Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ren Ratner
Infinite Raiders
75
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 01:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
Drop uplinks are easily the most effective and exploitable piece of equipment. An uplink spammer can fit up to 4 different types of drop uplinks on one suit. IIRC, it's possible to fit 4 different uplinks capable of supporting 2 active uplinks. This means I can drop 8 uplinks on the battlefield before switching to my real Logi loadout.... OR I could switch to ANOTHER uplink spam fitting and proceed to drop even more uplinks. Then I can switch to a Nanohive spam fitting and litter the map with more WP machines.
Here's how CCP can fix this. Drop Uplink and Nanocircuitry skills should determine the maximum number of active uplinks/hives. Lvl 0 supports 1, Lvl 1 supports 2, Lvl 5 supports 6. Uplink spam is still viable at proto level without one merc being capable of dropping 20+ uplinks. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention
1646
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 03:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Quoted from another thread on the same subject.
Cross Atu wrote:The TACNET issue is DIRECTLY linked to Uplink spam. The ability for team, note team not squad, mates to spawn on a link is based on their ability to "see" that link via TACNET (at least that was the mechanic prior to Uprising and there's been no note of a change).
So the bug to profile via TACNET is the key to the spam. Not only does it make spamming required if you're going to get a link in place and actually be able to use it but it also makes spamming more valuable because now the whole team can use that uplink not just members of your squad.
Having addressed that lets move on to cost. The statement, "Cost plays NO factor to the point of my post." is in fact the problem. In a resource based game cost is always a part of the equation and to ignore it is simply flawed. Uplinks are expensive, in ISK, in SP, and in CPU/PG. Most players/organized teams will not spend the resources to spam unlinks the way we see now once the TACNET bug is resolved because other options will become comparatively more valuable. In Chrome uplinks were not spammed, and nanos despite their high use were spammed less. Then Uprising hits and there's a lot more spam. This is due to the TACNET bug (uplinks) and the myriad of Injector and Repair Tool issues (nanohives). With repair and revival hobbled, and tactical placement of uplinks a joke, of course spaming uplinks is common place and one of the most effective tactics, the alternatives have been crippled.
The point about ARs, or any other weapon/gear, is that they have value and that said value is measured in more than one way, but it all reverts to the risk vs reward dynamic. Having a piece of gear, weapon or otherwise, that you have spent ISK, SP, CPU/PG on, have paied the "risk" for and now are blocked from gaining any potential rewards from is breaking the fundamental paradigm of the game. A limit like this is just like a limit on how many ARs (or other weapon) can be active in a game because it has the same effect on the investment of Mercs set up to use it. It's even more onerous than the vehicle limit because you won't know your high cost assets are useless and your risk is worthless (but still costly) until after you hit the field.
As to the comparison of CRUs and links, the "more HP + limit" method makes links CRUs that players pay for. CRUs have been being popped and/or camped since closed beta and on average vets (at least all those I run with) won't use them unless the area they are in is completely secure. The general assessment is that they're not tactically viable enough to be worth using and so are destroyed more often that not. This was true prior to Uprising and the advent of Uplink spam and making uplinks just as useless will not improve the situation.
Your suggestion is a direct nerf to support play because it is directly nerfing the possible utility and WP value of one of the few bits of support gear in the game. There aren't that many items in Dust which are not directly "I kill you" or "I don't die quickly, so I kill you". Currently uplinks, injectors, and repair tools are all quite broken (i.e. suffer from substantial bugs) it just so happens that the bugs/ways in which uplinks are broken allow them to still have use value if spammed.
The bugs should be fixed, the game should not be rebalanced to accommodate the presence of the bugs.
0.02 ISK Cross
PS ~ Another element of cost which is being overlooked here is the cost of clones when speaking of PC matches. The "we'll just zerg them to death via uplinks" method is a costly one when clones carry an ISK cost. Other methods will become more valuable when other methods become more functional, and those who don't see it will hemorrhage money to their ultimate detriment.
EDIT: It is also worth noting that there is already a limit on uplinks in game. CCP put it there and it's listed right in the stat block. 1 at low meta, 2 at mid-high, 3 in a single case. The existence of this limit already present in game means that CCP has included that balance aspect already and set their SP, ISK, and CPU/PG costs accordingly. The ability to throw out multiple uplinks is not a given, even after the high SP investment is made, it is a costly prospect that requires sacrifices to both survivability and DPS if a fitting is to deploy links beyond the item limit. Those decreases in combat ability and survivability don't come with any decrease in ISK cost or any other cost for that matter because they are a trade off which is one of the fundamental mechanics of the game. Your idea of it being skill level based is better than the OP in that thread but the quote still applies unless you're talking LvL 0 = 1, L1 = 3, L2 = 4, L3 = 6, L4 = 8-10, L5 = Uncapped.
Uplinks already have proper costs factored in, and the problem isn't really even the uplinks it's the TACNET bug and all the other support equipment bugs.
0.02 ISK Cross |
Ren Ratner
Infinite Raiders
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
I disagree. In my opinion, 6 active uplinks per person is sufficient for a proto logi. 6 active uplinks is still uplink spam, and the team is still capable of supporting more than enough uplinks for ANY game type. The way uplinks currently function, spamming them seems to be more of an exploit than an intentional game mechanic. If it's working as intended, why can't I just fit 3 of the same variant?
I DO uplink spam. So I'm not simply attacking the method. I know for fact that ONE logi is capable of dropping more than 20 active uplinks at one time, that is ridiculous.
SP/ISK/CPU/PG costs are almost irrelevant for an uplink spammer. I use my spam fitting for the amount of time it takes me to place my uplinks, then I hit the nearest supply depot and I'm back in my main fitting. How much did those uplinks cost me? Even if I die and lose that suit, how much do I care? I haven't been short on ISK since I left academy and I make enough extra with my main to fund my tanker alt (so freaking expensive). The SP investment pays for itself in the same way that unlocking any proto level equipment does. Uplinks are "set it and forget it" WP machines. Alongside nanohive spam, any player should be capable of earning 1000+ WP without a single kill (this is with 3-6 active uplinks).
In my experience, 3 uplinks is more than sufficient for taking any objective. Littering an objective with 10+ uplinks is cheese. Nerfing this doesn't hit support classes nearly as much as you imply, or I wouldn't be supporting it. I'm a pure logi. I simply don't see this as a balanced feature of the game and I wouldn't miss it if it were gone because I only spend a portion of my time running deployment/supply lines. In a good squad, my repair tool and my AR are much more effective since we aren't constantly respawning.
You compare this to the (ridiculous) proposals of limiting the number of AR users in a match, I'd compare it to limiting the number of vehicles in a match.
I've never knowingly experienced this TACNET bug. Are you saying that uplinks just don't show up for some players? Is this a confirmed bug? Your post is the only one I've seen concerning it. |
Maken Tosch
DUST University Ivy League
3770
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
They should put a proximity limit on the uplinks. For example, no two uplinks should be closer than 75 meters from each other. If someone places a new uplink that's too close to an already-established uplink, the new uplink gets destroyed or stays inactive until the old uplink runs out. |
Ren Ratner
Infinite Raiders
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:They should put a proximity limit on the uplinks. For example, no two uplinks should be closer than 75 meters from each other. If someone places a new uplink that's too close to an already-established uplink, the new uplink gets destroyed or stays inactive until the old uplink runs out.
Mixed feelings about this one. I like that this would prohibit teammates from dropping their uplink on top of my already well positioned uplink, basically robbing me of WP. However, I think 75 meters is too much. It's difficult for me to judge 75 in game meters in my head, but players need to be capable of placing uplinks in reinforcement positions in case their forward uplink is destroyed.
Options like this...
http://www.dropuplink.com/slow-fast
and this...
http://www.dropuplink.com/tigers-mouth
should remain in the game.
Personally, I generally don't support the proximity limit idea. Here are some cons that ruin it for me.
One poorly placed uplink means mine is useless.
Uplink clusters provide strong deployment support to a small area, it's a good tactic.
It would be frustrating to be forced to eyeball the distance between your uplink and the nearest.
That's enough to kill it for me. |
Maken Tosch
DUST University Ivy League
3772
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ren Ratner wrote:Maken Tosch wrote:They should put a proximity limit on the uplinks. For example, no two uplinks should be closer than 75 meters from each other. If someone places a new uplink that's too close to an already-established uplink, the new uplink gets destroyed or stays inactive until the old uplink runs out. Mixed feelings about this one. I like that this would prohibit teammates from dropping their uplink on top of my already well positioned uplink, basically robbing me of WP. However, I think 75 meters is too much. It's difficult for me to judge 75 in game meters in my head, but players need to be capable of placing uplinks in reinforcement positions in case their forward uplink is destroyed. Options like this... http://www.dropuplink.com/slow-fastand this... http://www.dropuplink.com/tigers-mouthshould remain in the game. Personally, I generally don't support the proximity limit idea. Here are some cons that ruin it for me. One poorly placed uplink means mine is useless. Uplink clusters provide strong deployment support to a small area, it's a good tactic. It would be frustrating to be forced to eyeball the distance between your uplink and the nearest. That's enough to kill it for me.
But at the same time, it's kind of silly to see 15 uplinks in an area the size of one-quarter of the Communications Outpost (the one with the mushroom structure). |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention
1651
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Responding as I read.
Ren Ratner wrote:I disagree. In my opinion, 6 active uplinks per person is sufficient for a proto logi. 6 active uplinks is still uplink spam, and the team is still capable of supporting more than enough uplinks for ANY game type. Based on what, and in what way does your declaration that a given arbitrary number is "more than enough" in any way redress or counter the points made in my quoted post?
Quote:The way uplinks currently function, spamming them seems to be more of an exploit than an intentional game mechanic. If it's working as intended, why can't I just fit 3 of the same variant? You bring up "working as intended" while ignoring specific statements I've made about how it's not working as intended. Furthermore even if your method were "as intended" my points against it would still apply just as fully, citing this turn of phrase doesn't alter the particulars of the situation.
Quote:SP/ISK/CPU/PG costs are almost irrelevant for an uplink spammer. [sic] Even if I die and lose that suit, how much do I care? I haven't been short on ISK since I left academy I completely disagree. The behavior you describe here is only relevant in non-tactical placement, the more tactical the placement the longer it takes to complete and thus the more on field time (aka risk) taken. The "quick deploy" method is also easily swept by a flux or two which can be deployed as part of a combat tactic as they will hit hostile mercs as well thus not even costing the opposing force meaningful effort to clear.
As to cost it is exceedingly poor policy to ignore cost within a game that has a strong economic component. If the average ISK awards are too high then that needs adjusted, if the price of a given piece of gear is too low than that needs adjusted, dismissing the cost simply because you don't have trouble with it isn't a good metric. I'm not hurting for ISK either but I know it's not true of everyone.
Quote:Uplinks are "set it and forget it" WP machines. Alongside nanohive spam, any player should be capable of earning 1000+ WP without a single kill (this is with 3-6 active uplinks). This is only true if you're placing them in a highly tactical manner our relying on the TACNET bug I pointed out in my prior post. Furthermore if these are your experiences then the 'limits' you are suggesting are specifically the limits you can live with/that don't effect what you're doing. Even leaving that aside the "without a single kill" bit isn't a good judge, Dust needs more diversity not less and fixating on kills as the 'holy grail' is not the way to get us there. More roles are required on the field, value needs to be given, and earnings need to be present, so that those who do not focus on killing provide valid tactical benefit and earn full WP rewards for it, at no point should getting kills be a requirement unless that's the role a Merc has chosen.
Quote:You compare this to the (ridiculous) proposals of limiting the number of AR users in a match, I'd compare it to limiting the number of vehicles in a match. Vehicles are not deployed when the limit is invoked thus while burdensome and frustrating the vehicle limit does not require the risk of assets with a mechanical limit preventing them from providing any use whatsoever. I agree limiting ARs able to deploy and be used on the field is ridiculous, just like the proposal of limiting uplinks, the are in effect the same type of mechanism and just because one is a weapon and one is not does not mean the relevant implications change.
Regarding the Uplink/TACNET bug The Uprising build is bugged with regards to Uplink profile. In every prior build uplinks were not visible to all thus limiting both hostile destruction and friendly use of the uplinks. Any player outside a squad would have to die in close proximity to a link in order to see/use that link. As it currently stands since everyone on both teams can see them uplinks can be hunted with ease and spawned on universally, neither one is working as intended. There was a Dev post about upinks being bugged near the start of the build. The bug is so blatant compared to all prior builds that I didn't bother to save the link but you're welcome to dig it up.
Even if it weren't a bug the scan profile aspects are being changed soon which will directly effect this so adding another mechanical limit prior to testing that would be sub-optimal to say the least. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention
1651
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:Ren Ratner wrote:Maken Tosch wrote:They should put a proximity limit on the uplinks. For example, no two uplinks should be closer than 75 meters from each other. If someone places a new uplink that's too close to an already-established uplink, the new uplink gets destroyed or stays inactive until the old uplink runs out. Mixed feelings about this one. I like that this would prohibit teammates from dropping their uplink on top of my already well positioned uplink, basically robbing me of WP. However, I think 75 meters is too much. It's difficult for me to judge 75 in game meters in my head, but players need to be capable of placing uplinks in reinforcement positions in case their forward uplink is destroyed. Options like this... http://www.dropuplink.com/slow-fastand this... http://www.dropuplink.com/tigers-mouthshould remain in the game. Personally, I generally don't support the proximity limit idea. Here are some cons that ruin it for me. One poorly placed uplink means mine is useless. Uplink clusters provide strong deployment support to a small area, it's a good tactic. It would be frustrating to be forced to eyeball the distance between your uplink and the nearest. That's enough to kill it for me. But at the same time, it's kind of silly to see 15 uplinks in an area the size of one-quarter of the Communications Outpost (the one with the mushroom structure). Since when is 'kind of silly' sufficient reason to require a mechanical lock out of a given behavior and/or worth the development resources to do it? Toss one fulx, or if they're really tight one AI grenade and you're done.
There's a lot of "so many uplinks aren't needed" or "thus number/placement of uplinks is silly or isn't tactical" to which I say "so what?". If we removed or mechanically limited everything that is/can be used poorly and in an annoying manner within a pub match then we'd have nothing left in the game. Nerfing/limiting something because someone else does something with it that bugs you isn't solid balance or mechanical practice.
0.02 ISK Cross |
Jadu Wen
Xer Cloud Consortium
14
|
Posted - 2013.10.22 13:32:00 -
[9] - 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] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |