Vehicle Hacking is now Possible - Page 7

GeoGnome · 2013-11-18, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Mightymouser

Hogwash. Door locks needn't be (and in the alpha videos, weren't) any more complex than sheilds are now. They chose to remove them to speed up gameplay

What I stated, is what SOE said was the reason. Why would they lie about their reasoning?

Mightymouser · 2013-11-18, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

What I stated, is what SOE said was the reason. Why would they lie about their reasoning?

Because their reasoning is nonsense. You must not deal with too many programmers if you still accept "we had to make cut backs for efficiency" at face value, it is the go to answer for any dev who doesn't want to explain himself. The same is true for marketing/CR reps, except they generally do it to mask the fact that they don't know the true answer.

There are already doors in many of the places we'd need them, and the code for IFF already exists, and we saw IFF locks being used in the alpha videos; if it really means that much to you, I'll go dig it up...

GeoGnome · 2013-11-18, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Mightymouser

Because their reasoning is nonsense. You must not deal with too many programmers if you still accept "we had to make cut backs for efficiency" at face value, it is the go to answer for any dev who doesn't want to explain himself. The same is true for marketing/CR reps, except they generally do it to mask the fact that they don't know the true answer.

There are already doors in many of the places we'd need them, and the code for IFF already exists, and we saw IFF locks being used in the alpha videos; if it really means that much to you, I'll go dig it up...

So, the answer is, "Because that is what you feel the truth is"

Gotcha

Mightymouser · 2013-11-18, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

So, the answer is, "Because that is what you feel the truth is"

Gotcha

Alright, here it is: http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=39401

7 minutes and 14 seconds into video 4 Matt Higby (you know, the Creative Director for Planetside 2) explains IFF doors; they exist ingame now just as they do in that video; there is no extra resource burden associated with allowing this door (or any IFF) door to be hacked, and there are no extra objects which would need to be tracked which are not currently in game.

Again, the 'reason' you put forward is hogwash. Not because I feel it to be the case, but because it doesn't stand up to an even cursory survey of the facts.

SixShooter · 2013-11-18, 08:35 PM

This is a very good thing.

kubacheski · 2013-11-18, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mightymouser

Alright, here it is: http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=39401

7 minutes and 14 seconds into video 4 Matt Higby (you know, the Creative Director for Planetside 2) explains IFF doors; they exist ingame now just as they do in that video; there is no extra resource burden associated with allowing this door (or any IFF) door to be hacked, and there are no extra objects which would need to be tracked which are not currently in game.

Again, the 'reason' you put forward is hogwash. Not because I feel it to be the case, but because it doesn't stand up to an even cursory survey of the facts.

Holy crud. The correlation between doors and shields is awesome. They described the problem as all doors and CE turrets were dropped as they were just like an NPC and hogged server resources. But the construct exists as shields and prox mines already.

Why would they lie about their reasoning? Because the talking heads dont fully understand the programmers reasoning. Im fully convinced that the devs couldnt figure out all of the old PS1 code and dont know how/why all the ins and outs worked. Im kind of amazed that PS1 could do it with no trouble, but the newer technology engine and modern hardware cant.

camycamera · 2013-11-19, 02:56 AM

god damnit, my mouth is watering from even thinking about an overhaul of the hacking sytems, with adding doors and all that jazz.

ringring · 2013-11-19, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Holy crud. The correlation between doors and shields is awesome. They described the problem as all doors and CE turrets were dropped as they were just like an NPC and hogged server resources. But the construct exists as shields and prox mines already.

Why would they lie about their reasoning? Because the talking heads dont fully understand the programmers reasoning. Im fully convinced that the devs couldnt figure out all of the old PS1 code and dont know how/why all the ins and outs worked. Im kind of amazed that PS1 could do it with no trouble, but the newer technology engine and modern hardware cant.

PS1 could not do it with no trouble. But if door shields could be hacked for a short period so that they would be open/close whenever an enemy approached would be good.

Calista · 2013-11-19, 08:20 AM

I forgot how much better the game looked back then. Thanks for the old videos

kubacheski · 2013-11-19, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

PS1 could not do it with no trouble. But if door shields could be hacked for a short period so that they would be open/close whenever an enemy approached would be good.

@ringring, what do you mean "PS1 cound not do it with no trouble"? They obviously did it and it took at least some server resources. Think about all of the spitfires, mines, motion sensors, etc that were surrounding any given base. The rationalle given by the devs is that each of these is an NPC and the server has to keep up with them.

In thinking more about it, the netcode passing back and forth tracking of all of these items must be complex as you have to identify ones that are going off, have gone off, etc. The shields now are limited and based upon a few actionable items to trigger the switch from IFF to simply gone, but the IFF side of things can be done at the client with only state toggles being sent to each client in the redering area. Think about the options on who can enter vehicles. Is the IFF not the exact same mechanic that is used for vehicles? You cannot enter vehicles of other factions, you cannot enter vehicles limited by the user to who can access.

Is it simply an issue of scale that they dont' want to clog the network packets with data about hundreds of doors or thousands of deployables?

PS1 had this capability a decade ago.

ringring · 2013-11-19, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by kubacheski

@ringring, what do you mean "PS1 cound not do it with no trouble"? They obviously did it and it took at least some server resources. Think about all of the spitfires, mines, motion sensors, etc that were surrounding any given base. The rationalle given by the devs is that each of these is an NPC and the server has to keep up with them.

In thinking more about it, the netcode passing back and forth tracking of all of these items must be complex as you have to identify ones that are going off, have gone off, etc. The shields now are limited and based upon a few actionable items to trigger the switch from IFF to simply gone, but the IFF side of things can be done at the client with only state toggles being sent to each client in the redering area. Think about the options on who can enter vehicles. Is the IFF not the exact same mechanic that is used for vehicles? You cannot enter vehicles of other factions, you cannot enter vehicles limited by the user to who can access.

Is it simply an issue of scale that they dont' want to clog the network packets with data about hundreds of doors or thousands of deployables?

PS1 had this capability a decade ago.

Yes they did it but there were problems now and again. Often you would run into a door and it wouldn't open, ie a short delay.

The other problem was what was known as the door bug where the door appeared closed to you but to the enemy on the other side it was open and they could shoot you.

However even taking these into consideration the game would be getter with doors. And consider if there were doors and destoyable spawns, which they surely could also do; now wouldn't that be better than an SCU and shields on the spawns?

kubacheski · 2013-11-19, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by ringring

Yes they did it but there were problems now and again. Often you would run into a door and it wouldn't open, ie a short delay.

The other problem was what was known as the door bug where the door appeared closed to you but to the enemy on the other side it was open and they could shoot you.

However even taking these into consideration the game would be getter with doors. And consider if there were doors and destoyable spawns, which they surely could also do; now wouldn't that be better than an SCU and shields on the spawns?

Oh hell yea! I loved hacking and deployables. My favorite loadout was an infil with a few ACE's and a REK. Sometimes I'd carry a sidearm, but you can loot pistols easily, especially when i could get a successful boomer kill. WOOT WOOT. BTW I miss looting and managing personal inventory.

Timealude · 2013-11-20, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

Yes they did it but there were problems now and again. Often you would run into a door and it wouldn't open, ie a short delay.

The other problem was what was known as the door bug where the door appeared closed to you but to the enemy on the other side it was open and they could shoot you.

However even taking these into consideration the game would be getter with doors. And consider if there were doors and destoyable spawns, which they surely could also do; now wouldn't that be better than an SCU and shields on the spawns?

It would depend on where the doors are in general really, put them in the wrong places and they become a camp fest just like spawns are now.

kubacheski · 2013-11-20, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Timealude

It would depend on where the doors are in general really, put them in the wrong places and they become a camp fest just like spawns are now.

Properly placed they become a rally point, not merely a small camped area. Ever feel you can rally from the spawns when theres 360 degrees of camping going on outside? Multiple doors leading into a base means attackers have to camp multiple locations not just a spawn room.

What it requires is base redesign. And if youre going to do that, throw in CCs.

Timealude · 2013-11-20, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Properly placed they become a rally point, not merely a small camped area. Ever feel you can rally from the spawns when theres 360 degrees of camping going on outside? Multiple doors leading into a base means attackers have to camp multiple locations not just a spawn room.

What it requires is base redesign. And if youre going to do that, throw in CCs.

if they add them to the new amp station lay out im all in for it