Gameplay: "We need a hacker!" - Give LA class the Rek - Page 2

The Degenatron · 2012-06-27, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

I agree and maybe there should be something else given to the LA. I just don't think it should be hacking. I don't know what it is, but not hacking.

EDIT: what about giving them the ability to paint targets for bombers, artillery, etc? give them a laze pointer like in PS1. I honestly think it would work better for LAs than infiltrators. Although, it could work for both...

How about a pair of pom-poms and a pleated skirt?

Ratstomper · 2012-06-27, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by The Degenatron

How about a pair of pom-poms and a pleated skirt?

I guess if that's what you're into.

The Degenatron · 2012-06-27, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

I guess if that's what you're into.

The point I was making was that all they're really good for is cheerleaders now. A jetpack is cold comfort in the face of dual cyclers and heavy assault rifles.

Hacking terminals is NOT something you do alone. That's why it's a bad fit for infiltrators. Sabotaging vehicle pads - THAT's something suited for infiltrators. Sneaking up and planting C4 on the backs of tanks - THAT'S suitable for infiltrators. Sniping - THAT'S suitable for infiltrators.

Running WITH the squad - that's what LAs are supposed to do. An LA alone is in bad shape, jetpack or not. Hell, flying around in the air just makes you a bigger target.

LAs should hold the roles of what have always been lighter equipped soldiers: technicians and leaders.

You put the Rek and the Comm Link in the hands of an LA and now you've got a powerful class. A class that meassures up to Infiltrators, Engineers, Medics, and Heavies in "Utility on the Battlefield"; promoted from "trolling harrassers" to Squad Leaders and Flag Takers.

Explain to me how that's a bad thing.

Rabaan · 2012-06-27, 04:54 AM

If played right the LA would work in a guerilla combat situation, at least, that's how i see them being used as, so having the jet pack and C-4 would be best for them- jump in plant a bunch of c-4 where a convoy of tanks will be, blow them to smithereens and run-

Knotz · 2012-06-27, 06:40 AM

I think maybe instead of giving them Reks, maybe we should give them an EMP C4 style weapon...

They get to a tank, plant the C4 on it, run away and then disable the tank for around 10-15 seconds? I think that would fit lore better than making them hackers

akiadan · 2012-06-27, 06:50 AM

If anything give them flashbangs or smoke unless those are going to be all class grenade types probably. (if they are even in the game) As of right now the dev team is probably thinking of what to give the LA class since it is now the only class without equipment besides its jump pack which is more of an ability. It would have to be something disorienting as their main role is a harasser and flanker and as the name states, an assaulter. But as of right now I cant really think of anything good to hand to light assault right now but they are currently underpowered compared to the other infantry classes without some sort of equipment.

As on REKs, I agree with them not being in the game since there is no longer Inventory. But this does bring up the question, what is in store for Light Assault?

MCYRook · 2012-06-27, 07:02 AM

Just to clarify how it worked in PS1:

To do any kind of hacking, you had to equip a REK (Remote Electronics Kit). This went in a small (pistol-sized) weapons slot and was available to all characters (could not be un-certed either) and armor types excluding MAXes (who can't use any equipment besides their guns at all).

The two most common and important things to use a REK on were:
- IFF locks on enemy tower and base doors. Unless the door had just been opened by someone else, you could not enter an enemy tower or base without disabling the door lock first. This took a few seconds of hacking and lasted for a duration (like half a minute or so). Besides all entrance doors, the doors that led to the spawn room, the generator room, and the control console room of a base also had IFF doors. If a base was hacked or had its generator down, IFF locks were disabled. From what we know so far, IFF locks won't be in PS2.
- Hack control consoles, the basic action to take over a tower or base, and to resecure a base hack. Hacking a CC the way anyone could took some time tho - 60 seconds uninterrupted.

Now, to do more with your REK, and do it faster, you could cert into various Hacking certs:

- Hacking: decreased all hacking times by about a third. IIRC, it also enabled you to hack open lockers (which were inaccessible when a base was hacked). Overall tho, Hacking provided very little benefit for a significant cert point cost (3). Noone would just cert hacking, you only took it because it was a prerequisite to cert...

- Advanced Hacking: This decreased hacking times again (so only 20 secs for a CC now, and very fast for doors). Most importantly, it led you hack open any terminals (equipment and vehicle terms) on hacked bases (which were otherwise inaccessible), and also on enemy bases.

Later on, two more certs on top of AdvHacking were introduced:

- Data Corruption: Lets you use a REK variant (T-REK) used to mess with various things: Infect base/tower turrets as well as deployable turrets (Spitfires and variants) to make them auto-attack friendlies instead of enemies; this would last something like 5 mins. Infect bases via their Main Terminal with one of several viruses among them disabled radar for the base owners, doubled NTU drain on the base, all IFF doors open, all equipment terminals open for everyone. Lastly, the T-REK could be used to fire a sluggish projectile at vehicles that would slow them waaay down.

- Expert Hacker: Another decrease in hacking times. Enabled you to purge all the equipment Data Corruptors could infect. Also led you hack a friendly base generator or spawn room for ~1 min for the benefit of increased strength pain field that auto-damages enemies inside that room.

Just to give you an idea what it's like in PS1. Some things will not apply in PS2 (like door locks and most likely inaccessible terms in hacked bases).

IMO, hacking a CC is such a basic operation that it should in no way be restricted to just a select one or two classes. For additional hacking abilities or faster hacking times (E3 footage featured very fast hacking, but that may have been for presentation purposes), I'd say it's debatable to have those class-dependent. Not sure LA should be the one to look for that first tho. If the argument is "LA needs something to distinguish itself", I'd say a jetpack is easily enough for an advantage and unique selling point of the class.

Baneblade · 2012-06-27, 07:42 AM

Let LA place 'Marker Mines' to anything that isn't infantry. Make those 'Marker Mines' a requirement for OSing. And let it place a Laze Style waypoint for the squad/platoon. The waypoint will move with the MM.

The Degenatron · 2012-06-27, 09:15 AM

Baneblade: Scouting should be the work of infiltrators, That includes lasing targets and placing markers.

MCYRook: It's not so much about "selling the class" as it is about building more depth into the class system. I have always said hacking should be the realm of the dedicated few. Let me put it this way, one of these guys is a potential hacker, one is not:

Another example is in "Aliens". Here's your hacker and your squad leader - both are Light Assaults:

akiadan: The lack of an inventory system isn't a problem. The REK or Comm Link would replace their pistol sidearm.

Knotz & Rabaan: C4 actions like that are beter suited to infiltrators who are made to seperate from their squads and sneak up on people / tanks. Besides, HA and Maxes both already have great AV roles.

As to the arguement that you should not limit hacking to one class, I think that's simply rolling over to the rambo mentality. Taking a base should be a TEAM effort and the idea of any joe-schmo running in and flipping the flag goes against team-building. Here's an example:

"Alpha squad to platoon leader - we have secured the comm but our hacker is down!"
"Alright Alpha - hold that comm. I'm sending over a hacker now."
Platton leader to Bravo squad - Pull your hacker, medic, and heavy and circle around to Alpha's position - we need that comm terminal online asap"

That's just way cooler than imo.

MCYRook · 2012-06-27, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by The Degenatron

As to the arguement that you should not limit hacking to one class, I think that's simply rolling over to the rambo mentality.

What that does is it makes having that one "hacker class" MANDATORY to have around to do anything that involves capping a point (i.e., the objective that the whole game is supposed to revolve around).

Talk about restrictive gameplay. That's not "way cool", that's just super annoying IMO.

When I imagine that in PS1 resecuring a base is not something that can be done by anyone (albeit inefficiently), I shudder. Capping a point is so basic and essential a task that it's really more of a nuisance than anything else to have it be done only by a select few.

Edit: Also, think about the gameplay ramifications for the LA himself in your cool scenario. He must not die, because if he's down (and his Medic is also), then no matter how good his teammates do, the objective is fucked. So the LA is required to hang back, take no risks, not make use of his cool jetpack either cause that might split him off the group, and basically do nothing until his buddies clear the point. Then he goes in to hack, that's his prime job. Now there's a role I know I don't want to take. :P

And another thing: It was pretty common in PS1 to "protect the AdvHacker" and create much of the scenario you like, just because having to hack the CC for 20 secs is way smoother than having to do it for 60 secs. But making the Hacker the only one that can do it at all? Balls to that. :P

The Degenatron · 2012-06-27, 10:02 AM

You're gonna find having a Medic is pretty manditory too. As well as having an Engineer. As well as having Heavies. If a class is "not needed", it won't get used.

Keep in mind that this is an alternate load-out for LAs, not a manditory configuration. If a player wants to go as a LA shock unit, then don't equip for hacker on comm.

And objectives can be held. Just because your Doc and Nerd get the working end of an enemy max doesn't mean all is lost. You can still lay do a perimeter and hold it until they get back. In fact, they might just drop in at your location.

Ratstomper · 2012-06-27, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by The Degenatron

Let me put it this way, one of these guys is a potential hacker, one is not:

Why? Because one has glasses and the other doesn't?

Originally Posted by The Degenatron

You're gonna find having a Medic is pretty manditory too. As well as having an Engineer. As well as having Heavies. If a class is "not needed", it won't get used.

Keep in mind that this is an alternate load-out for LAs, not a manditory configuration. If a player wants to go as a LA shock unit, then don't equip for hacker on comm.

And objectives can be held. Just because your Doc and Nerd get the working end of an enemy max doesn't mean all is lost. You can still lay do a perimeter and hold it until they get back. In fact, they might just drop in at your location.

The problem is that hacking doesn't take any equipment in the first place and all infantry can hack. It's still unknown whether all infantry can upgrade their hacking times or if only infiltrators can. We don't even know what all benefits hacking certs will entail. Part of the reason infiltrators get the hacking certs is so they're not a completely lone wolf class. All the classes in the game should have some manner of team play associated with them. That's why I mentioned the target painting; LAs have enough tasks on their plate now without adding something as important as hacking as well. Target painting would be a light weight and useful skill for a class that is able to easily reach vantage points and it compliments the guerrilla, attack-points-of-opportunity design.

I would hardly call LAs cheerleaders at this point just because they lost ammo drops (which probably shouldn't have been theirs in the first place).

Dagron · 2012-06-27, 03:27 PM

People think that jumpjets are cool and for that it's the ultimate ability, but the truth is that it's just increased mobility. That said, i agree that LAs need something to give them an alternative role (different objectives in the battlefield other than hit'n run), but i feel that hacking doesn't fit.

The reason i think Infs are better suited as hackers is because when they sneak in and hack a node, they draw attention from the front lines making the enemy split their attention. The job of a stealther isn't to go in and win the node on their own, it's first diversion: to make the enemy stay on their toes even inside their own base, spread around instead of focused on the front door. And then, once a significant force manages to get inside, the Inf would hack the node again but now the others would be there to help secure it.

The LAs wouldn't be able to get in undetected, they would just draw attention to whichever side entrance they would try to use. That's already their current objective, to flank the enemy... it would add nothing to their responsabilities.

Btw, in another thread that also derailed into "what should we give LAs to replace the ammo", i think someone pointed out that everyone can plant C4, not just 1 class. Can someone confirm or deny that?

The Degenatron · 2012-06-27, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

Why? Because one has glasses and the other doesn't?

The problem is that hacking doesn't take any equipment in the first place and all infantry can hack. It's still unknown whether all infantry can upgrade their hacking times or if only infiltrators can. We don't even know what all benefits hacking certs will entail. Part of the reason infiltrators get the hacking certs is so they're not a completely lone wolf class. All the classes in the game should have some manner of team play associated with them. That's why I mentioned the target painting; LAs have enough tasks on their plate now without adding something as important as hacking as well. Target painting would be a light weight and useful skill for a class that is able to easily reach vantage points and it compliments the guerrilla, attack-points-of-opportunity design.

I would hardly call LAs cheerleaders at this point just because they lost ammo drops (which probably shouldn't have been theirs in the first place).

Actually because one is smart, wirey, and carries a sub-machine gun and the other is a big dumb jock who carries a a belt-fed machine gun. But the glasses help too.

You're right, the problem IS that hacking doesn't take any equipment and all infantry can do it. That's the problem I'm talking about fixing. Frankly, capping is too easy. Even in DOD:S (which has a MUCH lower TTK, btw) many of the flags at least required more than one player to cap them. If DOD:S can do THAT and still be incredibly fun, then PS2 can have dedicated hackers.

What make LAs plates so full? Running around shooting people? That's a task shared by all of the classes. Frankly, the little guys could stand to do a little more heavy lifting - and heaping the burden of being the "flag bearer" suits that well. Would you like another example, one a little closer to home? Here you go:

One of these guys can turn invisible, sneak behind enemy lines, and cause subversion. The other is really fast, agile, and excellent at capping the flag.

It's a formula that works.

You're also right about spotting being a light-weight skill/task, which makes it great for infiltrators - I'm about to make a new idea topic on that in a minute.

Originally Posted by Dagron

People think that jumpjets are cool and for that it's the ultimate ability, but the truth is that it's just increased mobility. That said, i agree that LAs need something to give them an alternative role (different objectives in the battlefield other than hit'n run), but i feel that hacking doesn't fit.

The reason i think Infs are better suited as hackers is because when they sneak in and hack a node, they draw attention from the front lines making the enemy split their attention. The job of a stealther isn't to go in and win the node on their own, it's first diversion: to make the enemy stay on their toes even inside their own base, spread around instead of focused on the front door. And then, once a significant force manages to get inside, the Inf would hack the node again but now the others would be there to help secure it.

The LAs wouldn't be able to get in undetected, they would just draw attention to whichever side entrance they would try to use. That's already their current objective, to flank the enemy... it would add nothing to their responsabilities.

Btw, in another thread that also derailed into "what should we give LAs to replace the ammo", i think someone pointed out that everyone can plant C4, not just 1 class. Can someone confirm or deny that?

What you say about infiltrators getting back behind the line and quick capping for a distraction IS true, but I'd argue that the LA are even better at it. Think about it: not only are the LAs able to jump walls and come at the flag from unexpected angles, but they are visible which makes that task more of a cat-n-mouse exercise. It's almost too easy for infiltrators to get back to the flags because of their invisiblity - which means you basicly have to post someone on the flag all of the time; a job no one wants. At least LAs sneaking into the base have worry about being seen. Everything you said about infiltrators is completely applicable to LAs. And I think you're dead wrong in assuming that any player without invisibility is going to be automatically spotted. Even an HA can be sneaky.

How can you say it would add nothing to their responsibilities? Right now their full list of responsibilities are: Run around and shoot people. Putting hacking on the class elevates them to a whole new level.

I apparently have no idea about C4. Until this thread I thought it was in the hands of the infiltrators (where it should be IMO).

Femtobyte · 2012-06-27, 06:20 PM

All of this talk of balancing, and making one class have more responsibilities... Frankly when we know this little about the game, it seems a little ridiculous.

Lets play the game, then we can debate about balancing whatever we think needs added/subtracted from the game.