DUST Search - Devs please read this.

All Channels

General Discussions

Devs please read this.

» 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 - 1 post(s)
Mejt0 Made in Poland... 2781	Posted - 2017.05.26 21:11:00 - [31] - Quote Sequal's Back wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Up it to 18 v 18, that way you can have 3 squads of 6 Simple math wins again! Unless we're going with 4 person squads... Which I don't think really took off in Dust. Haha true. I completely forgot that it was 4 at the end of the game. In the end this didn't change anything relevant other than messing up with corp squadding (in my case there was always 5th member that couldn't join) Vigilant Pilot Happy Hunting
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1915	Posted - 2017.05.26 23:08:00 - [32] - Quote Mejt0 wrote: Sequal's Back wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Up it to 18 v 18, that way you can have 3 squads of 6 Simple math wins again! Unless we're going with 4 person squads... Which I don't think really took off in Dust. Haha true. I completely forgot that it was 4 at the end of the game. In the end this didn't change anything relevant other than messing up with corp squadding (in my case there was always 5th member that couldn't join) Lol, we've got a tank with 3 people in it, and a dropship supporting from the sky... But we've got no room for infantry to support... How many vehicles must we lose to blueberrys, since we have to jump out and hack everything ourselves!
Mejt0 Made in Poland... 2785	Posted - 2017.05.27 09:47:00 - [33] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Mejt0 wrote: Sequal's Back wrote: Derpty Derp wrote: Juno Tristan wrote: Up it to 18 v 18, that way you can have 3 squads of 6 Simple math wins again! Unless we're going with 4 person squads... Which I don't think really took off in Dust. Haha true. I completely forgot that it was 4 at the end of the game. In the end this didn't change anything relevant other than messing up with corp squadding (in my case there was always 5th member that couldn't join) Lol, we've got a tank with 3 people in it, and a dropship supporting from the sky... But we've got no room for infantry to support... How many vehicles must we lose to blueberrys, since we have to jump out and hack everything ourselves! That's why there was always the fifth :) , 3 for a tank and 2 for a dropship. Vigilant Pilot Happy Hunting
jett it S.K.I.L.L OF G.O.D 857	Posted - 2017.05.27 11:32:00 - [34] - Quote Richard Gamerich-R wrote: "Higher player count" No, I disagree with that. I'm playing BF since a year now on PC, and 32vs32 is not really fun as 16vs16, and mostly, there is no really strategy, just chaos (I don't need to explain the case of Planetside 2 lul). I remember in DUST that sometimes, when I was leading my 15 Prima's guys on Planetary conquest, it was really hot because they talked often for nothing, and listened only 50% of my words, so I prefer to not imagine with 31 guys. Most seriously, I think one of the biggest part that I loved in DUST, was the strategy side with a team of 16 players. It's a sweet spot I guess, more is not really a good idea for me. Yeah i have to agree with you on that as well, been playing BF4 and Battlefront lately 32v32 and 20vs20 at 32 players per team there is zero strategy maybe a party would have a little bit of a strategy buy that don't matter if the rest of your team is running around like chickens with their heads cut off. 20vs20 was the closest I found to dust 514 but it was still way too random acts, no strategy. I have to agree in terms of strategy 16vs16 seems to be where it is at. I am curious to play a 14vs14 but then that might get a little to personal. I think a 14vs14 would also be a solid game mode, if anything it would be more of a call to action to all of the players in the match. http://www.youtube.com/JettGaming
