| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SYST3M 0V3RL0AD
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
209
   |
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
I saw a thread in the wrong section that asked for proximity chat. Of course everyone that responded positively just wanted it for trash talking. I'm totally cool with proximity chat and don't care about trash talkers, but i've got a better idea.
I propose we have electronic equipment that must be skilled into that can tap into the enemy's comms for a certain duration of time, maybe 30 seconds to 60 seconds at a time. It'd have a long cool-down time so it would be used sparingly and only when needed. Maybe it can only go on a logi suit? A commander suit? This would be a listen only type of situation.
Another possibility, perhaps there is more advanced equipment that would allow you to actually speak to your enemy also. two way communication. That sounds useless, but you could potentially insert some false intel into their comms channel. With many people on mic, you wouldn't know who said it and if it's true or not. It could add a crazy twist to things. Communications warfare is a real tactic of any actual war and intercepting intel and passing along false intel is a huge part of it.
Proxi chat in the typical form we are used to in other games is fine and all. I've got no problem with that either. The trolls don't bother me and i'm not hurt by foul language. However, it would be nice if Dust could remain an adult, mature game and not deteriorate into a trash talk fest that other games' proxi feature allow. Having a form of proxi chat that actually goes along with the skill tree and advanced equipment concepts would fit in well and be an evolved form of proxi chat.
(I searched and found nothing. Sorry if this was proposed already)
|
Gcember
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
Dude! Awsome idea, however it should require a high set of skills to do that, and it could benifit your sqaud. Something could pop up on the screen for the players that says "NAME has deployed an enemy comms intercepting device" so they know that they have access to the enemy comms transmissions for a limited time.
Take my +1 already! |
Foldenfly
Circle of Huskarl
Minmatar Republic
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
+1 |
SYST3M 0V3RL0AD
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
209
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
Gcember wrote:Dude! Awsome idea, however it should require a high set of skills to do that, and it could benifit your sqaud. Something could pop up on the screen for the players that says "NAME has deployed an enemy comms intercepting device" so they know that they have access to the enemy comms transmissions for a limited time.
Take my +1 already!
lol. Glad you dig the concept. I definitely agree a high skill set would be necessary. It'd be a top tier device with many level 4-5 prerequisites (Electronics, electronics upgrades, maybe even a separate skill set for 'Communications'). I agree, WP should be inceased for everything for presumably using the intel gathered to improve their position.
An example to justify that idea would be: You hear the enemy call in a tank over their comms. If you're team blows that tank up within the 2 minute period following the device usage you'd get bonus points for it. Obviously there would be varying scenarios which the game wouldn't be able to interpret what was said over comms, that's is why a period of time following it's use should give a bonus for anything that occurs during the period following. Any kills, captures, repair, etc. done by other players could give a boost to the player that deployed the device and possibly a boost to the player that actually performs those individual actions.
An on-screen notification it has been deployed by a certain player could be cool too so your team knows to listen to what you've got to say .
Another layer could be added such as a scanner device that let's the other team know that you've deployed such a device if they have their scanner fitted. In which case they could possibly employ a jammer device to counter it if someone has that fitted.
There are many layers of devices that could be added to a category like this that are both aggressive (Comms Interceptor Device) and defensive (Comm Device Jammer). If your team doesn't have a jammer, oh well. If you have a Scanner and know they are listening you get creative and pass false intel. If you don't have a Scanner, you have no idea the enemy is listening and you're vulnerable without even knowing it.
AND Maybe the devices can't just be activated like normal. Maybe you've got to attain warpoints to use them just like the Orbital Strike. Maybe you even have to choose between an Orbital OR Communication Warfare Device. This would mean only the MCC Commander could access them. I don't know. Just spit-balling some possibilities out there.
There are 100 different ways to implement a concept this huge and dynamic. It's in CCP's hands to take the concept and run with it. Keep the constructive ideas coming folks! |
Goric Rumis
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 21:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
The problem, as some have mentioned before, is that it will just drive people to use third-party communications software. This would only be possible in corp combat or other organized circumstances, but that's the only time it would really matter anyway--if the battle isn't organized, usually the communication isn't either.
It's a great idea, but the workaround is too easy and would end up making in-game comms a ghost town. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
248
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
I agree with Goric above. Cool but wouldn't work. |
SYST3M 0V3RL0AD
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
209
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Hmmm. Good point. I do agree, but maybe the concept can be salvaged with some creativity on CCP's part. I've failed, get on it Devs! lol
Then again, UVT exists , costs real money and lot of people actually use it. It's cheap now, yes, but those same people intend to get it regardless of price. If people haven't bothered to use a work around to keep real $ in their pocket would they go through the hassle to workaround a concept like this?
I totally see the flaws, but i still think there is some potential somewhere in there. Maybe someone smarter than i could solve the dilemma and workaround the workaround.
|
Goric Rumis
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
SYST3M 0V3RL0AD wrote:Then again, UVT exists , costs real money and lot of people actually use it. It's cheap now, yes, but those same people intend to get it regardless of price. If people haven't bothered to use a work around to keep real $ in their pocket would they go through the hassle to workaround a concept like this?
You seem to have missed quite a lot of conversation about the UVT. Even at 1 AUR, there's plenty of debate over its usefulness, especially since its cost structure is so different from a third-party solution like Teamspeak (where one person can pay for it and invite anyone to join without cost to each member). |
SYST3M 0V3RL0AD
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
209
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 23:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
Goric Rumis wrote:
You seem to have missed quite a lot of conversation about the UVT. Even at 1 AUR, there's plenty of debate over its usefulness, especially since its cost structure is so different from a third-party solution like Teamspeak (where one person can pay for it and invite anyone to join without cost to each member).
Probably did, haven't seen any UVT posts. Not sure why you bring that up though. Our group of guys use UVT constantly. We'll all likely pay for it just because it's important to us(if the price is reasonable). Maybe you mention it because it's essentially it's own third party solution to using the team channel? Team channel communications could be intercepted but not on a private UVT? Not sure where you're going. If it directly relates to this idea i'll go try to find the UVT discussion.
|
Goric Rumis
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:33:00 -
[10] - Quote
SYST3M 0V3RL0AD wrote:Probably did, haven't seen any UVT posts. Not sure why you bring that up though. Our group of guys use UVT constantly. We'll all likely pay for it just because it's important to us(if the price is reasonable). Maybe you mention it because it's essentially it's own third party solution to using the team channel? Team channel communications could be intercepted but not on a private UVT? Not sure where you're going. If it directly relates to this idea i'll go try to find the UVT discussion.
I'm confused. You're the one who brought up UVT. I was just addressing your point. Or at least attempting to address it.
The piece I see as possibly useful is getting notifications when the enemy makes orders like vehicle drops or orbital strikes. Maybe seeing squad objectives, so if someone places an order to capture a point or defend a vehicle you'd see that--although that could result in people refraining from using orders at all in corp battles, which is again the time when they would be most useful.
There's no denying it's a great idea, one that people have suggested several times before, but you always run up against the problem that it inadvertently discourages something that really needs to be encouraged: efficient combat communications. |
|
|
Scrubby McScrubscrub
Circle of Huskarl
Minmatar Republic
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 02:22:00 -
[11] - Quote
What if you're skill level is tied to how much of the message you can make out? A five would yield the entire message, a four would lapse into occasional static, a three would be half static half comm chatter, a two would be mostly static with some words, a one give give almost entirely static, maybe a word or two thrown in . |
From Costa Rica
Grupo de Asalto Chacal
CRONOS.
66
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 06:20:00 -
[12] - Quote
I vote no, i remember last build and the comms, yes you could hear the enemy team, but organizing was kitten messy |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |