hacking - Page 5

Warborn · 2003-01-01, 08:08 PM

I don't think you have to sit there holding a button for 15 minutes!!

Exactly right. Once the base control has been Hacked, the Hacking part of the base take-over is done. Now you need to defend the control panel for 15 minutes and prevent enemies from re-Hacking it back to their side. During the 15 minutes you are defending, the base is neutral, and nobody can use it for anything. Once the 15 minutes is up, the base is yours.

Feynn · 2003-01-01, 09:34 PM

Warborn,

Maybe my understanding of how the game is wrong since I haven't yet played or seen it, but it seems to me that anytime you want to "hack" a base, you would have to send in a team of base infiltrators and not a lone hacker by himself. If this assumption is correct, then the majority of the things you say a hacker will have fun doing is going to be stuff that applies to being a base infiltrator, not specifically a hacker.

It would seem that the hacking cert is going to basically be one that people are going to take just because having one is required. An analogy is to a poorly done RPG where clerics are boring as hell to play, but someone has to bite the bullet and be one if you are going to have a successful party. What some of us are trying to suggest is that hacking become a "class" that people actually enjoy and can become proficient at. Just as Dio said, having a rifle cert doesn't make you good with that rifle, yet having the hacker cert is really all you need to be a good hacker.

I think it's important to remember that we're all fans of Planetside and if we didn't think it would be a good game we wouldn't be here. Hacking as it stands now doesn't change our opinion of the game in general, so there's not really any point in trying to convince us that hackers will still have fun playing PS because we all agree. What we are trying to say is that by making hacking dependent on some kind of player skill, you make the game MORE fun, and the hacking certification becomes more appealing, as opposed to just being something that someone on the team has to have. Just as some commanders are striving to be well respected because of their command abilities, wouldn't it be nice to have hackers well respected because of their hacking abilities?

I wouldn't even make a big deal about this whole thing except that I think the potential addition to gameplay is large and the difficulty in coding is rather small.

�io · 2003-01-01, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Feynn
What we are trying to say is that by making hacking dependent on some kind of player skill, you make the game MORE fun, and the hacking certification becomes more appealing, as opposed to just being something that someone on the team has to have. Just as some commanders are striving to be well respected because of their command abilities, wouldn't it be nice to have hackers well respected because of their hacking abilities?

I wouldn't even make a big deal about this whole thing except that I think the potential addition to gameplay is large and the difficulty in coding is rather small.

Hamma · 2003-01-01, 09:42 PM

I somewhat agree it would be nice if it required a bit more skill..hell maybe its being changed. We will have to wait and see

Navaron · 2003-01-01, 09:48 PM

***IF*** you can make it idiot proof. You don't want some moron getting in position and not ever figuring it out. I don't want to defend some A hole for 7 minutes because he doesn't know how to read. It has to be easy to learn, but difficult to master. So Joe Blow can hack it in 1.5 mins, but l33t g33k can hack it in 30 secs.

Another idea could be that the time it takes the base to turn over (the 15 mins now - I know it might change) would be directly proportional to the hack time. So Joe BLow hacked it in 1.5 mins so the base turns over in 15 mins, but l33t g33k got it done in .30 so the base turns over in 5 mins. I know people would be searchin for l33t g33k to join their squad. That would be cool.

�io · 2003-01-01, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
I don't want to defend some A hole for 7 minutes because he doesn't know how to read.

Well that's a risk you have to take at least once to know if he is good or not, same as hopping in a galaxy with a stranger, maybe he's a damn good pilot or maybe he'll end up crashing you into a lake.

Another idea could be that the time it takes the base to turn over (the 15 mins now - I know it might change) would be directly proportional to the hack time. So Joe BLow hacked it in 1.5 mins so the base turns over in 15 mins, but l33t g33k got it done in .30 so the base turns over in 5 mins. I know people would be searchin for l33t g33k to join their squad. That would be cool.

Yeah that would be another sweet thing to add. But i would hope for allowing different hacking times first then maybe change the take over time as well.

Coliostro · 2003-01-01, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Warborn

There's absolutely no sense in focusing on just the Hacking cert, because as I've said, it's just one part of the bigger picture. If you totally exclude all other factors and simply say "Well, the Hacking cert is boring, let's make it a mini-game so that Hacking is interesting", you have absolutely no argument. It's not at all necessary or needed, and most players would find that it gets in the way. People don't pick a weapon cert just to stand in place and hold the fire button down, and people also don't take a Hacking cert to simply walk around opening doors. There is more to being a Hacker than just Hacking, so there is utterly no reason in making the Hacking cert into some sort of a puzzle.

Most players? Maybe I miscounted but i'm pretty sure you're the only one arguing for keeping the timer bar Warborn.

