DUST Search - Curious: spawning?

CCP Wolfman wrote:

Iron Wolf Saber wrote:

CCP Wolfman wrote:

As it happens we are considering an 'equipment bandwidth' system to reduce equipment spam in Legion. We were thinking it would be per player rather than for an entire team though which is a bit easier to grasp I think.

I'll talk about spawning once the suspicion conversation in the salvage thread has run its course.

Would you consider a team wide bandwidth (along with player one)?

Team assets would consume team bandwidth instead such as orbital strikes and vehicle call downs and more.

Have it time and resource based too so for example a team that deploys many vehicles very heavily will not access orbitals as often as a team that doesn't deploy anything else.

Then create secondary objectives that increases bandwidth gain rates (sattelight uplink) or reduction in bandwidth costs (vehicle depot)

I think it's an interesting idea having the whole team share some sort of resource be it bandwidth or something else.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Aero Yassavi Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8712	Posted - 2014.07.04 00:25:00 - [31] - Quote CCP Wolfman wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: CCP Wolfman wrote: As it happens we are considering an 'equipment bandwidth' system to reduce equipment spam in Legion. We were thinking it would be per player rather than for an entire team though which is a bit easier to grasp I think. I'll talk about spawning once the suspicion conversation in the salvage thread has run its course. Would you consider a team wide bandwidth (along with player one)? Team assets would consume team bandwidth instead such as orbital strikes and vehicle call downs and more. Have it time and resource based too so for example a team that deploys many vehicles very heavily will not access orbitals as often as a team that doesn't deploy anything else. Then create secondary objectives that increases bandwidth gain rates (sattelight uplink) or reduction in bandwidth costs (vehicle depot) I think it's an interesting idea having the whole team share some sort of resource be it bandwidth or something else. It's interesting but in the end I tend to find it ultimately a bad mechanic. The reason being because you have players who may specialize in a specific thing and they are being told they can't use it because of the team bandwidth. It becomes even more infuriating when you see something of lesser value occupying that bandwidth. It's bad enough already that we must share a vehicle quota and then say the dedicated dropship pilot can't fly because everyone is roaming around in LAVs, but that's necessary because of system performance. However, in general you should try to avoid all instances of team resource sharing where possible. Amarr are the good guys Their way of the Commando seems right and noble
Marcus Stormfire G.R.A.V.E INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 29	Posted - 2014.07.04 20:25:00 - [32] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: CCP Wolfman wrote: As it happens we are considering an 'equipment bandwidth' system to reduce equipment spam in Legion. We were thinking it would be per player rather than for an entire team though which is a bit easier to grasp I think. I'll talk about spawning once the suspicion conversation in the salvage thread has run its course. Would you consider a team wide bandwidth (along with player one)? Team assets would consume team bandwidth instead such as orbital strikes and vehicle call downs and more. Have it time and resource based too so for example a team that deploys many vehicles very heavily will not access orbitals as often as a team that doesn't deploy anything else. Then create secondary objectives that increases bandwidth gain rates (sattelight uplink) or reduction in bandwidth costs (vehicle depot) I agree with the Bandwidth idea for equipment with a couple of exceptions. -Proxies since they are designed to be stand alone to a point. -Consider removing PG and CPU requirements of the deploy-able equipment. (kind of like Drones in EVE) -Consider keeping PG and CPU and not adding bandwidth to items that are on you such as rep tools and injectors. Bandwidth for vehicles and orbital strikes would make immersion into the game strange if not harder. This is war. Moving vehicles to the front lines would be more of a logistics problem than a communication problem (unless jammed comms?) - The team quota system in Dust 514 makes it seem like some bureaucrat is on the Warbarge saying "Nope sorry guys you cant get any more stuff until you complete lines 33-45 in triplicate to explain why you need to go over the allotted deployment points put forth in the Fair Deployment Act instituted by Concord regarding the damaging use of equipment to the local indigenous fungi on all New Eden planets." -Do Lava planets have Fungi? You bet your A** they do according to Concord. -Marcus -I don't always kill Mercs with a sidearm, But when I do I use militia.
The SONNET New Age Empire. General Tso's Alliance 0	Posted - 2014.07.05 11:42:00 - [33] - Quote It should be based on a territorial scale. Spawn spots should be at random, though this shouldn't negate tatical oppositional moves.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 3862	Posted - 2014.07.09 18:43:00 - [34] - Quote I think Drop Uplinks should be a short range spawn option. For a Drop Uplink to work you should have to have a source of clones on the ground (MCC, DCC, or CRU). I think that a CRU should act as a large Drop Uplink with a longer range and a larger capacity. A CRU should be able to create an artificial wormhole (as a Drop Uplink does) but have the range to transport clones from Orbit (WarBarge). A CRU should run out of power after 50 or 100 clone transports, and stop functioning until it is has a chance to recharge. The CRU should also act as a router, so that it can transport clones from Orbit, and then rout them to Drop Uplinks. I think that if you do not control a CRU, or a source of clones on the ground, then you should spawn in free fall over the district, high enough so that you can control your drift in order to select your landing site, and to provide a time penalty for those who do not have control of clones on the ground. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
SponkSponkSponk The Southern Legion Final Resolution. 907	Posted - 2014.07.09 23:37:00 - [35] - Quote IMO, CRUs should have a separate stockpile of clones, so when you capture one, you get some free clones to respawn into (and if you lose them, someone else gets to use them, until they run out or are replenished somehow) Dust/Eve transfers
Scheneighnay McBob Cult of Gasai 5620	Posted - 2014.07.10 13:41:00 - [36] - Quote SponkSponkSponk wrote: IMO, CRUs should have a separate stockpile of clones, so when you capture one, you get some free clones to respawn into (and if you lose them, someone else gets to use them, until they run out or are replenished somehow) Clone counts as a whole need to be rethought for Legion, as it seems like the battles won't be pitched a majority of the time, like Eve. I'm thinking something along the lines of what you said: each CRU and MCC has its own clone count, which the owner can restock. pé¦pâ+pé¦pâ½pâäpâ¬pâ¦pé¦pâ¼pâ+pâêpü»sñ¬S+ïpéè
CommanderBolt ACME SPECIAL FORCES RISE of LEGION 1265	Posted - 2014.07.10 16:57:00 - [37] - Quote CCP Wolfman wrote: As it happens we are considering an 'equipment bandwidth' system to reduce equipment spam in Legion. We were thinking it would be per player rather than for an entire team though which is a bit easier to grasp I think. I'll talk about spawning once the suspicion conversation in the salvage thread has run its course. I heard you mention bandwidth being a limiting factor. Much like drones have bandwidth in EVE, I too feel that doing this on an individual basis as opposed to a team would be the best thing to do. MY LIFE FOR AIUR! Protoss You gonna' give me orders? Terran "Cat got your tongue? Zerg Queen of Blades.


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