|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Chunky Munkey
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
285
   |
Posted - 2012.10.23 06:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
Totally in favour.
Perhaps not 50wp. A diminished amount maybe, but just the wp from team use sounds best to me.
No hacking module required. It doesn't't make sense that anyone can hack a gigantic cannon, but would need a module to convert a nanohive.
I like the idea of matching the hacking skill requirement to the device's skill requirement: anyone can hack militia stuff, you have to level hacking to take on a repair nanohive. The same should go for vehicle hacks too. |
Chunky Munkey
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
285
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 07:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Altina McAlterson wrote:
For whatever reason, I'm not sure of the game lore, the installations are there for the express purpose of being hacked. Nanohives and drop uplinks would naturally be hardened against this with truncated dynamic algorithm encryption or some other techno babble gibberish. I don't think just anyone should be able to hack them. Players that might want to specialize in hacking really need something that only they can do. I can see having uplinks hackable by just anyone removing a lot of their tactical value, as no one's going to want to throw one out there if all you're going to do is get flanked as soon as a single red dot finds it.
Hacking alone is hardly a specialisation, & you say nobody would want to deploy an uplink if they're just going to get hacked, but as things are, they're just going to get destroyed instead.
If players are put off using something for fear of losing it, they sure picked the wrong game to invest their time in. |
Chunky Munkey
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
285
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 09:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
Altina McAlterson wrote:
Destroyed uplinks don't spawn red dots behind you.
If someone was there long enough to hack an uplink without you killing them, it's time to accept the fact that you''ve lost that strategic ground. Not to mention the fact that they could easily deploy one of their own.
Sorry mate, but your objection to this idea seems solely based on the fact that it would work. Do you object to the ETA time for vehicles too? In case you're killed in the meantime and lose your investment?
|
Chunky Munkey
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
285
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 10:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Altina McAlterson wrote:Chunky Munkey wrote:Altina McAlterson wrote:
Destroyed uplinks don't spawn red dots behind you.
If someone was there long enough to hack an uplink without you killing them, it's time to accept the fact that you''ve lost that strategic ground. Not to mention the fact that they could easily deploy one of their own. Sorry mate, but your objection to this idea seems solely based on the fact that it would work. Do you object to the ETA time for vehicles too? In case you're killed in the meantime and lose your investment? The ETA on vehicles? Object to it "solely based on the fact that is would work." What would work? Lose what investment? I'm going to remove all the crazy from what you said and address the rest.
The "crazy" really? You couldn't gather that I was referring to the vulnerable period (ETA) when your vehicle (investment) is on it's way to you? Or that I was making a comparison with the risk of handing over your vehicle and handing over your strategically placed uplink?
What "would work" is the strategy of turning somebody's deployed equipment advantage against them by overcoming it.
Seriously; if people have to explain fairly straightforward in-game references to you, spending time on a forum really isn't advised. |
|
|
| |
|