View Full Version : NC2 Outposts
Syntax-Error
30-07-04, 21:41
Im not sure if there changing OPs with NC2 but frankly right now there.... poor.
Just a few ideas that would improve OP wars hugely.
1 - Re-design the OPs have the entrances have gates that need to be hacked open. ( maybe shot open too? ) have maybe several layers of security into the OP
2 - Make turrets fixed. have them setup to best cover the OP and have them destroyable, with only a reper able to repair them. and have mods available to change them into diffrent types of turrets. and have csters able to do that.
3 - Have ops only hackable every 24 hours. and keep the standard OP rules of now.
4 - Allow a clan who owns an OP/s to choose one as an HQ. which means that the underground becomes there clan appartment. and has the same kind of access of the first door in the underground.
How about em?
All of 'em. Nice ideas. A lot can be done with OPs, KK really needs to take advantage of this.
Anyone ever play Tribes 2 with a nice mod?
I thought that was great how you could deploy blastwalls/doors (need CST skill?), change turret barrels, repair your base equipment, etc. Outposts should be more like that IMO. :D
Syntax-Error
30-07-04, 21:56
Ye that would be fun. although i can see with the constantly changin OP it would be alot of waste.
Disturbed021
30-07-04, 22:01
1 & 2 are awesome ideas that should be implemented immediately! With the introduction of hacknet that could be awesome. Hacker sitting in the UG waiting for the enemy to hack the front gates. As soon as they do he hacks back control of the gate and shuts it, hoping that only part of the force got through thus they are stuck inside the OP with no way out. Wow...just wow.
I enjoy OP fights, but atm what real options or tactics do you have?
3 - I wasn't sure if you meant once its hacked it cannot be hacked back for 24 hours or every 24 hour period there is a window where you can hack it? I'm not really sure there should be any limitations to OP hacking other than hackers and a force to defend/take it.
4 - I do like the idea of customizing the UG of an OP, I don't like the idea of that becoming a clans apt tho. Not real useful if someone hacks your OP and takes your clans apt with it.
Syntax-Error
30-07-04, 22:13
Well i did worry about that. but i think think the UG is a waste of a VERY nice location, but no one uses it :(
I dont like 2 and 3. Turrets should repair themselves, it would just be a pain in the ass and wouldnt really make them weaker. Also 24 hour wait on hacking is way to long. They should just limit the max OPs a clan can own to 3. Factions would ask smaller clans to hold a few and many more people would be involved.
3 sucks, imagine you live in SE Asian, and the Euro's have gone to bed and the americans are just finishing and are about to log;
"Hack failed; this OP has been hacked 15 minutes ago. Please wait 23 h and 45 mins"
Not a good online gameing experience imo.
Syntax-Error
30-07-04, 22:42
Hmm good point on that one. was just an idea that was thrown around a while ago.
yea putting a wait on when an Op can hacked again after it's been hacked can have some really bad sideeffects and openings for abuse. Imagine this. A clan wins the Op an marks the time they took it. Then the timer runs out when it can be hacked again and they use their 2nd clan detachment to insantly hack it again while they watch and defend against another clan attacking resulting if done right the Op never leaving the hands of these two clans. It would be very lame.
Syntax-Error
31-07-04, 00:45
Hmm ok ye that wasnt such a great idea. but it just annoys me how you cant hold an OP without having enough people to defend it ( say 20+ ) only 90% of the time. cos its just taken soon as you logoff.
Mr Friendly
31-07-04, 00:55
1 & 4
Im not sure if there changing OPs with NC2 but frankly right now there
Maybe you should find out before posting a poll about OP changes then...
I like your ideas, but KK have already given a fair amount of info on the new OP system and until we get to see the detail of it it's impossible to say what would add or detract from their ideas.
Hmm ok ye that wasnt such a great idea. but it just annoys me how you cant hold an OP without having enough people to defend it ( say 20+ ) only 90% of the time. cos its just taken soon as you logoff.
Well it wouldnt' totally fix it but how about we switch it around and have it this way that the LOSING holders can't take that Op again for a certain amount of time. But I think this would only work if the defenses were increased with doors and such where it took time. Or maybe it just gives you a certain amount of time to get it back quickly or it'll reject you for a certain amount of time. I dont' know .. The only real cure for the ninja hacks are more people . .from all over the world; different time zones.
Syntax-Error
31-07-04, 02:37
Maybe you should find out before posting a poll about OP changes then...
I like your ideas, but KK have already given a fair amount of info on the new OP system and until we get to see the detail of it it's impossible to say what would add or detract from their ideas.
Theres always one isnt there . if you dont like my poll then dont use it. dont like my thread? stop reading it. otherwise shutup please. im sick of people starting the "why say this untill we know" well i for one wont just let everyone else do the work. and its easier to get this sorta thing added now while its in beta. than later on is it not.
Theres always one isnt there . if you dont like my poll then dont use it. dont like my thread? stop reading it. otherwise shutup please. im sick of people starting the "why say this untill we know" well i for one wont just let everyone else do the work. and its easier to get this sorta thing added now while its in beta. than later on is it not.
As I said already I like your ideas, and I wasn't meaning to diss you. If you won't let everyone else do the work that's fine, but can I suggest you start your campaign for improvement by using the search feature?
I just don't think theres much point discussing them in any detail when they don't relate to what we already know KK are doing to the OP system and don't take into account that what we do know is probably a very limited portion of the total changes.
The OP system is being radically overhauled from what KK have let on.
Syntax-Error
31-07-04, 03:40
to be honest. i dont trust a word kk say about NC2 untill i see it. there "overhall" of MC5 last time was a few signs and a load of crap NPCs.. see what i mean? and sorry i snapped. its just people seems far to happy to slag off ideas saying wait untill NC2.. well that is unless it to do with nerfing something :)
No go for number 2 because i think they had this before and people would have LE'd runners sitting there rep'ing them , i love the idea about gates and such.
Well i did worry about that. but i think think the UG is a waste of a VERY nice location, but no one uses it :(
i strongly agree with this which why i voted 4, not sure on 3 as it would be harsh not aware of recent OP history and find u cant hack it. 1,2 sound cool aswell.
/edit btw i reckon a clan could only hold a maxium of 6 OPs...
1) Factory
2) Lab
3) Uplink
4) Mine
5) Fortress
6) Optional extra to fight over. Cause if no one attacking ur first 5 things can get boring unless u go attack.
Option 4, but would need reworking.
What happens when the op is taken? the HQ vanishes? Maybe a HQ area in each op that can only be opened when you select a HQ.
The other ideas are bad ideas.
1 - Re-design the OPs have the entrances have gates that need to be hacked open.
Only if the doors can be left open. People actually use Outposts for things other then attacking them. You will basically be locking down Vendors, Gogo, citycoms.
2 - Make turrets fixed.
No because it will make it boring. You already need a constructor to drop turrets and some clans are better at placing turrets then others. Your basically giving people who have less op fighting skill/resources to hold an op easier.
3 - Have ops only hackable every 24 hours.
Definetly not. The game doesn't end when people log off, what this would do is have large clans hack an op then leave it alone. There would be no fighting, as there would be no point to. There would no way to get the ops back for your faction. A clan could just lock the op down and log off.
What I would like to see is Water based Ops, underwater ops (With crafts for it) and sky ops (which require flying to).
Theres always one isnt there . if you dont like my poll then dont use it.
Could of added an option to say "None of the above". Also the non-anoymous polls are more vanity polls.
enigma_b17
31-07-04, 11:18
all are nice ideas
1. Agree
2. Maybe
3. No, for different GMT sux
4. Yes but if someone takes the op you must have several barriers before enemy can steal your stuff, so you can transport your things in a safe place ;)
Syntax-Error
31-07-04, 19:57
i just wish the UGs were used for something. there well made look good have great features.. but are not used
:(
i just wish the UGs were used for something. there well made look good have great features.. but are not used
:(
perhaps make the bonuses only apply in the UGs (excluding Fortresses)
Syntax-Error
31-07-04, 21:27
Well. ok. idea 1
Have a "fourcourt" ( that how u spell it? ) which has the YO, GG, and GR and such then have the "secured area" which is where the security starts. and how about having a room in the UG which has cabs linked into those of your actual clan app. so u can choose between the two. and if you access the cabs in the UG its actually the cabs in ure clan app. and when/if its re-hacked then u dont lose anything the acess just changes to the new clans cabs.
..i..DemonX
01-08-04, 04:17
I like 1 & 2 specialy 1 sounds realy nice!
As like others said KK realy should do something with the OP's!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.