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

Mobius Wyvern wrote:

Fox Gaden wrote:

Mobius Wyvern wrote:

What I'm saying is we already had confirmed for us that Fighter weren't in Dust because the maps were too small. That and the design shown at FanFest 2012 both fairly clearly indicate that they were meant as Fixed-Wing only and not meant to function in any capacity as a pseudo-gunship.

Also, similar to your example of not using Dust as an example of the only way that knock-on weapons can work, I don't think Dust should be used as any example of map size in Nova, especially considering that we were eventually supposed to get all 25 square kilometers in Dust maps before then moving bigger.

I would be very surprised if CCP Ratatti's master plan is to bring back Territorial Warfare in small maps with 32 players maximum.

Well if they bring in maps big enough to support them, I don't have a problem with fixed wing aircraft.

The Fighter I was envisioning does not have to have a fixed wing mode. (I suggested the fixed wing mode because I did not think that exclusively fixed wing craft would be viable, and I wanted that fixed wing feel for dog fights.) The Fighter I was thinking of would be a one person craft slightly large than a LAV with stubby rear wings and a forward canard. A large articulating thruster at the end of each wing, and a small articulating thruster at either end of the canard. Low weight/high thrust, so it can change direction easily. It would probably require finesse and skill to bring it to a stop or land in a tight spot, but you would not have to wary as much about your momentum as you can overcome it with counter thrust much faster than with a Dropship.

Hopefully aircraft would actually have some instrumentation this time around:
- Pitch indicator
- Yaw indicator
- Movement vector in relation to the direction the craft is pointing.
- Flight speed indicator.

I like the idea of a sphare with a ring at the equator representing level flight, a second ring indicating the pitch and yaw of the aircraft, and an arrow from the center of the sphere indicating the actual direction the craft is traveling in, with forward being the direction the craft is pointed in. Have the arrow's length be proportional to movement speed.

Your description of a Fighter actually sounds like what I would consider an ideal setup for a single-seater Gunship.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7814	Posted - 2016.07.15 16:29:00 - [211] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: What I'm saying is we already had confirmed for us that Fighter weren't in Dust because the maps were too small. That and the design shown at FanFest 2012 both fairly clearly indicate that they were meant as Fixed-Wing only and not meant to function in any capacity as a pseudo-gunship. Also, similar to your example of not using Dust as an example of the only way that knock-on weapons can work, I don't think Dust should be used as any example of map size in Nova, especially considering that we were eventually supposed to get all 25 square kilometers in Dust maps before then moving bigger. I would be very surprised if CCP Ratatti's master plan is to bring back Territorial Warfare in small maps with 32 players maximum. Well if they bring in maps big enough to support them, I don't have a problem with fixed wing aircraft. The Fighter I was envisioning does not have to have a fixed wing mode. (I suggested the fixed wing mode because I did not think that exclusively fixed wing craft would be viable, and I wanted that fixed wing feel for dog fights.) The Fighter I was thinking of would be a one person craft slightly large than a LAV with stubby rear wings and a forward canard. A large articulating thruster at the end of each wing, and a small articulating thruster at either end of the canard. Low weight/high thrust, so it can change direction easily. It would probably require finesse and skill to bring it to a stop or land in a tight spot, but you would not have to wary as much about your momentum as you can overcome it with counter thrust much faster than with a Dropship. Hopefully aircraft would actually have some instrumentation this time around: - Pitch indicator - Yaw indicator - Movement vector in relation to the direction the craft is pointing. - Flight speed indicator. I like the idea of a sphare with a ring at the equator representing level flight, a second ring indicating the pitch and yaw of the aircraft, and an arrow from the center of the sphere indicating the actual direction the craft is traveling in, with forward being the direction the craft is pointed in. Have the arrow's length be proportional to movement speed. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8304	Posted - 2016.07.15 18:38:00 - [212] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: What I'm saying is we already had confirmed for us that Fighter weren't in Dust because the maps were too small. That and the design shown at FanFest 2012 both fairly clearly indicate that they were meant as Fixed-Wing only and not meant to function in any capacity as a pseudo-gunship. Also, similar to your example of not using Dust as an example of the only way that knock-on weapons can work, I don't think Dust should be used as any example of map size in Nova, especially considering that we were eventually supposed to get all 25 square kilometers in Dust maps before then moving bigger. I would be very surprised if CCP Ratatti's master plan is to bring back Territorial Warfare in small maps with 32 players maximum. Well if they bring in maps big enough to support them, I don't have a problem with fixed wing aircraft. The Fighter I was envisioning does not have to have a fixed wing mode. (I suggested the fixed wing mode because I did not think that exclusively fixed wing craft would be viable, and I wanted that fixed wing feel for dog fights.) The Fighter I was thinking of would be a one person craft slightly large than a LAV with stubby rear wings and a forward canard. A large articulating thruster at the end of each wing, and a small articulating thruster at either end of the canard. Low weight/high thrust, so it can change direction easily. It would probably require finesse and skill to bring it to a stop or land in a tight spot, but you would not have to wary as much about your momentum as you can overcome it with counter thrust much faster than with a Dropship. Hopefully aircraft would actually have some instrumentation this time around: - Pitch indicator - Yaw indicator - Movement vector in relation to the direction the craft is pointing. - Flight speed indicator. I like the idea of a sphare with a ring at the equator representing level flight, a second ring indicating the pitch and yaw of the aircraft, and an arrow from the center of the sphere indicating the actual direction the craft is traveling in, with forward being the direction the craft is pointed in. Have the arrow's length be proportional to movement speed. Your description of a Fighter actually sounds like what I would consider an ideal setup for a single-seater Gunship. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Thaddeus Reynolds Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 757	Posted - 2016.07.15 18:46:00 - [213] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: What I'm saying is we already had confirmed for us that Fighter weren't in Dust because the maps were too small. That and the design shown at FanFest 2012 both fairly clearly indicate that they were meant as Fixed-Wing only and not meant to function in any capacity as a pseudo-gunship. Also, similar to your example of not using Dust as an example of the only way that knock-on weapons can work, I don't think Dust should be used as any example of map size in Nova, especially considering that we were eventually supposed to get all 25 square kilometers in Dust maps before then moving bigger. I would be very surprised if CCP Ratatti's master plan is to bring back Territorial Warfare in small maps with 32 players maximum. Well if they bring in maps big enough to support them, I don't have a problem with fixed wing aircraft. The Fighter I was envisioning does not have to have a fixed wing mode. (I suggested the fixed wing mode because I did not think that exclusively fixed wing craft would be viable, and I wanted that fixed wing feel for dog fights.) The Fighter I was thinking of would be a one person craft slightly large than a LAV with stubby rear wings and a forward canard. A large articulating thruster at the end of each wing, and a small articulating thruster at either end of the canard. Low weight/high thrust, so it can change direction easily. It would probably require finesse and skill to bring it to a stop or land in a tight spot, but you would not have to wary as much about your momentum as you can overcome it with counter thrust much faster than with a Dropship. Hopefully aircraft would actually have some instrumentation this time around: - Pitch indicator - Yaw indicator - Movement vector in relation to the direction the craft is pointing. - Flight speed indicator. I like the idea of a sphare with a ring at the equator representing level flight, a second ring indicating the pitch and yaw of the aircraft, and an arrow from the center of the sphere indicating the actual direction the craft is traveling in, with forward being the direction the craft is pointed in. Have the arrow's length be proportional to movement speed. Your description of a Fighter actually sounds like what I would consider an ideal setup for a single-seater Gunship. C&C Orca Gunship anyone? A combination Cobra-Harrier might end up being the best compromise...but I would miss true fixed wing...again... Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
Nomed Deeps The Exemplars 511	Posted - 2016.07.15 20:19:00 - [214] - Quote I always wondered why there were no small single person vehicles in DUST 514; ground and air. Back to vehicle spawning, it could have easily decreased lag if there were ground vehicle spawns you could buy in while in war barge. Would also have been good if vehicle drops were limited per match (not counting initial vehicle buy ins) and if your team's RDV was destroyed, vehicles would not drop for a set amount of time. I think those would not only decrease lag but add strategy. I cannot be bought, but I can be leased.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1483	Posted - 2016.07.15 22:54:00 - [215] - Quote Nomed Deeps wrote: Back to vehicle spawning, it could have easily decreased lag if there were ground vehicle spawns you could buy in while in war barge. Would also have been good if vehicle drops were limited per match (not counting initial vehicle buy ins) and if your team's RDV was destroyed, vehicles would not drop for a set amount of time. I think those would not only decrease lag but add strategy. I never personally noticed an increase in lag from RDV's... Even when they were stuck in the middle of the map playing the yoyo glitch. As nice as it would be to not have to wait for deployment at the start of a match, I'm neither here nor there on the issue. Having the max amount of vehicles already set out could actually take away strategy, since it removes the need to decide the order vehicles are brought in. Then again on the other hand, if the vehicles are still brought in by RDV's at the start of battle, being able to decide where each one is brought in could be interesting, especially for decoying those pesky start of match barrages we used to get. Nomed Deeps wrote: I always wondered why there were no small single person vehicles in DUST 514; Probably because with the vehicle limits you'd have had the LAV spam problem, but on a larger scale. All the vehicle slots taken up by disposable jeeps, but with no extra seats to carry your team in with you, even less teamwork would have been bad.
Thaddeus Reynolds Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 757	Posted - 2016.07.15 23:01:00 - [216] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Nomed Deeps wrote: Back to vehicle spawning, it could have easily decreased lag if there were ground vehicle spawns you could buy in while in war barge. Would also have been good if vehicle drops were limited per match (not counting initial vehicle buy ins) and if your team's RDV was destroyed, vehicles would not drop for a set amount of time. I think those would not only decrease lag but add strategy. I never personally noticed an increase in lag from RDV's... Even when they were stuck in the middle of the map playing the yoyo glitch. As nice as it would be to not have to wait for deployment at the start of a match, I'm neither here nor there on the issue. Having the max amount of vehicles already set out could actually take away strategy, since it removes the need to decide the order vehicles are brought in. Then again on the other hand, if the vehicles are still brought in by RDV's at the start of battle, being able to decide where each one is brought in could be interesting, especially for decoying those pesky start of match barrages we used to get. Nomed Deeps wrote: I always wondered why there were no small single person vehicles in DUST 514; Probably because with the vehicle limits you'd have had the LAV spam problem, but on a larger scale. All the vehicle slots taken up by disposable jeeps, but with no extra seats to carry your team in with you, even less teamwork would have been bad. Some form of socket that augments vehicle spawns (not necessarily replaces RDVS entirely) that functions just as a special Industrial Supply Depot/CRU that would bring in the vehicle instantly/on spawn on that point might be something to consider...especially since I like the idea of RDV cool - down on destruction Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.16 00:45:00 - [217] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: "Weakspot" is a relative term. It might be more literal to say "Weaker spot". Just popping in to say this. A weak spot doesn't have to be a "critical hit" location. It can simply mean small arms do damage when hitting [insert location]. Which would mean anything bigger should do more damage too. A forge gun is gonna be more destructive to that point than it would on area that isn't "weak". I would actually posit that a Forge gun hitting an LAV is pretty much a Death warrant, weakspot or no. It's kinda hard to up the destructive power of "goes through the engine and still kills the driver" by and large. LAVs shouldn't be scaled to weather anti-tank weapons. Aircraft should be nimble enough that casually hitting one with an anti-tank weapon should be challenging enough to be called a skillshot. If AT weapons are at their most effective against tanks, period, and lesser weapons will do sufficient damage to lighter vehicles so as to be unnecessary, then most people won't waste time lugging AT Forge Guns across a battlefield. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.16 00:50:00 - [218] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I would say if you lose lock, missiles go on terminal ballistic path. IE they fly straight and fast in whatever direction they were pointed. As long as they're designed not to fire forwards this would be fine, otherwise you'll get a lot of people not holding the lock for more than a millisecond, because it's already launching forwards. Not a huge problem for vehicles that move a lot on multiple axis like dropships, but ground vehicles and possibly infantry would be at risk of fire and forget gameplay. If however the missiles follow the lock, it would allow for interesting manoeuvring of the missiles, allowing the person launching to fire around multiple obstacles and friendly assets, or even just to juke a dropship into dodging one way and ending up in a whole world of trouble. My thoughts here exactly. My idea is Lock to fire. Meaning without an actual vehicle lock, you cannot fire the guided missiles. Must hold lock for missiles to track all the way to target. If lock is lost, Missiles take terminal ballistic path to target or until they expire/hit an obstacle. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8304	Posted - 2016.07.16 14:20:00 - [219] - Quote Guys, seriously, fire-and-forget missiles are not automatically a bad thing. Dust 514 had Super-Ultra-Physics-Defying fire-and-forget missiles. They were in no way an example of proper mechanics for designing fire-and-forget missiles. As long as the missiles can be evaded through a pilot being skilled with controlling their vehicle, and there are some forms of countermeasure available to allow a few get-out-of-jail-free cards in case you get a bunch of them shot at you at once, they'll be perfectly fine in forms of balance. The important factor to consider here is that AV is a dual purpose role of destroying vehicles but also of area-denial. If there are enough fire-and-forget launches in an area to make a pilot nervous about flying there, you're already doing your job to help support your teammates. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13095	Posted - 2016.07.16 18:15:00 - [220] - Quote I understand your point. But until we get confirmation that countermeasures and such are in the cards, I tend to plan and prep for worst-case scenario. In this case, we get a guided missile weapon without any kind of countermeasures. My concern with that being if missile range is short, missiles might be too easy to evade with countermeasures. If missile range is too long, then you are continually being bombarded and they only delay inevitability. I'm more a fan of stinger missile style AA missiles that have to maintain a lock precisely because they force the gunner to take as much risk and exposure as the target, or a forge gunner. But if missiles can only alter course 15-20 degrees per second that also solves a lot of issues. But all of this is entirely dependent on what the devs can do with the engine they are using. I'm not a programmer, so I cannot give a realistic assessment of what is possible, or what is worth plugging in the man-hours. Some things could be so calculation-heavy that they might slow FPS. That would be the fastest way for a feature to get dumped. Right now I'm going purely on what I know is possible, what we might get at minimum. So bear in mind that I'm poking at worst-case scenarios, because I am not going to set myself up for disappointment. That is where my perspective is at. Another part of it is even if I do know something is doable/being worked on/planned, I cannot base my premises on that knowledge, publically. I respect your perspective, mobius. Please understand that my ability to spitball with you is more sharply limited than derpty or DUST Fiend. So please don't take my limited-perspective comments as disagreement, or my full perspective on the topic. I simply prefer to not pour gasoline and lit matches on bridges with false hope or NDA breaches. The instant that I am allowed to add more to the conversation, you will KNOW. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.

Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8307	Posted - 2016.07.17 14:43:00 - [221] - Quote No need to explain that part. I'm used to that with everyone I know that's been on the CPM. You've all been pretty consistent with expressing irritation at trying to converse with anyone else about game balance or progress since you can only bring half or less of your total knowledge of the picture to the table. Basically just theory-crafting here. For all our talk, planets were confirmed, but vehicles were not. We still have no way of knowing if Rattati intends this to be an infantry-only game universally. Obviously myself and others hope not, which is why we're so invested in keeping threads like this going to try and present the situation in a different light. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
byte modal 917	Posted - 2016.07.17 17:42:00 - [222] - Quote I think at this point, the few remaining willing to play the forum game are dedicated to the spirit of this conversation and (hopefully) smart enough to read the difference between personal opinion and NDA filters. Though I empathize with your concern, I do believe it best to filter through open discussion rather than internal judgment based on a possibilty of misunderstaning. I would like to think we're better than that (at this point). Judging by the positive and non-derailing attitude of what is now 12 or 13 pages I think there is little to assume otherwise. Also, I tend to lean towards putting all ideas on the table aiming high. If we only aim short, we hit short. We will never go farther than the restrictions we place upon ourselves. And really, this is all fan fantasy preproduction theory crafting on a dead forum for another game that may never exist. So there's that. kitten bacon taco (nom)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13098	Posted - 2016.07.17 17:58:00 - [223] - Quote Oh my God, what have I done? We're discussing realistic situation assessment on the DUST forums! Crapcrapcrap quick, someone call someone a no-skill scrub! Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Dragonmeballs Better Hide R Die 332	Posted - 2016.07.17 18:22:00 - [224] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Oh my God, what have I done? We're discussing realistic situation assessment on the DUST forums! Crapcrapcrap quick, someone call someone a no-skill scrub! In best Lurch voice: You rang? Caldari in the streets, Amarr between the sheets
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1484	Posted - 2016.07.17 19:59:00 - [225] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Crapcrapcrap quick, someone call someone a no-skill scrub! I vote Medico, everyone loved it when he called someone a scrub... I miss Medico... that lovely skraaaaaab.
byte modal 918	Posted - 2016.07.17 21:01:00 - [226] - Quote I thought we (they?) were already doing that on page 1. ? kitten bacon taco (nom)
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1485	Posted - 2016.07.18 07:33:00 - [227] - Quote byte modal wrote: I thought we (they?) were already doing that on page 1. ? Only scrubs read page 1... scrub...
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8307	Posted - 2016.07.18 12:54:00 - [228] - Quote I would normally be warning about going off topic, but there aren't any ISD for the Dust forums so I guess threads will only get locked excessive profanity or slurs and stuff. It really is pretty cool we've been having a discussion this long. As sad as it makes me to think about sometimes, I think losing one of our favorite games had the effect of making us nicer to each other. Now we're all here without the game we got sucked into and not knowing what will be in the new one or even when it will come. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
byte modal 919	Posted - 2016.07.18 15:07:00 - [229] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: byte modal wrote: I thought we (they?) were already doing that on page 1. ? Only scrubs read page 1... scrub... lol <3<3<3 kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 919	Posted - 2016.07.18 15:16:00 - [230] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: I would normally be warning about going off topic, but there aren't any ISD for the Dust forums so I guess threads will only get locked excessive profanity or slurs and stuff. It really is pretty cool we've been having a discussion this long. As sad as it makes me to think about sometimes, I think losing one of our favorite games had the effect of making us nicer to each other. Now we're all here without the game we got sucked into and not knowing what will be in the new one or even when it will come. I wonder though. Most of the people still posting and replying have (for the most part!) a history of offering thoughtful discussion. We all get testy, and even snarky from time to time but that's going to happen in anything in life. Game forums are probably more susceptible to sarcasm, jaded perceptions, and BVS---here maybe more than most! Still though, whining is gone. Trolls have picked up camp and migrated to greener pastures. The ones that have stayed are either truly dedicated or have a borderline masochistic personality. Either way, it's all good. We all need our egos checked... from time to time. kitten bacon taco (nom)

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1486	Posted - 2016.07.18 18:04:00 - [231] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: It really is pretty cool we've been having a discussion this long. As sad as it makes me to think about sometimes, I think losing one of our favorite games had the effect of making us nicer to each other. Nah, I think (almost) everyone was nice before they came to the game, then through playing the game we all got a bit **** towards each other and now with it gone for a while, we've calmed back down a little. Anyway vehicles... If we can have destructible environments, how about something that digs tunnels... But give the main buildings/sockets defences so you can't just tunnel under the null cannons and just drop it to the centre of the planet. Edit - Or even just let tanks dig down and spring up out of nowhere! lol... "peekaboo mother ***!!!" boom*
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 13099	Posted - 2016.07.18 21:12:00 - [232] - Quote Having spots where they can go "hull down" isn't necessarily a bad idea either. Yes, I am a Goon. No, I don't care about your spacepolitik.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8311	Posted - 2016.07.20 14:55:00 - [233] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: It really is pretty cool we've been having a discussion this long. As sad as it makes me to think about sometimes, I think losing one of our favorite games had the effect of making us nicer to each other. Nah, I think (almost) everyone was nice before they came to the game, then through playing the game we all got a bit **** towards each other and now with it gone for a while, we've calmed back down a little. Anyway vehicles... If we can have destructible environments, how about something that digs tunnels... But give the main buildings/sockets defences so you can't just tunnel under the null cannons and just drop it to the centre of the planet. Edit - Or even just let tanks dig down and spring up out of nowhere! lol... "peekaboo mother ***!!!" boom* Tunneling would be VERY hard to pull off. You have to consider that the server needs to track every shift in the terrain and then rebroadcast that to every connected client. The lag would be horrifying. I can totally get behind allowing craters, because you can automate the generation of those and they rarely involve going that deep. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8326	Posted - 2016.07.24 10:15:00 - [234] - Quote So, hey, a German gaming magazine's spread on Star Citizen's planet building tech just had some of its pages leaked recently. With everyone hopping on the Procedural Generation train, one can only hope CCP builds themselves a system for that within the next few years for whatever Nova becomes. It'd be pretty nice to have insanely large spaces to battle on and over, if nothing else. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Joel II X Bacon with a bottle of Quafe 10399	Posted - 2016.07.25 02:21:00 - [235] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: So, hey, a German gaming magazine's spread on Star Citizen's planet building tech just had some of its pages leaked recently. With everyone hopping on the Procedural Generation train, one can only hope CCP builds themselves a system for that within the next few years for whatever Nova becomes. It'd be pretty nice to have insanely large spaces to battle on and over, if nothing else. I doubt it. *Scouts United* Gk.0s & Quafes all day.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8334	Posted - 2016.07.26 11:53:00 - [236] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: So, hey, a German gaming magazine's spread on Star Citizen's planet building tech just had some of its pages leaked recently. With everyone hopping on the Procedural Generation train, one can only hope CCP builds themselves a system for that within the next few years for whatever Nova becomes. It'd be pretty nice to have insanely large spaces to battle on and over, if nothing else. I doubt it. I don't doubt it at all. CCP Rattati already said he'll go as far as he can with this game, and that's a logical step in my opinion, considering how essential massive-scale PvP is to EVE Online. If you're going to have another game in the same universe, it would make sense to push the scale of combat as large as you can. Obviously Valkyrie is an exception to that considering it's an arcade-style game. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7816	Posted - 2016.07.28 11:51:00 - [237] - Quote I have not lost interest in this topic. I have just been too busy over the last week or so to read the forms. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1498	Posted - 2016.07.28 12:01:00 - [238] - Quote 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.
FraggerMike G.R.A.V.E 410	Posted - 2016.07.28 14:24:00 - [239] - Quote ^ Interesting. There would, undoubtedly, be "lifeboats" available. That way the survivors would at least have an opportunity to escape afterwards. Shouldn't have to die after winning a battle :p CEO of G.R.A.V.E
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8341	Posted - 2016.08.03 12:38:00 - [240] - Quote 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. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page