DUST Search - Gathering your feedback, planetary conquest

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Gathering your feedback, planetary conquest

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
ColdBlooded Max MetalMalita 5	Posted - 2013.06.16 00:04:00 - [121] - Quote not seeing a lot of fw battle lately?
Devil Music Intara Direct Action Caldari State 8	Posted - 2013.06.16 00:06:00 - [122] - Quote VEXation Gunn wrote: CCP 5 year plan 1. putting lipstick on a pig they are pushing this back because of the ddos attack.
Jathniel G I A N T EoN. 474	Posted - 2013.06.16 23:41:00 - [123] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: Constructive thread time, I know, trolling fun, but every now and then we need a constructive thread. So here we go. This is about planetary conquest This team does not deal with balancing. :) For these first two questions please keep them simple and just one sentence per point. What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest? What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed? Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it? Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it? Top 3 things I enjoy about planetary conquest: 1. Deploying and playing with my corp/alliance... "Stupid blueberries" are non-existent. 2. Objective-based game mode... The match requires more tactics. 3. ISK Reward... this makes PC worth it. Top 3 things I would like to see changed in planetary conquest: 1. FPS Drops and Lag... I know this plagues every game mode, but the FPS lost ends up dictating the outcome of matches. 2. Increasing player count, and expanding the objective-based game mode, to include a second or third area (similar to BF3's Rush OR Skirmish 1.0). 3. Double the ISK reward for victories, and allow us non-combat access TO and modification OF our districts. GOOD THINGS EXPANDED: I enjoy the objective-based combat, I would like to see it expanded, and share traits similar to Skirmish 1.0 or the Rush game mode from Battlefield 3. Tactics are involved are in these game modes. These expanded fights, that move from one area of the map to another, would allow more players to participate. 32v32 would be a reasonable ideal; and with more people playing and more ground to cover with more objectives... better clone management would be required on the parts of both Attacker and Defender. An attacker wouldn't be able to afford having all of his men die 4 times each, without having to commit more clones to the attack. A defender can never afford to lose clones, even with all of them available. PC matches would be more sprawling, and more decisive. BAD THINGS ELIMINATED (or at least reduced): Considering what I described for expanding the game mode... memory optimization, etc. would be required. FPS drops are the deciding factors in who wins matches, and that can't be allowed to continue. Rewards for winning are about 1 million isk for mercs. This is good, but considering we aren't allowed to customize our districts by placing turret installations, deciding what structures we want to put down, etc.... we should get more isk to compensate for this. Basically, we have NO reason to hold these districts besides passive ISK that us regular rank-and-file members will never see. So we need to get more isk on a payout, or be granted some sort of added reward to bother defend and attack these things.
Jathniel G I A N T EoN. 474	Posted - 2013.06.17 00:06:00 - [124] - Quote Sgt Buttscratch wrote: *What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest?* 1. Winning 2. Alliance communication. 3. The star map *What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed?* 1. Uselessness of owned districts. 2. Game modes 3. MCC sniping on all map *Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it?* Star map, it's just cool as ** and shows how big this could become if handled right Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it? 1. Uselessness of owned districts. Right now once a district is taken...that's it, other than defending it once in a while. That is boring, tedious and is slowly turning players away from PC. The fix** (suggestions could be flawed) I) Let us use our districts, for training new players, role finesse, pilot test schools and inner corp/alliance test fights. II) Make the districts do something, other than offer clone count maximums Research facilities: All corp members get bonus' per research facility owned (example: Core dropsuit upgrade modules gain 1%) Barracks: +1%/hour SP gain, per barracks district held Cargo Hub: -5% cost for ISK items in market place Overview: the idea being that the ownership of these districts benefits the whole corp, and the want to have them would be furthered. III) Upgrading your districts, moving turrets, adding cargo containers/cover. IV) Being able to jump onto our district at any time to just purely **** around, Nova knife tanks and what not. QFT
Victor 'LifeLine' Ramous SyNergy Gaming EoN. 294	Posted - 2013.06.17 01:22:00 - [125] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Likes: 1. Concept 2. EVE connection 3. Friendly Fire Things I would like to see changed: 1. Execution 2. No EVE alliance = No orbital! 3. Friendly FIre in FW Why I like the Concept of PC: This is a combination of points 1, 2, and 3 in my likes. These battles actually matter and the stakes are much higher than throwing away a bunch of ISK to pad personal stats. Tactics and strategy (which have been missing from Dust as of late) come into account because you can't just blob up and zerg everything and clones are finite. What ruins PC: Having the warbarge in PC is literally a spit in the face to everyone that bought UVTs and took the time to form an EVE alliance, plain and simple. Get rid of the warbarge and you'll see more Dust corps interacting with EVE players. If anyone complains, tell them "Welcome to New Eden." Besides, I've seen several good corps put in work without even needing an orbital. Having access should be a privilege for those with an alliance, not a right to all. Also, in any battle that affects EVE influence, I would motion for FF to be turned on at all times. This is the kind of importance these battles need, along with higher rewards for those higher stakes. If you make this change, you'll see a lot of more tactically oriented corps rise in the ranks and not just pub stompers blobbing everything in Caldari Logi suits, Thukker Grenades and TAC ARs. (Yes people still run around with TAC ARs) Edit: Defenders and Attackers in PC need to feel like defenders and attackers. Skirmish 1.0 would really help with this. Neutral territory could work as well if there were an implemented system where two sides engage on unclaimed territory. Agree with the warbarge aspect of this (Not FF for FW) What i like: 1- Concept and what we know atm of what the 'vision' is 2- A meta-gaming aspect is developing (steps need to be taken to nurture it) - Some of the 'i would like to see' may help nurture this aspect... we just need more possibilities at this point to keep it interesting, because the vanilla model currently running for PC is getting boring, and will start to stunt the growth of metagame. What i would like to see: 1- Raiding being a viable option/more ways to experience PC (Someone from EoN i believe made a good thread about this, hopefully it was already noted by CCP) 2- Elimination of war-barge OBs, force people to utilize their eve side (A lot of groups in PC have eve support or have access to it, but because of time delay with OBs, its easier/beneficial to just use a war-barge)... getting rid of it will help win EVE side as well, as the increased need will give rise to more fights eve-side. 3- More character in planets, i know you may not deal directly with this (and im sure it is in development), but give the system or planets people fight on more character, and maybe growing more sense of ownership and identification with places.
Waruiko DUST G I A N T EoN. 100	Posted - 2013.06.17 22:12:00 - [126] - Quote What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest? Playing with my friends Reasonable pay out of isk Salvage based on what other players are using What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed? lag kick power in barge to weaken AWOXING to a reasonable level Orbital superiority provides too little advantage Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it? I like playing with my corp. Thats the biggest thing about PC and honestly if there was more FW and if you could form up the whole team beforehand so you could properly play together there PC almost wouldn't be needed. Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it? There is little reason for eve and dust forces to work together. Orbitals are too unwieldy for fast response time and involve a pilot sitting there with nothing to do till someone gets the needed WP. Holding the districts dust side doesn't give much bonus eve side so theres not much reason for eve pilots to risk their stuff to help.
Starfire Revo G I A N T EoN. 79	Posted - 2013.06.17 23:31:00 - [127] - Quote Likes 1. The ability to play with a full team vs a full team. 2. Games with a meaningful impact on the universe. 3. Dust and EVE players can work together. Dislikes 1. Benefit from EVE side support is lacklustre. 2. Planet district upgrades don't encourage and support EVE players to stay in the area around the planet. 3. The low number of clones per district, meaning you can't attack someone twice in the same timer (36h cooldown with the ability to attack twice would be nice).
True Adamance PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 200	Posted - 2013.06.18 00:14:00 - [128] - Quote Things I liked from the times I've been involved with it 1- EVE interation 2- RISK FACTOR BABY! 3- Potential of Expansion Things that I disliked and would like changed 1- Lack of Incentive to actually hold districts 2- Issues with TZ 3- Simple Skirmish Game mode Expanding on just a single point I liked is easy. I liked the EVE interaction. Infact I can honestly say I got more of a kick out of being in orbit as a part of the OB fleet than I did on the ground actuallt fighting. Why? Because of the risk, the chance, the developing nature of EVE. E.G- Our very small fleet, 2 stealth bombers, 2 frigates, and my destroyer some how got into orbit over the planet in question. Sat there for a while, did our OB business. Then what happens? Local spikes in system a fleet of battleships jumps in and we have to scatter. The intergration is pretty nice and could be improved on, having merc ops actually require EVE side fleets and the rewards of those EVE fleet being ultra worth while would make Dust a necessary and entertaining part of New Eden. However back on topic if there was one thing I could/ would like to see changed about PC its game modes a terraforming. Let defending players set up small gun emplacements, defensive lines, impassable / passable blockades, perimeter fences, installations to better allow them to defend a district from the enemy. Make the defender feel like they are the last bastion of all that is good and pure in the word as some jerkoffs come to try and steal it all the way (Sure it might pay to balance clone counts in favour of the attackers to make up for this terraforming...but that's another issue). For attackers let them feel like invaders, deployment means dropping into hails of gunfire and explosions, every step in PC need to be a brutal push to the goal. Its the game modes that don't do PC justice. Everyone can run pubs and stomp the new academy recruits in a skirmish match, or run FW and still be doing skirmish..... PC need game modes unique to it with perhaps justifications on why its being done. Instead of clone counts to decide who wins why not have instability meters, the longer a district goes without attack the more stability it gets, meaning more battles to wear it down (for this you could run seek and destroy missions blowing up power stations take and hold missions for capturing facilies, liberations missions where you unleash POW's on the enemy), when it flips to neutral the attacking player wins the district over and takes it....but again that's a different isse. Just give these guys and immersive reason to fight. PC just need diversity, all the playrs in it are long serving vets from atleast chromosome ways....they know skirmish inside and out, they complain about it all the time.
S Park Finner BetaMax. CRONOS. 147	Posted - 2013.06.18 04:03:00 - [129] - Quote I originally put this in another thread but I'm sticking it in here because I believe -- even though it's a bit off topic -- some of the core problems with planetary conquest are complicated by it's underlying structure and this idea could generate alternative ideas. In particular... DUST 514 mercenaries don't get personal benefit out of attacking or defending a district. It depends on their corporation to reward them. The scheduling of battles becomes work not fun because of timing. First of all, I don't advocate removing the current system. It's geared toward corporate ownership and has had a lot of effort put into it. But an alternative planetary conquest mode could be more accessible and give mercenaries and corporations an entry point into the existing system. Create an alternative district ownership system based on individuals or corporations signing up on teams GÇô say the A team and the Z team GÇô to fight for a district on a planet. When players queue up for battles they can choose "District Battles" in the battle finder. They are available to fight for any district that they've signed up for on the team they signed up for. When the system detects there are enough players to make up a battle one is started. The mercenaries generate ownership points for their team in the fight GÇô perhaps in proportion to the War Points they get in the battle. The benefits to defending winners are twice what they would be for normal instant battles GÇô both in Skill Points and in ISK. The benefit to winning attackers would be 1.5 times the normal payout. The benefits to any corporation that signed up would be in ISK and in clones to be used in other Planetary Conquest battles for battles fought once their team owned the district. Losers in the battles get the regular payout. The district changes sides when a team's accumulated points for a district become greater