DiGreatDestroyer Grupo de Asalto Chacal 364	Posted - 2017.05.27 13:54:00 - [35] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: "Higher player count" No, I disagree with that. I'm playing BF since a year now on PC, and 32vs32 is not really fun as 16vs16, and mostly, there is no really strategy, just chaos (I don't need to explain the case of Planetside 2 lul). I remember in DUST that sometimes, when I was leading my 15 Prima's guys on Planetary conquest, it was really hot because they talked often for nothing, and listened only 50% of my words, so I prefer to not imagine with 31 guys. Most seriously, I think one of the biggest part that I loved in DUST, was the strategy side with a team of 16 players. It's a sweet spot I guess, more is not really a good idea for me. couldn't agree more, 16v16 is the sweet spot. Through all my fps gamer life, player count above that never increased the fun nor strategy. Talking about this with my corp mates, I started thinking what would the sweet number be in the city sockets of Dust, and it is my duty to ask you this: Is there any chances that those big city sockets can make a return in Nova? Maybe as a separate "nostalgia" playlist? Just the city socket, walled off. #KeepDustInThePS3
Sylwester Dziewiecki Interregnum. 615	Posted - 2017.05.28 00:15:00 - [36] - Quote Guys, it is good to know your all opinion on the subject of player count and such, but unfortunately everyone is wrong here. 1 vs. 1 It is the best kind of gameplay that any FPS game ever introduce, and all you can really do about it right now, is to accept it once and live with it. All you guys talking about how 16vs16 or 32vs32 is somehow better, but it is all up to how map was design. If you would spawn all the time infront of 4 or 64 other guys that awaits you there, on the flat map without walls; I doubt you'll remember game name at all. All my best 'moments' as FPS player, come from games where developers decide to give player a choice on: 1) with map he want to play, 2) with who he want to play, 3) and how he want to play, ..and not from games that have given player some flat mechanic that he had to accept. This is Skirmish v1.0. In my free time I like to spend time.
Faquira Bleuetta fatal absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 584	Posted - 2017.05.28 01:16:00 - [37] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: "Higher player count" No, I disagree with that. I'm playing BF since a year now on PC, and 32vs32 is not really fun as 16vs16, and mostly, there is no really strategy, just chaos (I don't need to explain the case of Planetside 2 lul). I remember in DUST that sometimes, when I was leading my 15 Prima's guys on Planetary conquest, it was really hot because they talked often for nothing, and listened only 50% of my words, so I prefer to not imagine with 31 guys. Most seriously, I think one of the biggest part that I loved in DUST, was the strategy side with a team of 16 players. It's a sweet spot I guess, more is not really a good idea for me. couldn't agree more, 16v16 is the sweet spot. Through all my fps gamer life, player count above that never increased the fun nor strategy. autistic screeching i want my 32vs32 +vehicle no shekel for u.
BlazeXYZ Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 338	Posted - 2017.05.28 15:17:00 - [38] - Quote Now imagine 32 people spawning on the last uplink that some random blueberry scout dropped thinking he could change the course of this game. Little that he knew a full pledged squad of mass drivers and core grenade enthusiasts were just waiting for them to spawn. The Blazing Intellect Machine
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 8080	Posted - 2017.05.28 20:46:00 - [39] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: "Higher player count" No, I disagree with that. I'm playing BF since a year now on PC, and 32vs32 is not really fun as 16vs16, and mostly, there is no really strategy, just chaos (I don't need to explain the case of Planetside 2 lul). I remember in DUST that sometimes, when I was leading my 15 Prima's guys on Planetary conquest, it was really hot because they talked often for nothing, and listened only 50% of my words, so I prefer to not imagine with 31 guys. Most seriously, I think one of the biggest part that I loved in DUST, was the strategy side with a team of 16 players. It's a sweet spot I guess, more is not really a good idea for me. couldn't agree more, 16v16 is the sweet spot. Through all my fps gamer life, player count above that never increased the fun nor strategy. Yeah, players like to zerg too much. Also, it's not even alpha yet and the OP is already calling for nerfs. New record. Current state of the forums
Mejt0 Made in Poland... 2789	Posted - 2017.05.28 21:42:00 - [40] - Quote It really is a sweet spot, 16v16. Too much chaos and it's no different than CoD ffa. 14v14 is an odd number I must say. It will depend on the map's size but I got to say having a little bigger map won't hurt. Meaning, just big enough so there are moments where you can avoid combat. Vigilant Pilot Happy Hunting

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1922	Posted - 2017.05.28 23:45:00 - [41] - Quote BlazeXYZ wrote: Now imagine 32 people spawning on the last uplink that some random blueberry scout dropped thinking he could change the course of this game. Little that he knew a full pledged squad of mass drivers and core grenade enthusiasts were just waiting for them to spawn. Better... I imagine them all spawning under my dropship... The sound as each one pops. It'll probably teach people not to get so boned in the match that everyone has only 1 option of where to spawn. The people with brains would know to spawn back at base I think.
Maken Tosch DUST University 13772	Posted - 2017.05.28 23:53:00 - [42] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: "Higher player count" No, I disagree with that. I'm playing BF since a year now on PC, and 32vs32 is not really fun as 16vs16, and mostly, there is no really strategy, just chaos (I don't need to explain the case of Planetside 2 lul). I remember in DUST that sometimes, when I was leading my 15 Prima's guys on Planetary conquest, it was really hot because they talked often for nothing, and listened only 50% of my words, so I prefer to not imagine with 31 guys. Most seriously, I think one of the biggest part that I loved in DUST, was the strategy side with a team of 16 players. It's a sweet spot I guess, more is not really a good idea for me. couldn't agree more, 16v16 is the sweet spot. Through all my fps gamer life, player count above that never increased the fun nor strategy. I always wondered what it would be like to have player counts in a single match bigger than 16 vs 16 but if it doesn't work out, then perhaps we should keep it to 16 vs 16. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 17198	Posted - 2017.05.29 00:33:00 - [43] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: "Higher player count" No, I disagree with that. I'm playing BF since a year now on PC, and 32vs32 is not really fun as 16vs16, and mostly, there is no really strategy, just chaos (I don't need to explain the case of Planetside 2 lul). I remember in DUST that sometimes, when I was leading my 15 Prima's guys on Planetary conquest, it was really hot because they talked often for nothing, and listened only 50% of my words, so I prefer to not imagine with 31 guys. Most seriously, I think one of the biggest part that I loved in DUST, was the strategy side with a team of 16 players. It's a sweet spot I guess, more is not really a good idea for me. couldn't agree more, 16v16 is the sweet spot. Through all my fps gamer life, player count above that never increased the fun nor strategy. I always wondered what it would be like to have player counts in a single match bigger than 16 vs 16 but if it doesn't work out, then perhaps we should keep it to 16 vs 16. There is no reason that at some point they can't experiment with variable player numbers. Fox (I think) suggested that if we have ranked matches, that it could be squad vs squad. 16 vs 16 worked for Skirmish, but there could be game modes that will do better with more or less. It would even be kind of cool if there were multiple battles in an area that affected each other, but were different "instances" if I am using the term correctly. It would give the feel of being part of something larger yet retain all the intimacy of a smaller battle. With PC, these kinds of things are much more flexible. Especially now that they aren't confined by Sony restraints and poor foundation code. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
xxwhitedevilxx M Maphia Clan Corporation 3947	Posted - 2017.05.29 19:42:00 - [44] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: "Higher player count" No, I disagree with that. I'm playing BF since a year now on PC, and 32vs32 is not really fun as 16vs16, and mostly, there is no really strategy, just chaos (I don't need to explain the case of Planetside 2 lul). I remember in DUST that sometimes, when I was leading my 15 Prima's guys on Planetary conquest, it was really hot because they talked often for nothing, and listened only 50% of my words, so I prefer to not imagine with 31 guys. Most seriously, I think one of the biggest part that I loved in DUST, was the strategy side with a team of 16 players. It's a sweet spot I guess, more is not really a good idea for me. couldn't agree more, 16v16 is the sweet spot. Through all my fps gamer life, player count above that never increased the fun nor strategy. It was the exact opposite for me actually. Never had as much fun as I used to have with MAG's highest player count "Domination" mode. Battlefield-like high player count is one thing, MAG's was totally different: the game was structured so that the players in a squad couldn't communicate with the players in another squad (which would eventually have caused the troubles described by Richard) limiting the communications per channel (squad chat accessible by squad members only, platoon chat accessible by the platoon leader and squad leaders and company chat accessible only by platoon leaders and company leader). It was actually the most strategic thing I've experienced in an FPS with that massive player count and I've never found anything remotely similar to that experience (except, perhaps, on a much smaller scale on Dust) . take time or take aurums (Gò»#-_-)Gò»~~~GòºGòÉGòº [FSTNM SCDNM] #PortDust514
Cyrus Grevare WarRavens Imperium Eden 493	Posted - 2017.05.29 22:47:00 - [45] - Quote Yes 16vs16 is the sweetspot (or 18vs18 :p), but only because with maybe MAG as the exception, none have done it right. I'm pretty sure that if enough thought and consideration was given to a mass combat game mode it would be awesome. Let's start thinking out of the box and try out new things, it would be great if Nova could innovate in this aspect. I remember waiting for PC wondering if I would make the cut, wishing for more space in the squads lol www.protofits.com - a Dust 514 fitting tool
Scheneighnay McBob Penumbra or something 8082	Posted - 2017.06.02 15:41:00 - [46] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: "Higher player count" No, I disagree with that. I'm playing BF since a year now on PC, and 32vs32 is not really fun as 16vs16, and mostly, there is no really strategy, just chaos (I don't need to explain the case of Planetside 2 lul). I remember in DUST that sometimes, when I was leading my 15 Prima's guys on Planetary conquest, it was really hot because they talked often for nothing, and listened only 50% of my words, so I prefer to not imagine with 31 guys. Most seriously, I think one of the biggest part that I loved in DUST, was the strategy side with a team of 16 players. It's a sweet spot I guess, more is not really a good idea for me. couldn't agree more, 16v16 is the sweet spot. Through all my fps gamer life, player count above that never increased the fun nor strategy. I always wondered what it would be like to have player counts in a single match bigger than 16 vs 16 but if it doesn't work out, then perhaps we should keep it to 16 vs 16. There is no reason that at some point they can't experiment with variable player numbers. Fox (I think) suggested that if we have ranked matches, that it could be squad vs squad. 16 vs 16 worked for Skirmish, but there could be game modes that will do better with more or less. It would even be kind of cool if there were multiple battles in an area that affected each other, but were different "instances" if I am using the term correctly. It would give the feel of being part of something larger yet retain all the intimacy of a smaller battle. With PC, these kinds of things are much more flexible. Especially now that they aren't confined by Sony restraints and poor foundation code. I feel like even if CCP tried designing a game mode to force teams to split up, the idiots would still just zerg one objective at a time because that's how game communities operate. Current state of the forums
Slightly-Mental Planetary Research and Investments 80	Posted - 2017.06.05 13:39:00 - [47] - Quote 16v16 quick play map, 32v32 campaign map I would also like to see a saboteur skill tree and dropsuit for those that like playing with remote explosives, proxy mines *infantry and AV that works. With the skill tree branching off opening up AV weapons.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page