People who ran proto gear complained that they were getting killed by militia gear.

More people complained that the gap between proto and militia gear is becoming less and less (to the point where there becomes no reason to upgrade) than they did about simply being killed by militia while in proto.

So skilled players are complaining about how this game is becoming more about skill to win a match, rather then the use of better gear.


Because that makes sense, apparently.

Don't get me wrong, there should be a reason to upgrade.

People are complaining because there's no sense of character progression when there's no benefit to using anything "better."

There is though its called a "tie breaker". Sorry if that is spelled wrong.

People are complaining because there's no sense of character progression when there's no benefit to using anything "better."

They run around, relentlessly killing everything they come across. Their situational awareness is 3 steps above the rest of those they fight with, or against. They even maximize their killing output by equipping the best gear they can afford.

But when they are downed by someone using something that is inferior to what they are using, they ***** like crazy about it. They blame everyone else for what happened to them. They blame CCP for creating an imbalanced sand box. They blame EVERYTHING else around them, and do not bother to think that...

Maybe They ****** up? maybe they made a mistake, maybe they placed themselves in a situation where they could not get out of alive. Or maybe someone was able to get past your awareness, and kill you from some odd angle that you never bothered to inspect before you ran from point A to point B.


People who ran proto gear complained that they were getting killed by militia gear. They complained that it was CCP's fault that they died, and not their own. They demanded nerfs so that no one who ran in militia gear would ever be able to kill them.

I have never complained about what I was killed by, or what level the weapon was that killed me. Do I some times get mad when someone kills me? sure. But I never rage at the weapon they used to kill me with.


To all the people who complain about dying in their expensive gear. It's your fault you died, and you only have yourself to blame. You got careless, and you were punished for it.

A skilled player would never complain about the weapon they were killed with. (unless it was stupidly overpowered, and just dominated everything everywhere.)

I came from Halo. I came from a mind set that everyone should spawn on equal terms in a competitive match, and the team with the best skill would win the match. They would not win by entering a game with better gear then their enemies. They would have to gain map control, control the power weapons, time the spawns of power weapons, learn the spawn pattern on maps to allow for spawn trapping. This game spits in the face of all of that. I had to adapt, and I have. I still play with a Halo mind set, but I acknowledge that there are things in this game that are drastically different.

i rage so hard when some one is using the heavy armor with a heavy machine gun. those ppl are c**k suckers

you mad? Guess what? You can shoot them you know... chances are you can move faster than them too...but hey! Why should anything be able to kill you right?

I'm one of those c*ck suckers, and I'll gladly shove my HMG up anyone's arse stupid enough to 1v1 me in a CQC situation.

So skilled players are complaining about how this game is becoming more about skill to win a match, rather then the use of better gear.


Because that makes sense, apparently.

Don't get me wrong, there should be a reason to upgrade.

you mad? Guess what? You can shoot them you know... chances are you can move faster than them too...but hey! Why should anything be able to kill you right?

I'm one of those c*ck suckers, and I'll gladly shove my HMG up anyone's arse stupid enough to 1v1 me in a CQC situation.

you proved my point.

So skilled players are complaining about how this game is becoming more about skill to win a match, rather then the use of better gear.


Because that makes sense, apparently.

Don't get me wrong, there should be a reason to upgrade.

Just because there's a counter for something doesn't make it balanced. It is only balanced if that counter is reasonable, as in something you don't have to constantly go out of your way to do and detracts from the gaming experience.

Triad of progress should be

Skill - 'EXP' - Gear

Skill- measure of the shooter's knowledge, experience, and sometimes physical conditioning (eye hand cord / reflexes/ muscle memory) CCP can introduce Certificates system that pure active, if done right can encourage skilling with a weapon then rewarding the merc for mastering the said system.

'EXP' aka Skill Points is the RPG part, for some its a crutch they need, for others something to master with either way its the only real level playing field in the entire game.

Gear - Gear is a meta game in the long run, eventually players in their field will unlock everything. However its the combination that people put together that makes this entire thing wonderful. Sometimes you do downgrade to fit that special officer weapon or you swap out a normally acceptable fit with something crazy... and finding out it works.

In the most recent crusade by the 'competitive' fpsers they want to remove the EXP and Gear portions entirely.

I disagree with them mostly. Gear has a place in a competitive environment provided the balances are withing 'tolerances' perfect balance will always be impossible to achieve but as long as nothing ever appears to be the clear winner or loser we're good to go. As for the competitive environment egro look at the eve online open event for 10k, you cannot imagine how much isk got thrown into those matches getting the best possible gear and in the end best modules and gear didn't win anybody anything. Superior tactics, command, and positioning and of course the pre rolled dice of ship vs ship advantages disadvantages both sides brought makes things always interesting. With corporate sponsorship on some teams it was a pretty amazing no bars hold back pvp fights ever.

RPG element I also disagree with the 'crusaders' for a flat game. WLR, KDR, KPS are irrelevant to bored players who have nothing more to fight for, and its clear that the very same people who wheezed at the EXP system even existing are continuing to complain about the daily cap.

Actually, KDR and all of that stuff are irrelevant to an objective based player. if you accept a contract to take an FW DISTRICT as a corp, KDR is meaningless because no victory = no payout. most eve players who matter wont care about kdr or warpoints per match. tbey care if you win. winning equals payout, equals SOV bonuses to EVE playerThe biggest rewards go to the corps who win. If that means having a few corp lemmings to distract the enemy while you do bad **** then some people are perfect.

Dont make the mistake of thinki.g because killboards mean jack to me means I have nothing to fight for you are dead wrong. It means Im the lemming distracting you from the fact that my five buddies are about to screw you hard.

winning matters. winning matters more than whether or not I have half as many kills as deaths. When I win by making the enemy look the wrong way for the threat it vindicates my sucky KDR. Every time I lemming out three or more caps in skirmish it vindicates my KDR because I am accomplishing victory conditions. It also means my corp leader can count on me to pound on the enemy until they break. I play cautious when the clone count is low.

Just because there's a counter for something doesn't make it balanced. It is only balanced if that counter is reasonable, as in something you don't have to constantly go out of your way to do and detracts from the gaming experience.

More people complained that the gap between proto and militia gear is becoming less and less (to the point where there becomes no reason to upgrade) than they did about simply being killed by militia while in proto.

even 0,5% is a reason to upgrade. Provided you have the PG and CPU, of course...

No it doesn't, not if it leads to you doubling the cost of your fit for no kill advantage. Do I need to bring out my bullets-to-kill spreadsheet again and get another thread locked? To everyone who missed the point of my response earlier, I made the mistake of saying "gear" when I was talking mainly about "weapons." Though, upgrading things like a shield extender for half a bullet of survivability is arguably useless as well.

even 0,5% is a reason to upgrade. Provided you have the PG and CPU, of course...

It's hard to win a match when your team is dead most of the time.

and the fact that your team needs 5 guys to take out ONE good player shows that they aren't good enough to fight the enemy team. if there were two, instead of just one. They would be able to kill off your five teammates that would zerging them. Hell, just the one guy would probably be able to kill 3 of them, and heavily injure the 4th before dying, or retreating.


Good players with a high KD means a low death count, which means strong map control, and stronger support for other teammates around the area.

so you're saying the counter for heavies is so detracting that it's unbalanced?....

2 militia nades kills a heavy. That was so hard to counter.

Sorry Tiel I still disagree if the match is balanced in skill and I have more life and kill you in one more bullet of damage than you do in so much time then I will kill you and have more life. That is what I specced for to kill you first and to have just a little bit more life than I would have.

I am also looking at it a little bit different than I was before now to. I am running a scout with the AR right now because it is almost free. I am also running armor instead of shields so I can put damage mods into my highs when I have more than one. lol. So for me to kill you in one more bullet than I did before is really important to me, I barely have life as it is so the quicker you go down the better. This is my whole theory behind this the quicker you go down and the more life I have at the end of the gun fight the better and I will pay that extra money, PG, and CPU for that to happen. All for that little bit of an edge, people will do a lot to just be a little bit better because that is all you need to win.

That's not a counter...that's like saying 30 assault rifle bullets is a counter to heavies.

That's not a counter...that's like saying 30 assault rifle bullets is a counter to heavies.

Ok, so you're running a scout with AR. You also want to use damage mods. Let's look at this.

You grab your vk.1 scout suit, throw on 3 damage mods and a grab a proto gun. If you maxed your circuitry but didn't bother with light weapon upgrades, you now have 22 cpu to use for your grenade, 3 lows, and 3 equipment slots. If you used a vk.0 suit, you'd have negative 7 cpu to work with (good luck).

If you maxed your light weapon upgrade and proficiency, I'm going to assume they stack in terms of cpu*0.75*0.85, you'd have a whole 55 cpu to work with on the vk.1 for all those slots (vk.0 would have 26 cpu).

If you ran an advanced weapon (which with my bullet-to-kill spreadsheet will tell you that you'll kill in about 1 less bullet), you'd have 10-28 more cpu available depending on your light weapon upgrade/proficiency investment.

The smallest armor repairer is 20 cpu by itself, making your max availability with a proto weapon 35 cpu to fill 2 more low slots, a grenade and 3 equipment slots. If you went for raw hp beyond that, screw nanohives you'll let someone else feed you ammo, you'd have +152 hp from a basic and advanced armor plate, leaving you with a whole 5 cpu.

You go up against a guy with an advanced gun, same damage mod fit but he has 28 more cpu for a total of 63 to work with. He can fit 2 proto plates for a total of +230 hp. He has 78 more hp than you. It takes you 2 more bullets to kill him than it would take to kill someone in your fit. It takes him 1 more bullet to kill you than it would take your fit. He wins because his extra survivability outweighs your extra damage.

See what I mean by sacrificing to fit a proto weapon (that doesn't really help you much)?

what you're describing is a super simplified encounter where both players are standing 10 feet from one another. Neither of them are moving, and they both fire at the exact same time. which just isn't realistic for a game like this. This is also the type of mind set that my OP talks about.

