Ranger Archive
Thread: Just To Clear Things Up: HTFB
Owen-Lars wrote:
Rancorrider4 Wrote:
"Why not just have the existing laser fence remain intact with a repel check in place just like the checks for mask scent or camo?"
That would work. Checks could always be used but it needs to much more effective than camo success otherwise we would have a camp full of agro everytime we popped one. This also ties in well with the 'camped' state idea where people inside the camp are protected because they have a 'hiding' state applied to them.
If it was the camp actually protecting us (chance to repel etc) rather than the camp doing something that protects us (camped state, camo/mask increase) then how would individual player checks be handled.
For instance a rancor is stood next to camp, aswell as checking the camp, in all likelyhood it will be checking me too and my group. How would this be handled in a system like this? It just concerns me that it could get extremely complicated when one check has to overide another in a given situation like f the check against you fails (successfull camo) but the camp check suceeds (camp failure).
There are a couple of options here. I wish DND_Cas would weigh in here as he seems to know a little bit about code. That being said I think the easiest solution (lol) would be that a player completely gives up any check for the safety of the camp check. Again it makes Rangers more valuable and puts more a distance between Master Ranger and Master Scout.
I'm speculating here, but the second option I would think would be a normal check down process. The creatures in the game now make repeated (not sure about "multiple" if you follow my meaning) checks as is, against conceal and mask scent. The creature would basically check first against the camp repel, then down to the player. The nice thing about this is, is that with the above option with the player foregoing a check in favor of the safety of the camp, it's an all or nothing proposition which makes it easier (I think) from the Dev side. The camp checks and repels or doesn't, and the critter has the chance to aggro. Perhaps a higher chance of aggro as the equipment is obviously not a part of the creatures natural habitat?
Rancorrider4 wrote:
Owen-Lars wrote:
Rancorrider4 Wrote:
"Why not just have the existing laser fence remain intact with a repel check in place just like the checks for mask scent or camo?"
That would work. Checks could always be used but it needs to much more effective than camo success otherwise we would have a camp full of agro everytime we popped one. This also ties in well with the 'camped' state idea where people inside the camp are protected because they have a 'hiding' state applied to them.
If it was the camp actually protecting us (chance to repel etc) rather than the camp doing something that protects us (camped state, camo/mask increase) then how would individual player checks be handled.
For instance a rancor is stood next to camp, aswell as checking the camp, in all likelyhood it will be checking me too and my group. How would this be handled in a system like this? It just concerns me that it could get extremely complicated when one check has to overide another in a given situation like f the check against you fails (successfull camo) but the camp check suceeds (camp failure).
There are a couple of options here. I wish DND_Cas would weigh in here as he seems to know a little bit about code. That being said I think the easiest solution (lol) would be that a player completely gives up any check for the safety of the camp check. Again it makes Rangers more valuable and puts more a distance between Master Ranger and Master Scout.
I'm speculating here, but the second option I would think would be a normal check down process. The creatures in the game now make repeated (not sure about "multiple" if you follow my meaning) checks as is, against conceal and mask scent. The creature would basically check first against the camp repel, then down to the player. The nice thing about this is, is that with the above option with the player foregoing a check in favor of the safety of the camp, it's an all or nothing proposition which makes it easier (I think) from the Dev side. The camp checks and repels or doesn't, and the critter has the chance to aggro. Perhaps a higher chance of aggro as the equipment is obviously not a part of the creatures natural habitat?
I is 'ere!! 
Actually I don't think we need an entirely new check system to do what you want Oppma since the system is already in the game. It a jedi power known as "animal scare" (not sure how effective itis however as I've never seen it used).
Two methods come to mind:
- Would be for the camp to"broadcast" animal scare every 30 seconds or so.
- The camp couldland a SOT (State over time), much like a DOT,on the creature to tick animal scare onany animal that has entered the camp. Something like duration 1 min and ticks every 20 seconds.
Message Edited by DND_Cas on 12-21-2004 11:05 AM
DND Wrote:
"Would be for the camp to"broadcast" animal scare every 30 seconds or so.
The camp couldland a SOT (State over time), much like a DOT,on the creature to tick animal scare onany animal that has entered the camp. Something like duration 1 min and ticks every 20 seconds"
A good suggestion but i have a few concerns. If animal scare effect was added, would it scare animals that are already in combat? I think this is waht the devs are trying to avoid as i see it. A way in which you can use a camp to stop getting attacked and get out of combat. In all likelyhood they wouldnt have a problem witha 'safezone' inside the camp with no chance of getting agro but i think they take issue with the fact that players could use certain agro repelling systems to get agro off them and effectively change its safezone and protective characteristics into a get out of death free card (simply run to the camp near death).
Although im sure we can push for offensive capabilities i think that in terms of the laser fense we should stick to agro avoidance only like making camps a 'safezone'.
No comments on my idea? I thought that setteled the matter...
If you try to shoot through the fence, it goes down. Period. You have to peace and wait 30 sec for it to go back up. No dropping camp. No more bloody exploit. You get protection. All should be happy.
What is wrong with this? Outside the fence you are protected from, inside you are not. Drop the fence and bad thing can (and will if shot at) come inside and when inside does not go away, even if you manage to get the fence up again (and the field can't go up with bio in the way).
Might even have "sections" in this field... but we can think of that later.
Anyone crossing the field in your group, it drops for 30. Anyone not in your group needs permission or they can't come in.
...check my previous post for the rest of it
hehe but hard when im reading tonnes of posts at once. Ill post my reply once i finish planning next weeks focus thread (wont be too long).
Fred_Skinner wrote:
*sigh*
No comments on my idea? I thought that setteled the matter...
If you try to shoot through the fence, it goes down. Period. You have to peace and wait 30 sec for it to go back up. No dropping camp. No more bloody exploit. You get protection. All should be happy.
What is wrong with this? Outside the fence you are protected from, inside you are not. Drop the fence and bad thing can (and will if shot at) come inside and when inside does not go away, even if you manage to get the fence up again (and the field can't go up with bio in the way).
I liked your idea Fred...
And don't feel bad, no one has responded to mine regarding the safe zone (currently in the code) of the laser fence PvP battlefield that turns creatures white on the radar. Basically, there's already a working laser fence in the game. Although both of our ideas are different (check mine), they both use a timer system, like /burstrun or TEF. I think this would help out with a lot of the problems of running into and out of the camp to avoid death.
Ok to your idea Fred. It would solve many of the problems that could get exploited and definatly make it an out of combat set up (due to 30 sec timer). But i just have one issue with it:The part about permissions (in your second post). I could be on my own here but i do love walking out into thewilderness and plopping a camp only for another group to come along and meet upwith me or my group.
'Back in the day' when me and my group used to hunt alot on dath we would always end up meeting up withanother groupin one of my camps, itwas fun and you sort of helped each other. Although having to have permission would solve alotof the issues ofganking and such (something we may have no choice but to do btw) it could somewhat impact the 'stop by and say hi' mentality alot of hunters and groups have. I mean some people arnt going to stop by if they need to stop and get permission then enter, know what i mean?
It may be something we need to do and im sure it wont be too much of an issue but i like the feeling of when i plop a camp down, itsfor anyone to use, like anyone who wants to use it, group or not and id 'prefer' not to be giving out permissions. I supose it would be ok if the permission request was easy to use and quick, such as a window pops up and you click request or dont request then upon request a window pops on my screen asking me to accept of decline. But if it requires metype in the names or even go through the camp terminal and type in thenames theni woud get frustrated alot (especially if im healing the group too).
In reference to thefence effects, what do you have in mind for repell effect? Do you want it so thecreatures are physicall repelled (i.e. move away from the camp), creatures just cant attack ocupants (canwonder around the outside of camp) or something along the lines of creaturescan attack just cant get to you (would cause problems with disbanding camp)?
)- Better tracking tools (become more of a command center)
- Transporter to other camps? (fun, fun)
- Make camps linkable (2 rangers link up 2 camps)
Message Edited by Sunsplitter on 12-21-2004 06:00 AM
Owen-Lars wrote:
Its basically just agro repelling we are trying to nail down atm, but yeah developing new camp ideas is always welcome. Linking up two camps sounds very interesting, as does the travel between camps. Although the travel does open the game to porting across entire planets which imo is bad. The only travel idea i would fully support currently i think would be the evacuation shuttle idea. And this is only because it is automatic transport, costs alot and is a last ditch skill to save your group.
The evac idea sounds pretty cool, good extension of rescue.