DUST Search - [Feedback] Spawning

Geirskoegul wrote:

Like the OP, don't like the area denial aspect. Now if they implemented a dedicated item that provides an umbrella where uplinks can't work (still let them deploy though, just don't let people spawn at them, and do have an indicator when you pull out an uplink that indicates there's a cynojammer present.)

That's right, folks, I'm saying let's bring cyno jammers to Dust.

Just like in EVE, and also with bubbles in EVE, it affects everyone, not just one side. This makes it a tactical choice that the deploying side must also account for and plan accordingly. I see uplinks themselves doing this as potentially damaging since then it just encourages you to throw them down everywhere, no strategy involved. If it's a separate item, and it denies your uplinks as well, it becomes a real decision, not just best practice. Building it into uplinks themselves would have the end result of just removing uplinks from the game, really.

Esclusion zones also don't make sense in lore, at least not without an actual jammer. The comparison was correct, and i've made the same before when arguing AGAINST fixing the fact that uplinks broadcast their position to everyone (they're basically cyno beacons). The thing is, beacons don't drown each other out, and the wormholes are focused enough that there's no such issue with jumping to the right one with a million others nearby. A jammer, on the other hand, offers more depth and fits better with both lore and "reality" in the current playable universe (EVE).

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 560	Posted - 2013.05.30 10:27:00 - [1] - Quote The spawning in this game is mostly okay in general, but there are a few improvements that I would like to see on this subject. Before I get onto that I'll just say that the newly added spawncloak in general works good in my opinion. It actually gives incentive to hack the CRUs and destroy the Uplinks instead of camping them. The only thing that might be a problem is that sometimes it seems people are invulnerable to damage for a second or two after they begin to move. Now, onto my points. 1. Objective spawning has got to go, right now. In Domination you can't spawn on the objective and it makes it so much better. It promotes the use of Uplinks as well as Mobile CRUs in vehicles. If this change is implemented into Skirmish as well I strongly believe it would be a much better gamemode than it currently is. Skirmish 1.0 had no spawning on objectives and that was a part of why it was such a great gamemode. This thread also has a lot of good points on this https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=58442. 2. There should be more CRUs present, and they don't always have to be placed right next to an objective. In my opinion there has to be at least 5-6 CRUs in Skirmish and maybe 2-4 in Domination. Right now on the Planetary Conquest maps there are only 3 CRUs usually. There's one right next to the two objectives closest to each MCC and then one inside the complex. There has to be more CRUs than that. Skirmish 1.0 had more CRUs and they were not right on top of the objectives and that was another part of why it was such a great gamemode. 3. CRUs should be more valuable than Uplinks. In my opinion CRUs should have a lower (or at least similar) spawn time to Uplinks. 10 second spawn times on the CRUs are just fine I would say, but Uplinks should not have a 3-5 second spawn time (some of the Prototype ones currently do). I believe CRUs should be a way to get fairly fast back into the fight, but as I said in 2. the CRUs should not be right next to objectives. Uplinks on the other hand should have a slightly longer spawntime, but the advantage you get from spawning on these are that you can place them closer to objectives than the CRUs. Right now in the Planetary Conquest matches each team usually have 10-20 Uplinks deployed at all times, and most of these have a 3-5 second spawntime. That means that everyone is instantly back in the fight, right next to the objectives. There's really nothing tactical about that. I'm thinking that Militia and Standard Uplinks should have 20 second spawntimes, Advanced 16 seconds and Prototype 12 seconds. You can still have Advanced and Prototype Uplinks that give reduced spawntimes, but I think it should only be 25% less spawntime instead of the currently 50% (it's 50% less on the Prototype right now, I think). Please comment on these points, and give support if you like them.
