hacking

[the_badness]

how's hacking going to be done? my friends and i are thinking it's just gonna be like defusing a bomb in counter strike where u press a button and watch a little meter fill up, and once it's filled you plant the bomb (or hack the building/vehicle you are trying to take over) but i've got no clue on how hacking is going to be done. :rolleyes:

[Blitzkrieg]

It could be like in Deus Ex
Sigh... :tear:
I miss that game

[TeamR]

Hacking is done with the use of a seperate controller. It includes a series of random bells and whisltes that the user in turn must copy in a game similar to Simon Says. If the user completes the game successfully, it then calculates your chances of successfully hacking a console by taking your hacking experience into account. New hackers will have a 20% chance of success while veteran hackers will have a 90% chance. As an added bonus, after each successful hacking attempt your enemies screen will be filled with a message and picture sent by you. And their cd trays will open and close uncontrollably. Then you get 500 beps.

[Blitzkrieg]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Hamma]

So anyway, hacking requires a tool you stand in front of what your hacking be it a door, console or vehicle. As you push fire a small meter appears and slowly increases.

So your right, there is a meter. Depending on which certs you have it goes faster or slower. :D

[Sandtaco]

So what you're saying that this 15 minute hacking time isn't completely solid? It can be bent?

[Warborn]

If the 15 minute bit you're referring to is the length of time that needs to pass before a base turns to your side, then I don't think that has anything to do with Hacking. You get to that point via Hacking, but the actual 15 minutes is just a wait period to give the defenders time to respond. You're not huddled in front of the capture area for 15 minutes watching a little meter fill.

[Omega]

Well I do hope it's a little more elaborate then just holding down a button for a solid ten mins. that would just suck.

Maybe having to press some buttons in order like a "simon says" fashion would be kinda cool, although that can potentially lead to problems as any method could of course.

Hmmm.. Will wait to see that one also.


Justin

[Warborn]

Well I do hope it's a little more elaborate then just holding down a button for a solid ten mins. that would just suck.

Who said you hold down a button for 10 minutes? Simple acts of hacking like opening a secured door likely take about 10 seconds. Doing a vehicle would probably be around 30 seconds to a minute. They'd never add something to the game that involves you sitting there, holding a button, and staring at your screen for 10 minutes.

[Hamma]

Originally posted by Warborn
If the 15 minute bit you're referring to is the length of time that needs to pass before a base turns to your side, then I don't think that has anything to do with Hacking. You get to that point via Hacking, but the actual 15 minutes is just a wait period to give the defenders time to respond. You're not huddled in front of the capture area for 15 minutes watching a little meter fill.
^ Exactly what he said, after you hack it - and the meter goes to zero. Then you must defend it for 15 minutes before it turns to your side. During this time the enemy can re-hack it

[Camping Carl]

You should just leave mines on the control panels, so no one can hack your base! :p

[Warborn]

That's probably very possible. I don't think the developers want anyone to hack a base. If an undefended base is going to be taken by Infiltrators, then it'll be a team of Infiltrators, and they should expect casualties.

[�io]

I thought the devs said it was gonna be a Neocron like system where you have to preform the actions?

If it's just a simple meter going down then the hacker role is gonna be boring and routine. :ugh:

[Warborn]

If you want to play a puzzle game, you shouldn't be looking to Planetside for your enjoyment. Being a Hacker does not consist of Hacking and nothing else. Hacking is just one weapon in their arsenal. If, for example, you want to take over a base with Hacking, you need to actually bypass any sort of automated defense systems the base has, kill any defenders, and protect the control area for 15 minutes. Having to do some puzzle crap to actually hack through doors and the control panel would detract from the fun more than anything, given the tempo of a Hacker's life.

[�io]

I don't see how making something much more interactive and challenging is making it less fun. I never said it should take 10mins but i'd rather spend 1min doing some actual hacking thingy like connecting wires or something than just standing around for the same minute watching a bar go down.

[Coliostro]

I gotta agree with Dio on this one. If Hacking was something other than hitting a button and watching a meter I might actually be interested in it too. It could be as simplistic as 4 or 5 spinning dials which you have to stop at a certain point in each of their spins. Simple, and self-explanatory, but more interactive than just the click of a button.

[Warborn]

It's a distraction from the action. While you're waiting for the little bar to move down, you're also hoping that nobody is about to walk around the corner and blow you away. Trust me, that little bar moves slowly when you're in hostile territory, if you know what I mean. Wanting to make Hacking more complicated is like having your guy shoot his rifle take several steps: One to take the safety off, one to raise the weapon to his shoulder, another to make him aim, and a last one to fire. It's more interactive, but it misses the point. Hacking isn't suppose to be fun and iteractive. Being a Hacker is suppose to be fun and interactive. Opening a door with a hacking tool is simply part of a bigger picture.

[�io]

It could be as simplistic as 4 or 5 spinning dials which you have to stop at a certain point in each of their spins.

You ever play Dead to rights by any chance?? :)

I agree if hacking is just a button click and a meter i won't be as interested as i was. I'll probably let someone else spend certs to watch a meter go down.

Anyhoo that's all for me, don't feel like debating another issue with Warborn. :)

[Warborn]

Well, you'll understand when you play it.

[Coliostro]

I played Dead to Rights for a little bit but that was just a general example of a puzzle game that's been used in a ton of video games. I call it a developer fall back puzzle. :p


I disagree with you Warborn. I think part of the excitement about being a hacker should be the action of hacking. You shouldn't have to worry about that guy coming around the corner. That's why you have a squad. Unless you're trying to take a base by yourself those guys should be covering your ass while you hack into the system.

[Warborn]

I disagree with you Warborn. I think part of the excitement about being a hacker should be the action of hacking. You shouldn't have to worry about that guy coming around the corner. That's why you have a squad. Unless you're trying to take a base by yourself those guys should be covering your ass while you hack into the system.

And you said earlier:

It could be as simplistic as 4 or 5 spinning dials which you have to stop at a certain point in each of their spins.



Just how much excitement do you expect to get out of hacking? It may be mildly interesting at first, but once you do it 100 times, would you honestly care if you had to do a puzzle every time you wanted to open a door? Would it really be more interesting than standing there for 10 seconds watching a little bar fill?

[Coliostro]

It really depends on the puzzle. If it's one repetition versus another I'd probably opt for seeing what's going on around me. But if there are 100's of different quick and simple puzzles to make hacking entertaining as well as usefull I'd much prefer that. They aren't going to put them in of course because that's just one more thing to push the release date back. However, maybe it's something they'll consider in the future and make an option for hackers. I'm not saying you should have to do puzzles if you don't want to I just think it would be more fun and keep a hacker interested longer than just the timer.

[Warborn]

Like, say, an epic game of tic-tac-toe to wrestle control of an installation to your Faction's colours?

[Omega]

Actually I think little puzzels like that would improve the life of the hacker making it just that much more interesting. I'm not saying they need to have puzzels like that one in Onimusha 1. YES you know which one I'm talking about with the water rising and you drowning 15 times in a row. I fucking hate that puzzel.

But maybe some simpler ones that won't just have the hacker going in and pressing a button that would just be lame.


Justin

[�io]

Perfect situation would be just as i suggested for the auto-landing. Have an option where u can disable it so those who want to stand around can and those who want to actively hack can also. :)

[Warborn]

But maybe some simpler ones that won't just have the hacker going in and pressing a button that would just be lame.

I agree, and thankfully it won't work that way. There's the whole process of actually getting inside the installation alive, which isn't as easy as it sounds, and then you have to do your job without running into an enemy soldier, or if you do run into one, dispatching him quickly or otherwise avoiding him. Seriously guys, it's not just a cake walk all the way to the control points. The life of an Infiltrator-Hacker will be perilous, and there'll be a lot of other things to entertain you apart from playing a game of red-light green-light with a door to make it open.

[Coliostro]

No, something far less complex than tic tac toe Warborn. Actually, there's another option. They could make hacking extremely difficult. They could make it so you have to take an actually test before you can even get the cert and give you puzzles as difficult as the one Omega is talking about. You could bring several squads with you to take over a base and if none of your hackers can figure out the puzzle they can't take it over. Just a thought.

[Warborn]

No, something far less complex than tic tac toe Warborn.

So they'd be puzzles which have virtually no chance of you being unable to figure out then, yes? And, again, would that really be very entertaining? How long before it becomes monotony? If the puzzle is child-like in its simplicity, it's more an annoyance than engaging and entertaining.


Actually, there's another option. They could make hacking extremely difficult. They could make it so you have to take an actually test before you can even get the cert and give you puzzles as difficult as the one Omega is talking about. You could bring several squads with you to take over a base and if none of your hackers can figure out the puzzle they can't take it over. Just a thought.

You have all these guys who just fought through a bloody battle, all charged with adrenaline, only to find out that none of the Hackers can be the AI at Mahjong. I dunno, it might appeal to a certain group of players, but I can tell you, I'd be pissed if I were on the attacker's team.

And I can say with certainty that challenging puzzles most definitely do not fit the theme of Planetside. You capture a base with 20% tactics, 80% bloodshed. There's no place for puzzle solving ability in a MMOFPS, unless the puzzle is "How do I take out the defenders guarding the stair well leading up to the last control panel?".

[Coliostro]

You may be right about some of it. It was just a thought anyways. I still think there should be the option of puzzle solving for the hacker. Maybe he'll want the extra atmosphere.

The difficulty is actually finding a level of difficulty that isn't a no brainer but it doesn't take Steven Hawking to solve it either.

[bliksta]

rofl... how can a puzzle be related to hacking.. I think this thread is stupid and holding down a button to hack seems fine to me. This is an action game not a god damn final fantasy game or whatever you guys want it to be.

[Navaron]

It's not a bad Game idea, but think about it in context. You just got done kickin the stuffing out of some Vanu and now you have to mess with a puzzle to get access to the base? Screw that, I'd just put some HE on it and book it, then put in my own controller.

[Omega]

Bilistik [sp] osrry to tell you bro but the topic is not stupid at all really. Some partd of hacking actually do involve puzzel solving.

For instance in the movie "Swordfish" the lead character hacking into the government site and stuff to get that info did involve some level of puzzel solving. So I think the two in some ways walk hand in hand.

We're not talking about some ***-zaw puzzle crap were talking about things involving numbers or symbols. I think it would be a good idea to involve something like this. I know it's already a hassel to get into of the enemy base but still it would be lame just to go in and press a button after all that work to get in. It makes your victory have less of an impact as the hacker I would feel. Instead of you just dumbing to hit a button and watch a meter go down. Why not be able to complete a puzzle and then your in.

Of course there would be the problem of creating so many puzzles so that hackers won't begin to see the same puzzle over and over again, but maybe they can work around that some how.


Justin

[�io]

Originally posted by Omega
Bilistik [sp] osrry to tell you bro but the topic is not stupid at all really. Some partd of hacking actually do involve puzzel solving.

For instance in the movie "Swordfish" the lead character hacking into the government site and stuff to get that info did involve some level of puzzel solving. So I think the two in some ways walk hand in hand.

We're not talking about some ***-zaw puzzle crap were talking about things involving numbers or symbols. I think it would be a good idea to involve something like this. I know it's already a hassel to get into of the enemy base but still it would be lame just to go in and press a button after all that work to get in. It makes your victory have less of an impact as the hacker I would feel. Instead of you just dumbing to hit a button and watch a meter go down. Why not be able to complete a puzzle and then your in.

Of course there would be the problem of creating so many puzzles so that hackers won't begin to see the same puzzle over and over again, but maybe they can work around that some how.


Justin

Exactly!

And the thing is, it would make the hacker an active and skillful role like a sniper or a galaxy pilot. You would need the skills to complete the puzzles (be it connecting wires or calculating things, moving symbols around,whatever) succesfuly and quickly. I,myself think it would be very cool to see 1 NC soldier take 2mins to hack an enemy tank while his buddy does the same thing in 30secs. :)

[CDaws]

Ok here's an idea for the puzzle thing for the hacker. Forget all the different puzzels with switches, tumblers, lights and crap of that nature. Probable the easiest thing to do is if this ever happens is have the code in another part of the base like in a guard house or something you have to hit first. Get the alpha numeric code of how many charcters it is then go put it into the control center to start the 15 min countdown and each time the base changes sides the code automaticly changes. But, this will never happen and the hold down the button thing will stay.

[BLuE_ZeRO]

or they could leave it the way it is and we can all LIVE WITH IT!!!!!!!!!! :rawr:

[Navaron]

You've seen some of these posts right? Now take a look at the OPS site. Those people are the *smart* ones. They can't remember what their point is, much less what the hell is going on with a code. If you don't believe me, last time I was there, there was a NC is American thread. If you read it, you will get 15% STUPIDERERER.

[Coliostro]

Navaron, what exactly is your post about?

I have a feeling this hacker issue is something that hasn't been overly covered in the forums....unlike the sniper issue. I'd never really thought of it before I'd just assumed it would be like Counter-strike. No one ever wanted to have the bomb or be the bomb defuser in Counter-strike either. Maybe that's something they should think about.

I'm not a dev though so i don't know what they're already thinking about...though i wish i was.

[�io]

Well as i said i know that if hacking is simply a 1 click thing/any n00b can do it if they have the cert than i'll most likely use my 2 certs (hacking,adv.hacking) for something much more fun like galaxy piloting or something. :)

[Navaron]

Upon further review, my last post make's no sense. This was what it was in reference to -

"Probable the easiest thing to do is if this ever happens is have the code in another part of the base like in a guard house or something you have to hit first. Get the alpha numeric code of how many charcters it is then go put it into the control center to start the 15 min countdown and each time the base changes sides the code automaticly changes"

[Serbitar]

why not make hacking a litte of a reflex game ?
like the earlier mentioned spinnign wheels which you have to sop at the right position.
the better certs you have the slower they rotate.

The fun whould ge: Missing the right position when you are getting nervous becasue your squad is being riped apart while defending you. Cold blooded guys would have a definate advantage.
And the whole thing would get exciting.

[�io]

And the whole thing would get exciting.
EXACTLY!!! :D

See the thing is who really wants to spend 2 certs to click and watch a meter go down when instead those 2 certs could allow you to pilot a AI MAX and a lighting, or a galaxy and use the Anti-vehicle weapon,etc.

Anyway like everything else our opinion matters little but i really hope they at least include the option to make hacking more intense and skill based. Kinda sucks that a n00b who only played 1 week with the 2 certs in hacking and a vet with 8 months and 2certs in hacking both hack at the same speed.

[RageMaster]

No, you cant have spinning disks. Spinning disks or symbols or anything else like that has NOTHING to do with hacking. Sure you can watch all the hacker movies you like, but none come close.

If hacking should have an element of player skill involved (which it should, you cant make combat certs twitchy and have hacking as a button-push idiot skill) then it should be centered around typing. Yes... typing. Maybe a palm sized computer that you plug in and tells you a specific keyphrase or alphanumeric code that you then have to type in on your keyboard.

I would go further to suggest that hackers should need to learn command lines for their different hacking programs, to navigate base file-structures and activate/deactivate what they need to. If bases were divided up into subsystems. Door control. Communications. Automated Defenses, all with their own modes, hackers would have much more flexibility to change what they want to.

Hell maybe you could have a planetside internet that hackers could sit in bases and have wars over. Remotely hack into bases, stuff like that. There is much scope for a hacking skill in this MOG, it depends whether Devs take the simple option.

I mean maybe their duties could be expanded just from control panels. Maybe hackers could directly interface with doors and turrets, so that they could effectively lock doors behind them, and turn remote defenses against the defenders.

I think the whole "incremental bar" idea is in stone now though. Oh well.

[RageMaster]

How cool would it be to remotely hack into the subsystems of an enemy base and see what they're all doing through the bases security cameras? It sure isnt impossible to implement, thats all Im saying.

;-)

[Navaron]

"If hacking should have an element of player skill involved (which it should, you cant make combat certs twitchy and have hacking as a button-push idiot skill) then it should be centered around typing. Yes... typing. Maybe a palm sized computer that you plug in and tells you a specific keyphrase or alphanumeric code that you then have to type in on your keyboard.

I would go further to suggest that hackers should need to learn command lines for their different hacking programs, to navigate base file-structures and activate/deactivate what they need to. If bases were divided up into subsystems. Door control. Communications. Automated Defenses, all with their own modes, hackers would have much more flexibility to change what they want to. "

Hacking isn't really a primary skill, I think most players will be a X/Hacker. Not just a hacker. If you use this method, you'll never find a hacker.

However, this spinning disk thing reminds me of something. For those of you with Splinter Cell for the Xbox, remember how you pick locks? That system keeps you on the edge of your seat, yet anyone could do it. I think people could get really good at it and be more valued, yet joe blow could still have a shot.

[Hamma]

Even if it is just holding down a button, which it was when I played. You still need covered, its almost always going to be a hot enviroment when your hacking. And you cannot defend yourself while hacking. So, it should be left IMO - once we get in game if it sucks then it can be changed. :D

:chomp:

[Navaron]

"once we get in game if it sucks then it can be changed"

point

[Hamma]

:confused:

[Navaron]

as in good - good point. I'm leaving now.

[Coliostro]

There have been some really good ideas. It's unfortunate that none of them will be implemented. Hackers are doomed to a life of charging into a base killing things with their comrades then kneeling down in a corner and holding down a button to "hack" the system. Stupid, but practical.

[�io]

Well i know my 2 certs will be put to something much more fun and interactive, i'll let someone else hack the bases. :)

[RageMaster]

Thats the attitude! IF it sux, change it!

[Feynn]

Hi, I'm new here but been lurking for a while. My friends and I were actually discussing this very issue and an idea I had would be to make hacking a Flash Flash Revolution type game but optionally without the sound. If you haven't played ffr, check out www.xqsite.com.

It's a very simple concept that anyone can learn but can be made more difficult for things that should be more difficult to hack (bases vs. doors). It is also something that can be easily randomized so that it is always different.

This type of game would take different skillsets than the fast action twitch skills needed for combat and I think that adds to the depth of the game. I think it's always a bonus when the natural abilities and strengths of a player makes them better in their chosen role than the next guy.

[Warborn]

Argh, you guys are thinking of it the wrong way. Let's take what Dio said to help illustrate:

Well as i said i know that if hacking is simply a 1 click thing/any n00b can do it if they have the cert than i'll most likely use my 2 certs (hacking,adv.hacking) for something much more fun like galaxy piloting or something.

Wrong way of looking at it. This is like saying "Well if shooting a rifle is as easy as just pointing your gun and pressing a button then I don't think I want to fire guns". It's not the action that you're going to have fun with, it's the situation. If you're an Infiltrator-Hacker, the actual skill of Hacking is a tiny part of what your role is. While some sort of wussy puzzle might be slightly amusing for a few days, you'll very quickly forget it's even there, and wouldn't mind at all if it were just a little bar filling.

However, if you were looking for in-depth and detailed hacking so that the actual process of hacking something is basically all your guy does, then you're likely asking for something PS isn't meant to provide.

[Warborn]

I think it's always a bonus when the natural abilities and strengths of a player makes them better in their chosen role than the next guy.

Just like with standard FPS fire-fights, Infiltrator-Hacker type people will be separated by skill as well. Knowing when to move, when to fight and when not to, where to go in a base, how to bypass guards or stationary defenses... most of you are acting like a hacker can just walk into a base and hack stuff without any fuss. It's not that easy, and it's the "not so easy" stuff that makes the role fun and challenging. Adding puzzles to doors is not a step in the right direction toward making the role more rewarding for the more skilled player.

[�io]

Originally posted by Warborn
This is like saying "Well if shooting a rifle is as easy as just pointing your gun and pressing a button then I don't think I want to fire guns".

:rolleyes:

It's not at all the same thing, having the cert for a rifle allows you to use the rifle but doesn't make you good at it, having the cert for hacking does make you good at it. 2 different people with a rifle cert won't have the same skills even if they have the same cert, but 2 different people with the hacking cert will be exactly the same, there is no skill involved at all. And getting to the terminal isn't part of the hacking role, it is infiltration and you don't need a cert(or 2) for that. We are talking about the actual hacking cert and use of it.

[Cyan8313]

Well boring puzzles wich anyone with half a brain can do will not make hacking any more fun. If you want a hacking game I suggest you go play Uplink.

Half the point with PS is that any newbie potentially could be as good as the oldest vet.


:)

C

[�io]

Originally posted by Cyan8313
Half the point with PS is that any newbie potentially could be as good as the oldest vet.



Potentiel and fact are 2 different things.

[Venoxile]

In taking over a base, let's say after 15 minutes after you hack the terminal, why would the battle stop? Why couldn't the defenders have 4 ams's outside the base so the teams just switch sides and the battle could never end? I mean if that was possible then there would not really be any control over the bases because it's just mass chaos. And each side would have the base for only a few minutes to an hour each. And if it was this way for all bases, then there would be no real winning or losing.

[FraBaktos]

I don't think you have to sit there holding a button for 15 minutes!! you prolly only have to hold the button for a few seconds, then work on defending because the enemy will definitely start retaliating. Whoever does the FAQ questions on the main site is basically saying that you hack a base and gain control. Then it will be 15 minutes that you have to defend until the base actually switches sides. It only prolly takes a very short amount of time to switch control, but defending is another matter. This is just what I was able to make sense of out of the main site's FAQ ----> ("Any base Complex can be captured. Base capture can be accomplished by infiltrating or invading a building and getting to it's Control Console. A player can then hack the subsystems of the Console, subverting its routines and taking control of the building. Control must be kept for some time before the building will actually change sides".)

.:thumbsup:


EDIT: I didn't even read all of this topic, too long. This has already prolly been said.

[Warborn]

It's not at all the same thing, having the cert for a rifle allows you to use the rifle but doesn't make you good at it, having the cert for hacking does make you good at it.

Once again, you don't take a Hacking cert and then do absolutely positively nothing apart from Hack things. A Hacking cert is as much, and as little, a tool of the Hacker as a rifle is a tool of a grunt. Hacking is one part of the picture. One piece of the puzzle. One peperonni on the pizza. Etc etc etc. You will have fun as a Hacker, because there is more to the job than JUST Hacking.


2 different people with a rifle cert won't have the same skills even if they have the same cert, but 2 different people with the hacking cert will be exactly the same, there is no skill involved at all.

Yeah, but two Hackers who hack via infiltrating a base will be two different people because one will be good at being stealthy and covert, and one won't be. A player with good aim but shitty soldier-instinct will make a bad grunt, just as an Infiltrator-Hacker with the Hacking cert but no skill at being an Infiltrator will make a bad Infiltrator-Hacker. Just because you can use something, doesn't mean you know how to use it.


And getting to the terminal isn't part of the hacking role, it is infiltration and you don't need a cert(or 2) for that. We are talking about the actual hacking cert and use of it.

There's absolutely no sense in focusing on just the Hacking cert, because as I've said, it's just one part of the bigger picture. If you totally exclude all other factors and simply say "Well, the Hacking cert is boring, let's make it a mini-game so that Hacking is interesting", you have absolutely no argument. It's not at all necessary or needed, and most players would find that it gets in the way. People don't pick a weapon cert just to stand in place and hold the fire button down, and people also don't take a Hacking cert to simply walk around opening doors. There is more to being a Hacker than just Hacking, so there is utterly no reason in making the Hacking cert into some sort of a puzzle.

[Warborn]

I don't think you have to sit there holding a button for 15 minutes!!

Exactly right. Once the base control has been Hacked, the Hacking part of the base take-over is done. Now you need to defend the control panel for 15 minutes and prevent enemies from re-Hacking it back to their side. During the 15 minutes you are defending, the base is neutral, and nobody can use it for anything. Once the 15 minutes is up, the base is yours.

[Feynn]

Warborn,

Maybe my understanding of how the game is wrong since I haven't yet played or seen it, but it seems to me that anytime you want to "hack" a base, you would have to send in a team of base infiltrators and not a lone hacker by himself. If this assumption is correct, then the majority of the things you say a hacker will have fun doing is going to be stuff that applies to being a base infiltrator, not specifically a hacker.

It would seem that the hacking cert is going to basically be one that people are going to take just because having one is required. An analogy is to a poorly done RPG where clerics are boring as hell to play, but someone has to bite the bullet and be one if you are going to have a successful party. What some of us are trying to suggest is that hacking become a "class" that people actually enjoy and can become proficient at. Just as Dio said, having a rifle cert doesn't make you good with that rifle, yet having the hacker cert is really all you need to be a good hacker.

I think it's important to remember that we're all fans of Planetside and if we didn't think it would be a good game we wouldn't be here. Hacking as it stands now doesn't change our opinion of the game in general, so there's not really any point in trying to convince us that hackers will still have fun playing PS because we all agree. What we are trying to say is that by making hacking dependent on some kind of player skill, you make the game MORE fun, and the hacking certification becomes more appealing, as opposed to just being something that someone on the team has to have. Just as some commanders are striving to be well respected because of their command abilities, wouldn't it be nice to have hackers well respected because of their hacking abilities?

I wouldn't even make a big deal about this whole thing except that I think the potential addition to gameplay is large and the difficulty in coding is rather small.

[�io]

Originally posted by Feynn
What we are trying to say is that by making hacking dependent on some kind of player skill, you make the game MORE fun, and the hacking certification becomes more appealing, as opposed to just being something that someone on the team has to have. Just as some commanders are striving to be well respected because of their command abilities, wouldn't it be nice to have hackers well respected because of their hacking abilities?

I wouldn't even make a big deal about this whole thing except that I think the potential addition to gameplay is large and the difficulty in coding is rather small.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Hamma]

I somewhat agree it would be nice if it required a bit more skill..hell maybe its being changed. We will have to wait and see :)

[Navaron]

:stupid: ***IF*** you can make it idiot proof. You don't want some moron getting in position and not ever figuring it out. I don't want to defend some A hole for 7 minutes because he doesn't know how to read. It has to be easy to learn, but difficult to master. So Joe Blow can hack it in 1.5 mins, but l33t g33k can hack it in 30 secs.

Another idea could be that the time it takes the base to turn over (the 15 mins now - I know it might change) would be directly proportional to the hack time. So Joe BLow hacked it in 1.5 mins so the base turns over in 15 mins, but l33t g33k got it done in .30 so the base turns over in 5 mins. I know people would be searchin for l33t g33k to join their squad. That would be cool.

[�io]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
I don't want to defend some A hole for 7 minutes because he doesn't know how to read.

Well that's a risk you have to take at least once to know if he is good or not, same as hopping in a galaxy with a stranger, maybe he's a damn good pilot or maybe he'll end up crashing you into a lake. :D


Another idea could be that the time it takes the base to turn over (the 15 mins now - I know it might change) would be directly proportional to the hack time. So Joe BLow hacked it in 1.5 mins so the base turns over in 15 mins, but l33t g33k got it done in .30 so the base turns over in 5 mins. I know people would be searchin for l33t g33k to join their squad. That would be cool.

Yeah that would be another sweet thing to add. But i would hope for allowing different hacking times first then maybe change the take over time as well. :)

[Coliostro]

Originally posted by Warborn

There's absolutely no sense in focusing on just the Hacking cert, because as I've said, it's just one part of the bigger picture. If you totally exclude all other factors and simply say "Well, the Hacking cert is boring, let's make it a mini-game so that Hacking is interesting", you have absolutely no argument. It's not at all necessary or needed, and most players would find that it gets in the way. People don't pick a weapon cert just to stand in place and hold the fire button down, and people also don't take a Hacking cert to simply walk around opening doors. There is more to being a Hacker than just Hacking, so there is utterly no reason in making the Hacking cert into some sort of a puzzle.



:rolleyes: Most players? Maybe I miscounted but i'm pretty sure you're the only one arguing for keeping the timer bar Warborn.

I liked the idea about 30 second hack time versus minute and 30 second hack time having a benefit in how long it takes to turn the base to your side. I think that was Navaron's :thumbsup:

[FraBaktos]

Can they respawn in the base after you have hacked it and are defending for the 15 minutes needed?:evildrop:

[Serbitar]

I would definatle like to make HACKING a skill based task. I want to have hackers who can say that they are the best arround and not as all the other button pushers.

Make it something like twitch skills (spinning wheels), or as somebpdy mentioned earlier: typing lots of strange symbols.

Just not just pushing a button.
Of course there is fun only with the hacking SITUATION but having to be skilled to hack is MORE FUN !

DAMN I want 1337 g33k in my sqad !

[Warborn]

Maybe my understanding of how the game is wrong since I haven't yet played or seen it, but it seems to me that anytime you want to "hack" a base, you would have to send in a team of base infiltrators and not a lone hacker by himself. If this assumption is correct, then the majority of the things you say a hacker will have fun doing is going to be stuff that applies to being a base infiltrator, not specifically a hacker.

A team of Infiltrator-Hackers invading a base is barely different from going in alone. If anything, it'd be more fun and require even more skill than a solo approach, as you need too coordinate and cooperate. Having allies would be less nerve-wracking, but overall, I think it'd be more enjoyable.

It would seem that the hacking cert is going to basically be one that people are going to take just because having one is required. An analogy is to a poorly done RPG where clerics are boring as hell to play, but someone has to bite the bullet and be one if you are going to have a successful party. What some of us are trying to suggest is that hacking become a "class" that people actually enjoy and can become proficient at. Just as Dio said, having a rifle cert doesn't make you good with that rifle, yet having the hacker cert is really all you need to be a good hacker.

You are not limited to only being able to carry a hacking kit and nothing else. Watch the movie Aliens, for instance. The Hacker (Hudson) that was a part of the team of Marines which was sent to help the colony which the Company had lost contact with was just another Marine. He had the same rifle, the same body armor, and the same rank as everyone else. He fought just like the other, non-Hacker Marines. But if the squad needed a door opened or a computer hacked for information, he'd whip out his little hacking kit or whatever and get to it. That's the alternative to an Infiltrator-Hacker. The Soldier-Hacker. And the Soldier-Hacker is going to rely on his ability to blow the hell out of his enemies for having a good time. Not waiting with baited breath for his chance to solve a puzzle and open the door to allow his squad access. Although, that will make him feel like he's more integral to the squad, and being able to open the doors and capture the bases for his unit will be fun for him, despite the fact that he doesn't have to solve a puzzle to do so.

You will be able to afford an armor cert, a weapon cert, and some hacking certs. Hackers aren't going to be totally restricted to only being able to use a hacking kit and nothing else. After a group of soldiers blows away the defenders and gets to the control room, they're not going to ask "Ok, anyone see someone with no armor or weapon? We need to hack this." The guy who hacks the base is likely going to be wearing the same armor and using the same weapon as any other grunt in the group.

I think it's important to remember that we're all fans of Planetside and if we didn't think it would be a good game we wouldn't be here. Hacking as it stands now doesn't change our opinion of the game in general, so there's not really any point in trying to convince us that hackers will still have fun playing PS because we all agree. What we are trying to say is that by making hacking dependent on some kind of player skill, you make the game MORE fun, and the hacking certification becomes more appealing, as opposed to just being something that someone on the team has to have. Just as some commanders are striving to be well respected because of their command abilities, wouldn't it be nice to have hackers well respected because of their hacking abilities?

By your logic, then, perhaps even Medics and Engineers should have puzzles involved with reviving people, healing wounds, repairing vehicles, deploying mines/turrets, and that sort of thing. After all, by making these tasks more dependent on player skill, you make the game more fun. Right? Are you also for making all of these tasks puzzle-related? Because as it stands right now, the only way for a Medic to become well-known and respected is by being brave, dedicated, and a good fighter if push comes to show. And the only way an Engineer can be well-known and respected is by being crafty, ingenious, and a good fighter if things get tooth-and-nail. These methods are of course inferior toward an Engineer being well-known for his ability to beat the land-mine at a game of chess, thus being able to actually plant the mine.

Yes, bitter sarcasm, but I'm really hoping you guys will get the picture here. There's so much more to things that having puzzles simply isn't a) fun, or b) going to get you any respect. A good Medic will earn his reputation as a good Medic for actually being a good Medic. Not a good puzzle-solver. Someone who can solve puzzles easily can still be a moron when it comes to the role of a battlefield Medic, and despite the fact that he can Revive people easily, he's might still be crappy at actually applying said skill.


So what the question to those of you who want Hacking to be some sort of respectable puzzle-profession is this: Do you want Infiltrator-Hackers (Soldier-Hackers are Soldiers first, Hackers second) to be respected for their ability to solve puzzles, or their ability to actually take over bases or hijack enemy vehicles? That's what it all boils down to. The best puzzle-solver in the world will still capture far fewer bases than another Infiltrator-Hacker if the not-so-good puzzle-solver is simply better at being a stealthy, commando type guy. And the other, non-puzzle expert player will be respected more than the expert puzzle-solver. Who cares if the first guy can open a door faster if he's always slipping up and getting killed before he can even get close to the control panel. At the end of the day, the guy who gets the job done will be the one getting the recognition, and if you think there's absolutely no skill involved with Infiltrator-Hacking a base to your side, you're fooling yourself. There's plenty of room for the skilled to rise above the unskilled, and wanting the actual task of Hacking to make a difference is like putting a fifth wheel on a car. Looks nice, but it doesn't solve any problems or improve the situation much at all.

[Warborn]

Oh, some other stuff:

:rolleyes: Most players? Maybe I miscounted but i'm pretty sure you're the only one arguing for keeping the timer bar Warborn.

You've never heard of a majority being wrong, before? Just because not many people are vocally agreeing with me doesn't mean I'm more or less right than you are.

However, for the sake of accuracy, I did have some people on my side.

/em nods

Can they respawn in the base after you have hacked it and are defending for the 15 minutes needed

Once the base is Hacked, it goes Neutral (nobody can use it/spawn from it) for the 15 minutes, or until the previous owner re-Hacks it. So you can be sure that during an attack, the control room will be defended. And if the battle goes sour for the defenders, they will definitely try and hold up as long as possible in the control room.

Which is why you can shut the base down a second way -- by destroying the generator.

I liked the idea about 30 second hack time versus minute and 30 second hack time having a benefit in how long it takes to turn the base to your side. I think that was Navaron's

It turns the base Neutral, and honestly, it doesn't make a huge difference. If you're in a situation where you either hack the base in 30 seconds or die, whether you hack it in 30 seconds or 1 minute won't matter, because once you hack the base, you're dead, and the base will likely be re-hacked. Actually taking the base will require that you secure the control room (save for those rare instances when there isn't a Hacker within 15 minutes of the base you just suicide-hacked). And if the control room is secure, it won't make a difference if the process of turning the base Neutral takes 5 second or 2 minutes. Nobody is going to disturb you either way.

[Feynn]

"Do you want Infiltrator-Hackers (Soldier-Hackers are Soldiers first, Hackers second) to be respected for their ability to solve puzzles, or their ability to actually take over bases or hijack enemy vehicles?"

This is the gist of my point. All the examples you've given of how a "hacker" can make a reputation for himself don't seem to be anything specific to the "hacker" class. Another way to look at it is this... If you hear of a player who is really skilled at fighting his way into the base, would you call that person a good "hacker" or a good "soldier/infiltrator"? I would argue that all of the things you are saying defines a good hacker really is more definitive of a good player in general. Thus what you are describing is not why a hacker is fun, or how a hacker can build a good reputation, but how a player in general can be well respected.

By contrast, your example of a medic describes a player whose skills are specific to that of a medic. Being able to quickly assess who needs help and having the bravery to go into a middle of a fight to deliver that assistance is something that is unique to someone fulfilling a medic role.

In a lot of the interviews and descriptions of the game I've heard hacker listed as one of the specialty type classes that a person can pursue. But without making it a skill based profession, it is more similar to a weapon certification, something that people will have to have somewhere in their toolbox but which doesn't define their character. Is that a problem in itself? Not really, but why not take a few extra steps to get it to the point where "hacker" really is a defining role of a player and allow people to specialize more as the interviews seem to indicate is the intent of the designers? I know I personally would find it more fun.

From a command POV it seems like the way it is now, when putting together a team a commander would say, "Ok we got 10 guys, make sure one of us can hack." What I would rather see is it being where a commander putting together a team has to make special effort to find a qualified hacker.

[Warborn]

Another way to look at it is this... If you hear of a player who is really skilled at fighting his way into the base, would you call that person a good "hacker" or a good "soldier/infiltrator"?

I say Infiltrator to denote the use of an Infiltration Suit. If the player isn't wearing an IS, then he's not an Infiltrator. So the answer to the above would depend on several factors. 1) Whether the player was using an IS. 2) Whether he actually hacked the control panel and captured the base. 3) Whether he considers himself a "covert operations" type or not. If he's just a grunt that managed to blast his way in and happened to have a hacking kit, then no, he'd be recognized for some high-quality soldiering, not for being a remarkably stealthy intruder.


I would argue that all of the things you are saying defines a good hacker really is more definitive of a good player in general. Thus what you are describing is not why a hacker is fun, or how a hacker can build a good reputation, but how a player in general can be well respected.

I might not have explained it clearly enough. Sorry if my vague descriptions don't paint a detailed picture. Suffice to say that being an Infiltrator-Hacker (someone who uses an Infiltration Suit and relies on stealth and surprise to achieve his goal) will require a certain set of skills to be successful, whether or not he has to play a game of Bingo with the control panel to capture the base. The actual process of getting inside the base and up to the control panel will have little to do with Hacking, and it's at those critical times that an Infiltrator will gain his fame. The man who gets the job done at the end of the day is the one who gets respect. And you're going to need a hell of a lot more skills than simply being able to beat a door at Othello to earn respect as an Infiltrator. Which is why I'm telling you and everyone else that there's no reason to have Hacking more than it is. A player will not subsist entirely on Hacking things, and it's the other stuff that you do which will earn you fame. Nobody really gives a damn about the guy who can solve puzzles well but can't sneak into the control room.
By contrast, your example of a medic describes a player whose skills are specific to that of a medic. Being able to quickly assess who needs help and having the bravery to go into a middle of a fight to deliver that assistance is something that is unique to someone fulfilling a medic role.

Yes. Different roles require different kinds of thinking.

I've heard hacker listed as one of the specialty type classes that a person can pursue.

I wouldn't put too much faith in anything you read in interviews.

From a command POV it seems like the way it is now, when putting together a team a commander would say, "Ok we got 10 guys, make sure one of us can hack." What I would rather see is it being where a commander putting together a team has to make special effort to find a qualified hacker.

As I believe they mentioned elsewhere, you can advertise your certs, and if some grunt who bothered with Hacking and really likes Hacking wants to advertise his ability to Hack, great, because not everyone is going to be able to Hack. So there you go, there's your searching for a qualified Hacker. Not everyone is going to have Advanced Hacking, after all, and if you're one with it and you're also decent in combat/able to keep your ass in one piece, you'll likely gain renown as the guy to have with you if you want to take a base. Not because you're good at beating a the control panel in Hearts, but because you're a good addition to any Squad due to your combat prowess (or if it were an Infiltrator Squad, your stealthiness), and are capable to Hack things. Making Hacking any more complex than it is is not needed.

[Arthell]

This is just a random idea that got into my head from reading this ...

When a hacker goes to the terminal a small window pops up showing a top-down view of a circuit board. There are 3 wires running left to right. Red, Green and Blue. There would be a different sequence for each team (Vanu, TN and NC) for the hacker to follow.

Ex.
A Vanu squad gets into the 'hacking room' of a TN base. While they cover the hackers back the hacker goes to the terminal and uses it, opening up the window. The TN 'combination' would be, cut the Blue wire (right clicking to cut it) and the Green wire and then crossing the two sets. (pick up one end of the Blue wire and drag it to the opposite green one to connect them, do same with other Blue/Green pieces)

Something like this would make it so each team has a different combination. It somewhat adds to the hacking sense, is easy, and wouldnt take long.

To make it idiot-proof (well, cant make ANYTHING idiot proof :rolleyes: ) the combinations would be in a readme/bulletin board/help menu in-game or have a help menu pop-up when somebody picks the Hacking cert, telling them the basics and showing examples, and, giving the combinations.

With something like this every now and then in a patch they could switch the combinations. This would help keep hackers on their toes so it isnt just another counter-strike bomb dropping. (this is really just a simple idea, food for thought. :D)

To possibly take it a step further so that it isnt as static, if your a hacker in your own base you could try and 'rig' the hacking terminal. A very simple idea might be :

The 3 wires are running left to right. At the top is Red, the middle is Green and the bottom is Blue. This would be the setup of the terminals.

----------- <-Red
----------- <-Green
-----------<-Blue

To rig the terminal you could strip 2 wires of their colors and change them, possibly throwing off enemy hackers. (This would easily be avoided by an enemy hacker that knows to do a 2 second check to make sure they arent tampered with.)

So a rigged terminal would look like :

-----------<-Green (in reality, the Red wire)
-----------<-Red (in reality, the Green wire)
-----------<-Blue

So, using the example from the top of a Vanu hacking a TN base(Cut Blue/Green wires and cross them) the enemy hacker would have to cut the middle (Green wire that has been rigged with the red covering) and bottom (Blue) wires. Easily done, especially if you have a paper beside ya with the real setup. :D

[Warborn]

What you're looking for is a little more substance to it, and honestly, I'd be all for it. However, why not just automate? I'd personally prefer if your character actually went through the motions of using his little hacking device to open up the door. You can still have the little bar, and of course it'd take no action on your part aside from holding down the button, but watching your character snip some wires or whatever would contribute toward the suspension of belief, and couldn't hurt at all. Only thing I'm against is making it into a puzzle that people would need to be good at to over-complicate such a minor thing as hacking.

[Serbitar]

hmm seems like this topic is being talked to death by overlength posts . . .

[Hamma]

Yes Indeed, even I only skimmed all that :eek:

[Kriege]

Originally posted by Blitzkrieg
It could be like in Deus Ex
Sigh... :tear:
I miss that game

Hi Mr. BlitzKrieg , Why do I have part of your name and part of your sig effect ?(I'll take the god part of your sig btw, You can keep the man one :D )

[Coliostro]

I guess we're just all going to have to agree to disagree. There's not right or wrong answer to this argument. I think that some of these "skilled" professions should actually take some skill instead of being completely newbie friendly. Even medics and engineers. With hackers it's a relatively easy thing to picture with puzzles, with the other two i don't have any suggestions.

[Blitzkrieg]

Originally posted by Kriege
Hi Mr. BlitzKrieg , Why do I have part of your name and part of your sig effect ?(I'll take the god part of your sig btw, You can keep the man one :D )
:huh:

[Warborn]

Well, I wasn't expecting anyone to say "Warborn, you're right, I didn't look at it from that perspective". That's not how people work online. Better chance of someone who "loses" to simply not reply than there is for an actual resolution to be achieved. Regardless, you will understand when you actually experience it. Trust me.

[Arthell]

It was 5am, wasnt going to sleep and was bored.

Sue me. :D

[Feynn]

To me the gist of this argument is some people saying that they would like to see "hacking" require some specialty skill as opposed to just dumping points into it and Warborn saying that the rest of the game is fun without hacking requiring actual skills.

The FAQ has an entry that says:

"What roles can a player assume?
Anything they can imagine, pretty much. Sniper, Driver, Pilot, Hacker, Medic, Heavy armor, Skirmisher, Scout, Commander, Tactician, Engineer...and more."

If hacking indeed only involves holding a button down CS style, then it seems to me it doesn't belong on this list. Why? Because JoeBlow can become known the world over for his sniping skills, his driving skills, his piloting skills, etc. etc., but I have yet to see one example of how you can build a reputation for being a good hacker.

The key difference being that the other roles require player skills beyond the in game certification, whereas hacking does not.

[CDaws]

The crossing wires thing is a cool idea Arthell. Remindes me of hot wirering cars. ;)

[Duritz]

"What roles can a player assume?
Anything they can imagine, pretty much. Sniper, Driver, Pilot, Hacker, Medic, Heavy armor, Skirmisher, Scout, Commander, Tactician, Engineer...and more."

If hacking indeed only involves holding a button down CS style, then it seems to me it doesn't belong on this list. Why? Because JoeBlow can become known the world over for his sniping skills, his driving skills, his piloting skills, etc. etc., but I have yet to see one example of how you can build a reputation for being a good hacker.

Well, if you're right, what about medics, engineers, and scouts? By your reasoning they shouldn't be on there either; unless you want the medic trying to revive you to have to go through a complex process to sew a wound back up. Or maybe the engineers could perform that little wire game to fix the tank you're trying to destroy the front line with, and what the hell would a scout do to make it more difficult and make sense?

The reason that these roles are difficult to do is because the people that perform them already have to be able to multiclass and be effective at many things. Medics have to keep a low profile, move quickly and help their teammates with cover fire when they are not dying to be good, and enginners have to do the same. Scouts have to actually get to a good vantage point, and stay hidden to relay positions, and hackers have to get into the base either by force or by stealth. None of these core roles are difficult at all. However, they do require skill to perform because of the secondary skills needed to get the job done.

Contrary to what you believe, people WILL be known for hacking bases, because if they are good they will do it repeatedly and people WILL notice. Medics and engineers are the same, if they are always bring you back to life then you are going to always want them around and you WILL tell other people the same. And scouts WILL become famous only if they can find the best spots, keep them, and give the commanders minutes notice of problems to come. Fame WILL found in any role, even if it doesn't seem like it to you. Maybe thats because you can't see anyone being able to have the skills and master them, but it WILL happen.

Before I started writing this post, I was pretty much between sides, but now I have really thought about it and honestly don't see a need for anything extra. Yes the ideas could be added, and yes they could be very effective, if you get a good reward; however, I believe that it will simply drive away more newbies that just need positive reinforcement (which doesn't seem to be passed around much here) to become better one day.

Well *pant, pant* I'm done.

Flame on..........

[�io]

Yeah but you're forgetting a key item in your logic. Yes medics, engineers and scouts will have pretty much the same job as a hacker but the 1 thing you forgot is all those people can do it 500 times a day.

Explanation: If you're a good medic, you know how to keep a low profile and quickly deal with any threats and also know where to go when you are needed you might be able to do your job (i.e. heal/revive someone) about (let's keep it extremely low) 10 times in 1 hour. Now, same skill level for a hacker, no matter how good he is there is only a certain number of bases he can hack, there's no way he can hack succesfuly hack a base 10 times a day let alone in 1 hour. So each mission should be much more fun and challenging since he will only have a few unlike a medic or engineer who can do his job non-stop all day.

Also every time a hacker succesfuly hacks a base it's a major victory, every time a medic heals someone it's just 1 more man out there with limited ammo, it's not a whole base and it won't affect the war as much. And the hacker will also have a much much more hard time doing his job than a medic, a medic can find casualties anywhere, he might not even be in the heat of the battle but to hack the hacker has to actually go into enemy terrain and avoid and/or fight off threats. It's way more dangerous. So again, bigger reward should equal more skill required and more fun involved.

And besides i'm all for making hacking a more fun and challenging process but who said i wouldn't be for medic and engineers either? I'd think it would be cool to have the same type of thing we are saying now for medics and engineers. (although medics would be a bit harder to implement without requiring people to know medical info :p)

Everything else in PS is skill-based, from piloting to grunt work while skimming commanding, driving and gunning. If you're good you win, if not you lose. I don't see why the other roles shouldn't be either.

[Warborn]

Dio, you're acting as if being a "hacker" involves only one thing: Hacking. There is no such thing as being someone who Hacks and nothing else, as Duritz said. There are a lot of secondary (or rather, primary) skills involved with being someone who'd hack a base. Hacking is just as basic in terms of character ability as would be throwing a grenade. It's simply a tool in one's arsenal, and doesn't need to be made more complex, because it's a small part of what your character is.

Anyway, if you don't understand the point Duritz was trying to make, this discussion is at an end, because it doesn't get any clearer.

[Duritz]

Yeah but you're forgetting a key item in your logic. Yes medics, engineers and scouts will have pretty much the same job as a hacker but the 1 thing you forgot is all those people can do it 500 times a day.

You have a good point Dio, but how often will a hacker be hacking? If you are attacking a base with a reasonably sized and constructed assault, then the hacker may be attempting to hack a base many, many times in an hour.

Plus, what about tank pilots and gunners? It requires skill to do those jobs, but you can't make a tank last forever and then they have to wait for their time to expire before being able to fight again (only since we're relagating people to specific roles, if not then everyone's roles will be too dynamic to place anywhere specific). They may not be as much of a determinig factor as a hcker is, but its still a comparison.

Also, the main point was that hacker doesn't need more to do because the stuff leading up to the hacking is what is where most of the work is. By making it more difficult the attacks becomer more futile, as less good hackers are around.

Also, with more skill involved you have to deal with more lamers that say they know how to hack, just to piss you off or to get a chance at doing it. Maybe eventually we will weed them out, but then where is the pool of hackers we had? Gone, because they never got a chance to hack and that is because everone only wanted the uber hackers. I do agree that it would add more depth to the game, but to make the game fair and fun to newbies and to give the offense a chance at getting it done the simple way has to be preserved.

And what about the fact that an attacking force always would need a good hacker? If you can only get a hold of one good hacker then everytime he dies will be at least 5 minutes of futile fighting hoping he gets back soon and doesn't die this time. True, you could more easily set up larger console attaacks with that ime, but still you lose time when the enemy could be sending reinforce ments. If there are plenty of hackers because it IS easy to do, then attacking forces fighting will never be in vain, because every few seconds another team will make a run at the control console.

I understand that it would add very much to the gameplay; personally, I kind of like the idea. However, it is not necessary and would be simply killing the spirit behind planetside of letting anyone be what they want to be.

And thx for that comment warborn.

[�io]

Originally posted by Duritz
You have a good point Dio, but how often will a hacker be hacking? If you are attacking a base with a reasonably sized and constructed assault, then the hacker may be attempting to hack a base many, many times in an hour.

Yeah but the odds of a hacker hacking a base more than 2-3 times in 1 hour are slim. Taking a base won't be easy, you need a lot of manpower to break the defense (well hopefully), it won't be as simple as hopping into a tank or finding people that are wounded.

Plus, what about tank pilots and gunners? It requires skill to do those jobs, but you can't make a tank last forever and then they have to wait for their time to expire before being able to fight again (only since we're relagating people to specific roles, if not then everyone's roles will be too dynamic to place anywhere specific). They may not be as much of a determinig factor as a hcker is, but its still a comparison.

I don't really get your point here. You said yourself "it requires skill" that's what i'm advocating here, that the hacking cert should require skill just like a piloting cert or a gun cert. (also just fyi you most likely won't have to wait too long for a new tank)

Also, the main point was that hacker doesn't need more to do because the stuff leading up to the hacking is what is where most of the work is. By making it more difficult the attacks becomer more futile, as less good hackers are around.

Ah here again you guys focus on the part leading up to the hacking, this has nothing to do with what i'm saying. The hacking cert is my concern and the fact you can get in the enemy base isn't part of the cert, the only thing the cert does affect is the act of hacking which is why i'm sayign the actual act of hacking should require some skill like any other cert.

Also, with more skill involved you have to deal with more lamers that say they know how to hack, just to piss you off or to get a chance at doing it. Maybe eventually we will weed them out, but then where is the pool of hackers we had? Gone, because they never got a chance to hack and that is because everone only wanted the uber hackers. I do agree that it would add more depth to the game, but to make the game fair and fun to newbies and to give the offense a chance at getting it done the simple way has to be preserved.

Ok this argument just doesn't make sense(no offense), by that logic piloting and grunt work should be done by the computer since new comers won't be able to fly as good or aim as good as the "l33t" guy that is pissing everybody off.

And what about the fact that an attacking force always would need a good hacker? If you can only get a hold of one good hacker then everytime he dies will be at least 5 minutes of futile fighting hoping he gets back soon and doesn't die this time. True, you could more easily set up larger console attaacks with that ime, but still you lose time when the enemy could be sending reinforce ments. If there are plenty of hackers because it IS easy to do, then attacking forces fighting will never be in vain, because every few seconds another team will make a run at the control console.

Taking over a base shouldn't be easy. Wouldn't having less hackers just make it more fun??? Which do you prefer having a group of 30 people who all hack which will inturn make hacking the base easy or having 3-4 hackers and having to cover and protect those few hackers while they to their job and make communication and teamwork a key item required to take over a base.

I understand that it would add very much to the gameplay; personally, I kind of like the idea. However, it is not necessary and would be simply killing the spirit behind planetside of letting anyone be what they want to be.

Well first i would like to think the spirit of PS is teamwork, in which case making the hacker role important and precious would only help that spirit come across. Second i never said the hacking part would have to be extremly hard or complicated to discourage new comers, just something skill based so John doe can do it in the usual 1-2mins but Hamma who has been hacking for 5 months now can do it in 30-40secs.

Thanks by the way Duritz, i missed having a debate where the other person doesn't just tell me i'm wrong and i should stfu. :)

[Venoxile]

Dio, answer my max thread, bleh, I can't find the statement that says max's can only carry 1 weapon.

[HollandHup]

I only read the first page and thought I'd reply to this. Maybe it's already said in the other 5 pages, but i really can't be bothered to do that at the moment

Originally posted by Dio
I don't see how making something much more interactive and challenging is making it less fun. I never said it should take 10mins but i'd rather spend 1min doing some actual hacking thingy like connecting wires or something than just standing around for the same minute watching a bar go down.

The reasen why you don't have to do anything but push a button is because it's NOT YOU that's hacking, but YOUR CHAR... and the change of success or speed is bassed on HIS SKILL... not YOUR SKILL :)

sorry for caps if you find them irritating, just trying to be more clear.

[�io]

Originally posted by HollandHup
bassed on HIS SKILL... not YOUR SKILL

So why is piloting, driving, grunt work,etc not based on my character's skills as well?

[HollandHup]

lol aren't you a fast replier? :)

Because you have no skill in hacking in real life (maybe) and certainly you don't have skill in hacking consoles in bases on a planet that doesn't exist in the future.

YOU also don't have skill in flying an airplane, except know up from down and right from left :P Your CHAR does have the skill to keep the airplane airborne... Get the point?

And people are waiting for you to hack it, but if you are too tired to do it right, people will get annoyed and blame you. You were suppost to be their hacker, but you didn't know it would take 5 hours into the night to take that base. This one isn't actually my point, but it also counts i guess.

[�io]

:confused:

My char isn't doing the flying i am, i dunno how to fly. My char isn't doing the shooting i am, i dunno how to aim a lasher. So why should my char suddenly do 1 action (hacking) when he doesn't do the rest (aim,fly,drive,etc).

[HollandHup]

there will be must more to flying a Galaxy then pressing 4 directional buttons in the cockpit! You char knows how to handle all the buttons and flashing lights and all. And your char knows how to turn the plane without crashing into the ground 10 seconds later. And your char does all that and all you have to do is press the right directional button. Yes use your IMAGINATION lol.

Besides, why would there be certs if you only need 4 buttons to fly a galaxy perfectly?

If you to actually hack something, there will in reality be more to it then connect 2 wires and some people will be faster then other and then again there will be people who know nothing about hacking

Also if you really want to hack something, then flying should also be "simulator-like" and not just giving the general directions.

I hope you get it now.

if not:

-YOU also don't know how to reload a boltdriver, your CHAR does
-YOU also don't know how to fire a tak, your CHAR does
-YOU also don't know how to reload a tank, heck you don't even know what a tank looks like on the inside, then how on earth are YOU able to drive it?

No really, you should see it as you tell your CHAR what to do in these things and he'll use HIS skill to do them and not bother you with the details.

please get the point, i'm bad at explaining oviously :)

[HollandHup]

you tell him to "hack console" and he does it

you tell him to "fly galaxy to the right" and he does it

you tell him to "drive in a lightning" and he doesn't cause he doesn't know how to do that (no cert)

you tell him to "learn how to drive a lightning" and he does that



Why doesn't he drive the lightning? there is nothing to it, it's like driving a buggy isn't it? the same direction buttons... he doesn't do it cause he can't handle it

[Duritz]

http://www.planetside-universe.com/articles.php?articleId=26 there it is. Dio is right.

