| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goric Rumis
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
80
   |
Posted - 2012.09.27 07:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
I really like the idea of being able to place deployables on installations. A piece of equipment could be set on an installation to slow down someone hacking it, improve or decrease the efficacy of an installation, etc. This would be extremely specialized equipment, obviously, but it would be invaluable in tough battles.
Case study A: A squad runs and grabs a null cannon at the start of a match. A hacker logi in the group installs an overcharger that gives the cannon a 10% boost to rate of fire. The squad moves on and tries to capture another cannon, but while they're doing so an enemy scout moves in and caps the point.
- Alternative #1: The 10% booster is deactivated and destroyed as part of the hacking process. The scout captures the un-boosted cannon.
- Alternative #2: The 10% booster continues to operate regardless of who holds the cannon. This requires more strategic thinking when placing boosters: will you be able to keep this point?
- Alternative #3: The 10% booster is deactivated when the cannon is captured and remains deactivated until it is reactivated by someone with the required skills. (In order to activate the booster, you need to have the skills required to equip it.)
Case study B: A scout gets behind enemy lines and finds a null cannon undefended. The player knows that capturing the null cannon wouldn't result in much benefit, so instead he installs a device that slows its rate of fire by 15%. Unlike a direct hack, this doesn't create an alert on the map, and will only be noticed by a player who gets close to the point.
- Alternative #1: An enemy player can use a remote explosive to disable the device.
- Alternative #2: The device can only be deactivated by someone with the required skills, as described above.
And so on, with both beneficial and adverse effects. I like the idea of requiring skills to hack the device; that would add one more dimension to specialization, when someone realizes the enemy sabotaged one of their installations and starts calling for someone with the right skills to disable the device.
Thoughts? |
flegmat tropku
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 07:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
Increasing the rate of fire, no. Such modification would require new power sources to be introduced which in turn would be size of a vehicle at least, given that the cannons are so massive and require a lot of energy.
Slowing down the rate of fire, yes, but instead of installing a new device it should be another type of "hacking" to install different kind of virus. Maybe quicker to hack in and perhaps even stealthier so that the enemy that is not actively guarding the cannon would not even notice it being done as the purpose would not be to take over the control of the cannon. Detecting and removing this new type of virus then would perhaps require someone to actively check the operation on the cannon controls. For installing this type of virus a player could need certain level in electronics and more advanced hacking tool equipped. |
I-SHAYZ-I
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 09:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'd be more interested in a deployable that gave an installation the ability to act as a supply depot, or even a side mounted turret. The number of fittings that would be accessible from a supply would be a limited number. The turret would be as powerful as a militia rifle but be inaccurate and easy to evade.
If deployables were implemented into the game, they would need to be disposable and/or controlled by one side or another. For instance, they can be hacked just as anything else can be hacked, but they can also be destroyed just how anything else can be destroyed.
As for skills, there would obviously be better versions of the deployables that could be used at higher levels, and each level would provide faster hacking speed and deployment. |
Goric Rumis
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 18:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
flegmat tropku wrote:Increasing the rate of fire, no. Such modification would require new power sources to be introduced which in turn would be size of a vehicle at least, given that the cannons are so massive and require a lot of energy.
We could always come up with some feasible explanation for how it increases the rate of fire by a small amount. Don't get too caught up in the "realism" sinkhole. Although I was thinking about "realism" as a way of managing the effect: for example, you increase the rate of fire by 10% for 5 minutes, but if you haven't won within that 5 minutes the cannon overheats and has to spin down for a while, which ultimately comes close to negating the boost. There are a lot of ways to play this.
flegmat tropku wrote:Slowing down the rate of fire, yes, but instead of installing a new device it should be another type of "hacking" to install different kind of virus.
My preference is for there to be something you have to equip, not just an option when you go to hack the installation. Simplifies the interface. You'd just have to switch to your equipment slot instead of going through a UI to select your hacking option when you try to hack something.
This would also be more obvious for anyone who actually pays attention to the installation, since there would be some kind of device visibly attached to the console. I suppose if it were a virus you could have the displays glitch and flicker or something.
I-SHAYZ-I wrote:I'd be more interested in a deployable that gave an installation the ability to act as a supply depot, or even a side mounted turret.
Once players are allowed to buy and deploy installations, I don't think this will be an issue. Also, I know I just said not to worry about realism too much, but I really don't understand how you'd attach something to, say, a missile turret and have it act as a supply depot. Seems like it would be just as feasible, and more convenient, to have a deployable you could drop anywhere. If it's not directly affecting the installation, why would you be attaching it to the installation at all? |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |