Preventing Ninja Base hacks

[Sentrosi]

I've been keeping folks over on Anandtech.com's forums abreast of the goings on with PSN and we have a discussion going on over there. One of the suggestions on how to change Planetside came from a guy named SunnyD:

Originally Posted by SunnyD

I just hope that if they do change SOMETHING, they make it so that ONE person can't go ninja bases. Sure, let em sabotage a generator or something, but it should take more people to actually CAPTURE a base than one. Even if it is undefended.

To which a guy named Zargon posted this in response to SunnyD's issue:

Originally Posted by Zargon

maybe 2-3 small squads of AI defenders at all bases?

I don't think that's a bad idea. But, obviously, wanted your input. Feel free to chime in.

[PsychoXR-20]

No, I don't like this idea at all, AI NPC's have no place in PlanetSide.

It takes a long time to single-handedly take a base. One of my favorite things to do when I played was take Zal and Atar on the old Oshur. It was generally just me, but sometimes my friend would join with me. It takes anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour just to drain the base and get it neutral, during which time anyone can come and try and stop you. Once the base is empty and you have a hack on it, it's only a matter of time before someone comes to try and take it back. Best I ever managed to do was get to Atar before enough people showed up, kicked me back to the sanctuary and re-locked Oshur.

With the lattice system in place, there is no reason to stop a lone person from trying to take a base. It should be known that if one empire has a link to a facility you control, that that facility is up for grabs.

This game s about strategy, communication and coordination, putting in AI NPC's to guard a base simply because you don't want to have to deal with that facility at that time is stupid.

[Bags]

Spitfires is where I draw the line of AI. Not to mention the AI would probably be douche bags and use dragons / thumpers.

[Raymac]

I don't know. I always thought adding some NPCs might be cool. I don't mean color NPCs randomly walkin around the Sanc or having a Shopkeeper Willie. I mean on the battlefield.

The only reason I entertain the thought is because Planetside is a game that thrives on numbers. So I figure adding some AI players on top of the real players would make the big battles bigger. Plus, this is AI we are talking about. How much easier is it to run through some game's single player campaign than it is to go up against real people? It's like jedi slicing through battle droids.

So, really, I'm kind of curious why people are so against NPCs on the battlefield. Be gentle because I'm genuinely curious.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Raymac

I don't know. I always thought adding some NPCs might be cool. I don't mean color NPCs randomly walkin around the Sanc or having a Shopkeeper Willie. I mean on the battlefield.

The only reason I entertain the thought is because Planetside is a game that thrives on numbers. So I figure adding some AI players on top of the real players would make the big battles bigger. Plus, this is AI we are talking about. How much easier is it to run through some game's single player campaign than it is to go up against real people? It's like jedi slicing through battle droids.

So, really, I'm kind of curious why people are so against NPCs on the battlefield. Be gentle because I'm genuinely curious.

Because if I want to shoot the AI I'll play half life or L4D... I play PS to play against PLAYERS. Really, how is this hard to understand?

Not to mention AI is either too easy or too hard.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Bags

Because if I want to shoot the AI I'll play half life or L4D... I play PS to play against PLAYERS. Really, how is this hard to understand?

Not to mention AI is either too easy or too hard.

No. I get that and it's why I like to play Planetside too. I'm just curious as to why it must stay so pure to that idea. I'm not saying make AI the main course, but maybe a side dish, or like as gravy just sprinkled on top? Gravy is good, right?

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Raymac

No. I get that and it's why I like to play Planetside too. I'm just curious as to why it must stay so pure to that idea. I'm not saying make AI the main course, but maybe a side dish, or like as gravy just sprinkled on top? Gravy is good, right?

I hate gravy so your metaphor isn't doing much for your case.

[PsychoXR-20]

Originally Posted by Raymac

So, really, I'm kind of curious why people are so against NPCs on the battlefield. Be gentle because I'm genuinely curious.

1. This is a PvP game, you don't see AI players running around in CoD for the same reason you shouldn't see them running around in PS.

2. when I kill someone I want to know that there is another human being behind that character, its what makes FPS multilayer fun.

3. This is the biggest issue, balance. How do you balance AI in a persistent multilayer game like PS? There are no difficulty settings in PS, and there is no way to balance AI. AI that is obscenely hard for one person could easily be cake for another. But that same player that finds them hard could very well out smart or out maneuver the guy that finds them easy and win. If you rock at CoD's single player, and find it boring cause it's to easy, bump up the difficulty, that's not, nor should it be, and option in PS. This is not WoW where you can balance AI against players who are higher rank and have them be harder. They have to function the same for everyone.

4. Ever played BF2142 "single player" against the bots? It's boring. AI can only do so much, and once you learn their limitations, they are easy to beat and pointless to have, they just become a nuisance.

5. They could very well mess up coordinated attacks and give up your position. Or do things you were specifically avoiding (taking down a generator, spawn tubes etc.)

6. AI is expensive, PS has the luxury that 99.9% (wall turrets and spitfires) of all the servers processing power is devoted to keeping track of players, bullets, vehicles etc. Imagine of there were half-a-dozen squads of AI players running around, the server would take a shit and the game would run like shit. And don't tell me this is 2011, because that doesn't mean anything, AI is still expensive processing wise, and the last thing we need is a performance hit in PS.

[Grimster]

Maybe they could have a smaller invisible SOI which basically is the courtyard of the base and when at least a squad of enemies(They don't have to be in the same actual squad) is within that SOI the base is considered breached and therefor hackable?

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Grimster

Maybe they could have a smaller invisible SOI which basically is the courtyard of the base and when at least a squad of enemies(They don't have to be in the same actual squad) is within that SOI the base is considered breached and therefor hackable?

Make it so it takes five guys simultaneously on five doors hacking them to open the base.

That would eliminate almost all ninja hacks.

Making anything require teamwork DRASTICALLY slashes the number of people doing it in PS.

For example, if the MCG, Lasher, and Jackhammer were crew-served weapons? LOL! No one would use them, because the ammo guy wouldn't be having his LEET status exalted by his partner making kills.

All you have to do to reduce ANYTHING in PS is make it require a team. Then the Prima Donnas find something else to do, where they can pad their stats and crow and flap their wings on top of some leader board.

If the only thing you could do solo in PS was boomer vehicle pads, people would be scrambling over each other to out-boomer the others so they could be on top of the idiot board.

Making things require teamwork in PS is like hiding a Welfare abuser's monthly check under his work boots and tell him to find it somewhere. It makes it far less likely to happen.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Traak

Make it so it takes five guys simultaneously on five doors hacking them to open the base.

That would eliminate almost all ninja hacks.

Making anything require teamwork DRASTICALLY slashes the number of people doing it in PS.

For example, if the MCG, Lasher, and Jackhammer were crew-served weapons? LOL! No one would use them, because the ammo guy wouldn't be having his LEET status exalted by his partner making kills.

All you have to do to reduce ANYTHING in PS is make it require a team. Then the Prima Donnas find something else to do, where they can pad their stats and crow and flap their wings on top of some leader board.

If the only thing you could do solo in PS was boomer vehicle pads, people would be scrambling over each other to out-boomer the others so they could be on top of the idiot board.

Making things require teamwork in PS is like hiding a Welfare abuser's monthly check under his work boots and tell him to find it somewhere. It makes it far less likely to happen.

I'm a primma donna because I enjoy killing people in a first person shooter? Grow the fuck up already.

[Aractain]

It would be a better design to 'lockdown' bases that wern't opened for battle (blah blah something to do with a lattice type thing whatever).
I.E. If you have no defenders, you can't open a base and you can't take an undefended base?

I assume the idea is to stop people from ghosting an entire continent at off-peak time etc?


Edit, basically what Grimster said... lol

[I SandRock]

Originally Posted by Aractain

It would be a better design to 'lockdown' bases that wern't opened for battle (blah blah something to do with a lattice type thing whatever).
I.E. If you have no defenders, you can't open a base and you can't take an undefended base?

I assume the idea is to stop people from ghosting an entire continent at off-peak time etc?


Edit, basically what Grimster said... lol

I'd like to see bases lock down for a while after you capped them to speed the battles a long a bit and you're not fighting an entire day on the same continent just to wake up the next morning and see it's been recapped and you start all over again

[GoldDragon]

Originally Posted by Aractain

It would be a better design to 'lockdown' bases that wern't opened for battle (blah blah something to do with a lattice type thing whatever).
I.E. If you have no defenders, you can't open a base and you can't take an undefended base?

I assume the idea is to stop people from ghosting an entire continent at off-peak time etc?

Just want to expand on this thought...

I am one of those guys running around and loving being able to back-hack to pull troops from the main conflict. This is a strategy that I feel NEEDS to remain in game. However, I do agree that it should take a little more effort because after playing for so long and figuring things out "Ninja Hacking" a base is in fact quite easy.

The idea of Lockdown appeals to me because it adds an extra defense to undefended bases. This would encourage the introduction of new content such as welders, breech explosive, etc. Certifications that allow people to SPECIALIZE in breaching lockdown bases. As for having one person able to do everything needed to take a base, this is were I think a certification tree would be useful. Basically an extended version of the current cert system, every soldier can have a weapon, vehicle, and support specialization (ie. Light Weapons, Support Vehicles, and Breach Equipment) but to be fully specialized in one the others suffer.

What this all boils down to is to prevent ninja hacks, you have to limit player abilities while introducing new challenges that require teamwork to overcome. That's what I'd like to see happen, not the complete removal of back hacking.

[Raymac]

Psycho, that makes sense. Any single one of those points is really enough not to have AI. I can see how the cons outweigh the pros.