DUST Search - [Request] Remove DUs and objective spawning

Skihids wrote:

Mobile and objective spawning fundamentally alters game play for the worse by eliminating strategic play.
...

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.

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 177	Posted - 2013.09.16 22:23:00 - [61] - Quote 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.
Monkey MAC killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance 496	Posted - 2013.09.16 22:27:00 - [62] - 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. How about you STFU scrub, up links are overused, and have only 1 drawback, the fitting cost! If your so obsessed about WP get your own dropship!
Vesago Ghostcore Rejected Clones 5	Posted - 2013.09.16 23:51:00 - [63] - Quote 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.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2101	Posted - 2013.09.17 00:10:00 - [64] - 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.
ALPHA DECRIPTER M.E.R.C. Conventional Forces 450	Posted - 2013.09.17 00:11:00 - [65] - Quote Skihids wrote: Mobile and objective spawning fundamentally alters game play for the worse by eliminating strategic play. ... 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. Uplinks are actually not that difficult to counter... it's called a good scout. Uplinks aren't always were you need it and so vehicle transport is always viable. Not to mention the fact that vehicle are able to fit mobile CRUs. Objective spawning gives purpose to capturing AND defending objectives. There have been times in domination where someone decides to allow the enemy to take the objective just so they can hack it back and gain another 100WPs. This is because the enemy won't be able to spawn there and so losing it will not be a real threat. (Not saying to bring objective spawning to Dom as that would be irresponsible) Your view on CRUs is sensible and the idea to give them a clone limit is interesting to say the least. Uplinks are, in a way, a counter to AV. If the enemy is running FG and swarms than your vehicles will just be wasted. Infentry may be able to counter them once they get close enough but unfortunately they are killed off b4 they can. A scout equipped with uplinks helps the game by; Giving the scout a purpose. Adding another strategic element. I mean think about it. If you are redlined and the enemy has destroyed the CRUs than you are F***** because you can't force them back (if you could then you wouldn't be redlined). Most likely they will destroy any vehicle you call in before it even hits the ground. Without a way to get out of the redline you are dead in the water no matter what tactics you use. Any real player will tell you that redlining is boring as hell. There is no challenge and the game as a whole starts to lose it's appeal. With uplinks, a skilled player can grant the team room to fight back. `Sigh. Just another fun game of DUST.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2101	Posted - 2013.09.17 00:20:00 - [66] - 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.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1698	Posted - 2013.09.17 01:28:00 - [67] - Quote Skihids wrote: 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. That's a pretty thin assertion, would could just as legitimately say "CCP has also recognized the game breaking nature of installations by removing them from standard Ambush matches", or ""CCP has also recognized the game breaking nature of close quarters engagements by including large map spaces in their new maps". Quote: Teleportation creates an unbreakable supply line to an objective which requires overwhelming force to dislodge. Or a flux nade and a bit of common sense Quote: 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. 1. Clones have an actual ISK market value, that value is not altered by method of deployment. 2. If you're talking about balance based of pub matches you're doing it wrong, I'll list if need be. 3. If we're going to remove things based on what the average player will do in this context we should start with KDR, again I'll happily elaborate on why. 4. As a Logi since closed beta I can say with confidence that people bleed out over their KDR more than "to get back in the fight", if not they wouldn't rage about having the chance to save ISK by being revived in a hot zone even if it cost them a couple more meaningless "death" stats.... even if that weren't true the current insta-bleed mechanics are so broad that revival is rarely possible, even leaving the painfully long animation sequence aside. Quote: 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. Dropships get spawns on them as well, WP pending. HAVs aren't primary transports, nor are LLAVs and basic LAVs are absolutely still used for transport, not as much sure but the players who specialize in LAVs are using the LLAVs anyway so there's no role loss. Quote: 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. When they're not destroyed at the start of the match... unless you mean pubs continued in post 2
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1698	Posted - 2013.09.17 01:32:00 - [68] - Quote Quote: 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. How and how? Give specific details, simply making the statement "X does Y" doesn't make it accurate or persuasive. Quote: 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. My squads certainly do know the value of CRUs, they're not treated as dismissible or throw away in any sense. They are tactical assets on the field which are either to be controlled or destroyed just like all other assets on the field, depot, cannon, vehicle, or Merc. It sounds like you are trying to force blueberries to play the way you'd prefer to play, in essence to alter the game to constrain player action to match your sense of proper behavior. That's not the way a sandbox works, it doesn't improve the game and it's not really a way to enhance fun. If you don't like players not using tactics then run with your Corp/Alliance, if you're doing that and they don't understand tactics then either teach them or find a new place to be. TL;DR - Heavy handed mechanical changes and constrains are poison in a sandbox. 0.02 ISK Cross
ugg reset Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 387	Posted - 2013.09.17 14:04:00 - [69] - Quote Skihids wrote: 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. baa
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1733	Posted - 2013.09.19 16:37:00 - [70] - Quote I keep hearing the assertion that removing spawn points and spawn point types, be they Uplinks, Objectives, or CRUs (depending on thread) would make the game "more tactical". What I have not been hearing in any of these several threads is a detailed description of how. Perhaps I am missing something, perhaps my years away from FPS playing RTS, TTS, MMOs, and RPGs have distorted my perspective on this issue but I am honestly not seeing how this makes the game on balance more tactical. Could those individuals supporting this stance please take the time to post up a detailed explanation regarding exactly how this would result in a net increase of tactical game play? I'm not one of those guys who is unwilling to change my stance based on new information, but I currently see no compelling information supporting your stance, can you provide me with new data/perspective to persuade me otherwise? I am absolutely open to listing. Cheers, Cross

Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1080	Posted - 2013.09.19 17:08:00 - [71] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: I keep hearing the assertion that removing spawn points and spawn point types, be they Uplinks, Objectives, or CRUs (depending on thread) would make the game "more tactical". What I have not been hearing in any of these several threads is a detailed description of how. I believe objective spawning should be removed entirely. When you kill someone he shouldn't be able to just spawn back onto the objective, unless he has another spawnpoint present (Uplinks or mCRUs). Objective spawning cheapens the general gameplay and also promotes zerging as you then need to have a lot of bodies on an objective to take it, even if there's only a few guys defending it. The recently (well, not so recently anymore I guess) added spawncloak also makes this somewhat worse, since people can now spawn in and look around while being cloaked (they also usually don't take any damage a second or so after moving), which makes it extremely hard to take an objective unless you outnumber them by several people. The spawncloak is a good thing because it does prevent Uplink and CRU camping to some extent, but it really cheapens objective spawning even more in my opinion. Removing objective spawning will lead to a higher need for Uplinks or mCRUs close to objectives, or at least transport from other spawn areas to the objectives and would also spread the firefights a little out instead of all of them pretty much happening on top of objectives all the time. The removal of objective spawning should come with the addition of more CRUs around the maps. The new maps in 1.4 actually do have more CRUs than the old ones, but I feel that they could add even more without a problem, if they decide to remove objective spawning. There should be a fair amount of base/stationary spawnpoints around the maps, but I don't think objective spawning should be among these spawnpoints. CCP seems to have had decisions about this since they did decide to remove it for the Domination gamemode. I don't know why they limited it to Domination and not brought it to Skirmish as well, especially since Domination is pretty much just Skirmish with a single objective. Objective spawning is the only thing I want removed. Uplinks should be rebalanced, but certainly not removed in my opinion. They're fine as something you can drop as close to objectives as you want, but something needs to be done about their low spawntime and mass use around objectives.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2136	Posted - 2013.09.19 19:44:00 - [72] - 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.
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1738	Posted - 2013.09.19 19:56:00 - [73] - Quote 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
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2137	Posted - 2013.09.19 20:04:00 - [74] - 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.
CLONE117 Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore 367	Posted - 2013.09.19 20:43:00 - [75] - Quote objective spawning needs to stay.... the crus and other such stuff do in fact add some tactics into the game....and this is how t works...majority of both teams r focused on a single point heavy fighting going around...and crus on both sides of the lines..... a single player can run off into the distance.. come back on the enemy side....sneak up onto the enemy cru..hack it.... then suddenly the other team gets pushed straight out of the objective since they no longer have a side and now must cluster up around the uplinks and spamm as many of them as possible if they want to keep it... and doing this will result in lots of deathes for them,,, because they would essentaily be spawn camped right at the objective..... they could desperately try to hold onto it getting killed one by one..or they could spawn back and let the other team have the objective... and come up with a tactic to retake the area.... ... this is basically how domination works.. and now for skirmish.... objective spawning isnt a problem.. the cru is bad luck any ways for when uve captured an area.... having lots of them scattered randomly around the map it self would practically make the game less fun... now objective spawning itself... its fine for skirmish.. skirmish is played on a really big map... and when players focus on certain areas of the map normally both team are there fighting each other... one team could have taken the objective while the other team would have taken the cru near it.... and so both team would be swarming over the same objective... now to go into details... the team holding the cru is pretty much at an advantage when they hold it at the objective.. the other team that holds the objective would have to either use lots of force to dislodge the dug in enemy position at the cru or destroy the cru it self...by using an easily counterable hav.... but since most players wont bother to get a tank out and blow it up..it puts the cru holders at the advantage in the short term.... the other thing about why objective spawning should stay is as simple as this.... why the hell would any 1 want to waste isk on a stupid weak lav or dropships just to move around the map only to get blown up by some player with av out?... its a big waste of isk...the dropships are primarily used as an elevator for snipers or player who want to place a few uplinks down.... why should a player in a slow moving heavy suit be forced to WALK across the entire map only to be sniped while out in the open moving towards an objective? that spawning on objectives is there so incase u get killed by something u can respawn with your team and function as reinforcements... clearing out an entire objective is as easy as spamming all those grenades.... or grabbing a tank and mowing any1 who trys to spawn in.... a team can get swarmed by the attackers and overwhelmed pretty fast... while hold up inside a building.. and gathering outside that same building would be the rest of the enemy team which have already set up several killzone areas that prevent from leaving the objective...so the players defending the objective almost nearly have no choice but to make last stand... where most of the time it results in an objective being hacked and the team defending it dead... but there is that chance where they could successfully defend and push the enemy team out away from the objective and turn the battle around into their favor..
Cross Atu Conspiratus Immortalis Covert Intervention 1739	Posted - 2013.09.19 20:46:00 - [76] - Quote Here is the promised follow up. Objectives - Within the context of the new maps, and provided the changes to CRUs are also adopted I can see the value to removing direct objective spawning. Bendtner92 points out how this could spread the firefight out over more of the map as opposed to 'pooling' it primarily in predetermined locations and I have to agree that would be a benefit to play. CRUs - Adding a specific finite clone bonus to each CRU would be a great step. I had not encountered this idea before but the implications of it provide a lot of traction for the value of CRUs, giving increased cause to fight for, hold, or destroy these assets. I'd lean towards also making CRUs more durable as part of this process but, again using the research lab sockets/maps as a template, if the number were increased sufficiently that might also do the trick. The idea solution is likely a balance between increased durability and increased numbers. CRUs shouldn't be prohibitively tough to take out for a HAV, nor should they be so common that their onboard clone totals have to be scaled at too low a number. mCRUs - Assuming the upcoming addition of WP for spawns from these I'd leave mCRUs as is. They may need further polish as the other changes settle in but I would hold off on making those changes until actual field data shows that to be needed. Uplinks - I'm still firmly of the view that Uplinks should neither be removed from the game, nor their deployment further capped or limited. However, Skihids makes some salient points regarding how the new Dom mode functions compared to the old Dom mode. The solution in my view is to give Uplinks the "nanohive treatment" and scale back their spawn time reductions. The could also undergo a bit of "tiericide" and have their attributes refocused such that number of spawns on the link, and spawn time reduction are in a relationship closer to zero sum. I would hesitate to make substantive changes to uplinks until after patch 1.5 however as the new WP rewards for destruction of deployed equipment combined with the new WP from use of active scanners will have an impact on what/how much change is called for and it is, in my view, preferable to observe those implications first hand rather than base changes on conjecture. Additional thoughts - There are some under used tools already in place which should also be employed. While I have witnessed the 'zerg push' described by the prior posters and do acknowledge that sometimes the current mechanics give incentive to blob warfare, it is in my experience not a black and white situation. Fits run with optimizations for speed, stealth, and hacking can quite effectively steal and objective out from under grouped defenders and allow small fire teams to cut them down and hold the point/location in question without the need for zerging. This practice isn't terribly common, and as per my above I can see how some changes are called for even in light of these alternate options, but the presence of alternatives is real even in the current game state, and in point of fact I have done what I am describing as recently as this week in Skirm, Dom, FW and PC game modes. Cheers, Cross
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 80	Posted - 2013.09.19 21:50:00 - [77] - Quote Why not have a counter to DU? Some kind. Of EMP or EW module or device that you set up that blocks DU in a certain range. Upon deployment the device frys DUs, so get a few war points for each one. If you want your uplinks in then these devices become a target as well...have to destroy it (get war points for destroying it) and re-seed your uplinks.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 14	Posted - 2013.10.22 13:28:00 - [78] - 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 [3] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page