DUST Search - The 'fix uplinks' movement!

John Demonsbane wrote:

Spkr4theDead wrote:

Prius Vecht wrote:

Read this piece recently and agreed. http://dustmercs.blogspot.com/2013/10/sandbox-514-making-dust-matter.html#more

Uplinks in Dust are some of the most poorly designed items ever seen in a shooter. They are just too powerful and encourage spam rather than tactical gameplay.

I dont think they should show up unless I actually see one or its scanned, but 1) one uplink should be the max we can put down 2) they have to have a much higher CPU/PG drain. 3) preventing them from being too close to each other is a great idea. if I put one down within 50m of another the existing field should prevent it. 4) lower the amount of spawns 3 milita, 5 standard, 10 advanced and 15 proto.

hopefully they will really balance the cloak before adding it but it scares me looking how OP uplinks still are, so what else can be done to make uplinks better?

The people on here have obviously never participated in PC.

The only thing that needs to be fixed about uplinks is we need at least one variant per meta level that is squad only.

That makes a lot of sense. It could be the specialist variant with lower fitting costs. If they ever get around to giving Logis bonuses for equipment (like a reduction to fitting costs) you could always increase the costs of the others and keep the squad ones where they are now for use by assaults.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 160	Posted - 2013.10.20 12:21:00 - [1] - Quote Read this piece recently and agreed. http://dustmercs.blogspot.com/2013/10/sandbox-514-making-dust-matter.html#more Uplinks in Dust are some of the most poorly designed items ever seen in a shooter. They are just too powerful and encourage spam rather than tactical gameplay. I dont think they should show up unless I actually see one or its scanned, but 1) one uplink should be the max we can put down 2) they have to have a much higher CPU/PG drain. 3) preventing them from being too close to each other is a great idea. if I put one down within 50m of another the existing field should prevent it. 4) lower the amount of spawns 3 milita, 5 standard, 10 advanced and 15 proto. hopefully they will really balance the cloak before adding it but it scares me looking how OP uplinks still are, so what else can be done to make uplinks better?
Mregomies The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 75	Posted - 2013.10.20 12:26:00 - [2] - Quote Meh... another qq thread
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 626	Posted - 2013.10.20 12:31:00 - [3] - Quote Mregomies wrote: Meh... another qq thread Meh, another person who doesn't understand the stupidity of hammer space.
Tolen Rosas Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 250	Posted - 2013.10.20 12:49:00 - [4] - Quote uplink spam is horrible. its not qq.
Pent'noir Algintal Core Gallente Federation 145	Posted - 2013.10.20 13:03:00 - [5] - Quote I love the spams, please spam some more, so I don't have to constantly be in my DL junk fit. They are a crucial asset.
Tyjus Vacca Valor Coalition RISE of LEGION 34	Posted - 2013.10.20 13:17:00 - [6] - Quote +1 uplink spam the worst. anyone know why they dont always show on the radar now? do u actually have 2 see them now?
Reiki Jubo Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 199	Posted - 2013.10.20 13:19:00 - [7] - Quote 100% agree. uplinks need to be fixed.
Sgt Buttscratch R 0 N 1 N 915	Posted - 2013.10.20 13:50:00 - [8] - Quote I think for every uplink someone deploys, the WP spawn bonus should be slashed 1 UL = 25 WP 2 UL = 22 WP 3 UL = 19 WP 4 UL = 16 WP 5 UL = 13 WP 6 UL = 10 WP After 6 UL it should remain at 10 WP Also after X amount of team uplinks deployed a message of "team quota reached" should appear
Reiki Jubo Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 199	Posted - 2013.10.20 14:02:00 - [9] - Quote Sgt Buttscratch wrote: I think for every uplink someone deploys, the WP spawn bonus should be slashed 1 UL = 25 WP 2 UL = 22 WP 3 UL = 19 WP 4 UL = 16 WP 5 UL = 13 WP 6 UL = 10 WP After 6 UL it should remain at 10 WP Also after X amount of team uplinks deployed a message of "team quota reached" should appear like where ur going but disagree with the premise of this. If we only get 2/3 nades the max no of drop uplinks should be 1. uplinks much more powerful than nades. i like separating them by number of spawns instead like the OP said.
Lorhak Gannarsein Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 470	Posted - 2013.10.20 14:24:00 - [10] - Quote I'd be happy with a limit to uplinks by TYPE, rather than a hard cap. Rather than having, say, the maximum active number of all uplink types at the same time, like now, or having a hard cap on uplinks - three, for the purposes of the argument - across all uplink types, I'd be very happy with the ability to have only one type of uplink active at a time.

