First off, I'm KingBabar wich some of you may now from MAG. I haven't been able to log into this forum until now due to lousy password memory.

I haven't read anything yet so my statements and comments will be my own, not influenced by any drama.

The critique I'e heard from other players:

Framerate and lag issues. I really don't know what people are on about. Stew (the notorious PS2 fanboy from the MAG forums) keep saying how both these qualities and the graphics suck in Dust. I hardly get any framerate or lag issue at all.

Except when encountering scout suits up close. Its the only hardware in the game that I consider to be OP. Its not so much the speed or general build of the suits themselves, its the game's lack of speed to update my screen fast enough. I've stood right infront of guys dancing around me and fired my 72 SMG bullets without taking them down. This never happens when I face an assault suit. Its not enough to break the game for me, but it should definately be looked into.

Again Stew told me about the poor 30 frames per sec, and that it should really be 60 frames per sec. Really? I can't even count to 30 in a second...
As for graphics; its quite clear that this isn't COD or near in quality to many of the A-Line shooters out there. Neither was MAG. I'll take gameplay over graphics any day. Me being close to blind (no joke) I do prefer games with "bad" graphics compared to the fanzy ones, which only result in me being dropped without having the slightest idea who did it. If I've understood it correctly there will be loads and loads of map as the game progresses and quantity in different maps is something new and much desired from any shooter fan. One point that I think is lacking by the guys telling me how bad everything is, is the map layout. In short, its very good. I really like the three objectiva approach and the way the two back spawns make it possible to attack and many different ways. I also see that some of the containers or cover thingys in general are very well placed. Many of them are slightly at ascew, wich is more important than you might think.

pay to win. Many will claim that its not, but it is. Yes you can buy a proto suit for 44K ISK or whatnot, but who can afford this in the long run? It might be that this ingame economy system isn't fully tuned yet, but I have a hard time seeing people pay for a 100K loadout only by using the ISK they earn as off today. And yes you might claim to be so good that you hardly ever die and that you basically earn enough ISK to keep it up. But what do you do later on when you face a clan of elite killers or whatnot, when you suddenly die 15 times in a hard fought (in lack of a better term) clan battle? And I'm pretty sure that a guy with all top notch AUR equipment will have severly better stats (on the suit, armor, stamina recovery and so on) than somebody using only ISK equipment. (Low CPU/PG cost on the AUR equipment will give you room for more or better equipment) Its not like a total noob can buy his way to success, far from it. But with high quality players an extra +10 damage buff might be exactly whats needed to come out on top.

I got a PSN message from a very good english MAG player claiming that the Creodon AR is OP. I don't really get this. Its the best AR so I guess its supposed to be good? As far as I know it has a lower DPS than the Duvalle but it has better accuracy, mostly due to the slow rate of fire. I did try a Creodon with a proto suit two rounds and I did fairly well, like 18-2 the first round and 34-7 the second. Then again, I've done 28-2 and 30-4 with only nades and a pistol so I dunno if its even measurable. Seeing that the snipers kill me from the top of all kinds of installations and drop me with a single shot, I face guys with 1100 hp fireing HMs and those big ass anti tank guns with 600 damage and 150-200 in splash, I just don't se what makes that AR so OP compared to all the rest.