DUST Search - I just had an EVE-inspired idea for spawning...

Viktor Hadah Jr wrote:

One Eyed King wrote:

Viktor Hadah Jr wrote:

What happens if you know, i want to hack the damn thing and some dumbass is just standing there waiting for me. How will i know if he is invulnerable? will he have the upper hand when i shot my charged scrambler shot at him then he starts moving after? Think out your idea before you ruin my game. The lag makes it difficult enough to play as is.

Well, since people like you always seem to call it a "team" game when they want to stomp people in squads, maybe you can send in your cloaked scout to hack the CRU and kill them when the reds are standing their thinking they are safe, or kill them while they try to re hack.

It adds strategic depth, and limits some of the abuses that we saw with Dust that ruined the game.

Maybe if you stopped acting like a bratty, entitled child, and thought it out a bit further than how this would inconvenience poor little you, you might realize it isn't the game breaking issue you think it would be, and may in fact make the game better.

oh...

I don't think i've ever, EVER categorized a public match as a "team" game i generally play those solo so their is challenge. On the rare occasions when i did squad, i did call it a stomp. Pub matches, team game, lol...

You say strategic depth, I say strategic stagnation. Now you can't be just anyone trying to take a simple support objective, you need to switch out to a special suit with a special fit just to take a clone depot? It's a clone depot it is not suppose to be a pain in the ass to take. I have 5 objectives to worry about in a PC match and now i have to deal with some ass hole who spawns in and just sit there invulnerable taking his sweet time to figure out when he wants to shoot me?

I'm trying to think out the issue a bit more and getting more details. But it's people like you who seemingly hit their head against the wall ever time before entering a dust match during the past 3 years. That don't understand that idea's are not everything and the details of how the system will work actually matter. How about you stop jumping up and down with joy for everything that is given to you like a trained puppy and instead make some inquires like a rational human.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8486	Posted - 2016.11.05 13:25:00 - [1] - Quote Citadels in EVE Online provide an invulnerability "tether" for all friendly ships outside of them as long as they don't have an active aggression timer. What if CRUs in Project Nova had this? The Tether would be on you as soon as you spawn in, and would only go away if you fire your weapon or move far enough away from the CRU. That way even if the CRU was camped you could hold in the tether until enough people spawned in, and then optimally position yourselves before engaging. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
TooMany Names AlreadyTaken Going for the gold 2804	Posted - 2016.11.05 18:25:00 - [2] - Quote Give this man a medal. BEST QUOTE!
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 16126	Posted - 2016.11.05 21:58:00 - [3] - Quote Yes please. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Viktor Hadah Jr 0uter.Heaven 10306	Posted - 2016.11.05 21:59:00 - [4] - Quote What happens if you know, i want to hack the damn thing and some dumbass is just standing there waiting for me. How will i know if he is invulnerable? will he have the upper hand when i shot my charged scrambler shot at him then he starts moving after? Think out your idea before you ruin my game. The lag makes it difficult enough to play as is. 21 Day EVE Trial Keys and lockboxes are the root of all evil.
TooMany Names AlreadyTaken Going for the gold 2804	Posted - 2016.11.05 22:01:00 - [5] - Quote Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: What happens if you know, i want to hack the damn thing and some dumbass is just standing there waiting for me. How will i know if he is invulnerable? will he have the upper hand when i shot my charged scrambler shot at him then he starts moving after? Think out your idea before you ruin my game. The lag makes it difficult enough to play as is. I'm guessing there would have to be like a 5-10 second time limit for invulnerability... I see what you mean. BEST QUOTE!
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8488	Posted - 2016.11.05 22:12:00 - [6] - Quote Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: What happens if you know, i want to hack the damn thing and some dumbass is just standing there waiting for me. How will i know if he is invulnerable? will he have the upper hand when i shot my charged scrambler shot at him then he starts moving after? Think out your idea before you ruin my game. The lag makes it difficult enough to play as is. I should have mentioned that in EVE the tether makes a visible beam out to the ship in question as well as a half-circle effect on the ship itself. The person who was invulnerable would have an obvious beam linking him to the CRU as well as a sort of translucen semi-circle around the side of his body that was facing the CRU. In this way his presence would be obvious, but countered by the fact that he gets more control over the start of the engagement. Also, do you really have to phrase that as "Think out your idea before you ruin MY game?". Chill. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Viktor Hadah Jr 0uter.Heaven 10306	Posted - 2016.11.05 23:01:00 - [7] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Also, do you really have to phrase that as "Think out your idea before you ruin MY game?". Chill. Well actually, I do. That's my thing. 21 Day EVE Trial Keys and lockboxes are the root of all evil.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 16126	Posted - 2016.11.06 01:42:00 - [8] - Quote Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: What happens if you know, i want to hack the damn thing and some dumbass is just standing there waiting for me. How will i know if he is invulnerable? will he have the upper hand when i shot my charged scrambler shot at him then he starts moving after? Think out your idea before you ruin my game. The lag makes it difficult enough to play as is. Well, since people like you always seem to call it a "team" game when they want to stomp people in squads, maybe you can send in your cloaked scout to hack the CRU and kill them when the reds are standing their thinking they are safe, or kill them while they try to re hack. It adds strategic depth, and limits some of the abuses that we saw with Dust that ruined the game. Maybe if you stopped acting like a bratty, entitled child, and thought it out a bit further than how this would inconvenience poor little you, you might realize it isn't the game breaking issue you think it would be, and may in fact make the game better. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8492	Posted - 2016.11.06 03:04:00 - [9] - Quote Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Also, do you really have to phrase that as "Think out your idea before you ruin MY game?". Chill. Well actually, I do. That's my thing. I actually forgot, sorry. I used to remember how everyone here posted but I don't come by as often so I'm a bit rusty on styles. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Viktor Hadah Jr 0uter.Heaven 10308	Posted - 2016.11.06 09:54:00 - [10] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: What happens if you know, i want to hack the damn thing and some dumbass is just standing there waiting for me. How will i know if he is invulnerable? will he have the upper hand when i shot my charged scrambler shot at him then he starts moving after? Think out your idea before you ruin my game. The lag makes it difficult enough to play as is. Well, since people like you always seem to call it a "team" game when they want to stomp people in squads, maybe you can send in your cloaked scout to hack the CRU and kill them when the reds are standing their thinking they are safe, or kill them while they try to re hack. It adds strategic depth, and limits some of the abuses that we saw with Dust that ruined the game. Maybe if you stopped acting like a bratty, entitled child, and thought it out a bit further than how this would inconvenience poor little you, you might realize it isn't the game breaking issue you think it would be, and may in fact make the game better. oh... I don't think i've ever, EVER categorized a public match as a "team" game i generally play those solo so their is challenge. On the rare occasions when i did squad, i did call it a stomp. Pub matches, team game, lol... You say strategic depth, I say strategic stagnation. Now you can't be just anyone trying to take a simple support objective, you need to switch out to a special suit with a special fit just to take a clone depot? It's a clone depot it is not suppose to be a pain in the ass to take. I have 5 objectives to worry about in a PC match and now i have to deal with some ass hole who spawns in and just sit there invulnerable taking his sweet time to figure out when he wants to shoot me? I'm trying to think out the issue a bit more and getting more details. But it's people like you who seemingly hit their head against the wall ever time before entering a dust match during the past 3 years. That don't understand that idea's are not everything and the details of how the system will work actually matter. How about you stop jumping up and down with joy for everything that is given to you like a trained puppy and instead make some inquires like a rational human. 21 Day EVE Trial Keys and lockboxes are the root of all evil.

Viktor Hadah Jr 0uter.Heaven 10308	Posted - 2016.11.06 09:58:00 - [11] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Also, do you really have to phrase that as "Think out your idea before you ruin MY game?". Chill. Well actually, I do. That's my thing. I actually forgot, sorry. I used to remember how everyone here posted but I don't come by as often so I'm a bit rusty on styles. yeah i forget sometimes to. There are a few posts in the past months where you can catch me not being an ass. 21 Day EVE Trial Keys and lockboxes are the root of all evil.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 16130	Posted - 2016.11.06 22:41:00 - [12] - Quote Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: One Eyed King wrote: Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: What happens if you know, i want to hack the damn thing and some dumbass is just standing there waiting for me. How will i know if he is invulnerable? will he have the upper hand when i shot my charged scrambler shot at him then he starts moving after? Think out your idea before you ruin my game. The lag makes it difficult enough to play as is. Well, since people like you always seem to call it a "team" game when they want to stomp people in squads, maybe you can send in your cloaked scout to hack the CRU and kill them when the reds are standing their thinking they are safe, or kill them while they try to re hack. It adds strategic depth, and limits some of the abuses that we saw with Dust that ruined the game. Maybe if you stopped acting like a bratty, entitled child, and thought it out a bit further than how this would inconvenience poor little you, you might realize it isn't the game breaking issue you think it would be, and may in fact make the game better. oh... I don't think i've ever, EVER categorized a public match as a "team" game i generally play those solo so their is challenge. On the rare occasions when i did squad, i did call it a stomp. Pub matches, team game, lol... You say strategic depth, I say strategic stagnation. Now you can't be just anyone trying to take a simple support objective, you need to switch out to a special suit with a special fit just to take a clone depot? It's a clone depot it is not suppose to be a pain in the ass to take. I have 5 objectives to worry about in a PC match and now i have to deal with some ass hole who spawns in and just sit there invulnerable taking his sweet time to figure out when he wants to shoot me? I'm trying to think out the issue a bit more and getting more details. But it's people like you who seemingly hit their head against the wall ever time before entering a dust match during the past 3 years. That don't understand that idea's are not everything and the details of how the system will work actually matter. How about you stop jumping up and down with joy for everything that is given to you like a trained puppy and instead make some inquires like a rational human. At least this conversation is moving in a more technical manner, which I respect. I don't think you need a special suit, I think there needs to be team play. Each suit has their roles, and play well within them. If you want to hack a CRU, and notice a Red or more inside the CRU, if you aren't a Scout, or willing to try to find alternative ways of hacking the CRU, and those Reds aren't willing to come out of their bubble or start a fight they are afraid they would lose, now you are in position to hold them hostage. Part of taking care of objectives is keeping them from being hacked or attacked. If you are playing a game of chicken with the Reds, it can get interesting. If they spawn in multiple people just to get out of the Bubble by attacking, you have now forced a double team (or more) which means that elsewhere on the field your team has greater numbers. Just like sports, any time you can force two people to focus on one, that is a strategic advantage to be manipulated. I am sure the idea wouldn't be perfect, because no one can always see all the consequences, but I do think that many of the one sided battles would have been a lot more interesting had spawn camping been eliminated, and this goes a long way towards making the game more interesting. As with anything else, if there are wrinkles, there are ways to iron them out. The more I think about the idea, the more I like it. At the very least, I don't think it a game breaking problem. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
DUST Fiend 18827	Posted - 2016.11.06 23:07:00 - [13] - Quote Its a cool idea I guess but it kind of devalues good uplink placement and simply locking down an area. Instead of having to communicate to see if an area is clear, you can always spawn casually and be safe and sound. Just seems like a very casual mechanic for a "thinking mans" FPS From dust we rose through trials young as legions run through countless souls; resting dreams within the boundless nova.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 16130	Posted - 2016.11.06 23:29:00 - [14] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Its a cool idea I guess but it kind of devalues good uplink placement and simply locking down an area. Instead of having to communicate to see if an area is clear, you can always spawn casually and be safe and sound. Just seems like a very casual mechanic for a "thinking mans" FPS You think that teammates would rather spawn at a CRU that is half a map away from an objective rather than an uplink placed near the objective just because of the Saftey Bubble? Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
