling in my ads in ambush, purely to ** off the tank scrubs on the other team. Then they'd stop and send hate mail instead, while I pew - pewed the infantry because they couldn't aim their forge guns properly. I'll be the first to admit that balance has always been touchy between AV/V, but I attribute that largely to CCP pulling resources from the project and using an unpaid, untrained focus group to gather balance information. Aside from that though, much of it was infantry players simply flat out refusing to adapt to the match. I feel like that could have been eleviated slightly if CCP had just added in deployable turrets, ya know, like the menu said was possible since the game was in beta What never ceased to frustrate me as an Assault Dropship pilot was those matches where everyone on the entire team pulled AV at the start and I went down in flames within seconds of starting the match. OR No one pulled AV the entire match. Most people just ignored me even as I killed them, though occasionally someone would empty an AR magazine at me out of rage and then just go back to slaying. There was never any medium! Either I got basically kept out of the fighting for the entire match by persistent AV players, or I spent the whole time killing whatever infantry I could manage (my frame rate went to ** in the air) and barely even got shot at. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
DUST Fiend 18424	Posted - 2016.07.06 22:00:00 - [36] - Quote That's what they get for removing medium turret installations, and never going through with deployable installations. Also to a smaller degree, never introducting AV sidearms. Vehicles DO have a purpose outside of killing infantry, it's destroying installations and supressing enemy vehicle numbers. This would have actually been more of a thing if we had an MCC commander dropping down reinforcements, but long gone are those dreams of ol' Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
LOOKMOM NOHANDS 1190	Posted - 2016.07.06 22:08:00 - [37] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: The KTM Duke wrote: LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: I will say it...... Vehicles killed Dust. If only dev resources that were used on constant balance and design had gone into infantry weapons and map design. If only maps could have been designed around infantry instead of vehicles + infantry. I can no longer say that CCP is unable to learn from their mistakes. GJ Rattati GJ I've never heard closed beta vets complain about vehicles in ambush, yet a bunch of scrubs that couldnt deal with it moved ambush from a deathmatch to a camp the high ground game mode. Remove vehicles increase camping and thats a fact You make it sound as if vehicle/AV balance never changed from closed beta until the end of the game. That is patently false. 1.7 ushered in major changes that often saw the first couple people to get tanks in the game to render the rest of a match meaningless. Those changes were lessened over time, but they were always present. Vehicles did not have a clear enough role to justify their continued usage in ambush, particularly given that whole squads would need to be used to take one just one. Balance is not ruining the game for the 80% or so that ran infantry to appease the 20% or less that ran vehicles. Vehicles shouldn't have a place if no role can be created, and if balance can't be achieved. I am afraid if you can't accept that, then you have gone full Spkr. Never go full Spkr. Vehicles sucked up a ton of attention that could have been much better spent. Generally speaking vehicles contributed to nothing but stupidity and farming. Sure there were people that used them properly and they made good matches out of it but vehicles never had a real role which made them another part of the giant cluster**** stew. At the end of the day the resources used and the detriment they brought just made no sense at all. Lets also not forget that without vehicles we could have had more maps that were centered completely around FIRST PERSON SHOOTING which is kind of important in a FPS. Instead people wanting to play a shooter were routinely forced to spend 50% of a match or more simply running to try to find action. FAREWELL 514 /// FAREWELL CCP UNTIL WE HAVE NOVA OR FOREVER WHICH EVER ONE COMES FIRST
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 15914	Posted - 2016.07.06 22:19:00 - [38] - Quote The KTM Duke wrote: One Eyed King wrote: The KTM Duke wrote: LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: I will say it...... Vehicles killed Dust. If only dev resources that were used on constant balance and design had gone into infantry weapons and map design. If only maps could have been designed around infantry instead of vehicles + infantry. I can no longer say that CCP is unable to learn from their mistakes. GJ Rattati GJ I've never heard closed beta vets complain about vehicles in ambush, yet a bunch of scrubs that couldnt deal with it moved ambush from a deathmatch to a camp the high ground game mode. Remove vehicles increase camping and thats a fact You make it sound as if vehicle/AV balance never changed from closed beta until the end of the game. That is patently false. 1.7 ushered in major changes that often saw the first couple people to get tanks in the game to render the rest of a match meaningless. Those changes were lessened over time, but they were always present. Vehicles did not have a clear enough role to justify their continued usage in ambush, particularly given that whole squads would need to be used to take one just one. Balance is not ruining the game for the 80% or so that ran infantry to appease the 20% or less that ran vehicles. Vehicles shouldn't have a place if no role can be created, and if balance can't be achieved. I am afraid if you can't accept that, then you have gone full Spkr. Never go full Spkr. Well sayng post 1.7 tanks were stronger than previous ones is indeed wrong, after 1.7 a 2 dam mod sica could kill every tank and everyone could make 1. Vehicles in ambush have no roles? Then you never played ambush vs russians, if enemies were camping on roofs taking an advantage they called in Ads or tanks and moved the match in their advant+áge. I'm not sayng vehicles are a must but removing them just because pubstars cant deal with them is a loss. Anyway dont call me spkr, i dont need a second tank and a Jlav scrub to kill other tanks( and keep failing) You are trying to defend tanks by saying everyone should just have gotten in the tanks, that everyone should have just skilled into the FOTM tank of the time. It is that kind of thinking that is the problem. You don't fix problems by simply allowing other problems to exist. Infantry shouldn't have to call in a tank of their own to deal with a tank. In fact, if I recall correctly, if the opposing team called in tanks first, then they could prevent your team from using your tanks, by blowing up RDVs etc. It was broken a$$ gameplay. It wasn't balanced. Its not about not being able to deal with something, it is about the fact tanks had no real roles, and saying that the role of a tank is to face off against another tank, and nothing more sounds like a pretty crap role. If that is the case, then go play WoTs and be done with it. Infantry is the central point to an FPS, and if vehicles cannot be included in a meaningful, balanced way, they should not be in the game. Period. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8273	Posted - 2016.07.06 22:32:00 - [39] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: The KTM Duke wrote: One Eyed King wrote: The KTM Duke wrote: LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote: I will say it...... Vehicles killed Dust. If only dev resources that were used on constant balance and design had gone into infantry weapons and map design. If only maps could have been designed around infantry instead of vehicles + infantry. I can no longer say that CCP is unable to learn from their mistakes. GJ Rattati GJ I've never heard closed beta vets complain about vehicles in ambush, yet a bunch of scrubs that couldnt deal with it moved ambush from a deathmatch to a camp the high ground game mode. Remove vehicles increase camping and thats a fact You make it sound as if vehicle/AV balance never changed from closed beta until the end of the game. That is patently false. 1.7 ushered in major changes that often saw the first couple people to get tanks in the game to render the rest of a match meaningless. Those changes were lessened over time, but they were always present. Vehicles did not have a clear enough role to justify their continued usage in ambush, particularly given that whole squads would need to be used to take one just one. Balance is not ruining the game for the 80% or so that ran infantry to appease the 20% or less that ran vehicles. Vehicles shouldn't have a place if no role can be created, and if balance can't be achieved. I am afraid if you can't accept that, then you have gone full Spkr. Never go full Spkr. Well sayng post 1.7 tanks were stronger than previous ones is indeed wrong, after 1.7 a 2 dam mod sica could kill every tank and everyone could make 1. Vehicles in ambush have no roles? Then you never played ambush vs russians, if enemies were camping on roofs taking an advantage they called in Ads or tanks and moved the match in their advant+áge. I'm not sayng vehicles are a must but removing them just because pubstars cant deal with them is a loss. Anyway dont call me spkr, i dont need a second tank and a Jlav scrub to kill other tanks( and keep failing) You are trying to defend tanks by saying everyone should just have gotten in the tanks, that everyone should have just skilled into the FOTM tank of the time. It is that kind of thinking that is the problem. You don't fix problems by simply allowing other problems to exist. Infantry shouldn't have to call in a tank of their own to deal with a tank. In fact, if I recall correctly, if the opposing team called in tanks first, then they could prevent your team from using your tanks, by blowing up RDVs etc. It was broken a$$ gameplay. It wasn't balanced. Its not about not being able to deal with something, it is about the fact tanks had no real roles, and saying that the role of a tank is to face off against another tank, and nothing more sounds like a pretty crap role. If that is the case, then go play WoTs and be done with it. Infantry is the central point to an FPS, and if vehicles cannot be included in a meaningful, balanced way, they should not be in the game. Period. That's why the gameplay design of Terrestrial Warfare needs to provide a range of roles for different vehicle types from day-one in order to ensure they are more than just means of killing each other or farming infantry. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 15914	Posted - 2016.07.06 22:48:00 - [40] - Quote Perhaps that is why they are focused on fighting in space ATM, so they aren't hemming themselves in on the terrestrial side. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.

Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8273	Posted - 2016.07.06 22:53:00 - [41] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Perhaps that is why they are focused on fighting in space ATM, so they aren't hemming themselves in on the terrestrial side. Precisely. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Aeon Amadi 13968	Posted - 2016.07.07 00:01:00 - [42] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: One Eyed King wrote: Perhaps that is why they are focused on fighting in space ATM, so they aren't hemming themselves in on the terrestrial side. Precisely. Wait, what's going on? Skype: Nomistrav "Bastard at Heart"
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1473	Posted - 2016.07.07 04:25:00 - [43] - Quote Remove vehicles and the eve connection, that really never was, from Dust and tell me what it's unique selling point was? Was it the shoddy hit-scan? Dust was interesting due to its attempts to be more strategic than your usual FPS, vehicles may have been just as poorly balanced as some of the infantry, but just having the added layers of more to deal with improved each game to more than just headless chickens pew pewing each other. As for the nonsense about wasting time on vehicles, I recall vehicles just being removed and left to wait it out while infantry had several passes at balance... One of the most amusing "issues", being that heavies were too good at close range... Because (some) "infantry only" players couldn't even be bothered to adjust their strategy against other infantry.
DUST Fiend 18425	Posted - 2016.07.07 05:19:00 - [44] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: As for the nonsense about wasting time on vehicles, I recall vehicles just being removed and left to wait it out while infantry had several passes at balance... . Still waiting for Logi vehicles after their "temp" removal The ultimate problem wasn't that vehicles couldn't be defeated, it was that it required teamwork to spank them, but not to spank with them. If it required at least 2 people to properly man most vehicles then it would be less of an issue. Going to PC is EXACTLY when you should be looking to expand your possibilities in your game, not limit them :/ Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
The KTM Duke Send Hatemails After The Beep. Beeeeep 1287	Posted - 2016.07.07 06:36:00 - [45] - Quote @one eyed king; you kidding me right? I said everyone cpuld use a sica with 2 militia dam mode and kill everyother tank, skill cost: 0 sp, and they required 2 swarm or 2 forgegun shot to go down, people cant adapt and blame people that can, vehicles required skill and driver awareness, then yeah be smart was unbalanced. Made in Bergamo, exporting pain where-ever is needed Hatemails wont die w/ dust 21.10.15 the day that changed my life
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 1949	Posted - 2016.07.07 06:45:00 - [46] - Quote Discussing vehicles in a game that we havent gotten any decent information about is just pointless. Heck for all that we know so far its probs only some mediocore FPS. Cause ya know thats what the gaming world is waiting for another forgetable title that keeps you interested for 5 seconds. Rudimentary Mercs of scrubs and incompetence. You touch my mind, fumbling in Ignorance, incapable of understanding.
DUST Fiend 18425	Posted - 2016.07.07 11:32:00 - [47] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: Discussing vehicles in a game that we havent gotten any decent information about is just pointless. Heck for all that we know so far its probs only some mediocore FPS. Cause ya know thats what the gaming world is waiting for another forgetable title that keeps you interested for 5 seconds. Oh there's an extremely good chance vehicles have gone the way of the dodo, that's the entire reason for even making the thread. This won't convince CCP to spend more money on developing their game, it's just a sad little corner of the DUST universe where caring for vehicles is still a thing. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
byte modal 880	Posted - 2016.07.07 13:55:00 - [48] - Quote HAV lives matter. kitten bacon taco (nom)


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.

AmarrFTW

"The Hero got his feelings hurt for 9 hp... "

Not For Sale- Sanders 2016