DUST Search - Make uplink spam increase spawn time

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Make uplink spam increase spawn time

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Krom Ganesh Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 523	Posted - 2013.11.01 15:13:00 - [1] - Quote Make it so Uplinks within a certain distance of each other causes an increased spawn time. This would mean you could spam uplinks in an area but it would take your team longer to spawn in that area. Of course, the increased spawn time will be shown on the spawn screen causing your teammates to look for faster spawns elsewhere. This system would encourage smarter placing uplinks because otherwise your team will lose spawn mobility and you will get less WPs.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 6859	Posted - 2013.11.01 15:25:00 - [2] - Quote I very much like this Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads Gû¦Gû+
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2375	Posted - 2013.11.01 15:38:00 - [3] - Quote This isn't really required, but it's the least onerous way to discourage very close placement of uplinks. It's basically a stacking penalty like the others we are familiar with. Two uplinks close together increases the spawn time on each by a small fraction, a third a bit more, and the fourth even more. That would throttle the arrival rate of mercs to just a little under what it would be if you had only the one uplink. The stacking penalty should never make the total time for a squad to spawn than if there was one link as stacking penalties never make adding another module actually hurt your stat. That is, adding another damage modifier doesn't reduce your damage, it just adds only a little bit. The penalty would come in the form of lowering in the spawn time of a single merc.
Mobius Wyvern Guardian Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY 3780	Posted - 2013.11.01 15:38:00 - [4] - Quote Bumping a ******* genius post. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
CLONE117 Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore 439	Posted - 2013.11.01 15:41:00 - [5] - Quote since there r really only a few individual players that drop 50 uplinks in a single match. y not just limit the players abillty to drop them lets say cut them down to where only a single person with uplinks can only deploy 1 uplink. this means that they couldnt run several different uplinks on a logi suit and drop them all in the same area. if they tried they would all get insta destroyed. some what like std uplinks where if u deploy one in one area and deploy another the previous deployed one will disappear. so if a team wants spam uplinks the entire team would need to be carry an uplink. which would make them difficult to spam as it would be a pain just to try. and thus hurt those uplink spammers and actually give the other team a chance at taking the objective. right now the only way to deal with uplink spam would be a well placed orbital. this would mean the player couldnt just run up to an objective drop 50 uplinks all around the place and hold it forever. it would mean they would have to actually be careful about the placement of their uplinks.
Krom Ganesh Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 527	Posted - 2013.11.01 15:44:00 - [6] - Quote Skihids wrote: This isn't really required, but it's the least onerous way to discourage very close placement of uplinks. It's basically a stacking penalty like the others we are familiar with. Two uplinks close together increases the spawn time on each by a small fraction, a third a bit more, and the fourth even more. That would throttle the arrival rate of mercs to just a little under what it would be if you had only the one uplink. The stacking penalty should never make the total time for a squad to spawn than if there was one link as stacking penalties never make adding another module actually hurt your stat. That is, adding another damage modifier doesn't reduce your damage, it just adds only a little bit. The penalty would come in the form of lowering in the spawn time of a single merc. This is very reasonable but I'm afraid my suggest would increase spawn time for a squad. If only one merc could use an uplink at a time (as in you can't even select it while someone is spawning on it), then it would be fairly simple to make it so a squad would spawn in the same amount of time on 6 uplinks as it would with 1. However, multiple mercs can spawn on one uplink at a time so average squad time of spawning would go up.
Wombat in combat MoIden Heath PoIice Department EoN. 123	Posted - 2013.11.01 17:11:00 - [7] - Quote Drop uplink spammers do not care how long it takes for people to spawn, just increasing their chances that someone will spawn on theirs. Most of the time when DU are placed close together you can't tell anyway the timer on each. So I'm afraid this will not solve the problem but only make it worse. I'm much more in favour a hard cap per player, like 4-8 uplink types per player.
Seymor Krelborn DUST University Ivy League 1065	Posted - 2013.11.01 17:34:00 - [8] - Quote Krom Ganesh wrote: Make it so Uplinks within a certain distance of each other causes an increased spawn time. This would mean you could spam uplinks in an area but it would take your team longer to spawn in that area. Of course, the increased spawn time will be shown on the spawn screen causing your teammates to look for faster spawns elsewhere. This system would encourage smarter placing uplinks because otherwise your team will lose spawn mobility and you will get less WPs. bad idea... then some troll can purposely put links close to yours just to sabotage his own team... better idea... destroy them they are worth 5 wp now...
virgindestroyer7 Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 1014	Posted - 2013.11.01 17:40:00 - [9] - Quote If we had the ability to destroy blue uplinks i would agree with this. People who are unawares of the changes, trolling or just being jerks would totally take advantage of this.. unless you always lock your squad and don't allow randoms in there how else would you prevent this from happening to your squad?
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2375	Posted - 2013.11.01 17:57:00 - [10] - Quote Krom Ganesh wrote: Skihids wrote: This isn't really required, but it's the least onerous way to discourage very close placement of uplinks. It's basically a stacking penalty like the others we are familiar with. Two uplinks close together increases the spawn time on each by a small fraction, a third a bit more, and the fourth even more. That would throttle the arrival rate of mercs to just a little under what it would be if you had only the one uplink. The stacking penalty should never make the total time for a squad to spawn than if there was one link as stacking penalties never make adding another module actually hurt your stat. That is, adding another damage modifier doesn't reduce your damage, it just adds only a little bit. The penalty would come in the form of lowering in the spawn time of a single merc. This is very reasonable but I'm afraid my suggest would increase spawn time for a squad in an uplink spammed area. If only one merc could use an uplink at a time (as in you can't even select it while someone is spawning on it), then it would be fairly simple to make it so a squad would spawn in the same amount of time on 6 uplinks as it would with 1. However, multiple mercs can spawn on one uplink at a time so average squad time of spawning would go up. Ah, I heard that MCRU spawns were sequential and assumed that was true of uplinks as well. If that is correct then there is very little rational for penalizing grouped uplinks. If close grouping doesn't yield an advantage, why worry about it? If they are that close one flux will take them out so it's no no more difficult to clear three as one. If they are dispersed far enough that you can't get to them, then you aren't in immediate danger from someone spawning on them. What's really the problem here?

CLONE117 Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore 439	Posted - 2013.11.01 18:37:00 - [11] - Quote alot of the time when it comes to uplink spam they are scattered all over the place. behind walls around buildings. spamming flux grenades will not clear all of them out. essentially at this point they might just be used as diversions for the flux nade users. while the hidden one becomes the most used at this point. it also becomes extremely annoying when trying to select your own spawn location. can sometimes cause lots of lagg when respawning too. have u ever tried not to spawn on an uplink when u die in the area of them? its takes to much time trying to select an objective spawn when u died in the center of an uplink spam fest. i think players should only be able to deploy one uplink only as if they were only carrying 1. if they deploy another one the previous deployed link should self destruct or something like that. it functions this way with standard uplinks i think it should be this way across the board. lets say u deploy a std link. then deploy a proto link. the std link would disappear. this would cut down on the uplink spam. and make the players more aware of where they are dropping them... which would add more tactical value to them.
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2375	Posted - 2013.11.01 19:25:00 - [12] - Quote Your suggestion would basically make uplinks useless. I find that strategic use of uplinks involves deploying several in an arc at the battle front in Domination. A single uplink concentrates your team in one place that invites grenades and orbitals. I rarely drop two links within thirty meters of each other, the exception being the bridge in Domination mode as there is a single approach to the objective. Strategic deployment in Skirmish involves two or three uplinks near the objective but separated enough that they encourage different routes/flanking to the objective. The worst thing you can do with uplinks is to concentrate your team in one place. Thats one reason I am reluctant to place uplinks on rooftops. It tends to concentrate the entire team in one small area which yields control to the opposite team and results in a slaughter as the enemy has one small area to concentrate on. Properly shaping a battle with uplinks requires five or more depending on the mode. Limit deployment to one and you can't so much with it. People aren't giving much thought to this, and that's because the majority haven't spent much if any time in the role of Logistics. I'm not talking about water bearers running around with a rep tool attached to a heavy, but someone who is working at a higher level to create a tend to lines of reinforcement or creating flanking opportunities. There's a whole level of game beyond rushing around and shooting face. Some of us prefer that.
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 9827	Posted - 2013.11.01 19:34:00 - [13] - Quote I see this backfiring. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier Specialist Current Theme \\=Advanced Forge Gun =// Unlocked.
Django Quik Dust2Dust. 1688	Posted - 2013.11.01 19:40:00 - [14] - Quote Skihids wrote: People aren't giving much thought to this, and that's because the majority haven't spent much if any time in the role of Logistics. I'm not talking about water bearers running around with a rep tool attached to a heavy, but someone who is working at a higher level to create a tend to lines of reinforcement or creating flanking opportunities. There's a whole level of game beyond rushing around and shooting face. Some of us prefer that. If only everyone played with your level of consideration for the game/team Skihids. Unfortunately, most do no and the result is so much uplink spam that you can't even tell if there are blueberries amongst them when looking from the map. I like the slower deployment idea but the problem comes with communicating that this will happen to the person dropping the uplink. Unless they read descriptions, forums or whatever, how will they know that this is happening and that their uplink spam is hurting? Perhaps add a big red visual warning on the screen when someone brings out an uplink too close to another? Dust2Dust - Funeral arrangements for all of New Eden. Join our public channel D2D. to chat and squad with us.
Krom Ganesh Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 531	Posted - 2013.11.01 19:52:00 - [15] - Quote virgindestroyer7 wrote: If we had the ability to destroy blue uplinks i would agree with this. People who are unawares of the changes, trolling or just being jerks would totally take advantage of this.. unless you always lock your squad and don't allow randoms in there how else would you prevent this from happening to your squad? I think we need this ability as well. But this comes at the risk of the reverse of what you said, people trolling by destroying all the uplinks. I see two ways of handling that A) You deal reduced damage to your teammate's uplinks B) They can only be destroyed through melee attacks This would give use the ability to destroy an uplink while at the same time hopefully making destroying uplinks too tedious for a griefer. @Django: What about after pulling out an uplink, all uplinks within the reduced efficacy range appear on the HUD similar to how squad mates appear along with a distance measurement? That way people would know where the conflicting uplink is and how far away they need to get from it. There should also be a warning if it is placed within the reduced efficacy range informing the person who placed the uplink of the increased spawn time.
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2375	Posted - 2013.11.01 20:17:00 - [16] - Quote I'd like to get a clear description of the problem and how any proposed solution addresses it, along with consideration of unintended consequences. For example: [Ul]Closely spaced uplinks[/ul] Definition: Three or more uplinks within five meters of each other, possibly blocked from each other by structures Habitat: Generally found around the objective in Domination Effect: allows the defending team to respawn quickly, hindering conquest of the area by a small number of opponents who cannot destroy all of them quickly. Desired effect: a small number of mercs should be able to whittle down the occupying force over time to take it, but cannot due to multiple uplinks. Proposed solution: increase spawn time for closely spaced uplinks by X percentage/seconds for each uplink within a five meter radius of each uplink. How this works to mitigate the effect and achieve the desired outcome: this slows down the respawn rate which allows a kill rate of X eventually eliminate the occupying force. Unintended consequences/workarounds: placement of only one or two well placed uplinks still allows full speed respawning and still protects the resupply line.
Krom Ganesh Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 532	Posted - 2013.11.01 20:36:00 - [17] - Quote Skihids wrote: Unintended consequences/workarounds: placement of only one or two well placed uplinks still allows full speed respawning and still protects the resupply line. As it should. There is nothing wrong with using uplinks to effectively hold an area. The problem is that after the enemy team has placed so many uplinks your team cannot destroy them fast enough to stem the flow of enemies no matter how well they are handling them. In other words, if you have enough uplinks in an area, you effectively create a spawn hub that is extremely difficult if not impossible to shut down. Imagine playing a round of domination with objective spawning.
SirManBoy Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 334	Posted - 2013.11.01 22:07:00 - [18] - Quote The uplink hate is ridiculous. If you don't like them, destroy them. You get points for this now, you know? An entrenchment/beachhead should be a massive pain in the ass to root out and the amount of violence required to do so should absolutely need to be excessive and mutually punitive. This isn't Pattycakes 514, guys.
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2377	Posted - 2013.11.02 02:28:00 - [19] - Quote Quote: Effect: allows the defending team to respawn quickly, hindering conquest of the area by a small number of opponents who cannot destroy all of them quickly. - It isn't so much the speed of spawn, but the difficulty of preventing their spawning. So the closer together the links are the easier it is to destroy all at once, right? Quote: How this works to mitigate the effect and achieve the desired outcome: this slows down the respawn rate which allows a kill rate of X eventually eliminate the occupying force. - By slowing down the respawn rate, the attack force is given a better chance of removing the vast amount of uplinks. Wait, you JUST said it won't alter the spawn rate! If there is no waiting on an uplink, then the respawn rate of ten uplinks is the same as one. So this proposal won't do what you want. Quote: Unintended consequences/workarounds: placement of only one or two well placed uplinks still allows full speed respawning and still protects the resupply line. - As it should. There is nothing wrong with using uplinks to effectively hold an area. The problem is that after the enemy team has placed so many uplinks your team cannot destroy them fast enough to stem the flow of enemies no matter how well they are handling them. In other words, if you have enough uplinks in an area, you effectively create a spawn hub that is extremely difficult if not impossible to shut down. Imagine playing a round of domination with objective spawning. I have played Domination with objective spawning. The difference is that you can't flux or destroy the letter with an OB. I have also placed numerous uplinks on and around an objective and had the enemy roll my team and destroy every last one of them both with and without an OB. Uplinks won't save an out played team, even on the bridge which is probably the most subject to uplink use.
Krom Ganesh Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 533	Posted - 2013.11.02 02:46:00 - [20] - Quote Skihids wrote: Wait, you JUST said it won't alter the spawn rate! If there is no waiting on an uplink, then the respawn rate of ten uplinks is the same as one. So this proposal won't do what you want. ??? The whole point of the idea was to decrease spawn rate. If you are talking about "It isn't so much the speed of spawn, but the difficulty of preventing their spawning" what I meant was that the problem isn't that the enemy are spawning too fast (in other words the base uplink spawn time is fine), it is that there are too many uplinks to get rid of before more enemies spawn in. Increasing the time it takes to spawn gives the attackers more time to remove the uplinks between enemies spawning in as opposed to a more direct solution of not letting uplinks be placed within a certain distance of each other. Quote: I have played Domination with objective spawning. The difference is that you can't flux or destroy the letter with an OB. And if you place enough uplinks (and not put them right on top of each other to prevent fluxes from destroying more than one at a time) you simulate that. And OBs can't hit everything. Quote: I have also placed numerous uplinks on and around an objective and had the enemy roll my team and destroy every last one of them both with and without an OB. Uplinks won't save an out played team, even on the bridge which is probably the most subject to uplink use. True, if one team is lopsidedly better than the other, uplinks won't be able to hold off the other team. However, given teams of similar skill, the entrenched team will gain an overwhelming advantage over the attacking team simply because the attacking team has little to no chance of removing all the uplinks in between enemies spawning in.

SirManBoy Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 336	Posted - 2013.11.02 03:28:00 - [21] - Quote Krom Ganesh wrote: [quote=Skihids] Quote: I have also placed numerous uplinks on and around an objective and had the enemy roll my team and destroy every last one of them both with and without an OB. Uplinks won't save an out played team, even on the bridge which is probably the most subject to uplink use. True, if one team is lopsidedly better than the other, uplinks won't be able to hold off the other team. However, given teams of similar skill, the entrenched team will gain an overwhelming advantage over the attacking team simply because the attacking team has little to no chance of removing all the uplinks in between enemies spawning in. Wait a second...you mean to tell me, all other things equal, superior logistical support wins games? My mind is blown. It's as if Dust 514 is trying to be a unique, creative, and complex game where more than pew-pew matters. Why would CCP do such a thing?! I mean, shouldn't all shooters be exactly the same--a showcase for great marksman to kill everyone with lesser weapon skills like fish in a barrel? All of these incredibly meaningful and effective contributions by support players must be removed, CCP! We must maintain the rich tradition of mindless, assault-oriented dominance and this paradigm must never be challenged! It is the only way, the one true path. All praise be to assault players!
Krom Ganesh Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 534	Posted - 2013.11.02 03:50:00 - [22] - Quote SirManBoy wrote: Krom Ganesh wrote: Skihids wrote: I have also placed numerous uplinks on and around an objective and had the enemy roll my team and destroy every last one of them both with and without an OB. Uplinks won't save an out played team, even on the bridge which is probably the most subject to uplink use. True, if one team is lopsidedly better than the other, uplinks won't be able to hold off the other team. However, given teams of similar skill, the entrenched team will gain an overwhelming advantage over the attacking team simply because the attacking team has little to no chance of removing all the uplinks in between enemies spawning in. Wait a second...you mean to tell me, all other things equal, superior logistical support wins games? My mind is blown. It's as if Dust 514 is trying to be a unique, creative, and complex game where more than pew-pew matters. Why would CCP do such a thing?! I mean, shouldn't all shooters be exactly the same--a showcase for great marksman to kill everyone with lesser weapon skills like fish in a barrel? All of these incredibly meaningful and effective contributions by support players must be removed, CCP! We must maintain the rich tradition of mindless, assault-oriented dominance and this paradigm must never be challenged! It is the only way, the one true path. All praise be to assault players! I'm not saying that uplinks shouldn't give a tactical advantage. I'm saying that deploying a lot of uplinks gives too much of an advantage. You can't have a "creative, and complex" game when the only viable strategy given two teams of similar skill is to rush the objective and spam uplinks. And fyi, I play as a scout, not an assault so the last thing I want to turn this into "a showcase for great marksman to kill everyone with lesser weapon skills like fish in a barrel"
Hecarim Van Hohen Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 205	Posted - 2013.11.02 04:22:00 - [23] - Quote Sensible as far as lore goes, would still leave room for "griefing" and would reduce the abominable uplink spam somewhat... +1 D-í¦¦¦¦i-ó¦¦¦+¦¿¦ºv-ë-£i-ë¦ó¦¦d¦ò-Ç¦íe¦¦-ë-í¦ò-ó ¦ò¦+-üw¦¿¦¦e-ü -ë¦òs¦¢¦+t-Å¦+-£a¦¢-án-¥¦¢-ƒ¦¢d-ü-í-ó¦ó-ó ¦¦u-ÿ-ó¦¦¦+n-ÿ-í¦¦-ü-ëi¦ó-ó-Pt-Å-Åe¦º-Å-Çd-Å-ó -ü-ÿ-ü-íw¦¿-¥-£¦í-ëe¦¦-ÿ-ü -í-ü¦óf-ía¦¢¦+-P¦í-ól-ƒ¦ó
G Torq ALTA B2O 260	Posted - 2013.11.02 10:23:00 - [24] - Quote virgindestroyer7 wrote: If we had the ability to destroy blue uplinks i would agree with this. People who are unawares of the changes, trolling or just being jerks would totally take advantage of this.. unless you always lock your squad and don't allow randoms in there how else would you prevent this from happening to your squad? See my various comments on the topics - should be possible to, on purpose(!), to use your droplinks in a detrimental manner, at least in PC and FW. That you can then destroy them (Friendly Fire?), is perfectly fine. Why are you even reading this?
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 6927	Posted - 2013.11.06 17:30:00 - [25] - Quote Idea is great, the potential for abuse is actually a good thing; it completely fits with New Eden allowing players to screw each other over. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads Gû¦Gû+
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 6984	Posted - 2013.11.09 18:11:00 - [26] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Idea is great, the potential for abuse is actually a good thing; it completely fits with New Eden allowing players to screw each other over. What he said Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Talos Vagheitan 157	Posted - 2013.11.09 18:27:00 - [27] - Quote Uplink interference! Great idea. +1 Who cares what some sniper has to say
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics League of Infamy 342	Posted - 2013.11.10 04:28:00 - [28] - Quote I have some thoughts on the matter. But first: Disclaimer: I am a known and admitted serial dropper of uplinks and sometimes jokingly describe myself as a spam artist. However, with the exception of domination, I rarely, if ever put uplinks closer than 20m apart. It makes no sense. Last night I was playing an ambush of all things and some idiot ran across the pipes on the Ashland map and within seconds, had dropped no less than 6 uplinks about 5m apart all across the pipes. This is obviously unnecessary, perhaps even in a Dom match. It just clutters the map. I might be selfish and want more WP for myself, but it does get annoying trying to pick a place to spawn in, and also I donGÇÖt want the nerf hammer to hit and kill our class. Either way, when an uplink wh0re like me thinks thereGÇÖs a problem, there must be. So whatGÇÖs the solution? IGÇÖm not a fan of the ones proposed here, really: 1) The problem I have with the GÇ£reduce spawn time for stacked uplinksGÇ¥ solution is that people like the one described above donGÇÖt give a sh!t. They are not doing that for strategic reasons, they are farming WP. They will just keep on spamming uplinks all over the place, dropping their militia hives right on top of my ADV/PRO ones all day (or they may do it to awox, too). A stacking penalty wonGÇÖt even cross their minds. 2) Similarly the draconian hard caps that have been proposed will end up hurting strategically-minded players like Skihids (or myself) and our teams. I spend at least 30% of each battle running around like a madman trying to place uplinks where they either are or will soon be needed so that my squadmates can concentrate on killing. (Plus another 1 or 2 as fallback position(s) if we get overrun and need a rally point, but I digress). If I can only place 2 uplinks total, then suddenly everyone is going to have to carry them, and most of them have not invested the SP to get good ones nor will or should they invest the time and effort to put them in the best locations. ThatGÇÖs what a logistics player is for! (Or a good scout, IGÇÖd love to run some scout fits but damn they are made of paper and balsa wood.) I have three thoughts: (you could use a variation of these for nanohives as well) 1) Making a radius for uplinks makes sense. You canGÇÖt drop them within, I dunno, letGÇÖs randomly pick 10-20m of eachother for the sake of argument. The way to implement this would either be: - One of them pops (IGÇÖd vote that the lower tier link does) - The new one sits there dead and maybe activates if the original one is destroyed or otherwise disappears. 2) If you instituted caps, it would have to be done in a way that does not penalize people who actually play logistics GÇ£properlyGÇ¥ (bad term, I know), meaning those who actually think about where they drop this stuff. This way, only those people who take the time and SP to really specialize would have the ability to drop a lot of links. The result would be probably a small decrease in the total number of uplinks dropped but a significant increase in the intelligenceof their placement. IGÇÖve proposed this before (link): A way to implement this would be making the equivalent of a weapon proficiency skill, but for equipment, so you could have, say, 1 link active total at level 0 proficiency, 2 at level one, and maybe 6 or so at level 5. 3) This one does nothing to reduce spam, but I'd like to see squad equipment (links/hives) show up green like everything else so you know which ones are yours (and presumably higher quality) and which one is some scrub WP farmers militia link which will spawn you into a trapped space under some stairs or right in the middle of the street. Templar'd for her pleasure Amarr victor!
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7060	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:13:00 - [29] - Quote Do it Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
CLONE117 planetary retaliation organisation 474	Posted - 2013.11.14 19:48:00 - [30] - Quote ..... why not just make it to where each individual player can only have one uplink active at a time? lets say all they have is a std uplink in their equipment slot. they place one down. then place another one down. the previous one disappears. expanding this effect across all uplinks on a fitting would be more effective..

John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics League of Infamy 389	Posted - 2013.11.14 20:01:00 - [31] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: ..... why not just make it to where each individual player can only have one uplink active at a time? lets say all they have is a std uplink in their equipment slot. they place one down. then place another one down. the previous one disappears. expanding this effect across all uplinks on a fitting would be more effective.. Not to be snarky (ok, maybe 90% to be snarky, but not 100%!) but have you read any part of this or the other 985 threads about uplinks? Also: What is your suggestion "more effective" than? Not having uplinks (or logis!) at all? Please clarify your goal. Templar'd for her pleasure Amarr victor!
Krom Ganesh Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 670	Posted - 2013.11.14 20:28:00 - [32] - Quote John Demonsbane wrote: 1) The problem I have with the GÇ£reduce spawn time for stacked uplinksGÇ¥ solution is that people like the one described above donGÇÖt give a sh!t. They are not doing that for strategic reasons, they are farming WP. They will just keep on spamming uplinks all over the place, dropping their militia hives right on top of my ADV/PRO ones all day (or they may do it to awox, too). A stacking penalty wonGÇÖt even cross their minds. However, increasing spawn time would discourage this behavior as people are less likely to spawn on uplinks that would cause them to wait longer to spawn meaning the spammer would be getting less WPs. Once the spammer realizes they are wasting their time throwing down tons of uplinks, they should either start placing less or find other ways to better farm WPs. In addition, people who do spam uplinks tend to do it either around a resupply depot (which are not normally near critical areas)... or are playing ambush (but you can always "smart" deploy to avoid long spawn times from spammed uplinks which should discourage spam). Quote: 2) Similarly the draconian hard caps that have been proposed will end up hurting strategically-minded players like Skihids (or myself) and our teams. I spend at least 30% of each battle running around like a madman trying to place uplinks where they either are or will soon be needed so that my squadmates can concentrate on killing. (Plus another 1 or 2 as fallback position(s) if we get overrun and need a rally point, but I digress). If I can only place 2 uplinks total, then suddenly everyone is going to have to carry them, and most of them have not invested the SP to get good ones nor will or should they invest the time and effort to put them in the best locations. ThatGÇÖs what a logistics player is for! (Or a good scout, IGÇÖd love to run some scout fits but damn they are made of paper and balsa wood.) If you are referring to limiting the maximum amount of active uplinks per player/team, that is not what I'm suggesting as that would not prevent a team from putting 5+ uplinks in a small area. Quote: 1) Making a radius for uplinks makes sense. You canGÇÖt drop them within, I dunno, letGÇÖs randomly pick 10-20m of eachother for the sake of argument. The way to implement this would either be: - One of them pops (IGÇÖd vote that the lower tier link does) - The new one sits there dead and maybe activates if the original one is destroyed or otherwise disappears. Having higher tier uplinks destroy lower tier ones is a bad system. I use the stable std uplinks because they are easy to fit (and my scout needs every cpu/pg it can get). Say I put my uplink in a difficult to reach spot that has a high strategic value. Why should you be able to spawn on my uplink, place your own, and get to reap the benefits of my work? Simply put, uplink tier != value of placed uplink. The deactivated uplink idea is not bad though. Quote: 2) If you instituted caps, it would have to be done in a way that does not penalize people who actually play logistics GÇ£properlyGÇ¥ (bad term, I know), meaning those who actually think about where they drop this stuff. This way, only those people who take the time and SP to really specialize would have the ability to drop a lot of links. The result would be probably a small decrease in the total number of uplinks dropped but a significant increase in the intelligence of their placement. I've proposed this before: A way to implement this would be making the equivalent of a weapon proficiency skill, but for equipment, so you could have, say, 1 link active total at level 0 proficiency, 2 at level one, and maybe 6 or so at level 5. Do you mean across all tiers? Then that is a good idea as well though 6 is still quite a lot of uplinks. However, while it is related, it is not the issue I am addressing. !
John Demonsbane Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics League of Infamy 389	Posted - 2013.11.15 00:48:00 - [33] - Quote 1) eh, I think you are giving these people a little too much credit. Besides, you have to spawn somewhere, so there would still be WP to be had. Also: smart deploy is not in any way smart, I personally avoid it like the plague. 2) See below. I'm talking about inflexible (hard) caps like 2 per person, 6 per team, overly restrictive things like that. 3) Hadn't thought of the scenario you describe, my experience is always worse uplinks next to mine. Fair enough, first uplink wins. 4) Yes, all tiers. No matter what the type, you can only have x number of uplinks active, based on your level of specialization. I see it like this: Uplinks are very valuable, so, short of eliminating them altogether, a certain amount are always going to be dropped by an organized squad/team. As most of us know, in many cases said squad will have one dedicated logi to take care of this so that the others can carry either nothing, nanohives, or even reppers in their single equip slot if they wish. Thinking of it in that context, the problems with inflexible individual caps on equipment become obvious: Suddenly everyone has to carry them. This de-incentivizes skilling up into higher tiers and carrying equipment, so if you think you see a lot of murderlogis now, just wait until nobody can drop more than one nanohive or uplink at a time! Maybe you get fewer links total, but they are lower quality and not placed with as much care. Enter my solution: This rewards specialization/diversity (a goal Dust should always be striving for) because only people who choose the support role will be able to place a lot of equipment and therefore be rewarded proportionate to their efforts. If 6 uplinks sounds like a lot, if you consider how big some of the new 5 point skirmish maps are, it's really not. Also, as it stands now, if you have drop uplinks to level 3, which is not a big SP investment, you can easily fit a std logi suit like the Sever to drop at least 4 with a single fitting! I'd have to check, but you might be able to do three just with uplinks at level one! Templar'd for her pleasure Amarr victor!
Oswald Rehnquist 570	Posted - 2013.11.15 01:01:00 - [34] - Quote I actually agree with this, and for those saying that it can be abused, you can currently suicide yourself to make a team lose and once TTK is open in FW you can purposeful get killed, its part of the game What this does is give a trade off between the benefit to stacking all of them in a good well defended area vs having them more spread out without a hard restrictions of giving them a radius. Below 28 dB
Spectre-M The Generals EoN. 100	Posted - 2013.11.15 04:54:00 - [35] - Quote So if I drop my 5 sec uplink, then some blueberry drops his 10 sec right on top, I get penalized. Hell no. They should just limit the amount of uplinks per team. I don't want my SP invested uplinks to be nerfed by dumb players dropping MLT craps. I'll just switch to carry a scanner, and I know you don't want that.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7217	Posted - 2013.11.25 03:46:00 - [36] - Quote Still want Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
SirManBoy Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 358	Posted - 2013.11.25 10:41:00 - [37] - Quote No limits on equipment. EVER! Sandbox creativity ftw! Deal with it.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7322	Posted - 2013.12.07 05:31:00 - [38] - Quote SirManBoy wrote: No limits on equipment. EVER! Sandbox creativity ftw! Deal with it. Stacking a bunch of uplinks clustered together... sooo creative. It wouldn't limit you anyway, it wouldn't prevent you from being able to do it. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 7500	Posted - 2013.12.17 06:23:00 - [39] - Quote Still want Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of the threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Terry Webber Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 364	Posted - 2013.12.17 07:27:00 - [40] - Quote I'm not sure if anyone thought of this already but why not cap the Warpoints earned for uplinks like the Warpoints earned for repairing? The close proximity idea will be unnecessary as player will be more concerned about placement than about farming. Join Turalyon 514! Click here for more details.

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 8074	Posted - 2014.01.09 22:27:00 - [41] - Quote Still want Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
bogeyman m Learning Coalition College 7	Posted - 2014.01.15 04:53:00 - [42] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: since there r really only a few individual players that drop 50 uplinks in a single match. y not just limit the players abillty to drop them lets say cut them down to where only a single person with uplinks can only deploy 1 uplink. this means that they couldnt run several different uplinks on a logi suit and drop them all in the same area. if they tried they would all get insta destroyed. some what like std uplinks where if u deploy one in one area and deploy another the previous deployed one will disappear. so if a team wants spam uplinks the entire team would need to be carry an uplink. which would make them difficult to spam as it would be a pain just to try. and thus hurt those uplink spammers and actually give the other team a chance at taking the objective. right now the only way to deal with uplink spam would be a well placed orbital. this would mean the player couldnt just run up to an objective drop 50 uplinks all around the place and hold it forever. it would mean they would have to actually be careful about the placement of their uplinks. ^This^ would also help the increasing lag problem.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.