Dusters Blog Galactic News Network 438	Posted - 2013.10.20 14:35:00 - [11] - Quote we are glad u liked the piece and we support this movement. uplinks are easily one of the more unbalanced mechanics in the game. you have to be careful with spawns. MAG, for example only allowed APCs as a mobile spawn and limited those to 4 per platoon of 64 soldiers. we are ok with anyone with an equip slot having a drop uplink but raise the cpu & pg, limit them to 1 and dont allow them within 50 yds of each other.
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics League of Infamy 213	Posted - 2013.10.20 15:10:00 - [12] - Quote The problem with the OP's narrow interpretation of the article (i..e, we need to nerf uplinks right now) is a lot of of other things need to be fixed before you change uplinks so dramatically. As it stands now it takes forever to get across these huge new maps. One orbital takes out your entire forward squad and you're done, nobody can get back to the front lines in time. You would need to massively buff dropships before you ever considered this: it's the only other way you could realistically move people quickly, but as they stand now its just too risky to move large groups that way. One assault forge can take out your whole squad in seconds. I'm all for making them more specialized, there's no need for anyone but scouts or logi's to equip them and be throwing them around willy nilly, but a hard limit like 1 per person is crazy without a number of other fundamental changes. All that will do is penalize specialization and incentivize everyone to carry them. The logistics class would be crippled unless another way to gain WP is substituted. While they are definitely a crutch and can be abused, what I don't understand entirely is how they can be "unbalanced" by most definitions of the term. Can everyone not use them? (OK, other than heavies). It's not like a weapon where there are dozens of types intended for different uses and when weapon x is not only the best at it's own role, but also better than weapon y is at it's role, then you have imbalance since weapon x prevails over y in every situation. Uplinks fill a singular role in terms of player equipment, there is nothing to really balance them against. It's not quite like saying playing in an organized squad is unbalanced, but similar in that the mechanic is available to anyone without much in the way of sacrificing something else. Anyway, a much more sensible change that could be done now is simply to make them not work within a certain distance of an installation (CRU, objective, supply depot) or eachother. That would reduce spam, reward placing them in strategic locations, and not prohibitively restrict mobility in the absence of other changes (i.e., dropships) that will clearly not be ready in 2013.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2284	Posted - 2013.10.20 15:47:00 - [13] - Quote Uplinks keep the intensity of the battle up by spawning at the front. Pull them without providing alternative transport and you will get a lot more redline matches. Dropships are the obvious replacement, but they won't be viable for months as vehicles are rebalanced. The entire spawn mechanism needs to be reworked at the same time. Objective spawning needs to be removed and actual clones put in the CRUs to be fought over.
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics League of Infamy 213	Posted - 2013.10.20 16:06:00 - [14] - Quote Skihids wrote: Uplinks keep the intensity of the battle up by spawning at the front. Pull them without providing alternative transport and you will get a lot more redline matches. Dropships are the obvious replacement, but they won't be viable for months as vehicles are rebalanced. Exactly. Be careful what you ask for.
DustMercsBlog Galactic News Network 84	Posted - 2013.10.20 16:23:00 - [15] - Quote obv I support the retuning of uplinks. for spawns would like to see the sky spawning kagehoshi mentions. instead of appearing around CRUs.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2285	Posted - 2013.10.20 16:43:00 - [16] - Quote I'd like to know just what people object to when they say "Uplink spam". What precisely is the issue that will get "fixed" by the proposed limitations?