Grit Breather BetaMax. CRONOS. 695	Posted - 2013.05.30 10:32:00 - [2] - Quote After reading through, it all seems to make sense. +1 from me.
Unit-775 Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 41	Posted - 2013.05.30 11:16:00 - [3] - Quote +1 from me too and while where at it, remove the detection range on Supply depots and turrets and add a 5-10sec timer for switching suits at depots.
Jathniel G I A N T EoN. 398	Posted - 2013.05.30 11:59:00 - [4] - Quote Use Lore. Another person cannot deploy an uplink within X range of another because "they are wormholes and space/time fluctuations become to violent." or something odd like that. Every active uplink should have a 50m uplink denial radius or something similar. It gets impossible to push an area when there are 6+ uplinks within 20m of each other. You can probably clone your enemy out, but probably not.
Daedric Lothar Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 517	Posted - 2013.05.30 12:02:00 - [5] - Quote This thread is good, I like the ideas. Especially the Area Deniel one for Uplinks. However, with CRUs, the problem I find is that tanks will just blow them up, but then I guess that gives a good rational to have tanks and then litter the field with Uplinks. I just got the image of that game where you have to try to make boxes closing one line at a time. Whole grid layouts of uplinks during corp matches lol.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 566	Posted - 2013.05.30 15:04:00 - [6] - Quote Jathniel wrote: Use Lore. Another person cannot deploy an uplink within X range of another because "they are wormholes and space/time fluctuations become to violent." or something odd like that. Every active uplink should have a 50m uplink denial radius or something similar. It gets impossible to push an area when there are 6+ uplinks within 20m of each other. You can probably clone your enemy out, but probably not. It's a great idea, but personally I don't really think the amount of Uplinks is a problem. Uplinks with 3-5 second spawntimes are however in my opinion.
Wojciak Soldiers Of One Network Orion Empire 26	Posted - 2013.05.30 15:24:00 - [7] - Quote if they do that they should have spawning at CRUs that are being hacked not possible or longer, because almost every time i try to hack a CRU some one spawns behind me and kills me and i can do a thing because of it. I do think that CRUs should be more or as valuable as uplinks.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 566	Posted - 2013.05.30 22:10:00 - [8] - Quote Wojciak wrote: if they do that they should have spawning at CRUs that are being hacked not possible or longer, because almost every time i try to hack a CRU some one spawns behind me and kills me and i can do a thing because of it. I think it's fine as it is to be honest. Bring a teammate to counter this.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 568	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:59:00 - [9] - Quote Bump.
Geirskoegul Soul-Strike 206	Posted - 2013.05.31 18:12:00 - [10] - Quote Like the OP, don't like the area denial aspect. Now if they implemented a dedicated item that provides an umbrella where uplinks can't work (still let them deploy though, just don't let people spawn at them, and do have an indicator when you pull out an uplink that indicates there's a cynojammer present.) That's right, folks, I'm saying let's bring cyno jammers to Dust. Just like in EVE, and also with bubbles in EVE, it affects everyone, not just one side. This makes it a tactical choice that the deploying side must also account for and plan accordingly. I see uplinks themselves doing this as potentially damaging since then it just encourages you to throw them down everywhere, no strategy involved. If it's a separate item, and it denies your uplinks as well, it becomes a real decision, not just best practice. Building it into uplinks themselves would have the end result of just removing uplinks from the game, really. Esclusion zones also don't make sense in lore, at least not without an actual jammer. The comparison was correct, and i've made the same before when arguing AGAINST fixing the fact that uplinks broadcast their position to everyone (they're basically cyno beacons). The thing is, beacons don't drown each other out, and the wormholes are focused enough that there's no such issue with jumping to the right one with a million others nearby. A jammer, on the other hand, offers more depth and fits better with both lore and "reality" in the current playable universe (EVE).

Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 586	Posted - 2013.06.02 06:59:00 - [11] - Quote Geirskoegul wrote: Like the OP, don't like the area denial aspect. Now if they implemented a dedicated item that provides an umbrella where uplinks can't work (still let them deploy though, just don't let people spawn at them, and do have an indicator when you pull out an uplink that indicates there's a cynojammer present.) That's right, folks, I'm saying let's bring cyno jammers to Dust. Just like in EVE, and also with bubbles in EVE, it affects everyone, not just one side. This makes it a tactical choice that the deploying side must also account for and plan accordingly. I see uplinks themselves doing this as potentially damaging since then it just encourages you to throw them down everywhere, no strategy involved. If it's a separate item, and it denies your uplinks as well, it becomes a real decision, not just best practice. Building it into uplinks themselves would have the end result of just removing uplinks from the game, really. Esclusion zones also don't make sense in lore, at least not without an actual jammer. The comparison was correct, and i've made the same before when arguing AGAINST fixing the fact that uplinks broadcast their position to everyone (they're basically cyno beacons). The thing is, beacons don't drown each other out, and the wormholes are focused enough that there's no such issue with jumping to the right one with a million others nearby. A jammer, on the other hand, offers more depth and fits better with both lore and "reality" in the current playable universe (EVE). Good idea.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 592	Posted - 2013.06.04 06:00:00 - [12] - Quote Any other ideas or feedback to these ideas?
Django Quik R.I.f.t 711	Posted - 2013.06.22 08:19:00 - [13] - Quote Good points all round - since Uprising deployed, uplinks have become deciding factors in most battles and in that sense are OP and need toning down. And if they ever get fixed so you can only see them when someone has LOS or scan range on them, they'll be horrendously OP. I've also been thinking that there are too few CRUs; some maps even had one or two removed this build! I'm not sure about not having CRUs near objectives though; especially if you go ahead and remove spawning on objectives - it makes no strategic sense to have no built in spawn point near the thing you want to capture/protect.
Bendtner92 Imperfects Negative-Feedback 614	Posted - 2013.06.22 08:33:00 - [14] - Quote Django Quik wrote: I'm not sure about not having CRUs near objectives though; especially if you go ahead and remove spawning on objectives - it makes no strategic sense to have no built in spawn point near the thing you want to capture/protect. Right now on the bridge map used for PC, there's a CRUs right on top of both E and D, and I mean litterally right on top of it. That is not good in my opinion. I don't mind having it somewhat near an objective, but it shouldn't be right on top of the objective. The idea is to force the fighting a little bit away from objectives, towards secondary objectives like CRUs and Supply Depots. Having them right on top of objectives won't do that The other thing with having them a little further away from objectives is to make a difference between Uplinks usage and CRUs. In my opinion CRUs should be fast spawn, but not very close to objectives, while Uplinks should be slow spawn, but could be right on top of objectives.
Bendtner92 Internal Error. League of Infamy 667	Posted - 2013.07.07 20:06:00 - [15] - Quote From this thread it sounds like objective spawning might be going away altogether really soon. CCP LogicLoop at least tested the waters about it. This is a really good step in the right direction regarding spawning in general. Now there just has to be something done about Drop Uplinks and to make CRUs (and Supply Depots too, but that has nothing to do with the spawning) actually somewhat valuable.
General Erick Tritan's Onslaught RISE of LEGION 46	Posted - 2013.07.07 22:42:00 - [16] - Quote +1
Bendtner92 Internal Error. League of Infamy 742	Posted - 2013.07.16 20:06:00 - [17] - Quote Is CCP considering upping the spawn time on Uplinks? When the bug that make Uplinks show up to the enemy team at all times is fixed I fear that we'll see an even bigger problem with Uplink spam, since not only are your team still spawning in 5 seconds or less, but the other team also can't see your Uplinks. Now, I know that there's something called an Active Scanner which would be able to pick up enemy Uplinks, and I know they'll be extremely useful for this once the aforementioned bug is fixed, but I just don't think Uplinks should have such a low spawntime. As said in the OP, I strongly believe CRUs should provide a fairly low spawntime (somewhere between 5-10 seconds), but you would not be spawning close to any objectives using these. Uplinks on the other hand should have higher spawntime, but the bonus for spawning on these are that you can spawn as close to the objectives as you want, plus the enemy won't know you can spawn there (unless they've detected the Uplink).


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