|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Loathing
The Southern Legion
208
   |
Posted - 2013.08.25 01:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm sure this idea will cop some flack, especially from the Planetary Conquest regulars.
But I'd really like to see a Maximum Deployed Uplink Limit introduced to Dust.
I realize Uplink spam has been a fact of the game since PC began, and is an ESSENTIAL TOOL for the PC Elites. (Well, that and Core Locus spam, but that's another topic). But it is a piece of equipment that should be coveted, not throwaway, which makes me think that a limit to active deployed Uplinks per team should be something that needs to be introduced.
If Uplinks were to have a limit, yet were given more hitpoints, I believe they would be treated with more respect, placement of them would actually require thought, and a simple flux nade would not be the ANTI-UPLINK. What's more, the infiltration of an objective would not be met with a team that can just suicide/respawn spam willy-nilly, but actual protection of objectives will need to be coordinated and enforced.
Also, just to tick off the spammer fans more  , Teams that have reached their Uplink limit should not be able to lay down a new Uplinks until one of the old Uplinks have gone thru their cycle of respawns. (OK, that might need more thought and discussion, but again it would make players think more about their placement)
I'd really like to hear community feedback on this one as it is a contentious issue, but keep an open mind. Battle tactics always need to be shaken up, and this would truly bring an extra challenge to the elite teams who use each spamming option to winning effect. |
The Loathing
The Southern Legion
208
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 01:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
Oswald Rehnquist wrote:There are several ways to balance it
1) Only Squad Shared and Reduced WP
---While they will still be spammed, they will be much less useful because the wps totals for them will be lowered and as it stands they are too high. I have Uplinks to level 5, I spam them myself due to the wps invovled, despite the fact that I love using other equipment more (RE and AS). If I can be cut off of my UL wp pool, I would use it less myself. It would also make revives more common as well.
An interesting suggestion, but doesn't deal with the throwaway aspect of the equipment, which is where I reckon the problem lies. I don't really care about the WP aspect of them in an organised match, just the ability to fill the area with respawning teammates. But if I had to consider where I put them then it would be a much more important task than just throw and run.
However, in pub matches this suggestion may have more application.
Oswald Rehnquist wrote:
2) Radius Interference
--- If there are too many in a given area then you are unable to use any of them, or you could have first dropped priority, though I see too many meta game backstabbing with this method.
I actually think this is a pretty awesome suggestion. It has its flaws, but honestly it creates a fair situation that makes Uplink bunching (which is probably the most OP thing about Uplink spamming) null and void. Another way to make you defend your Uplinks.
Oswald Rehnquist wrote:
3)EWAR
--- An equipment that steals the hostile player from their drop uplink to the EWAR equipment if within a certain radius of a drop uplink, or some inhibitor that suppresses them.
Hmm, the player stealing may be a little over-convoluted and could definitely get exploited at some point. A cool idea nonetheless. The inhibitor is another awesome suggestion IMO. It creates an environment where the enemy NEEDS to get rid of the Inhibitor to continue their constant presence at the objective. Just another cool factor to shake things up.
|
The Loathing
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 14:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:
Why? Seriously, explain to me how this is warranted. Is their SP cost too low? Their ISK cost? Their CPU/PG cost?
How is this called for within the context of the game. The AR is exceptionally, it can equally be referred to as an essential tool and yet there are still frequent instances of players rocking Proto ARs zerging objectives and hostile positions, shall we have an AR limit, say 8 per team?
Happy to. No, their SP cost is not too low. Neither is their ISK cost or PG/CPU cost. Cost plays NO factor to the point of my post. The factor I see as a potential problem was perfectly explained by Oswald in the last post. The first team to lay their 15-30 Proto Uplinks down has a vast advantage throughout the entire match over the nearby objective. Instead of maintaining defense of an area with denial and protection of equipment, all it takes is 3 second consistent respawns to continue the headache. That means that TOO much time (IMHO) is spent chasing down Uplinks for removal instead of hacking the objective and setting up a defensive position.
What's more, CRUs are just a joke now because Uplinks have made them a liability instead of an installation to utilize.
I really have no idea how you can bring ARs into the discussion because they ARE limited. A maximum of 16 can be used on a team (unless they are bat-crap crazy and bring Commandos to PC). There is no comparison because the potential number of Uplinks on the ground is beyond manageable. And no amount of flux's solve the issue because it's about the time needed to chase every single Uplink put into place.
Cross Atu wrote:
Uplinks used to be placed with care, until their profile on NACNET was broken during the Uprising patch making them stand out everywhere on the map, hence causing the spam. They have been the same equipment since closed beta and this behavior started within Uprising the causal link is pretty solid. Furthermore making uplinks more durable wouldn't grant any benefit behind allowing them to be camped more often when hostile forces sweep an area. Yes it will take more to wipe them (if we completely ignore the use of a flux, unless you're talking a factor of magnitude increase the flux will still take them out) and yes you can still spawn in, but that doesn't mean you'll have any chance at fighting when hostile force know exactly where that link is.
