DUST Search - The 'fix uplinks' movement!

DustMercsBlog wrote:

Spkr4theDead wrote:

DustMercsBlog wrote:

might suggest you look at our recent retweets from our twitter account. we polled relevant players from the game that are veterans and have been major players in PC among other things. https://twitter.com/NewEdenGNN

not one suggested uplink spam was not a problem, NOT ONE. moreso many of the suggestions were the same Prius made in the OP.

Because as I mentioned before, they're in NPC corps, and cannot understand having many spawns to choose from, instead of the point itself and CRU, along with a few scattered uplinks. The problem I run into in PC is having to quickly move my left stick to get to the MCC to call in another tank instead of spawning somewhere forward.

They just don't understand it.

the man leading your alliance seems to. as do most of the CPM. Uplinks may be your crutch but the same rationale failed horribly with tac ars and everyone could use those too. also, uplink spam promotes and supports zerging if anything.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2284	Posted - 2013.10.20 15:47:00 - [1] - 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.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2285	Posted - 2013.10.20 16:43:00 - [2] - 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?
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2287	Posted - 2013.10.21 05:12:00 - [3] - Quote I see that the thread has been derailed and nobody articulated precisely what problem is caused by "uplink spam" that any of these suggested limitations solve. All I've heard is "I don't like them for some unspecified reason, so do X to them." We can't begin to discuss the merits of any of these proposed changes if we don't know the issue it's supposed to fix, much less if we agree that the issue is really a problem. Uplink placement IS a tactic. As a Logi I shape the battle by strategic placement of my uplinks. I decide where the front line is by where I put them, and that is often a decisive factor in the tide of battle. That takes much more time, risk, and thought than throwing a few in a pile and should be rewarded.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2292	Posted - 2013.10.21 12:51:00 - [4] - Quote DustMercsBlog wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: DustMercsBlog wrote: might suggest you look at our recent retweets from our twitter account. we polled relevant players from the game that are veterans and have been major players in PC among other things. https://twitter.com/NewEdenGNN not one suggested uplink spam was not a problem, NOT ONE. moreso many of the suggestions were the same Prius made in the OP. Because as I mentioned before, they're in NPC corps, and cannot understand having many spawns to choose from, instead of the point itself and CRU, along with a few scattered uplinks. The problem I run into in PC is having to quickly move my left stick to get to the MCC to call in another tank instead of spawning somewhere forward. They just don't understand it. the man leading your alliance seems to. as do most of the CPM. Uplinks may be your crutch but the same rationale failed horribly with tac ars and everyone could use those too. also, uplink spam promotes and supports zerging if anything. So please articulate the way in which it destroys what particular tactic and why that is less desirable than the benefits they bring and the tactics that they introduce. All I hear is a non-specific assertion that it "hurts tactics". Which tactics? Let's have a real discussion, not a witch hunt.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2292	Posted - 2013.10.21 12:58:00 - [5] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Honestly if only to keep frame rate up after the enemy decides they need 30 uplinks within a 15 meter radius limiting how many can be in a certain proximity to each other should be considered That's not a tactical reason, and lag can be fixed without placing limitations on the spawns.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2292	Posted - 2013.10.21 13:24:00 - [6] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Skihids wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Honestly if only to keep frame rate up after the enemy decides they need 30 uplinks within a 15 meter radius limiting how many can be in a certain proximity to each other should be considered That's not a tactical reason, and lag can be fixed without placing limitations on the spawns. Tell me where I said anything about limiting spawns or even limiting the total number of uplinks on a map, all I said was tweak it so you can drop dozens right next to each other and instead think a fraction of a second about your placement and not spamming Hmm, thinking about placement, sounds tactical to me You did not, but that is the claim/desire of this three and posting a request for restrictions is seen as support. Placing five in a small area isn't useful, it's wasteful and just gives free points to the first red dot with a grenade.