ok so i was thinking of new gadgets then i thought of maybe implementing gadgets that can be planted in the objectives.
for example, spy can get a gadget that he can plant in a terminal and then access the terminal from a near by hiding spot and hack (SCDA), i might get flamed for this cause nobody liked SCDA, but the catch here is that you have to plant it and that could take a few secs, and you can use it later in the game if u stay alive but u have a distance limit which isnt very far at all.
maybe a gadget for mercs they can plant in a terminal they think is gonna be hacked next, for instance some sort of anti-hacker software thing that he can install and that way extend the hacking time a few sec or delay the hacking start a few seconds, because the spy would have to hack through the anti-hack software first.
Quote
for example, spy can get a gadget that he can plant in a terminal and then access the terminal from a near by hiding spot and hack (SCDA), i might get flamed for this cause nobody liked SCDA, but the catch here is that you have to plant it and that could take a few secs, and you can use it later in the game if u stay alive but u have a distance limit which isnt very far at all.
Interesting idea. Mercs would be able to tell with maybe a separate gadget..or EMF? If the Spy dies, it gets removed...or stays and isn't accessible to that objective anymore.
As far as the mercs having a gadget that doesn't allow spies to hack....negative. If a merc dies and objectives are limited, they can just start putting these gadgets on the objectives for the hell of it.
and it could help for situations where your spy mate is out of lives and your playing against two mercs i think.
also another thing is, if time is up in a round but a bomb is still planted should a merc have to still go and defuse bomb or would it be game over and automatic win for mercs
_________________________
oh and you know that new move from SCDA were sam fisher grabs enemies walking by cornered walls hes leaning against; maybe even this move is possible of implementing.
one way it could be implemented is if its usage is conditioned. the condition i was thinking about is that spy would have to forcibly peek as if he were to shoot his shocker while leaning against the wall, that way the merc could be able to see his arm and part of the spy's face if hes alert.
if u guys dont like it its fine cause its not really necessary anyway. ;D
Hm, the distance hacking gadget (didn't I brought that up earlier? In the way of installing a trojan on a pc?) sounds very interesting.
Could be off good use in spots where mercs can easily kill you with say a grenade or snipe (the lakehouse theater is a nice example, without closing the curtains you can be easily shot). You plant the gadget and try to stay within range, yet on a spot where the merc can't hit you.
Though, as you might understand, this will be "the ultimate tool" for hacking, so a merc should be able to counter it and the spies can only use it once a round in total (though, if hacking fails, because the merc shot the device or the spy hacking died, it won't count as being used).
So, could you think up some counters for the merc and nerving for the spy? Eg. Will the device be removed by the blast of a frag or only when you shoot it?
I'm against counters for the Merc. He can walk, grenade and use EMF.
Quote from: frvge on October 30, 2008, 11:34:15 AM
I'm against counters for the Merc. He can walk, grenade and use EMF.
With counters I mean how the merc can disable it ;)
Eg. With a frag? Which renders my example of hacking useless. With shooting? Bashing it? etc.
Radius shouldn't be that big. So the Merc can just nade the Spy...
Quotealso another thing is, if time is up in a round but a bomb is still planted should a merc have to still go and defuse bomb or would it be game over and automatic win for mercs
now that's an important topic that really needs some discussion. if you kill the spy playing his last life or the round ends by timer and there is still a bomb ticking, should the mercs either
-win instantly, bomb doesn't count
-get extra time to defuse the bomb (eg game ends when bomb explodes or get's defused)
-loose the bomb objective and possible loose?
Quote from: Rambo on October 30, 2008, 12:39:23 PM
Quotealso another thing is, if time is up in a round but a bomb is still planted should a merc have to still go and defuse bomb or would it be game over and automatic win for mercs
now that's an important topic that really needs some discussion. if you kill the spy playing his last life or the round ends by timer and there is still a bomb ticking, should the mercs either
-win instantly, bomb doesn't count
-get extra time to defuse the bomb
-loose the bomb objective and possible loose?
That indeed is an interesting topic.
Perhaps frvge can split it off.
Quote from: Roberto1223 on October 30, 2008, 02:51:18 AM
ok so i was thinking of new gadgets then i thought of maybe implementing gadgets that can be planted in the objectives.
for example, spy can get a gadget that he can plant in a terminal and then access the terminal from a near by hiding spot and hack (SCDA), i might get flamed for this cause nobody liked SCDA, but the catch here is that you have to plant it and that could take a few secs, and you can use it later in the game if u stay alive but u have a distance limit which isnt very far at all.
maybe a gadget for mercs they can plant in a terminal they think is gonna be hacked next, for instance some sort of anti-hacker software thing that he can install and that way extend the hacking time a few sec or delay the hacking start a few seconds, because the spy would have to hack through the anti-hack software first.
It's an okay idea, although I find it a bit limited since it's counterproductive in nature. So you go to an objective, take some time to plant this thing, then run away to some hiding spot so you can hack secretly, and all the while you do this unnoticed? Just seems too much work for granting so little -- many times a mercenary will shoot a grenade at the objective to kill the spy hacking it, which would in turn destroy your little device you planted (I'm assuming it would get destroyed, otherwise it'd be cheap as hell). Instead of using those extra 5-10 seconds for hacking, you're using them for planting the device and finding a good place to hide.
As for the mercenary device, I oppose that as well for reasons Westfall mentioned.
I reckon the continuation of bomb time sounds good. Their objective is to neutralise the objects not to stay alive.
Quote from: Rambo on October 30, 2008, 12:39:23 PM
Quotealso another thing is, if time is up in a round but a bomb is still planted should a merc have to still go and defuse bomb or would it be game over and automatic win for mercs
now that's an important topic that really needs some discussion. if you kill the spy playing his last life or the round ends by timer and there is still a bomb ticking, should the mercs either
-win instantly, bomb doesn't count
-get extra time to defuse the bomb
-loose the bomb objective and possible loose?
As in CS, mercs should get extra time for the objective. Most realistic option afaik.
Quote from: Inferno on October 30, 2008, 04:17:30 PM
As in CS, mercs should get extra time for the objective. Most realistic option afaik.
How is that "more realistic?" A spy sets a bomb for 20 seconds, he dies 5 seconds later, and magically the bomb timer has 30 seconds on it now?
No need for a split, it's basically the same idea as the TS, but more about the theoretical consequences to gameplay.
Quote from: Vega on October 30, 2008, 05:01:34 PM
Quote from: Inferno on October 30, 2008, 04:17:30 PM
As in CS, mercs should get extra time for the objective. Most realistic option afaik.
How is that "more realistic?" A spy sets a bomb for 20 seconds, he dies 5 seconds later, and magically the bomb timer has 30 seconds on it now?
Uhh a slight misunderstanding there.
What I meant is: instead of the mercs winning automatically just before the bomb blows up, the timer stops and they can try and take it off. If they do, they win.
Quote from: Inferno on October 30, 2008, 05:46:51 PM
Uhh a slight misunderstanding there.
What I meant is: instead of the mercs winning automatically just before the bomb blows up, the timer stops and they can try and take it off. If they do, they win.
So, now the timer stops and we have to wait for the mercenary to come and diffuse(shoot) the bomb? Sounds entirely pointless. These aren't 3 minute rounds, they're 10 minutes, if not more.
Damn you're stubborn.
IF the mercs manage to take the bomb off before it blows up (assuming it's the last objective), they win. Otherwise they lose.
Quote from: Vega on October 30, 2008, 02:41:01 PM
It's an okay idea, although I find it a bit limited since it's counterproductive in nature. So you go to an objective, take some time to plant this thing, then run away to some hiding spot so you can hack secretly, and all the while you do this unnoticed? Just seems too much work for granting so little -- many times a mercenary will shoot a grenade at the objective to kill the spy hacking it, which would in turn destroy your little device you planted (I'm assuming it would get destroyed, otherwise it'd be cheap as hell). Instead of using those extra 5-10 seconds for hacking, you're using them for planting the device and finding a good place to hide.
As for the mercenary device, I oppose that as well for reasons Westfall mentioned.
i think you have a good point of view here if you are the kind of spy that likes to rush during ur spy turns in the match, but lets suppose that this device isnt really a gadget, its more like a software you install into the terminal by using some flash memory stick, so the merc cant really see it (like PC Anywhere), and as a consequence (if done stealthily) he dosent know its there, all he will know is that some laser grids were disabled to do this.
so after the spy does this to one terminal he can go and hack another terminal as he normaly does by standing in front of it, then when a merc goes to that one, spy goes near the first one and remotely hacks it.
so yes, it can be contraproductive if your in a rush, but if the round just started and you have all ur lives and good strategy it is a good gadget (or software or whatever) in my opinion.
what i was thinking is that the only way a merc would be capable of disabling this is by walking up to the terminal and doing so (with action button), or killing the spy through snipe frag or anything, plus, dont forget that Mercs EMF can spot the spy easily if near by
you say that it would be "hella cheap" (if frags didnt have the ability to disable this new gadget), but i dont think it would be hella cheap since i know certain people who study the maps of scct like if they were studying for a final test at school, and they can easily predict were a spy is just by studiying the maps again..
and about the bomb timer/game ending issue i had posted earlier in this same topic.
i think that bomb should keep ticking and mercs should be forced to disarm bomb.
like somebody else said "mercs objective is not to stay alive; their objective is to save their defending ground". (whoever said that)
and spies mission is to complete objectives dead or alive :P
cause its like when they say "if i lose, im taking you down with me", and when u die but u get your objective done and ur enemy killed too, i believe you won! lol
its confusing but yea.. i hope u understand what im trying to say.
Actually that's just an excuse for 'story'. The 2 win-conditions are: kill all the Spies OR defend the objective till time runs out. Whatever comes earlier wins.
Quote from: frvge on October 30, 2008, 11:38:53 PM
The 2 win-conditions are: kill all the Spies OR defend the objective till time runs out.
That's taken straight out of CT.
Yes. Correct. I think changing the winning-mechanisms is not necessary. It'll change gameplay a bit much.
I don't see anything being wrong with the rounder lasting as long as a bomb is still ticking.
If the bomb blows, but the not all objectives are hacked -> merc win
If the bomb is defused -> mercs win
If the bomb blows and completes the spies hacking objective -> spies win
Nothing wrong with it IMO.
exactly.
I agree. Could always be a tie if the mercs don't manage to defuse and it's the last objective.
Quote from: Inferno on October 30, 2008, 10:53:49 PM
Damn you're stubborn.
IF the mercs manage to take the bomb off before it blows up (assuming it's the last objective), they win. Otherwise they lose.
You don't know how to word your thoughts correctly. Perhaps English isn't your native language. It'd be a lot easier for this stubborn guy to understand you if you could communicate your idea without contradicting yourself. Using "timer" ambiguously, which applies to the "bomb timer" and the "round timer," is hurting your case a lot.
Quote from: Roberto1223 on October 30, 2008, 11:17:40 PM
i think you have a good point of view here if you are the kind of spy that likes to rush during ur spy turns in the match, but lets suppose that this device isnt really a gadget, its more like a software you install into the terminal by using some flash memory stick, so the merc cant really see it (like PC Anywhere), and as a consequence (if done stealthily) he dosent know its there, all he will know is that some laser grids were disabled to do this.
so after the spy does this to one terminal he can go and hack another terminal as he normaly does by standing in front of it, then when a merc goes to that one, spy goes near the first one and remotely hacks it.
so yes, it can be contraproductive if your in a rush, but if the round just started and you have all ur lives and good strategy it is a good gadget (or software or whatever) in my opinion.
what i was thinking is that the only way a merc would be capable of disabling this is by walking up to the terminal and doing so (with action button), or killing the spy through snipe frag or anything, plus, dont forget that Mercs EMF can spot the spy easily if near by
you say that it would be "hella cheap" (if frags didnt have the ability to disable this new gadget), but i dont think it would be hella cheap since i know certain people who study the maps of scct like if they were studying for a final test at school, and they can easily predict were a spy is just by studiying the maps again..
It has nothing to do with how people study maps, it's the fact that a merc has to physically run up and disable the "software" that eats up the precious time. There are countless scenarios where this would prove detrimental.
Aqua, Pirate Room, normally you can snipe from numerous points, such as the Tech Room catwalk, the hallway from Greek, and the hallway near Fish Tank Disk; now that the merc has to physically remove the device, he's going to lose precious time. On the catwalk from Tech Room? Too bad, you're definitely not going to cut the 10 second mark taking all those stairs. What about the hallway near the Fish Tank objective? A quick snipe used to be all that was needed -- you'd be lucky to make it to the terminal in 6-8 seconds from that area. What about Factory Main Hall? A grenade would save you those last few seconds that a spy needed to finish hacking the terminal. Digger Room? Now you have to walk all the way inside to get to the objective where previously, again, a grenade would have saved you a few seconds. Should I list more?
With all said examples, there are many places to keep your location hidden. Yes, EMF would greatly help reveal this but the trade-off is not balanced. You get supreme hacking with little harm.
I know multiple people are going to say "But Vega! We aren't cloning CT! The maps will be different!" Here's the catch: our maps, as already previously seen with Lakehouse, are in the same light as CT. What this device/software/whatever promotes, with the immunity to grenades, is a reconstruction of the maps. This is another remote-hacking idea, which is of course why the maps in DA are so different compared to CT -- the principles involving hacking are much different.
The idea isn't horrible, although I find it either too good (when the device is immune to damage I.E. frags) or more counterproductive (when it is susceptible to frags). The balancing factors would be the range on how far you can remotely hack. But then you're stepping into DA territory because sooner or later you're going to consider the speed of hacking based on the distance to the terminal.
QuoteHere's the catch: our maps, as already previously seen with Lakehouse, are in the same light as CT
Actually, only Lakehouse is planned to look a bit CT-ish. The other maps aren't in a phase that it's clear for us what they will be like, but the plan is to make them feel different.
Quote from: frvge on October 31, 2008, 05:30:29 PM
Actually, only Lakehouse is planned to look a bit CT-ish. The other maps aren't in a phase that it's clear for us what they will be like, but the plan is to make them feel different.
That's cool but that's not exactly what I meant. Based on the Lakehouse preview, it is already apparent on what kind of design you guys are using for the maps; in other words, the general layout that all maps are to follow. To put it in an analogy, look at how differently CT and DA maps are designed; CT maps are smaller and their objectives usually stay hidden away, while DA maps are much larger and their objectives are out in the open. Reason being for this is simple: each map type compliments the particular style of hacking and characteristics of the spy/mercenary that the game employs. You must stand directly next to the terminal in CT, which is why the maps are smaller, less open-ended, and have many barriers to give the spy cover. In DA, the spy has the advantage of remote hacking, which is why the objectives are out in the open.
To get to the point: it would be downright silly to have a CT map in DA, or vice versa. It doesn't mix well, it would be unbalanced. I bring this up because it is the crux of my argument in the above post; that if this idea of remote hacking software/device would be implemented, I theorize in order to balance it, the maps would have to adjust accordingly. I make this statement because I have now seen Lakehouse and know it is reminiscent of CT rather than DA based on it's design.
amen to vega's wise words.
Nope, most other maps are planned to not have the CT-feel. The problem is, they dont even have layouts yet, so it's also for us still uncertain how they might differ. Basically, Lakehouse is supposed to be one-of-a-kind, as a guide for old-skool players.
Quote from: frvge on November 01, 2008, 08:49:58 PM
Nope, most other maps are planned to not have the CT-feel. The problem is, they dont even have layouts yet, so it's also for us still uncertain how they might differ. Basically, Lakehouse is supposed to be one-of-a-kind, as a guide for old-skool players.
He means the "CT feel" gameplay wise rather than graphically. I assumed all the maps would play similarly to CT, seeing as thats what its being compared with, and I really hope they do.
Quote from: frvge on November 01, 2008, 08:49:58 PM
Nope, most other maps are planned to not have the CT-feel. The problem is, they dont even have layouts yet, so it's also for us still uncertain how they might differ. Basically, Lakehouse is supposed to be one-of-a-kind, as a guide for old-skool players.
I could be wrong as you're on the development team, but based on what I've seen and how hacking terminals work (unless you have changed that somehow) then I'm too assume we're going to see objectives that have the same structure as they do in CT.
Honestly, if you're going to keep a lot of the core elements from CT/PT around, then the maps are going to play similar enough to the 15 or so we've seen so far in the previous games. There are certain parts of those maps that link them all together, and you can't change that without changing the game drastically or just producing maps that are no fun to play.
Quote from: Vega on November 02, 2008, 07:06:15 AM
Quote from: frvge on November 01, 2008, 08:49:58 PM
Nope, most other maps are planned to not have the CT-feel. The problem is, they dont even have layouts yet, so it's also for us still uncertain how they might differ. Basically, Lakehouse is supposed to be one-of-a-kind, as a guide for old-skool players.
I could be wrong as you're on the development team, but based on what I've seen and how hacking terminals work (unless you have changed that somehow) then I'm too assume we're going to see objectives that have the same structure as they do in CT.
Dude vega, u think ur post is very smart but it dosent contribute anything except for negativism...
first of all, CT does have terminals out in open (Clubhouse Garden area, factory map and many others)
secondly, DA has objectives out in the open but it also contains objectives inside small pent houses and other enclosed structures. (i dont know map names of DA, but there are very easily noticeable examples)
so yeah your whole smart talk about "complex structures and lots of work" is just full of bull... >:(
Thirdly, let the devs decide if its gonna be too hard to do or not.
as i said, both CT and DA have objectives both covered or out in the open, so its not like they have to redo any work.
and since it isnt too late because they dont have to redo anything exept think very well where to place the terminals in the map, then this is not a bad idea in my opinion.
so yeah, your post is really just built based on false assumptions and generalizations.
Quote from: Roberto1223 on November 03, 2008, 10:45:31 PM
Dude vega, u think ur post is very smart but it dosent contribute anything except for negativism...
first of all, CT does have terminals out in open (Clubhouse Garden area, factory map and many others)
I don't think my post is "very smart" at all, but thanks for the compliment, I guess. Coming from you that's questionable though. Clubhouse garden area is decently open, but there are still walls to cover the spy from multiple angles. Factory supports my examples far more than it supports yours. Actually, my theory engrosses far more covered areas than your argument of open areas in the majority of maps CT has.
Quotesecondly, DA has objectives out in the open but it also contains objectives inside small pent houses and other enclosed structures. (i dont know map names of DA, but there are very easily noticeable examples)
...which can be hacked through vantage points and most of the time through elevation. I've seen a decent amount of DA maps from personally playing them myself on a friend's 360 and seeing multiple videos.
QuoteThirdly, let the devs decide if its gonna be too hard to do or not.
I can certainly give my opinion on the matter, if you don't like it then too bad. Nothing you can do about it.
Quoteso yeah your whole smart talk about "complex structures and lots of work" is just full of bull... >:(
You're not understanding the point of my argument. To sum it up for you: the way the design behind objectives works is either CT-style or DA-style, not both. I guess you could put in both, but that would be kinda awkward and I theorize imbalanced.
Sounds like someone is a little sour because I'm not accepting their idea. :'( :'( :'(
Quote from: Vega on November 03, 2008, 11:45:07 PM
Quote from: Roberto1223 on November 03, 2008, 10:45:31 PM
Dude vega, u think ur post is very smart but it dosent contribute anything except for negativism...
first of all, CT does have terminals out in open (Clubhouse Garden area, factory map and many others)
I don't think my post is "very smart" at all, but thanks for the compliment, I guess. Coming from you that's questionable though. Clubhouse garden area is decently open, but there are still walls to cover the spy from multiple angles. Factory supports my examples far more than it supports yours. Actually, my theory engrosses far more covered areas than your argument of open areas in the majority of maps CT has.
Quotesecondly, DA has objectives out in the open but it also contains objectives inside small pent houses and other enclosed structures. (i dont know map names of DA, but there are very easily noticeable examples)
...which can be hacked through vantage points and most of the time through elevation. I've seen a decent amount of DA maps from personally playing them myself on a friend's 360 and seeing multiple videos.
QuoteThirdly, let the devs decide if its gonna be too hard to do or not.
I can certainly give my opinion on the matter, if you don't like it then too bad. Nothing you can do about it.
Quoteso yeah your whole smart talk about "complex structures and lots of work" is just full of bull... >:(
You're not understanding the point of my argument. To sum it up for you: the way the design behind objectives works is either CT-style or DA-style, not both. I guess you could put in both, but that would be kinda awkward and I theorize imbalanced.
Sounds like someone is a little sour because I'm not accepting their idea. :'( :'( :'(
hahaha learn to read then reply... i said " you think your post is smart" not "i think your post is smart" (there is no compliment lol) , so the "coming from you makes it questionable" proves that even if i hadnt said something mean to u, you would have replied like an arsehole lol.
and it looks like your the one who didnt understand me because i very well understood what u said about "both styles not working together" and what i said is that IN MY OPINION BOTH STYLES DO WORK TOGETHER! "the only real problem would be to rethink where to place obj in maps"
but yea whatever we dont agree and thats the end of that.
*edited... silly curses are lame. Give your negative feelings towards someone a humourous twist. *