CCP would probably just take some of the ideas in consideration, take 5-6 months to make the changes, and then poorly execute the new mode.

The code is available to have one terminal control multiple assets. What was interesting to learn, it can control the owner of any asset, not just null cannons. This can be used to make the current skirmish a little better while we wait for 3.0.

How it works - add a new console, the "Defense Command Terminal". If your team captures it, all turrets on the socket belong to you. To make this meaningful, all turrets would no longer be hack-able individually. An additional "Support Command Terminal" would do the same for CRUs and supply depots.

What it means - you have new objectives that don't directly help you win, but are still necessary to balance your tactics around. It spreads out important places to be which penalizes zerging. It make the turrets themselves more valuable since taking over the socket will flip the entire perimeter defense at once, not just the current location that is likely already cleared.

When is it - it could happen very quickly, before Uprising 1.2 even, but only if the community wants it because it would replace entirely the current mechanics if introduced for Skirmish, and would be unwise to introduce as a new queue at this time. So does this appeal to you? Why? Does it sound terrible? Why not then?

Also, turrets need at least supply depot health, it's silly they can be 1-2 shot by common fits. But that only partially is on-topic.

Once turrets are player dropped, we don't want a zerg of super strong turrets do we? We will probably have a good deal of them showing up once you guys can call them in. Those should be the ones you guys can fit to be stronger. My personal opinion on that anyways.

The code is available to have one terminal control multiple assets. What was interesting to learn, it can control the owner of any asset, not just null cannons. This can be used to make the current skirmish a little better while we wait for 3.0.

How it works - add a new console, the "Defense Command Terminal". If your team captures it, all turrets on the socket belong to you. To make this meaningful, all turrets would no longer be hack-able individually. An additional "Support Command Terminal" would do the same for CRUs and supply depots.

What it means - you have new objectives that don't directly help you win, but are still necessary to balance your tactics around. It spreads out important places to be which penalizes zerging. It make the turrets themselves more valuable since taking over the socket will flip the entire perimeter defense at once, not just the current location that is likely already cleared.

When is it - it could happen very quickly, before Uprising 1.2 even, but only if the community wants it because it would replace entirely the current mechanics if introduced for Skirmish, and would be unwise to introduce as a new queue at this time. So does this appeal to you? Why? Does it sound terrible? Why not then?

Also, turrets need at least supply depot health, it's silly they can be 1-2 shot by common fits. But that only partially is on-topic.

Why not have three turrets?

Small: Like the ones that vanished shortly after Craterlake, hackable, low HP, droppable, great AI to make them a severe threat against infantry if not controlled, customizable by players in the future.

Large: Like the ones we have now, customizable by players in the future and droppable.

Fortress: Ones even bulkier then the ones we have now with significantly more HP, NOT droppable, customizable in the future by players for player bases thus already present at the start of a "game," NOT hackable and activated by hackable terminals in a network. This third type could be considered a "new" or "separate" type then the normal turrets (like our Null cannons) if that would be easier code wise then modifying current turrets to be hackable or not.


The new "fortress" type would allow you to not worry about super-HP turrets being deploy-spammed as they are a visibly separate type of turret that are restricted to being part of a static base network.

wouldn't this be a indirect nerf to hacking skills
since it would be used less there is less reason to spec into it

While you're here, Logic... is this not a slight modification of the code used in the old alpha builds?

When we hacked a point weapons and spawn points would spawn in. Why can't we just do that and 'lock' the modules dropped down to be unhackable?

I get the map guys may need more time to work on it, but I don't see it taking an incredibly long time. All the code and assets are there for both systems (Old alpha game mode + Ambush OMS).

They just need tying together, surely?

The code is available to have one terminal control multiple assets. What was interesting to learn, it can control the owner of any asset, not just null cannons. This can be used to make the current skirmish a little better while we wait for 3.0.

How it works - add a new console, the "Defense Command Terminal". If your team captures it, all turrets on the socket belong to you. To make this meaningful, all turrets would no longer be hack-able individually. An additional "Support Command Terminal" would do the same for CRUs and supply depots.

What it means - you have new objectives that don't directly help you win, but are still necessary to balance your tactics around. It spreads out important places to be which penalizes zerging. It make the turrets themselves more valuable since taking over the socket will flip the entire perimeter defense at once, not just the current location that is likely already cleared.

When is it - it could happen very quickly, before Uprising 1.2 even, but only if the community wants it because it would replace entirely the current mechanics if introduced for Skirmish, and would be unwise to introduce as a new queue at this time. So does this appeal to you? Why? Does it sound terrible? Why not then?

Also, turrets need at least supply depot health, it's silly they can be 1-2 shot by common fits. But that only partially is on-topic.

That code has been ignored since the implementation of SK 2.0. It just does not function and would require an entire re-write to work the current code.

Why not have three turrets?

Small: Like the ones that vanished shortly after Craterlake, hackable, low HP, droppable, great AI to make them a severe threat against infantry if not controlled, customizable by players in the future.

Large: Like the ones we have now, customizable by players in the future and droppable.

Fortress: Ones even bulkier then the ones we have now with significantly more HP, NOT droppable, customizable in the future by players for player bases thus already present at the start of a "game," NOT hackable and activated by hackable terminals in a network. This third type could be considered a "new" or "separate" type then the normal turrets (like our Null cannons) if that would be easier code wise then modifying current turrets to be hackable or not.


The new "fortress" type would allow you to not worry about super-HP turrets being deploy-spammed as they are a visibly separate type of turret that are restricted to being part of a static base network.

The code is available to have one terminal control multiple assets. What was interesting to learn, it can control the owner of any asset, not just null cannons. This can be used to make the current skirmish a little better while we wait for 3.0.

How it works - add a new console, the "Defense Command Terminal". If your team captures it, all turrets on the socket belong to you. To make this meaningful, all turrets would no longer be hack-able individually. An additional "Support Command Terminal" would do the same for CRUs and supply depots.

What it means - you have new objectives that don't directly help you win, but are still necessary to balance your tactics around. It spreads out important places to be which penalizes zerging. It make the turrets themselves more valuable since taking over the socket will flip the entire perimeter defense at once, not just the current location that is likely already cleared.

When is it - it could happen very quickly, before Uprising 1.2 even, but only if the community wants it because it would replace entirely the current mechanics if introduced for Skirmish, and would be unwise to introduce as a new queue at this time. So does this appeal to you? Why? Does it sound terrible? Why not then?

Also, turrets need at least supply depot health, it's silly they can be 1-2 shot by common fits. But that only partially is on-topic.

now that just does not seem wise.

The code is available to have one terminal control multiple assets. What was interesting to learn, it can control the owner of any asset, not just null cannons. This can be used to make the current skirmish a little better while we wait for 3.0.

How it works - add a new console, the "Defense Command Terminal". If your team captures it, all turrets on the socket belong to you. To make this meaningful, all turrets would no longer be hack-able individually. An additional "Support Command Terminal" would do the same for CRUs and supply depots.

What it means - you have new objectives that don't directly help you win, but are still necessary to balance your tactics around. It spreads out important places to be which penalizes zerging. It make the turrets themselves more valuable since taking over the socket will flip the entire perimeter defense at once, not just the current location that is likely already cleared.

When is it - it could happen very quickly, before Uprising 1.2 even, but only if the community wants it because it would replace entirely the current mechanics if introduced for Skirmish, and would be unwise to introduce as a new queue at this time. So does this appeal to you? Why? Does it sound terrible? Why not then?

Also, turrets need at least supply depot health, it's silly they can be 1-2 shot by common fits. But that only partially is on-topic.

Why not have three turrets?

Small: Like the ones that vanished shortly after Craterlake, hackable, low HP, droppable, great AI to make them a severe threat against infantry if not controlled, customizable by players in the future.

Large: Like the ones we have now, customizable by players in the future and droppable.

Fortress: Ones even bulkier then the ones we have now with significantly more HP, NOT droppable, customizable in the future by players for player bases thus already present at the start of a "game," NOT hackable and activated by hackable terminals in a network. This third type could be considered a "new" or "separate" type then the normal turrets (like our Null cannons) if that would be easier code wise then modifying current turrets to be hackable or not.


The new "fortress" type would allow you to not worry about super-HP turrets being deploy-spammed as they are a visibly separate type of turret that are restricted to being part of a static base network.

Be your own Judge. What game looks like more fun to you? Dust.........Or this.........

Planetside 2

Coming to PS4 this year

Insane Infantry Push
Amazing Night Battle
Night to Day Canyon Battle
Intense Field Battle
Desert Infantry Line
Huge Desert Tank Battle
100 Tank Convoy
150 man Air Raid
65/0 Kill streak in the air

NC Montage

Factions Explained

So.... you didn't 'save file as...' when you overwrote the code?

Yeah, I'm kinda leaning towards unwise myself. Then again, I'm not a programmer, so what do I know.

It's not about a wise decision or not. We pulled away from SK 1.0. That is why it is called SK 2.0. All code and optimizations in terms of game modes and a lot of other game mechanics went into the support of SK 2.0 and the various Ambush settings. Have to remember as optimizations happen, as the new skirmish came in to place, a lot of its core code was based on the older stuff. It's not like we just started a whole new system on the side. We worked with what we had at the time.

Id pay a monthly subscription if Dust was on Carbon... Just saying.....

I sometimes wonder if Dust would have been better off on the PC with a subscription. Cause it doesn't seem to be flying with the console crowd.

This game could do so much more with the right hardware.

Well, we might see a PC port (if we're lucky) along with a PS4 release in what... 2-3 years?