The Gallente socket is always bad


How about instead all uplinks are single use, but you get 20 of them and can only have 1-3 active at a time

Since I'm bored at work on a slow Friday afternoon...

How about uplinks require a 10 second 'hack' style deployment (which the Amarr logi would get a bonus) would cut down on the spamming

There is a bit of a tech problem with single use uplinks. This is known because the CPM actually asked about doing essentially what you proposed.

That being said we (CPM) currently support a modified version of this proposal with 5 spawns per link,
This will still limit spam, not nerf the tactical value, and retain the value of SP invested by players.

Also, you are right, that map has lag problems of its own that are map related, not uplink related.

Cheers,
Cross

If you place an uplink within 5 meters of another you're doing it wrong anyways.

Equipment does not = lag. We need to get that out of people's heads.

the Logi gets his points

What about use something like perimeter limitation.

Like on droplink for cca 20metres.

Equipment does not = lag. We need to get that out of people's heads.

Personally I have always hated the single spawn "uplink grenade" idea. If you ask me, a simple fix is to place restrictions on deployment area... which yes I know is going to need a real patch and 1.9 is probably already locked, blah blah blah.

Anyway, if you just made a radius within which equipment could not be successfully deployed, you couldn't "spam" uplinks or nanohives to saturate an area. So, no equipment within 10-15m of an installation (i.e., CRU's or supply depots), or 5-10m of eachother. Done and done.

Spam?
That's why there's a thing called flux grenades. You should use em
Or if you don't have those shoot them down.

(
I do dare to say multiple nanohives stacked DO cause lag.

probable detailed cause is the client graphic engine trying to render 'shine bubble' on 'shine bubble' on 'shine bubble' on 'shine bubble'. Or, audio engine maxing it's simultaneous sound channels by those 8+ hive sound whistles.


Empirical data shows that uplinks in same location cause minimal client lag compared to nanohives, that would point that graphic engine causes the client lag.
)

Graphic engine yes, but rendering sockets and details rather than rendering equipment.
Lag is vastly more map based than it is gear based.

I do believe you are correct in that nanohives are a notably more substantial resource hit than uplinks, but the testing I refereed to above, which was unable to establish a lag correlation to deployed equipment used both uplinks and nanohives (full sets of each) at the same time from multiple logi all stacking them in the same area. None of the various times I've done this has resulted in any notable lag (to be clear I have avoided conducting such tests in any case where the match or map were already displaying lag prior to my ability to initiate the test)

0.02 ISK
Cross

Agreeing that equipment in itself is not cause of client lag.
I believe, once it has determined it's location it becomes almost as a point in game.

The model is quite modest so it's effect should be minimal.

The fancy effects come on top of that. Hence this old request

And Cross as you are online now, I would really really appreciate CPM feedback, as I never had any, on this suggestion originally here:
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2351583#post2351583

well sort of originally... =P

---

Even though I'm an advocate for uplink use in warfare, I too am in favor of uplink limitations.

Having each variation to have it's own maximum causes:
- Huge uplink spam as it's too easy for each player to set up some 5-7 links at ease
- Forces to have too many saved fittings as each link combo needs it's own


So need to limit uplinks exists. Critical change would be to have limitation which doesn't care about uplink variation. But just what to limit?

Team limitation is impractical and too confusing when implemented.
Squad limitation is easily circumvented.
Personal limitation remains, and is also okay to allow some specialization.

There needs to be an incentive to skill up to proto links like post-uprising (pre-uprising it did NOT really make sense!).

Medomai Grey's suggestion, which has been mentioned elsewhere as well, is a decent start:
Uplink skill level setting the active link maximum:
L1 - 1
L3 - 2
L5 - 3

But it is not quite enough, otherwise it would still be too easy to use several low level links.
So a small tuning is needed:

Skill Level:
L1 - max 1 link of STD level or higher
L3 - the above PLUS 1 link of ADV level or higher
L5 - the above PLUS 1 link of PRO level or higher
The maximum active per player would be three.
There would be a strong incentive to level up the uplink skill instead of spamming low level links variations.


In general the uplinks themselves could have slightly tuned down max active number, with maybe gauged versions having max two active but with severe limitations (care must be taken to get rid of gauded links superiority!).

If maximum of three links seems too small, there could be one level added to top:
L0 - Max 1 militia link
(So the level 5 maximum would be four links in this case)


Note: There are some other low level links in existence: for example, Amarr Drop Uplink BPO
Note2: The different equipment variation having their own limit really really has to go away!
Note3: I'm willing to settel for also new skill 'uplink proficiency' which sets the max amount, total max no matter what the type.

Well, spam or redundant gameplay as I'd prefer to call. But spam in short.

The CPM proposal is useful in that any spammed item will burn itself out faster so even with no player action spam is innately less persistent. This has the added effect of limiting the possible number of WP farmed from treating equipment as 'fire and forget' because it needs to be actively reapplied to remain present.

A huge reduction in spam could be achieved by binding links and hives to logi suits completely (as is done with the HMG and Forge on heavy suits) but this again seems very heavy handed and not ideal.

0.02 ISK
Cross

There is a bit of a tech problem with single use uplinks. This is known because the CPM actually asked about doing essentially what you proposed.

That being said we (CPM) currently support a modified version of this proposal with 5 spawns per link,
This will still limit spam, not nerf the tactical value, and retain the value of SP invested by players.

Also, you are right, that map has lag problems of its own that are map related, not uplink related.

Cheers,
Cross

My definition of uplink spam for this reply: More than one or two uplinks placed within the blast radius of a Flux Grenade by the same player

I think it is a problem because 1) it takes advantage of a weakness in the system (limited zoom on spawn map) to maximize war points for a single player at the expense of the team when you canGÇÖt tell which link you are spawning on, and 2) it serves virtually no tactical value towards team victory.

I like the idea of reducing the number of spawns on uplinks so they die quicker. I also like the idea of a limiting radius where you can't put them close to each other, but I am guessing that would be very difficult to program. I also like the idea of being able to manually destroy friendly uplinks in Pub matches, but that is probably also tough to code.

I haven't seen this suggestion yet:

Uplinks have a "replacement radius" that "fluxes" friendly uplinks close by. You could limit the number within a certain radius this way. You could upgrade teammate uplinks this way. You could "freshen up" your own over-used links this way. I would think the code mechanics for this sort of thing would pretty much be there from flux grenades.

Combine this with a severe reduction in number of spawns, and I think this should be doable. Cross Atu?