| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
dabest2evadoit7
Cyberdyne Systems and Technology
The Revenant Order
35
   |
Posted - 2013.02.08 19:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
We should get war points for stopping enemy hack. More than the points you get for hacking an enemy cannon. As it stands now there is no incentive to stop a hack. Most players see it more beneficial to allow the enemy hack to go through and then re-hack the cannon to gain 100 wp. I personally stop the hack to avoid enemy player from getting a 100 points that may add to them getting an orbital strike, however not everyone thinks like me. I think a good number of war point for denying a hack would be 150. What do yall think? |
Necrodermis
GunFall Mobilization
Covert Intervention
460
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 19:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
i would like to see this too.
and this thread was made tons of times in the past. i have no idea why they never implemented this. |
richiesutie 2
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 19:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
im not sure they will implement it as it would be a very quick way to boost. |
Necrodermis
GunFall Mobilization
Covert Intervention
460
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 19:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
richiesutie 2 wrote:im not sure they will implement it as it would be a very quick way to boost.
but it doesn't make sense because if one person on each side was working together they can do other things to boost.
plus there is a cap so really it doesn't matter because people can pretty much just passively play with a sniper rifle kill one or two guys and AFK behind the red line. |
richiesutie 2
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 19:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
yes but sniping is a intentional part of the game where as boosting isn't.
also say they gave you 50wp for stopping a hack player are most likley to wait for it to complete then then hack it to get 100wp |
dabest2evadoit7
Cyberdyne Systems and Technology
The Revenant Order
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 20:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
richiesutie 2 wrote:yes but sniping is a intentional part of the game where as boosting isn't.
also say they gave you 50wp for stopping a hack player are most likley to wait for it to complete then then hack it to get 100wp
That is why I think we should get more war points than a re-hack and it would make sense as it is harder to deny a hack. |
dabest2evadoit7
Cyberdyne Systems and Technology
The Revenant Order
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 20:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
dabest2evadoit7 wrote:richiesutie 2 wrote:yes but sniping is a intentional part of the game where as boosting isn't.
also say they gave you 50wp for stopping a hack player are most likley to wait for it to complete then then hack it to get 100wp That is why I think we should get more war points than a standard hack/re-hack and it would make sense as it is harder to deny a hack.
|
Hexodius Zifor
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 20:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
I think it would be a gread idea |
Marc Rime
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 00:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
Don't forget that unless you counter-hack almost immediately (or there are at least two of you, both hacking) the damn thing will turn red before you finish, forcing you to start again from zero. Not only that -- even if you get there in time the hacking process is slower meaning you spend longer in a vulnerable position where you can't really pay attention to your surroundings.
It's as if they don't really want us to counter-hack ;). |
dabest2evadoit7
Cyberdyne Systems and Technology
The Revenant Order
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 02:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
Marc Rime wrote:Don't forget that unless you counter-hack almost immediately (or there are at least two of you, both hacking) the damn thing will turn red before you finish, forcing you to start again from zero. Not only that -- even if you get there in time the hacking process is slower meaning you spend longer in a vulnerable position where you can't really pay attention to your surroundings.
It's as if they don't really want us to counter-hack ;).
Exactly, this is why I think it deserves some compensation. |
|
|
Lunch Bag
Emerald Empire
Fatal Ascension
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 06:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
dabest2evadoit7 wrote:Marc Rime wrote:Don't forget that unless you counter-hack almost immediately (or there are at least two of you, both hacking) the damn thing will turn red before you finish, forcing you to start again from zero. Not only that -- even if you get there in time the hacking process is slower meaning you spend longer in a vulnerable position where you can't really pay attention to your surroundings.
It's as if they don't really want us to counter-hack ;). Exactly, this is why I think it deserves some compensation.
I have to agree with the OP for the same reasons:
1) It is less likely for someone to be in a position to counter-hack; the timing must necessarily suggest that enemies are nearby and the risk is generally greater - fewer opportunities and generally more risk.
2) Counter-hacking takes more time than hacking. Why? Especially with no incentive.
3) Counter-hacking can be reset by an automatic timer if the hack finishes before you do. This makes counter-hacking even more difficult (and frustrating); but with the current game mechanics it is an ironic boon for the counter-hacker as now (while his MCC is being shot up) the counter-hacker is actually performing a task that generates WP.
The only drawback anyone mentions is to find a way to prevent 'boost' abuse (players on opposing teams working together). I say there are plenty of other ways to 'boost' and you will never prevent them all --- implement this in the BETA and let's see if it is really abused that much; I bet it won't be. |
Barnabas Wrex
Tritan-Industries
Legacy Rising
149
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 07:44:00 -
[12] - Quote
I just let other people do the hacking that don't mind getting shot in the back. |
Jakob Evhin
Dead Six Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 22:52:00 -
[13] - Quote
I was getting FF'd earlier for trying to stop a hack, presumably so the person firing on me could rehack it and get the points. Just seems very out of spirit of the game to not get points for it, since stopping a hack can save you valuable time, and watching this squad just stand there and wait for the hack to finish really made me want to see them wiped out before they could rehack it.
Anyways, I fully support WP for stopping hacks, and just wanted to chime in even though this has been suggested/pointed out on many occassions. |
V Shadow
DUST University
Ivy League
34
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:02:00 -
[14] - Quote
suggested this myself a few months back, so yes +1 I agree some sort of wp needs to be there. |
xXCleopatra FlippantXx
LABRADOR LAV's
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:07:00 -
[15] - Quote
sacrifice sacrifice sacrifice |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
190
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:15:00 -
[16] - Quote
1) I know with my current hacking skills, in my logi suit, can counter hack the thing after it has cycled half way through its timer.
2) Every hack 'contests' for 1 minute.
3) For that minute the null cannon is still shooting at its original target
4) see my research on MCCs and NC damage here
5) If you wait to hack the null cannon after it has flipped you are basically letting it do 1.3% damage to your MCC.
6) 1.3% damage requires you do do 2x that to the enemy to make up for your loss and/or kill >2 clones for every minute the null cannon is not friendly.
7) You are denying the other team 100 points and a possible new spawn point.
IOW a counter-hack is worth around 100 to 150+ points strategically (>2 kills and strategic advantage of the objective). Realistically, the value of a counter-hack would have to be more than an actual hack in order to incentivise it. What you have to think about though is what you are denying the other team.
The problem with giving points to the counter hack is a slippery slope. If you give points for it, then what happens when you see someone hacking it...then you wait for them to hack it so you can get the points to counter hack and the kill. So then people would be just waiting for hackers to kill/counter hack. Then nobody would want to hack because it wouldn't be worth the effort if you are likely to be stopped so often. |
Kray Dytt
THE DOLLARS
11
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:38:00 -
[17] - Quote
I totally agree. It should just count as any other hack, +100. It's silly now, because you have people waiting for the enemy hack to complete, so they can take it back. Which leaves you vulnerable to counter-hacking again and means you have less NULL canon time for your team.
It's like the game is asking you: "do you want personal gain, or team benefit?" Whereas I think these two should go hand in hand. |
Kray Dytt
THE DOLLARS
11
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
Beren Hurin wrote:
The problem with giving points to the counter hack is a slippery slope. If you give points for it, then what happens when you see someone hacking it...then you wait for them to hack it so you can get the points to counter hack and the kill. So then people would be just waiting for hackers to kill/counter hack. Then nobody would want to hack because it wouldn't be worth the effort if you are likely to be stopped so often.
Hmm hadn't really thought of that though... that's a point I guess. On the other hand, killing someone when they are hacking is much more reliable reliable than waiting for them to finish. But yes, people would probably do this.
Of course, to counter this you could grant +150WP for killing someone who is hacking... but that would just be silly ;) |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
191
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:53:00 -
[19] - Quote
Kray Dytt wrote:Beren Hurin wrote:
The problem with giving points to the counter hack is a slippery slope. If you give points for it, then what happens when you see someone hacking it...then you wait for them to hack it so you can get the points to counter hack and the kill. So then people would be just waiting for hackers to kill/counter hack. Then nobody would want to hack because it wouldn't be worth the effort if you are likely to be stopped so often.
Hmm hadn't really thought of that though... that's a point I guess. On the other hand, killing someone when they are hacking is much more reliable reliable than waiting for them to finish. But yes, people would probably do this. Of course, to counter this you could grant +150WP for killing someone who is hacking... but that would just be silly ;)
Lol, then giving points for the hacker kill would result in hack camping, you would just wait to kill the guy until he goes up to hack it. He'd look at you like...you gonna shoot me bro, and you shake your gun 'No!'. He'd try to shoot at you and you get behind cover, he'd chase you a bit, and lose you. He'd go back to start hacking only to see you on radar again, then he'd stop hacking just to f*** with you, then one of your teamates would mercy kill him. |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
191
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:58:00 -
[20] - Quote
Kray Dytt wrote:I totally agree. It should just count as any other hack, +100. It's silly now, because you have people waiting for the enemy hack to complete, so they can take it back. Which leaves you vulnerable to counter-hacking again and means you have less NULL canon time for your team.
It's like the game is asking you: "do you want personal gain, or team benefit?" Whereas I think these two should go hand in hand.
This conflict over personal gain/team gain is everywhere you look for it though.
-Snipers getting KDR
-Teamates yelling "you got my kill!!!" when you get their kill
-Teamates yelling "Stupid blueberry, wtf protect me!" ...when 'their kill' kills them because you were letting them get their kill.
-Dropship pilots...
-masochistic logibros who needle you alive under HMG fire
-most logibro actions
-being a dedicated AV
-destroying all installations
Personal gain and team benefit is REALLY hard to mix perfectly. |
|
|
Adstellarum
G I A N T
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 00:30:00 -
[21] - Quote
i think they should give 100WP for successful counter hack in addition they either need to make the initial hack take just as long as the counter hack or reduce counter hack time to make it equal to the hacking time |
Imp Smash
On The Brink
54
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 06:57:00 -
[22] - Quote
Stopping a hack is harder, slower, and more dangerous than hacking. We should get wP, and yes more than a hack, for it. |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:33:00 -
[23] - Quote
i think it should be the same as hacking +100 and why it hasn't out of my mind why ccp hasn't. when i play non-sniper i use the remote explosives alot and sometimes i don't beat the hacker to switch to it to turn it on due to shooting other people and whatnot and get nothing but the kill +50 for stopping the null cannon from attacking my mcc. team gain and personal gain so be on the same par for this matter and isn't. |
Hagintora
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:43:00 -
[24] - Quote
Imp Smash wrote:Stopping a hack is harder, slower, and more dangerous than hacking. We should get wP, and yes more than a hack, for it.
Personally, I think it should take longer to start a hack on an enemy controlled objective. It should take less time to stop one, giving people a reason to defend the objective until it's finished. As it stands, since you don't get any points for stopping a hack, you don't have to defend anything. You just start the hack and move on to the next objective. This might also stop (or at least slow down) the Round Robin gamelplay we have currently.
So in my estimation:
100 WP for taking the objective initially (when it's yellow on the radar).
25 WP for initiating a hack on an enemy controlled objective (with the standar 100 WP if it is succesful).
50 WP for stopping an enemy hack (due to the shorter amount of time needed to stop it, and giving a reason to defend it) |
KatanaPT
Serenity Prime
Kraken.
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:47:00 -
[25] - Quote
+1 to topic |
KalOfTheRathi
CowTek
173
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:52:00 -
[26] - Quote
I am mixed on this.
I think it is fine the way it is and partly because it makes the decision to stop it or not more difficult.
If one lets it finish their MCC takes a hit or two. But the re-hack seems faster than stopping it. Is it faster than waiting for it to finish followed by a hack? Depends on how far the hack had completed, of course.
Stopping a hack by the Reds is significantly slower and might require multiple Mercs to get it done in time.
If the MCC cannot take the hit than stopping it is important. Is it more important than the +100?
Personally, I always try to stop them if I am safe. Sometimes even if I am not.
Your Mileage Will Vary. |
Jakob Evhin
Dead Six Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 13:02:00 -
[27] - Quote
What about speeding attempts to stop the hack, or perhaps slowing the hack when you attempt to stop it? There is that point when you get about halfway through when you do need to ask yourself "Will I stop this in time?"
Stopping the hack is beneficial as well, because the enemy can't tell when you are doing it.
I think having to wait for it to complete a hack, then start and alert the team to your attempts to rehack are part of the reason that taking back objectives can be a pain sometime, when it should really be punishing the attacking team for abandoning the objective before it completed. |
Hagintora
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 13:05:00 -
[28] - Quote
Jakob Evhin wrote:Stopping the hack is beneficial as well, because the enemy can't tell when you are doing it.
Actually if you look at your radar, whenever somone is hacking an objective the whole box will start to flash. When the virus (or whatever) has started then just the letter will flash. When your team runs over to stop the hack, the baox will start flashing again, letting the other team know that some is there. |
Jakob Evhin
Dead Six Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 13:15:00 -
[29] - Quote
Egg on my face! |
Koizumi d'Pimphandia
Anti-Skill
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 21:45:00 -
[30] - Quote
I completely agree with this. For as much effort as it takes to stop the hack there should be some kind of reward. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |