Gameplay: Mind Control Darts

ninjaturtlesoup · 2012-05-31, 12:40 PM

Mind control darts would be a side grade for the infiltrator's sniper rifle. They would allow you to take control of an enemy's character for a limited amount of time.

Doesn't affect MAXs or Vehicles
Can't enter vehicles
Can't throw grenades, but can cook them til they explode
Can't use c4
Vulnerable while taking control ( + shield loss? )
Affected enemy can fight movement (similar to jockey in L4D)
The effect is disabled if the enemy receives enough damage
May require two darts for effect (first dart slows movement, but wears off if a second dart doesn't hit right away)

The point of this gun is to cause chaos. A sniper could wait for the perfect moment to take control of an enemy and suicide into a group. Or take control of a HA and mow down friendlies. There's an incentive to cause minor damage to a teammate if they're being taken control of to stop the effect, but not so much that you kill them.

The risk/reward for the infiltrator is that they can kill more people per second if they wait for the right moment, but they aren't always guaranteed a kill. Plus it's probably more fun to take control of somebody next to a jump pad, pull the pin on their grenade and launch them like a human firework, than to headshot them.

Hosp · 2012-05-31, 12:46 PM

Not to sound mean or negative or anything...

No.

ninjaturtlesoup · 2012-05-31, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Hosp

Not to sound mean or negative or anything...

No.

Do you have a reason you don't like them?

Tallon · 2012-05-31, 01:43 PM

taking control away from the player in a MP game is just something you don't do.

sorry, but this is just a bad idea.

ninjaturtlesoup · 2012-05-31, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Tallon

taking control away from the player in a MP game is just something you don't do.

sorry, but this is just a bad idea.

How is this much different than the jockey in left 4 dead? From the enemy player's perspective, they get a warning shot, to try and get to cover (in the 2 shot system) then, once they lose full control, they can still fight the movements of the controlling player, while giving their team a chance to break them free, or waiting for the timer to run out.

You wouldn't be stuck watching somebody control you, it would be an active fight for control.

GuyShep · 2012-05-31, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by ninjaturtlesoup

How is this much different than the jockey in left 4 dead? From the enemy player's perspective, they get a warning shot, to try and get to cover (in the 2 shot system) then, once they lose full control, they can still fight the movements of the controlling player, while giving their team a chance to break them free, or waiting for the timer to run out.

You wouldn't be stuck watching somebody control you, it would be an active fight for control.

"It worked in one game" doesn't mean that it will in this one. Even then, the Jockey worked because he dealt a very low amount of damage while riding players, and he could only mess with their movement. If another survivor shot you, it killed the Jockey. Most players detest playing as or against a Jockey as well. The only good it did was function as a weaker, squishier moving Hunter, and the fact that the Jockey was incredibly weak is one of the few reasons why the Jockey worked. All the infiltrator has to do is aim. The reward you have in mind is in reality exponential to the risks you brought up.

Plus it's probably more fun to take control of somebody next to a jump pad, pull the pin on their grenade and launch them like a human firework, than to headshot them

And this, this only works in singleplayer games, because players do not want to be put into a situation where they have very limited control, and are eventually subject to losing or dying.

Your idea makes infiltrators unfun to play against, there's no incentive to play against this sort of thing(as you risk killing your teammates), but rather just be forced to deal with it or stop playing, and given the risks of being alive so that your control of your character can be taken away, it just encourages players to suicide if they're any more important than a grunt, instead of putting up with what is essentially a QTE just to get back to normal gameplay. And QTEs are BAAAAAAD.

Xyntech · 2012-05-31, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by ninjaturtlesoup

How is this much different than the jockey in left 4 dead? From the enemy player's perspective, they get a warning shot, to try and get to cover (in the 2 shot system) then, once they lose full control, they can still fight the movements of the controlling player, while giving their team a chance to break them free, or waiting for the timer to run out.

You wouldn't be stuck watching somebody control you, it would be an active fight for control.

L4D is a survival game. The infected team can't truly "win," they can only try to prevent the survivors from getting very many points.

In a competitive shooter where both sides are simultaneously trying to win in a relatively even playing field, taking someone out of the battle without killing them is ludicrous.

The only way your idea would work is if the shot that took over the victim also killed the victim, or in other words, immediately started the player in on their respawn timer. But if this were the case, you would effectively have something identical to a sniper rifle, except that after getting the killing blow you could then try to get bonus kills with your victims body.

It's an amusing idea and could be loads of fun in the right type of game, but it's an awful idea for Planetside 2. Horribly overpowered, and not very fun for pretty much anyone but the infiltrator. Dying isn't particularly fun in a game, but it's not so bad when you are fighting in a relatively fair and engaging situation. This would just be annoying as shit to play against. The game would not gain a net benefit to the total enjoyment of the game if something like this were added.

Trolltaxi · 2012-05-31, 02:00 PM

Simply - no. Based on common sense.

Warborn · 2012-05-31, 02:52 PM

Losing control of one's character is just about the most frustrating thing that can happen to people in these sorts of games. Terrible idea, sorry.

ninjaturtlesoup · 2012-05-31, 03:11 PM

I guess I saw the frustration level (most to least) for the enemy as:

Losing control and dying > Dying from headshot > Losing control and surviving through teamwork

Maybe, the infiltrator would give away his position by using this gun to further balance it out. And maybe this mechanic doesn't fit into planetside, but if I have to choose between getting shot in the head or fighting for survival with limited control, I'd rather fight.

Trolltaxi · 2012-05-31, 03:23 PM

Well, maybe if the infil gets the damage dealt to his "ride" it is OK... or OK-ish.... Still not fun loosing control of your character and no fun for the infil either as he knows he will be dead within seconds... so why trying?

Zekeen · 2012-05-31, 04:02 PM

What...the... heck...?

I don't see how this could be anything but overkill, overpowered, game breaking, and player chasing (as in chasing them away from the game). I don't think a dev would even give a thought toward it.

ninjaturtlesoup · 2012-05-31, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Zekeen

What...the... heck...?

I don't see how this could be anything but overkill, overpowered, game breaking, and player chasing (as in chasing them away from the game). I don't think a dev would even give a thought toward it.

Well fuck me I guess. What I want is interesting weapons. Weapons that need skill to use and have rewarding gameplay.

I don't want every gun option to be "Good at killing X/Bad at Killing Y". The devs could balance anything. There are orbital strikes, tanks, planes and mech suits all capable of killing more people than this gun would be able to and these will all be balanced.

Zekeen · 2012-05-31, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by ninjaturtlesoup

Well fuck me I guess. What I want is interesting weapons. Weapons that need skill to use and have rewarding gameplay.

I don't want every gun option to be "Good at killing X/Bad at Killing Y". The devs could balance anything. There are orbital strikes, tanks, planes and mech suits all capable of killing more people than this gun would be able to and these will all be balanced.

Well, it IS a war game. But there is more than just killing straight out. Trooper management and deployment is a MAJOR part of the game, and there are a variety of things being looked at such as flashbang grenades, blinding lights, and other things. The game is more evolved than it was before, but any single hit that causes so much against the player is just overboard. It takes more skill to shoot a guy with a handgun at long range than to just dart and it causes them a shitstorm of problems.

Rather than mind control, a more plausible item would be some sort of "poison dart" that would cause a limited duration of sluggish movement, slower turn rates, blurred vision, ect, but not effect so much more. Even then that would be a no go, because it doesn't really fit into Planetside. Though who knows, we have a lot more that PS1 lacked out on, like flamethrowers.

Purple · 2012-06-01, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by ninjaturtlesoup

Well fuck me I guess. What I want is interesting weapons. Weapons that need skill to use and have rewarding gameplay.

I don't want every gun option to be "Good at killing X/Bad at Killing Y". The devs could balance anything. There are orbital strikes, tanks, planes and mech suits all capable of killing more people than this gun would be able to and these will all be balanced.

from what we hear snipers will require alot of skill already.