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1088	Posted - 2013.10.20 16:55:00 - [17] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: Read this piece recently and agreed. http://dustmercs.blogspot.com/2013/10/sandbox-514-making-dust-matter.html#more Uplinks in Dust are some of the most poorly designed items ever seen in a shooter. They are just too powerful and encourage spam rather than tactical gameplay. I dont think they should show up unless I actually see one or its scanned, but 1) one uplink should be the max we can put down 2) they have to have a much higher CPU/PG drain. 3) preventing them from being too close to each other is a great idea. if I put one down within 50m of another the existing field should prevent it. 4) lower the amount of spawns 3 milita, 5 standard, 10 advanced and 15 proto. hopefully they will really balance the cloak before adding it but it scares me looking how OP uplinks still are, so what else can be done to make uplinks better? The people on here have obviously never participated in PC. The only thing that needs to be fixed about uplinks is we need at least one variant per meta level that is squad only.
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics League of Infamy 214	Posted - 2013.10.20 17:05:00 - [18] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Prius Vecht wrote: Read this piece recently and agreed. http://dustmercs.blogspot.com/2013/10/sandbox-514-making-dust-matter.html#more Uplinks in Dust are some of the most poorly designed items ever seen in a shooter. They are just too powerful and encourage spam rather than tactical gameplay. I dont think they should show up unless I actually see one or its scanned, but 1) one uplink should be the max we can put down 2) they have to have a much higher CPU/PG drain. 3) preventing them from being too close to each other is a great idea. if I put one down within 50m of another the existing field should prevent it. 4) lower the amount of spawns 3 milita, 5 standard, 10 advanced and 15 proto. hopefully they will really balance the cloak before adding it but it scares me looking how OP uplinks still are, so what else can be done to make uplinks better? The people on here have obviously never participated in PC. The only thing that needs to be fixed about uplinks is we need at least one variant per meta level that is squad only. That makes a lot of sense. It could be the specialist variant with lower fitting costs. If they ever get around to giving Logis bonuses for equipment (like a reduction to fitting costs) you could always increase the costs of the others and keep the squad ones where they are now for use by assaults.
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 435	Posted - 2013.10.20 17:06:00 - [19] - Quote uplinks are fine, besides i just started using them and they make me a ton of WP TL DR STFU
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1088	Posted - 2013.10.20 17:15:00 - [20] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Prius Vecht wrote: Read this piece recently and agreed. http://dustmercs.blogspot.com/2013/10/sandbox-514-making-dust-matter.html#more Uplinks in Dust are some of the most poorly designed items ever seen in a shooter. They are just too powerful and encourage spam rather than tactical gameplay. I dont think they should show up unless I actually see one or its scanned, but 1) one uplink should be the max we can put down 2) they have to have a much higher CPU/PG drain. 3) preventing them from being too close to each other is a great idea. if I put one down within 50m of another the existing field should prevent it. 4) lower the amount of spawns 3 milita, 5 standard, 10 advanced and 15 proto. hopefully they will really balance the cloak before adding it but it scares me looking how OP uplinks still are, so what else can be done to make uplinks better? The people on here have obviously never participated in PC. The only thing that needs to be fixed about uplinks is we need at least one variant per meta level that is squad only. That makes a lot of sense. It could be the specialist variant with lower fitting costs. If they ever get around to giving Logis bonuses for equipment (like a reduction to fitting costs) you could always increase the costs of the others and keep the squad ones where they are now for use by assaults. Gallente Logi bonus is -5% to PG and CPU of equipment per level.

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 1480	Posted - 2013.10.20 17:17:00 - [21] - Quote Uplinks are fine for infantry What about vehicle pilots? I can use a Logi DS with an inbuilt MCRU and have 20ppl spawn in it, do i get any WP? no So how about infantry stop crying which obv works very well for them
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro M.T.A.C Assault Operations Command Lokun Listamenn 15	Posted - 2013.10.20 17:51:00 - [22] - Quote I have never had a problem with the number of links on the field. The problem is the players coming out of them and the support I have to fight them. If you reduced the number of links on the field, you increase the proportion of wp one squad gets over time--only one place to spawn in. This may possibly lead to faster orbitals. Is that going to be better balanced? Some have mentioned limited space for links, but a scout could get his/her uplink down first before a logi and then null out equipment wp for said logi. To reiterate, suit x performs better than suit y at suit y's designed purpose. In a match, I have been known to flank an enemy position and destroy 6+ links. I use flux nades and shoot the rest. I also carry a nano hive and can get more grenades. Although I die a few times, removing links doesn't take too long if you bide your time. In this same flank maneuver, I throw my own links to create a surge of players to help me. I do agree though that there are certain high ground situations that make link removal extremely difficult, but future balance of aerial support may alleviate that high ground imbalance. As there is currently no way to approach a high ground area that has a single FG or swarm effectively. Cause and effect are trully elusive components, but it seems that the question being proposed is really one of match making. For example: If you are fighting an equally scaled opponent then spawn location and link number should not have as much control over your death. If you are outnumbered it makes sense you should die. If you have more support then you should be able to push. A tactic may be to provide a distraction attack in order for one member to slip behind and start removing links. If your teamwork is better, then over time the opponent's links will not be in as an advantageous position. This has been my experience. So maybe lack of team work and lack of mirrored skills on each team plays a bigger role in this debate.
Tolen Rosas Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 255	Posted - 2013.10.20 17:59:00 - [23] - Quote Skihids wrote: I'd like to know just what people object to when they say "Uplink spam". What precisely is the issue that will get "fixed" by the proposed limitations? uplinks probly the most unbalanced part of this game still in and thats saying something. corps just spam uplinks around an objective and keep spawning there instead of using any tactics.
Prius Vecht Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 167	Posted - 2013.10.20 18:07:00 - [24] - Quote Tolen Rosas wrote: Skihids wrote: I'd like to know just what people object to when they say "Uplink spam". What precisely is the issue that will get "fixed" by the proposed limitations? uplinks probly the most unbalanced part of this game still in and thats saying something. corps just spam uplinks around an objective and keep spawning there instead of using any tactics. ^THIS. It has destroyed all tactics..you win now by destroying their uplinks and spamming yours.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1088	Posted - 2013.10.20 18:07:00 - [25] - Quote Tolen Rosas wrote: Skihids wrote: I'd like to know just what people object to when they say "Uplink spam". What precisely is the issue that will get "fixed" by the proposed limitations? uplinks probly the most unbalanced part of this game still in and thats saying something. corps just spam uplinks around an objective and keep spawning there instead of using any tactics. That in itself is a tactic, you just haven't had a good enough team to realize tactics yourself. And uplinks unbalanced? LOL! Try tanking
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1088	Posted - 2013.10.20 18:10:00 - [26] - Quote Prius Vecht wrote: Tolen Rosas wrote: Skihids wrote: I'd like to know just what people object to when they say "Uplink spam". What precisely is the issue that will get "fixed" by the proposed limitations? uplinks probly the most unbalanced part of this game still in and thats saying something. corps just spam uplinks around an objective and keep spawning there instead of using any tactics. ^THIS. It has destroyed all tactics..you win now by destroying their uplinks and spamming yours. Says the two guys in NPC corps.
Tolen Rosas Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 255	Posted - 2013.10.20 18:11:00 - [27] - Quote ur alliance leader says different. Mavado Noriega has even admitted how bad uplink spam is. if u like it because it helps u win or get most of your points from it, fine. but right now ur the guy saying uprising flaylocks are balanced.
Tolen Rosas Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 255	Posted - 2013.10.20 18:14:00 - [28] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Prius Vecht wrote: Tolen Rosas wrote: Skihids wrote: I'd like to know just what people object to when they say "Uplink spam". What precisely is the issue that will get "fixed" by the proposed limitations? uplinks probly the most unbalanced part of this game still in and thats saying something. corps just spam uplinks around an objective and keep spawning there instead of using any tactics. ^THIS. It has destroyed all tactics..you win now by destroying their uplinks and spamming yours. Says the two guys in NPC corps. says the guy riding EONs nuts. but ur known as an OP whiner.......so I guess if u arent crying about it maybe I should reconsider.
Reiki Jubo Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 199	Posted - 2013.10.20 18:16:00 - [29] - Quote Tolen Rosas wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Prius Vecht wrote: Tolen Rosas wrote: Skihids wrote: I'd like to know just what people object to when they say "Uplink spam". What precisely is the issue that will get "fixed" by the proposed limitations? uplinks probly the most unbalanced part of this game still in and thats saying something. corps just spam uplinks around an objective and keep spawning there instead of using any tactics. ^THIS. It has destroyed all tactics..you win now by destroying their uplinks and spamming yours. Says the two guys in NPC corps. says the guy riding EONs nuts. but ur known as an OP whiner.......so I guess if u arent crying about it maybe I should reconsider. ROFLMAO!!!
Avallo Kantor Paladin Survey Force Amarr Empire 207	Posted - 2013.10.20 18:18:00 - [30] - Quote Personally, I rather like the idea of droplinks, however I would agree with a notion that droplinks shouldn't be able to be placed too close together. That said, the range between uplinks does not need to be extreme, perhaps only 10 - 15 meters, but just enough to prevent 5 uplinks from being placed all on top of each other. (For added tactical value, make the range apply to enemy uplinks and CRUs, and points) if this code could be written, then perhaps another piece of equipment could be added, some EWAR, or a Uplink Scrambler. Using the (can't place uplink with X range of each other) value, the Scrambler would simply be something that could be placed to stop uplinks being dropped within a much larger range (say 20 - 40 meters depending on type) however would not stop uplinks Already placed.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page