Camnet

[goodkebab]

If we made it a security booth,  then it would have to be specific to a single map and not as a gadget.

[Westfall]

Then why not include it in a few maps and just cut camnet?

[Xan]

If we made it a security booth,  then it would have to be specific to a single map and not as a gadget.

I see that going two ways:

1) the booth is place in an out of the way location so to use if the merc must sacrifice being near objectives, in this case I don't foresee it playing a large part of the game as I'd always rather be near an objective so i'm able to stop it.

2) it's place in a good tactical position, in which case one merc spends all his time in the booth unless he already knows where a spy is.

[Cyntrox]

How about a disadvantage to the booth? I'm thinking this could be a solution: The booth is a closed structure and you have to press a button and wait a few seconds to get the door open. On the side of the booth is a button that a spy can press that would release gas into the room, making the merc fall asleep. That way he would always have to check around, and can't look at the screen all the time. Sounds good?

[Gawain]

uhm .. no?

[neth]

How about a disadvantage to the booth? I'm thinking this could be a solution: The booth is a closed structure and you have to press a button and wait a few seconds to get the door open. On the side of the booth is a button that a spy can press that would release gas into the room, making the merc fall asleep. That way he would always have to check around, and can't look at the screen all the time. Sounds good?

No, cause you cant punish merc only for using his gadget...

[Cyntrox]

But you can stop him from whoring it :P

It's not like it'll stop the merc from going there - only from staying there for a long period.

[Tidenburg]

Plus its the most random thing ever. Unless this "booth" was taken from a German Gas Camp then I can't see why you'd manufacture something with buttons to gas the person using it with.

[neth]

It's not like it'll stop the merc from going there - only from staying there for a long period.

And what if the merc would just like to use it and the spy was there to release the gas ? Thats not fair.

[Cyntrox]

Plus its the most random thing ever. Unless this "booth" was taken from a German Gas Camp then I can't see why you'd manufacture something with buttons to gas the person using it with.

I think most people agree on gameplay over realism..

It's not like it'll stop the merc from going there - only from staying there for a long period.

And what if the merc would just like to use it and the spy was there to release the gas ? Thats not fair.

Then it's the mercs fault for not seeing the spy before he went in.

[B1nArY_001]

Plus its the most random thing ever. Unless this "booth" was taken from a German Gas Camp then I can't see why you'd manufacture something with buttons to gas the person using it with.

LMAO  :D

I cast my lot with the merc usable static camera system. If the mapper implements it properly it will work. Not only will it work but it will work well.

On top of that, it is far more plausible than some electronic eyeball somehow placed 30 meters up a wall.

It provides a camera system that poses a challenge not just in staying out of the detection range but also visual fov. This will not require more stealth but it will certainly encourage it.

Quite a few benefits have been pointed out and the few objections that were more than "I don't like it" were easily dispelled.

We can't please everyone so if you have a grounded objection let's hear it. If you just don't find the idea appealing you have no doubt already informed us.

Let's get some well thought out and detailed feedback on this idea.

[Gawain]

there were good points against it...

[Spekkio]

It provides a camera system that poses a challenge not just in staying out of the detection range but also visual fov. This will not require more stealth but it will certainly encourage it.

Quite a few benefits have been pointed out and the few objections that were more than "I don't like it" were easily dispelled.

Lol?!?!

I have made numerous points against this above "I don't like it," and none of them were addressed by anyone anywhere in this thread.

[B1nArY_001]

there were good points against it...

Such as?

Looking through the posts I'm not finding any valid concerns about it without relatively simple solutions.

[B1nArY_001]

It provides a camera system that poses a challenge not just in staying out of the detection range but also visual fov. This will not require more stealth but it will certainly encourage it.

Quite a few benefits have been pointed out and the few objections that were more than "I don't like it" were easily dispelled.

Lol?!?!

I have made numerous points against this above "I don't like it," and none of them were addressed by anyone anywhere in this thread.

Camera's FoV vs detection cone. Not a problem there as the two don't have to be linked.

Camera's preset panning. Doesn't have to be that way, merc could override it.

Basically every objection is based on CT and pretty much moot as a result.