than the current owner's. Potential problems... Not enough people sign up for a district. Not enough people are on line for a battle. Both of these could be handled by asking people on the fly if they would like to sign up for a district. I imagine something like... A player clicks on the GÇ£District BattlesGÇ¥ tab. If there are battle available for them they can jump in or sign up for a new district. If not... A dialogue comes up... GÇ£You aren't signed up for any districts or there aren't enough mercenaries online to fight in the districts you are signed up for. If you sign up and win a fight in a district your side owns you will get double rewards and your points reinforce your claim to the district. If you sign up and win in a district your team doesn't own you get 1.5 times the regular payout and your team gains points toward owning the district. If you loose you get the regular payout but you points still count toward district ownership. Would you like to sign up for a new district? Districts that need mercenaries are... (list of districts and teams)GÇ¥ They sign up and they get put into a battle. Corporation officers could sign up their entire corporation.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 834	Posted - 2013.06.18 07:29:00 - [130] - Quote What I like: Competitive battles between coordinated groups The idea of owning territory Deeper coordination with EVE players What I hate: Being unable to ever have a break, we've had 30 consecutive days of nonstop combat over 2-4 districts, most of our PC battle team has fought over 100 battles in a month. I've been missing family events to play a game I'm getting sick of. PC is an ISK sink, there is no way to make money since battles are literally nonstop, every day, and even if you win, you're making a marginal amount of ISK which is not usually enough to cover expenses. Clone Packs. Corps/Alliances with massive numbers of players are capable of endlessly attacking a district without weakening their own defenses while smaller corps struggle to defend their territory for zero profit and incapable of counterattacking. What should continue: Coordinated battles for those wishing to seem a higher level of competitive play. Pub stomping is boring but fighting against a full coordinated team is a lot of fun. What needs to be fixed: Cost/Reward ratio, and I don't mean just ISK. PC costs so much time and money and the rewards are marginal at best. PC has become a second job that I have to go to every night and provides little reward beyond the sport of it.

Kaeralli Sturmovos KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 123	Posted - 2013.06.18 12:18:00 - [131] - Quote 3 things i like, like getting some of the salvage off my enemy, having a turf worth fighting for control over, the time layout for how and when battles commence, it makes it more interesting than a regular pub match. things id like to see changed: First off, there needs to be more than just capping objectives in matches that are identical to pub matches. more layered objectives then "run from spawn to point A,B,C, cap and defend" id like to see some objectives that require more use for logi's repair tools if they are defending (repairing doors, gates etc), attackers need obstacles getting in their way like doors/gates or maybe power supply to bases that cause blockades to selective areas of the map. there needs to be more than just a simple cap and defend for a mode that is HIGH STAKES. both defence and offence need their own obstacles for conquering the map, NOBODY should be safely guarding an objective till their team has to push or fall back to a letter, it would make for better use of the multiple squads and what they are designed to do. Second, lengthen the time of the map! i would so enjoy an hour long or more battle, we are fighting over districts id like to see a massive fight that puts the clone count at a more higher risk, even possibly a wager option to extend the battle and put more cones then the -150 on the line. the MCC damage should be lessened so that the battle goes on longer than typical pub matches we currently have. i dont really see a problem with increasing the clone count of the facilities we currently have. third, payout for victory/loss should be tweaked, i do believe it needs to be a bit higher for victories so that equipment loss and equipment destroyed is rewarded better, i have this similar issue with pub matches where i can drop 7+ tanks in the match (good/decent tanks) and the payout is average its similar here too in PC where vehicle kills especially with the additional bodies riding in it does not add up. PC losses should reward a meager pay at least for your accomplishments on the battlefield, nothing nearly as good as winning but a bit extra then the big ol' goose egg on screen and some meager SP.
Kaeralli Sturmovos KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 123	Posted - 2013.06.18 12:22:00 - [132] - Quote Absolute Idiom II wrote: I like that stepping on peoples toes is the entire point of PC. There shouldn't be room for everyone to have a district; if there was there woudn't be much of a reason to attack. And so the current number of districts is probably about right. OTOH, there is definitely an issue with not being able to attack districts outside of your own peak TZ. Our enemies' districts have reinforcement timers deep into US TZ and so we can't feasibly attack and conquer those districts. The same applies in reverse. So whilst we're sitting right next door to each other, both corps have plenty of districts that are not under attack. Makes me think that you should only get bonuses from your district for the period of the day that you are willing to have it vulnerable to attack. Can only defend it for 4 hours per day, in EU TZ? Then you get only 4 hrs worth of reinforcements. Or possibly some sort of 'hot racking' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_racking where a district can have multiple owners all responsible for defending whatever they are capable of. It's probably too complex to implement or understand though... if ccp could come up with a buy in option to break a reinforecement timer or do some sort of +/-6hr change for a large sum of cash that would spice things up and make everyone grab their "oh s*** handle".
hooc order Deep Space Republic 402	Posted - 2013.06.18 18:13:00 - [133] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: Constructive thread time, I know, trolling fun, but every now and then we need a constructive thread. So here we go. This is about planetary conquest This team does not deal with balancing. :) For these first two questions please keep them simple and just one sentence per point. What are the top 3 things you enjoy about planetary conquest? What are the top 3 things you would like to see changed? Pick one point about what you like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you like it? Pick one point about what you don't like and expand upon it if possible. Why do you not like it? I cannot play PC as i only have 5 million SP so i can't say anything good about it. things i would eliminate are 1. Eliminate the SP/leveling systems so i can actually play it 2. ??? 3. ??? Perhaps you should not even be working at PC seeing as how so few people can play it and those that do are bored with it. Move on make something else. hey how about you just make a way for Dusters to kill EvE players. If you want a link between Dust and EvE that people will actually play I think killing EvE players would work.
Appia Vibbia Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 45	Posted - 2013.06.18 18:39:00 - [134] - Quote Thing I like about Planetary Conquest: #1: Full corp battles: 8v8 was lame. The fields were so big and empty, making the new corp battles "full size" is more fun. If/when player count increases in other matches I hope it will increase in PC as well. #2: Skirmish mode. My favorite game mode. I'm not very good at ambush/oms where the goal is to kill people, everyone starts looking for me because they know I'm there. While as soon as you put down a capture point, people's attention drifts from a single nuisance to trying to win... More capture points mean I'm even less of a priority. #3: no blue dots. seriously, I love that it is a game mode without randoms. Things I don't like: #-3: Not enough territories. Start terraforming those planets! Please!. There need to more territories than it is possible for the current corps to hold. too many big names controlling most of it... there also needs to be some incentive for the corps without a territory to join PC. They would be completely destroyed with a lack of reinforcements clones against the guys that can just harass them with their leftovers. #-2: Stop giving the free Orbital Bombardments. I was expecting them removed when I jumped into my first battle. Making deals EVE side to keep the skies clear and having our own pilot up there... turns out that was a waste of time. sure EVE ships enhance the attacks but they just put the pilots at risk if the alliances/corps are war-dec'd. No need for EVE/DUST interaction currently. #-1: Needs more maps. Iron Delta, Skim Junction, and Spine Crescent. 3 maps by 3 outposts are not enough.
Salazar Skye-fire Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 107	Posted - 2013.06.20 14:40:00 - [135] - Quote Resuscitation bump!

CCP FoxFour C C P C C P Alliance 24280	Posted - 2013.06.20 18:05:00 - [136] - Quote I went through this thread yesterday, gathered all the feedback, made some lists, prioritized and weighted all the feedback, and we are using it to help guide our roadmapping. Thank you ALL for your help and feedback! :D

Doyle Reese OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 153	Posted - 2013.06.20 18:11:00 - [137] - Quote the entire thread? Because I have made some updates to my post a week ago that was located way earlier. Perhaps you can give your own feedback to some of the feedback in this thread, we can brainstorm something great!! Thank you for allowing us to do this for you FoxFour!
ZDub 303 TeamPlayers EoN. 440	Posted - 2013.06.20 19:29:00 - [138] - Quote CCP FoxFour wrote: I went through this thread yesterday, gathered all the feedback, made some lists, prioritized and weighted all the feedback, and we are using it to help guide our roadmapping. Thank you ALL for your help and feedback! :D Would love another dev blog on your rough roadmap of ideas, would be cool to see what you guys are thinking for the 'SoonTM' time frame.
ad o Savage Bullet 0	Posted - 2013.06.21 00:19:00 - [139] - Quote has the Uprising 1.2 came out yet
Harry Hendersons Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2013.06.21 00:33:00 - [140] - Quote Lag fixed Better loot Skirmish 1.0

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 837	Posted - 2013.06.21 04:03:00 - [141] - Quote Harry Hendersons wrote: Lag fixed Better loot Skirmish 1.0 A good point I forgot to bring up. Currently the 'Skirmish' game mode is exactly what it implies, a skirmish between two people over a plot of land. This is however NOT what Planetary Conquest is. PC is distinctly one group defending against another group who is trying to attack and capture a plot of land. While the Attack/Defense sides of the map are consistent, this does not give the defenders any real "home field advantage" so to speak since its still just 2 parties fighting over a neutrally located area. Skirmish 1.0 was much more along the lines of a true Attack/Defend situation. While switching PC over to a game mode like this is likely not feasible in the short term, I think the community as a whole feels that this type of game mode needs to make a comeback and be THE game mode for PC. In some cases attacking is actually easier because that side of the map has better terrain to work with. Some things you COULD do in the short term however to make PC more like a true defense would be things like: Defenders start with all objectives captured Defenders can spawn on any of those objectives initially Attackers then have to take those objectives from the defenders and hold them This is probably a fairly easy system to implement and gives a more Attack/Defend feel to the game mode. Hell just call it "Conquest". Right now, aside from familiarity with the field, it is equally difficult to attack as it is to defend. While capturing a district is more difficult because of the need of multiple attacks, it is also important to give defenders and advantage within that battle itself.
Bubbles moon Algintal Core Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.06.21 04:13:00 - [142] - Quote Skirmish 1.0 would save this game >.>
Mako LandSharkX Liberum Sapiens Xenodochi 50	Posted - 2013.06.21 05:03:00 - [143] - Quote Reading and replying to a different thread I I chose to edit my my initial post in this one. Though I probably didn't do a great job of replying to either
DeeJay One BetaMax. CRONOS. 38	Posted - 2013.06.21 05:53:00 - [144] - Quote Doyle Reese wrote: the entire thread? Because I have made some updates to my post a week ago that was located way earlier. That's not what the edit button is for ;)
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. League of Infamy 417	Posted - 2013.06.21 12:18:00 - [145] - Quote Bubbles moon wrote: Skirmish 1.0 would save this game >.> Despite all of our requests for it, they obviously know better. They've got everything under control
licio br TRUE TEA BAGGERS EoN. 0	Posted - 2013.06.21 13:31:00 - [146] - Quote I enjoy: 1. the consent of interacting with another mmo 2. fps with a meaning 3. consequences of either wining/loosing See changed: 1. lowering requirements (sp/gear) so newer chars can participate 2. expanded out of FW and into the rest of eve 3. different reward levels, like secure space, low sec and 0.0; thus leaving the vets to compete for the best rewards while the noobs compete for rewards that are meaningful to them but not meaningful to vets The whole consent of dust is huge, revolutionary, the ideas are there just need to implement them, quick. At the end of the day CCP is out to make money and you do that by keeping people entertained. Psychology shows a co-relation in the frequency of rewards to faithfulness. Find a way to keep EVERY battle meaningful and this game will never die. Set PC months away from a new player and he will get bored soon and quit.
Yani Sing Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2013.06.22 18:59:00 - [147] - Quote Loyalty percents would hrlp people pick a side and stick with it.
Salt Dog 76 Red Star. EoN. 38	Posted - 2013.06.22 20:17:00 - [148] - Quote Top 3 things about Planetary Conquest. 1) Mostly good matches with established corps. But CCP needs to make smaller districs so that samller corps can defend or own a district. Like instead of the 16V16 8V8 maps so smaller yet good corps can bite a share out of pc. Only like one distric on each planet or something. Lots of peeps aren't getting the enjoyment of PC. 2) Like the big maps. But.... They need to be bigger, Need More different terrain, snow, lava, rainforests etc. Need more defensable positions like; Bunkers, Buildings (way to much open ground on some maps), crowsnests for snipers, and installations > Turrets, Resupplys, etc. 3) Like the Isk/Sp after a win. But it needs to be higher, most of us mercs dont see much for taking a district, my high has been like 1,500,000. and 10,000 sp or so. The Isk/Salvage payout needs to be way higher. Everyone runs proto/officer in PC and lets face it that crap aint cheap. Low 3 things about Planetary Conquest. 1) (this referrs to all maps.) Smoother terrain. Nothing will **** a merc off or drive away from this game faster than the crap we are dealing with since new Build. Tanks will explode on a little hill for no reason, Have you guys ever walked up the stairs in a heavy suit i mean seriously you get stuck or hung up 50% of the time. Walk up some resupplys and get stuck the rest of the game unless you got a buddy to drive a LAV/Hav over to ya to un *&% you. 2) There need to be a way to attack sooner than the 24 hour timer on a distric you already have attacked, we should be able to keep attacking it if we want or have the resources to or if the defenders have clones left. Like make it a 10 minute wait in the lobby so people can leave or new mercs can get in also. 2b) If the defenders win they should be able to choose if they want to use the 24 hour timer or defend the attackers right away again thats if the attackers wish to attack again. This will speed up all the BS of PC. The successful corp will be able to choose, lets face it this 24 hour timer sucks. 3) QUIT NERFING ALL THE WEAPONS. All the weapons suck now since this build. All you get is assists now with any weapon or a tank, with a lol Laser, with a Tac Ar, with a ....Do i need to keep going. Does anyone feel good about a game when they go 10 kills with 25 assists and 0-whatever deaths. Reset all weapons back to Chromosone build, quit listening to all the whiners the shotgun is OP, the Hmg is OP, the Lasers are OP. (the Vizam was) enough is enough, tell them to get good or addapt. Tanks are worthless, if your boots are on the ground all you get are assists, Militia or tier 1 Av gear rules the sky and ground when only proto or officer should. Logistics LAV are harder to kill and take longer to kill than a well fit HAV. Gimme a break CCP. In this build you cant even call in a tank because there are 10 murder taxis driving around on both teams. COMMON MAN this game is getting worse not better if it were not for PC more people would leave, than already have. PS i have spent lots of money on this game and i want it to be better, i dont want it to fail, I and my main Yourdeadagain76 have been around since around first build i cant even remember the name of it LOL.
Wombat in combat Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 40	Posted - 2013.06.23 00:03:00 - [149] - Quote I'd like to see Ambush OMS as a game mode in PC, even Domination too.
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. League of Infamy 422	Posted - 2013.06.23 13:22:00 - [150] - Quote Wombat in combat wrote: I'd like to see Ambush OMS as a game mode in PC, even Domination too. If each district had multiple objectives that had to be captured in successive battles it would solve a lot of the timer BS. In other words each district would have a regular skirmish map. If you win that you have a domination match right after to take the district. If its a cargo hub you have an ambush OMS at the end to clean up the stragglers unless they've been fully cloned. ^^^this would be awesome IMO and you could capture a district within an hour.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.