DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Transporters

Weznof Nalek wrote:

CCP Rattati wrote:

Dear players,

using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal.

It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player.

It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality.

When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has.

However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change.

Good
1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives,

2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals

Bad
1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that.

2) Round Robin gameplay

Please discuss constructively

This is a bad idea.
Barge transport exist for carring players from point A to B.
Barge transport will become useless whereas normally they should play this role.

If you want my opinion, improving the transport system in first. And follow suggestion of Judge Rhadamanthus in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KWUmID56Gw

The player transport is a good topic, but focus on the things you already create and improve first.
You create the barge transport, improve the system.

After that, you can consider offering of alternative possibilities with your jump portals.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4646	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:30:00 - [31] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively What about making these portals activate in certain conditions (like all objectives being hacked). Then have the exits away from the objectives but in varied enough locations on places like the map sides to provide a team a way to break out from a redline? Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Apocalyptic Destroyer Killers 4 Hire 306	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:33:00 - [32] - Quote One way transport !!!!!! One way transport !!! If it was two way ..... scouts and heavies would be most feared coming out the portal True Amarr In Disguise Pain is weakness leaving the body Proto : ADS Pilot, Tanker Ak.0 : Mando, Scout, Assault
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18758	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:37:00 - [33] - Quote I think the safe thing to do is bring in the one way gates only to existing maps. two way gates would require considerable map deisgn CPM 1 Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= Prototype Forge Gun=// Unlocked
Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 649	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:43:00 - [34] - Quote Avallo Kantor wrote: The idea wasn't so much separate battlegrounds, as Rattai seems to have indicated we are unable to do such, but instead to allow for things such as -Red Line Escape (If all points held by enemy, portals open to other side of map) - A way to breach into the "city" from the outside. [If city controlled by A team, each outer node controlled by B team would lead to city] - Potential Squad WP expenditure: 3000 WP - Open Portal from MCC to X for 1 Min - "Hackable" portals that when hacked lead one way to other side. I have acctually not seen any statement what they can or can not do with the current maps. (I would really love to get one though ) As for the rest of the points, I see the benefits... I really do. I am just afraid it will feel "tacked on" or like a "band-aid" to the current maps and modes.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7482	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:53:00 - [35] - Quote Here's the rub. Is the portal instant and fluid or is it like respawning? AV
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4646	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:56:00 - [36] - Quote I'm thinking you might be able to use these portals to eliminate the need for a red line. Have some portals in the MCC and the exits are actually located in the sky way above the map (can't RE or camp something above the flight ceiling). I think we really need vehicle transportation to be viable though, so the portals would need to be used carefully to not eliminate this role like uplinks pretty much have already. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Cyrus Grevare WarRavens 427	Posted - 2015.03.04 08:17:00 - [37] - Quote Could you placer them up high in the sky? If so an idea could be to placer a few one ways inside the mcc for an optional Skyspawn! www.protofits.com - a Dust 514 fitting tool
shaman oga Dead Man's Game 4094	Posted - 2015.03.04 08:24:00 - [38] - Quote Maybe safe portals could activate only if your team don't hold any of the points. I don't like the scanning range on CRU, because it hurts more the one trying to hack than the one spawn killing. But if the portal can't be hacked, it's a good solution. Can portal be placed mid-air to simulate sky drop? Milk my barge > Acquire Key > Open mistery box > quit Dust514
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 975	Posted - 2015.03.04 08:59:00 - [39] - Quote I think this might be worthwhile if they were integrated into brand new maps with a new design philosophy. The only places on current maps these might work are: - Placing them in areas where you feel like you're in a running simulator. IE: The vast open featureless stretches of many maps, usually at the beginning of a battle. This would accelerate the tempo and pace of battles at the beginning, but hey this might be nice. - Placing them in areas that people use dropships to get to. Yes, that way you can't just camp forever in your little tower unless someone else has a dropship (most people don't). - Replacing ladders in some maps.
steadyhand amarr shadows of 514 3616	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:12:00 - [40] - Quote ...What kind of testing where you doing with uplinks that lead to a QA going "******* sweet we have teleporters =ƒÿå=ƒÿç" Ontopic. An idea is to make them capture able let's say each point on the map has one so you cap it near B and now you can jump between A and B. So attackers have to Marshal at C or in spawn and transport over. Leading to starts of take the point...or take portal first. It's a rough idea but would deffently help the maps become more fluid while sorting out the tempo of matches which has always needed work You can never have to many chaples -Templar True adamance

