The only thing I'm going to say is read some of the dev posts and get an idea of the long ball on this game. In the short term you are absolutely right. But in the long term there is a lot that will change. They have said multiple times that they intend on creating larger scale battles. As Dust moves to more capable hardware they will be able to implement more ambitious things.

Be patient.

Yeah, thinking of the potential of what can be done on the PS4 with this game is what I hold onto. Seriously no sarcasm.

If the better players win at PC then there is something going on that is broken? Did I read that right? Ok so basically you are not liking your chances at PC and are not willing or able to fund PC attacks or is it that you are seriously concerned that there is a problem? No matter who you are there is a chance you will win. No matter the battlefield, in the end it will always come down to how well does your team work together and what you are willing to do to make it work. If you have a problem with the good players all being on the other team then recruit some better players or train them. There is no excuse for not trying.

Farther down the line, if CCP ever manages to make bigger battles, I would like to see the option for teams to field as many players as they want in PC. A team might have 150 clones, and put 50 people on the field vs a team that decides to only field 16.

This would be a simple and efficient way to make the sandbox work. It would only favor the big entities that can make use of the numbers correctly. An elite team of 16 would roflstomp 50 bads into a clone loss very fast, as should be.

This would be a simple and efficient way to make the sandbox work. It would only favor the big entities that can make use of the numbers correctly. An elite team of 16 would roflstomp 50 bads into a clone loss very fast, as should be.

There is no room for bad or even average players in it.

Same for ANY multiplayer shooter. 10% players have skill, 90% have no skill. Sad but true.

On most important clan/corp battles - no room for bad and average players if this team have enough top players.

Why top players are top players? Because they want to be best and keep practice all the time on public.

Why bad players are bad? Or they dont want to improve their skill, or they have some problems and cant resolve this problems by themselves. If skilled players play with them - sometimes he can to give advice if see something wrong. But most of the time its impossible to see, because skilled guy have no time to see around.

p.s. and you forget about stacking top players with kbm. DS3 corp have no chaces at all against them.

2CCP------------------------------------------

Ok, 90% are bad - CCP GIVE TRAINING MOD FOR US, SPECTATOR MODE - WHERE I CAN SEE HOW PLAY MY CORP MATE AND CORRECT HIS MISTAKES.

Thats all we need. If we will have training arena and spectator mod - skilled guys can teach bad players.

CCP - your order of development of features is bad, sorry, but it is really bad. You do great things, but in wrong order. If you think about players it MUST be:

1. Really optimized engine, with stable 30+ FPS and no inputlag
2. Training ground (+ spectator mode in future). How it must work. Corp have 20 players online, directors split them to 2 teams and go to training ground immediately. And it must be cheap enough for often training (10 times per day as minimum where each of us will die 500+ times). We need 1 infantry only map, 1 infantry+vehicle map - its enough for training.
3. Planetary Conquest + Faction Battles
4. Any additional features you want to add.

Now we have 3 - without 1 and 2 - and its really ****.

p.s. i explain why we need cheap training rooms. As example i am bad player, my corp mate great player. I want to improve my skill. We go to training ground, and i play vs him 1vs1 as many time as i can, if i have strong motivation -i will die 10 000 times, but i will gain skill with his help. So training rooms must be cheap for all.

LOGIC

Please.......no.........

So your basic complaint is that current mechanics exclude certain groups from PC, and your suggestion is to expand the player count. This would only succeed in excluding corps who cant field the same massive numbers from PC, no matter how good they are. So you are not making PC more inclusive, you are just swapping who it excludes.

It seems to me that your notion that bigger, less skilled groups will be kicked out of PC (really the whole premise of your post) is erroneous. Smaller 'elite' corps will have no trouble defending a district in a 16v16. However, the very nature of being a small elite corp means that the space you can realistically hold will be limited in proportion to your size. Therefore there will always be space for the zergs (bigger alliances), especially once PC is expanded to more regions.

I have seen a few suggestions that the limited clone reserves per fight will balance having an extremely high player count, and that a team of 150 clones fielding 50 players will quickly be cloned by a team of 16 'pros'. This is also not the case, for a few reasons. In this instance, losses for the 50 player team will be extremely low, as the game will be over in about 5 minutes once every objective is capped. I promise you there is no team out there that will be able to hold 10 people and vehicles pushing each objective at once with 16 total players defending for more than 5 minutes from the start of the game. Once this happens and the 16 player team is being base raped, the game is effectively over, and there is no way for the 16 man team to get the 150 kills they need to win the game from their MCC.

I have long hoped that DUST will not turn into a zerg game, where numbers determine everything and skill counts for nothing, as many EVE players would have it be. I am currently pleased with the 32 person player cap and PC mechanics, and it would be a shame to see PC turn into a place where the weak can thrive. PC should be dominated by the most fearsome corps, who have spent time getting SP, practicing strategy, and perfecting gun game mechanics, not the corps who just bump a recruitment thread.

I have seen a few suggestions that the limited clone reserves per fight will balance having an extremely high player count, and that a team of 150 clones fielding 50 players will quickly be cloned by a team of 16 'pros'. This is also not the case, for a few reasons. In this instance, losses for the 50 player team will be extremely low, as the game will be over in about 5 minutes once every objective is capped. I promise you there is no team out there that will be able to hold 10 people and vehicles pushing each objective at once with 16 total players defending for more than 5 minutes from the start of the game. Once this happens and the 16 player team is being base raped, the game is effectively over, and there is no way for the 16 man team to get the 150 kills they need to win the game from their MCC.

Then prohaps the 16 player corp should recruit more players or hire ringers.

Not everyone will bring in 50 man teams, and a just having the option to create teams and battles with a large number of option as to how many people go in will encourage people to play Dust as they see fit. Corporations will have the option to talk with the people they are going into battle with to decide if each side is going to be honorable and try to bring a fair fight. Those who won't fight fair will get noticed by the community, possibly causing people to band together against them. All I'm saying is more options are always a good thing, especially in New Eden.

The rest of their knowledge can come from actual matches, with squad mates in pub matches, etc.

PC mechanics completely cater towards the parties that can win 16vs16 consistently, mostly due to morale, player retention and spoils of victor mechanics. How is this type of a sandbox supposed to work? It is nothing but a glorified clan ladder at the current state of things. It is probably moving more players out of Dust514 than bringing in new ones.


In EVE, you can bring numbers. In Dust, numbers will get steamrolled out of the game by more skilled competition (case Orion). The argument of numbers providing more playerbase to pick fights from continuously is void, because playing any mediocre players with current mechanics decreases the morale for everyone through losses. The teams that field bad players are harshly penalized for allowing them in matches.


In fact, the most skillful entity will slow but steady steamroll everyone else out of the game, as the high end players like to polarize to the winning party. What will happen with Dust sandbox is that Molden Heath will fast narrow down to the 2-3 most skilled alliances that can consistently win 16vs16 with their top 3 ringer teams. Numbers play no role in this, as the losses take the toll and kill out any lesser skilled players, no matter how big their numbers are. When Molden Heath is controlled by the top dogs, PC will generate a steady isk revenue to them, putting them further into the region of untouchable. When new regions will be opened, the evolved skill coalitions will simply grab all of it and push out the new competition through the same player retention and morale killing mechanic that is removing lesser skilled alliances from dust514 currently.

The sandbox of Dust, PC, will thus be completely restricted to the good players. There is no room for bad or even average players in it. The only imaginable place for the 90% of dust playerbase in PC will be farming isk for the top 10%. Do you honestly think this game will survive upon a sandbox that favors winners, who already have a huge intrinsic advantage in morale? EVE online survives, because you can bring the blob. There is room for mediocrity - just bring enough of it.

Now this is of course no news in an FPS game. However, in order for dust to ever become a meaningful sandbox, direct ways for the average Joe to affect PC are needed. PVE? Secondary fights? Come up with something. All the numbers show that dust is dying rapidly, at this pace it is nothing but terminal and the life expectancy of the game is under a year.


1) Nerf artificial mechanics that favor the victor. Victor gets a morale boost and should not need to receive anything else.
2) Note down the clone efficiency of sides in the end of match under victor and defeated.
3) Come up with game modes for the average players to have their place in the sandbox.

Dust Sandbox?

Those two words do not belong in the same sentence as of yet.

Hopefully one day we'll get a real sandbox, but we don't have that yet, all we have is "INSTANT BATTLES!!!!"

This is exactly right games like farcry, GTA, and borderlands are sandbox. As of now Dust is COD/Battlefield in the future gameplay wise and only their multilayer at that.

If the better players win at PC then there is something going on that is broken? Did I read that right? Ok so basically you are not liking your chances at PC and are not willing or able to fund PC attacks or is it that you are seriously concerned that there is a problem? No matter who you are there is a chance you will win. No matter the battlefield, in the end it will always come down to how well does your team work together and what you are willing to do to make it work. If you have a problem with the good players all being on the other team then recruit some better players or train them. There is no excuse for not trying.