DUST Fiend 18827	Posted - 2016.11.06 23:31:00 - [15] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Its a cool idea I guess but it kind of devalues good uplink placement and simply locking down an area. Instead of having to communicate to see if an area is clear, you can always spawn casually and be safe and sound. Just seems like a very casual mechanic for a "thinking mans" FPS You think that teammates would rather spawn at a CRU that is half a map away from an objective rather than an uplink placed near the objective just because of the Saftey Bubble? Have you never played DUST before? I mean in certain situations you still would hit the campable uplink but being able to spawn in total safety with your team is pretty damn appealing. If you want to have a safe spawn, spawn in your MCC From dust we rose through trials young as legions run through countless souls; resting dreams within the boundless nova.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 16130	Posted - 2016.11.06 23:44:00 - [16] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: One Eyed King wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Its a cool idea I guess but it kind of devalues good uplink placement and simply locking down an area. Instead of having to communicate to see if an area is clear, you can always spawn casually and be safe and sound. Just seems like a very casual mechanic for a "thinking mans" FPS You think that teammates would rather spawn at a CRU that is half a map away from an objective rather than an uplink placed near the objective just because of the Saftey Bubble? Have you never played DUST before? I mean in certain situations you still would hit the campable uplink but being able to spawn in total safety with your team is pretty damn appealing. If you want to have a safe spawn, spawn in your MCC I played it plenty. I was rather suicidal, so unless I knew for sure an uplink was camped, I would choose the closest spawn to whatever it was I wanted to do, whether it be attacking/defending an objective, or flanking the enemy lines etc. The nice thing about this suggestion is that it doesn't confer enough of an advantage to incentivize spawning in a CRU if their are better spawns like Uplinks. What this helps with are those cases in which your team is down and their team has destroyed all your uplink options. If your team has only one CRU left to spawn in, this gives the team one last chance to prevent being redlined. This also helps with CRU camping. There were several times in which I pissed off teammates by hacking a CRU because they wanted easy kills, and wanted none of it. Anything that can help reduce those kinds of abuses without drastically changing the rest of game play is a good idea in my opinion. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
General Vahzz 978	Posted - 2016.11.07 06:34:00 - [17] - Quote Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Viktor Hadah Jr wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Also, do you really have to phrase that as "Think out your idea before you ruin MY game?". Chill. Well actually, I do. That's my thing. I actually forgot, sorry. I used to remember how everyone here posted but I don't come by as often so I'm a bit rusty on styles. yeah i forget sometimes to. There are a few posts in the past months where you can catch me not being an ass. Never stop being an ass. The Original Bastard King of Shitposts \| Roach of New Eden \| Destroyer of the Forums
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7973	Posted - 2016.11.07 16:12:00 - [18] - Quote Would make hacking a CRU a lot more dangerous. That is the only issue I can think of off the top of my head. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 7973	Posted - 2016.11.07 16:30:00 - [19] - Quote Here is a question: Would it be better for this to be a complete invulnerability, or just an extension of the CRU shields to cover the newly spawned until they move out of range or fire? Having it just be that you spawn inside the CRU shields makes more sense from a Lore perspective. It also means you can counter this with AV weapons or a Tank, by taking down the shields before you move in for a Hack. It could also mean AV taking down the shields to spawn camp, but it would take a lot more effort than it did in DUST. So, is an extension of the CRU shields enough, or does it need to be a complete invulnerability? Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 16130	Posted - 2016.11.07 21:18:00 - [20] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Here is a question: Would it be better for this to be a complete invulnerability, or just an extension of the CRU shields to cover the newly spawned until they move out of range or fire? Having it just be that you spawn inside the CRU shields makes more sense from a Lore perspective. It also means you can counter this with AV weapons or a Tank, by taking down the shields before you move in for a Hack. It could also mean AV taking down the shields to spawn camp, but it would take a lot more effort than it did in DUST. So, is an extension of the CRU shields enough, or does it need to be a complete invulnerability? The shield extension would still need to include a trigger that shooting or other offensive actions negate the effect, or else it would be horribly abused. What I like best about the original suggestion is that it helps the team at the wrong end of a stomp. I particularly like games that give minor boosts to those players/teams that have been mismatched. Plenty of games have these features that kick in when losing, like the heavy duty train in Battlefield 1. While the original suggestion would be always on, it would be less of an advantage to a team with multiple CRUs, and most beneficial to those that are down to their last. In that scenario, merely extending the shield of the CRU would just create such a minor obstacle for the stomping team that I don't knowif there would be much benefit. Granted all of this depends on the number of CRUs CCP intends on using in its maps. On a map like Line Harvest, which only has a couple CRUs to begin with, I am insure how it would play out. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.

Mobius Wyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 8497	Posted - 2016.11.08 13:48:00 - [21] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Its a cool idea I guess but it kind of devalues good uplink placement and simply locking down an area. Instead of having to communicate to see if an area is clear, you can always spawn casually and be safe and sound. Just seems like a very casual mechanic for a "thinking mans" FPS The idea is that's only for "Hard Spawns". Uplinks wouldn't get that protection, which therefore retains the importance of good uplink placement. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
byte modal 1092	Posted - 2016.11.08 15:52:00 - [22] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Its a cool idea I guess but it kind of devalues good uplink placement and simply locking down an area. Instead of having to communicate to see if an area is clear, you can always spawn casually and be safe and sound. Just seems like a very casual mechanic for a "thinking mans" FPS The idea is that's only for "Hard Spawns". Uplinks wouldn't get that protection, which therefore retains the importance of good uplink placement. I think his point was making the assumption that uplinks would not get the same protection. Some players would weigh spawning in a strategic yet potentially camped uplink against team-spawning in a safety bubble free of camping even if the location might not be all that strategic. I can see more than a few players thinking, "screw location, if my squad can cover half the field rather than MCC spawning then that's good enough." I'm curious. If I'm damped out in my light cloak fit to get past the sentry for a CRU hack, are they not immediately notified that someone has initiated a hack? While the reds are protected, I am not. Drop a grenade or spray the CRU once, and you've cancelled my hack attempt. Granted, you are now vulnerable to enemy fire, but the next heavy spawning in is not. I'm not against the idea necessarily, but I think as it is it may create more issues to chase than another idea. Granted, I don't have another idea at the moment ;) So there's that. kitten bacon taco (nom)
byte modal 1092	Posted - 2016.11.08 16:37:00 - [23] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Here is a question: Would it be better for this to be a complete invulnerability, or just an extension of the CRU shields to cover the newly spawned until they move out of range or fire? Having it just be that you spawn inside the CRU shields makes more sense from a Lore perspective. It also means you can counter this with AV weapons or a Tank, by taking down the shields before you move in for a Hack. It could also mean AV taking down the shields to spawn camp, but it would take a lot more effort than it did in DUST. So, is an extension of the CRU shields enough, or does it need to be a complete invulnerability? I really like the direction this idea is going. I like that shields in this example are vulnerable as well. Players are able to attack the temporary security of this structure to break the shell. If they break the shell, it doesn't matter what's inside as those hiding are then open to attack. If they are defeated, the CRU is open to hacking. If hacked, shields are reset for the other side. On the other hand, the spawning squad has the option to wait until the entire squad has spawned hoping that CRU shields will last, or choose to retaliate losing the CRU shield protection but ultimately having a hand in maintaining the CRU shields for the remaining squad to spawn to help. I can see this being a micro-battle reinforcing the overall field war of capturing and protecting objectives. That is if anyone bothers with it. Hrmmmm.... Shields are subject to A/V, vehicle, and some light weaponry though minimal. whatever. Shields protect those within range for a set time, or until a spawned character opens fire on a red (protection only drops for the instigator, not the squad---though it would be interesting if protection is dropped for the entire squad! That alone could open doors to strengthening team bonds AND allow for saboteurs), or until shields are depleted by enemy forces. Whichever comes first. Armor, has the same vulnerabilities but is designed to only protect the structure. Armor does not extend to help spawning players. Should we be able to destroy these structures now? Or would it be more interesting to only disable once armor/hull is depleted? Perhaps this could open the door for a logi module to repair small structures with an extended hack time with optional skills available to reduce this hack time. That might make for an interesting specialist for those that care for it. This could apply to turrets as well, but this is getting beyond the point of the post. I don't want to derail! It would be fun though if you know that you are losing the CRU, to make a last-ditch "FU" to the reds by deliberately blowing the remaining armor of the structure preventing the opposing force to quickly hack and claim it. If they are not fielding the appropriate equipment to repair the CRU, they have just wasted a LOT of time trying to capture it. Too, by this time your squad has already started spawning in other points and are converging on your location to clean up the mess---hopefully, with the fitted logi for repairs. I think some mechanic needs to be in place to help prevent abuse or to keep Uplinks viable as to the point Dust Fiend brought up earlier. If shields are protecting the spawning squad, then perhaps you must queue to spawn at a particular CRU. An entire squad cannot spawn at once. Either one or two at a time until your squad is fielded. If you select an active CRU you are told to please wait, the CRU you have chosen is at capacity; you are in queue. Display the typical ring timer to show you how long you must wait until you are able to initiate spawn, which would be automatic unless you cancel or change spawn points. Something like this would open up strategy as to who spawns first. If there is resistance at the CRU, that player can choose an appropriate fitting to defend the CRU that may be under attack for potential hacking. Choosing to defend the point opens him/her up removes the protection of the CRU but will distract the reds and could extend the shield life of that CRU enough for the remaining squad to spawn in. Defense increases as each new player spawns, further splitting the incoming fire if spawns initiate fire, allowing shields to maintain or even regenerate depending on tech available. As to what these time limits are, I couldn't guess. The protection of the first to spawn-in should not be long enough for an entire squad to catch up, further forcing thought as to who and in what fitting first spawns. From the attacker's perspective, you start firing on a CRU. A sentry spawns and begins firing on you. You must choose to gamble: continue hitting the CRU to hopefully take out its shields completely before the sentry takes you out or attack the sentry directly. If you take out the CRU, his squad mates are unprotected but you will not survive. If you take out the sentry, you survive, but additional reds will spawn in and you have another matter on your hands to deal with. This scenario is clearly not EvE, but I'm not sure if EvE mechanics as they stand can work as well in the FPS time frame. Also, as I have just bastardized the idea so far, it may no longer be more than just an extension of what already exists. We just added a slight extension to spawn-ins from a CRU. Even that is subject to attack. Iderno. Fun thinking though. kitten bacon taco (nom)
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 16132	Posted - 2016.11.08 20:32:00 - [24] - Quote With RE: Shields and some of my objections towards the idea compared with the original idea. Do you think it would be possible/beneficial if all CRUs of a given team shared the same power source? By that I mean to say that there should be a fixed amount of shielding for CRUs capped by a power source such that the more CRUs a team has, the less shielding they would have protecting them, while the fewer CRUs a team has, the more shielding they have for protection. Not only could this possibly make hacking CRUs themselves a strategic decision, choosing which ones may be more important to hack or leave unhacked, but this also reduces the ability for a Stomping team to abuse shielding while providing the Stompee with more protection. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
byte modal 1092	Posted - 2016.11.08 21:43:00 - [25] - Quote ^ Did you imagine these a fixed and only working for the team that deployed them? Or is everything hack-able still? Are we assuming a corporation can own and field CRUs as consumable assets? So the team/corp owns the structure(s), each receiving power from a single networked "capacitor?" Would that capacitor then require skills for efficiency as with EvE ship capacitors? Are those capacitors residing on the battle field exposed to damage, hacking, or siphoning/vampire modules? That could be fun. Attack, claim, and hold objectives for Null weaponry; strategically place a networked system of CRUs, each with unique shield, armor, and depletion caps based on structure class and supporting skills powered by a single centralized capacitor structure that too is spec'ed based on structure class and supporting skills; each structure is at risk of damage and/or conversion to the enemy team so it could never be a "set and forget" strategy. Suddenly the field is more than A, B, and C. Way more. Attack, hack, and hold one CRU at a time or spend a considerable longer effort attacking and possibly destroying the enemy's CRU capacitor station, effectively wiping out their ability to launch CRU squad spawns? I am assuming that corps can stock, launch, and repair their own CRU structures, with each corp/team having a number cap based on corp skills (however that plays out). I guess I'm going back to the MCC pilot fantasy to fill those roles, or something similar. Either they get destroyed over the course of a match and the MCC pilot (for lack of a better idea) can deploy replacements, or dedicated logis could repair downed structures. Perhaps no hacking then by the other team unless they first destroy the networked capacitor station. Doing so sets each CRU into critical isolation mode where it can then only use armor. In this state, each CRU would be vulnerable to enemy hacking. I can see this becoming a huge wack-a-mole for those who want to play it. I would. lol. I can get carried away I guess. sorry kitten bacon taco (nom)


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

The Original Bastard