|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 21:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
In addition (as has been said elsewhere) they should also be able to be targeted by squad orders. Both would improve team coordination and tactical play, especially in "deathmatch" games where there are fewer objectives etc. to tag with orders.
It's also been mentioned that perhaps there should be a small point award for destroying these items, after all if one gains WarPoints from assisting to make a hack go faster why not from cutting off enemy maneuverability (uplinks)and supply lines (nanohives)? (Of course said destruction points should only be awarded for destroying enemy uplinks and nanohives)
+1 to the OP
Regarding the time to hack, I do like the idea of higher Meta level equaling more hack time, but we also need to be sure that even on the low end they're not so hacked too quickly to make them viable to deploy. If a have takes 5 sec (random example) to hack a hive then it could almost be detrimental to deploy the hive in the first place.
0.02 ISK Cross |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 23:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Soleire wrote:This makes sense and should be in.
Make something like: Militia : 2 sec hack Normal: 4 Advanced: 5 Proto: 6 We could also have a new variant of hives and uplink: "Firewalled" +50% hacktime
Sees-Too-Much wrote:I think it's an interesting idea, but I'd add one caveat: requires codebreaker module.
The above two ideas combined = Win
They'd also make Logi a good counter Logi since they have that hack bonus, but they'd still have to fit the codebreaker so it's another minor specialization. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 00:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
STB Vermaak Doe wrote:No, just no.
Don't **** with my logi bros! There are a whole lot of ideas in this thread no to which ones specifically? By the by as a guy who plays ~50%-75% Logi I'm in support of many of these ideas as they would improve Logi play. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 03:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Rather than start a new thread.
Anyone heard any word on this from the Devs? I haven't seen anything on the forums but maybe I missed it (or it was on IRC).
Even if it's a "no never" it would be good to know because the presence or lack of these features will certainly have an impact on the value of placing skill points into given roles.
Thanks Cross |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 18:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Billi Gene wrote:
If you want nano hives and uplinks... equip em :P
or if you simply must have the ability to hack em... let us logi's have a skill that makes them blow up if they get hacked...killing the hacker :P... anyone with out the skillbook this doesnt happen... but if you hack an uplink or nano from someone with the skillbook...you die :P
not fair?... neither is mooching off my adv. equipment :P.. get your own :P
I'm running top level Nanos (both hives and injectors) and skilling for uplinks at present, and I think this would be an improvement to the game.
Make the hives/uplinks etc selectable items just like a LAV, HAV, Objective. They can be hacked, they can be destroyed and they can be the target of Squad Orders. Also tag on WP awards for hacking and destroying them. Besides the suggestion is that someone with a codebreaker fit could hack them and since Logi already have a bonus to hacking it would just create another way to specialize Logi (and another reason to run the ProtoSuits for more PG/CPU to fit all the mods).
Goric Rumis wrote:I just had some new ideas about deployable equipment yesterday, and it inspired an idea:
In order to hack deployables, you not only need a hacking module, you need the skill to deploy the equipment in the first place.
This would increase specialization and make specialized logi's a valuable asset (or potentially hacking-oriented scouts).
I like this idea, it adds to the value of the battlefield role and it wouldn't detract anything from the incentives other roles have to destroy the gear for WPs or tag the gear with Squad Orders.
Brush Master wrote:hacking equipment +1 but I think the owner of the equipment should get an alert and have the uplink blink on the map so everyone can easily target the enemy lol
Seems reasonable since TacNet gives a notice about every other Hack in progress. It'd also be extra incentive to work as a team if only the cat who deployed it gets the heads up. That extra communication could become all the more valuable which is to the benefit of Dust as a whole. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Would love to hear some more feedback regarding this now that CODEX has landed (maybe even something from the Devs ). |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 05:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
I already liked the idea in the prior build but having played the new Codex maps for awhile I want it even more. I believe the biggest factor is the addition of ladders (which I think is great). The maps now have a more layered dynamic and thus the ability to establish foothold positions is an even more tactically valuable asset.
Having the ability to hack deployables (yeah fake word ) and target them with squad orders (both as discussed in this thread) would open up quite a bit in the way of teamwork and squad options.
|
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 08:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tyrius Madison wrote:Cross Atu wrote:I already liked the idea in the prior build but having played the new Codex maps for awhile I want it even more. I believe the biggest factor is the addition of ladders (which I think is great). The maps now have a more layered dynamic and thus the ability to establish foothold positions is an even more tactically valuable asset. Having the ability to hack deployables (yeah fake word ) and target them with squad orders (both as discussed in this thread) would open up quite a bit in the way of teamwork and squad options. pretty sure deployables is a real word.
Is it? Then my word processor fails me |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 11:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
Giving this thread a little nudge to the top since I'm seeing other versions of it crop up |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 18:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
Lead Squall wrote:One of the problems with this is with droplinks, you are only allowed to have one working at a time (barring high level ones). One could have multiples by hacking enemy droplinks. To counter this, the droplink should replace any droplinks you have as if you laid it out yourself.
Further, if you can hack a ammo hives, some will argue that you should be able to pick them up. I know people have been asking for it for a while, but I think it would go against how the ammo hives are supposed to work. (like the military tent, you pull the string and up pops a tent. good luck packing it back up though.)
On the other hand, if you don't want the enemy to have it, blow it up as you retreat as the Russians did with the Germans in WWII. You can get more with your next clone, or at the nearest supply depot.
Hacking it, on the other hand, should not be easy. Instead of an installation, it's a piece of equipment that has been coded specifically to work for a certain group. I wouldn't necessarily require the code breaker, but if it doesn't, I'd make a hack require 15 seconds (I like the idea of requiring the codebreaker). If you want it so bad, earn it. Otherwise, blow it up.
There should be an advantage for overtaking an enemy position with supplies. Many armies have kept going on the supplies of their enemies (see the south in the civil war). But they had to stop and collect those supplies instead of running after the enemy. The same should be true here.
I agree, this could pose a problem. I would say, as this is beta the best bet would be to try it without the limitations and test the impact on the game. (Example: Do people run fewer uplinks now? Do people destroy uplinks more often? How does this effect spawn camping? et al) We may find out that the added feature doesn't fundamentally alter game balance (if it requires a Proto level Codebreaker for example the rate of use will be much smaller).
The point being there are many variables involved and since we're still in beta let's test them |
|
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 01:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
Pulled from a related thread: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=42226&p=2
Cross Atu wrote:STB Vermaak Doe wrote:As long as you have to have the skill up to the tier the equipment is and carry a codebreaker it seems ok This, I support the OP so long as Hacking is required as a skill to pull it off, also the use of a (non-milita) Codebreaker. This being beta I'd start it at Hacking 5, Prototype Codebreaker. Test that for a build and see where things stand. 0.02 ISK Cross
|
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 18:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
Maximus Stryker wrote:I like the idea overall.
Ability to hack nanohives or drop uplinks is great.
I also like the idea of higher meta equipment taking longer to hack.
I very much support the idea of awarding WP to hacking equipment or destroying it, although I think you should get slightly more WP for hacking equipment to encourage people to rather then equal points for stopping and crouching to hack (more vulnerable) or just shooting it and moving on (less vulnerable) .
I've bolded the last part of the above quote because it's a very good point that I think deserves emphasis.
Since the hacking of deployable assets will require a codebreaker and the destruction only a gun it would make sense that hacking award a greater amount of War Points than destruction. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
bump |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 03:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Gcember wrote:Tyrius Madison wrote:Sees-Too-Much wrote:I think it's an interesting idea, but I'd add one caveat: requires codebreaker module. agreed. It should only require a codebreaker module if the thing you are going to hack is of high value, if you are going to hack a milita nanohive for example it should not require anything, and this is my opinion ofcourse! Further suggestions? Expanding on this... It should require a codebreaker module and/or a Logi suit of comparable meta level to the item being hacked. Will add another incentive to use higher-level gear.
Sounds good, I like it!
+1
EDIT: Specifically I think a codebreaker module of equal or greater meta level. The Logi suit would still provide an extra hacking rate bonus so it'd be valuable even so
Or, if it's use of either a codebreaker or Logi of equal/greater meta level (which may be what you meant in the first place ) that would also be a great way to provide specialization of possible battlefield roles. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 22:24:00 -
[15] - Quote
bump for more input. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 19:07:00 -
[16] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Boss Dirge wrote:If we can't hack them, I wouldn't mind a small WP bonus for destroying them. Even 10 points or so, after all it messes up the enemy supply lines and I have to expend valuable ammo to do it. I It would help if melee attacks would do the job, but as far as I can tell, melee doesn't damage deployables.
Lasers didn't either last I checked. Agreed that attacks of all stripes should damage deployable objects. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2013.01.06 07:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
Chromosome bump |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:38:00 -
[18] - Quote
Any more thoughts on the ability to hack suck deployable gear via use of a codebreaker? |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 17:16:00 -
[19] - Quote
bump |
|
|
|