You raise a good point. The ease of locating Uplinks should also be investigated, but at their current spam ability it SHOULD be the way it is. But if limited number of Uplinks were dropped, then I would be in favour of a Scanner or direct line of sight as the only locater option.
And I can't see the problem if an enemy locates the Uplink that it gets camped if not destroyed. That's part of the risk. It's easy mode spawn in. It SHOULD have its draw backs because you are no longer required to fight your way back into the objective.
Cross Atu wrote:
This is a nerf to support play, a nerf to uplinks, and a nerf based on out of context assessments.
It makes as much, and the same kind, of sense as limiting the number of ARs (or other specific weapon types) which can be active on the field at one time.
I'm sorry, but I can't actually see the logic in the AR argument. And to say my suggestion is a nerf to support play is the "out of context assessment" here. If anything this would PROMOTE support play on so many other levels. No longer could a team rely heavily on their Uplink spam, but instead on their teammates having their back and providing support from other equipment such as "Healy Hives" and Injectors.
I'm very much for tactic variety, but currently there is one tactic that seems to outbid the rest: Bring Your Best Uplinks. |
The Loathing
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
213
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 01:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Fire of Prometheus wrote:Not going to lie, when I first noticed the little indicator at the top left of the spawn screen that tells you how many people are playing a match (the one that looks like the uplink symbol with the amount of players on your team underneath it) I thought that was how many uplinks your team could place......so why can't it be 1 uplink/player?
That could be a possibility. It would encourage team members to specialize as the Uplink dropper, whereas other logis or assaults can run Hives and Injectors, or scanners if they were the best tool to locate Uplinks. |
The Loathing
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
213
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 02:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
John Demonsbane wrote:
As an uplink specialist (using strategery, not just blanket spamming, thank u) I could almost get behind this I guess, provided it doesn't mean we can literally only place 1 each, but, 16 total from whoever. Be nice if there was a way to prioritize good links lest I start rage quitting when blueberries litter the place with militia links and lock me out!
Yeah, agreed. Honestly, the limit would serve PC and FW better than pub matches anyhow. Spam doesn't seem to be as across the board there, unless each team is full of organized squads. So you wouldn't need to worry about crappy militia links getting priority in PC. |
The Loathing
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
218
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 11:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Galvan Nized wrote:I can get behind this but it feels like the easy way out.
I really like the radius idea as the "interference" really provides a solid lore background without killing use.
Also am a fan of spawn "scramblers/inhibitors." Something that delays respawn with a large radius. Love EWAR as it completely puts the counter in our hands verse artificial restrictions.
If you implemented I think you could make uplinks stand out much less than now. If I cannot find your uplinks to destroy them then I just drop a spawn scrambler to slow your respawns while I hunt them down.
Yeah hearing this suggestion numerous times now and liking it. An inhibitor nullifies the Proto Uplink headache, but still requires the team to be equipped and organized to install the inhibitor. 3 secs for most of the Uplinks in the spammed area is too fast for realistic clearing of Uplinks. I'm not suggesting a spawn in time reduction, that's what makes Proto worthwhile. But give us the ability to nullify its bonus, or reduce the amounts of them altogether.
Honestly I feel less Uplinks, but with less visibility makes it a more effective piece of equipment, but can't be over-used to the point of un-manageable. |
The Loathing
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
219
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 01:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
SirManBoy wrote:Hell no, OP. Uplink and nanohive spamming is one of the arts of war in Dust. It is highly strategic and totally meant to keep the pressure on an objective. You play your way and I'll play mine, bud.
Yeah, no. It is not highly strategic. It's spam.
But yes it puts pressure on an objective from a defensive point of view. It would seem I play the same way you do because I spam Uplinks also. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the spam is a balanced part of the game. It's necessary due to the detection, but it's not balanced.
Despite the fact the thread is named Uplink Limits does not necessarily mean the discussion requires to be limited to that as the only solution. Personally, hearing the "inhibitor" idea has made me think laterally on the matter. Limits is but one suggestion. |
The Loathing
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
231
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 08:19:00 -
[8] - Quote
Skihids wrote:I'm disheartened by the tendency to call for nerfs and limitations that reduce game complexity rather than increase our options.
Limit this, cut out that, prevent uplink deployment to three per merc, limit MD magazines to one round, etc..
Soon the only loadout will be the AR and a Nano-hive.
Loads of fun...
I think the only problem though is that Uplink spam is no longer game complexity. I certainly don't think that a nerf of actual Uplink ABILITIES is called for. In fact I believe they should be harder to find and should not be instantaneously taken out with a grenade. Maybe even faster spawn in times is not unreasonable.
But spamming an objective with spawn points is unheard of in other shooters because it creates a one-sided objective possession. Point defense should be about knuckling under and protecting/reviving your team mates, not throwing yourself at the enemy then respawning right there again in 3-5 seconds.
If you lose the point, then your tactic needs to shift from defense to infiltration or attack. Personally I think that adds a far greater complexity to the game.
|
|
|
| |
|