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)
Assassin 779 LAST FRONTIER FIGHTERS 18	Posted - 2017.04.07 15:25:00 - [1] - Quote The following list is in no particular order of priority, these are things i would love to have in Nova Big Maps or at least equal to that of Dust. Higher Player Count. MORE EVE. (very important) Recoil (this is because in the demo there was like close to no recoil) Add some lore that connects Dust to Nova.( at least ) Keep the chat system and improved trading between players. Maybe some "special" rewards for my fellow dusters. Drop ships(that is a must,not having that is a deal breaker) Orbitals would be nice, i guess. Meeting area (Real merc Quarters) for corp mates or in general.(somewhat like what we used to have before a match,this is not necessary,but would be lovely) Better Hit detection. Stable Servers. Keep Some of the legacy maps if u need. Better Developer response.( Nothing to say here i guess) Nerf jump mods or make them for specific classes. Please CCP DON'T MAKE IT A PAY TO WIN KIND OF GAME. Make it more than just a lobby shooter. PLEASE DONT COPY COD (that is what made dust different) Balancing(That is obvious) Get rid of scotty the matchmaking AI or make a better version of scotty. (not the player) Remove or nerf passives. NOVA knifes. Feel free to add to this and give your suggestions. This was MY FAVORITE GAME. GO AHEAD JUDGE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wannabe forum warrior.
XxBlazikenxX WarRavens Imperium Eden 5603	Posted - 2017.04.07 15:26:00 - [2] - Quote Nova Sword And you get a like! And you get a like! And you, and you, and you!
Assassin 779 LAST FRONTIER FIGHTERS 18	Posted - 2017.04.07 15:27:00 - [3] - Quote XxBlazikenxX wrote: Nova Sword dude u replied so fast This was MY FAVORITE GAME. GO AHEAD JUDGE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wannabe forum warrior.
XxBlazikenxX WarRavens Imperium Eden 5603	Posted - 2017.04.07 15:31:00 - [4] - Quote Assassin 779 wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Nova Sword dude u replied so fast Just doing ma job And you get a like! And you get a like! And you, and you, and you!
7th Son 7 Hakuna Matatah Inc 1717	Posted - 2017.04.07 15:48:00 - [5] - Quote Assassin 779 wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Nova Sword dude u replied so fast Blaze is a Prof V creeper, he's my role model. Any who, I would like to see Orbitals, Vehicles, and Character and Vehicle upgrades. I'm hoping that the fact that we don't want a lobby shooter is clear to CCP by now, otherwise that's where we would be. My hope is that they can strike a balance with new player retention without dumbing the game down too much. Only your complete and total awareness is needed, nothing else will do. ----- OSHO
XxBlazikenxX WarRavens Imperium Eden 5607	Posted - 2017.04.07 15:48:00 - [6] - Quote 7th Son 7 wrote: Assassin 779 wrote: XxBlazikenxX wrote: Nova Sword dude u replied so fast Blaze is a Prof V creeper, he's my role model. Any who, I would like to see Orbitals, Vehicles, and Character and Vehicle upgrades. I'm hoping that the fact that we don't want a lobby shooter is clear to CCP by now, otherwise that's where we would be. My hope is that they can strike a balance with new player retention without dumbing the game down too much. And you get a like! And you get a like! And you, and you, and you!
TooMany Names AlreadyTaken Going for the gold 4063	Posted - 2017.04.07 15:57:00 - [7] - Quote Assassin 779 wrote: The following list is in no particular order of priority, these are things i would love to have in Nova Big Maps or at least equal to that of Dust. Higher Player Count. MORE EVE. (very important) Recoil (this is because in the demo there was like close to no recoil) Add some lore that connects Dust to Nova.( at least ) Keep the chat system and improved trading between players. Maybe some "special" rewards for my fellow dusters. Drop ships(that is a must,not having that is a deal breaker) Orbitals would be nice, i guess. Meeting area (Real merc Quarters) for corp mates or in general.(somewhat like what we used to have before a match,this is not necessary,but would be lovely) Better Hit detection. Stable Servers. Keep Some of the legacy maps if u need. Better Developer response.( Nothing to say here i guess) Nerf jump mods or make them for specific classes. Please CCP DON'T MAKE IT A PAY TO WIN KIND OF GAME. Make it more than just a lobby shooter. PLEASE DONT COPY COD (that is what made dust different) Balancing(That is obvious) Get rid of scotty the matchmaking AI or make a better version of scotty. (not the player) Remove or nerf passives. NOVA knifes. A catgirl maid brings you coffee in your personal HQ after every win. Feel free to add to this and give your suggestions. FTFY Can't honestly believe you forgot that... #NekosForLife GÄ¥GùÑGû¦GÇ+GÇ+GùÇGùñGÄá When you think about it, no matter how weird it seems at first, nekos are like upgraded humans
Cryxes Xenus Tal-Romon Legion Amarr Empire 11	Posted - 2017.04.07 15:58:00 - [8] - Quote Legacy huds please its all i want from nova "also Dren suit"
BO0OMSLANG Rebels New Republic 68	Posted - 2017.04.07 16:03:00 - [9] - Quote Assassin 779 wrote: The following list is in no particular order of priority, these are things i would love to have in Nova Big Maps or at least equal to that of Dust. Higher Player Count. MORE EVE. (very important) Recoil (this is because in the demo there was like close to no recoil) Add some lore that connects Dust to Nova.( at least ) Keep the chat system and improved trading between players. Maybe some "special" rewards for my fellow dusters. Drop ships(that is a must,not having that is a deal breaker) Orbitals would be nice, i guess. Meeting area (Real merc Quarters) for corp mates or in general.(somewhat like what we used to have before a match,this is not necessary,but would be lovely) Better Hit detection. Stable Servers. Keep Some of the legacy maps if u need. Better Developer response.( Nothing to say here i guess) Nerf jump mods or make them for specific classes. Please CCP DON'T MAKE IT A PAY TO WIN KIND OF GAME. Make it more than just a lobby shooter. PLEASE DONT COPY COD (that is what made dust different) Balancing(That is obvious) Get rid of scotty the matchmaking AI or make a better version of scotty. (not the player) Remove or nerf passives. NOVA knifes. Feel free to add to this and give your suggestions. ^ what he said ... maybe have maps that have both inside building objectives and outside land objectives for the same battle to bring both styles "lobby" and "open map" together in one big fight for the planet. And no instant kills that most fps does these days. Dust stood out at first being a fps that let you live long enough to counter what was hitting you ... which emphasized a team(squad) effort. Oh and a little **** ant scout should not be able to take out a big bulky heavy so quick. o7
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1820	Posted - 2017.04.07 23:06:00 - [10] - Quote BO0OMSLANG wrote: And no instant kills that most fps do these days. But... Charge snipers in the red zone, what will they do if they can't 1 shot scouts?

Assassin 779 LAST FRONTIER FIGHTERS 22	Posted - 2017.05.23 13:13:00 - [11] - Quote Bump This was MY FAVORITE GAME. GO AHEAD JUDGE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL KILLZ LulKlz 1459	Posted - 2017.05.23 15:01:00 - [12] - Quote I Support this product and/or service Your friendly Pub match logi
lateris ablon Commando Perkone Caldari State 41	Posted - 2017.05.23 15:08:00 - [13] - Quote MY wish list is not to skimp on the quality of textures, lighting, and detail. A PC blows away all current consoles even though they are X86(a PC), but with that fine option to adjust for low end PC's. I like a lot of your suggestions on your list. Besides game play a social area would be kind of cool but I bet it won't happen since the Eve Capsuleers cannot leave their Captain quarters in Eve. I think the main focus of development will be combat based. .:FB Comm:.
Richard Gamerich-R Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 488	Posted - 2017.05.23 20:56:00 - [14] - Quote "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. On va tout déchirer !
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1902	Posted - 2017.05.24 15:07:00 - [15] - 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. That's because Prima were skraaaaaaaabs! I jest, <3 the Prima dudes. But I'm gonna name drop MAG again... As is happening a lot lately. If the maps and objectives are well designed, those 16 dudes working together can make a huge difference when the rest of your massive team are getting their arses handed to them. Don't forget, the other team has the same odds of having crappy team-mates as you do!
Joel II X Bacon with a bottle of Quafe 10865	Posted - 2017.05.25 00:00:00 - [16] - Quote Cryxes Xenus wrote: Legacy huds please its all i want from nova "also Dren suit" The HUD idea is actually pretty cool! The 'Dren' suits were ugly as sin, though. *Scouts United* Gk.0s & Quafes all day.
Joel II X Bacon with a bottle of Quafe 10865	Posted - 2017.05.25 00:03:00 - [17] - 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. Coming from Resistance 2 with 30v30, I loved Chaos. Some may even say I am who I am today thanks to it. Fear not the dark, my friend! And let the feast begin. *Scouts United* Gk.0s & Quafes all day.
DeadlyAztec11 10171	Posted - 2017.05.25 02:08:00 - [18] - Quote The maps will be smaller and so will the player count. Put your flags up in the sky. And wave them side to side. Show the world where you're from. Show the world we are one.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 28054	Posted - 2017.05.25 21:37:00 - [19] - 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. 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1910	Posted - 2017.05.26 02:37:00 - [20] - Quote Sweet spot for me was MAG Sabotage 32 v 32... Queue times were nice enough and it made running round behind the enemy team far more difficult... In Dust, sometimes both teams would seemingly run around each other with little to no fights breaking out. Made controlling the map that little bit more interesting as you really had to adapt to when the guys holding your flanks died out. 16 v 16 isn't bad, but the spread of people can leave you running around trying to find something to shoot quite a bit. I'll admit 256 v 256 was a little over the top, but it did have its moments... When you could actually get 2 full teams.

Heimdallr69 Negative-Feedback. 7536	Posted - 2017.05.26 03:15:00 - [21] - 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. You been playing wrong then..32v32 is fun
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 1152	Posted - 2017.05.26 03:42:00 - [22] - 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. Let me start off by saying that it's your game and you call the shots. However let me give you a few examples of why different sized game modes could work and could be lots of fun as well, and bring different kinds of tactics and strategies. 5v5-8v8, this player range is the sweetspot for arena type maps, I guess CS:GO would be a perfect example of this even though I don't really play that game myself because I don't like it myself (each to their own, right?) but I bet that most people know this game and can relate to it. It gives the possibility of squad vs squad or 2 squads vs 2 squads, highly tactical infantry game mode. 10v10-16v16, medium map size, for example BF4 Rush game mode, here you have one team defending 2 different targets away from each other and another team attacking those targets and if the attacker is successful they then have to make a push for new targets elsewhere on the map, mostly infantry with occasional vehicles on some maps. If you go above 32 total players it easily becomes too crowded to accomplish anything remotely tactical in this game mode. 16v16-32v32, large map size, if I try to imagine BF4's Golmud Railway, which is a large open map with hills and pretty much completely destructible village in the middle of the map and a partially destructible factory on the southern part of the map, with less than 32 total players all I can think up is this completely desolate map with simply running around through the whole match trying to find your enemy. So 64 players works perfectly on large maps with vehicles and infantry, there's something to shoot at most of the time and you have to think a little bit how you want to advance to the next capture point if you want to make it there alive. This game mode gives me the feeling of being in an actual battle, because in a real battle nobody is in full control of what happens, a little chaos is what truly brings the battlefield alive: "Oh sh--! There's an enemy there?! I didn't expect that!" 36vs37v37, Arma 3 King of the Hill, huge map with a town in the middle of the map that 3 teams compete to bring under their control, in this game mode a lot of different kinds of fights can happen and you really need to use teamwork and strategy to even get to the AO, not to mention actually controlling that AO, so there's no spawning into the AO, instead you have to always respawn at your base which is a few km away from the AO and you then have to decide on how to get back to the AO. Awesome game mode that supports all kinds of vehicles and infantry gameplay, can become a little onesided if one team is using strategy and tactics and the other two teams are not. Anyways this is just a few examples that I could give without taking a full day to write examples of why different sized matches can really work, you don't necessarily have to decide on a single match size and stick to it for all game modes.
saxonmish T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 2000	Posted - 2017.05.26 08:29:00 - [23] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: Sweet spot for me was MAG Sabotage 32 v 32... Queue times were nice enough and it made running round behind the enemy team far more difficult... In Dust, sometimes both teams would seemingly run around each other with little to no fights breaking out. Made controlling the map that little bit more interesting as you really had to adapt to when the guys holding your flanks died out. 16 v 16 isn't bad, but the spread of people can leave you running around trying to find something to shoot quite a bit. I'll admit 256 v 256 was a little over the top, but it did have its moments... When you could actually get 2 full teams. That hour queuing for the teams to fill up Help me remake Dust 514!! SAXON ON A MISH - My YouTube Channel
Richard Gamerich-R Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 491	Posted - 2017.05.26 08:34:00 - [24] - Quote Sabotage in MAG was in reality (16+16)vs(16+16) at the first objective (A+B), then (32vs32) (objective C). Same for domination, (416)vs(416) for all objectives (A+B ; C+D ; E+F ; G+H). It's for this reason MAG gameplay worked so well and was fun, with a little bit of strategy. Indeed, this obligation in Sabotage to get two separate objectives on the map, A and B, at the same time in side attack to unlock new objective permit to give some strategy for each team. If the first 16vs16 can keep the point easily (in attack or defense), then they could decide to help the second 16vs16 if they have some difficulties by sending some players of the first 16vs16, with the risk to loose the control of the first objective. (this system was similar in domination). The only time where there is a "32vs32" is for the objective C in sabotage, but the level design of each map was very good to counter that. Defense team come to left and the right of C, while the attack team come to the front and have the choice to divide in smaller groups to block defense entries, or make a big push with 32 players on the same area, with the risk to be flanked by the left or the right side. (but I have to repeat, in my all FPS experience, MAG get the best level design/system ever, and get big map, to avoid the cacophony in a too small area) For DUST, with some others MAG veterans, we imagine a similar gameplay system with 2 districts close themselves in a same planet, for a sort of (16+16)vs(16+16). (more open districts increase "player account" if you want) For each districts, there is always a 16vs16 (exactly as a battle in DUST), however if one 16 team have the advantage on the ennemy MCC, then they could send a squad for some minutes with a dropship to help the other 16vs16 of the same team/alliance, with the risk to lose the control and permit a potential come back for the dominated team. To put this system in the background of the planetary conquest, it's very simple. If there is two battle at the same time in the same planet, you can apply it. I'm sure that can be fun and give more potential for an alliance strategy, and the gameplay for all, without break the original strategy system of the real 16vs16 for each districts. I don't know if we still can apply this idea on Nova, but if there is a similar game mode as Planetary Conquest with open maps as DUST, why not. (note : I hope you understand what I would like to say, all apologize for my English, french kiss <3) On va tout déchirer !
Sequal's Back Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 2398	Posted - 2017.05.26 10:30:00 - [25] - Quote CCP could keep the 16vs16 standard for a pub mode and for PC ( as it definitely avoids chaos), and have another 32vs32 pub mode with bigger maps in it. "I hope we don't have vehicles [in Nova] simply so we don't have to deal with the people who drive them." -Ripley Riley
deadpool lifetone D3ATH CARD RUST415 356	Posted - 2017.05.26 11:11:00 - [26] - 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. Yup. Planet side was just a battle royal , bf1 is fun in the chaos but it doesn't feel like a real tactical team play......stick to 16v16 , maybe play around with the squad slots....6per squad was nearly perfect for me. ( F U!!!! ) * ( Why Dead? ) , (n+Æn+Çn+¢´)GÇón++pâçGòÉS+ÇX - - - - n++(º Gûí º l\|l)/
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 1268	Posted - 2017.05.26 11:45:00 - [27] - Quote Up it to 18 v 18, that way you can have 3 squads of 6 The Final PLC Kill Dust 514 - My Final Moments
Sequal's Back Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 2400	Posted - 2017.05.26 12:49:00 - [28] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: Up it to 18 v 18, that way you can have 3 squads of 6 Could work as well. Maybe even better than 16vs16 ! "I hope we don't have vehicles [in Nova] simply so we don't have to deal with the people who drive them." -Ripley Riley
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1912	Posted - 2017.05.26 16:08:00 - [29] - Quote 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.
Sequal's Back Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 2401	Posted - 2017.05.26 16:34:00 - [30] - Quote 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. "I hope we don't have vehicles [in Nova] simply so we don't have to deal with the people who drive them." -Ripley Riley

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]

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.

#NekosForLife GÄ¥GùÑGû¦GÇ+GÇ+GùÇGùñGÄá