Preventing Ninja Base hacks - Page 2

Elude · 2011-02-19, 07:44 AM

There is nothing wrong with ninja base hacks, infact it adds to some unique gameplay at times.

As everybody else said I also like to see no AI what so ever, unless it's some static NPC in the sanctuary. What I wouldnt mind seeing is turrets inside the bases that drop down from the ceiling.

What I think would really help with this manner though but not prevent it (definitely don't want to prevent ninja base hacks!) is to have less bases per continent, I honestly think we should have half the amount of bases in Planetside Next then in the original, this would increase the amount of players per battle rather then having them scattered across the continent, and it would decrease ninja caps.

I SandRock · 2011-02-19, 08:15 AM

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

Jonny · 2011-02-19, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Elude

What I think would really help with this manner though but not prevent it (definitely don't want to prevent ninja base hacks!) is to have less bases per continent, I honestly think we should have half the amount of bases in Planetside Next then in the original, this would increase the amount of players per battle rather then having them scattered across the continent, and it would decrease ninja caps.

That makes sense, and more variety in bases. Like you could have an air base under a waterfall, with entrances in the ground by the river and a large entrance under the waterfall where aircraft fly through the water to get into the bases cavey landing area.

Or a base perched on the edge of a cliff, or one in a thick forest...

LesserShade · 2011-02-19, 10:59 AM

The lattice system was introduced during beta to address ninja hacks. This is a non issue IMO.

Hamma · 2011-02-19, 02:55 PM

That is true, but it is still a small issue albeit not as big as it was in Beta.

The idea of being able to upgrade bases with dual hacking panels that need to be hacked at once is an awesome idea!

Sure it wouldn't stop it but it would make it quite a bitch and require team effort.

I don't like the idea of NPCs either, but command systems built a bit better to allow commanders to see what is going on behind their front lines would also help this. IF they received some kind of a warning to a base they were monitoring so their squad could respond quickly - that would be cool.

Traak · 2011-02-19, 09:11 PM

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 · 2011-02-19, 09:17 PM

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.

kaffis · 2011-02-19, 09:20 PM

If you ask me, preventing ninja hacks should be about two things:

1) Restricting the available options of what's hackable to each side. The lattice system was an attempt at this, and, for bases, was more or less successful at this part of the solution. The lattice focuses the fighting down to a manageable (provide the server/continent has population) battlefront. The only change to be made if you think ninja hacks are still a problem is perhaps put some restrictions on tower hacks?

2) Encourage defenders to man vulnerable bases that are currently quiet. This is the part PS fails miserably at, and I don't blame them, as it's a hard problem to tackle. Quite simply, for most people, manning static defenses or patrolling when there's no nearby enemy activity is pretty boring. So it doesn't get done. What I'd like to see is for there to either be a reward/incentive for doing so (this gets tricky when it comes to making it abuse-proof; you could do things like award periodic xp for "defending" a friendly base with a vulnerable lattice link, but then you'd have people AFKing, etc.), or to make it so that if a commander/squad makes a gamble and says "we think base X is going to see some action, soon, so let's man its defenses and be ready," they get a payoff if/when the enemy shows up. So, risk some boredom and be rewarded for the gamble.

Perhaps the squad can accrue "defense points" that then can act as a bonus or multiplier for the first 5 minutes of an assault when the enemy finally does arrive?

Sentrosi · 2011-02-20, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

but command systems built a bit better to allow commanders to see what is going on behind their front lines would also help this. IF they received some kind of a warning to a base they were monitoring so their squad could respond quickly - that would be cool.

Hmmm, an idea sprung to mind on this subject. Through a sort of Command Tree interface a continental CR5 could designate a base that is going to be watched by a squad/platoon leader? The CR5 would have to be at an Interlink base on the continent to use this ability. The Command Tree would show the CR5 such information as squad strength, general position, etc. Now he could receive updates while in the field, but he could only designate bases with Interlink bases.

Hamma · 2011-02-20, 01:52 PM

Indeed that would be interesting. I really think that is key to PSN. Having more tools available to decide where you want to go next rather than all sorts of crazy additions to base defenses and the like. The more AI added the less interesting PlanetSide becomes so why not offer more tools to the players to decide how to respond?

Grimster · 2011-02-20, 02:38 PM

Yeah agree I think PSN should be kept AI free apart from the turrets then maybe.

kaffis · 2011-02-21, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Sentrosi

Hmmm, an idea sprung to mind on this subject. Through a sort of Command Tree interface a continental CR5 could designate a base that is going to be watched by a squad/platoon leader? The CR5 would have to be at an Interlink base on the continent to use this ability. The Command Tree would show the CR5 such information as squad strength, general position, etc. Now he could receive updates while in the field, but he could only designate bases with Interlink bases.

This is definitely the kind of additions to command that I would appreciate seeing (I can't help but wonder how awesome Planetside could be if it drew on some of the strategy/command elements in Allegiance; I have no idea how you'd select/control who gets to do the commander roles there, as having a bad commander is a seriously crippling blow in Allegiance. In Allegiance, it's handled by a tight community where commander reputations are well known and instanced servers, both things that do not/we hope don't apply to PS), but I just wanted to pop in and point out that there still need to be incentives for that squad to listen and "watch" the base. Why? Because, at the end of the day, it's boring patrol duty whether somebody told you to go do it or you just decided to on your own.

DviddLeff · 2011-02-21, 10:12 AM

Doesn't the red alert system and the tactical overlay already do the job of telling us when a base is under attack?

BlazingSun · 2011-02-21, 10:28 AM

Ghosthacks or what ever you want to call them, started to become annoying after the "bending". If I remember correct: before, the continents where not connected to so many different other continents. By capturing specific continents, you could prevent the enemies from attacking one or two of them, as there were no other links available. This meant that the battles were more concentrated, which was good. Only downside was that you were often fighting on the same continents.

Additionally, if you captured all bases on a continent it would lock that map for some time, preventing instant backhacks. (At least I think that's the way it was ... or is it still that way? I honestly can not remember).

Bottom line is: I found all the ghosthacking etc. annoying. Trying to open up a new continent to split the enemy's troops is one thing. But all the ghosthacks and NTU drains from single persons all over the place was just annoying. If there are enough people who are willing to respond to these ghosthacks, it's fine. But often enough, no one could be bothered (including myself).

Hamma · 2011-02-21, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

Doesn't the red alert system and the tactical overlay already do the job of telling us when a base is under attack?

Well yea, but when it's to late..