Good players trying to justify reasons why they should be able to kill more, and die less for the gear they use.

Sure, it would make sense in a game like halo 4 where the DMR dominates every other starter weapon in the game. It has a greater impact because everyone has the same health. But in this game, it's different.

That's not a counter...that's like saying 30 assault rifle bullets is a counter to heavies.

heavies are easy to beat tbh
they dominate in cqc
good heavies know how to play to their strengths and find ways to bring u into cqc fast
stupid heavies will try to walk and spray their hmg from a distance and think because they got 1000+ ehp that they will eventually get close to u and kill u before u drop them

LOL, I only use BPO
and RAGE ALL THE TIME

The 3 responses above me are all dead on. Proto gear IS better, and it SHOULD cost way more. You pay A LOT to gain a small advantage. A full squad, or entire team, of small advantages equal out to a blowout victory. It's a risk/reward with a high cost that is intended to make you think twice about blowing that money for the edge in a battle.

It's funny, the guys I see here most often complaining about the protogear being to underpowered are the same guys I would see last build match after match in 200k+ ISK fittings. If you're fighting a pub match for a payout of 200k, it's your own fault for fielding a suit that will put you into negative earnings if you go down a single time. It seems to me more like a basic lack of understanding of how the game is designed to be played.

It does come down to skill because you decide where to put your SP. If you are skilled in shooting put it all into your guns upgrades. If your not, put it into your shields or armor. That simple.

The 3 responses above me are all dead on. Proto gear IS better, and it SHOULD cost way more. You pay A LOT to gain a small advantage. A full squad, or entire team, of small advantages equal out to a blowout victory. It's a risk/reward with a high cost that is intended to make you think twice about blowing that money for the edge in a battle.

It's funny, the guys I see here most often complaining about the protogear being to underpowered are the same guys I would see last build match after match in 200k+ ISK fittings. If you're fighting a pub match for a payout of 200k, it's your own fault for fielding a suit that will put you into negative earnings if you go down a single time. It seems to me more like a basic lack of understanding of how the game is designed to be played.

The ironic thing to me is that the gear progression used to be a lot steeper, and the differences between the various levels of gear more drastic.

There were countless complaints that because DUST 514 was a FPS, no gear, let me repeat, no gear should give the advantage to a long time vet over a new player coming in to the game, or a player in proto gear vs. a player in militia gear, skill being more or less equal. It seemed like some sort of dogma and any alternative was just heresy or not even remotely conceivable.

Well, the difference between the various levels of gear have been steadily eroded with each new build. Things have become a lot more "balanced" in ways that many who touted the FPS dogma have asked for time and time again.

I have been opposed to this trend since day one and always felt it was short sighted and totally unnecessary.

Even so. Better gear still can give you and edge even now. But even when the better gear was much better there was always a chance you could be killed by some player in a militia fitting. Now the odds are more even, and don't really favor proto gear as much as they used to. And yes, sometime *** gets hairy and mistakes are made. Everyone dies. Even the immortals.

Not that those FPS dogmatists are now complaining about getting killed by crappy gear while using more expensive gear. But come on. This is what most of us asked for. Balance and a fighting chance for anyone in any sort of gear. No gear that would give a player any sort of RPG/MMO god like superiority over the very basic, free, starter kit. None of this leveling crap you have in other sorts of games. No pay to win whether by ISK or by Aurum.

Suck it up. This is what you said you wanted.

what you're describing is a super simplified encounter where both players are standing 10 feet from one another. Neither of them are moving, and they both fire at the exact same time. which just isn't realistic for a game like this. This is also the type of mind set that my OP talks about.

Good players trying to justify reasons why they should be able to kill more, and die less for the gear they use.

Sure, it would make sense in a game like halo 4 where the DMR dominates every other starter weapon in the game. It has a greater impact because everyone has the same health. But in this game, it's different.

Well I been around before the flattening.

I used to be able to kill protos back then with milita gear as well. Made a thread called the militia experiment. Trying to prove that I had two of the triad progressions down that was sufficient enough to overcome the third part of the triad the gear.

Just there are players out there that have all three up to par and are very difficult to deal with.

Gear helps bad players as much as it helps good players.

Catering to the needs of bad players does not make them better players sadly,

He was the one describing it in that way, that's why I built the example around that kind of scenario. I don't assume people are just gonna stand there and face each other holding R1 til someone dies, which is why I think the one or zero bullets less to kill for upgrading a weapon isn't significant. That 1 bullet of killing power is rarely a deciding factor when you take into account people moving around and aiming inaccuracy.

"People who ran proto gear complained that they were getting killed by militia gear. They complained that it was CCP's fault that they died, and not their own. They demanded nerfs so that no one who ran in militia gear would ever be able to kill them."


People without Proto complained so much about getting killed by "Proto guys" because they didn't want to spend their SP in good skills. So CCP listened to those 85% of beta players complaing and they nerf the Proto stats (but they didn't nerf the ISK/SP requeriments for Proto Skills).

Don't talk about complain because people without "Proto" did it first.