DUST Search - Rework ADS, HAVs require main gunner, LAV passengers can shoot, etc

Fox Gaden wrote:

DUST Fiend wrote:

Mobius Wyvern wrote:

Yeah, something like an LAV should be vulnerable to small arms. I'm not saying the damage needs to be 1:1 with suits - which would make it nearly impossible to survive - but the native resistance needs to be as low as possible while still allowing the vehicle some measure of survivability.

Honestly though, why would vehicle powered shields not be able to take most if not all of the bite away from small arms fire? If there is sidearm AV and personal deployable turrets, why would you need to be able to insta pop a jeep with your AR? Why can't you use an HMG that already tears them apart, or a single AV grenade, or a free LAV, or an RE, or a turret, or just don't stand out in the open? Why can't people aim at the exposed occupants?

Why exactly does a high tech vehicle have to explode to periodic pistol fire?

Light Vehicles have light shields as well as light armor. Which is to say, heavier than you can fit on a Dropsuit, even a Heavy Dropsuit, but much lighter than on the heavy vehicles.

Also, I am fairly sure no one said "insta pop" when saying that small arms should be able to do damage to LAV's.

We are not saying that small arms should be an efficient way to kill LAV's. We are saying that if a solder finds cover that prevents him from being run over, he should be able to do enough damage to a LAV to make it go away, or disable it if it stays too long. Or that four or five solders firing at a LAV charging at them should be able to disable it, at least on its second pass.

The idea is to make the infantry feel like they can defend themselves against LAV's, while insuring that the LAV drivers don't feel like they are driving death traps. (Reference structure HP, and disabling in my earlier post.)

Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DUST Fiend 18426	Posted - 2016.07.07 12:33:00 - [1] - Quote I get that this is a pointless crusade, but I'm bored and feel like rambling about my personal love when it comes to DUST: DA WHIRLY GIGS I get that current realities dictate the slow and steady approach, but if nothing else I would like to try to keep discussion going in favor of vehicles. Some want a more casual shooter experience that sees this layer of combat removed entirely, though I feel it ultimately brings nothing but good to the game and franchise if handled more seriously. Obviously we've been at this for a long time, but we were dealing with outdated assets and essentially (to my knowledge) foreign legacy code. Unless you're building Nova with the direct intent to port to PS4, then there is theoretically more leeway for player count and map size, but that's all theoretical. Anyways. All Vehicles: Capacitors To be perfectly honest it's been so long since I've played EVE that I likely don't have a full grasp on how they work anymore. What I imagine is that active modules all use a certain amount of capacitor per second, and the vehicles capacitor dictates how much pool it has, how fast it regens, etc etc. This could apply to things like primary turrets being fired as well, not just modules. Vehicle Lock: Lock any vehicle you call to squad only option and lock pilot position from all option New Modules: Energy Vamps, Neutralizers, and Webifiers. Similar to their EVE counterparts, used to attack the capacitor of enemy vehicles and to slow them down / stop them entirely. Assault Dropships: Automatically comes with a free MCRU and 6 passenger seats (counting 2 turrets. If a turret isn't fit, that space becomes a passenger space). Pilot no long has control of front gun. New second co pilot seat added. This gives direct control of the front gun to the co pilot, who can also cycle to either side gun at will. If another player is using a side gun, the co pilot will be given priority and that persons screen will revert to that of a passenger for the duration. Heavy Assault Vehicles: Separate the main gun from the hull. The pilot can switch to it at will but the vehicle will come to a stop while aiming unless another is present to pilot. Light Assault Vehicles: If a back turret isn't fit, the bed becomes a passenger slot. All passengers can fire light weapons and sidearms from within the vehicle. LAVs also have about 25% more armor / shields. Infantry AV Options: Deployable turret installations. Energy neutralizers and webifiers, as well as webifier grenades / remote explosives. Sidearm AV options such as a single shot swarm launcher or 3 clip gun that shoots rounds that damage slightly but disrupt all capacitor regen for X seconds while slowing the vehicle cumulatively for each shot. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18428	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:13:00 - [2] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: ADS -- don't think those who fly them well will like the idea of not being able to shoot - makes them more of a Chauffeur. HAV -- kinda the same as the ADS idea. I probably wouldn't even want to drive one if I couldn't run and gun at same time. :D As a basically full time ADS pilot I would personally enjoy a more support oriented role, but that's just me. Really though this is kind of the point. People who want to be racking up kills by themselves should be running infantry. Vehicles should require coordination to operate since they should also require coordination to destroy. Having less slayers and more support players in vehicle roles will probably never be a bad thing. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18429	Posted - 2016.07.07 14:27:00 - [3] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: ^^ I get your point in that, and it does make sense, given the real-world factor in both types of vehicles, but do you really think there would be a sufficient amount of players who would prefer only a support role? I counter that with what would be wrong with all those players just running infantry roles instead? If a match has players who want to run support roles, or perhaps game types that specifically call for vehicles (think destroying fortifications to move forward, or large maps that require transportation), then vehicles will appear. If no one wants to do it / they aren't needed, then it will just be more frantic ground combat. So long as the WP was better and there were more fitting options, juggling capacitor and re-positioning for my gunners would be plenty for me, personally. Also, slayer focused players would be natural fits for main turret operators. I just feel like vehicles shouldn't be throw away power ups, but if that's the case, they 100% need to not be solo machines. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18438	Posted - 2016.07.08 22:27:00 - [4] - Quote Slayer Deathbringer wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Let's not forget that vehicles are not likely to be included in Project Nova on release. It will take a long time for vehicles to be implemented as that would require maps that are probably going to be built from scratch. For now, we are going to be stuck indoors. But it doesn't hurt to talk about it now to help CCP get an idea of what to aim for in the future. Honestly I would prefer that CCP build outdoor maps from scratch like they are doing with Project Nova as a whole because then that will mean no glitches from Dust 514 carrying over to Project Nova. Well of course we just want them implemented right I just want to talk about them because it's the only thing worth talking about for me. It gives me the willful illusion that I actually have something relevant left to discuss when it comes to this IP. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18438	Posted - 2016.07.09 03:29:00 - [5] - Quote I think it's a given that they would be reworked and rebalanced.... There's only so much you can change about vehicles though. A jeep is still a jeep. A tank is still a tank. A dropship is still a dropship. They could change how modules work, or add capacitor, or make them freebee garbage, whatever. I don't think anyone is arguing that they shouldn't approach them differently, some of us are simply arguing that maybe this game deserves a stronger commitment from CCP and maybe just maybe combined arms is worth investing into, instead of tacking onto the end of the long Maybe train Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18438	Posted - 2016.07.09 04:20:00 - [6] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: CCP is committed to making this game, and making it as good as they can I can actually tell you that right now. Hilmar can tell us it's Greenlit, until then it's CCP TM Vapourware :/ Also you sit here telling me about griping and unconstructive threads, in my "constructive" thread that immediately admits that it's a fruitless venture. Do you even read bro. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18438	Posted - 2016.07.09 04:50:00 - [7] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: thoughts? I'd like to address a few posts including yours but I'm far too tired. Will try to pick this back up tomorrow. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18439	Posted - 2016.07.09 14:38:00 - [8] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Yeah, something like an LAV should be vulnerable to small arms. I'm not saying the damage needs to be 1:1 with suits - which would make it nearly impossible to survive - but the native resistance needs to be as low as possible while still allowing the vehicle some measure of survivability. Honestly though, why would vehicle powered shields not be able to take most if not all of the bite away from small arms fire? If there is sidearm AV and personal deployable turrets, why would you need to be able to insta pop a jeep with your AR? Why can't you use an HMG that already tears them apart, or a single AV grenade, or a free LAV, or an RE, or a turret, or just don't stand out in the open? Why can't people aim at the exposed occupants? Why exactly does a high tech vehicle have to explode to periodic pistol fire? Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:18:00 - [9] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The same question could be askdd of dropsuits. Why should they die to periodic pistol fire when they have high powered shields? Sentinels had as much shield HP as a methana. Same argument could be applied there. And the answer is "scaling." If all vehicles have the same damage scale then you can't balance them by role. You have to balance them by the same HP/speed slider we got with dropsuits. I mean let's use the Bolt Pistol as an example. It's the DUST equivalent of the .50 AE Desert Eagle. .50 cal pistols would crack an engine block and disable a Jeep easy. Nailing a helicopter is more iffy, and doing more than scuffing the paint on a tank is laughable. Scaling keeps things more dynamic. If you don't need to bust out the forges, or even swarms then HAVs might have a chance to reach targets without automatically coming under Forge Gun fire. If a Forge Gun is less useful for killing dropships than say a light weapon machinegun then you get a situation where you can scale vehicles to purpose. But if all vehicles are the same scale what you get is me and one other guy with forge guns chilling in a central location with lots of cover waiting for your ADS so we can pump slug after slug into your ship to deny you the airspace because even if there's no tanks on the map, we still need the forge guns to get anywhere with enemy jeeps on the field. And we'll not mention all of the swarmandos. Well as for dropsuits I think it's mostly that a dropsuit has flesh directly underneath it, where vehicles just have more layers of armor beneath them. As for needing AV to hurt vehicles, again what if we had AV sidearms and personal deployable turret installations? Then basically only people who refuse to deploy AV wouldn't have AV, in which case that's their own damn fault. I mean maybe LAVs can take 10-20% damage from small arms (possibly dropships too), but anything more than that and vehicles would just evaporate the second they try to move past a few enemies. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:46:00 - [10] - Quote But literally every single player on the map then has AV. Without boosting vehicle HP a ton, how do vehicles not simply explode when moving past basically anywhere on the map? Automatic weapons can maintain damage at range very easily with virtually no way for the pilot to tell where it's coming from. Maps would have to be massive with small player counts for this not to immediately imbalance every engagment against vehicles. Also don't forget that on top of almost 100% of players on the map now possessing AV, there are ALSO actual AV weapons and other vehicles on the field. I guess I'm more in favor of everyone using teamwork to take out various threats as oppossed to simply taking the thought out of things and giving everyone AV all the time. Maken Tosch wrote: CCP has already made it clear that vehicles are not likely to be available upon release because the first-person-shooter aspect of the game (the very core of it) NEEDS to be stable and enjoyable for everyone first Let's not be coy. CCP isn't taking this approach because it's what they have to do. It's because they refuse to invest in the DUST / NOVA team / project any further, keeping it a small side project that will slowly pluck away. Ultimately the reality is the same, but the reasoning is certainly different. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus

DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:51:00 - [11] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Oh, and who said anything about a rifle being able to take advantage of a weakspot? If it's a weapon tagged to do full damage to that type of vehicle? Sure, weakspot. If it's some chucklef**k with a scrambler pistol? No weakspot for you. Regardless though, automatic weapons can lay down constant damage from range with very little way for a pilot to counter ot tell where they're being shot from. Unlike AV they can't simply run away from it because now literally every single player on the map comes equipped with viable AV without even equipping actual AV or manning a turret. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 17:58:00 - [12] - Quote I just worry about that idea a lot since LAVs were already tremendously useless despite having potential to be useful additions to the battle. They're already paper trucks as is, so if kept similarly there would literally never be a reason to deploy one because any jackass could shoot in your general direction and take you out, or severely wound you before even getting where you're going. I feel that 10-20% damage is better, but have more sidearm AV options, possibly a dropsuit with two grenade slots, and the long since "promised" personal deployable turret installations. This would make it so every single player would have options to handle vehicles at all points in any given match, unless they straight up refused to use them. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 18:55:00 - [13] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: What you suggest makes every single vehicle, no matter how sh*tty into a strategic asset rather than a disposable taxtical asset. Because they dictate how EVERYONE must be outfitted on the field. I guess I'm curious why players having to vary their fits based on the situation is bad. Why is it too hard to call down your own turret if you lack the AV fit or just don't want to be primary AV? Why can't you focus fire if a vehicle is moving around too freely? If a vehicle is meant to be destroyed by any player wielding anything then should it also take the additional time to deploy? Why is it so wrong for the game to have to vary your groups composition? Why is ok for an entire team lacking AV to faceroll over vehicles? I absolutely think vehicles should require teamwork to use, hence my suggestions, so why is it that you seem to want to roll back that idea of teamwork for everyone and instead just turn into a solo feel good fest where no one has to adapt to the battle and just rolls whatever they please? I remember when this was called the thinking mans shooter and ever since it's just been dialed back and dialed back and dialed back and now it's going to shiny halo graphics with double kills, double jumps, and simple TDM galore. I don't know, I guess the tiny part of me that wants CCP to actually grow a pair, hire more devs, put more resources into their game and actually come out with something unique is just having trouble dieing. I'm sure in due time it too will die. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 20:08:00 - [14] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: As for dropship pilots on Nova, makes me wonder how the handling of aerial vehicles will be since now joysticks are an available control to the masses on PC. I have a joystick as well due to my addiction to X-Plane 10 and the Boeing 767-300ER Flight Factor add-on. I strongly doubt it would make too much of a difference, assuming vehicles make it back some day I really doubt they'll have complex controls. I'm getting my HOTAS for SC though so I'll probably use it regardless. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.09 20:40:00 - [15] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: As for dropship pilots on Nova, makes me wonder how the handling of aerial vehicles will be since now joysticks are an available control to the masses on PC. I have a joystick as well due to my addiction to X-Plane 10 and the Boeing 767-300ER Flight Factor add-on. I strongly doubt it would make too much of a difference, assuming vehicles make it back some day I really doubt they'll have complex controls. I'm getting my HOTAS for SC though so I'll probably use it regardless. If dropships flew with similar controls to the battlefield 2 blackhawks? I would have been flying them nonstop. I mastered takeoff, landing, deploying squads in hot zones, then moving squads from their actual points on the map to where they needed to be. It was fun, and I could land without crashing. I'm a pilot so I don't really care how the controls are, I will master them and I will incite rage with them. That said, better controls with actual flight tools would be welcome. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18440	Posted - 2016.07.10 00:47:00 - [16] - Quote BREAKING THINGS I think you're right about Light Vehicles taking 30 to even 50% damage from light arms fire. HOWEVER. Oh yea. Mhm. Feel it. It feels good baby. Light Vehicles are now single operator vehicles such as FUCKIN SPEEDERS and MTACs mmm yea suck in that sweet sweet dream juice. Mm. Then, make LAVs a Medium Vehicle that's basically the same thing just a little bit bigger so you can have the back turret or two transpo seats. Medium vehicles take 10-25% light arms damage Heavy vehicles take 2-7% light arms damage, because if we're going down this rabbit hole then a large amount of concentrated light arms should theoretically punch through their defenses in time. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18446	Posted - 2016.07.11 22:12:00 - [17] - Quote FOX GADEN I don't mean to be ignoring your feedback, it's just you always post such good ** and I want to give it the proper energy to respond to but the past few days I just haven't had it in me. Some days I'm really into this topic and others it bums me out since at best its years away, but still. Same goes to anyone else I've "ignored", I read everything and I'm glad to see some of you still posting good ** like always o7 Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18449	Posted - 2016.07.12 20:40:00 - [18] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Yeah, something like an LAV should be vulnerable to small arms. I'm not saying the damage needs to be 1:1 with suits - which would make it nearly impossible to survive - but the native resistance needs to be as low as possible while still allowing the vehicle some measure of survivability. Honestly though, why would vehicle powered shields not be able to take most if not all of the bite away from small arms fire? If there is sidearm AV and personal deployable turrets, why would you need to be able to insta pop a jeep with your AR? Why can't you use an HMG that already tears them apart, or a single AV grenade, or a free LAV, or an RE, or a turret, or just don't stand out in the open? Why can't people aim at the exposed occupants? Why exactly does a high tech vehicle have to explode to periodic pistol fire? Light Vehicles have light shields as well as light armor. Which is to say, heavier than you can fit on a Dropsuit, even a Heavy Dropsuit, but much lighter than on the heavy vehicles. Also, I am fairly sure no one said "insta pop" when saying that small arms should be able to do damage to LAV's. We are not saying that small arms should be an efficient way to kill LAV's. We are saying that if a solder finds cover that prevents him from being run over, he should be able to do enough damage to a LAV to make it go away, or disable it if it stays too long. Or that four or five solders firing at a LAV charging at them should be able to disable it, at least on its second pass. The idea is to make the infantry feel like they can defend themselves against LAV's, while insuring that the LAV drivers don't feel like they are driving death traps. (Reference structure HP, and disabling in my earlier post.) Well I was going off of 30-40% base damage on small arms, which considering their range and accuracy, would melt a typical LAV before it could even leave the one infantrymans range. Nevermind the fact that every last player on the field now has efficient AV 100% of the time, so even if it only moderately damaged it, passing even a single infantryman at any point almost guarantees your death. That's my gripe, and why I suggest something closer to 10-20% small arms damage instead. Still allows non AV to support AV / defend themselves, but doesn't turn the entire map into one giant AV nest. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18451	Posted - 2016.07.12 22:30:00 - [19] - Quote But what I'm saying is that if you have 16 plus players on the field, where EVERY weapon deals distinct damage to vehicles, PLUS AV, Turrets, and other Vehicles, you've basically just removed any reason to call in LAVs what so ever. They may as well all be free, pre fit, and laying around your spawn point, because you would actually have to try to NOT kill it when EVERYTHING is AV. I think having a well rounded team is important. If everyone just always has the answer to everything then team comp breaks down and it basically becomes a solo game where you never have to really pay attention to what your team runs. Just run your go to fit because it handles all situations, ezpz. This is also why I recommend making most vehicles require 2 to operate, so that way it requires coordination right out the gate in order to be a pilot. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18454	Posted - 2016.07.13 03:39:00 - [20] - Quote Dude, LAVS explode to EVERYTHING already, they're fragile as ****. I'm saying people SHOULD be able to hurt them with their AR, a little. I also suggest sidearm AV and personal deployable turrets on top of that. If you couldn't throw ONE damn AV grenade to clear the LAV out in the open, then....man...I don't even know.. Plus this topic really is for people who can't aim, since decent players often shot drivers out of their seat, followed quickly after by the occupants, and then they got a free ride. Really, why are we balancing the game for bads now? Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus

DUST Fiend 18455	Posted - 2016.07.13 10:32:00 - [21] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Really, why are we balancing the game for bads now? Why do you want to balance the game like literally everything needs to be high-difficulty? Game needs content for all skill levels, not just the "Skilled elite." You balance the game for average and above average players, then let the people sink or shine in that environment. It's a god damn LAV.... Seriously, right ******* now, how many of you felt you had to be "skilled elite" do down one? It's a light vehicle that's ALREADY easy to kill, I'm offering suggestions to let every single player regardless of fit to do some damage to it, give more AV options through sidearm AV and additional grenade slots for some, webifier grenades, and personal deployable turrets, yet somehow the LAV is still just too damn strong. You can fart at a god damn LAV and kill it as is, what more do you want? Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18459	Posted - 2016.07.14 05:49:00 - [22] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: It's a god damn LAV.... Seriously, right ******* now, how many of you felt you had to be "skilled elite" to down one? It's a light vehicle that's ALREADY easy to kill, I'm offering suggestions to let every single player regardless of fit to do some damage to it, give more AV options through sidearm AV and additional grenade slots for some, webifier grenades, and personal deployable turrets, yet somehow the LAV is still just too damn strong. You can fart at a god damn LAV and kill it as is, what more do you want? Perhaps those specialized AV options would be useful for dealing with Tanks? Adding new AV options to deal with LAV's is like cutting two of your chair legs shorter because your floor is not level. It seems a little odd to require specialized AV weapons to take out a jeep. Well sidearm AV would be something like single shot swarm or some kind of DoT placing gun, so it could be useful in a pinch to help your AV guy put down a vehicle. Webifier anything helps against all vehicles, and being able to call in your own turrets like originally envisioned would also help against all vehicles. The 20% damage from small arms to light vehicles wouldn't carry over though, but perhaps 10% damage to medium and 4-5% to heavy would help just the slightest bit. I don't see how any of this is creating a solution just for LAVs Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18482	Posted - 2016.08.03 13:54:00 - [23] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: OK new stupid idea, instead of EvE people blowing us up, why don't we blow them up? We invade a ship and fight like crazy, call in a tank/dropship and start pew-pewing the very ship we're in until "Boom!" everyone dies... Mission accomplished, harvest some scrap metal and space ship tears. Except of course that'd be the fastest way possible to get the entire EVE community unanimously against any form of interaction with whatever Project Nova becomes. That's not good. But, but.... isn't that what Eve players do to each other every day? I see Derpty Derp's idea as an extension of the Eve universal way of life. What happens when one Eve player blows up another Eve players ship? Revenge. Now imagine that revenge being applied to Mercs. Eve ships bombarding ground installation Clone facilities. I think that would open up a whole new way of playing - Both in space and on the ground. I think we've seen what happens when CCP tries to connect the games in real time. It's nice to dream but it's probably better to leave that kind of gameplay to Star Citizen. CCP needs to keep Nova in its own seperate EVE Universe and not try to connect the two. They need to stick to the basics. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18482	Posted - 2016.08.03 14:22:00 - [24] - Quote FraggerMike wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: I think we've seen what happens when CCP tries to connect the games in real time. It's nice to dream but it's probably better to leave that kind of gameplay to Star Citizen. CCP needs to keep Nova in its own seperate EVE Universe and not try to connect the two. They need to stick to the basics. You may be right, however, that tie-in to a completely different type of game was one of the biggest attractions to Dust514 for me. Bummed that it never made it to full integration. I would really hate to see that factor disappear. Don't get me wrong, that tie in was the only reason I got into DUST and then EVE for a time, I just feel like between the technical hurtles and the acidic response from EVE players it's just not worth even trying, not for a few more years at least. Nova feels like it needs to be its own separate thing just like Valk, as much as I hate to say it. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
DUST Fiend 18482	Posted - 2016.08.03 14:59:00 - [25] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Nova feels like it needs to be its own separate thing just like Valk, as much as I hate to say it. Rattati did say integration was something he wanted to do. I believe he said linking the economies was possible. It's not that it will never happen, just that it isn't a priority. Like vehicles. When you have a tiny dev team with low resources you've gotta start somewhere. Here's hoping we have news of an Alpha before next year. Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire. AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus