DUST Search - Feedback: Uplink Mechanics

Cross Atu wrote:

First +1 OP for creative thinking and attempting to constructively solve a problem that you see.

Second, I hate to rain on your parade but many of the aspects of what you are proposing would require fundamental game system rebuilds because of the mechanics they'd be changing (mCRUs, Uplinks, CRU placement <-- All actually separate systems in the code AFAIK and that makes forcing them to interact require the creation of an entire new system).

Third, you know the most notorious instances of spam? Those around objectives and supply depots, they could still exist under the proposed system. Now, grated, the depot spam would be easier to deactivate but that would still leave a swarm of inert items deployed which could A) be reactivated and B) would actually increase server load because now the system is checking the status of all of those items constantly to see if they are "on" or "off" not simply marking them as "present", thus unless total links used were cut by more than half it is entirely possible this would be a net loss for performance.

Outright stopping spam is hard/unlikely, discouraging it so that it is reduced/no longer worthwhile is more attainable and that is what the CPM proposal aims to do. Reducing the number of spawns per link (spawn time remains the same btw) and increasing the number of links carried, but keeping max active at the current ~2 means links are used up and removed from the field rapidly and thus spam is less persistent even if someone decides to spam.

Another way to reduce spam, also being discussed in the linked thread, is to rails the CPU/PG cost of uplinks. Doing so makes them harder to fit and thus less likely to be used casually by those who are not electing to make active spawn maintenance a key part of their primary role on field.

Combining reduced spawns per link, with increased CPU/PG to fit links reduces the potential rewards for spam (because the links burn out faster) the ease of spam (because the links require more to fit) and the duration of spam (again because the links burn out faster). Will this stop the depot swap spam entirely? No. Will it stop rooftop nets via Dropship entirely? No.
But it will require those to be actively maintained if they are to exist on field, those clusters will still be easy to clear.

These changes also give the Amarr Logi a more defined and meaningful role on the field by shifting uplink placement into uplink maintenance. The player stays in the suit to actively re-deploy expended links, those links have faster spawn times due to the Amarr racial skill and overall the Amarr racial starts to become meaningful rather than mostly novel.

0.02 ISK
Cross


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 238	Posted - 2014.10.02 01:43:00 - [1] - Quote I like the idea of droppable spawn points. However I also like the concept of battle lines, territory taken meaning something tactically, pushing people back, etc... And I honestly feel like the current drop uplink mechanic hurts this. The current mechanic DOES encourage uplink spam (which our ps3s and netcode just LOVE). That in turn discourages strategic uplink placement. And it ruins the concept of taking control of territory for assaulting the next part of the map. It makes the game lose a ton of tactical and strategic depth. Basically I think we need a bit more brain power required for good uplink usage. So my suggestion is this: How about uplink tethering? As in - links create a chain. Uplinks outside of x meters of another uplink are inactive. Any CRU (mobile included) being within those x meters causes the link to become active. Any active link within x meters of a link likewise activates it. Range would probably be based on the cost of said uplink and I would bet that racial modifiers could affect the distance of the link (I'm looking at you Amar) Killing one in a chain renders all others behind it (no link to a cru ya know) inoperative until the chain is restored. Mobile CRUs in vehicles being able to instantly activate a link will give more depth to all vehicle usage (especially if your team has a link in enemy lines they didnt notice.) Etc. It would be prudent to add more CRUS at strategic locations of the map to generate actual battle lines and engagement areas. And of course the distance they can be placed would be reasonably long (30 meters? no way... more like within 75 meters) Due to all logis having an uplink limit it would prevent cluster spams of 15 uplinks on one spot. Strategic link placement will start to matter again. my 2 isk.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 238	Posted - 2014.10.02 02:00:00 - [2] - Quote Well, redlining is redlining. Even the current dynamic doesn't allow you out of that too much more. But the network is set from any CRU. That includes mobile. So one sneaky scout getting a CRU in the back would allow a new network to form. A vehicle flown or driven to another part of the map would allow a new network to form. And as I mentioned there would be a few more CRUs on some maps. So you would have a larger number of options. Mainly it would require more teamwork with people quickly spawning and building/defending the network or sneaking off to take other CRUs so that the number of networks you could form would increase. But I would not think just having a minimum number (say 5) in an x meter radius would allow the chain to form. That just encourages uplink spam.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 238	Posted - 2014.10.02 07:56:00 - [3] - Quote I dug that idea by CPM too to be honest. But it still leaves 2 gaping holes. 1: Uplink spam (even more!) and 2:) complete battle line insolvency. I'd honestly like area and territory controlled to matter more.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 242	Posted - 2014.10.04 00:32:00 - [4] - Quote I also thought about the limit of spawn links in a given area and felt that would definitely help with link spamming but it creates two problems for me. 1: We get one spot to link in a given area which means you are limited depth wise. Might be we want a link on the first floor of a building and one on the roof. That limits our link placement options tactically. 2: Someone can still run somewhere, drop a link, and completely change the battle line. As it stands there is virtually no battle flow. Links randomly pop up anywhichway and prevent player territory gains from meaning anything. 'Oh you went and captured that building we can use as a hardpoint to defend that gate? Sweet! Oh wait, random uplinks halfway across the map means they are popping in and taking objectives behind it all without having to fight their way to it...' I'm all for flanking and whatnot but EVERYONE ALWAYS being able to bypass the entire fight really ruins it for me tactically. Put like 10 CRUS on a map in strategic locations and all of a sudden we have battle flow and lines. Actual directives beyond just the point.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 245	Posted - 2014.10.05 23:55:00 - [5] - Quote Cross Atu wrote: First +1 OP for creative thinking and attempting to constructively solve a problem that you see. Second, I hate to rain on your parade but many of the aspects of what you are proposing would require fundamental game system rebuilds because of the mechanics they'd be changing (mCRUs, Uplinks, CRU placement <-- All actually separate systems in the code AFAIK and that makes forcing them to interact require the creation of an entire new system). Third, you know the most notorious instances of spam? Those around objectives and supply depots, they could still exist under the proposed system. Now, grated, the depot spam would be easier to deactivate but that would still leave a swarm of inert items deployed which could A) be reactivated and B) would actually increase server load because now the system is checking the status of all of those items constantly to see if they are "on" or "off" not simply marking them as "present", thus unless total links used were cut by more than half it is entirely possible this would be a net loss for performance. Outright stopping spam is hard/unlikely, discouraging it so that it is reduced/no longer worthwhile is more attainable and that is what the CPM proposal aims to do. Reducing the number of spawns per link (spawn time remains the same btw) and increasing the number of links carried, but keeping max active at the current ~2 means links are used up and removed from the field rapidly and thus spam is less persistent even if someone decides to spam. Another way to reduce spam, also being discussed in the linked thread, is to rails the CPU/PG cost of uplinks. Doing so makes them harder to fit and thus less likely to be used casually by those who are not electing to make active spawn maintenance a key part of their primary role on field. Combining reduced spawns per link, with increased CPU/PG to fit links reduces the potential rewards for spam (because the links burn out faster) the ease of spam (because the links require more to fit) and the duration of spam (again because the links burn out faster). Will this stop the depot swap spam entirely? No. Will it stop rooftop nets via Dropship entirely? No. But it will require those to be actively maintained if they are to exist on field, those clusters will still be easy to clear. These changes also give the Amarr Logi a more defined and meaningful role on the field by shifting uplink placement into uplink maintenance. The player stays in the suit to actively re-deploy expended links, those links have faster spawn times due to the Amarr racial skill and overall the Amarr racial starts to become meaningful rather than mostly novel. 0.02 ISK Cross Well, I figured as much. Changing the way uplinks work would require a client side patch. The idea is less a matter for NOW and more a matter for 'later if we ever get another patch.' And from a programming standpoint I also guessed it would be pretty hard. However with a minimum distance as well as a maximum distance (you could actually use the weapon range systems -- that is already in place) you could very well stop uplink spam (links within 10 go pop.) Furthermore you would just have all links check radius once a link dies or is placed (which would be necessary to enforce minimum distance) thereby reducing server load to negligent. I fully expect that uplinks would need to be changed in a complete fundamental way as well as 2 systems (CRUs and uplinks themselves) which share minimal coding. More a matter of long term back burner game improvement this as, while it's arguable that Dust is done as far as development goes, it could also not be done. Ya never know the future. My thoughts on uplink limitations: 1: Fewer active at one time seems like a bad idea. It limits players that actually use smart placement and who can go around and set up multiple intellegent and strategically sound spawnpoints. And, as you mentioned earlier, the worst uplink spam is at supply depots -- that won't be discouraged. 2:Fewer spawns per beacon seems like a great idea for PC -- bad idea for public. I only say that for one reason though as while it encourages tactical use of beacons (yay!) it will limit the available number of tactical spawns and, I think, actually increase uplink spam. People use spawns for convenience. And people are selfish. If they see a beacon close to where they want to go they will take it. Even if it's a suicide fit. You WILL have large numbers of unorganized players and randoms burning out that beacon you placed for your well organized fireteam. 3: I both like and dislike increased CPU costs. People will be forced to spawn maintenence. That's awesome. The warpoint gain from spawns is not so much. It's far more profitable SP wise to repgun, nanohive, and even needle. As such people will shy away from spawn points for the higher score given by the other equipment slots. EXCEPT, of course, for well organized disciplined squads who will have a logi dedicate their time to beacons -- and then have all the spawns taken up by lazy randoms thereby not actually having a spawn point.
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 245	Posted - 2014.10.06 00:17:00 - [6] - Quote Go opposite with some of the proposed changes. So uplink spam and bad placement is entirely a matter of being able to place so many so easily. And even good logis drop 2 or 3 per spot simply because the number of spawns is actually limited. So what about reducing the number of beacons ANYONE can have out to 1 (maybe 2 at proto -- specfic type of link minimal, if any, time bonuses ) but drastically (if not infinitely) increasing the number of spawns that link can throw out (opposite as to the option discussed.) Basically you pretty much get 1 link so use it WISELY. If necessary have people defend it. Move it as your squad moves around the map and takes new ground (drop a new one and the old one pops). However it'll never run out of spawns so you don't need to spam many. If it's in a great spot it will always be there. As long as the link is safe you'll have a spawn. And it will allow one sneaky logi or scout to put up a link in a flank spot for the whole team to use if getting redlined. That would, for some of the same reasons as my original post, encourage tactical play and help generate the concept of held territory. As a fun sideeffect it would also encourage needle use. Reasoning here is that 1: You don't want to keep streaming out of the same link as the enemy will catch on to it's placement faster so rezzes are better. and 2: if a suicide bomber runs in, blows the link AND the logi, one of the other guys will be carrying a needle to rezz that logi so he can drop a new link. Maybe. I'm theory crafting a bit here but it seems reasonable to me.