Just an idea I have concerning Proximity mines.
In a given amount of time after being placed, the mine should either beep slower, be heard only in closer proximity, or its lights should dim or stop working completely. I don't know how much time there should be between its placement and when it starts to work slower.
Because of balance changes, either only one or a good combination of the ideas should be implemented to keep the mine from becoming too powerful.
In addition to this, when the mine becomes less detectable after a period of time by either becoming quieter or less visible, the time between being triggered and exploding should also be increased.
This concept can be both good and bad to the mercenary that placed the mine. On one hand, if a mine that has been placed early in the game and has not yet been triggered can become almost invisible to a spy not using visions, making it more deadly. On the other, it would react slower to movement and explode later after being triggered giving the spy more time to escape it.
I would like some feedback on how this idea can be improved without changing the gameplay to an extreme extent.
Quote from: The Maestro on April 06, 2008, 11:17:21 PMBecause of balance changes[...]
Which balance changes make proximity mines more powerful?
Interesting but it seems like it's unnecessary. They are fine now as they are. Adds some complexity that isn't needed and it would make it harder for newbs to get the hang of the game with a lot of variables like this. The thing is though, it needs to be deep enough for everyone to improve and learn new things over time, but not sooo deep that newbs who just join have no friggin idea what's going on. Again, this is a tutorial issue.
Cyntrox, what he is saying is that they would become less visible and audible over time. That makes them more powerful.
Btw, is this for realism Maestro? Are you suggesting this to make it seem like the batteries they run on die over time?
He also said mines will give more warning over time. I don't see the reason in this either. If anything, I'd just give the choice to the player. Loud and powerful mines for those aggro dirtbags, quiet and less twitchy for those sneaky bastards.
this idea is fucking stupid and absolutely unneeded.
a way more interesting and important question on mines is: will there still be edge-overlapping placement in ps?
my view on this is that it should stay in the game if chaff still works the way it does in ct.
Don't attack an idea that harshly Rambo. Especially if it's a new member. Come on now. What was the point of that new rule if it's not being enforced enough?
Imo it's a quite nice idea. It would encourage more recon.
Like it isn't encouraged enough already? Of course, more would always be welcome imo, but this isn't the right way to do it. With darker maps, it should encourage more use of visions for spies so they can recon the area for hidden devices.
Quote from: Rambo on April 06, 2008, 11:36:07 PM
this idea is fucking stupid and absolutely unneeded.
a way more interesting and important question on mines is: will there still be edge-overlapping placement in ps?
my view on this is that it should stay in the game if chaff still works the way it does in ct.
+1
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 07, 2008, 12:15:18 AM
Don't attack an idea that harshly Rambo. Especially if it's a new member. Come on now. What was the point of that new rule if it's not being enforced enough?
While Maestro is new to the PS community, he isn't new to the CT community. The idea isn't going to balance ANYTHING out in terms of what the proxy already has going for it. Don't know about you, but I don't want my proxy mine acting any slower than it already does. With little to no beep on proxy....might make people start talking about "sound-loss", which is an already apparent problem. The reason Rambo attacked the idea is because it wasn't really thought out before being posted. Especially from someone who plays practically every evening.
I don't blame anyone for attacking the idea and I admit that I didn't think it through. I just wanted to see a different perspective on it and see what an outcome of having it would be. As it is now clearly seen though, it would be useless, but I was just curious.
How about turning it 180 -> The mines tick faster as time passes. Would prevent rushes.
Quote from: Westfall-US on April 07, 2008, 12:44:47 AM
Quote from: Rambo on April 06, 2008, 11:36:07 PM
this idea is fucking stupid and absolutely unneeded.
a way more interesting and important question on mines is: will there still be edge-overlapping placement in ps?
my view on this is that it should stay in the game if chaff still works the way it does in ct.
+1
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 07, 2008, 12:15:18 AM
Don't attack an idea that harshly Rambo. Especially if it's a new member. Come on now. What was the point of that new rule if it's not being enforced enough?
While Maestro is new to the PS community, he isn't new to the CT community. The idea isn't going to balance ANYTHING out in terms of what the proxy already has going for it. Don't know about you, but I don't want my proxy mine acting any slower than it already does. With little to no beep on proxy....might make people start talking about "sound-loss", which is an already apparent problem. The reason Rambo attacked the idea is because it wasn't really thought out before being posted. Especially from someone who plays practically every evening.
Didn't know he wasn't new to the community, my bad. But I did agree with Rambo, even though I thought he could have disagreed a bit more politely. Forget it though.
Quote from: Liqu1D_133 on April 07, 2008, 12:53:54 AM
How about turning it 180 -> The mines tick faster as time passes. Would prevent rushes.
lol? the whole idea of a rush is to get to places as fast as possible when the enemy is still setting up the defence, so it would it make harder the longer you wait. seriously people, think about what you post before you hit the post-it button.
Quote from: Rambo on April 07, 2008, 03:31:51 PM
seriously people, think about what you post before you hit the post-it button.
uh-oh .. take your own advice!
wow look ... another "i'm ruber your glue topic" ... :P
On topic please.
Im for keeping mines as they are in CT. I dont see a need of changing anything here. I would only like to see cool blinking and hear nice sound. I think we could discuss the way proxies blink :)
frvge, Did you notice that every flamewar or off-topic starts because of one person ? Why dont you talk to this guy and explain him that its not nice to behave like a shitass.
i may be rude, but it's better to be rude than to post stupid unconsidered bullshit. it's also not my fault that people can't handle someone showing them their lack of diligence/brain/experience/whatsoever and cope with it by going offtopic and start flaming. i don't give a crap about offending people i hardly know, i only care about this project, and brainless discussions dragging lots of threads totally off-topic won't help for sure.
No Gawain, being rude is being frowned upon. Others can find it really annoying.
You can still make a poll for banning.
Tbh, there isn't much to discuss here. The op even admitted that it wasn't a great idea. Unless we use this as a proximity mine in general topic, it should be locked. And even then, proxy mines probably shouldn't be changed that much anyways.
What about the spies hacking merc gadgets so they function for both teams? Do you guys remember that? I remember something about giving the spy the ability to hack into a mine (maybe with a gadget) so that the mine blows up on both the merc and the spies. I don't remember exactly how the idea went. Possibly it could work with spy traps too? If the spy hacks it and a merc trips it then the merc would show up on the spy's radar. I don't know, could be a nice new gadget for spies and add another interesting aspect to mines. What did you guys think about it?
Maybe for Rambo/Gawain, it should be a 2 strike policy lol. He'd be out. :D
Quote from: Rambo on April 07, 2008, 08:38:04 PM
i don't give a crap about offending people i hardly know, i only care about this project, and brainless discussions dragging lots of threads totally off-topic won't help for sure.
The funny thing, though, is that hardly anyone will listen to you if you don't learn to actually express yourself like a human being.
Quote from: Rambo on April 07, 2008, 08:38:04 PM
i may be rude, but it's better to be rude than to post stupid unconsidered bullshit. it's also not my fault that people can't handle someone showing them their lack of diligence/brain/experience/whatsoever and cope with it by going offtopic and start flaming. i don't give a crap about offending people i hardly know, i only care about this project, and brainless discussions dragging lots of threads totally off-topic won't help for sure.
Rambo, you still should have acknowledged that Maestro was new to this forum. You could have explained yourself a little better instead of coming off as a rude prick, you know? It doesn't matter if you know the person or not because your speaking loudly for yourself. I'm sure the person you're being a douche to doesn't give a shit about who you are either. Many members of this forum probably don't really care about your opinions or how you act because you've shown your true colors. This may be why half the shit you post is just as significant as Maestro's very first post....and hes NEW here. Says lots.
Also, every time you make a new name Gaiwan, it doesn't just erase what you've said in the past. You have your good points and you're fun to play CT against, but your quite the asshole. Quit thinkin so damn high and mighty about yourself and act a little humane once and a while. Not that fuckin hard.
Agreed.^
If the guy is new (actually, regardless of if he's new or not) you should do a few things:
1) Politely disagree with him. Explain yourself and refrain from using cuss words, not very welcoming.
2) Welcome him.
3) Be the opposite of what you usually are.
Seriously Gawain. This is 1st grade shit right here. Be polite. Be respectful. Wtf, I don't have to explain this to you. Forget it.
