DUST Search - [Request] Remove DUs and objective spawning

Monkey MAC wrote:

Skihids wrote:

ladwar wrote:

lol... uplinks and objective spawns are OP now. next target the MCC is OP because you can't hurt it.

Being able to build and control your supply lines IS extremely critical in battle.
That's precisely why you see heavy use of uplinks in PC.

People recognize that importance and come to the forums to complain that they don't like the power of uplinks to shape a battle. They generously "offer" heavy nerfs on uplinks as a solution rather than using existing counters such as flux grenades or requesting additional counter play.

The thing is even a handful of uplinks can have the same effect. Yes fifteen are an impressive display, but only marginally more useful than five. The true utility depends upon he user. The better the team the more it multiplies their power.

The conclusion is that complaints of "uplink spam" are really complaints of mobile spawning in general. They don't want it, or at least they don't want the other team to have it which amounts to the same thing.

We know supply lines are important to the battle, don't start your righteous crusade of "they want something changed, therefore they must all be whiny idiots" sit down and listen, drop uplinks shouldn't be so viable as to use them over

a vehicle mcru
a cru
A dropship from neareast spawn point

like the ar it has no drawbacks, its not meant for frontline purposes, its an off grid incursion point to allow a squad a access point without the need of a dropship. But when you can mm use them everywhere and anywhere then there is a problem, its hurting the vehicle use in this game.

Why use a dropship for anything more than a makeshift gunship? No one bothers getting a lift, because its quicker and easier to just spawn in at an adv uplink with a short spawn time. If you want MANAGE and MAINTAIN supply lines you should rely on more than a teleporter.

The uplink is the equivelent to a Sub-Orbital Jump just without the mess, not a barracks!!


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2065	Posted - 2013.09.14 22:32:00 - [1] - Quote Mobile and objective spawning fundamentally alters game play for the worse by eliminating strategic play. The current hue and cry over the number of uplinks on the field means people recognize this issue. What many fail to realize is that the number is immaterial. Even one mobile spawn point completely disrupts the game. CCP has also recognized the game breaking nature of objective spawning in its removal from Domination mode. Teleportation creates an unbreakable supply line to an objective which requires overwhelming force to dislodge. Normal attrition isn't effective as troops are constantly replaced. This in turn cheapens the value of a clone. The average player will be more reckless and opt to bleed out sooner because they can easily and quickly get back in the fight. It replaces the vehicle transport function. There is no incentive to drive or fly when you can teleport. Once the initial deployment is made vehicular transport is superfluous. Adding a pilot incentive won't help without giving passengers a reason to ride. It turns the CRU into a second rate spawn point that is frequently left in enemy hands in order to camp for easy kills. A CRU should be a critical asset, not a camping destination. Drop Uplinks and objective spawning should be removed and CRUs should actually be loaded with a specific number of clones. The current CRU is just another rendering of the drop uplink. Despite the name it doesn't contain any clones, it simply acts as a spawn beacon just like the DU. This makes the ticket nature of clone count obvious which breaks immersion and compromises strategy. Teams should covet spare clones and fight over CRUs just as hard as over objectives. In the future commanders should consider just where to place them on the battlefield.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2065	Posted - 2013.09.14 23:06:00 - [2] - Quote One uplink or a dozen, it's all the same. If it's in a good spot the enemy will keep spawning in and prevent you from taking the objective. Ten are just more obvious than one or two.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2066	Posted - 2013.09.14 23:33:00 - [3] - Quote As long as there are uplinks there won't be any vehicular transport. Teleportation trumps taking a car or bus. If people want dropships to be transports you need to eliminate uplinks.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2069	Posted - 2013.09.15 02:56:00 - [4] - Quote Heavy limitations on drop uplinks aren't the answer, that simply makes them not worth carrying. If ten are too many then one is too many.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2071	Posted - 2013.09.15 14:24:00 - [5] - Quote ladwar wrote: lol... uplinks and objective spawns are OP now. next target the MCC is OP because you can't hurt it. Being able to build and control your supply lines IS extremely critical in battle. That's precisely why you see heavy use of uplinks in PC. People recognize that importance and come to the forums to complain that they don't like the power of uplinks to shape a battle. They generously "offer" heavy nerfs on uplinks as a solution rather than using existing counters such as flux grenades or requesting additional counter play. The thing is even a handful of uplinks can have the same effect. Yes fifteen are an impressive display, but only marginally more useful than five. The true utility depends upon he user. The better the team the more it multiplies their power. The conclusion is that complaints of "uplink spam" are really complaints of mobile spawning in general. They don't want it, or at least they don't want the other team to have it which amounts to the same thing.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2073	Posted - 2013.09.15 16:55:00 - [6] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Skihids wrote: ladwar wrote: lol... uplinks and objective spawns are OP now. next target the MCC is OP because you can't hurt it. Being able to build and control your supply lines IS extremely critical in battle. That's precisely why you see heavy use of uplinks in PC. People recognize that importance and come to the forums to complain that they don't like the power of uplinks to shape a battle. They generously "offer" heavy nerfs on uplinks as a solution rather than using existing counters such as flux grenades or requesting additional counter play. The thing is even a handful of uplinks can have the same effect. Yes fifteen are an impressive display, but only marginally more useful than five. The true utility depends upon he user. The better the team the more it multiplies their power. The conclusion is that complaints of "uplink spam" are really complaints of mobile spawning in general. They don't want it, or at least they don't want the other team to have it which amounts to the same thing. We know supply lines are important to the battle, don't start your righteous crusade of "they want something changed, therefore they must all be whiny idiots" sit down and listen, drop uplinks shouldn't be so viable as to use them over a vehicle mcru a cru A dropship from neareast spawn point like the ar it has no drawbacks, its not meant for frontline purposes, its an off grid incursion point to allow a squad a access point without the need of a dropship. But when you can mm use them everywhere and anywhere then there is a problem, its hurting the vehicle use in this game. Why use a dropship for anything more than a makeshift gunship? No one bothers getting a lift, because its quicker and easier to just spawn in at an adv uplink with a short spawn time. If you want MANAGE and MAINTAIN supply lines you should rely on more than a teleporter. The uplink is the equivelent to a Sub-Orbital Jump just without the mess, not a barracks!! I never called them whiny, and I think we are in basic agreement on the issue. One of my points is that MCRUs, CRUs, and dropships are all rendered obsolete with uplink teleportation. In it's inception Star Trek writers invented the transporter because the shuttle craft wasn't available for filming. The problem was that the transporter was simply too powerful and would serve as the answer to far too many plot lines. They then had to creatively break it and nerf it to make more stories. I think that's where we are at in DUST.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2073	Posted - 2013.09.15 17:03:00 - [7] - Quote drake sadani wrote: forget about upgrading scouts thats not going to happen class changes now are just going to muddy the water. when a player using the DU is killed his DU explodes , after 4 uses the DU explodes . limit to one DU per fit . make them fragile to so if four are together and a mass driver round goes off next to them . thats it they explode problem solved See, that's basically a call for the elimination of uplinks. It makes them nearly useless and therefore a huge waste of an equipment slot. Slots are expensive and nobody is going to fit that link.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2073	Posted - 2013.09.15 17:14:00 - [8] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: So let us together propose how uplinks should be used, then how positives and negatives on how the uplinks can be shaped to fit this role!! I personally think an uplink is about a form of tactical insertion, and under the grid method, its something you give to a scout to drop in enemy terriroty, when a dropship cant make it there, or would make to much noise!! What do you think an uplink should be? You would have to place a short time limit on the uplinks to give them this property without letting them be used the way they are now. If you try to limit them by spawns they will just be tossed in greater numbers. The timer would probably have to be on the order of 20-30 seconds, enough for someone to toss it and have the insertion team make the jump. Of course you'd have to be able to use the link without having died or it would be next to impossible to get your insertion team together. If you don't do that uplinks are useless for tactical insertion. The reason they are used as regular supply lines is that people die randomly.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2073	Posted - 2013.09.15 17:39:00 - [9] - Quote broonfondle majikthies wrote: I'm not prepared to slog half way through the map just to get shot and repeat again. Uplinks are the only thing making the action tense and interesting. Without direct spawning it will be a constant search for the enemy with little actually happening. At best all you'd get is: capture objective wait for enemy to mass numbers they fail as you hold the ground and then a longer wait as they regroup and try another avenue which will also likely fail. Even DS's only hold 1/3 of the team and you'll hold the depots so you'll just shoot them out the sky the moment they're in view. They'll loose too many on entry Some of the most epic battles I've ever been in was because the enemy had uplinks so the pressure was constant and ever changing. That's the way I use them today. I use them to shape the battlefield to my team's favor and to keep the pressure on. It's not simply a matter of dumping ten links down, it's a matter of careful placement across the front. Even then it takes a good team to take advantage of it. I've worked hard before and had the enemy roll over my team anyway.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2073	Posted - 2013.09.15 18:40:00 - [10] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Skihids wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: So let us together propose how uplinks should be used, then how positives and negatives on how the uplinks can be shaped to fit this role!! I personally think an uplink is about a form of tactical insertion, and under the grid method, its something you give to a scout to drop in enemy terriroty, when a dropship cant make it there, or would make to much noise!! What do you think an uplink should be? You would have to place a short time limit on the uplinks to give them this property without letting them be used the way they are now. If you try to limit them by spawns they will just be tossed in greater numbers. The timer would probably have to be on the order of 20-30 seconds, enough for someone to toss it and have the insertion team make the jump. Of course you'd have to be able to use the link without having died or it would be next to impossible to get your insertion team together. If you don't do that uplinks are useless for tactical insertion. The reason they are used as regular supply lines is that people die randomly. Yes you would need static jump points, also you could add the interial dampner animation (or revived animation, same thing) to discourage use on the front line, different variations which sacrifice, number active to allow for a greater number of jumps would then be viable for behind the front line instant supply but the lack of active ones creates a bottleneck. I mean a proto with 75 jumps and short spawn time is a little ridiculous, don't you think!! This turns them into jump-links rather than spawn points, though they could still be used to reinforce the front lines What's to stop someone from tossing a jump-link to get another batch of soldiers to the front?

Skihids Bullet Cluster 2075	Posted - 2013.09.16 02:47:00 - [11] - Quote It can go either way, but I don't want to see CCP go half way. Either keep uplinks working as they do today or pull them and rely on vehicles for transport, but don't cripple them and expect anyone to invest in them. Today they keep combat fast paced as everyone spawns right back into the action. If that's what the majority wants I'm happy to oblige. In that case i don't want to hear carping about it. If instead people want a slower paced strategic game we can rely on vehicular transport. Likewise if we go that way I don't want to hear complaints about having to get a ride to the fight. Either you want a convenient spawn or you don't. Don't cry about the other team having one because you ARE the other team. Just don't require me to keep a slot dedicated to a particular set of uplinks for the entire match. If you want that spawn convenience don't dictate how I can give it to you, or you might just find yourself walking. Logistical players devote huge pools of SP in order to support their teams and for the most part don't get to enjoy shooting people in the face. Shaping the battlefield for you requires quite a bit of time and effort. They suffer significant losses when caught in an expensive fit and don't always get the effect they aim for when their blueberries are substandard. Create onerous restrictions and they may well find the fun has gone out of the job. Nobody is forcing them to perform it, so you may find yourself walking. If you do I'm not interested your complaints.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2091	Posted - 2013.09.16 14:53:00 - [12] - Quote It appears that CCP will be eliminating deployed equipment upon a suit change, so let's just eliminate uplinks along with objective spawning. Return the SP I sunk into uplinks and I'll spend it on dropships to transport.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2092	Posted - 2013.09.16 15:50:00 - [13] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Skihids wrote: It appears that CCP will be eliminating deployed equipment upon a suit change, so let's just eliminate uplinks along with objective spawning. Return the SP I sunk into uplinks and I'll spend it on dropships to transport. Have you got a source for this? Right here.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2092	Posted - 2013.09.16 16:21:00 - [14] - Quote ugg reset wrote: Skihids wrote: As long as there are uplinks there won't be any vehicular transport. Teleportation trumps taking a car or bus. If people want drop ships to be transports you need to eliminate uplinks. implying that you to kill yourself every time you want to get somewhere fast. cut DUs and all you will see are more redline games People die quite frequently so they don't have to suicide. The vast majority of travel is by DU or objective spawning in Skirmish. The people have spoken and this is what they want.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2095	Posted - 2013.09.16 17:03:00 - [15] - Quote Lightning Bolt2 wrote: the OP says he wants DUs removed... but in the thread he's defending them... such a troll! I believe that DU's fundamentally alter the pace and play of a match. I heard from those who wanted the fast pace of battle afforded by a mass of uplinks and was willing to entertain the idea that was what the majority of the population wanted. However the successful effort to eliminate the majority of DUs in a match says otherwise. People simply don't want that style of play. It's clear that the people have voted against it.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2095	Posted - 2013.09.16 17:04:00 - [16] - Quote Lightning Bolt2 wrote: the OP says he wants DUs removed... but in the thread he's defending them... such a troll! I believe that DU's fundamentally alter the pace and play of a match. I heard from those who wanted the fast pace of battle afforded by a mass of uplinks and was willing to entertain the idea that was what the majority of the population wanted. However the successful effort to eliminate the majority of DUs in a match says otherwise. People simply don't want that style of play. It's clear that the people have voted against it.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2097	Posted - 2013.09.16 18:59:00 - [17] - Quote 1.5 will bring WP's for dropship transport and should make the dropship capable of making the trip without being destroyed. If you keep objective and DU spawning nobody will wait at the taxi stand for the dropship ride. With those gone dropship pilots can finally act as the troop transports that every infantry player claims is their main mission when they complained about the dropship being used as an attack ship. It would be rather hypocritical of the player base to be so adamant about dropships being for transport and then turn around and demand spawn mechanisms that obviate the need for that transport.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2097	Posted - 2013.09.16 19:38:00 - [18] - Quote ugg reset wrote: Skihids wrote: ugg reset wrote: Skihids wrote: As long as there are uplinks there won't be any vehicular transport. Teleportation trumps taking a car or bus. If people want drop ships to be transports you need to eliminate uplinks. implying that you to kill yourself every time you want to get somewhere fast. cut DUs and all you will see are more redline games People die quite frequently so they don't have to suicide. The vast majority of travel is by DU or objective spawning in Skirmish. The people have spoken and this is what they want. sounds like pubmatchproblems to me. democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner ~Darth Vador I would characterize this more as fifteen sheep and one wolf voting that everyone is supposed to eat grass and the shepherd (CCP) enforcing that decision.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2098	Posted - 2013.09.16 20:01:00 - [19] - Quote If we get dropship proxy chat I can inform everyone where we are going and what objective we are attacking. There are so many good things that can come from eliminating objective spawns and uplinks.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2101	Posted - 2013.09.17 00:10:00 - [20] - Quote Vesago Ghostcore wrote: I agree with you all about the objective spawning. In regards to drop uplinks, I think they are a vital part of the game. not to mention that they are extremely easy to destroy. I really don't need CRU's.. their just another hack site for most or a target for a bored swarm/ forge gunner. Apparently nobody else considers that easy or we wouldn't have that QQ thread about Logi easy mode.

Skihids Bullet Cluster 2101	Posted - 2013.09.17 00:20:00 - [21] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: Oh yeah now i get it. You want to get rid off uplinks so you can have all the fancy WP for spawns on your derpship when 1.5 comes out. How about this? GTFO scrub. Honestly, the game would be a whole lot deeper. It would be far more effort and risk to perform a real transport rather than provide a magic teleport spell. After all, the big complaint is that I'm rolling in the WPs after deploying a few uplinks and sitting back in my spawn.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2136	Posted - 2013.09.19 19:44:00 - [22] - Quote Trying to remove the enemy from an objective is like trying to empty a bucket of water with a sieve. As soon as you lift the sieve the water starts pouring back into the bucket. That was nowhere more apparent than in Domination witih its single bucket. The entire team surrounded the objective so gradual elimination had zero effect. You needed an orbital to clear it in one short moment in order to have any chance to get the hack, and even then the enemy was spawining back in before you finished. There was no supply line you could cut. As long as the indestructable objective stood there it acted as a perfect spawn beacon. That was why CCP removed objective spawning in Domination. Drop Uplinks have much the same effect. They aren't indestructable like an objective, but the proto versions cut the spawn time to a mere three seconds. Placed on top of structures they are unreachable by infantry, or placed inside structures they are immune to orbitals. Place an uplink behind the front lines in a building and you have a perfect supply line, reinformcements just teleport in. Building tops are an issue with the older maps, but that's shifting to impregnable interiors with the new maps. The NULL cannons might be exposed to the open sky, but there are covered hallways connected to them. It doesn't require large numbers in such a situation to equal the effect of objective spawning. It's certainly easier with large numbers as you don't have to expend as much effort to protect each one, but a good team can do well with fewer. I guess it comes down to the question of how easy we want it to be to reinforce a position. Uplinks on both sides create the equivilant of trench warfare; a very narrow front with solid supply lines behind and intense fighting in between. Personally I feel that leads to the zerg behavior that typified trench warfare. Yes it's intense, but is it tactical or fun in the long term? I think that is an important question. Then there is the matter of CRUs and MCRUs: Though the descrition states they contain clones to be animated, they currently as as spawn beacons. Taking or losing a CRU neither adds nor subtracts from your team's clone count. Instead you can chose to spawn on the CRU, an Uplink, or an objective with your last clone. Where does it come from then? It's simply a ticket, a count. Putting clone bodies into a CRU would add significant depth to match play. Suddenly controling a CRU means something. It's your source of bodies. The enemy might chose to capture it or destroy it to deprive your side of clones. Chosing to spawn on the CRU decrements the number of remaining clones in the unit in the same way an uplink has a counter. Now it's a matter of strategy where you chose to reenter the battle. Ambush OMS would be dramatically affected when a CRU dropped. MCRU's would have a lower clone count that might be replenished back at the base. Unused clone bodies might be captured or lost if a vehcile was hacked or destroyed. MCC comanders would carefully consider where to place CRUs to balance the speed of deployment to the front vs. the risk of losing the unit. But who would bother with CRUs as long as uplinks were available? If the enemy destroys an uplink they don't get your clones. If you use a single reanimation point in your MCC you can teleport anywhere on the map instead of being limited to walking out of the CRU. Uplinks are simply so much more versitile and risk free that you wouldn't deploy a single CRU if you were smart.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2137	Posted - 2013.09.19 20:04:00 - [23] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: Bendtner92, Skihids, thank you both for the thoughtful and thought provoking replies. I will be chewing over what you've presented and responding wtih some ideas, I'd like to get input on these concepts once I've fleshed them out enough to post. Cheers, and +1 to you both, Cross Thanks for reading and considering my observations. I am excited about DUST eventually becoming a RTS/FPS where the commander has real choices to make, and where there is a higher level of strategy and tactics required to win. The intense combat of trench warfare is attractive when you don't have the rest of the elements necessary for real tactical play, but I'm afraid that if uplinks remain as they are they will trump any other option that requires real tradeoffs.