Dio, I will try to reword the ones that don't make sense right now. (I don't know why I said some of those)

Yeah but the odds of a hacker hacking a base more than 2-3 times in 1 hour are slim. Taking a base won't be easy, you need a lot of manpower to break the defense (well hopefully), it won't be as simple as hopping into a tank or finding people that are wounded.

Personally, I think each Hacker will get at least a 4 runs toward the console in an hour. If not, then having less good hackers is ever greater of a downfall.

I don't really get your point here. You said yourself "it requires skill" that's what i'm advocating here, that the hacking cert should require skill just like a piloting cert or a gun cert. (also just fyi you most likely won't have to wait too long for a new tank)

I prolly should have put this quote after one of the others about the skill, and I REALLY didnt explain it. My point was that people that require skill are far and few between because the game makes them that way. If you have only a few tanks and only a few hackers (because people need skill to become them and that is a limiter on numbers) then you will always have shortages of vital personnel and equipment. And you need those vital supplies to take over bases (and defend them).

Ah here again you guys focus on the part leading up to the hacking, this has nothing to do with what i'm saying. The hacking cert is my concern and the fact you can get in the enemy base isn't part of the cert, the only thing the cert does affect is the act of hacking which is why i'm sayign the actual act of hacking should require some skill like any other cert.

You're right. I really didn't think about your point when i said this. I guess it was just a general anti-complication argument.:(

"Also, with more skill involved you have to deal with more lamers that say they know how to hack, just to piss you off or to get a chance at doing it."

(add to end) because they actually suck and want to learn, but they can't get a break with a commander that can actually get them into a base because the commander wants someone that they know is good.

" Maybe eventually we will weed [the lamers] out, but then where is the pool of [want to learn to become good] hackers we had? Gone, because they never got a chance to hack and that is because [all of the commanders] only wanted the uber hackers."

Hope that makes more sense. :) (when i reread it I really had to think cause i really didn't explain myself very well the first time)

Taking over a base shouldn't be easy. Wouldn't having less hackers just make it more fun??? Which do you prefer having a group of 30 people who all hack which will inturn make hacking the base easy or having 3-4 hackers and having to cover and protect those few hackers while they to their job and make communication and teamwork a key item required to take over a base.

Well, personally I think (read hope :)) that the devs have made base capture already difficult enough that it won't be easy. If anything, that idea would make itt harder. Plus, If it were too difficult to take bases but maybe once a week, I'm sure that I wouldn't keep playing. Hopefully, most of the base capture is based around the actual battle to control it and not who has the best hacker. Also, if base capture is easy wouldn't that also make it more fun? If you end up trading a base with an opponent many times before you finally fully captured it, wouldn't you feel more pride for fianlly fighting them off? Either way that would still be fun, so I think that is probably a moot point.

Well first i would like to think the spirit of PS is teamwork, in which case making the hacker role important and precious would only help that spirit come across. Second i never said the hacking part would have to be extremly hard or complicated to discourage new comers, just something skill based so John doe can do it in the usual 1-2mins but Hamma who has been hacking for 5 months now can do it in 30-40secs.

Well the hacker role is still important without skill; if you don't have one, you're screwed (attack or defense). But I don't see a need for it to be precious. No other role will be. There will be plenty of everything else, except maybe commanders. There will even be a lot of Galaxy pilots, I think. No, it need not be hard to discourage people, but they will not be able to show that they are competent because people will want hackers that they know are better. So John Doe can do it in 1 min, thats pretty good, but will he get the chance? Maybe some commanders are more open, bu most will be keeping off lamers and miss the good ones by accident.

And Dio, Warborn while I have been lurking for the last 3 or so weeks I have seen that you two and just a few others actually present their ideas in a clearminded, unhostile, and intelligent manner. I believe that you guys honestly contribute the most to these forums.

Oh, HollandHup you shoulda stopped before your last one the others were pretty good points.

[Warborn]

Also, to add something, not everyone will be able to Hack. Actually I'd imagine very few people will bother getting up to advanced Hacking when they could be spending those cert points on other, more fruitful certs (like more piloting/weapon certs). So it's not like everyone in an attack group will use a Hacking cert well. I imagine that if you were to take an average Outfit, they'd likely have one or two people with Advanced Hacking out of ten. You really don't need a lot of people with the ability to Hack, as it's not an incredibly useful skill apart for base capturing and possibly some other stuff, so not many will bother with it.

Moral of the story: Not everyone will be able to Hack a base. Not everyone will be able to Revive their friends. Not everyone will be a Galaxy pilot. People will find a niche and gravitate toward it in their cert spending, and given that most players are more focused on killing people than actually doing the deed of base capturing themselves, I imagine Hacking in any character apart from an Infiltration-suit wearing guy who makes it his job to get inside and raise hell while/prior to an attack is going on outside will be rare. Why take a skill that chances are someone else will have (thus making yours redundant) when you could be firing a new gun or driving a new vehicle instead?

[Warborn]

And Dio, Warborn while I have been lurking for the last 3 or so weeks I have seen that you two and just a few others actually present their ideas in a clearminded, unhostile, and intelligent manner. I believe that you guys honestly contribute the most to these forums.

Well, in that case I should say that you've proven to be a much welcome addition to the mix. It is good to have more people able to express themselves in a clear and concise manner -- especially when they have insightful things to say.

[�io]

Originally posted by Duritz
Personally, I think each Hacker will get at least a 4 runs toward the console in an hour. If not, then having less good hackers is ever greater of a downfall.

I hope for far less, my idea is kinda like my view on sniperism (is that a word ? :lol: ) it should be about 1 very hard shot but that shot rewards. I'd rather see a team work together and communicate to execute a well thought out plan 1 time with a few hackers that they need to cover and protect than see a gang just attack over and over until 1 of the many hackers they have succeds.

I prolly should have put this quote after one of the others about the skill, and I REALLY didnt explain it. My point was that people that require skill are far and few between because the game makes them that way. If you have only a few tanks and only a few hackers (because people need skill to become them and that is a limiter on numbers) then you will always have shortages of vital personnel and equipment. And you need those vital supplies to take over bases (and defend them).

Just because you aren't as good as the next guy doesn't make you useless. My idea of hacking isn't to make new comers fail but rather make them take longer so that those of us who have been praticing hacking for 6 months are actually better than the new guy on the block who just started playing 3 days ago. Same goes for tank gunners and drivers, if you have been praticing that role for months you should be better than the new kid. It just makes sense.

Also, with more skill involved you have to deal with more lamers that say they know how to hack, just to piss you off or to get a chance at doing it.

(add to end) because they actually suck and want to learn, but they can't get a break with a commander that can actually get them into a base because the commander wants someone that they know is good.

" Maybe eventually we will weed [the lamers] out, but then where is the pool of [want to learn to become good] hackers we had? Gone, because they never got a chance to hack and that is because [all of the commanders] only wanted the uber hackers.

Yeah that makes sense now. :)
But the thing is that argument is again something that would rule out flying, gunning and driving as well since a commander will obviously take the better pilot first and the "lamer" later (or never).

Hopefully, most of the base capture is based around the actual battle to control it and not who has the best hacker.

Which is why expanding the hacker's role to my idea (making the hacking cert skill based) would be a good thing, otherwise the hacker has pretty much the same value as a nade or a medkit. He's just a tool that the grunts need once they have brusted through the defense, easily replaceable and not very special in any way.


Also, if base capture is easy wouldn't that also make it more fun? If you end up trading a base with an opponent many times before you finally fully captured it, wouldn't you feel more pride for fianlly fighting them off? Either way that would still be fun, so I think that is probably a moot point.

Well this depends, if we just capped the base sure trading with the other empire for the first few times is great, but if the 1st assault we can easily capture the base no it's not fun. Capturing a base should be damn hard. I mean put yourself on the defender's side, would you like to cap a base and set up Ds for hours if not days only to get it capped by another empire in a 10min assault? I would hope that base capping is much like in RL, the op would take hours and maybe even a few days if the defense is well planned and executed.(for the more populated bases, obviously if there is 20 peeps in the base it should fall in a few mins)



Well the hacker role is still important without skill; if you don't have one, you're screwed (attack or defense). But I don't see a need for it to be precious.

Then why do it? Why would i want to do a job where i say "Yeah i hacked the base!!" and someone beside simply says "Meh, if not you someone else would have done it just the same.". Where's the pride, where's the sense of achievement?

No other role will be. There will be plenty of everything else, except maybe commanders. There will even be a lot of Galaxy pilots, I think. No, it need not be hard to discourage people, but they will not be able to show that they are competent because people will want hackers that they know are better. So John Doe can do it in 1 min, thats pretty good, but will he get the chance? Maybe some commanders are more open, bu most will be keeping off lamers and miss the good ones by accident.

Yes there will be plenty of everything but it doesn't mean that the new comer won't get to play either. Sure they will be commander's who only want the best but this is true even is the hacking cert isn't skill based but instead of wanting the fast hacker he'll simply want the guy with adv.hacking who knows how to shoot people good. :)

The fun part of any game (IMO) is learning and improving as you play. I mean think how fun Diablo would be if you started at level 500 with a Bow that does 999999 damage. I would just like to see so room for improvement in the hacking area, otherwise i know i won't pick it up since even if i've been doing it for months any new kid can do it as fast and as good as me. (again i'm talkign about the act of hacking not the act of infiltrating)


Anyhoo i'll try to cut back on the posts, i have a feeling this won't end, you like it how it is and i would liked it to be skill based, we won't change each other minds. :)

And now i need some :zzz:

[Duritz]

You know what Dio, I think I've got an idea that everyone might agree on.

How about every time someone hacks something they get better at it. I mean, not actual skill but number of times. If I've been hacking doors for 6 months but have never hacked a base, I could practically walk up to a door and it opens and a base would go only a little faster. Lets make it a point system. You might get 1 point for a door, 10 points for a buggy, 25 points for a tank, 35 for hacking a vehicle console and 50 points for hacking a base. Then people who have capped bases repeatedly get faster and faster at it; it is skill based because you have to do it many times and get good at it. Then whoever has been doing it longer and has worked hard at being a great hacker could easily cap a base or swipe a tank, and people who haven't can still do it but take longer. It's almost the same as yours but you don't have to do a puzzle, and people can't just be a good puzzle solver. Also, lamers might not be willing to spend the time getting good at it to trick people.

It has flaws, and obviously the numbers would need to be tweaked, but it might work. It also would be easy to code, but it would take time to test out.

edit: and i mean press a button instead of solving a puzzle.

[Feynn]

Duritz, that idea seems pretty good to me. You'd just have to figure out all the possible ways it could be abused and then you're set. A couple of obvious things is you don't want people to sneak into an enemy base and spend all day hacking some remote door to raise points, likewise you probably only want to reward successful hacks in case there is a way to start the hack, interrupt, and start again.

But to get back to our horse, I just want to give another analogy of why I think hacking should be skill or even skill-point based.
Say you have a bunch of people who want to work at a small game design company. If you consider what jobs these people would want, there would be designer, artist, programmer, tester, the guy who pays the phone bill every month... One of those doesn't belong on the list. While the phone bill has got to get paid, it's not a "role" that defines a person's job.

The FAQ leads me to believe it is the intent of the designers to make the hacker a "role" that people can fulfill, as opposed to a responsibility someone has to have, and that's something I'd like to see as well.

[Serbitar]

BTW: I wouldnt call a medic skilled. It just doesnt take that much skill to maintain a low profile and heal others (which in my opinion is NOT difficult, in a sense that if you are the 1337 g33k you wont perform much better as the n00b because there is not that much skill potential in the job). Its just that the position is important but others could do is as well.

On the other side I would call a good scout skilled, becasue not being shot and get as much information as possible IS difficult.

Then I wouldnt call a hacker skilled that just runs along with the team and has the hack kit with him. Anybody could do it. A better hacking system could change that.
HACKING is important, it should be represented by an important action ingame. Not just pressing a button.

Just consider: If a n00b performs as good in a task as 1337 g33k does, it doesnt take much skill.

It is MY opinion that I want to see people who are good at the TASK of hacking and proud of it. Not just good soldiers who also have a hacking kit with them.

[Blitzkrieg]

http://www.informatics.bangor.ac.uk/~ade/bunny/bunny.jpg
And it keeps going, and going, and going...
:D :D :D

[�io]

Originally posted by Serbitar
It is MY opinion that I want to see people who are good at the TASK of hacking and proud of it. Not just good soldiers who also have a hacking kit with them.

Agreed.

And Duritz that's a pretty good mid-point between the skill-based or non-skill-based hackign cert and i would like that kind of system better than the current but i still think it would be sweet to require some skill to do the act of hacking.

[Duritz]

Well, I do agree that people that are good at the task of hacking should get a reward, but I don't see how you can prevent people from abusing that system. Maybe that's why it's so simplistic now?

Maybe we could use a mix of point system and puzzles, or some kind of challenge to even the playing field. Or maybe you could get a choice of which one to use when getting your hacking kit?

Each person could choose whether they would like to use the point system (which because it requires more time, could lead to a higher reward), or they could do a puzzle (which could reward with faster time for faster completion, but wouldn't get quite as fast as the point system).

Maybe the choice would alleviate everyone's dislike of the other side. :)

If anyone has any ideas please post them. I can't quite come up with a system that makes everyone happy.

[Warborn]

Screw it. There's nothing I'm going to add which I haven't said previously.

[�io]

Yeah i suggested that earlier, include the option to turn the skill-based system on or leave the normal bar thingy. So like that if you're a good hacker with experience you can do it fast but a new comer can still fall back on the "auto-hack" if he can't do it fast enough.

But that will never happen, nor will a skill based hacking system. Most likely the devs will stick with the hacking cert the way it is. It won't make me dislike PS more but i will however be turning away from the hacking role now.

Originally posted by Duritz
If anyone has any ideas please post them. I can't quite come up with a system that makes everyone happy.

No system can ever make everybody happy. :D

[Myhouse43]

Whats being done about cheating? Or is it not a concern?

[Hamma]

All they will say is it is being addressed. That's enough for me ;)

[Warborn]

Just thought I'd point something out:

Hacking
Allows faster use of the REK for hacking of doors and control consoles, and also allows temporary use of enemy-held medical and advanced medical terminals.

Read the bold part. Faster hacking of doors and... control consoles. Seems to me that anyone -- absolutely anyone -- with a REK will be able to capture enemy bases and open enemy doors. Taking the Hacking cert simply makes it go more quickly.

Advanced Hacking
Like Hacking, but also allows the use of enemy-held equipment terminals, air vehicle terminals and ground vehicle terminals.

No mention of anything regarding control consoles. Guess my theory is correct.


Summary: Hacking can be done by anyone with a REK. And given the fact that you can loot corpses, an REK won't be that difficult to get. Having the Hacking cert will let you Hack bases and doors more quickly, while having the Advanced Hacking cert will let you Hack the terminals listed above. Point being that Hacking isn't even close to what we've been making it out to be in this thread. You won't even need someone with the Hacking cert to capture a base. Hopefully this will shed a bit more light on how the developers of PlanetSide view Hacking.

All of this was from this page (http://www.planetside-universe.com/content.php?p=sdCertInfo), which was part of the PSU Dev Interview feature.

[Hamma]

Originally posted by Warborn
You won't even need someone with the Hacking cert to capture a base.

This is false, I am almost positive you need adv hacking.

[Warborn]

I'm merely stating what I'm seeing in the dev information on certs. Unless control consoles are something other than the things you use to capture a base, and the person who sent you that information forgot to mention the part about being able to capture bases with Advanced Hacking, then I believe either the requirement for an Advanced Hacker being with you is no longer in, or someone made several large errors in the information that you recieved.

And on that note, I'd be very pleased if what I'm interpreting here is correct. Making it absolutely necessary for someone to have Advanced Hacking if you're going to take a base is really unnecessary. It'll only force more people to have Advanced Hacking that really want to, otherwise you could have 30 players ready to bring hell to an enemy, but they can't, because none of them have Advanced Hacking, so they can't take a base.


You know, now that I think of it, it'd really be better if Hacking/Advanced Hacking were changed to Electronics/Advanced Electronics. Hacking implies the wrong thing, I think.

[�io]

Originally posted by Hamma
This is false, I am almost positive you need adv hacking.

Hmmm... not so sure about that Hamma. If you read the cert descriptions is says it allows to hack faster not it allows to hack bases.

[Warborn]

Otherwise you couldn't take a base without an Advanced Hacking capable player, which really isn't fair to everyone else. No one cert should be so crucial to the game. Hacking is a tool, after all. Not a job.

[Hamma]

I think it would make perfect sense, I am still pretty sure that u need adv hacking. I would not want some random schmuck, max, or med to wander in and hack my base. :|

People should have to choose it as a role

[�io]

Well now that i think about it, if the act of hacking isn't skill based as this debate was about(which is very likely) than yeah you should be required to have adv hacking for base hacking and hacking for the big things like tanks and stuff. It would help the hacking role become something interesting even if it's not skill based.

[Warborn]

The only way I could agree that Advanced Hacking would work out as the only way to take a base would be if people have so many certs that it really wouldn't matter, because you could have most of the weapons, armor, medical, vehicles, advanced hacking, and everything would be peachy. However, that's clearly not going to be the case, so forcing people to have an Advanced Hacker with them when they want to take a base is an extremely poor design decision, and I sincerely hope it doesn't work that way. Making a group of players unable to capture a base unless they have a certain cert is really quite stupid, to be blunt. Why should these people have to covet and worship Advanced Hackers as the only guys who can take a base?

Having Advanced Hacking might be OK if it makes the process of capturing a base go more quickly, but forcing people to have someone with this cert with them is idiocy, and would do far more harm to the game than good.

[Navaron]

"However, that's clearly not going to be the case, so forcing people to have an Advanced Hacker with them when they want to take a base is an extremely poor design decision, and I sincerely hope it doesn't work that way. Making a group of players unable to capture a base unless they have a certain cert is really quite stupid, to be blunt. Why should these people have to covet and worship Advanced Hackers as the only guys who can take a base? "

"Having Advanced Hacking might be OK if it makes the process of capturing a base go more quickly, but forcing people to have someone with this cert with them is idiocy, and would do far more harm to the game than good."

I disagree, you have to have a pilot to fly a plane or drive a tank so why not have a cert to be able to hack the base. If you don't do this you'll have uber squads full of Maxes and snipers with no support classes and no hackers or anything of the sort bc you won't need them. You will loose teamwork and every schmuck will just race for the hacking point instead of protecting and escortign the one guy and getting him where he needs to be.


If your squad is so ill prepared as to have fought an entire battle and then realise you don't have an advanced hacker with you - you don't deserve the base.

It's not idiocy by any means, you simply can't do everything. People are going to have to diversify and pick up odd skills to make a good squad. Besides, it's not like you can only learn a couple things, you can get adv hacking and a metric ass ton of other things (Not too long ago the arguement was that you got too many perks), so that character won't be crippled just casue he knows how to hack.

[Serbitar]

Warborn: why ? This is a teamgame, if you want to go somewhere in force, youll have to find a drophsip pilot. If you want to hack a base, find a hacker.

Thats what I like. Not the "everybody can do everything".

Sure it makes the game more difficult, but hey, I dont want to play ttc tac toe.

If your group doesnt have a hacker, it has to find one. Thats teamplay, you know ? Not a design flaw at all.

Seems you have a verry narrow point of view on the whole topic.

[HollandHup]

hacking is just like Medical and repair certs. Nothing to it, it just happens. One cert allows you to heal, the other allows you to hack.

You don't actually need skill yourself to hack/repair/heal. It's already bad enough to try to keep alive.

It's all not as "romantic" as you think, it'll prolly just be a bar moving like in CS, because there is no need for it to be more.

Alto, you need skill to be a medic/hacker/engineer cause it's your role, which will be hard enough on it's own... don't need a mini-game to do what you're there for.

[Warborn]

Warborn: why ? This is ateamgame, if want to go somewhere in force, youll have to find a drophsip pilot. If you want to hack a base, find a hacker.

If you want to go somewhere in force, you do not have to find a Galaxy pilot. You could walk. Or you could ride in another vehicle. Or a lot of you could pile into an APC. Or you could use the atmospheric entry system. The point is that you should never be so restricted in regards to something so critical to gameplay. However, riding in a Galaxy would be faster and more efficient. And having an Advanced Hacker capture the base would also be faster and more efficient. See the parallel?

Thats what I like. Not the "everybody can do everything".

Exactly. Only Hackers can use enemy terminals. And only Advanced Hackers can use enemy vehicle terminals, or hijack enemy vehicles. They are able to do a series of things nobody else but other Hackers can do.

Sure it makes the game more difficult, but hey, I dont want to play ttc tac toe.

You might as well get prepared to play tic-tac-toe, because if you need Advanced Hacking to take a base, you're going to find yourself in a lot of situations where you and 30 other guys are going to be sitting around on your ass doing nothing because you can't find anyone with Advanced Hacking to go with you and capture the base.

If your group doesnt have a hacker, it has to find one. Thats teamplay, you know ? Not a design flaw at all.

No, that's irritating. Advanced Hackers will not be at your beck and call, and if you want to capture a base and there isn't one there, you're sore outta luck. And for what? To have things "make a little more sense"? To have more "templay"? You'd have things make more sense if any military force could attack and occupy a base and thereby capture it -- Advanced Hacking or not. And you're not going to find any team play in a bunch of guys sitting around waiting for an Advanced Hacker to show up. Forcing people to rely on an Advanced Hacker adds nothing to the game that would make things better overall compared to letting anybody with a REK Hack the base.

Seems you have a verry narrow point of view on the whole topic.

Not really. You're just ignorant.

I disagree, you have to have a pilot to fly a plane or drive a tank so why not have a cert to be able to hack the base.

Flying a plane or driving a tank are not critical gameplay elements. Capturing an installation is.

If you don't do this you'll have uber squads full of Maxes and snipers with no support classes and no hackers or anything of the sort bc you won't need them.

What, you think people with Advanced Medical or Combat Engineering are going to be unarmed? They'll be packing heat just like everyone else. Only difference is that they'll have less ammo due to the medical tool or whatever they've got in their backpack.

Also, Hacking isn't a support skill. It's front-line combat work. Hackers will open the door to let allies enter an enemy base, and they'll access enemy terminals to re-equip allies if they're short on ammo or whatever else. Hackers will not be little geeks sitting in the back with a pocket-protector and laptop.

You will loose teamwork and every schmuck will just race for the hacking point instead of protecting and escortign the one guy and getting him where he needs to be.

You will be protecting and escorting the Advanced Hacker whether he's the only one who can do it or not. He'll be able to Hack the base faster, and he can access enemy terminals. He'll be as much a welcome member of a combat squad as a Medic.

If your squad is so ill prepared as to have fought an entire battle and then realise you don't have an advanced hacker with you - you don't deserve the base.

Actually, you're right. Instead of people fighting for a base and then realizing that they have no Advanced Hacker, they'll sit around, and wait. And wait. And maybe -- just maybe -- one will come along, and they'll beg him and plead for him to come and capture the base you want to attack. But maybe he'll be in an Outfit, and wants to go play with his friends. Or maybe he doesn't feel like Hacking, and wants to do some piloting instead. So then you get to wait a little longer for another guy to show up. Jesus Christ, I don't know about you, but that sounds like fun. All that waiting is definitely worth it, because otherwise there'd be absolutely no team-work in PlanetSide. And boy, can you imagine if your Hacker goes linkdead or gets killed and isn't Revived in time? A whole lot more exciting waiting awaits.

It's not idiocy by any means, you simply can't do everything. People are going to have to diversify and pick up odd skills to make a good squad.

Advanced Hackers can:
- open doors quickly
- hack bases faster than non-hackers
- access enemy medical and equipment terminals
- access enemy vehicle terminals

You want to explain to me how this person isn't already beneficial to have in your squad? What exactly leads you to believe that this person should also be the only one capable of taking a base? It's not as if there aren't enough perks with the cert already.

Besides, it's not like you can only learn a couple things, you can get adv hacking and a metric ass ton of other things (Not too long ago the arguement was that you got too many perks), so that character won't be crippled just casue he knows how to hack.

So how exactly would it promote teamwork? There are clearly a lot of advantages to having Advanced Hacking, even without the base-taking factored in. Do you want to make this cert the absolute must-have for anyone who wants to go near a base? Because that's precisely what you'd end up doing. If people can have a "metric ass ton of other things", then why not pick up the cert that will let you use enemy terminals, open doors more quickly, and hack the enemy base? Do you honestly think that this cert should be on virtually every character in the game?

[Sandtaco]

*cough*yourstartingaflamewar*cough*

[Camping Carl]

He's good at that. :D

[Coliostro]

Has anyone noticed that Warborn is always on the opposite point of view from everyone else? I mean, he occasionally makes some good points but he never seems to agree with any of us and seems to think he's the only one with an original thought in his head. That said, I have but one other thing to say and I'm sure most of you have heard or said this before. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

[Hamma]

Originally posted by Coliostro
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I use that line all the time :lol:

[SandTrout]

Anyone can carry a REK(hacking tool), and anyone but a MAX can use it to open doors and hack bases.

REK
The Remote Electronics Kit (REK) is a hand-held hacking device that can remotely interface with the majority of enemy terminal types at close range. Most REK functions require either Hacking or Advanced Hacking Certification, but there are also standard functions that don't require any hacking certifications but take considerable time when employed by a non-Hacker.

Hacking
Allows faster use of the REK for hacking of doors and control consoles, and also allows temporary use of enemy-held medical and advanced medical terminals.

Advanced Hacking
Like Hacking, but also allows the use of enemy-held equipment terminals, air vehicle terminals and ground vehicle terminals.


See? Anyone with a REK can unlock a door or hack a base, but it takes longer and they don't get those nifty extra abilitys(this are nifty abilitys, not to be confused with neccisary abilitys).

Seems to be that Warborn is a Troll sense he went through the trouble of makeing that post without the correct information.

[Warborn]

*cough*yourstartingaflamewar*cough*

Oh come on, don't be so sensitive. To the guy who said something about me having a narrow view of it, he deserved what he got, and he should have seen it coming. To the other guy, I didn't flame him. I didn't kiss his ass either, but I was a long way from flaming him.

See? Anyone with a REK can unlock a door or hack a base, but it takes longer and they don't get those nifty extra abilitys(this are nifty abilitys, not to be confused with neccisary abilitys).

Seems to be that Warborn is a Troll sense he went through the trouble of makeing that post without the correct information.

I dug up this thread by posting that stuff. You just put down exactly what I kicked this off with. Look up a dozen posts -- it's right there. I'm really trying to figure out if I'm missing something here, though, so if this isn't a case of you just hitting reply without reading back a little bit, let me know. Also, just FYI, this doesn't conflict whatsoever with what I said. In fact, it supports it. So even if you didn't read up and see that I posted the same thing (minus the REK details)... how's that make me a troll?

Oh, and for all the folks at home, I don't troll. Trolling would imply that I post garbage posts with the sole purpose of causing trouble. And before some of you dash off to the Reply button with a "lolz d00d all of ur pots r teh stpuid OMG OLOLOLL ROOFLE!!11" ready to go, realize that just because you aren't seeing it from my perspective doesn't mean that you're right and I'm wrong. I state my case and I justify it, and if the best you can do is "opinions are like assholes", then I would suggest finding something other than talking about game theory to do with your time, because that's really all this is. Just a bunch of opinions -- whether I'm saying it or you are.

Has anyone noticed that Warborn is always on the opposite point of view from everyone else? I mean, he occasionally makes some good points but he never seems to agree with any of us and seems to think he's the only one with an original thought in his head.

And you honestly believe that this has anything to do with who's right and who's wrong? Come on, man. You're smarter than that.

[Hamma]

:ugh:

[SandTrout]

Ok, this thread is just confuseing.

[Warborn]

���

[Vimp]

I can understand Warborn's questioning however for both him and others there is no room for being defensive.

An opinion is an opinion whether it be a misinformed one or not and theres no constructiveness in insults or disrespecting ones in such topics as this because all that does is make the other person inclined to be all the more defensive back at you.

Even if Warborn does have a valid point, just how important is it?
Maybe even Warborn recognises the trivialness of it but is simply asking for the sake of getting some thoughts on it but then people react as if hes trying to make a big deal over something when he isn't.
Or on the other hand maybe he is. In which case he should anelyse just how important the whole matter is and whether its worth argueing whether his point has some validity or not.


My thoughts on the disscusion at present is this. Whether you have to have a cert to hack anything or whether anyone can do it it dosn't eliminate the fact that not everyone will wanna sacrifice their storage for a hacking tool so there will always be the chance that the hackers may die and no one left alive can hack simply because they havn't the tool, not because they havn't the certification. However noone nor any group of people should expect to take over a base without first making sure they have people with the hacking tool going with them. Thats simple forsight.

[Warborn]

Maybe even Warborn recognises the trivialness of it but is simply asking for the sake of getting some thoughts on it but then people react as if hes trying to make a big deal over something when he isn't.
Or on the other hand maybe he is. In which case he should anelyse just how important the whole matter is and whether its worth argueing whether his point has some validity or not.

This discussion is not unlike a friend telling you about a movie he saw last night, and he describes it exactly as a movie you've seen before, but he can't remember the title, and when you tell him that it was that movie, he insists that it was another movie. It's not a big deal, but it's an itch that I'd like to scratch.

My thoughts on the disscusion at present is this. Whether you have to have a cert to hack anything or whether anyone can do it it dosn't eliminate the fact that not everyone will wanna sacrifice their storage for a hacking tool so there will always be the chance that the hackers may die and no one left alive can hack simply because they havn't the tool, not because they havn't the certification. However noone nor any group of people should expect to take over a base without first making sure they have people with the hacking tool going with them. Thats simple forsight.

That's how it'd work now. Someone would have to have a REK with them -- Hacker or not. But, yes, if you have a Hacker with you, then great. Things will go more quickly then. So people will be on the lookout for Hackers, as they'll make base capturing easier, but if you don't have one, it's not the end of your fun.

[Serbitar]

Just some thougts:

Warborn, you gave some reasons why hacking is much more critical than being a medic or engineer.
Thats the reason why I want hacking skill based and medic and engineering not !

Second, all the reasons you gave for why making basehacking availible for everyone with a REK are reasons for me not to do so.
I want some hacker do the mission critical job of hacking a base, NOT the average joe who looted the REK from the now called equipment carrier (formerly called hacker).
If you cant get a hacker alive to the terminal you just arent worth to hack the base.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[Cyan8313]

Originally posted by Serbitar
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
I had free luch all the time when I went to school...

Well Im siding with Warborn again..

But I hope that it is a significant delay when a non-hacker hacks a base, like 5 min instead of 1 min for a hacker (f.ex.)... That way non-hackers when sitting there waiting for 5 min might reconsider getting that basic hacking cert... :rolleyes:


:)

C

[Lillemanden]

I shall admit I've only read page 1-6, so I hope this haven't been said.

You make it so that hacking involved a puzzle where you would get a password. Which you then could use too start the 15 min. timer.

If the hacker isn't skilled enough you get the password, the same password could be found deeper inside the base. SO the password could be obtained by brute force as well.

You would of cause still need the hacking device to "fill in" the password, so a non-hacker wouldn't be able to take over a base.

The password should random letters which change each time the base is hacked (also when the computer is "re-hacked"). Or maybe the hacker could choose the new password (of cause the password would be checked by a filter. And thinks like racial comments would equal ban (would be easy to monitor)). That would be sweet to "mark" that you hacked this base.

Wouldn't this satisfy both sides? As a good hacker is preferable, but not an absolutely must.
This of cause would only work with base hacking.

[Warborn]

I want some hacker do the mission critical job of hacking a base, NOT the average joe who looted the REK from the now called equipment carrier (formerly called hacker).

And a Sniper wants to be able to take out a MAX with a head-shot, but some things just aren't good for the game on the whole. Also, the "equipment carrier (formerly called hacker)" is also the guy known as "a soldier" or "just another guy but with a different set of tools". Lot's of people keep acting like a Hacker will be some dork with no armor or weapon who's participating in an attack by hiding everywhere. To be completely honest, given the enhanced inventory space, I'd imagine virtually every "Hacker" out there to be wearing Reinforced armor. And using two rifles (or maybe one to save space on ammunition) and everything else that goes along with that armor. They're going to be just as much a combatant as anyone else will be, except instead of being able to fire a rocket launcher and drive a Reaver, they can open doors quickly or use enemy terminals. So they're not "equipment carriers", and they're not "hackers". They're just soldiers.


If you cant get a hacker alive to the terminal you just arent worth to hack the base.

What if you run into a couple of skilled anti-infantry MAXs and the Hacker plus about 10 other guys get mowed down. Think that's a good enough reason for an entire attack to be cancelled? You honestly think that's fair to all the other players? That their attack should be called off because *one* guy died?

[Warborn]

Lillemanden,

Currently, there are (I believe) 3 control consoles in each installation that need to be Hacked in order for the base to go Neutral, and then after 15 minutes, turn to your side. I'm not sure if what you're suggesting fits in well with this concept. Bases are suppose to be fairly difficult to take, given that you need to hold all 3 consoles at once, and allowing people to bypass that could cause some problems.

I won't comment on the rest, though, as I'm not a big fan of making Hacking puzzle based, so I doubt I'd say anything you'd want to hear.

[Serbitar]

You honestly think that's fair to all the other players? That their attack should be called off because *one* guy died?

Yes I do. They will have to get that hacker back in. Its not that the Hacker doesnt respawn and isnt in place in the next 5 minutes (if the attack wi well organized).

To be completely honest, given the enhanced inventory space, I'd imagine virtually every "Hacker" out there to be wearing Reinforced armor. And using two rifles (or maybe one to save space on ammunition) and everything else that goes along with that armor. They're going to be just as much a combatant as anyone else will be, except instead of being able to fire a rocket launcher and drive a Reaver, they can open doors quickly or use enemy terminals. So they're not "equipment carriers", and they're not "hackers". They're just soldiers.

I dont want that. I want specialits. This is a teamgame. Give hackers weapons, thats ok. But dont give everybody the ability to hack without at least some major drawbacks.

Make everything important. Specialists should have to be used. A group of grunts without any specialists shouldnt be able to do anything.

BTW this is an opinion. No way to argue against that. (No way to ague against yours either)

[Warborn]

Yes I do. They will have to get that hacker back in. Its not that the Hacker doesnt respawn and isnt in place in the next 5 minutes (if the attack wi well organized).

And if the AMS is destroyed, even if you were defending it as best as you could? Guess you've got a little bit of a wait, huh. And more time for the enemy to regroup, or dig in more, or call for reinforcements, too. And no, more organization wouldn't be able to stop every AMS attack. As the Murphy's Law goes: No battleplan ever survives contact with the enemy.

I dont want that. I want specialits. This is a teamgame. Give hackers weapons, thats ok. But dont give everybody the ability to hack without at least some major drawbacks.

Not everyone will have the ability to Hack, and there won't be "major drawbacks" for those who do. Christ man, Hacking is really more of a battlefield electronics skill. Like MacGyver stuff. "Hackers" -are- combatants, and you cannot possibly expect to have the majority of players like the fact that if they want to be able to capture a base, they have to deal with some "major drawbacks" too. Unless of course you want approximately one base to be taken per day, because there simply aren't enough people who want a character that is only good for one thing: Capturing bases.

Actually, now that I think of it, giving Advanced Hackers major drawbacks would basically force most players to create mules -- secondary characters used only for one purpose. An attack would commence with or without an Advanced Hacker, and once the base is secured, one player would log off, log on his Advanced Hacker, go to that base, and capture it. Heh. So much for teamwork.

Make everything important. Specialists should have to be used. A group of grunts without any specialists shouldnt be able to do anything.

This is a game, not a war simulation. Without specialists, a group of grunts should be able to fight for and capture a base just like anyone else, but they'll have a harder time of doing it than they would if they had some utility with them (Medics, Engineers, Hackers, etc). I don't think I can stress enough how important it is that players/Outfits always be able to log in and do something. Forcing people to wait for a Hacker in PlanetSide is just as asinine as the necessity for groups to have a Cleric in the fantasy MMOGs out there. And what's worse is that you seem to be wanting to make Hackers just as boring and focused as Clerics are in those games.



So let me ask you this: What exactly does forcing people to have an Advanced Hacker with them do for the game? I've heard "teamwork" thrown around a little bit, so I'll jump the gun and retort to that possible answer. Let's say that there was no Hacking skill, and that you captured a base by going into a Control Room and having at least one guy from your Faction in it for 15 minutes. Given all the vehicles, all the weapons, all the other utility certs (Medical and whatnot), do you really believe there will be no teamwork to be found? Do you think that people won't use Advanced Mobile Stations, or won't keep their squad's Medic safe, or won't cover Engineers while they plant some mines and turrets, or won't escort Galaxies? Is it really that crucial for the game to have more teamwork forced on the players? So that they have to have this one guy with them, and he has to be the one to go and capture the control consoles? What exactly will that do for the other players? The answer is nothing. They won't have more fun being forced to find a Hacker and babysit him to the control consoles. They will actually rely on teamwork less, because now their options are very limited. They can't send three teams of Infiltrators in with hopes of being able to grab all the consoles and then send the grunts in during the confusion. They HAVE to get the Hacker there, and that means options that were once available -- when anyone with a REK could capture a base, albeit slowly -- are now closed off.

I realize that out of principle you will disagree with me and attempt to respond with something to hopefully counter my argument, but this has gone beyond opinion. This is fact. Forcing players to not be able to do something so important to the game as capturing a base unless they have one certain kind of person is bad for the game. It's probably one of the most ill-concieved design concepts I've ever seen in MMOGs, and it's one of the big reasons these games are not as successful as they could be. Players don't want to wait for some guy to show up so that they can actually do what they were hoping to do. The devs seem to have it right, with making Hackers merely better for taking a base, and I really do wish that you and others would understand why that's best for this game, or any MMO game for that matter.

[Lillemanden]

Are you sure there is 3 control consoles? And that they all need to hacked? Anyway my idea could still work, and then if one hacker found the password he could send it to two other hackers at the two other control consoles.
Hamma whould be able make this clear I think.

[Warborn]

Hm, you might be right. The official FAQ only mentions one console. So, yeah, ignore the first part of my post. Not sure where I heard the 3 consoles thing.

[Lillemanden]

And one thing people seem to forget is that the can do things other that take over the base. Like hacking doors and the auto defence. So I don't think I group of none hacking grunts will be able to get very far into a base, simply because the doors won't open to them.

[Lillemanden]

I don't think you totally wrong. There are proberly a controle console for the auto defence.
And you might even be totally right.

[Warborn]

So I don't think I group of none hacking grunts will be able to get very far into a base, simply because the doors won't open to them.

Which is why the developers have wisely elected to have certain critical tasks, such as door opening or base capturing, able to be done by anyone with a REK.

[Warborn]

I don't think you totally wrong. There are proberly a controle console for the auto defence.
And you might even be totally right.

Things have a habit of changing while a game is under development, so at this point, it either of us could be right. But, the official FAQ does say only one Control Console, and even though there may be other consoles in the base for other things, actually capturing the base seems to be centered around that one Console.

[Lillemanden]

But don't you need atleast the basic hacking cert to get a REK (that is the hacking kit, right:confused: )?

[Warborn]

Nope. Anyone can get a REK (remote electronics kit, I think... so yeah, the "hacking" tool), but those without Hacking will open doors slowly and capture bases even slower. It'll definitely be in a Squad's best interest to get a Hacker when they attack a base, not only because they'll provide fast entry and quicker capture, but because they can access enemy terminals as well. Hackers will not be out of a job if grunts can Hack doors and bases too. There are many things a Hacker can provide for his Squad.

[�io]

Well i still think bottom line best thing would be skill based hacking, if not than you need adv.hacking cert to acquire an enemy base.

I don't want to play any other "team" FPS(read 4 peeps working together and 10 lonewolfs on each team). I want a team based FPS, if you can't cover your 2-3 hackers that you need to hack the base than you don't deserve it.

[Warborn]

u�til�i�tar�i�an�ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-tl-t�r--nzm)
n.
The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.
The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
The quality of being utilitarian: housing of bleak utilitarianism.


The world does not revolve around ego-stroking Hackers. For every one Hacker happy that he is the most important role in the game, there are 50 people wondering why the hell they have to sit around waiting for a Hacker. Or at least, waiting for their friend to get his Hacker mule to capture the base they just occupied.

[Warborn]

I don't want to play any other "team" FPS(read 4 peeps working together and 10 lonewolfs on each team). I want a team based FPS, if you can't cover your 2-3 hackers that you need to hack the base than you don't deserve it.

I still find it kind of funny that you think making a Hacker necessary for base captures is the only thing keeping this game from being "any other team FPS". Do you really think the developers are going to botch the job that badly?

[Sandtaco]

The only way that allowing anybody to carry a REk would work if hackers can do it twice as fast. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.

[Lillemanden]

If anybody can hack, I think a hackers will be very rare. I mean do wanna be able to pilot another vehicle or do you wanna be able hack just a bit faster.

[Serbitar]

Warborn, as I mentioned before, most of the things I stated before are MY opinions. You cant tell me what the truth is when I say what I want to see.

I want to see what I want to see. You cant just say: But the truth (ingame) is different. There is NO truth because the game is not out yet. Developers mit take into account what player like me say and MAKE it the truth.

If people WANT that a group of grunts cant do anything except fighting and a game designed arround this idea plays great and the developers make the game thus it WILL be the truth.

So DONT tell me what the idea of the game is. You are no developer. You have your opinion and I have mine. There is no way to tell anybody what he should want and what he shouldnt.

And I WANT to have hacker specialists. I WANT a group of grunts not to be able to take over a base. And I WANT skill based hacking.

You only can say: But this wont be fun.

But that is not yours to decide. Everybody has to consider this for himself.

[�io]

Exactly! 1 of the many arguments i brought up in my attempt to explain the reasoning behind a skill based hacking cert.

I know that if it's not skill based and you don't need adv.hacking to cap a base i won't be using any certs for hacking. :)

[Incompetent]

I just want to say i agree with Warborn, it would suck to scrape together two platoons only to have to call off the attack because you couldn't find anyone with a hacking cert or because the hacker got tired, or his power went out, ect.

edit: and we need a poll to see how many people agree with who overall.

[�io]

Yeah i'm sure it will be really hard to find at least 1 hacker in a group of 20+ people, a few galaxy pilots will be no problem though. :rolleyes:

[Navaron]

"it would suck to scrape together two platoons only to have to call off the attack because you couldn't find anyone with a hacking cert or because the hacker got tired, or his power went out, ect"

What platoons are you going to be in? I sure as hell don't want to be in a platoon where you don't have 5 or 6 guys with adv. hacking. You need redundancy cause these guys will die like the rest, and if you can't plan for that then you don't deserve the base.

IF you had the neccesary # of players with the adv. hacking skill then the odds of all their power going out is nill. Also why would a hacker hang back and around long enough for the fight to be won, just to leave when it's time for him to do something?

Point is, people don't want to diversify, the people who are moaning about having to have the adv. hacking cert most likely aren't going to be hackers anyway. They want to be infantry men who can do it all.

[Incompetent]

i looked at it again and came to the conclusion it sucked

and last i looked there was more to this game then hacking and grunts

edit: ^refers to a non existent dio post^, which was posted in response to a non existent post by me, but still makes a good point

[�io]

Ok, deleted mine, it didn't make sense anymore. :D

[Navaron]

Damn you and your cryptic disappearing threads

[Warborn]

Warborn, as I mentioned before, most of the things I stated before are MY opinions. You cant tell me what the truth is when I say what I want to see.

If you told me that green was blue, would you be correct? Same situation.

I want to see what I want to see. You cant just say: But the truth (ingame) is different. There is NO truth because the game is not out yet. Developers mit take into account what player like me say and MAKE it the truth.

For virtually every game, you can find numerous parallels in a lot of other games. Through deductive reasoning and extensive experience you can have a good understanding of how a game will pan out prior to it actually being a game. How do you think these things get made in the first place?

So DONT tell me what the idea of the game is. You are no developer. You have your opinion and I have mine. There is no way to tell anybody what he should want and what he shouldnt.

What you want doesn't really matter. It's about what's best for the game. And, yes, there is a solid answer on whether something is best for the game, and that's what this discussion focuses around.

And I WANT to have hacker specialists. I WANT a group of grunts not to be able to take over a base. And I WANT skill based hacking.

Clearly the developers of this game do not agree with you.

You only cant say: But this wont be fun.

But that is not yours to decide. Everybody has to consider this for himself.

I bet some little punk kid would find it fun if he could TK his Factionmates without any action being taken against him too. But, I guess you can't please everyone, and so a vision for the game must be drawn up, and as many people placated as possible. Want Hacking to be skill based and Hacking to be the most valuable cert in the game which virtually everyone will have? That's fine, and you know what? You're entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't mean you know what's best.

Yeah i'm sure it will be really hard to find at least 1 hacker in a group of 20+ people, a few galaxy pilots will be no problem though. :rolleyes:

Actually, I imagine in your version of it, nearly everyone in the game would have Advanced Hacking, given the myraid of benefits it'll give you -- including the ability to capture bases. So, yes, you'll easily be able to find an Advanced Hacker if it were needed to capture a base. And you'll also find that everyone who wanted to focus on Hacking is lost amid a sea of others who got Hacking because, hey, it's the most useful cert in the game.

What platoons are you going to be in? I sure as hell don't want to be in a platoon where you don't have 5 or 6 guys with adv. hacking. You need redundancy cause these guys will die like the rest, and if you can't plan for that then you don't deserve the base.

In a perfect world, yes, you'd have that kind of redundancy. But we don't live in a perfect world, and more people will be counting on the next guy to take Advanced Hacking so that he can take something else.

Point is, people don't want to diversify, the people who are moaning about having to have the adv. hacking cert most likely aren't going to be hackers anyway. They want to be infantry men who can do it all.

Sorry, I really can't understand why this is a difficult concept. There is no such thing as a "hacker". People with the Hacking cert will be infantrymen. They will have armor. They will be well armed. This isn't a fantasy RPG where some characters can fight well and some suck at it. Everyone will be a soldier. Everyone will be fighting. A "Hacker" is no different from a soldier who, instead of carrying an M16, has an M60. Still a soldier, but with different capabilities. So, yeah, a "hacker" will be an infantryman who can do a lot of stuff. That's the point. That's how PS works. Engineers will be combatants, Medics will be combatants, Hackers will be combatants, and you know what, I bet if the shit hit the fan, even a Galaxy pilot would hop out of his vehicle and start firing off his pistol at the enemy. That's. How. PS. Works. It's a FPS -- not an RPG.

[Vimp]

I dunno. But I don't think your looking at it in percpective. I'm sure lots of people will wanna be medics yet a medic is not crucial to the game but it makes it alot funner when there is a medic. Well same goes for a hacker. He isn't critical but it makes it alot funner because he can do things alot faster.

But then some one said well who wants to be a hacker and forfiet piloting or some other thing just to be able to hack a little faster. Well a hacker for one can probably hack alot faster, not just a little, plus a hacker can also be a pilot if thats where he puts his certs. So whats the big deal? A hacker is simply someone that makes life for his squad easier same way a medic does, but niether are crucial.

[Lillemanden]

Warborn you replies are getting longer and more and more childish.
If you told me that green was blue, would you be correct? Same situation.
It's not the same situation, and I�m pretty sure you understand what he means (if not, you should get you head examined), and you're just running out of arguments.

BTW I put up a poll in case you didn't notice.

[�io]

Woah woah woah, you're actually comparing capturing a base to healing a squad member??

You can't compare the hacker's role (as we are currently talking about) to a medic. A hacker will have a MUCH harder time hacking a base than a medic healing his buddies. And capping a base is way more important than healing a few troops. One role is meant to be a non stop support role doing his job non stop, the other is part of a task force to do a mission once and celebrate once the mission is a succes. :)

Warborn you replies are getting longer and more and more childish.

Glad to see i'm not the only one who thinks so, i don't even read them anymore.

[Warborn]

It's not the same situation, and I�m pretty sure you understand what he means (if not, you should get you head examined)...

You apparently didn't understand the analogy I made, so allow me to make it crystal for you: Opinions can be wrong, and seeing what you want to see doesn't necessarily equate to seeing what is actually there. Opinions can be biased, skewed, misinformed, and simply ill-founded.


... and you're just running out of arguments.

Actually, I'm running out of things to answer. The arguments I have provided have been mostly side-stepped by my opponents. They answer what they think they have a good answer for, and they ignore the rest.

Warborn you replies are getting longer...

Yes, well, I don't like to be confronted with a point and simply shrug it aside. If someone says something to me, I'll answer it. As such, my posts are usually long because I reply to a lot of things. Take this post, for instance. I didn't write much, but it is long because I quoted a lot.

If you find this unacceptable, I invite you to view one of the many other short posts in various other threads.

... and more and more childish.

Don't be bitter, Lillemanden. Nobody likes an ad hominem reply, and I'm certain you wouldn't appreciate what I'd have to say if I resorted to such disdainful tactics myself.

[Warborn]

Woah woah woah, you're actually comparing capturing a base to healing a squad member??

Hackers are capable of doing far more than simply capturing bases, Dio. I believe I pointed that out earlier. If you'd like, I could find it for you. So, to reply directly, no, I'm not comparing capturing bases to healing a squad member. I'm comparing the duties of a Hacker to healing a squad member. Or at least, I think I am. Could you quote me so I can see what you're referring to?

You can't compare the hacker's role (as we are currently talking about) to a medic. A hacker will have a MUCH harder time hacking a base than a medic healing his buddies. And capping a base is way more important than healing a few troops. One role is meant to be a non stop support role doing his job non stop, the other is part of a task force to do a mission once and celebrate once the mission is a succes.

A Hacker's role is not to capture a base. It's to allow his squad mates to make use of base facilities when in an enemy installation, and to allow for quick and fluid movement while inside the base.

Glad to see i'm not the only one who thinks so, i don't even read them anymore.

Do you also cover your ears when someone tells you something you don't want to hear?

[Lillemanden]

As I understood it you we're trying argue about his opinion, which can't be done.
And may I ad that you tone is quite amusing, not exactly sarcasm but something close. And that was meant the good way, as a compliment.

[Warborn]

I dunno. But I don't think your looking at it in percpective. I'm sure lots of people will wanna be medics yet a medic is not crucial to the game but it makes it alot funner when there is a medic. Well same goes for a hacker. He isn't critical but it makes it alot funner because he can do things alot faster.

But then some one said well who wants to be a hacker and forfiet piloting or some other thing just to be able to hack a little faster. Well a hacker for one can probably hack alot faster, not just a little, plus a hacker can also be a pilot if thats where he puts his certs. So whats the big deal? A hacker is simply someone that makes life for his squad easier same way a medic does, but niether are crucial.

Exactly.

[Warborn]

As I understood it you we're trying argue about his opinion, which can't be done.

I was telling him that having an opinion doesn't necessarily mean your opinion can be wrong. Let's take this, for example. Lillemanden, can you ever really trust another person?

And may I ad that you tone is quite amusing, not exactly sarcasm but something close. And that was meant the good way, as a compliment.

My tone is what you imagine. I guess you'd have to hear me speak to really understand how I say these things. But, to clarify, I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm not usually sarcastic, but if I ever am, I tend to make it obvious. A lot of the time I'll say "Jesus Christ, I don't know about you, but that sounds like fun" or something else to give it away. I understand that text can be misleading, so I try and make my intentions clear when I write things.

As you can tell, I'm not very good at it.

[Lillemanden]

I didn't mean that you where sarcastic, but something like that. Can't it explain, but it does make your rather longs post a bit easier to read.

And BTW we're leading the poll I started ;)

[Warborn]

Heh, good to know. I've never had anyone say that before. I hope it's a common trend and not something unique to you.

[SandTrout]

I'll make a refference to another MMOG, DAoC.

Sure, a Heal can't do as much damage as a Hero can, but "if the shit hits the fan", he can still pull out a hamer and get some whacks in.

In that game's RvR combat, you generaly need a set of specialists to take a keep from an enemy. However, a bunch of melee fighters(if you had enough) could take a keep all on their own.

A hacker in this game will be like a battering ram in DAoC. Sure, you could open the door without one, but it takes longer, and your group is getting picked off as you're trying to take down the door. Even though you don't acctualy "need" a ram to take a keep, it its generaly considered a nessesity because you take fewer losses outside the base, and thus can take a base with fewer people.

The same goes for the hacking certs. You don't "need" a hacker to take a base, but it makes it 20x as easy if you do. They may be considered a necesity because they alow your team to use the equipment and medical terminals while they are waiting that 15 minutes to take control of the base. This means less of a burden on medics and engeneers to keep you alive, as well as keeping them supplied well so they can continue to keep you alive. You also have a fairly unlimited supply of ammo so you can keep fighting.

I'm with Warborn on this one. Forceing everyone to have a cert to compleat the most basic objective of the game would not help, and would even hinder the game. Instead of haveing a lot of different specialists such as pilots, tank drivers, and assault infantry, you have a bunch of Advanced Hackers that only have the basic skills in other fields. This is the exact opposite of what the people who want "specialists" are trying to achieve.

From a story point of view, you could say that every infantryman is trained in the basic software of a base and use of a REK to open doors, but hackers know how to do it fast, more efficiently, and better.

[Supafun]

I am wit warborn all the way.
cuz also how long would it take to put in all those puzzels and stuff it would just push release date back further. and i dont know about u guys but i just wanna play the game

[CDaws]

Warborn, I'm n the same boat with ya man. Some people take things they way they want to not the way the person typed it ment. Yeah you can't hear the persons tone of voice, see there body language, or see there facial expressions when they post something. If people take it the wrong way correct them like you always have bud. :thumbsup: Ignoriance is bliss . . . . so some one's life must be really nice. :D Keep up the good work and get your point across. :cheers:

[Lillemanden]

SpecialOpRanger if you're talking about me, you couldn't be more wrong (well actually you could ;)). I didn't misunderstood Warborn, I just used the word sarcasm in the lack of a better word. This of cause is confusing when that�s not what I meant.

And on a site node, may I add that your first sentence is kind of ironic. Since you write about people not getting the right meaning out of a sentence, but the sentence itself has a very odd structure/grammar (hope that made sence ;)).

[CDaws]

Lillemanden, I didn't say your name so I wasen't talking specificaly about you, bud. Just people that don't get what other people say, how they say it or how they mean it in general. :thumbsup: People take things out of context and reconstruct it to fit how they see it instead of how the person ment it. ;) No probs bud. :cheers: Things get confusing in life enough without them getting on to the web. :D

[Lillemanden]

No offence taken, just sounded like you where aiming that gun at me ;)

[Navaron]

Nope thats my gun, time to die vanu. See you probably think I'm joking but I'm not. See, don't misinterpret what I'm typing.

[Lillemanden]

I also find that ironic :D

[CDaws]

Oh Nav your so silly :p Don't worry I have a special game hack that won't allow him to fire a shot untill he posts some love :love: :D Lillemanden ;)

[Lillemanden]

hehe, and you call us hippies ;)

[FireFrenzy]

God this is a long thread, is it worth me going through it all ;) ?

[Sputty]

:lol:
Hard to say....

[SandTrout]

Only the last 2 or 3 pages are noteworthy.

[Coliostro]

Originally posted by Lillemanden
And on a site node, may I add that your first sentence is kind of ironic. Since you write about people not getting the right meaning out of a sentence, but the sentence itself has a very odd structure/grammar (hope that made sence ;)).

MUHAHAHAHAHA, don't get me started on grammar and sentence structure. I could go on for days about quite a few things, including spelling. However, I'm a really nice guy so I won't rag on people. I just found this post amusing so i had to say something. :D

[Coliostro]

Originally posted by SandTrout
Only the last 2 or 3 pages are noteworthy.

I'm going to have to disagree. I don't think very much of it was noteworthy at all :D . It was mostly people sharing there opinions, all of which were irrelevent, and ranting about people who didn't share their irrelevent opinion. There were a couple posts that made good points though, on both sides of the debate. I'd restate my opinion here but i don't think i need to repeat myself over and over and over without changing anything. Sorry, i'm rambling...




:spam:

[Hamma]

I am the king of bad grammar. :thumbsup: