DUST Search - Things that must to be fixed for CPM to have value to u?

Iron Wolf Saber wrote:

charlesnette dalari wrote:

Iron Wolf Saber wrote:

DustMercsBlog wrote:

chat timestamps pretty basic too. no excuse for it not being in. we should no longer see vanishing nanohives or drop uplinks. we should probably see points for destoying enemy assets as well.

totally agree on the command ladder and finite vehicle ammo as well.

Clocks are in Uprising! confirmed by Nullarbor in IRC and i think reddit as well. As for time stamps and warpoints? I going to poke about it.

But c'mon guys anything higher level concerns?

Iron wolf I have a higher level concern and its more of a Roadmap issue. One of the original features of dust that was announced early in closed Beta and lately we have heard very little about is the commander role and the RTS type gameplay from the mcc. I really think this was going to be another huge differentiator to dust in its market. The last we heard anything about it was briefly discussed months ago in a dev blog. I would like to know if this idea has been scrapped and if not where is it on the roadmap.

A lot of mercs have asked recently about things like when the map table will show something meaningful or when wee will be able to place assets on the battlefield like selecting where a CRU is placed at the beginning of the battle by the field commander (which are small pieces of the ultimate FC RTS pie).

I would really appreciate it if as our CPM rep you would bring this up with the Dev's and express to them how much this one feature could really make dust even more unique and a very enjoyable way of making the tactical/strategy aspects of the game a way to attract an even broader audience.

Thanks and on a side note I may not always agree with you but certainly you would have been on my short list if we had to vote for CPM members.

Quote:

Mithridates VI
DUST 411

I think that seeing that CPM and immediately thinking "what things can they get me?" is the wrong approach. I'm not going to judge them based on a list of things I want but on how well they engage the community and communicate community feeling to CCP

I agree completely and this is exactly why I say that I would have voted for iron wolf as he has been very involved with the community already. I also think he has done so with no agenda other than trying to improve the game. I don't believe everyone elses motives have been as transparent.

Last mention of commander role via IRC was for 2013 winter at the earliest when corporations can start to afford to lose their own MCCs at a 120 million isk price tag. Low Sec CP is just CP Lite in reality, with npc hand holding still. Null CP will be pure sandbox hopefully. Other than that I have nothing new. I fear by the time you get to hear about it I will no longer be seated and the minutes will be out after the feature launches.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
charlesnette dalari Creative Killers 189	Posted - 2013.04.20 04:47:00 - [31] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: charlesnette dalari wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: DustMercsBlog wrote: chat timestamps pretty basic too. no excuse for it not being in. we should no longer see vanishing nanohives or drop uplinks. we should probably see points for destoying enemy assets as well. totally agree on the command ladder and finite vehicle ammo as well. Clocks are in Uprising! confirmed by Nullarbor in IRC and i think reddit as well. As for time stamps and warpoints? I going to poke about it. But c'mon guys anything higher level concerns? Iron wolf I have a higher level concern and its more of a Roadmap issue. One of the original features of dust that was announced early in closed Beta and lately we have heard very little about is the commander role and the RTS type gameplay from the mcc. I really think this was going to be another huge differentiator to dust in its market. The last we heard anything about it was briefly discussed months ago in a dev blog. I would like to know if this idea has been scrapped and if not where is it on the roadmap. A lot of mercs have asked recently about things like when the map table will show something meaningful or when wee will be able to place assets on the battlefield like selecting where a CRU is placed at the beginning of the battle by the field commander (which are small pieces of the ultimate FC RTS pie). I would really appreciate it if as our CPM rep you would bring this up with the Dev's and express to them how much this one feature could really make dust even more unique and a very enjoyable way of making the tactical/strategy aspects of the game a way to attract an even broader audience. Thanks and on a side note I may not always agree with you but certainly you would have been on my short list if we had to vote for CPM members. Quote: Mithridates VI DUST 411 I think that seeing that CPM and immediately thinking "what things can they get me?" is the wrong approach. I'm not going to judge them based on a list of things I want but on how well they engage the community and communicate community feeling to CCP I agree completely and this is exactly why I say that I would have voted for iron wolf as he has been very involved with the community already. I also think he has done so with no agenda other than trying to improve the game. I don't believe everyone elses motives have been as transparent. Last mention of commander role via IRC was for 2013 winter at the earliest when corporations can start to afford to lose their own MCCs at a 120 million isk price tag. Low Sec CP is just CP Lite in reality, with npc hand holding still. Null CP will be pure sandbox hopefully. Other than that I have nothing new. I fear by the time you get to hear about it I will no longer be seated and the minutes will be out after the feature launches. I could be wrong but I think you would agree this commander RTS feature could be a huge benefit to the game and expanding its player base and immersion. Anything you can do to express the importance of this feature and suggestions you can make for its future implementation while you are on the CPM is very much appreciated. Like you I am passionate about seeing this game succeed for years to come and I really do respect your opinions which is why I ask that you involve yourself with the features mechanics as much as you can while you are around. Thanks again
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. CRONOS. 3559	Posted - 2013.04.20 04:49:00 - [32] - Quote While I can agree commander mode is important it is no good if the shooter part of the game still sucks. Thus its further down the food chain from simple quality of life issues for the soldiers on the battlefield.
charlesnette dalari Creative Killers 189	Posted - 2013.04.20 05:22:00 - [33] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: While I can agree commander mode is important it is no good if the shooter part of the game still sucks. Thus its further down the food chain from simple quality of life issues for the soldiers on the battlefield. Oh I certainly concur that there are more pressing issues that need more immediate attention (i wouldnt necessarily agree the shooter part of dust sucks but perhaps Needs improvement). I just hope that doesn't cause this feature to be lost and hope that you will express its importance. This is also why I said it was more of a roadmap concern since I don't expect it to be immediate but I also hope it isn't pushed so far out that it becomes forgotten.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. CRONOS. 3562	Posted - 2013.04.20 05:31:00 - [34] - Quote charlesnette dalari wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: While I can agree commander mode is important it is no good if the shooter part of the game still sucks. Thus its further down the food chain from simple quality of life issues for the soldiers on the battlefield. Oh I certainly concur that there are more pressing issues that need more immediate attention (i wouldnt necessarily agree the shooter part of dust sucks but perhaps Needs improvement). I just hope that doesn't cause this feature to be lost and hope that you will express its importance. This is also why I said it was more of a roadmap concern since I don't expect it to be immediate but I also hope it isn't pushed so far out that it becomes forgotten. I don't think I'll see the feature in my term but I do expect to see it eventually and will be in regardless of what happens. Features you should be more concerned about getting shoved off the shelf. Would be things like industry, true random map generations, adhering to the pay optional marketing, trophies, certificates, NPE, true open player markets, nuance of player corp and a few other 'high cost low impact' features.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 255	Posted - 2013.04.20 11:00:00 - [35] - Quote [quote=Tolen Rosas vehicle finite ammo [/quote] No - I will explain my reasons why 1. Vehicles have no cargohold - I want the ability to store at least 10k of rounds and not just have 40 and then have to rely on either a supply depot (which can be blown up), a blueberry which wont carry a vehicle nanohive or even one of my squad because if he gets out to put the nanohive down a blueberry may take his seat 2. No squad lock for vehicles - My squad member gets out to put down a vehicle nanohive, blueberry either way nicks his seat so he cannot get back in or takes the top turret which he was using to watch my back, thus my tank is weaker and i will then spend all my time at the back not moving hoping that the blueberry gtfo 2a. Due to no squad lock it also means johnny bluedot whill spam my small turret ammo all over the place and not even at enemy meaning he is wasting my ammo and ISK and i cannot do anything about it 2b. No ejecting system - Someone nips in my squadmates turret because squad lock isnt in the game, well i cant eject his ass out either because i dont even have that option 3. Supply depot go boom - Easily, if i dont do it normally a turret works or an enemy tank thus if you are out of ammo you are screwed more so than infantry because they have nanohives and vehicles do not 4. No vehicle nanohives - So make it all reliant on the supply depot which can go boom and then the tank is roling empty making it a non factor 5. It creates teamwork - Where is the teamwork for the solo AV guy? 6. Makes vehicles weaker - We dont have squad lock or the ability to eject ppl out of the turret seats, we have no vehicle nanohives making it all relient on the supply depot which goes boom easily, we dont even know how much ammo would be in a clip for railguns and blasters and we dont have a reload function to reload with a fresh clip so that we dont go into a situation with less than half ammo and end up having to wait 10sec to reload and in that time the enemy may have defended or taken the objective
Tolen Rosas Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 87	Posted - 2013.04.20 11:53:00 - [36] - Quote Mithridates VI wrote: I think that seeing that CPM and immediately thinking "what things can they get me?" is the wrong approach. I'm not going to judge them based on a list of things I want but on how well they engage the community and communicate community feeling to CCP. agree with u 100% but do you feel like things like voice chat default on, Friendly Fire, a new tutorial, command structure, platoon broadcast, prox chat and limited vehicle ammo are catering to anyones certain playstyle? is chat timestamps going to make me OP? arent they things that effect everyone and make the game better overall?
Mithridates VI DUST 411 880	Posted - 2013.04.20 11:56:00 - [37] - Quote Tolen Rosas wrote: Mithridates VI wrote: I think that seeing that CPM and immediately thinking "what things can they get me?" is the wrong approach. I'm not going to judge them based on a list of things I want but on how well they engage the community and communicate community feeling to CCP. agree with u 100% but do you feel like things like voice chat default on, Friendly Fire, a new tutorial, command structure, platoon broadcast, prox chat and limited vehicle ammo are catering to anyones certain playstyle? is chat timestamps going to make me OP? arent they things that effect everyone and make the game better overall? I'm not saying that you're putting personal interest ahead of universal game improvement, what I'm saying is even thought they're things I want, things like voice chat defaulting to on and new tutorials are things that CCP are already aware off and which are on them to fix. All the CPM can do is communicate community feeling on these subjects. IMO, the group has worth outside of whether or not CCP manage to work on anything anyone might list.
Aeon Amadi WarRavens 1168	Posted - 2013.04.20 12:08:00 - [38] - Quote - Scouts getting some semblance of a 'role' that they can do better than any other dropsuit. Imo, cloaking may help but only if it's Scout specific much like Heavy Weapons are Sentinel specific. - More freaggin high-slot modules and implementation of more useful modules. Seriously, there are only four things that go in these slots and there are very drastic differences in terms of playstyle. - Vehicles that actually work properly. It's good that the Logistics LAV is getting it's repair ability back but there's no reason the Logistics Dropship should have LESS cpu/pg than a Militia Dropship and have MORE fitting slots. - Return of old features that WORKED. The Skirmish mode from June/July 2012 worked in terms of an attacker vs defender scenario in that the Attackers had an MCC and had to push toward the defender's complex. No idea why this was changed but it added dynamics to the game that a lot of the new testers never had the opportunity to experience. - More features for the Lone Wolf. This game is remarkably based around corporations from Corporation Battles to Faction Warfare implementation to the upcoming Planetary Conquest. I shouldn't have to find a corporation and be on at the same time as 'x' amount of other people to fight for a faction in Faction Warfare. Even then I have to find a corporation with similar ideals as me. - More communication from CCP. There's no reason an issue should fester on the forums for -MONTHS- before someone finally gets the issue acknowledged/answered on the IRC. Damage Mod Stacking was a big example of this as it was not a subtle thing, it was brought up frequently. - Less catering toward the community, more catering to facts. The more changes that get implemented from the community's hounding, the worse this game is going to be. Changes should be done with cold hard data to back up a reason WHY it was changed rather than doing it solely because the most vocal majority wanted it to happen. - MORE FREAGGIN' DATA AND GRAPHS. I can't stress this enough. How the hell can we say something is overpowered if only 1% of the community use it effectively? Laser Rifles being over-powered with 4x Complex Damage Mods is one thing but I absolutely refuse the believe that a weapon who's skill don't even work can be over-powered. How can we even assume it's working as intended if the skills don't work? Perhaps it's operating as though all skills were at level 5? - Less of a "job" feeling. I get off of 12+ hours of work just to come home to sit down on my PS3 and go back to work on a game in order to get the most SP possible through the Active SP system. I would much rather spend my Aurum on an Augmentation that replaces an Active SP Accrument with a purely passive one. - More dev blogs! Seriously, there's a few that were supposed to come out (one that would go into detail on the Crusader and Pilot suits) that simply -NEVER DID-. A brief explanation of upcoming features is -fine- we don't need video/screenshots half of the time, but what we do need is information when it's been stated that they are going to bring it out.
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 55	Posted - 2013.04.20 12:10:00 - [39] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken these ideas are pretty bad, your reasons support why we actually need the change. 1. I agree u should have the ability to store extra ammo. it should also take up a lot of cpu/pg like a nanohive does. but u whine about not being able to be self sufficient and about having to depend on others. just like the heavy, powerful assets on the battlefield that are totally self contained fortresses is poor design. vehicles need finite ammo for the same reason heavies cant carry equip. 2. everyone support vehicle locks. they will be here sooner than later. ejecting probably coming soon too. 3. theyve already confirmed logi lavs and these could easily resupply tanks. 4. logi lavs same as nanohives. when unlimited vehicle ammo taken away imo tanks should be able to use nanohives. 5. dumb question. the solo av guy dies 10x trying to kill a tank and does it maybe 10% of the time. u lose credibility when u complain about stuff like this. 6. no, it doesnt make vehicles weaker it makes them balanced. 90% of the time supply depot get destroyed its by tanks! why? because they could care less since they have unlimited ammo! and vehicles shouldnt have to reload imo.
Tolen Rosas Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 87	Posted - 2013.04.20 12:17:00 - [40] - Quote r u seriously crying that ur tank needs unlimited rounds because supply depots might get exploded? gg its not like that ever happens to infantry or anything..............oh wait.