I liked the idea about 30 second hack time versus minute and 30 second hack time having a benefit in how long it takes to turn the base to your side. I think that was Navaron's

FraBaktos · 2003-01-01, 10:30 PM

Can they respawn in the base after you have hacked it and are defending for the 15 minutes needed?

Serbitar · 2003-01-01, 10:49 PM

I would definatle like to make HACKING a skill based task. I want to have hackers who can say that they are the best arround and not as all the other button pushers.

Make it something like twitch skills (spinning wheels), or as somebpdy mentioned earlier: typing lots of strange symbols.

Just not just pushing a button.
Of course there is fun only with the hacking SITUATION but having to be skilled to hack is MORE FUN !

DAMN I want 1337 g33k in my sqad !

Warborn · 2003-01-01, 11:19 PM

Maybe my understanding of how the game is wrong since I haven't yet played or seen it, but it seems to me that anytime you want to "hack" a base, you would have to send in a team of base infiltrators and not a lone hacker by himself. If this assumption is correct, then the majority of the things you say a hacker will have fun doing is going to be stuff that applies to being a base infiltrator, not specifically a hacker.

A team of Infiltrator-Hackers invading a base is barely different from going in alone. If anything, it'd be more fun and require even more skill than a solo approach, as you need too coordinate and cooperate. Having allies would be less nerve-wracking, but overall, I think it'd be more enjoyable.

It would seem that the hacking cert is going to basically be one that people are going to take just because having one is required. An analogy is to a poorly done RPG where clerics are boring as hell to play, but someone has to bite the bullet and be one if you are going to have a successful party. What some of us are trying to suggest is that hacking become a "class" that people actually enjoy and can become proficient at. Just as Dio said, having a rifle cert doesn't make you good with that rifle, yet having the hacker cert is really all you need to be a good hacker.

You are not limited to only being able to carry a hacking kit and nothing else. Watch the movie Aliens, for instance. The Hacker (Hudson) that was a part of the team of Marines which was sent to help the colony which the Company had lost contact with was just another Marine. He had the same rifle, the same body armor, and the same rank as everyone else. He fought just like the other, non-Hacker Marines. But if the squad needed a door opened or a computer hacked for information, he'd whip out his little hacking kit or whatever and get to it. That's the alternative to an Infiltrator-Hacker. The Soldier-Hacker. And the Soldier-Hacker is going to rely on his ability to blow the hell out of his enemies for having a good time. Not waiting with baited breath for his chance to solve a puzzle and open the door to allow his squad access. Although, that will make him feel like he's more integral to the squad, and being able to open the doors and capture the bases for his unit will be fun for him, despite the fact that he doesn't have to solve a puzzle to do so.

You will be able to afford an armor cert, a weapon cert, and some hacking certs. Hackers aren't going to be totally restricted to only being able to use a hacking kit and nothing else. After a group of soldiers blows away the defenders and gets to the control room, they're not going to ask "Ok, anyone see someone with no armor or weapon? We need to hack this." The guy who hacks the base is likely going to be wearing the same armor and using the same weapon as any other grunt in the group.

I think it's important to remember that we're all fans of Planetside and if we didn't think it would be a good game we wouldn't be here. Hacking as it stands now doesn't change our opinion of the game in general, so there's not really any point in trying to convince us that hackers will still have fun playing PS because we all agree. What we are trying to say is that by making hacking dependent on some kind of player skill, you make the game MORE fun, and the hacking certification becomes more appealing, as opposed to just being something that someone on the team has to have. Just as some commanders are striving to be well respected because of their command abilities, wouldn't it be nice to have hackers well respected because of their hacking abilities?

By your logic, then, perhaps even Medics and Engineers should have puzzles involved with reviving people, healing wounds, repairing vehicles, deploying mines/turrets, and that sort of thing. After all, by making these tasks more dependent on player skill, you make the game more fun. Right? Are you also for making all of these tasks puzzle-related? Because as it stands right now, the only way for a Medic to become well-known and respected is by being brave, dedicated, and a good fighter if push comes to show. And the only way an Engineer can be well-known and respected is by being crafty, ingenious, and a good fighter if things get tooth-and-nail. These methods are of course inferior toward an Engineer being well-known for his ability to beat the land-mine at a game of chess, thus being able to actually plant the mine.

Yes, bitter sarcasm, but I'm really hoping you guys will get the picture here. There's so much more to things that having puzzles simply isn't a) fun, or b) going to get you any respect. A good Medic will earn his reputation as a good Medic for actually being a good Medic. Not a good puzzle-solver. Someone who can solve puzzles easily can still be a moron when it comes to the role of a battlefield Medic, and despite the fact that he can Revive people easily, he's might still be crappy at actually applying said skill.

So what the question to those of you who want Hacking to be some sort of respectable puzzle-profession is this: Do you want Infiltrator-Hackers (Soldier-Hackers are Soldiers first, Hackers second) to be respected for their ability to solve puzzles, or their ability to actually take over bases or hijack enemy vehicles? That's what it all boils down to. The best puzzle-solver in the world will still capture far fewer bases than another Infiltrator-Hacker if the not-so-good puzzle-solver is simply better at being a stealthy, commando type guy. And the other, non-puzzle expert player will be respected more than the expert puzzle-solver. Who cares if the first guy can open a door faster if he's always slipping up and getting killed before he can even get close to the control panel. At the end of the day, the guy who gets the job done will be the one getting the recognition, and if you think there's absolutely no skill involved with Infiltrator-Hacking a base to your side, you're fooling yourself. There's plenty of room for the skilled to rise above the unskilled, and wanting the actual task of Hacking to make a difference is like putting a fifth wheel on a car. Looks nice, but it doesn't solve any problems or improve the situation much at all.

Warborn · 2003-01-01, 11:40 PM

Oh, some other stuff:

Most players? Maybe I miscounted but i'm pretty sure you're the only one arguing for keeping the timer bar Warborn.

You've never heard of a majority being wrong, before? Just because not many people are vocally agreeing with me doesn't mean I'm more or less right than you are.

However, for the sake of accuracy, I did have some people on my side.

/em nods

Can they respawn in the base after you have hacked it and are defending for the 15 minutes needed

Once the base is Hacked, it goes Neutral (nobody can use it/spawn from it) for the 15 minutes, or until the previous owner re-Hacks it. So you can be sure that during an attack, the control room will be defended. And if the battle goes sour for the defenders, they will definitely try and hold up as long as possible in the control room.

Which is why you can shut the base down a second way -- by destroying the generator.

I liked the idea about 30 second hack time versus minute and 30 second hack time having a benefit in how long it takes to turn the base to your side. I think that was Navaron's

It turns the base Neutral, and honestly, it doesn't make a huge difference. If you're in a situation where you either hack the base in 30 seconds or die, whether you hack it in 30 seconds or 1 minute won't matter, because once you hack the base, you're dead, and the base will likely be re-hacked. Actually taking the base will require that you secure the control room (save for those rare instances when there isn't a Hacker within 15 minutes of the base you just suicide-hacked). And if the control room is secure, it won't make a difference if the process of turning the base Neutral takes 5 second or 2 minutes. Nobody is going to disturb you either way.

Feynn · 2003-01-02, 04:00 AM

"Do you want Infiltrator-Hackers (Soldier-Hackers are Soldiers first, Hackers second) to be respected for their ability to solve puzzles, or their ability to actually take over bases or hijack enemy vehicles?"

This is the gist of my point. All the examples you've given of how a "hacker" can make a reputation for himself don't seem to be anything specific to the "hacker" class. Another way to look at it is this... If you hear of a player who is really skilled at fighting his way into the base, would you call that person a good "hacker" or a good "soldier/infiltrator"? I would argue that all of the things you are saying defines a good hacker really is more definitive of a good player in general. Thus what you are describing is not why a hacker is fun, or how a hacker can build a good reputation, but how a player in general can be well respected.

By contrast, your example of a medic describes a player whose skills are specific to that of a medic. Being able to quickly assess who needs help and having the bravery to go into a middle of a fight to deliver that assistance is something that is unique to someone fulfilling a medic role.

In a lot of the interviews and descriptions of the game I've heard hacker listed as one of the specialty type classes that a person can pursue. But without making it a skill based profession, it is more similar to a weapon certification, something that people will have to have somewhere in their toolbox but which doesn't define their character. Is that a problem in itself? Not really, but why not take a few extra steps to get it to the point where "hacker" really is a defining role of a player and allow people to specialize more as the interviews seem to indicate is the intent of the designers? I know I personally would find it more fun.

From a command POV it seems like the way it is now, when putting together a team a commander would say, "Ok we got 10 guys, make sure one of us can hack." What I would rather see is it being where a commander putting together a team has to make special effort to find a qualified hacker.

Warborn · 2003-01-02, 05:26 AM

Another way to look at it is this... If you hear of a player who is really skilled at fighting his way into the base, would you call that person a good "hacker" or a good "soldier/infiltrator"?

I say Infiltrator to denote the use of an Infiltration Suit. If the player isn't wearing an IS, then he's not an Infiltrator. So the answer to the above would depend on several factors. 1) Whether the player was using an IS. 2) Whether he actually hacked the control panel and captured the base. 3) Whether he considers himself a "covert operations" type or not. If he's just a grunt that managed to blast his way in and happened to have a hacking kit, then no, he'd be recognized for some high-quality soldiering, not for being a remarkably stealthy intruder.

I would argue that all of the things you are saying defines a good hacker really is more definitive of a good player in general. Thus what you are describing is not why a hacker is fun, or how a hacker can build a good reputation, but how a player in general can be well respected.

I might not have explained it clearly enough. Sorry if my vague descriptions don't paint a detailed picture. Suffice to say that being an Infiltrator-Hacker (someone who uses an Infiltration Suit and relies on stealth and surprise to achieve his goal) will require a certain set of skills to be successful, whether or not he has to play a game of Bingo with the control panel to capture the base. The actual process of getting inside the base and up to the control panel will have little to do with Hacking, and it's at those critical times that an Infiltrator will gain his fame. The man who gets the job done at the end of the day is the one who gets respect. And you're going to need a hell of a lot more skills than simply being able to beat a door at Othello to earn respect as an Infiltrator. Which is why I'm telling you and everyone else that there's no reason to have Hacking more than it is. A player will not subsist entirely on Hacking things, and it's the other stuff that you do which will earn you fame. Nobody really gives a damn about the guy who can solve puzzles well but can't sneak into the control room.

By contrast, your example of a medic describes a player whose skills are specific to that of a medic. Being able to quickly assess who needs help and having the bravery to go into a middle of a fight to deliver that assistance is something that is unique to someone fulfilling a medic role.

Yes. Different roles require different kinds of thinking.

I've heard hacker listed as one of the specialty type classes that a person can pursue.

I wouldn't put too much faith in anything you read in interviews.

From a command POV it seems like the way it is now, when putting together a team a commander would say, "Ok we got 10 guys, make sure one of us can hack." What I would rather see is it being where a commander putting together a team has to make special effort to find a qualified hacker.

As I believe they mentioned elsewhere, you can advertise your certs, and if some grunt who bothered with Hacking and really likes Hacking wants to advertise his ability to Hack, great, because not everyone is going to be able to Hack. So there you go, there's your searching for a qualified Hacker. Not everyone is going to have Advanced Hacking, after all, and if you're one with it and you're also decent in combat/able to keep your ass in one piece, you'll likely gain renown as the guy to have with you if you want to take a base. Not because you're good at beating a the control panel in Hearts, but because you're a good addition to any Squad due to your combat prowess (or if it were an Infiltrator Squad, your stealthiness), and are capable to Hack things. Making Hacking any more complex than it is is not needed.

Arthell · 2003-01-02, 05:27 AM

This is just a random idea that got into my head from reading this ...

When a hacker goes to the terminal a small window pops up showing a top-down view of a circuit board. There are 3 wires running left to right. Red, Green and Blue. There would be a different sequence for each team (Vanu, TN and NC) for the hacker to follow.

Ex.
A Vanu squad gets into the 'hacking room' of a TN base. While they cover the hackers back the hacker goes to the terminal and uses it, opening up the window. The TN 'combination' would be, cut the Blue wire (right clicking to cut it) and the Green wire and then crossing the two sets. (pick up one end of the Blue wire and drag it to the opposite green one to connect them, do same with other Blue/Green pieces)

Something like this would make it so each team has a different combination. It somewhat adds to the hacking sense, is easy, and wouldnt take long.

To make it idiot-proof (well, cant make ANYTHING idiot proof

) the combinations would be in a readme/bulletin board/help menu in-game or have a help menu pop-up when somebody picks the Hacking cert, telling them the basics and showing examples, and, giving the combinations.

With something like this every now and then in a patch they could switch the combinations. This would help keep hackers on their toes so it isnt just another counter-strike bomb dropping. (this is really just a simple idea, food for thought.

)

To possibly take it a step further so that it isnt as static, if your a hacker in your own base you could try and 'rig' the hacking terminal. A very simple idea might be :

The 3 wires are running left to right. At the top is Red, the middle is Green and the bottom is Blue. This would be the setup of the terminals.

----------- <-Red
----------- <-Green
-----------<-Blue

To rig the terminal you could strip 2 wires of their colors and change them, possibly throwing off enemy hackers. (This would easily be avoided by an enemy hacker that knows to do a 2 second check to make sure they arent tampered with.)

So a rigged terminal would look like :

-----------<-Green (in reality, the Red wire)
-----------<-Red (in reality, the Green wire)
-----------<-Blue

So, using the example from the top of a Vanu hacking a TN base(Cut Blue/Green wires and cross them) the enemy hacker would have to cut the middle (Green wire that has been rigged with the red covering) and bottom (Blue) wires. Easily done, especially if you have a paper beside ya with the real setup.

Warborn · 2003-01-02, 05:50 AM

What you're looking for is a little more substance to it, and honestly, I'd be all for it. However, why not just automate? I'd personally prefer if your character actually went through the motions of using his little hacking device to open up the door. You can still have the little bar, and of course it'd take no action on your part aside from holding down the button, but watching your character snip some wires or whatever would contribute toward the suspension of belief, and couldn't hurt at all. Only thing I'm against is making it into a puzzle that people would need to be good at to over-complicate such a minor thing as hacking.