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7483	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:27:00 - [41] - Quote Incorporate into raid mechanics. Clones must get the loot to a specific spot. Gate if can be controlled provides escape access that can be cut off preventing looting a raided district from being as fast as it could be. And it's one way. AV
Jebus McKing Nos Nothi 1612	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:45:00 - [42] - Quote Can we use portals to entirely replace ladders? Jebus hates scans.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5165	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:52:00 - [43] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: ...What kind of testing where you doing with uplinks that lead to a QA going "***** sweet we have teleporters =ƒÿå=ƒÿç" QA Guy: Lord Rattati... Rattati: Yes QA Slave? How goes the new testing protocol? QA Guy: Directions unclear. stuck in teleporter. Please advise. Rattati: Hmmmm I will allow the playerbase to decide your fate "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 5180	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:57:00 - [44] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: This seems like something that new maps would have to be designed around, rather than just tossing them into our current maps. Something like this is a HUGE shake-up to point to point transportation, and would have huge effects on the flow of battle. If implemented well, it will be awesome. If implemented poorly, it will be horrifying. Tread carefully Ratatti. Do it, but do it right. That's why my focus is using it for simple new player experience, such as long walks and redlining, and not too far reaching into competitive meta, I don't want to diminish the role of transports and or logistics. Remove uplinks from the game and replace them with these teleporters. Then make sure that these teleporters have range restrictions, so it encourages building networks. You'll see gameplay shift from fast paced whack-a-mole spawn mechanics to either relying on mobile CRU's from active vehicle support, or maintaining teleportation lines. That could lead to some very interesting gameplay. Either way, the game will get more tactical. Usually banned for being too awesome.
Kain Spero Negative-Feedback. 4648	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:13:00 - [45] - Quote Jebus McKing wrote: Can we use portals to entirely replace ladders? Yes please. Owner of Spero Escrow Services Follow @KainSpero for Dust and Legion news
Jebus McKing Nos Nothi 1613	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:36:00 - [46] - Quote Can we disable some portals at the beginning of the match and make them go online after a couple of minutes? Jebus hates scans.
Weznof Nalek Providentia Aeternam 88	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:40:00 - [47] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively This is a bad idea. Barge transport exist for carring players from point A to B. Barge transport will become useless whereas normally they should play this role. If you want my opinion, improving the transport system in first. And follow suggestion of Judge Rhadamanthus in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KWUmID56Gw The player transport is a good topic, but focus on the things you already create and improve first. You create the barge transport, improve the system. After that, you can consider offering of alternative possibilities with your jump portals.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 5182	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:49:00 - [48] - Quote Weznof Nalek wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Dear players, using some future technology, one of our QA testers was able jury-rig a portal. It can be placed on the map by a level designer, not a player. It can either have a one way transport, from A to B, but not B to A, or fully A to B, B to A functionality. When I saw this, my jaw dropped to the floor, and have been possessed by the possibilities this has. However, this needs careful consideration so as to not become some round-robin gameplay mechanic where the blob just uses teleports to react to any change. Good 1) My first thought is to really help redlining issues. Place three portals behind cover, near the safe spawn point. These would be one way to eliminate fleeing to safety in the redline. The end points could be at three places, midway from objectives, 2) Simply reduce walking distances in the big maps. So you could have two or three both-way portals Bad 1) Portal camping, which could be remedied by granting cloak through using the portal much like an mcru. Remotes would be annoying as hell. Could also give each portal a strong scan precision and range to reduce that. 2) Round Robin gameplay Please discuss constructively This is a bad idea. Barge transport exist for carring players from point A to B. Barge transport will become useless whereas normally they should play this role. If you want my opinion, improving the transport system in first. And follow suggestion of Judge Rhadamanthus in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KWUmID56Gw The player transport is a good topic, but focus on the things you already create and improve first. You create the barge transport, improve the system. After that, you can consider offering of alternative possibilities with your jump portals. Barge transportation is already considered useless except for the early game point rush. If anything, it becomes viable once you replace uplinks with teleporters. If your team is comprised of a stronger vehicle force they could be a more ideal solution than dealing with scouts who's sole purpose is to severe logistical lines. This presents two viable choices in dealing with a situation, rather than the single one we have now (uplink spam). Usually banned for being too awesome.
Jebus McKing Nos Nothi 1614	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:53:00 - [49] - Quote For portals that go both ways we need a way to prevent people from stepping in and out continuously, so we don't get the same problems as we do with hopping in and out of LAVs. Jebus hates scans.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 7487	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:27:00 - [50] - Quote I'm liking the idea of these artificial wormholes being one way. I also think that they should cause significant damage to the person entering them, to represent that humans and wormholes don't mix well. In fact according to lore, wormholes do significant damage to a human body unless properly shielded (in a ship). Make it so that choosing to use one is an absolute risk, and make them one way. If camping is a problem, make the wormhole terminus generate a radiation zone that starts damaging suits and vehicles and halts regen nearby. A lot of balance issues with portals can be addressed by pushing how dangerous, experimental and poorly understood as they are. AV

Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 897	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:39:00 - [51] - Quote I've got to say, i love the idea of hacking and counter hacking a portal gate/gates. Hack a portal to keep it open for a window of time, hacking the enemies portal shuts it down for a period. To force open a specific portal (whether red or blue) you've got to spend the WP. They would be nearly as crucial as CRUs or Letters in terms of rapid deployment. They also need to be few in number, far enough away from each other to prevent camping. Perhaps have Three gates availale but only two can be active at a time. Red team would have to spread their forces very thin, and they can shut down one by hacking, but the other two will activate. Choosing which one to shut down should be tactical, as in 5 point skirmish, lets shut down the portal closest to D, forcing the enemy to portal in from either near their home point or the city, or spawn in on an uplink, but not portal in where the fight is going on. Before worries about uplinks , there little point in 10 second spawns in the MCC lets say and then walking to the your own portal and then spending a second or two teleporting to the portal in the battlefield. A decent uplink in a tactical position will still be more value than a portal, but portals would become a strategic concern. It will spell the final death knell of the Mobile CRU. Getting in to battle safely rather than spawn in a strangers dropship and be dropped off god knows where. Portals should only be one way. There is no going back. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Corbina Ninja ItalPetrolCemeTermoTessilFarmaMetalChimica 1243	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:41:00 - [52] - Quote please! use jump portal to reach rooftops campers spot without dropship «Questa è l'Italia del futuro: un paese di musichette mentre fuori c'è la morte.»
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 12105	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:54:00 - [53] - Quote I love it. I proposed an installation idea for this a long long time ago, and it just seemed like one of those ideas that could never ever happen because Dust can't evolve beyond basic shooter mechanics. Do it. Consider creating uplink variants that can act as 1 way exit points for the portals. You go through a portal, you see the spawn screen (but you're not dead), you can select the other portal as an exit point, or you can select some special uplink variants deployed by players as your exit point. Portal to portal should be two way travel, while portal to special uplink should be one way. Also, I don't believe you (yet). This has to be some elaborate pre-April Fool's prank to get my hopes up. Support 'Keshava' for the new Gallente HAV name in honor of Cat Merc's cat which recently passed away.
Grimmiers 810	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:01:00 - [54] - Quote Sounds intersting, but like someone else mentioned I'm imagining it being confusing and looking out of place if there's no art and ui work done. It would've also been a cool installation drop if those were a thing. I'm all for it if it can conjure up a new gamemode.
Ghural WarRavens 383	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:05:00 - [55] - Quote Terrible idea. For two reasons. Firstly it reduces the usefulness of dropships and LAVs for transporting troops. Secondly we already have a one way portal. It's called the mobile CRU. The mobile CRU provides far more interesting and dynamic gameplay than a static portal. The only use for portals would be in interior only maps, where you can't utilise mobile CRU's of vehicles.
Lady MDK Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 302	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:12:00 - [56] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Jebus McKing wrote: Can we use portals to entirely replace ladders? Yes please. If anything this is how it should be used. Anyone getting annoyed by reading of the above post should consider the following. I don't care so neither should you :)
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15379	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:16:00 - [57] - Quote https://i.imgur.com/fCZFMf1.gif Could we get an explanation of how such jury rigging happened? Was there unused teleportation code? lol Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15379	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:23:00 - [58] - Quote Could these teleports: A. Be owned by a certain team after a hack? So only the team who hacked it can use it? B. Be destroyed? C. Be owned by a certain team for owning a capture point? D. Have a cooldown timer between teleports? I have plenty of ideas if these are all possible. Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
Cat Merc Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 15380	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:30:00 - [59] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Fizzer XCIV wrote: This seems like something that new maps would have to be designed around, rather than just tossing them into our current maps. Something like this is a HUGE shake-up to point to point transportation, and would have huge effects on the flow of battle. If implemented well, it will be awesome. If implemented poorly, it will be horrifying. Tread carefully Ratatti. Do it, but do it right. That's why my focus is using it for simple new player experience, such as long walks and redlining, and not too far reaching into competitive meta, I don't want to diminish the role of transports and or logistics. Remove uplinks from the game and replace them with these teleporters. Then make sure that these teleporters have range restrictions, so it encourages building and maintaining networks (like actual logistics work). It would also encourage waiting on a needle rather than just spawning back into the action 50 feet away from where you died. You'll see gameplay shift from fast paced whack-a-mole spawn mechanics to either relying on mobile CRU's from active vehicle support, or maintaining teleportation lines. That could lead to some very interesting gameplay. Either way, the game will get more tactical. I absolutely love this! Cat Merc for C¦¦P¦¦M¦¦9¦¦ CPM Nyan! *Vote 'Keshava' for the new Gallente vehicle name!*
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 234	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:39:00 - [60] - Quote if there are no down sides to my idea, I suggest you put 6 of these portals on a every CRU and around objectives which are only usable if the specified objective or CRU is captured, this would allow players to choose exactly where they want to spawn on objectives. (this may be a lot f work so this is a small priority idea) My main suggestion is having 1 'entering' portal that transports you to 4 other portals very close by, the 'exit' portals could be near the allied MCC in skirmish and domination but are closer to the left and right edges of the map allowing players that are losing to more easily flank the enemy, until the stomping enemy retreats or dies. These portals could be positioned on large maps like skirmish to reduce walking distance from the rear spawn point to home objectives, don't do it domination maps, they are usually too small. I liked a suggestion by others of having 2 safe zones (1 for each team) where once you spawn there, you use a 1 way infantry portal to enter the battlefield near the rear spawn point behind the MCC, that has no redline in skirmish and domination, but you better give them a supply depot and a big roof at the safe zone to prevent orbit strikes on that safe zone (or prevent to overhead map camera from reaching to safe spot so orbitals cant be placed accurately there, having no roof would help prevent problems with calling in vehicles). I would suggest you allow allied players to spawn in that safe zone during the entire match, but make those players be teleported to a sky portal (sky portal is at a high elevation that is higher than the MCC but is very close to the MCC on the horizontal plane, where you die if you land on top of the MCC just like if you land on heat vents on the gallente research facility) in 3 minutes if they don't exit the safe area after that time period, which allows them to potentially drop behind enemy forces that are very close to your allied MCC. (Or you die while AFKing because you didn't use inertia dampener). If you use my forced sky spawn idea, make a warning notification that a player will be forcibly deployed in 30 seconds. Another suggestion I read, is that you create bigger portals for vehicles from those safe zones which lead to the very back of the battlefield behind the allied MCC, allowing players to call vehicles safely in safe zones and then deploy them onto the battlefield at 2 different locations near the allied MCC using portals. (If they don't exit the safe zone in 3 minutes while they are using a vehicle, they will be terminated, instant explosion). Multiple offences of not deploying to the battlefield results in being kicked from the match with no SP or ISK gain (such as 3 offences). I like the idea of allowing vehicles to destroy all the 'infantry only' portals of there enemy that lead to the battlefield, which in combination with the condition that a team has captured all objectives, creates an instant win, and additional decryptor keys as rewards. While allowing the vehicles portals to be indestructible and not needed for an instant win, it would allow a team that is being stomped to deploy vehicles at any time to help push out against the enemy and so the allied team can push past there allied MCC. I would add to the idea by making the safe zone have 5, 1 way portals, which lead to 5 'exit only' infantry portals placed near the allied MCC allowing multiple points to flank only the enemy near the allied MCC.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page