Reiki Jubo Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 73	Posted - 2013.04.20 12:21:00 - [41] - Quote Tolen Rosas wrote: r u seriously crying that ur tank needs unlimited rounds because supply depots might get exploded? gg its not like that ever happens to infantry or anything..............oh wait. QFT!!! tanks is basically a super heavy. cant have unlimited rounds too. If the CPM cant get basic stuff like FF, chat stamps, voicechat on its worthless.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. CRONOS. 3572	Posted - 2013.04.20 12:35:00 - [42] - Quote Reiki Jubo wrote: Tolen Rosas wrote: r u seriously crying that ur tank needs unlimited rounds because supply depots might get exploded? gg its not like that ever happens to infantry or anything..............oh wait. QFT!!! tanks is basically a super heavy. cant have unlimited rounds too. If the CPM cant get basic stuff like FF, chat stamps, voicechat on its worthless. Yeah I mean what if the devs are already adding those things? CPM would be better suited for higher level stuff. Also some of you do know I make about 101+ minor complaints every patch just about.
Tyjus Vacca Valor Coalition RISE of LEGION 15	Posted - 2013.04.20 12:45:00 - [43] - Quote lolololololol did a tanker just complain that people might blow up the supply depot? that is the definition of irony. tankers the #1 reason supply depots on the endangered species list in the first place.
Tolen Rosas Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 89	Posted - 2013.04.20 12:51:00 - [44] - Quote no worries iron wolf saber, ur the CPM virtually no one has an issue with m8. its the other guys with a bad rep for AFK MCC stuff and only being on the council because they 'yes man' or are IRC buds with the devs that have a lot to prove to the community.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 255	Posted - 2013.04.20 13:24:00 - [45] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: Takahiro Kashuken these ideas are pretty bad, your reasons support why we actually need the change. 1. I agree u should have the ability to store extra ammo. it should also take up a lot of cpu/pg like a nanohive does. but u whine about not being able to be self sufficient and about having to depend on others. just like the heavy, powerful assets on the battlefield that are totally self contained fortresses is poor design. vehicles need finite ammo for the same reason heavies cant carry equip. 2. everyone support vehicle locks. they will be here sooner than later. ejecting probably coming soon too. 3. theyve already confirmed logi lavs and these could easily resupply tanks. 4. logi lavs same as nanohives. when unlimited vehicle ammo taken away imo tanks should be able to use nanohives. 5. dumb question. the solo av guy dies 10x trying to kill a tank and does it maybe 10% of the time. u lose credibility when u complain about stuff like this. 6. no, it doesnt make vehicles weaker it makes them balanced. 90% of the time supply depot get destroyed its by tanks! why? because they could care less since they have unlimited ammo! and vehicles shouldnt have to reload imo. 1. Wrong - A cargohold does not take any PG/CPU, it is a space in any vehicle to store loot and ammo in general in EVE, plus its a vehicle what car or plane doesnt have room to hold extra ammo? 3. Logi LAVs are weak to any kind of AV, to rely on a bluedot to give me ammo no, to rely on a squad member or member of the same corp/alliance i could get behind but LAVs need to be better in general 5. Wrong - i have solo'd many tanks and done it the 1st time, i rarely need 10tries to do it and i can just keep pinned behind ther redline instead 6. It makes them weaker because we dont have several mechanisms in place so bluedots will waste ammo, relying on bluedots is even worse and we dont even have a vehicle nanohive or LAV vehicle nanohive mod or whatever Until locking and eject mechanisms and cargoholds are in place for all vehicles then i wont support it because i cannot control who is in my vehicle and its pure BS that i cannot stack up on ammo in my bay
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. CRONOS. 3576	Posted - 2013.04.20 13:44:00 - [46] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Prius Vecht wrote: Takahiro Kashuken these ideas are pretty bad, your reasons support why we actually need the change. 1. I agree u should have the ability to store extra ammo. it should also take up a lot of cpu/pg like a nanohive does. but u whine about not being able to be self sufficient and about having to depend on others. just like the heavy, powerful assets on the battlefield that are totally self contained fortresses is poor design. vehicles need finite ammo for the same reason heavies cant carry equip. 2. everyone support vehicle locks. they will be here sooner than later. ejecting probably coming soon too. 3. theyve already confirmed logi lavs and these could easily resupply tanks. 4. logi lavs same as nanohives. when unlimited vehicle ammo taken away imo tanks should be able to use nanohives. 5. dumb question. the solo av guy dies 10x trying to kill a tank and does it maybe 10% of the time. u lose credibility when u complain about stuff like this. 6. no, it doesnt make vehicles weaker it makes them balanced. 90% of the time supply depot get destroyed its by tanks! why? because they could care less since they have unlimited ammo! and vehicles shouldnt have to reload imo. 1. Wrong - A cargohold does not take any PG/CPU, it is a space in any vehicle to store loot and ammo in general in EVE, plus its a vehicle what car or plane doesnt have room to hold extra ammo? 3. Logi LAVs are weak to any kind of AV, to rely on a bluedot to give me ammo no, to rely on a squad member or member of the same corp/alliance i could get behind but LAVs need to be better in general 5. Wrong - i have solo'd many tanks and done it the 1st time, i rarely need 10tries to do it and i can just keep pinned behind ther redline instead 6. It makes them weaker because we dont have several mechanisms in place so bluedots will waste ammo, relying on bluedots is even worse and we dont even have a vehicle nanohive or LAV vehicle nanohive mod or whatever Until locking and eject mechanisms and cargoholds are in place for all vehicles then i wont support it because i cannot control who is in my vehicle and its pure BS that i cannot stack up on ammo in my bay Actually additional cargo space can be stressful on power cores, In eve the cpu is required to manage the plank bubble, a special bubble that has stopped expanding with the universe. I have seen the tough as a nut LAVs they are able to survive quite a bit amount of abuse. Most tanks that are idiots are solable, the smarter pilots would know to blow up the supply depots because AV cant abuse them depots to kill the tanks. I will agree that giving tanks and vehicles ammo changes quite a bit with the game and how its played. I would like to see some support in first to make it possible like vehicle depots.
Django Quik R.I.f.t 350	Posted - 2013.04.20 13:47:00 - [47] - Quote Ignoring nonsense about certain play styles needing buffs/nerfs, I think one higher level thing that should really be pushed is PVE content. I understand that it is being worked on and they really want to make it engaging and enjoyable but it really needs to come sooner rather than later. The new game mode would give Dust so much more depth and allow people bored of the same old old pubstomps and redlinings something else to do.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. CRONOS. 3576	Posted - 2013.04.20 13:50:00 - [48] - Quote Django Quik wrote: Ignoring nonsense about certain play styles needing buffs/nerfs, I think one higher level thing that should really be pushed is PVE content. I understand that it is being worked on and they really want to make it engaging and enjoyable but it really needs to come sooner rather than later. The new game mode would give Dust so much more depth and allow people bored of the same old old pubstomps and redlinings something else to do. I am not sure about how fast it can pushed but I would be more interesting on how its pushed though. Who what when where why sort of questions.
Kushmir Nadian Valor Coalition RISE of LEGION 160	Posted - 2013.04.20 17:10:00 - [49] - Quote Who in their right mind would claim infinite ammo for vehicles is balanced? just WOW.... All the excuses I see mention depending on blue dots or the supply depot for ammo like this is a bad thing...isn't that what everyone else does? If you don't have a loadout with a nanohive you depend on teammates. Its like tank drivers want this solo fortress, self-contained, survivable asset that is self-replenishing, never needs ammo and never needs any support. That doesn't make sense...not remotely. This belief that an AV person can solo a solid tanker is tanker propaganda. DOESN'T HAPPEN. As long as Logi LAVs can resupply them, vehicles can use nanohives, we get vehicle locks and ways to eject passengers its fine. What is this cargo hold stuff? Are we just arbitrarily making up modules to suit our needs now? The Dust module for extra ammo is a nanohive. It costs CPU and PG...If you don't like that? Keep in mind no one is forcing you to get one.
Tolen Rosas Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 89	Posted - 2013.04.20 17:54:00 - [50] - Quote modules to add extra ammo for vehicles would be easy to do imo. but they should cost significant CPU + PG of course.

Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 55	Posted - 2013.04.20 17:57:00 - [51] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: 1. Wrong - A cargohold does not take any PG/CPU, it is a space in any vehicle to store loot and ammo in general in EVE, plus its a vehicle what car or plane doesnt have room to hold extra ammo? this makes no sense. by this reasoning heavies should be able to carry more since they have extra space.
Rhapsodyy Darkforce SyNergy Gaming EoN. 9	Posted - 2013.04.20 21:55:00 - [52] - Quote Mithridates VI wrote: I think that seeing that CPM and immediately thinking "what things can they get me?" is the wrong approach. I'm not going to judge them based on a list of things I want but on how well they engage the community and communicate community feeling to CCP. Agreed. Also i think alot of the time of the CPM 0 is i hope going to be spent on working with CCP to design a proper system of elections. Though i dont envy them the task as its certainly not an easy issue to resolve, but i do think its a vitally important one, and i hope they encourage CCP to discuss the systems they have in mind with the playerbase when possible. As for one of the little things on the top of my nitpick list, give Motd on dust channels, even if it can only be set eve side for now plxplx
DustMercsBlog Galactic News Network 44	Posted - 2013.04.20 22:30:00 - [53] - Quote Tolen Rosas wrote: voicechat default on afk farming gone terrain glitch command structure friendly fire 450% scrambler pistol headshot foolishness assault type 2, b series, vk1 shields vehicle finite ammo vehicle locks only free vehicles should explode mass driver not cqc weapon we agree with all of these suggestions. its important that every game mode have things like command structure, friendly fire and a RTS commander. if not you introduce new players to a 'dumbed down' version of the game where they dont really learn how to play. The higher difficulties will play like a completely different game and its hard for them to adjust. when new players enter the higher levels they rage quit because its 'too hard' when they can't spam gunfire, grenades and orbital strikes strikes near their teammates and they have to play within the team concept or follow orders. Bassmeant made an example months ago comparing the tiny BF3 hardcore community. hardcore servers in BF3 are virtual ghost towns. when given the choice between hard and easy most players will choose the latter. this might not hurt a game like BF3 with 10M players but when Dust has only a few thousand players competing in PC the game will suffer.
Den-tredje Baron The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 1	Posted - 2013.04.20 23:28:00 - [54] - Quote Tolen Rosas wrote: I mass driver not cqc weapon I would really like to see the falloff for the MD to get reduced. If you have to hit a guy out at lets say 40 meter you pretty much have to aim ( being aimed in that is ) so high that you can't actually see the opponent. And no it's definitively not a CQC weapon but not much to do there. Just gotta get some of that shield.


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