Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
302
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 12:56:00 -
[61] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:Mister Hunt wrote:And you don't think that someone on one of the two teams wouldn't run over and just throw a grenade on all of them? I'm not saying that it isn't possible, I'm just saying that it can happen now. Not when they're deliberately queue-syncing in low-activity periods, as I mentioned, or doing it during private contracts to buff each other's stats, as will undoubtedly happen post-release if this is added as an option. And Jackal, read my last post for why your suggestion is even worse than the previous one. Imagine how bad that would be if it was 150 points a piece instead of only 75 like people are suggesting. It's something that should be encouraged, and the best way is to reward it, but I can't see a way to do so that's not going to be open to this kind of cheap exploit.
I see your point Garret, but the exploit you're mentioning requires a dedicated and coordinated sync up. They literally pour their whole team into these exploit matches. Whereas the exploits on the current one are ones anyone can use. All you have to do is wait for the enemy hack to complete, and rehack.
Anyone can do this, but it takes cross-team coordination to do the other. (not saying it wont happen) but that any single rogue element in that game will stop the idiocy, and even if it didn;t it's harder to pull off that exploit than the current one. |
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 14:26:00 -
[62] - Quote
I haven't read all 4 pages of thread here but wanted to toss out an idea, what if rehack points were based off of the same 100 WP award modified by however much virus upload time is remaining. Thus no one would ever get the full 100 (can't instantly unhack the null cannon) the main benefit would still be tactical rather than WP, however it would support and reward that tactical play rather than reward play that is closer to farming.
0.02 ISK Cross
EDIT: forgot to mention, the above idea should add almost nothing to client load as all of the above metrics are already tracked, the only additional coding would be a "tick" to award the WP at the very end. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 15:01:00 -
[63] - Quote
The Black Jackal wrote:I see your point Garret, but the exploit you're mentioning requires a dedicated and coordinated sync up. They literally pour their whole team into these exploit matches. Whereas the exploits on the current one are ones anyone can use. All you have to do is wait for the enemy hack to complete, and rehack.
Anyone can do this, but it takes cross-team coordination to do the other. (not saying it wont happen) but that any single rogue element in that game will stop the idiocy, and even if it didn;t it's harder to pull off that exploit than the current one. For it to be an exploit, there needs to be some benefit to it that can't be achieved in "normal" play. The time taken to wait for two hacks totally negates any value the current system has which could make it an exploit. If you eliminate that forced downtime where you're NOT actively hacking and just waiting for things to happen on their own, then you leave the system open to be ACTUALLY exploited.
The current system allows for a sort of "gentleman's agreement" deal where the side with the advantage can choose to hand a few War Points to their enemies in exchange for some on their own counters. If the defenders choose not to do that, they can rehack and prevent either side from gaining anything. There's no exploit in that, just a choice to go for more WP on your team, or deny the enemy WP for their own side.
If rehack points are added without something to balance the exploitability, Corporations or Alliances WILL use it to pad their members' stats with private contracts. In the current build, yes, you have to queue-sync, but that's not taking the intended final goals of the game into account. Players will be able to effectively create private battles where their choice of players will be the only combatants on the field. They already can, to a certain extent, but by release, it will be easily set up using in-game tools, rather than players having to force their desired scenario. In THAT situation, exploitation and stat-padding will be blatantly facilitated by adding WP rewards for rehacking. |
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
3064
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 02:54:00 -
[64] - Quote
71 likes, I would be surprised if CCP didn't do this in next build or the 1 after considering how many people want this. |
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
302
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 09:56:00 -
[65] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:I see your point Garret, but the exploit you're mentioning requires a dedicated and coordinated sync up. They literally pour their whole team into these exploit matches. Whereas the exploits on the current one are ones anyone can use. All you have to do is wait for the enemy hack to complete, and rehack.
Anyone can do this, but it takes cross-team coordination to do the other. (not saying it wont happen) but that any single rogue element in that game will stop the idiocy, and even if it didn;t it's harder to pull off that exploit than the current one. For it to be an exploit, there needs to be some benefit to it that can't be achieved in "normal" play. The time taken to wait for two hacks totally negates any value the current system has which could make it an exploit. If you eliminate that forced downtime where you're NOT actively hacking and just waiting for things to happen on their own, then you leave the system open to be ACTUALLY exploited. The current system allows for a sort of "gentleman's agreement" deal where the side with the advantage can choose to hand a few War Points to their enemies in exchange for some on their own counters. If the defenders choose not to do that, they can rehack and prevent either side from gaining anything. There's no exploit in that, just a choice to go for more WP on your team, or deny the enemy WP for their own side. If rehack points are added without something to balance the exploitability, Corporations or Alliances WILL use it to pad their members' stats with private contracts. In the current build, yes, you have to queue-sync, but that's not taking the intended final goals of the game into account. Players will be able to effectively create private battles where their choice of players will be the only combatants on the field. They already can, to a certain extent, but by release, it will be easily set up using in-game tools, rather than players having to force their desired scenario. In THAT situation, exploitation and stat-padding will be blatantly facilitated by adding WP rewards for rehacking.
Actually, rehacking a point after it's been hacked takes alot longer. Literally twice the time it takes to initially 'hack' the point. So that balance is there. I've often killed the guy who's just hacked said point. Had to bum around and kill another due to not wanting to be killed while rehacking, only to try rehack and not actually rehack before it goes red... |
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
3064
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 22:37:00 -
[66] - Quote
Hopefully this will come at a later update. |
Ghost-33
ShootBreakStab
108
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 23:49:00 -
[67] - Quote
Odin Spear wrote:yup! +1
Every comment on this thread has been in full agreement. Not one negative or detracting comment. That tells you something CCP!
But what of this?!
I would like to get points for rehacking but I can see quite a few people exploiting it to have members on both sides hacking and rehacking to gain fast points just like the repair exploit.
|
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 11:28:00 -
[68] - Quote
The Black Jackal wrote:Actually, rehacking a point after it's been hacked takes alot longer. Literally twice the time it takes to initially 'hack' the point. So that balance is there. I've often killed the guy who's just hacked said point. Had to bum around and kill another due to not wanting to be killed while rehacking, only to try rehack and not actually rehack before it goes red... The active portion of an objective hack is about half the time taken to re-hack. But the time taken for a player to hack THEN wait for the hack to complete is longer than the time taken to hack then immediately re-hack the point. When comparing the time taken to EXPLOIT the two systems, the current system takes longer to get WP than the suggested alternatives.
Also, multiple players on a point reduces the time spent actively hacking or re-hacking, but there's NO way to reduce the time spent WAITING between hacks in the current system. |
Laurent Cazaderon
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
1155
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 15:59:00 -
[69] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Actually, rehacking a point after it's been hacked takes alot longer. Literally twice the time it takes to initially 'hack' the point. So that balance is there. I've often killed the guy who's just hacked said point. Had to bum around and kill another due to not wanting to be killed while rehacking, only to try rehack and not actually rehack before it goes red... The active portion of an objective hack is about half the time taken to re-hack. But the time taken for a player to hack THEN wait for the hack to complete is longer than the time taken to hack then immediately re-hack the point. When comparing the time taken to EXPLOIT the two systems, the current system takes longer to get WP than the suggested alternatives. Also, multiple players on a point reduces the time spent actively hacking or re-hacking, but there's NO way to reduce the time spent WAITING between hacks in the current system.
Dont know if it has been mentionned yet. But points for re-hacking objectives would greatly favor the use of codebreakers that can be shorten the way longer process needed to "de-hack" an objective. |
Swufy
Internal Error. Negative-Feedback
70
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 19:24:00 -
[70] - Quote
Keep this thread alive! WP for rehack are mandatory. So throw it in already and listen to the Dusters cheer with joy, "Merry Dustmas!!" |
|
Caeli SineDeo
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 23:16:00 -
[71] - Quote
Agreed on rehacking points. You should get 100 points for rehacking. |
mystus no1
Industrie und Handels Konsortium Tribunal Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 10:28:00 -
[72] - Quote
definitely +1 |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 12:03:00 -
[73] - Quote
So a bunch of additional +1 calls without anyone addressing the problems?
Good to see the internet up to its usual tricks. |
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
3064
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 00:53:00 -
[74] - Quote
The possibility of abuse is outweighed by the merits of this idea. Queue-synched groups can already abuse and boost with objectives already if they wanted to. |
angelarch
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 06:20:00 -
[75] - Quote
@OP, +1.
It's so much harder to rehack, that it should reward MORE points IMO.
But equal points is acceptable, any points for heavens sake.
|
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 17:39:00 -
[76] - Quote
Ghost-33 wrote:Odin Spear wrote:yup! +1
Every comment on this thread has been in full agreement. Not one negative or detracting comment. That tells you something CCP!
But what of this?!I would like to get points for rehacking but I can see quite a few people exploiting it to have members on both sides hacking and rehacking to gain fast points just like the repair exploit.
Inaccurate, the repair exploit specifically happened outside of the battle deep in the red zone at zero risk to the users of the exploit. Any objective hacking by its very nature must occur within the 'burn zone' (why does she call it that ) and thus exposes the participates to a greater level of risk.
Sync deployment is only a problem currently due to lower player numbers (closed beta) and a matchmaking system that is currently in it's early stages (CCP is working to improve it right now).
Further the contention that this opens the door to a new exploit is fallacious, two opposing 'synced' squads/teams could already exploit this system as it currently stands simply by moving from objective to objective hacking each one in turn and allowing the travel time to account for the virus upload to maximize effect.
What's more even if the new system were put in place it wouldn't increase the exploit value of hacking for two squads as only completed hacks grant points. Meaning that re-hacking would shift the possible point gain more than it would shorten the overall time required. Thus only one squad would be getting points for exploiting, still not good but also not a very striking departure from the current system.
All of that being said, any points awarded for re-hacking should be given with a modifier based on percentage of virus upload complete at the time a successful re-hack finishes. That not only limits the exploit value and makes some 'in game' sense keeping difficulty of action (completing a re-hack with little time left is harder than completing one with a full clock) but maintains much of the current game pace/flow allowing players to make choices with balanced awards rather than have their behavior altered by the mechanics of the system.
Made up example math follows. Re-hacking award = 100 (for simple math) Modifier = %virus upload complete Result = actual War Point award.
Thus someone re-hacking instantly while using 2xProto codebreakers would get something akin to 5-10 pts (while having spent over a million skill points and used up two fitting slots to be able to do so) and someone who fights their way to the objective and re-hacks it at 60% virus upload would earn 60 points for clearing and re-hacking rather than waiting and hacking back instead.
Of course maybe CCP wants to keep the incentive to re-hack low so there's a greater chance for objective turnover and more contentious battles, but unless they specifically say so I think I'm going to leave that supposition alone for now
0.02 ISK Cross
|
Cross Atu
Conspiratus Immortalis
775
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 17:45:00 -
[77] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote: If rehack points are added without something to balance the exploitability, Corporations or Alliances WILL use it to pad their members' stats with private contracts.
I've sniped the above out of the post because something needs pointed out here. Private contracts currently do not award SP or ISK (aside from the value of the contract itself which is static rather than dynamic like the quickmatch games). Furthermore CCP has stated that they have no plans to change that once the game goes live, meaning that only quick match games will be providing the awards in question and there will mechanically be zero opportunity for a full corp or alliance to attempt to exploit in the way described. Que Sync methods will remain the only possible way to employ farming of any kind because the quick match system will be the only one in which said farming will effect anything beyond e-peening for a leaderboard slot. |
Foley Jones
R.I.f.t
122
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 19:36:00 -
[78] - Quote
Ydubbs81 RND wrote:There is no incentive for players to resecure an objective after the enemy has hacked it. It takes longer to secure and you should get points for it.
Players, now, deliberately allow the hack to go through so they can get the points for hacking it. Meanwhile, the enemy does damage to the MCC and they spawn right behind you on the objective.
Players need points to resecure an objective
*raises hand* I'm guilty for letting a hack finish :( props man |
Nazz'Dragg
FIREFLY ATLANTIS ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED TACNET
6
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 22:38:00 -
[79] - Quote
I disagree with adding war points to rehacking in the current way everyone wins if you let it through no it's best if things stay the same. |
SATORI CORUSCANTi
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz RISE of LEGION
253
|
Posted - 2012.12.22 11:26:00 -
[80] - Quote
I hope this got the attention it deserved |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |