Ranger Archive
Thread: A New Conceal?
"Perhaps because even though you can see me on radar, you can't see me very well to shoot at me?"
Yes, that very logic was what prompted me to forge off in this direction.
SquidWalkeralso poses a convincing argument of what the Radar actually represents...
- It is not a physical true-to-form Radar gadget, but simply the visualization of your other senses within the medium of the game.
Either way you conceive the radar however, the new concept should work in a logical sense. 
"I think that Rangers should be able to "maskscent" on other people."
Agreed, that was a late addition I was thinking about last night and I thought I should throw it in to see how everyone felt about it.
"Give us a good "conceal" with negative-to-hit modifiers and if its effective at ALL, then someone will complain or hundreds of people will "dabble" just for that skill "
The game is designed to play that way. If a player wants to dabble in the conceal system, they are forced to spend less points on some other vital skill set.
I like your idea NRaas, but I've got one of my own that I'll just throw out here for the sake of discussion.
How about making conceal simply make the target non-attackable? There are many npc's that appear white on the radar that are unattackable, and can only be targeted by manually clicking on them (tab key skips them). A concealed player would be just like that non-attackable npc. There would be a chance that camo would break just like there is now, based on the opponent's awareness attribute (I think creatures, npc's and pc's all have an awareness attribute, if not, add it to all3 or choose an attribute that all 3 have). So, a check is done, and if it fails, the Ranger remains un-attackable and un-targetable except by a player clicking on them.
I think the main problem with conceal as it is now is that its calculations for failure are based off of the creatures' cl, an attribute that players don't have. Basing it off of an attribute that creatures, npc's, and pc's all have allows for a uniform approach that avoids having to code special cases just for pc's or npc's. Also, the 'unattackable' status is already in the game for npc's, andI suspect it would be possible to have this same status for a player character. And making the concealed player unattackable solves the problem of how to hide a Ranger from another player without being succeptible to client hacks.
The logic behind this could be that while the creature/npc/pc does see the concealed player, he is so disguised that he is not seen as a threat and is thus ignored.
Anyway, its just an idea. Like I said, I also like the approach outlined in NRaas' original post.
I like the other Idea of conceal being like the cloak kits on Anarchy Online. Make targeting difficult and it takes down your ham as long as you have it on. Add some abilities to experiment with that bad boy and then add some negative perks, what you got is one mean conceal And you can break it or target someone if they get within lets say 15 meters...................
This is a great idea, if the "not seen on Radar" thing is shot down. Just to "cover everything" I want to go more in depth abou the latter.
You are walking along and the area is clear, nadda in site. Suddenly *pop pop pop pop pop* 5 agressive things have surrounded you. Does this sound familiar? I submit that it is because on the server, these mobs are being generate at the time you arrive and then the information is sent to you (client). If the packets telling your client that mobs were there were not sent, what happens? The server probably processes the fight and you don't see what is going on. Not a plesent prospect...
Last night I witnessed just such a thing as a network glitch. I was watching Tomo and his pet (I think it was Tomo) fighting... nothing! I could not target anything but them, nothing on radar, nothing visual. I asked him what he was fighting (I could see the fighting icon active)and was flabergasted that I could not see it. I could do nothing to help, I had no way to target what he was fighting. This was probably a nice coincidental network dropout but the effect was dramatic.
My proposal would be to codify this effect. It would grant a D&D like invisibility, once you attack they know where the attack is comming from and for a PC, you pop in. If no packets yielding information about the targetare sent to the client, there is NOTHING the client has to work with, be it packetsniffers or otherwise. Of course to attack, the client is sent this fact and the "jig is up" but this also could be enough anyway, balance wise.I submit that this would be a nice advantage that would truely set us apart.
I know of at least one example of a MMOG that has an invisibility feature that has so far defeated all hackers (DaoC was it?). I know at least this description of camo can be done, and be unhackable. However, I think the devs are worried about imbalance (a bit too much imho) here and hope to make us think that "magical packets" will be seen by a hacker and find you. I remain unconvinced of this, due to my 2 observations above. As far as balance goes, there is a special us rifleman use that we do not talk about for fear of "nerf" cries but essentually, it kills all talk of this being unbalancing.
I will give you that this should not work in a town. Let the Commandos and SL's have that (urban camo?). But in the wild there should beplenty of "sneaky" on our part. Remember: the packets sentare controlled by the server. They can do this. That is not an issue, really. The issue is will they.
for those of us not familiar with some terms used: what exactly is the proposal? heh, A negative to-hit modifier... suuuurrree... what is it and how does it benefit us? I know a little, because Master Rangers get a plus modifier (only for ranged, I feel so discriminated as a TKA), but would replacing conceal would this mean that I can no longer hide others from creatures with that skill, they'll just be harder to hit?
If I'm concealed, I should expect not being detected rather then being detected and attacked all the time, just not getting hit too much. A bit of an explanation for the MMO n00bs like me is in order I think.
GTOfire wrote:
If I'm concealed, I should expect not being detected rather then being detected and attacked all the time, just not getting hit too much. A bit of an explanation for the MMO n00bs like me is in order I think.
Simply put, when we are camo'd we would be hard to hit. Anyone trying to attack us would have penalties, much like those from range andshooting while moving.
I'd like to see conceal force PC's to retarget after every shot.
it's the equivilent of having to concentrate to distinguish your target. It should also make you harder to hit
Against NPC's it's not going to have much effect, against them I think it should purely make you harder to hit but by a larger margine than PC's
I think it's wrong to take away conceals effectivness on human opponents. At a fundamental level it just doesn't make any sence.
Being the ultimate creature hunter does not mean being usless at anything else. We have a right and a need to be effective against humanoid opponents as well as creatures, this is an elite class, it's focus should be on creatures yes but that knowledge also works on people.
I think that whateverchanges we think to suggest on conceal, it should NOTbe in place of what it already does.. it should as well as.
GTOfire wrote:
for those of us not familiar with some terms used: what exactly is the proposal? heh, A negative to-hit modifier... suuuurrree... what is it and how does it benefit us? I know a little, because Master Rangers get a plus modifier (only for ranged, I feel so discriminated as a TKA), but would replacing conceal would this mean that I can no longer hide others from creatures with that skill, they'll just be harder to hit?
If I'm concealed, I should expect not being detected rather then being detected and attacked all the time, just not getting hit too much. A bit of an explanation for the MMO n00bs like me is in order I think.
I think this approch to camo was brought up to work around the Dev's statement that camo (as far as being invisible to NPC's) was not working properly. This would also have the camo give us an advantage in PvP since we basically know we will never get to be invisible to PC's.
"Perhaps only rangers could have the added offensive abilities such as a sneak attack command or added damage percentage on firststrike onlybut be able to camo others for the defensive advantage."
Ok, I am in agreement. So how would that work under this proposal?
Wouldthe /sneakattack command forfeit the camoflauge in favor of a devastatinginitial strike? That idea would provide some depth to the system.
"Do I forgo the to-hit bonus in favor of a high damage initial attack? Or should I retain the bonus in case the battle takes longer than expected?"
Interesting...