hacking - Page 10

Lillemanden · 2003-01-05, 10:52 AM

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 · 2003-01-05, 11:55 AM

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 · 2003-01-05, 12:00 PM

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 · 2003-01-05, 12:30 PM

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 · 2003-01-05, 01:00 PM

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 · 2003-01-05, 01:23 PM

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 · 2003-01-05, 01:29 PM

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 · 2003-01-05, 01:30 PM

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 · 2003-01-05, 01:33 PM

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 · 2003-01-05, 01:34 PM

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 · 2003-01-05, 01:35 PM

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 · 2003-01-05, 01:39 PM

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

)?

Warborn · 2003-01-05, 01:44 PM

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 · 2003-01-05, 03:28 PM

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 · 2003-01-05, 03:49 PM

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.