Outpost war ideas

If your clan owns an OP you get a portion of the money people spend GRing there (at 4000nc, the clan gets 1200nc). Clan members don't currently get a discount. I'd like to see either the cost removed or lowered for the clan that owns it; or if your clan owns the OP and you GR there, 100% of the GR money goes into clan bank.

Remember in NC1 when failing to hack an OP knocked you down and did damage to you? That was cool.

Needing 4 hackers is annoying. Why not reduce it to 3, with the 3rd being the hacknet one? Wasn't it 3 on NC1? I'm sick of having to move hacker alts around before an OP war. It makes OP fights just that much more annoying to organize. Maybe increase the time between attempts from 1 minute to 2? I don't want to reduce the time it takes to take an OP.

Monks and droners make fine combat hackers, but nearly everyone else needs those points for weapon lore. Maybe reduce the importance of weapon lore, making the aim cap (250%) easier to obtain. Letting people have the option to poke or hack on a fighter would make OP wars easier, and make alts less of a necessity.

Yes, back in the days *any* failed hacking attempt gave you an electric shock of sorts and some damage. It was annoying but i sort of miss it, too. And yes, there was no hacknet back then, so we only needed 3 hackers instead of 4. No, we only needed one, but that resulted in severe ninja hacking by one-man-clans. Not good either,

That was one of the first things I noticed coming back, no shock and damage for a failed hack. Not sure if I care whether it comes back or not, but it did add to the immersion of the game getting that little jolt when you failed.

Reducing the required hacks to 3 and increasing the wait time sounds like a fantastic idea for the current player base. Two at the OP terminal and the final one in Hacknet would make a lot more sense right now. Maybe keep the 4 hack code around for someday when pops go back up?

Not sure about changing Weapon Lore - that could have a lot of domino effects when it comes to balancing.

I like the hack idea Jack, good call.

Not sure about the Wep Lore but I get where you are coming from, a PE should be able to multi-role here without being gimped enough to affect his or her's ability to hit targets.

Just a side note, what about a hacking glove? Perhaps that could bridge the gap somewhere, put an INT req on this so a tank still cannot use it plus the hack drug and we don't need to worry about Wep lore as much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DIS

Not sure about the Wep Lore but I get where you are coming from, a PE should be able to multi-role here without being gimped enough to affect his or her's ability to hit targets.

Just a side note, what about a hacking glove? Perhaps that could bridge the gap somewhere, put an INT req on this so a tank still cannot use it plus the hack drug and we don't need to worry about Wep lore as much.

---

Not sure if this is possible, but could hacking be calculated relative to a player's INT level?

i.e. Make the hack difficulty for an INT 100 Spy the same for an INT 60 PE?

Also... Hack Glove! Yes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -FN-

Not sure if this is possible, but could hacking be calculated relative to a player's INT level?

i.e. Make the hack difficulty for an INT 100 Spy the same for an INT 60 PE?

Also... Hack Glove! Yes!

---

Could work yes, perhaps the requirement of hack terminals could be done differently to the rest of the game world.

Hacking was fine when we had 20-30 clan members, hackers were not so hard to come by, but now it's important to have solid reliable builds that focus on pure pvp, so a different calculation could work.

I've mentioned some of these things (highlighted in red) in the thread I've written in notepad but delayed posting so far.

I said the same thing about OPs and revenue many years ago. If you look at the citycom on outpost ownership it looks like someone intended to implement cash rewards (or actually did, but it has been disabled). The problem of course is that there aren't enough clans/population to compete over all the outposts on the map. 3 clans own the majority of the world map, and one clan (Item Shop) don't appear to fight for the ones they own. One thing I suggested in the unseen thread is that at least half of the outposts should be disabled (preferably the ones that are less desirable to fight at) - no ownership and no bonus, GRs may be left active but with a static fee of somewhere in the region of 30,000-50,000NC. This will make ownership more meaningful. If the same clans owns 10+ OPs it would be rediculous.

Do people still even defend against the final act of takeover in hacknet? If the answer is usually no I would vote to leave it with 3 unless more details are changed.

I would say there needs to be a longer duration involved in taking over an outpost. A minimum 5minute delay between failed attempts, and maybe 6-8minutes between successful hacks (longer if only 2 hacks needed). People against this are probably more interested in ninjaing an OP instead of giving enemies some time to get numbers together and try to defend in time. Apart from exceptional means (NCPD list, kill list, etc) or coincidence (someone being there already), the only time you know someone is at an OP is when the first layer goes down (or IIRC, you get a message when a turret is destroyed? I forget) - and that's already taken some of the takeover time out of the equation. For this reason I would be in favour of not reducing the number of hacks. Maybe changing it so the first person to hack can also hack the final layer.

Don't like FN's idea of changing hack difficulty for class. I am in favour of hacking being a Spy and PE only skill (reason will be mentioned within that thread when I post it). Really don't like the idea of a hack glove, unless spy 2 and 3 are changed to give the same hack increase as spy 1. It would give too much of a bonus when almost nobody leaves without PPU or PPU hybrid.

When clan A has much larger numbers in the zone than clan B, I think it would be nice to have some means of spawning not terribly overpowered assistance, like outpost guards to help even the playing field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unreal

one clan (Item Shop) don't appear to fight for the ones they own.

Do people still even defend against the final act of takeover in hacknet? If the answer is usually no I would vote to leave it with 3 unless more details are changed.

---

Item shop stopped us taking an op via hacknet using capped hacknet characters, they also defended and counter-attacked an OP we took from them tonight.

They do not have a great deal of experience but they put in the effort for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DIS

Item shop stopped us taking an op via hacknet using capped hacknet characters, they also defended and counter-attacked an OP we took from them tonight.

They do not have a great deal of experience but they put in the effort for sure.

---

I was waiting for you to reply to that small part of my post. I wasn't dissing Item Shop in any way, just singling out the point they didn't fight for any OPs. It's a pretty clear statement how having so many OPs on the table is laughable. They just today had their first proper OP fight (just after I wrote about them not fighting for their OPs I read on OOC they'd just had one). 2 fights from 9 OP takeovers doesn't really contradict my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unreal

I was waiting for you to reply to that small part of my post. I wasn't dissing Item Shop in any way, just singling out the point they didn't fight for any OPs. It's a pretty clear statement how having so many OPs on the table is laughable. They just today had their first proper OP fight (just after I wrote about them not fighting for their OPs I read on OOC they'd just had one). 2 fights from 9 OP takeovers doesn't really contradict my point.

---

Most of the clans they took the ops from were inactive, so they were up for grabs... why would they fight GP when they are the same faction?

They had already fought us before you posted and they had defended an op in hacknet the day before, they don't need to fight for op's if they are not challenged, which we have done and they showed up - good for them.

Some interesting ideas, ill add this small suggestion. Make the OP more useful, IE make the UG more important, certain OP's have certain vendors in the UG, so that individual OP or like OP's, factory, or fortress what have you. Like some high end things for sale in the UG, at a heavily reduced price, or intesting things, like special wall mount pictures of i dunno nidhogs ugly face :P or maybe an old screeny of nc1 op fight, i dunno spice up HAVING an OP, so people WILL fight not to lose it. Make OP's more important so people will be more inclined to keep it or get it....if im rambling blame the pain pills.. please feel free to kick this suggestion in the nuts or add to it. have a good evening gents !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DIS

...they don't need to fight for op's if they are not challenged...

---

That only reaffirms that the number of OPs available to be owned should be reduced massively at the moment.

Yes, scrap the hacknet hack. It breaks the game flow and the alt placing is annoying.