I don't know if this has been suggested before, since I've been off these Forums for a while, but does anyone think that planted bombs should not be disarmed by being shot? (I don't even know if the devs will include them)
I know they devs have to give mercenaries some kind of quick way to disarm them, but it kind of sucks to plant a bomb on Missile and have a merc snipe it through the grating on the balcony. I was thinking that the devs add more time to bombing objectives, but disable the mercenary's ability to shoot them and destroy them from a distance, so that they'd have to disarm them by hand the way you do in Call of Duty 4 except it happens instantly.
I can understand why some people would not like the idea, but as a spy there is nothing more irritating than planting a bomb, have the counter go down to 1 second, then a merc snipes it from across the room, disables it, so you have to start it all over again.
Feel free to attack.
i assume that was ubisofts idea first, but there must have been some balance issues.....
Or just unforeseen mapping issues.
it should at least be possible to disable bombs with frag nades...
Yes, I agree, a frag should have more than enough power to knock a satchel charge off without setting it off.
But if it turns out it was an issue with the map size or structure, I think the devs might be able to find ways around it, adding extra time to the bomb for instance. But yes the balance would be a greater problem, all the time a mercenary uses running across a room is valuable distraction time for a spy making his escape to another objective. PS devs could kind of balance this by making mercs sprint faster, but doing that may screw up the entire map layout.
I'll try to think up another solution.
I don't see the logic at all, unless you conviniently hit the right wires everytime how would shooting or fragging a bomb not detonate it? I never even knew you could de-activate them this way. :P
think that makes me wonder is:
LETS DISARM THIS EXPLOSIVE WITH ANOTHER SMALL / LARGE EXPLOSION, YEH THAT WORKS? Maybe a timer jammer compulsory gadget, then having to manually take it off?
Quote from: Tidenburg on July 17, 2008, 11:06:38 PM
I don't see the logic at all, unless you conviniently hit the right wires everytime how would shooting or fragging a bomb not detonate it? I never even knew you could de-activate them this way. :P
Becuase you destory the bomb itself. For the bomb to actually detonate, certain things must happen, blowing it up or shooting it prevents those chemicles from mixing, or the electrical charge from activating etc etc.
Like blowing up a nuke doesn't set it up, since for the nuke to actually detonate, it must be activated, otherwise it's nothing.
I say we try to go with a combination of how PT and Ct did it. Instead of allowing the spy to only be able to place it in a few designated areas, we allow them to place it anywhere within the radious of the objective we want to blow up. Say we want to blow up this rocket, the bomb can be anywhere within a radius of 20ft or whatever.
Quote from: Zedblade on July 17, 2008, 11:46:53 PM
Quote from: Tidenburg on July 17, 2008, 11:06:38 PM
I don't see the logic at all, unless you conviniently hit the right wires everytime how would shooting or fragging a bomb not detonate it? I never even knew you could de-activate them this way. :P
Becuase you destory the bomb itself. For the bomb to actually detonate, certain things must happen, blowing it up or shooting it prevents those chemicles from mixing, or the electrical charge from activating etc etc.
Like blowing up a nuke doesn't set it up, since for the nuke to actually detonate, it must be activated, otherwise it's nothing.
I say we try to go with a combination of how PT and Ct did it. Instead of allowing the spy to only be able to place it in a few designated areas, we allow them to place it anywhere within the radious of the objective we want to blow up. Say we want to blow up this rocket, the bomb can be anywhere within a radius of 20ft or whatever.
Although this idea sounds like a great idea.
It would be very exploitable, walls that mercs cant reach. Under little cracks to name something.
Quote from: Zedblade on July 17, 2008, 11:46:53 PM
Quote from: Tidenburg on July 17, 2008, 11:06:38 PM
I don't see the logic at all, unless you conviniently hit the right wires everytime how would shooting or fragging a bomb not detonate it? I never even knew you could de-activate them this way. :P
Becuase you destory the bomb itself. For the bomb to actually detonate, certain things must happen, blowing it up or shooting it prevents those chemicles from mixing, or the electrical charge from activating etc etc.
Like blowing up a nuke doesn't set it up, since for the nuke to actually detonate, it must be activated, otherwise it's nothing.
I say we try to go with a combination of how PT and Ct did it. Instead of allowing the spy to only be able to place it in a few designated areas, we allow them to place it anywhere within the radious of the objective we want to blow up. Say we want to blow up this rocket, the bomb can be anywhere within a radius of 20ft or whatever.
Sounds good as long as the radius's are sensible.
yeah, nice idea. for instance, you gotta blow up a pipe and you can plant the bomb anywhere along the pipe.
but you gotta make the bomb area visible on the hud.
Quote from: Zedblade on July 17, 2008, 11:46:53 PM
Quote from: Tidenburg on July 17, 2008, 11:06:38 PM
I don't see the logic at all, unless you conviniently hit the right wires everytime how would shooting or fragging a bomb not detonate it? I never even knew you could de-activate them this way. :P
Becuase you destory the bomb itself. For the bomb to actually detonate, certain things must happen, blowing it up or shooting it prevents those chemicles from mixing, or the electrical charge from activating etc etc.
Like blowing up a nuke doesn't set it up, since for the nuke to actually detonate, it must be activated, otherwise it's nothing.
I say we try to go with a combination of how PT and Ct did it. Instead of allowing the spy to only be able to place it in a few designated areas, we allow them to place it anywhere within the radious of the objective we want to blow up. Say we want to blow up this rocket, the bomb can be anywhere within a radius of 20ft or whatever.
agreed
it was more fun and interesting when you could put it anywhere, giving more options for the spies to set up traps, ambushes, distractions....
Quote from: Tidenburg on July 17, 2008, 11:06:38 PM
I don't see the logic at all, unless you conviniently hit the right wires everytime how would shooting or fragging a bomb not detonate it? I never even knew you could de-activate them this way. :P
Well....let's assume that the spies' bombs are like timed C-4 or satchel charges or whatever.
C-4 can only be activated by extreme heat&pressure or by an electric jolt. So a bullet will not blow it up under any circumstances, unless the bullet is very big and very hot.
I don't know how "hot" a frag grenade is, but C-4 requires extreme heat. The average grenade is intended for people, and you only need a temp of around 130, and a lot of grenades rely on shrapnel rather than heat to kill somebody. At the very least, I think a frag could jostle around the spies satchel charges (enough to knock them off a structure or shatter the fuse), but not enough to affect the explosives themselves.
lets not forget its a game not in the real world, we can do what we want, or rather PS dev team does what they want...
;D Yeah that too. A lot of people are saying the PS devs aren't listening to people, and if they aren't thats fine with me. They've done a fucking-A job so far, and so far I've had only one complaint the spy goggle/eyes. I just hope they think about this thread as they make the game.
Flares should set bombs off when they hit them.
What? Why flares?
Other than it'd make actually them useful for something in story mode.
Quote from: Wh1t3_Dw4rF on July 17, 2008, 11:50:19 PM
Quote from: Zedblade on July 17, 2008, 11:46:53 PM
Quote from: Tidenburg on July 17, 2008, 11:06:38 PM
I don't see the logic at all, unless you conviniently hit the right wires everytime how would shooting or fragging a bomb not detonate it? I never even knew you could de-activate them this way. :P
Becuase you destory the bomb itself. For the bomb to actually detonate, certain things must happen, blowing it up or shooting it prevents those chemicles from mixing, or the electrical charge from activating etc etc.
Like blowing up a nuke doesn't set it up, since for the nuke to actually detonate, it must be activated, otherwise it's nothing.
I say we try to go with a combination of how PT and Ct did it. Instead of allowing the spy to only be able to place it in a few designated areas, we allow them to place it anywhere within the radious of the objective we want to blow up. Say we want to blow up this rocket, the bomb can be anywhere within a radius of 20ft or whatever.
Although this idea sounds like a great idea.
It would be very exploitable, walls that mercs cant reach. Under little cracks to name something.
It's called good level design and hours and hours of testing.
Placing the bomb in a certain radius is a pretty sweet idea.
Absolutely.
Quote from: Westfall on July 18, 2008, 09:02:14 AM
Placing the bomb in a certain radius area is a pretty sweet idea.
fixed.
just let the map maker define an exact 3d area in which the bomb can be placed on anything. this is way less open for exploits and allows more reasonable and balanced spots.
another point on bombs: the sound. when i come into exhibition with my headphones, i can tell the exact place of the bomb just by listening in 95% of the cases. i suggest replacing the "beep" of the bomb by an untracable "beep" in the hud.
discuss.
Disagree, it's a cool gameplay mechanic to locate things with your hearing. Just like the tracking of Spies.
Most people have a proper soundcard and either surround boxes or a good headset, so it's fine with me.
well it's kinda stupid that you don't have to look for the bomb XD
what about having the snares also make the bomb "beep" sound?
nah is confusing, especially if partner has but a movement mine near a bomb too, cos its the same beep, so you cant tell?
Things shouldn't be changed just for the sake of changing them guys.
The system is fine as it is, it is balanced due to in most maps there being a fair few possibilities of where a bomb might be (harder to shoot it than nade it anyway) and it just does not need changing.
Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on July 18, 2008, 04:39:20 PM
Things shouldn't be changed just for the sake of changing them guys.
The system is fine as it is, it is balanced due to in most maps there being a fair few possibilities of where a bomb might be (harder to shoot it than nade it anyway) and it just does not need changing.
bullshit. due to the a limited number of bomb spots and positioning by ear the bomb is nothing but an aggro and distraction objective. if there's an obvious possibility to make it more diverse/interesting AND maintain/improve the balance, it should at least be tried.
Quote from: Rambo on July 18, 2008, 05:19:31 PM
Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on July 18, 2008, 04:39:20 PM
Things shouldn't be changed just for the sake of changing them guys.
The system is fine as it is, it is balanced due to in most maps there being a fair few possibilities of where a bomb might be (harder to shoot it than nade it anyway) and it just does not need changing.
bullshit. due to the a limited number of bomb spots and positioning by ear the bomb is nothing but an aggro and distraction objective. if there's an obvious possibility to make it more diverse/interesting AND maintain/improve the balance, it should at least be tried.
Agreed.
I was talking about being able to shoot out bombs or not Rambo... not whether or not the way bombs are placed or the fact that you can hear them beep is bad, I agree with you on that {frvge edit: provoking is a bit lame} {stone edit: was a joke saying 'you foo'} :P.
I like being able to judge where the bomb is by hearing it, but i don't like how you always know where the bomb is, even before you've entered mono / exe for example.
@Rambo: Snares emitting bomb beeps would be way to confusing, imagine just shooting like 5 in a room, have your mate have them too, him shooting 5 then planting the bomb. Way to OP.
On a side note (not sure how well this will go down):
There is a set timer before the spy plants the bomb, where he has to 'rig' the bomb and secure it to a wall or frame or w.e. It would encourage stealth and not the usual bomb-rush.
Maybe a 3 second timer or so where the spy arms, and rigs the Bomb / C4 to prevent bomb running (like from Mono to exe, then back to mono). This would also encourage stealth.
what do you think?
I agree with the first poster, bombs shouldnt be disabled by shooting them, instead it should blow them up making it easier for the spies (tazer won't do a thing though, perhaps delaying the time).
I know this game should be taken with a grain of salt when it is about realism, but I think we should add this kind of realism to the game.
Have you ever seen a movie where it goes like:
"Chief, we have a bomb!"
"So?"
"What do we do?"
"Just shoot it, that will do..."
We all know what happens when you shoot a highly explosive...
I don't know a nice alternate way to disable the bomb (besides having a disable bomb menu entry), but we might think off something.
Quote from: LennardF1989 on July 18, 2008, 09:43:49 PM
I agree with the first poster, bombs shouldnt be disabled by shooting them, instead it should blow them up making it easier for the spies (tazer won't do a thing though, perhaps delaying the time).
I know this game should be taken with a grain of salt when it is about realism, but I think we should add this kind of realism to the game.
Have you ever seen a movie where it goes like:
"Chief, we have a bomb!"
"So?"
"What do we do?"
"Just shoot it, that will do..."
We all know what happens when you shoot a highly explosive...
I don't know a nice alternate way to disable the bomb (besides having a disable bomb menu entry), but we might think off something.
If you have ever played story, you would know the game would be terribly unbalanced without the ability to shoot off bombs.
Agreed with Mic. Shooting is necessary. Mini-games like this are too much.
Nothing is unbalanced if you do it good, I hate it that people always alreayd yell "too OP", "imbalanced" before actually knowing how it plays. I think the best is - once we have bombs ingame - to just test it (don't show me goodkebab's list of notes he made, I know what it says, it's just that disabling shooting on bombs takes only 4 characters /*event OnTakeDamage () { Lennard's overawesome code; }*/).
actually it could be balanced with less lag and a boosted tazer to stop getting aggroed all the way.
Everything can be balanced with some testing and logical thinking... Leaving something out because it might give some headaches to balance is not an argument.
Quote from: frvge on July 18, 2008, 09:53:41 PM
Agreed with Mic. Shooting is necessary. Mini-games like this are too much.
Maybe you are right as of the moment. Shooting was necessary in Chaos Theory only because there wasn't always enough time to run across a map to a bombing room, then running across the room to where the bomb was and manually disable.
The thing is as a spy, it really, really, blows to have your bomb (which was two seconds away from winning you the game) get disable by a fucking
bullet. The real issue I think is, not so much what's realistic, so much as what's less annoying for the spies. In my opinion the spy's job is frustrating enough, being denied by mercs left and right with a nerve-wracking time limit bearing down on you.
The element of risk for mercenary's is also an important factor.
Please forgive me for this, but I've gotta bring up Call Of Duty 4. In that game, you really had to stick you neck out to disarm a bomb. In Chaos Theory, you had mercs sniping bombs from the relative comfort and safety of their balconies.
Quote from: LennardF1989 on July 18, 2008, 11:51:44 PM
Everything can be balanced with some testing and logical thinking... Leaving something out because it might give some headaches to balance is not an argument.
Nothing to really think about, it already is tough enough to shoot the damn things, let alone defuse it. the only way to "balance" it would be make the bomb timer 30 seconds or more. But then that messes with the game flow, makes it too long. you don't want 20 minute rounds like DA. You aren't the one using your head because it won't work no matter how much you use head.
it all depends on the bomb timer and map desing, and zed is obviously capable of getting it right. placing bombs in zones/radius is already a huge improvement.
disabling the bomb with a bullet is ok with the proper map layout; for instance: station bomb obj. > museum bomb obj.
Quote from: Rambo on July 19, 2008, 12:58:13 PM
it all depends on the bomb timer and map desing, and zed is obviously capable of getting it right. placing bombs in zones/radius is already a huge improvement.
disabling the bomb with a bullet is ok with the proper map layout; for instance: station bomb obj. > museum bomb obj.
There are so many arguments here im not sure which one i favour. I'd like it where mercs have to stick there neck out to disarm a bomb, but then balance issues arise. I don't mind remote stopping of the bomb, but i dont like shooting it. I still think there should be a time delay maybe 3 seconds for the spy to arm the bomb etc. Having thought about the radius thing i think it could prove tricky. For example will a spy be able to plant the bomb really high on the wall provided he is in the bombing radius? I think it could be really hard for mercs to find the bomb, even with being able to hear it. Remember with Smokes chaffs, and flashes going off it's often hard to locate / disarm the bomb on CT atm, purely because you cant scope without getting flashed or elbow hit, necked or smoke.
Would you rather have mercs nade out your mines with ease or do they have to look for it themselves before they can shoot it out? I don't see any balance issue.
Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on July 19, 2008, 03:02:34 PM
I don't see any balance issue.
u must be blind...
i'd say either allow free placement in a radius/area OR force manual disabling, both can't be reasonably balanced and is too much change at once. and i clearly prefer zed's idea.
about the sound: you shouldn't be able to hear and locate the bomb from 20m through a wall XD
it would be ok to hear the beeping when you are getting closer (about 5-10m).
Quote from: Rambo on July 19, 2008, 03:10:20 PM
Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on July 19, 2008, 03:02:34 PM
I don't see any balance issue.
u must be blind...
i'd say either allow free placement in a radius/area OR force manual disabling, both can't be reasonably balanced and is too much change at once. and i clearly prefer zed's idea.
about the sound: you shouldn't be able to hear and locate the bomb from 20m through a wall XD
it would be ok to hear the beeping when you are getting closer (about 5-10m).
Yeh i know what you mean, i mean as soon as you enter the exe corridor, you can tell where the bomb is, and the noise doesnt increase when the doors are open / your inside the room. If you actually think about it, the bomb beeping is ridiculously loud from a long distance.
Once again I agree Rambo. Both can't be used at once. I think most people who played Pandora would like the radius option over the manual disarming option, since EMF vision would help them find the bomb anyways.
@Freeman, I believe you are thinking about radius in terms of a cylinder, in which the radius is the same at any old height as long as you are only going up or down. I think Rambo is talking about radius in terms of a sphere.
Say that the bombing tracker of a bomb as a range of 10 meters for example. That means that the spy must be within 10 meters of the objective regardless of his position in space. That can mean 10 meters above the objective, below it, or on the same plane as it. EMF would still help a merc find it in due time, but yeah the map layout would be an issue.
The more I think about it, the more I think that free placing would be a better option than my manual disarming idea, since it wouldn't be too much change for CT players and little if any change for PT players.
i'd prefer a freely definable area instead of a radius/sphere/cubus/whatever. this way there is way less room for glitch-using and the map makers can make it more balanced and coherent.
You mean like anywhere in the room of a bombing objective? That might be too difficult for the mercenaries if the room is big enough. And how would somebody be able to glitch a clearly defined radius?
no not anywhere, just where the map designer wants it to be possible. a cube or a sphere might not fit always...
...That's where multiple cubes come into the game :)
I'm sure it's not hard to define an area with cubes ::)
Quote from: Rambo on July 19, 2008, 07:16:25 PM
no not anywhere, just where the map designer wants it to be possible. a cube or a sphere might not fit always...
So you want like a big 'squiggle' shape :D? Cant a radius only be circular, as each point has to be the same distance from the centre? It only makes sense if its circular, as like i said, the whole 'edge' of a circle is the same distance from the center.
I really do struggle with people like you sometimes, if you had read what I said before you would have noticed I thought shooting out bombs isn't unbalanced, not the system of bomb placement. Ã,¬_Ã,¬
A little off topic but I wanted to ask a couple of things. I a have question about grenades, but first what kind of grenade launcher are the Mercs in CT: Versus using anways?.
If a hand held throw-able frag grenade explodes and scatters shrapnel then what about the under mounted grenade launcher on a rifle? Is that frag or HE? Is it common to have frag variants for under mounted launchers or is HE the standard?
I would say it's a frag grenade.
stone, i'm not responding to you only XD
Quote from: Wandering_Youth on July 20, 2008, 08:23:24 AM
A little off topic but I wanted to ask a couple of things. I a have question about grenades, but first what kind of grenade launcher are the Mercs in CT: Versus using anways?.
If a hand held throw-able frag grenade explodes and scatters shrapnel then what about the under mounted grenade launcher on a rifle? Is that frag or HE? Is it common to have frag variants for under mounted launchers or is HE the standard?
They don't say it specifically I think. The US uses the M203 HE rifle grenade for all their rifle mounted needs. The ones that the mercenaries use has a timed fuse instead of blowing up on impact. I don't know whether such a model actually exist but its not at all a stretch.
And yes radius only applies to circles and spheres.
With a square, not all the edges are the same distance away from the center.
Do you mean a cube? Not a square? I'm pretty sure that in a square all edges are the exact same length from the center. Actually, aren't cubes the same way? Trying to visualize this at 1 AM in the morning.
Quote from: Papa Skull on July 21, 2008, 10:07:56 AM
Do you mean a cube? Not a square? I'm pretty sure that in a square all edges are the exact same length from the center. Actually, aren't cubes the same way? Trying to visualize this at 1 AM in the morning.
It's imposibble for a square or cube to be the same distance from the center, purely because it has corners, which means all the corners of the square will be slightly furthur away from the centre. Thats why circles would only work IMO.
...if we still are talking about a radius.
If it's an area, the devs just as well can introduce a new variable, which would allow/ disallow bombs to be set on a given object/ surface, overruling the set 'bombing volume'.
IMO this would prevent the horrible hiding of bombs ::)
Ahh... and Papa... Circles would work only on 2d games ;p
Quote from: Rambo on July 19, 2008, 03:10:20 PM
Quote from: STON3COLDKILLA on July 19, 2008, 03:02:34 PM
I don't see any balance issue.
u must be blind...
Actaully Rambo your a liar you were responding to me :P.
yeah, in the first line only, idiot. that's why i left a space between that and the rest, but you obviously never heard anything about structuring a text cause you are even unable to create a little list...
*note the free space*
wow so we know the difference between a circle, a rectangular, a sphere and a cube now. i'm really impressed of you geniouses ::)
listen to me and cockfan if you want it to look realistic and be balanced...
Rambo is mean... :(
Oh dear, I had no idea that these forums had such a lack of basic geometry knowledge...
i was also impressed by the geographic knowledge of some members XD
For Agent (sorry, had to do that)
http://www.motifake.com/motivational_posters/cc6b4c3159.jpg
Wouldn't it acutally be more trigonometry? As in the distrance from the center to the corners of a 2x2x2 cube is the square-root of 2, which is more than 1. (1.44 out of my bare head).
Quote from: Rambo on July 21, 2008, 01:42:56 PM
yeah, in the first line only, idiot. that's why i left a space between that and the rest, but you obviously never heard anything about structuring a text cause you are even unable to create a little list...
*note the free space*
wow so we know the difference between a circle, a rectangular, a sphere and a cube now. i'm really impressed of you geniouses ::)
listen to me and cockfan if you want it to look realistic and be balanced...
I only responded to what I quoted, the first line. For fucks sake your such a hypocrite to call ME an idiot... you didn't even read what I said about the list you
wanted, let alone what I just said, so you fail - again. I'm going to say this again thought guys, I don't know why such a large discussion has occured over this stuff.
Frvge please ban both of them ::)
Also, it'd be geometry, since it includes trigonometry, and we're also talking about spheres.
Quote from: FR33M4N on July 21, 2008, 11:27:11 AM
Quote from: Papa Skull on July 21, 2008, 10:07:56 AM
Do you mean a cube? Not a square? I'm pretty sure that in a square all edges are the exact same length from the center. Actually, aren't cubes the same way? Trying to visualize this at 1 AM in the morning.
It's imposibble for a square or cube to be the same distance from the center, purely because it has corners, which means all the corners of the square will be slightly furthur away from the centre. Thats why circles would only work IMO.
Oh, okay, duh. I meant that the whole edge is the same distance from the center. Meaning the center of the edge is the same distance to the center of the cube as all the other edge centers, otherwise it wouldn't be a cube. And liquid, it was freeman that said circles. We all know he meant sphere though.
stonecoldkilla = total fail.
afaik trigonometry is only the stuff about triangles, like sin, cos, tan etc
this whole discussion is kinda pointless for two reasons:
- zed really knows what he's doing and already announced a reasonable progressive change
- any more radical ideas won't make it into the beta anyways (which is a good thing)
I dunno about pointless, but I sure as hell didn't intend for so much geometry to be included. ???
I'm also not sure about the devs only allowing spies to plant bombs on "given" areas. I thought that's what most of us were trying to erase. Unless of course you were talking about there being a wide range of "given" areas
Quote from: Rambo on July 21, 2008, 05:02:12 PM
i was also impressed by the geographic knowledge of some members XD
Do you mean geometric or are you talking about agent? :D
Ah but you can't back up that I failed whereas I can backup that you clearly did ;).
But yeah, what's the point of this topic? We have discussed that bombs should be placed in a different way, and that's about all we got to. Now for some reason we are talking about shapes, what's this topic actually serving?
Geting a bit ontopic ..... What about the Modems we had in PT . Back in pt days we didn't have bombs , we only had modems . Just as a lot of people whined about taz + nades in ct , which lead to a dumbing down of the game in Da . Same was in pt , just with modems and dj. You could have placed them anywhere in the range of the objective and shooting a modem would definately disable it .... ?
I always thought it was a better thing than bombs ... but may be its just me ...
I don't think it would matter a lick. They both had the same overall concept to them.
1) Plant
2) Hide
3) Defend
4) 20+ seconds of waiting.
The only difference was that bombing objectives were just one of three possible objectives types of an overall story mode. Modem objectives in PT were standalone, and by that I mean, you'd pick Sabotage, Extraction, or Neutralization in the menu, and would only be able to complete the corresponding objective type, which in the case of "planting", would be Sabotage.
i think you missed one important difference: the timer of the bomb resets after defusing it, the nd does not (or does it?)...
modems were pretty horrible. It was just a bunch of cheesy spots for them and a lot of the time they were brutal to detect. I like the idea of fixed points you can place bombs, but allowing for some variability on where they can go. Maybe also allow alarm snares to reproduce a beeping sound when you've set a bomb, so that they can screw up a merc's hearing and misdirect him.
Quote from: InvisibleMan999 on July 22, 2008, 09:05:28 PM
modems were pretty horrible. It was just a bunch of cheesy spots for them and a lot of the time they were brutal to detect. I like the idea of fixed points you can place bombs, but allowing for some variability on where they can go. Maybe also allow alarm snares to reproduce a beeping sound when you've set a bomb, so that they can screw up a merc's hearing and misdirect him.
Modems were the shit , other then that , Invisible is on FIRE!!
yeah i really don't think having snares make beeping noises would be imbalanced. snares need a boost anyways...
Quote from: Rambo on July 22, 2008, 08:46:50 PM
i think you missed one important difference: the timer of the bomb resets after defusing it, the nd does not (or does it?)...
Oh yeah! That's right...stupid me. Like I said, I've never played Sabotage on PT.
It did reset in pt. Modems were just like bombs , but in pt you couldn't mix hacking / bombing . It was all the time either hack only / modem only / extract only.
I already said that....well not in the simple form you presented, but I already said that. ;D
oh ok, didn't play pt that much...
Quote from: Rambo on July 23, 2008, 06:51:58 PM
oh ok, didn't play pt that much...
PT 4 THE WIN , YAA!
AGENT FOR THE FAILZ!
:D :D ;D