|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 12:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
During several games last evening myself and several other members of the DUST 514 community were all talking about hacking vehicles in a battle.
Currently when you hack an enemy vehicle you simply are granted friendly access to the LAV/HAV or Dropship for however long it takes you to run it off a cliff and blow it up Gumball Rally style.
The assumption was made that if you hacked the vehicle, you could keep it in your assets as you effectively "stole" it from your enemy, much like scamming or more specifically looting occurs in EVE Online.
CCP and fellow DUST players, I propose a change to the current system in which if/when you hack someones vehicle you can recall it and save the vehicle for future deployment either in that battle, or in whatever battle you wish in the future. This vehicle would and should be represented in your post match "Salvage" section, on top of any other salvage you might have received during that match.
This game mechanic is both a way to curb people from spawning tons of vehicles in a match, as well as provide those who hack the vehicle a reward for their effort.
I have brought this up to a CPM0 member and he is in support of it, and I hope both CCP and the DUST community would consider this proposal a good way to curb the mass vehicle spawning and provide people more incentives to work in the "Hacking" side of things for their respective armies. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 12:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mer Kure wrote:Funny thing I was thinking the same, was about to make a thread but seeing this is already here I'll just add my +1. Yeah, being able to chose whether to blow up or just try and take out the driver/ pilot and go take the vehicle from the enemy seems like a cool idea. Specially considering the amount of time it'd take. Plus it may make people stop trying to just blow up abandoned vehicles. (Or encourage them exactly so you/ others won't get it.)
It's a valid mechanic to have really and I'm happy someone from DUST University agrees with such a concept. This could, in theory and my own biased mind, cause a focus on "hackers" being a more useful tool than they already are at the moment.
I haven't don't the space math but I do believe hacking a vehicle takes longer than hacking a point, meaning your effort and risk of dying goes unrewarded after the match. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
14
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 15:02:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thank you all for the support. I hope CCP takes a look and can comment on such a proposal. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 16:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP, I hope you consider this proposal as it is quite useful in terms of a "metagame" that is in some ways lacking.
Imagine CCP_FoxFour's corporation going to war with CCP_Eterne's corp over a stolen prototype tank? The potential for ridicule, good fights, and new twitter accounts handled by CCP_Fozzie would be limitless. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
17
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 19:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:As I'm against detailed info on fittings on future dust killmails,
I would still like to let people stealing arch enemies vehicles and see their fittings. Military secrets revealed!
This would and could in fact be a form of espionage and as previously stated add more to the metagame.
Shadow Archeus wrote:If I hack your tank I should be able to keep it......love this idea
I, and those who support this proposal, thank you for your support.
I have received word that CCP has taken a look at this concept and have stated its "definitely an interesting idea" so we may see this down the line.
Talk to your CEO, evemail your CPM representative and tweet at your favorite pair of socks and tell them you want this mechanic. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
21
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 02:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:
Yep, I remember this being mentioned and still a big +1 to the idea. Vehicle loot is best loot.
Thank you both for putting your political support behind this. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 13:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
Reminding all who would be interested that this proposal exists. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
25
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 16:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nova Knife wrote:As far as I know, it was supposed to be this way already.
When I saw the recall feature at fanfest, the first thing I asked CCP Jian was "Can I use this to steal people's stuff?" He said Yes.
I think it's a bug that it doesn't work with enemy vehicles. But it should definitely add the stuff to your assets if you steal a friendly, non bpo vehicle.
Someone try it and let me know?
This was tried, and there was no noted increase in assets even when stealing a friendly vehicle.
The recall was added in Uprising but it has not been made capable of stealing both friendly and enemy vehicles you hack, which is what this proposal/request asks to be addressed and implemented.
Edit - Kane Spero was one of those who tested the recall and can provide feedback to you more directly as you two have more readily available communication with each other being on the CPM. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
26
|
Posted - 2013.05.16 20:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
Arron Rift wrote:I think hacked vehicles should go to the hacker's assets, but friendly vehicle should go beck to the owner.
That is a more than a reasonable approach to this. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
26
|
Posted - 2013.05.17 23:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
Reminding you lovely people this wonderful idea is still available. |
|
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
29
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:19:00 -
[11] - Quote
Reminding CCP this exists. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
46
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 16:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Blam! wrote:This is a great thread. Let me provide some background.
We have discussed allowing players to directly salvage items - not just for vehicles, on the battlefield. I really like the proposal for the vehicle salvage, where hacked vehicles can be recalled into the hacker's inventory. To do this however, we would have to resolve a couple of technical issues:
1. Rather than making a vehicle usable by a particular team/individual after being hacked, enforce the concept of a new "owner" of the vehicle, so that the vehicle knows where to go to when being recalled.
2. Each blueprint and corresponding item would need to be linked. It wouldn't be feasible (or make much sense) to allow players who have hacked a vehicle that is a blueprint or has blueprints on it to inherit that blueprint. Rather, we would want a recall to place a blueprint's corresponding consumable item in the player's inventory.
This isn't a gargantuan task, but it's not something we can quickly deploy as part of a hotfix.
Thanks for the feedback guys, I will see what I can do.
CCP Blam! wrote:A little tack-on here - it goes without saying that going this route would mean that you wouldn't be able to call in your salvage if you don't have the skills for it. It would work just as any other item you have in your inventory.
First off thank you for responding and providing some of the dilemmas CCP is having to tackle in addressing this mechanic.
1) Forgive me for a very basic understanding of how that sort of transfer works in a technical sense for the game but wouldn't it be possible to have the ownership be tagged to the players API like in EVE? You can trade items in EVE, as well as salvage wrecks. This shouldn't be that different no?
2) I'm not sure I follow what you mean but I'll give it a stab. If a player hacks a vehicle they don't have the blueprints for, or the skills to operate it, it simply resides in their assets and they can sell it or trade it to a corp mate or whomever. Again, thats the same sort of thing that goes on in EVE with looting. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
55
|
Posted - 2013.05.21 14:32:00 -
[13] - Quote
Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:That asking difficult question is easy part I think that the last guy that recall it would be really **** off that it didn't end up in his pocket, he risk his life while recalling it . This situation is easy in Eve compare to Dust - after the whole gang thing FC shares loot among people that lose their ships during the battle to reimburse theirs losses(if no one lose ship all loot is going to corp "PvP shop", and people may buy this stuff for 50-75% of it's real value). I would not mind if the entire pool of salvage after battle go to corp assets in Dust, and some director would have to split it among mercenaries(or not - if he is greedy). Today, when I losing HAV on battle there is very small chance that ISK reward plus salvage will make me happy at the end of this day. Corporation salvage-pool could save my day. What would you say if every hacked and recalled enemy vehicle would go to Corporation-loot-pool? That would prevent people from killing each other just to hack and recall valuable enemy vehicles. Corp loot pool would be a system that allow to reward fairly more than just one guy, because it's not a job just for singiel guy - someone will have to cover guy who is hacking, and recalling vehicle. It would allow to grow corporation assets. We already collect tons of unnecessary items in our assets, so what's the difference if they will go to hends of corporation that may use it in future, or save it for hard times.
A loot recall directly to the corporation hanger can only work for so long. Some corps may never share the gear with their mercs, making the drive for them to steal vehicles meaningless. Others obviously would love that concept, but those not in a corp currently (i.e. newbies) would have no real incentive to ever steal a vehicle as their newly won prize goes into an NPC corp and not to them, after risking their time and clones to steal the item.
Currently DUST has no corporation hanger, nor a good enough UI to utilize such a thing. Its not a terrible proposal but there should be both the option to steal it and put it in your personal hanger or in your corps hanger, which could be a screen you use after the match in the post match stats, or even when looking at your assets in the mercenary quarters. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
73
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 15:33:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Blam! please respawn |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
81
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 13:05:00 -
[15] - Quote
Blam! doesn't love me enough. I see how it is bro, i s |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
113
|
Posted - 2013.05.26 14:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
Pushing back to the first page. Would like a CCP Dev to respond to our questions/suggestions. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
116
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 04:11:00 -
[17] - Quote
Still waiting for CCP Blam!, or any other dev, to respond to our feedback. |
Abu Stij
GoonFeet
119
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 13:32:00 -
[18] - Quote
Again, would like to hear back from CCP on this. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
132
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 12:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
XV1 wrote:It would not be that difficult to make a copy of the blueprint item, or at least I would not imagine it would. I would like to see more salvage than just the random drops we get now, and salvage that is relevant to what the opponents were using. Current salvage does not make sense as you can get weapons that are only obtainable through that method, which begs the question of how did anyone get the first ones. I guess they would change the salvaging system once they release PvE.
No matter what they decide on the salvage system I think the stealing of red vehicles should definitely be added as it would provide some form of reward for hacking as right now it just is not worth it. Currently no WP reward for taking enemy vehicle............
Well there are two things at play here, one is the physical item and the other the BPO. Simply taking a vehicle someone has the BPO for doesn't mean they should lose that BPO, just that you get a single copy of that vehicle (based on the opponents BPO for it). They have said that they're reworking the salvaging system and there are many steps and stages to it that they're trying to get to. The current salvage for a public match is based off an algorithm they posted the stats for (weapons, though I hope they release the dropsuit & vehicle data as well for us spreadsheet nerds), and again, they've stated they're reworking the system due to either an issue they found or because they really didn't like the old one. In PC matches your salvage is based off what the other team fields so there's some sort of system in place that could, in theory, be transferable for vehicular looting which the Devs have openly supported.
I believe you get war points for hacking, but not for recalling a vehicle. I don't think you should be granted that much of a war point reward for recalling a stolen vehicle, 25pts seems fairly reasonable though I would probably argue for more along the lines of 10pts. The reasoning being you already got some points off the hack where as recalling it, and in essence making it semi-invulnerable once the recall ship comes, is just a small bonus to your work. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
144
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 17:14:00 -
[20] - Quote
Bumped |
|
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
152
|
Posted - 2013.06.06 15:40:00 -
[21] - Quote
Shady IceCream Truck wrote:
Maybe make it so only SCOUT class can hack these? since the class is completely worthless as is..
I could actually get behind that to some degree. It would be nicer that everyone has the opportunity to steal items off the other team but perhaps that would work. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet
180
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 14:44:00 -
[22] - Quote
Brush Master wrote:I would suggest that BPO should not be salvageable, only the modules or non bpo items on it. Allowing salvage on BPO vehicles would be very exploitable.
Well, yeah that's one thing thats tricky and has to be worked out.
Since we're in an EVE related game, let's compare DUST looting to EVE looting.
If I remember correctly (it's been a while since I did this) in EVE when you steal someone's ship you get all the items in his cargohold. Which would include a BPO. But this isn't exactly like stealing someone's BPO in EVE since in EVE you use a POS/Research Station to use your BPOs, and if you steal a ship with BPOs in the cargo that's not really relatable to DUST since you don't have a "cargohold"
I think there should be some way to be able to liberate the BPOs of others for your own gain though, but simply stealing one vehicle off someone's BPO fit isn't exactly a "balanced" way of doing it. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
183
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 13:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
Not bumping. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
186
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 18:01:00 -
[24] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:
Well done for avoiding the content of my post and focusing on a totally irrelevant point. Making an assertion that it's fair without justification is useless. Saying it is fair weather i think so or not is a somewhat weak argument. I can simply reply by saying it is not fair. Now where do we go. Justify your response or be ignored.
Ill try help you. Lets say its a great spot, but i disconnect, or it drops on me, or i get pushed far from it by a friendly lav..It makes no difference. You as infantry have a way to make millions of ISK. The Pilot does not.
Explain how it is fair that in a match we can both :
Kill Get War Points Get Skill Points Earn ISK from battle payments
But only you can stay in role and steal millions from me. I'm waiting.
It is fair, because you chose a poor spot to deploy from. Its a punishment for you making a bad decision in the match. In the current scenario, you don't get punished and the "thief" doesn't get any reward for keeping the dropship alive nor using your dropship during the battle other than a short term gain, which even then is easily stoppable through competent anti-vehicle dropsuit fittings.
You can, obviously, try stealing it back or steal something else or have one of your allies do the same thing the opponent just did to you.
The dropsuit/weapon loot option you mentioned is also a viable way to balance things out, and you actually do get that loot in a Planetary Conquest match so that point is moot if you're trying to make it seem like its not at all in place right now.
So in summary:
1) Take responsibility for your actions/decisions in the match 2) Coordinate with your team to take back your dropship or take something from the other team 3) Stop complaining you don't get loot when you do in PC matches, and ask that CCP implement better loot drops in all match types if you avoid PC matches.
The fact you are demanding someone make an assertion that something is "fair" when you opened your statement with "what if I chose a dumb spot?" is hilarious. This is New Eden, and if you haven't noticed or heard, but "fairness" is what the losing side harps about when they make a stupid decision. When CCP makes it so the fault of the end result is on the one who made the poor decision, its a fair thing as there is no one to blame but the person who chose to do the wrong thing. Don't blame the thief if you leave your car unlocked and with the key in the ignition. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
188
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 15:01:00 -
[25] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:That a long reply where you missed the point. Ill try make this simple 1) We both die 5 times. Loot is handed out as part of loot table at the end of the match - Both of us share this method. Our suits and equipment are added to the loot table. Balance (well sort of. In a vehicle i lose a suit and a vehicle) 2) I die calling in a drop ship. How is totally irrelevant. Please try to get that. i lose my suit and you, because you were close can personally take my vehicle. it does NOT go into the loot pool for the team. - You gain from me and above your team millions of ISK. Now is there a way for a tank/HAV/DS pilot to remove loot from the loot table and take it personally while playing his role? No. This is the imbalance. You are asking for a way to make more ISK in a match than I can just because you are infantry. That is imbalanced. That is the unfairness. Now please stop with this childish truism about new eden being unfair. If your an adult you should know that this isn't new eden, this is a game on Earth. It is a profit generating medium targeted at the media market. It is a product that sells for real money things like tanks to people. If you do that you need to watch your product carefully to avoid breaking the law. If i can have a AUR DS taken from me then the game needs to allow me to do the same to others. And not just their DS or Tank but whatever they have bought to the fight in the same manner they can take my stuff. In this case hacking it after their death. Abu Stij wrote:Don't blame the thief if you leave your car unlocked and with the key in the ignition. Also did you seriously write that while sober? What a ignorant thing to write. I guess if you wear a short dress and get drunk you cant blame the rapist, or the burglar for coming into your house on a warm night if you sleep with the window open. You see it all the time do you? You vulgar synonym for the human vulva
1) No, that is balance because both people lost something. Just because you're a pilot and someone else is a soldier doesn't mean the soldier has to lose more just to match your loss of a vehicle you willingly put out into the field.
2) It shouldn't go into the loot pool for the team because the individual was able to hack the device, and recall it to his own cargo hold. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the team gains the millions of ISK but sure, if you lost something why can't someone else get anything from it?
Actually there is, it's this nifty concept that you, as a pilot, have your team help you steal another vehicle on the map and take it for yourself. I'm not sure how you can't comprehend that as a strategy or plan or if you are being willfully obstinate but that is a fully capable thing you can do in any class across the game. There is no "pilots can't ever hack" mechanic in the game nor should there ever be.
If you're willing to put out your expensive ship with the knowledge that you can lose it, don't cry foul when someone takes it from you. You're basically asking for permanent protection of your items from your own mistakes with no way for the other party to gain anything outside of a handful of war-points for destroying something expensive.
The ad hominem about "you're being a child" is silly. The game takes place in New Eden. We're talking about that aspect, not what the medium is being used to enter that "world". The fact you're trying to apply that destroying or "stealing" someone's tank in a battle because they bought it with real money is potentially illegal is laughable and you're ignorance to laws is apparent. The game clearly states "you can lose your items" and that should apply to your tanks. Let's compare a game where you actually pay to play it that uses a similar mechanic and is also by CCP Games, EVE Online. In EVE people can ransom each other for the digital goods of a space ship you bought with digital money you converted with real money (via PLEX), there doesn't seem to be anyone claiming legal fault on CCP for allowing that to happen. They also have a pretty solid legal team at CCP and have to deal with a multitude of different country's laws and regulations to make their product available in as many places as possible.
Regarding to your accusation that I was supporting rapists by saying "Don't blame the thief if you leave your car unlocked with the key in the ignition"; Holy Christ you can't be that desperately grasping at straws can you? One is an inanimate object left unprotected, the other is assaulting a person because of the clothing they wore. Are you that dense or are you just trying to be? A person being violated is not the same as an object being taken, the fact you're trying to compare the two is hilarious.
Also thank's the for attempt to skirt around the rules, but be an adult and leave the name calling at home. |
Abu Stij
Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
191
|
Posted - 2013.06.17 12:49:00 -
[26] - Quote
PizztOleMan wrote:ive had these exact convo's with my friends... OP 100% support as long as its a true copy... un changeable and fully 'usable' (skill free)
Making it unchangeable is a grey area as in EVE when you take someone's ship in a heist or scam, you can still change the fitting. What would be better is locking the vehicle from being changed while in battle, so that you can only alter it while in your Mercenary Quarters, which is the only way to actually change fittings in EVE. I would prefer that system over making it so that I can never change a stolen vehicles fitting.
I also think making it so that even if you don't have the skills, you can still call it into a battle makes the need for LAV, HAV or Dropship skills completely useless which isn't at all helpful. If you don't have the skills, you can't use it.
Referencing EVE again, I can scam someone out of a Tengu even if I can't fly it. I still own it, I just can't use it until I'm skilled in the required areas. Selling it/contracting it to my corp/alliance however, is entirely possible and a useful avenue for income so that should be applicable to this. |
Abu Stij
Leessang.
236
|
Posted - 2013.10.20 21:50:00 -
[27] - Quote
Is it possible to get an update on this concept? |
Abu Stij
WaffleDingos
246
|
Posted - 2013.11.05 05:12:00 -
[28] - Quote
Xaviah Reaper wrote: the issue with this is that you may hack something you cant use therefore cant deploy. so you'll fill your inventory with loads of random crap you cant use.
So you're saying any items "looted" must be immediately usable by the person who looted them or stole them. You do realize how silly that is right?
Just because someone may not have the proper skills to use it doesn't mean they shouldn't even be able to steal it and store it in their hangar/war room. |
Abu Stij
WaffleDingos
254
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 15:45:00 -
[29] - Quote
I revive this in light of the new vehicle changes in 1.7 that vehicles should not be protected entities. |
Abu Stij
WaffleDingos
260
|
Posted - 2014.01.11 07:48:00 -
[30] - Quote
Roger Cordill wrote:I would only accept this if the hacker couldn't do this unless they had the skills to drive it, and even then, it should take a long ass time to do it.
I have pretty much given hope about posting on these forums.
Anyway since I revived this dead thread let me address this. This sort of mechanic is a double negative for the person attempting to loot. You're punishing their attempt to steal the vehicle in two ways; first by requiring they need the appropriate skills just to steal the vehicle and secondly by requiring it to take additional time to hack versus say an objective.
That's a lot of investment/risk versus the reward which, arguably based off the number and types of suits lost trying to hack the vehicle, doesn't even out. I do think a required level of skill in hacking can solve the issue as it requires some level of investment on the players part.
Do You Like Waffles?
|
|
|
|
|