Real-Time hacking in versus

[Cpl.Dimz]

so the new solo for double agent has an interesting little device used to for hacking ip's of security devices .

why not incorporate a user-dependant hacking gadget into versus , so its not just *sit and wait for animation to stop* hacks like in ct's versus ? i think it would definitely increase appeal among hardcore players , but then again it would deter some newb's who either dont want to hack or dont know how .
all in all , i think it will add more than subtract from the experience , since when you play a game , you are expected to show up for it .

[Valserp]

No.
In SP, I have sometimes managed to hack a door in a few seconds, sometimes in tens of seconds. It is more or less luck dependant, since it randomly "finds" the right numbers(which were also randomly chosen at level load).

In order to make real-time hacking work in a MP game, it would again require the numbers to be randomly picked at level start, because otherwise people will learn them by heart and hacking would take too little time. That presents the same problem with luck - will you want to be killed just because the game picked some numbers in a fucked up way, and then lose your merc round again, because luck was more generous towards your opponent?

[Vega]

i thought you were speaking of hacking in double agent multiplayer.  If you're referrng to actual hacking with an item such as the ones in single player, then I also say no.  Which were you referring to?

[Cpl.Dimz]

well as you know , there wil be programers , they can do wild things with code , like Change things . i know its hard to beleive , but yes they could implement a hacking device that doesnt rely on luck .

so before the rest of you jump to a conclusion about how something ubi made will never be good enough for your versus , realize that the idea is what i mean , not to steal the gadget but make a similar ui for user-dependant hacking .

[Vega]

Got it, dimz.  You did however mention DA's hacking style and since that is luck-based, there is no reason for us to think you meant otherwise.  I know shit can be changed....so how about you mention some ideas? 

That's like me coming in and saying "guys, I don't think there should be a tazer."  People would say "wtf, are you on crack?"  But if I presented it with something like "guys, I don't think there should be a tazer.  How about a wrist hacking tool that allows you to hack from a distant as well as knock out lights and the such?"  Don't get so pissy you nubby nubcake.  Yes, you are soooo getting a cute title like you wanted beforehand (on SC lamers site).  :D

[frvge]

Cute titles are only for Devs.

[Overstatement]

Mini-games in video games always end up to be ridicilously easy so slow people don't get stuck. Think back, when was the last time a mini-game was hard and didn't depend on luck? Neocron hacking system comes to mind but that was an RPG so the difficulty was depenant on the players level (sometimes you can get lucky (or smart) and hack something beyond but close to your level  but most of the time, it's impossible). Maybe you could have a minigame where the result isn't just success or failure. Idiots can hack and come out with a 25% completion and you and me can come out with a 40% completion in the same amount of time. But I don't think we actually need a minigame, isn't looking around for a merc to come out from around that corner intense enough?

[Cpl.Dimz]

look at the simplicity of hacking a pc in chaos theory versus , then realize that the objective doesnt take a genius to figure out even if it had what youre calling a "mini-game" . it would increase user effort . that is why i mentioned it . not to take an idea and use it the same way , but to expand upon it .

if you dont understand what im saying thats perfect , because i can easily leave a shallow minded group .

[Overstatement]

Yeah, I got what your saying. What I'm saying is that any mini-game (Isnt it a mini-game? What's a mini-game in your mind?) that we come up with will have to take into account, the complete idiots that will play it just like how every multiplayer game has to take into account that thier game will be played on pub servers so if you make it too much teamwork, it won't be fun. Even if that game is designed to be played with clans, you cannot ignore that most people won't have a sense of teamwork so you pretty much have to lower it. Kind of like that idea of "the group only travels as fast as it's slowest member". The end result of this is usually a game that is so easy that it's pretty much pointless (consider the hacking game in CT SP pretty pointless, what's even more pointless are keycards. Why go for a keycard if every door is hackable and hacking pretty much succeeds everytime). And again, how will you avoid headshots if you're too busy playing a mini-game?

Edit: I'm saying it's hard to design a game that would not get screw up an idiots ability to hack but still interest the rest of us. Now, if you come up with a design that deals with these issues, I'd be happy to listen.

[goodkebab]

minigames dont have a place in multiplayer games.  The simple reason is about game design, even when it is technically possible to do.

It is all about pacing and flow of the game.  As spy, you shouldnt need to worry about a minigame, you want to concern yourself with the patroling merc while you are extremely vulnerable. 

[Valserp]

look at the simplicity of hacking a pc in chaos theory versus , then realize that the objective doesnt take a genius to figure out even if it had what youre calling a "mini-game" . it would increase user effort . that is why i mentioned it . not to take an idea and use it the same way , but to expand upon it .

A mini-game of the sort can be learned by heart, step by step. This would give the spies, who have spent the time to learn the mechanics of every hack on every map, an unfair advantage over the ones who haven't. Furthermore it will barely slow them down and in time it will become pointless, since everyone would have learned all the sequences by heart.

So how do you prevent that? You randomize the sequences, so that each time a spy goes to hack a door, a terminal or whatever, they get new numbers - that would keep the mini-game going through time, no matter how long people play. BUT randomizing something always means that luck gets to play it's part. Same as insta nades - totally random and extremely annoying. I've had instances where I would pray for those to help me for a kill, and instances where I've suicided while trying to bounce them off. My luck sucks and I would hate to have my hacking time slowed down due to that.

Real-time hacking may sound fun, but it just drags a load of randomness and inconsistencies that would outweight the fun of it.

if you dont understand what im saying thats perfect , because i can easily leave a shallow minded group .

If you don't understand what I am saying, I suggest you move on to a website that is populated by higher beings, such as yourself. Try myspace.

[Vega]

if you dont understand what im saying thats perfect , because i can easily leave a shallow minded group .

no dimz I understand you perfectly I just don't agree with it.  QUIT THE HATE, MAN!!!!!  :D :D :D :D :D :D :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*

[Overstatement]

i thought you were speaking of hacking in double agent multiplayer.  If you're referrng to actual hacking with an item such as the ones in single player, then I also say no.  Which were you referring to?

You did however mention DA's hacking style and since that is luck-based

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by hacking in DA? All I know is that you can hack from a distance and the amount of distance determines how long hacking takes. I don't see any luck to this but you said there is luck so, am I missing something? (I haven't played DA)

And just to add to the hate, if people don't understand me, I would consider it a failure on my part...a failure to communicate.

[Vega]

i thought you were speaking of hacking in double agent multiplayer.  If you're referrng to actual hacking with an item such as the ones in single player, then I also say no.  Which were you referring to?

You did however mention DA's hacking style and since that is luck-based

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by hacking in DA?

I'm referring to the singleplayer aspect for DA hacking.  I haven't played DA singleplayer that much (since I don't own it) but I think it's similar to lockpicking/hacking a door (the one where you match up the numbers like 192.75.385.92) in CT singleplayer.

[FlamingGimp]

Since people have made plenty of arguments as to why the principle is a bad idea, I'll just comment and say that if CT had a system in place like that, I would find the game less enjoyable.  I've been playing CT for a long ass time, and a player shouldn't have to focus on anything other than their surroundings while they're hacking. 

When you're up against good mercs you need to be able to place your full attention on your surroundings; whether that be audio, or visual it doesn't matter.  With a minigame, part, or all, of that attention would be distracted by the minigame, and that's just a bad idea.  This game is about getting to the terminals, not what you do once you've gotten there. 

One final point for that is a spy's reaction time.  Take club house garden terminals as an example, a common place merc "tactic" is to go for a quick headshot as they round the corner.  Would you be able to notice and leave the minigame during that split second window before you get sniped in the head?