DUST Search - [REQUEST] Uplink Limit?

ritslight umarn wrote:

The Loathing wrote:

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 Blink

, 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.

There is a limit you can only have 16 on the filed at the same time bassicly 1 per player, people who have said 20 or more are well over exaggerating on it... just saying

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
The Loathing The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 219	Posted - 2013.08.27 01:29:00 - [31] - 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.
ritslight umarn SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 31	Posted - 2013.08.27 01:48:00 - [32] - Quote The Loathing wrote: 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. There is a limit you can only have 16 on the filed at the same time bassicly 1 per player, people who have said 20 or more are well over exaggerating on it... just saying
SirManBoy Molon Labe. League of Infamy 160	Posted - 2013.08.27 01:59:00 - [33] - Quote ritslight umarn wrote: The Loathing wrote: 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. There is a limit you can only have 16 on the filed at the same time bassicly 1 per player, people who have said 20 or more are well over exaggerating on it... just saying Wrong. While I typically only aim to deploy all 13 of my proto uplinks, I have experimented with deploying 20+ in total in the past. Regardless, keep your nerf-happy ass away from my uplink capabilities.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1646	Posted - 2013.08.27 03:10:00 - [34] - Quote Reiterating that everything in my post #21 remains true.
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics League of Infamy 73	Posted - 2013.08.27 03:46:00 - [35] - Quote HAICD wrote: Look with 3 per player that is still 48 uplinks on a single map (per side)that's pently. If the uplinks were hidden or just a lot harder to find you would not have to spam the whole map with uplinks. Off all the solutions to the "problem" that is questionable to begin with, this is the most idiotic. If I can only drop 3 links, why am I going to skill into them? Why am I going to spend my time, energy, ISK, and WP to be the person dedicated to a very valuable strategic role? Answer: I won't. Good job, you just turned this into another generic FPS where nobody does anything but run around with ARs and shoot each other mindlessly. I can see a point to (reasonable) team caps, and I absolutely LOVE the idea of countermeasures like jammers that add another layer to the game, but if you want to just cripple anyone who doesn't play assault, go find another game that better suits your needs. Leave ours alone.
P-A-R-A-D-O-X A-S-S-A-S-S-I-N 27	Posted - 2013.08.30 16:27:00 - [36] - Quote The Loathing wrote: 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. NOOO... Leave the Drop Uplink system as is... You have the ability to see where they all are, use flux grenades to destroy them & if they are plentiful you'll be able to destroy multiple units easily with said grenade... There is no sensible reason to try to sabotage strategically placed back up Drop uplink use here on the forums just because you yourself don't use them or can't figure out how to deal with it - adapt... -.-
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 1689	Posted - 2013.09.08 17:45:00 - [37] - Quote Taken from another thread. Cross Atu wrote: Injectors and Repair Tools were already in need of some love when compared with other equipment and these changes have hit them yet again. Even leaving aside my long standing comments about the scaling of the WP awards for equipment the mechanical aspects effecting the Injector and Repair Tool, both bug and some of the "as intended", render them nearly useless for high level play. There are some on these forums who like to complain about the heavy level of uplink use.... well give us back functional ways to keep our teams in fighting form without respawning and those uplinks won't be so pervasively required for effective play. 0.02 ISK Cross Also my post #21 still remains relevant. CCP are you listening here? "Symptomatic medicine" is bad practice even in game design, that's how you kill the fun. Especially in a sandbox if there's undesirable behavior address the macro level concerns first, going straight to a micro level mechanical limit simply diminishes play and limits creativity. It also, in ignoring the source of the behavior, generally compounds the problem by putting up a roadblock rather than providing a resolution. 0.02 ISK ~Cross
Rogatien Merc Red Star. EoN. 1119	Posted - 2013.09.11 14:22:00 - [38] - Quote As a full proto spam-11-uplinks-at-a-time-in-PC dude... fully support this. There needs to be an opportunity cost associated with placement of critical equipment (i.e. over HERE not over THERE) and there currently is none (uplink here AND there). This would not be a nerf to logis. This would be a nerf to mindless link spam.
Sana Rayya WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL 186	Posted - 2013.09.11 15:21:00 - [39] - Quote If uplink spam is mindless then it's just that much easier to destroy them with AOE weapons - fluxes, grenades, MDs, etc. Uplinks are fine as is.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2057	Posted - 2013.09.11 15:44:00 - [40] - Quote 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...

The Loathing The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 231	Posted - 2013.09.12 08:19:00 - [41] - 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.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis 1695	Posted - 2013.09.12 18:43:00 - [42] - Quote The Loathing wrote: 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... [sic] 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. Which as I keep pointing out would actually happen more often, in fact it used to happen more often, if the revival and repair systems were fixed and polished. Currently the injector is still suffering from many mechanical limitations; it's slow, it's rewards don't scale properly, it often requires more than one activation cycle to actually revive, and Mercs are consistently "over killed" or "insta-bled" preventing any chance of revive. The repair situation is only marginally better. Repair rates are universally much lower than incoming dps making most repairs of minimal use except between bouts of fighting. Repairs require the Repair Tool to be held, preventing things like shooting back or use of active scans, and to top it all off the WP earnings from repair tools are not only improperly scaled but also capped and the cap is not specifically and clearly explained on the forums much less within the actual game. The UI feedback for repair tools is poor, and when it comes to the cap it is totally absent, on top of which there are targeting and lock on bugs for the repair tools. I could go on but the simple fact of the matter is that we don't need to alter uplinks, we need to make the other equipment more functional so that the in match meta changes. Uplinks are costly items in SP, PG, CPU and ISK. Once we have [u[working alternatives[/u] Mercs won't spam them the way they do now, and frankly the Mercs who do still spam them will be at a disadvantage and at least in competitive games will pay the price. Adding more restrictions to prevent people from using one of the few bits of equipment that isn't suffering from multiple significant issues is NOT the proper solution it's just a way to weaken the game. TL;DR - Fix all the broken things about equipment then collect metrics on use before considering alterations to one of the few bits of equipment that's currently worthwhile. 0.02 ISK Cross
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2060	Posted - 2013.09.12 19:34:00 - [43] - Quote Drop Uplinks have been "spammed" ever since they were created. I recall losing a corp battle on Manus Peak back in early Precursor to a corp that dropped several around an objective that resembled point A on the current map. Mobile spawn points change the game completely whether there is one or a dozen. One or two would suffice when the two R's were working and they weren't so easy to spot. The additional usage is driven by the factors you mention, but the fact is that allowing spawns on or near an objective makes it nearly impregnable. You can't slowly whittle down the defending force. It requires an overwhelming force, preferably an OB followed by a large zerg. Likewise uplinks have killed the dropship transport business before it even got started. Cars and busses would die out today if teleportation were invented and DUST is no different. I see this as an issue of allowing mobile and objective spawns at all. If you do, don't quibble about their number. The number will self adjust to produce the same result taking into account the rest of the game mechanics. What won't change is that they will allow an uncuttable reinforcement supply line.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 14	Posted - 2013.10.22 13:30:00 - [44] - Quote You should check out this thread on Using Radiation Zones to Curtail Drop Uplink Use. I think it's a novel way to recondition but not force players to discontinue uplink spam of objectives. Plus it creates a system for highly dynamic play.


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