|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ploo-Koon
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
279
   |
Posted - 2013.11.11 17:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why is uplink spam an issue that needs to be fixed? I mean, sure it's annoying and harder to get WP from spawns but it doesn't seem to be breaking anything and everyone is just hurting themselves by doing it.
(GöÉGöî ).....[ a¦Å^Gûá ].....{ a¦Å\°/a¦Å }.....( : : )
|
Ploo-Koon
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
279
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 18:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reav Hannari wrote:Ploo-Koon wrote:Why is uplink spam an issue that needs to be fixed? I mean, sure it's annoying and harder to get WP from spawns but it doesn't seem to be breaking anything and everyone is just hurting themselves by doing it. Uplink spam seems to cause lag and makes it difficult to identify what is going on when spawning in due to map clutter. Lag is the primary concern.
Makes sense, I support changes to the uplinks.
How about: you can't deploy more than one uplink at a time no matter what level but the spawn time gets better the higher the level?
Change spawn time
MLT Spawn time - 20 sec
Basic - 10 secs
Adv - 5 secs
Proto - 3 secs
(GöÉGöî ).....[ a¦Å^Gûá ].....{ a¦Å\°/a¦Å }.....( : : )
|
Ploo-Koon
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
282
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 18:35:00 -
[3] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:
That's too much of a nerf to begin with. Besides, the longer you stay bleeding out, the shorter your respawn time gets (minimum 3 seconds) before selecting the next spawn point. This practically negates your idea.
My proposal is based on a conversation I had with a scout squad back in the Scouts United chat channel. I propose that there should be an arbitrary cap of the total number of uplinks and nanohives per team or at least within a given quadrant of the map so as to mitigate lag.
All too often I see almost 20 uplinks and some 20 nanohives flooding an entire city with these things making it impossible to see closely what's going on in the overview and it creates lag and frame rate drops due to the processing of these excessive items.
It's definitely a pretty big nerf but it would make uplinks more of a prized item. That aside, it isn't a perfect idea.
I like the idea of limiting the overall number of uplinks on the field.
I think there are graphical ways of reducing the overview clutter and render issues that don't involve nerfing equipment at all. Using shadowing rather than full render for example. I'd also bet there is a programmatic ways to adjust the tracking and upkeep of deployed equipment that don't directly impact game play.
(GöÉGöî ).....[ a¦Å^Gûá ].....{ a¦Å\°/a¦Å }.....( : : )
|
Ploo-Koon
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
282
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 18:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:It's still too much of a nerf for uplinks. I still think my idea of putting a cap per team would be an ideal solution.
It's the simplest top down solution that fixes the widest number of problems at once but it creates it's own issues.
How should the game react when the number has been reached? Does it just not allow you to deploy anymore or does the one you just put out fizzle or would it be a FIFO system so that the newest uplink destroys the oldest?
What if I'm running STD(1 active) and I deployed before the cap was hit then I deploy a 2nd one, does my first fizzle? If so, then I would deploy one in the MCC to lock my spot in the count, then deploy another when I got to the location I wanted.
Alternately if I'm running with an ADV and can have 2 active, I deploy one in the MCC then one where I want it and even if I die I still have one on the MCC my spot in the count would always be maintained.(unless you are in a match with FF and someone destroys it in the MCC).
If I wanted to AWOX and I had proto I could deploy 3 in the MCC and as long as no one takes them out the team will be down 3 uplinks the entire match.
I can think of a few more scenarios but there are still issues with just limiting the number on the field.
(GöÉGöî ).....[ a¦Å^Gûá ].....{ a¦Å\°/a¦Å }.....( : : )
|
Ploo-Koon
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
285
|
Posted - 2013.11.11 19:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Quill Killian wrote:After all, EVE usually has anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 players on simultaneously, along with massive battles much larger than anything Dust 514 could hope to achieve, and yet the EVE side of things seem to hold up pretty well. Dust 514 is lucky to have 2,000 to 4,000 players on at any one time, in smaller matches ... yet this is somehow straining CCP's Tranquility server?
Yeah, if that's the case, then CCP has far bigger issues to worry about.
I agree but things of note for perspective: EVE has time dilation, something that wouldn't work for a FPS, it has a massive player base pumping ALOT of money into it every month and a decade of ramp up to what it is now.
(GöÉGöî ).....[ a¦Å^Gûá ].....{ a¦Å\°/a¦Å }.....( : : )
|
|
|
| |
|