Quote from: BurningDeath on April 07, 2008, 08:53:32 PM
The funny thing, though, is that hardly anyone will listen to you if you don't learn to actually express yourself like a human being.
yeah that's a sad thing that it's more important how you make a point than what your point actually is.
Quote from: Westfall-US on April 07, 2008, 08:55:16 PM
Also, every time you make a new name Gaiwan, it doesn't just erase what you've said in the past. You have your good points and you're fun to play CT against, but your quite the asshole. Quit thinkin so damn high and mighty about yourself and act a little humane once and a while. Not that fuckin hard.
i played as rambo for years (back in those days the name fit), then i switched to gawain for some months because i saw some other players called rambo and i considered it a childish nick, but then illusion pointed out that rambo is the most ironic name one can find for this kind of game and that i should stick to my roots. besides, rambo 4 pwns. i've also not created any new account or changed xfire or whatsoever, i stand for what i say and do.
i know that it was wrong to flame someone totally new to this forum, but it's absolutely crucial for a good discussion not to try to be polite and all that crap but to simply state how facts look like and tell one own's opinion. it's also a good thing to try to totally counter new ideas as this method will better show the flaws of the new idea and helps to improve it. dammit i hate these days of political correctness...
and why in the world do you have to post that much about me being rude in one short statement again and again? it's not that it matters that much that you guys have to drag a thread into boring off-topic...
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 07, 2008, 08:49:33 PM
Tbh, there isn't much to discuss here. The op even admitted that it wasn't a great idea. Unless we use this as a proximity mine in general topic, it should be locked. And even then, proxy mines probably shouldn't be changed that much anyways.
yes there is something important to discuss, but people obviously don't give a crap about my input no matter how important it is:
Quote from: Rambo on April 06, 2008, 11:36:07 PM
a way more interesting and important question on mines is: will there still be edge-overlapping placement in ps?
my view on this is that it should stay in the game if chaff still works the way it does in ct.
so can we actually go back on discussion or do you wanna act like 1st graders (it's funny how often i'm being called names like ashole, retard, etc by someone who considers me immature and rude when i just flame the ideas of people)?
Lmao. :D
Rambo, it's not like you are the only one here with that same opinion. We mostly all think it's unnecessary to do this. Yet somehow, you are the only one (time and time again) that is not able to present your opinion in a respectful manner. It's like if someone asked us if we like Apples or Bananas. Most of us say we prefer apples including you, but you say "Fuck Bananas they fucking suck ass!! apples for the mothatruckin win! Anyone who thinks otherwise is retarded!!!!11"
Plus, it's a new guy to the forum. Come on. Do we really have to explain how we should act to the guy even if we all don't like his idea? I know that I sound like a total pansy but we probably lose more members that way. And it's not like it's that hard to disprove something and state facts without being angry. It's bullshit Gawain. Lighten up.
for me, stating that someone's opinion sucks isn't showing disrespect; it's just an effective and truthful way of communicating. i'm aware that this may repel new members/players, and i'm sorry for the fact that i simply didn't look who posted the op.
Quote from: Rambo on April 07, 2008, 09:46:52 PM
for me, stating that someone's opinion sucks isn't showing disrespect;
It's not, but look at what you posted:
Quote from: Rambo on April 06, 2008, 11:36:07 PM
this idea is fucking stupid and absolutely unneeded.
Thats a little bit different than a "imo, this sucks".
Quote from: BurningDeath on April 07, 2008, 11:13:20 PM
Thats a little bit different than a "imo, this sucks".
i need no "imo", it's obvious that what i post is my opinion, nothing less and nothing more.
can this off-topic blabla stop now so that we can get back on proximity mines or just let this thread die?
Rambo, I actually listened to you for a week, before I figured out you were Gawain. Then I stopped again.
Lol^
Do you undestand the difference between disagreeing and rudely disagreeing? I don't think you do. And even if you do, neither one has a more convincing tone to it, just one has a more "asshole tone" to it.
Quote from: Rambo on April 07, 2008, 09:13:53 PM
i know that it was wrong to flame someone totally new to this forum, but it's absolutely crucial for a good discussion not to try to be polite and all that crap but to simply state how facts look like and tell one own's opinion. it's also a good thing to try to totally counter new ideas as this method will better show the flaws of the new idea and helps to improve it. dammit i hate these days of political correctness...
