| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
915
   |
Posted - 2013.11.05 01:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Everyone would have experienced the clusters of equipment in this game. Nanohives, Uplinks, Remote Explosives, and so on and so forth. We also know how much an excess of this type of spam can causing major FPS issues, and impact performance in other areas.
So here is a modest suggestion for helping this issue:
First a Hard Cap on Player carried Uplinks and/or other equipment. The ability to carry and deploy upwards of 10 uplinks on each suit by carrying different variants is causing issues, and not forcing people to make choices. The 'hard cap' would be set at a prototype-level (3 Links or Hives Deployed) for each 'type' of equipment, no matter the variants carried. So Carrying Two different types of Uplinks, will no longer allow you to deploy up to 5 uplinks at a time, but instead a maximum of 3.
Secondly, each piece of equipment should generate an exclusion zone. This exclusion zone, dependant on the first activated equipment, would prevent any of the SAME equipment thrown down within that radius from activating, causing it to be wasted.
The Radius could be modified for each piece of equipment. ie. Uplinks might have a 5m exclusion radius, while Proximity Explosives might have a 1m Radius to allow them to have effect. Nanohives may have a 3-5 m radius also.
This 'fix' would prevent uplinks from being spammed in close proximity to eachother, and would generally improve game performance.
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys."
Sun Tzu
|
Lynn Beck
Granite Mercenary Division
193
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 01:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
I think that instead, have uplinks deal AOE to other equipments, and nanohive's lose a % effectiveness for any nano bubbles that overlap it. r/e's are quite hard to use, and deal no TRUE threat to lag, it's just nanohive/uplinks.
Maybe for numbers:
Uplinks of all tiers deal 50Hp/s to only equipment within a 5m radii
Nanohives lose 25% resupply rate for EACH bubble intersecting it's own- e.g. A 15% resupply rate would drop down to 11.75% with 1 nano intersecting it, then down to 7.xx then 4, 3, 2.25 etc.
Also the nanite drain would be the same as if it were unobstructed.
Might be hard to implement, but it would work?
Tl:dr:
Like the idea, but don't punish remote explosives, rather than hard-capping a distance out, set a penalty for having 2 nanos nearby, or say ye' ol' combo of nanohive/uplink.
CCP wants me to specialize? But there's so many weapons!
'Unwise SP spending mode activated'
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
915
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 03:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
The issue with those suggestions is you can stillc luster them.. which is what we're trying o avoid. removing the exclusion radius from mines etc wouldn;'t be such a hassle, but the nanohives and uplinks need to be forced to spread outy, and not able to be clustered at all.
And yes, it would be a hard mechanic to insect, and the calculations required would further reduce performance, which this idea is aiming to improve.
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys."
Sun Tzu
|
Garth Mandra
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
194
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 03:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
I've never actually noticed FPS issues related to equipment.
Last night I even put about 30 or 40 hives and uplinks in one spot by a supply depot (I was bored in a redlined Domination) and the game may have been a bit choppy there.
Obviously this is just me though. I have an SSD incidentally.
Ignoring performance for a moment the only equipment spam that I have a problem with as far as gameplay goes is uplinks. |
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
472
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 03:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
If using an uplink wiped out any friendly uplinks within 20m, you'd see a lot more strategic use of uplinks.
"Pulvis et umbra sumus. (We are but dust and shadow.)"
GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace
|
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
473
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 04:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
SponkSponkSponk wrote:If using an uplink wiped out any friendly uplinks within 20m, you'd see a lot more strategic use of uplinks.
If using an uplink wiped out all uplinks within 20m, I'd also be okay with that.
"Pulvis et umbra sumus. (We are but dust and shadow.)"
GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
917
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 06:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
SponkSponkSponk wrote:SponkSponkSponk wrote:If using an uplink wiped out any friendly uplinks within 20m, you'd see a lot more strategic use of uplinks. If using an uplink wiped out all uplinks within 20m, I'd also be okay with that.
I don't think an override system is the best. a Priority System would work better. The first one down, excludes any others.. Which means PC squads and FW, and others would be more inclined to have key Logis with Prototype Uplinks throwing down the initial ones (or Uplink Scouts) with the 'best' they can... then allowing others to throw down 'lesser' uplinks in less than key positions.
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys."
Sun Tzu
|
Vyzion Eyri
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
1795
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 06:43:00 -
[8] - Quote
I was thinking, if players WANTED to separate uplinks, without CCP forcing us, the message would sink in more. Just like ganking in high sec, only a rare few do it because the costs will most likely outweight the benefits, unless one of the benefits is revenge.
But anyway, what if for every uplink within 20m of another, the WP for team spawn is distributed equally to every user? So essentially if there were 5 uplinks in one place all by the same person, he'd get the same amount, but if someone else chucked down an uplink in that area, the guy with 5 uplinks gets 5/6 of 25WP, and the other guy gets 1/6 for the spawn. And since no one wants to lose WP to others, especially blueberries, they'll try space them out.
"..things that some people frankly don't even get the chance to do in real life, because it's poorly designed."
-Veigar
|
SponkSponkSponk
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
474
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 06:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
Makes no difference for PC battles.
1. SP isn't lost, just distributed amongst the team, so who cares bombardments will happen eventually
2. uplink farming is still well worth it even if they gave zero SP, because you can't be forced off a point.
"Pulvis et umbra sumus. (We are but dust and shadow.)"
GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace
|
Vyzion Eyri
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
1797
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 08:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
Yeah I guess my alternatives aren't as good as the main points in Jackal's OP but I reckon only one or the other should be implemented. Either hard cap, or exclusion zone. Both might be a little overkill.
"..things that some people frankly don't even get the chance to do in real life, because it's poorly designed."
-Veigar
|
|
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
917
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 09:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vyzion Eyri wrote:Yeah I guess my alternatives aren't as good as the main points in Jackal's OP but I reckon only one or the other should be implemented. Either hard cap, or exclusion zone. Both might be a little overkill.
The idea behind Hard Cap is to make people diversify. If you can only throw down 3 uplinks, your logi will fit something else as well.
This will reduce the total number of possible drop uplinks from
(3x16) + 2(2x16) = 112 Possible TOTAL Uplinks (More is possible if you have a select set up)
to
3x16 = 48 Uplinks Total (More is not possible no matter how you try)
So while carrying additional uplinks 'may' be useful, you can't deploy them unless your primary ones are destroyed first.
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys."
Sun Tzu
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |