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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

0.02 ISK
Cross

PS ~ My above questions are not to be taken as rhetorical, I really do want you to describe in detail why and how the current mechanics of an uplink are imbalanced or problematic.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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!

Make the droplink skill increase the number of active links you can have. every can have one active droplink without skills (this is for the milita droplink) then the drop link skill increase this by one a level. At drop link 5 you max out with 6 total active.

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.

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!

I agree the most any one player should be able to place is 3 it should not matter if they place different types of uplinks just 3 active uplinks per player. But I would like to see a stealth uplink only found by using a scanner make it proto type and you are only aloud to have one active at one time.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.