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I could hold a conversation with someone who can't handle themselves in a respectful manner. Whats the point, so they can try to lash out at you with their words as though they are effective. Calling something bullshit and unnecessary is just that: complete bullshit and absolutely unnecessary. For a good discussion to take place, both parties must be willing to listen and give CONSTRUCTIVE feedback. This isn't being politically correct. This is you not being able to handle yourself at all. Saying something is complete shit improves.....nothing. It proves that you don't know how to hold a conversation with someone, and that we may have lost a member on this forum because you were on your high-horse. I didn't realize this was the message that frvge was sending out when he told the community to bring it down a notch. You like how he even suggested another ban poll? Dammit, I hate these days of having to teach another adult how to present himself.
QuoteQuote from: Rambo on April 06, 2008, 11:36:07 PM
a way more interesting and important question on mines is: will there still be edge-overlapping placement in ps?
my view on this is that it should stay in the game if chaff still works the way it does in ct.
so can we actually go back on discussion or do you wanna act like 1st graders (it's funny how often i'm being called names like ashole, retard, etc by someone who considers me immature and rude when i just flame the ideas of people)?
I don't really think this is that big of a deal for mines. It was balanced with the option to place mines in certain spots that made it seem like it was hanging. Map makers were even able to make spots that wouldn't hold mines.
You're a 1st grader in how you react to posts. You really need to start settling down. With the way you react to what people say, it seems like you don't give 2 shits about Project Stealth.
QuoteDammit, I hate these days of having to teach another adult how to present himself.
Adult? Is he really? I hope not, because from what I can see he's still got a shitload to learn about how he presents himself and how he treats others (and their opinions).
If you gave a crap about Project Stealth I think you should care a bit more about the opinions of the people you will be playing it with for the next few years buddy.
And after these wise 2 posts, lockage for 4-6 hours. So everyone can read.
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 08, 2008, 01:13:41 AM
If you gave a crap about Project Stealth I think you should care a bit more about the opinions of the people you will be playing it with for the next few years buddy.
i don't care about my reputation, but i do care about everyone's opinion on something ps related as long as it's not something obviously stupid. you're also wrong that the group of people posting here regularily will make out the ps player base, just take a look around: besides the people on the dev team, there are less than 10 pt/ct (pc version) vets posting on a regular basis. besides, i show different manners ingame or in xfire/teamspeak as this forum is for serious discussions, and the game/voip is to hang out and have fun.
Quote from: Rambo on April 08, 2008, 01:46:31 PM
i don't care about my reputation, but i do care about everyone's opinion on something ps related as long as it's not something obviously stupid.
You seem to, because you mention you mad sk1llz every 5 minutes.
Quote from: Rambo on April 08, 2008, 01:46:31 PM
you're also wrong that the group of people posting here regularily will make out the ps player base, just take a look around: besides the people on the dev team, there are less than 10 pt/ct (pc version) vets posting on a regular basis.
Quote from: Rambo on April 08, 2008, 01:46:31 PM
besides, i show different manners ingame or in xfire/teamspeak as this forum is for serious discussions, and the game/voip is to hang out and have fun.
So when a buisnessperson proposes a bad idea, during a serious conversation, the chairman will shout out "That idea's a piece of shit! Why don't you listen to my great and better idea!"
And as for the idea, I think it's interesting but not very useful. If you could have a choice whether to detonate fast or be silent, then theres a point, but otherwise I don't think this will change much.
How about: Mines can explode only when the mine beeps, and it'd be instant, for the sake of realism.
No, changes the behaviour too much.
Quote from: Kubanator on April 08, 2008, 04:49:36 PM
You seem to, because you mention you mad sk1llz every 5 minutes.
that's simply wrong.
both interesting ideas that could need further discussion:
Quote from: Liqu1D_133 on April 08, 2008, 05:36:53 PM
How about: Mines can explode only when the mine beeps, and it'd be instant, for the sake of realism.
Quote from: Kubanator on April 08, 2008, 04:49:36 PM
If you could have a choice whether to detonate fast or be silent, then theres a point, but otherwise I don't think this will change much.
I see no reason why you should have to be an asshole one place and a fun guy to hang with somewhere else. God damn, just be nice all around. No one actually knows what you are like if you have 2 wayyy different personalities in different places.
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 09, 2008, 12:15:17 AMNo one actually knows what you are like if you have 2 wayyy different personalities in different places.
Sorry to break in, but actually, he don't. Same guy all around. Or maybe he has a little bit better behaviour here on the forum, but that's all. You just gotta live with it, fellas.
Don't be sorry lol, he said it himself. So if he's still an asshole ingame/xfire whatever else, where is he not? Guess he just gonna have to learn to change it.
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 10, 2008, 12:29:02 AM
Don't be sorry lol, he said it himself. So if he's still an asshole ingame/xfire whatever else, where is he not? Guess he just gonna have to learn to change it.
Says you. Quit playing victim here and get off the dude's testicles. This is a proxy mine thread. We said what we had to. If it continues obviously something will happen. You 2 are a fuckin soap opera...I swear.
yarr
so what about overlapping placement?
Well, I don't mind that, but mines shouldn't be able to clip into objects for concealment.
I think thats what he meant by overlapping ....
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 10, 2008, 12:29:02 AM
Don't be sorry lol, he said it himself. So if he's still an asshole ingame/xfire whatever else, where is he not? Guess he just gonna have to learn to change it.
Just wanted to do a polite entrance here, that's all. And well, yeah, you ain't dealing with a guy, who has two different tounges.
But all right, lets get back to the topic.
by overlapping i don't mean placing prox. mines in/behind textures, but placing them so that half of it overlaps the edge (so that it can be triggerd and blow up in the other direction, too, but it's hard to see and shoot out/chaff).
One thing to try would be to make the mines do lethal damage in front of them (180Ã,º-225Ã,°), and moderate 50%-70% health loss) withing the remaining 135Ã,° directly behind it.
Quote from: Kurbutti on April 10, 2008, 06:06:58 PM
One thing to try would be to make the mines do lethal damage in front of them (180Ã,º-225Ã,°), and moderate 50%-70% health loss) withing the remaining 135Ã,° directly behind it.
sounds quite interesting. we could make it that in the 45Ã,° (or 60Ã,°) frontal area the proxy mine does more damage than in ct (trigger radius=deadly range), on the sides the damage it does in ct and on the back a little less damage/range.
Quote from: Rambo on April 10, 2008, 05:11:15 PM
by overlapping i don't mean placing prox. mines in/behind textures, but placing them so that half of it overlaps the edge (so that it can be triggerd and blow up in the other direction, too, but it's hard to see and shoot out/chaff).
I don't feel the mines should hang off the edge. Does the mine have some sort of a ridiculously sticky adhesive that allows it to stay? Wouldnt that get all over the merc as he was placing it? It seems like everything in the maps are magnetized and will hold the proxy anywhere. This definitely shouldn't be the case. I think we need to figure something out for this.
atm overlapping placement is good for the balance (counters chaff spamming aggro a little bit), but with the ability to place mines on the floor it wouldn't be that necessary.
With the ability to plant them on floors you could still make the poison mines shoot up into a vent. That would completely block the vent for the spy unless he wants to chaff it and give away his position. No thanks. I really like Kurbutti's idea though...
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 11, 2008, 12:02:39 AM
With the ability to plant them on floors you could still make the poison mines shoot up into a vent. That would completely block the vent for the spy unless he wants to chaff it and give away his position. No thanks. I really like Kurbutti's idea though...
Why should you not be able to put a mine where you want?
Hmmm, same reason you can't go into a spies spawn. It's cheap.
A mine on the floor? Come on now, CT and PT it has always been about looking around corners. Now I've gotta look down before I drop or look over a flight of stairs before I start to go up? It's the same problem with being able to adjust your mine's laser angle. You could have it shoot into a vent and the spies have no way to disable it without giving away their positions. It's cheap.
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 11, 2008, 02:13:01 AM
Hmmm, same reason you can't go into a spies spawn. It's cheap.
A mine on the floor? Come on now, CT and PT it has always been about looking around corners. Now I've gotta look down before I drop or look over a flight of stairs before I start to go up? It's the same problem with being able to adjust your mine's laser angle. You could have it shoot into a vent and the spies have no way to disable it without giving away their positions. It's cheap.
LoL...Papa, really? If you're about to drop down, you look anyways because a mine might be on the wall or a laser might be present. When you go up stairs or downstairs, you have to look because a proxy could be hidden or another laser could be present. This isn't adjusting the angle of the laser. This is putting it on the floor.
i.e. Warehouse Sector 1: There are vents leading in. If you place laser/poison mines underneath, you can't drop down. You have to chaff it, which give away your position. NOW, consider this. Half the time people don't watch where they're going and fall into the laser/poison. If the mine was on the floor however, and the laser were to point into the vent, the spy might revert backwards instead of giving his position away with a chaff (either way you will give your position away) THUS saving his life and his whereabouts.
It presents the same problem as custom angles. Custom angles may not be such a problem in some places, but in other places they can be. Same with floor mines.
Maybe I'm exaggerating how bad they would be. I just see a few situations that are impossible to be countered by the spy and that's all I really saw. I think more discussion will be needed to think of more possible problems that could arise from this.
Another bad thing I see from this is visibility. I'm not really used to looking at the floor for mines. Imagine having a mine being placed around a corner on the floor. Mines are going to become ridiculously powerful against aggro spies if you can plant them on the floor.
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 11, 2008, 02:31:21 AM
It presents the same problem as custom angles. Custom angles may not be such a problem in some places, but in other places they can be. Same with floor mines.
Maybe I'm exaggerating how bad they would be. I just see a few situations that are impossible to be countered by the spy and that's all I really saw. I think more discussion will be needed to think of more possible problems that could arise from this.
Another bad thing I see from this is visibility. I'm not really used to looking at the floor for mines. Imagine having a mine being placed around a corner on the floor. Mines are going to become ridiculously powerful against aggro spies if you can plant them on the floor.
How would it be any different from planting it on a wall close to the floor? What, now its out in the open? It would be key to have proxy mines placed on the floor to add to placement. We all know the good mines on practically every map. Having the option to hide it under a chair instead of on the fucker might prove worth while.
I do agree, it still should be talked about. A lot of input is going to be needed.
papa, you're point is simply wrong. you can already totally block vents and entrances with mines in an insanely amount of places, but it doesn't break the game in any aspect. in fact, it adds to the gameplay because it allows mercs to set up a decent defense that allows using logic to locate the spy if there was no or if there was a security break message etc. it's also a good use for chaff (undlike the running around like a maniac use).
Quote from: Westfall-US on April 11, 2008, 02:57:20 AM
Having the option to hide it under a chair instead of on the fucker might prove worth while.
I do agree, it still should be talked about. A lot of input is going to be needed.
sweet idea =)
i think placing mines and traps on the floor adds to the gameplay and is no problem if the map makers build their maps considering this new possibility. this is also one of the reasons why i do need to know stuff like this soon for our cinema map.
I know, I know. I wasn't thinking clearly and I was exaggerating.
But don't you think there was a reason that Ubi didn't allow this to happen? Maybe they see something that we don't.
Btw, you can't plant them close to the floor. Think of planting a mine ON the floor behind a wall. That is going to be extremely hard to see. I don't know what to expect from this and it really really needs a lot of discussion and testing. A lot.
I didn't like the idea of planting them on the ground until Westfall suggested planting a mine under a chair in lieu of placing it on the chair. That sounds like a great use for this, and now I'm all for it.
Changing the angle of the beam however, could cause some major balance issues with maps. There has to be a line drawn between a clever mine placement, and one that is just plain unfair. Maps would have to be balanced to make sure that you couldn't place a mine somewhere and angle the beam to where it would be crossing that line into unfair. It would definitely allow mercs to be more creative, and I love that. But you have to think of the possible balance issues.
i can't see any balance problems with mines on the floor on any of the maps i know. can someone who's against it make an example or give some other input?
That's the point. No one knows. This needs a lot of testing because there are a lot of things that could pop up balance wise. This simply cannot be decided and tested within our minds or on pen and paper. My main issue is visibility. Don't you think there's a reason ubi only allowed about a foot off the ground for placement?
Papa, can you at least try to give an example? This goes to any other nay-sayer of mines being planted on the ground. It will be good to find the bad so we can avoid it without even really having to throw it on the test board. Maybe have a limit to how many you can place on the ground...aka....1 lol
Everything should go on the test board. Anything new or changed that is. A limit wouldn't really matter. Why limit the amount of perfectly balanced mines? But that's the thing, no one knows if they will be perfectly balanced.
A few things that I wonder about:
- Visibility (especially if put underneath a chair)
- A laser actually going into a vent (still iffy on it)
- If they do turn out to be perfectly visible, would they even be more effective than regular mines on the walls? I know you have more range as to where you can place the mine, all around the floor, but what's the point if they would be totally obvious?
- The only real effective mine to use on the floor would obviously be a proxy mine. Unless you place a spy trap/poison/laser mine shooting up into a vent's exit point, there's no real use for any kind of laser gadget. Maybe you could only make it possible with proxy mines? But then again, it's always good to give the player choice to be creative.
Because of all these questions and things to wonder about, it leads me to believe that we can't jump to conclusions and say that it will improve gameplay a ton. Could be the opposite. Therefore, testing is needed. Interesting idea, still iffy on the whole thing though...
example for clever mine placement on the floor:
-----------------------------
2 >
___________
| |1
| |
| |
^
a prox. mine on the corner (1) is expected and will be chaffed. a prox. mine on the floor (2) however cannot be seen, too (without recon just like the edge mine), so rushers gonna get pwned if they expect it in place 1. if you find the exact right place for the floor mine, shooting it out in a hurry without taking too much damage wouldn't be easy, too. if chaff stays the way it is in ct, the ability to plant mines on the floor is the ideal fix.
papa, drop the idea that mines on the floor are op in blocking vents (most vents can be blocked anyways, most vents are unused by good players, most players use chaff anyways).
I think floor mines will be too hard to shoot out. Aiming at the floor in a changing z is harder than something that faces you.
Quote from: frvge on April 12, 2008, 04:07:11 PM
I think floor mines will be too hard to shoot out. Aiming at the floor in a changing z is harder than something that faces you.
according to that logic, mines simply put on the wall would be op, too XD
You know yourself that this will drastically impact gameplay. It will handicap aggro players a lot, like that hasn't already been accomplished by the p. nade and a boosted tazer. I don't think anything should make the jump from the drawing board to the final version. It needs the testing step in between.
Quote from: frvge on April 12, 2008, 04:07:11 PM
I think floor mines will be too hard to shoot out. Aiming at the floor in a changing z is harder than something that faces you.
That statement is only true if you're facing directly at the wall - if you for example come around a corner, the wall will have changing z too.
Yes, but you run more towards something than you go around corners.
True, I suppose, however, there's, in my experience, a far bigger chance of a mine being around a corner than it being in the middle of a wall.
When are you ever looking directly at the floor?
Mostly you chaff corners, or you sneak around them. While running straight is more for escaping, so that needs a fast way of getting rid of mines. It'd be a pain in the ass to shoot mines on the ground then.
Well, mines are SUPPOSED to be a hindrance to the spies... :D
But this is overpowered IMO.
It's hard to say... It will depends on many factors, for example the size of the room. If it's a big, open room you can run around it. If it's a tight corridor... Well, you're fucked. Hm.
Putting mines behind little poles on the floor are going to be even harder to see. Think of the little posts holding up the deck in Pirates. It's much easier to see a mine up against the pole. Again, visibility is a big problem for this.
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 13, 2008, 02:42:18 AM
When are you ever looking directly at the floor?
Well Papa, unless your view is pointed towards your ass, you are usually looking at the floor....seeing as how its a 3rd person view. You practically see the floor most of the time you are playing yea? Also....beeping. Remember, proxy mines go beep beep. If its hidden under something on the floor, it doesn't turn insta-silent.
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 13, 2008, 03:21:25 AM
Putting mines behind little poles on the floor are going to be even harder to see. Think of the little posts holding up the deck in Pirates. It's much easier to see a mine up against the pole. Again, visibility is a big problem for this.
SOUND. The sound is going to be fixed for PS. If you don't slow down when you hear a proxy mine, you kind of deserve to die...no matter where the mine is hidden.
Absolutely. My point was that they'll either be hard to see, or extremely obvious. So, if they will be so easy to avoid, why even give them the choice to put them on the ground? What's the point of an obvious mine? There isn't one, other than they slow down spies a bit.
you guys don't get the main concept of mines: slow down, hinder or kill rushing/fleeing spies. it shouldn't be possible to run around like a maniac spamming chaff at every corner when ever you hear something beeping. you should have to look for mines and plan your actions in this type of game.
without soundloss and bug mines (and chaff still working the way it does in ct), mines could indeed need a boost like this.
Quote from: Rambo on April 13, 2008, 12:12:59 PM
you guys don't get the main concept of mines: slow down, hinder or kill rushing/fleeing spies.
What about killing careless spies, locking down corridors and vents, 'scaring' the spies, leading them to a different route?
Quote from: BurningDeath on April 13, 2008, 07:34:09 PM
Quote from: Rambo on April 13, 2008, 12:12:59 PM
you guys don't get the main concept of mines: slow down, hinder or kill rushing/fleeing spies.
What about killing careless spies, locking down corridors and vents, 'scaring' the spies, leading them to a different route?
This applies too, but because a mine is on the floor doesn't change the fact that you've come across a mine. If it wasn't on the floor, it would be on a wall close to the spot.
The only real flaw is what the blast radius will be of the proxy mine. If you plant in the middle of the floor, you might get killed no matter how you dive away. Then again who would be stupid enough to just jump into one.
Quote from: Rambo on April 13, 2008, 12:12:59 PM
you guys don't get the main concept of mines: slow down, hinder or kill rushing/fleeing spies.
Okay, that's why I said this:
Quote from: Papa Skull on April 13, 2008, 08:43:28 AM
What's the point of an obvious mine? There isn't one, other than they slow down spies a bit.
Quote from: Westfall-US on April 13, 2008, 07:47:04 PM
Quote from: BurningDeath on April 13, 2008, 07:34:09 PM
Quote from: Rambo on April 13, 2008, 12:12:59 PM
you guys don't get the main concept of mines: slow down, hinder or kill rushing/fleeing spies.
What about killing careless spies, locking down corridors and vents, 'scaring' the spies, leading them to a different route?
This applies too, but because a mine is on the floor doesn't change the fact that you've come across a mine. If it wasn't on the floor, it would be on a wall close to the spot.
The only real flaw is what the blast radius will be of the proxy mine. If you plant in the middle of the floor, you might get killed no matter how you dive away. Then again who would be stupid enough to just jump into one.
I wasn't refering to mines on the floor but to mines in general. ;)
papa, if you think mines on the floor are too obvious and therefore suck, why are you still against them? oO
No point. Much like you and your poison mine opinion. You think they're useless so you don't really want them to stay in the game do you? I'm not really against it, I'm not really for it. It's hard to know what to expect from this. I'm pretty sure they'll be too good or too bad. Either way, it's not good lol. If we can find a way to make it work it may make a good addition. But we don't know yet. It's hard to tell.
i'm not against poison mines because i find no good use for them. the exact opposite is the case, i can use them very well, but i don't think they are good for the gameplay the way they work in ct.
Okay, let's not get into the poison mine discussion here. Sorry I brought it up. But think of it my way. If you think they'd be useless or too powerful, would you think that they'd make a good addition? The only reasons I think that they'd be good for gameplay is to give the player choice, and that is one reason why poisons are good for gameplay.
Think about mines in CT. Most of the experienced players know the regular spots for mines in all of the maps. There aren't really any surprises with mines usually. Some people take advantage of this, I know I do. I find that the most effective mine placements can sometimes be the ones that stray from the "norm." Being able to plant them on the ground can only give you more options, and I see nothing wrong with that. Having more options mean more creative mine placements. Yes, maps will need to be balanced with this in mind, but maps need to be balanced with everything in mind so this isn't an unusual thing.
Being able to plant them on the ground would make things much more interesting. I'm all for testing it out and seeing how it works.
in case you missed it there was a long discussion discussing the poison mines...
http://www.projectstealthgame.com/index.php/topic,1004.0.html
I'm also all for testing it. Who is against it? Sounds like an interesting suggestion but who knows what will really come from it. Could be balanced and useless, could be balanced and useful, could be unbalanced and useful.