Ranger Archive
Thread: Uh, what the...? /cover skill?
Page 1 of 1
Keatsnam
Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:57 am
#1
I just finally came across some discussions on rifleman's /cover skill. It makes you invisible on the radar??? I remember getting chastised well over a year ago for even bringing that up as a ranger skill --- allegedly it was "technologically impossible" for some reason.
WildBil2Me
Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:17 am
#2
It was... and apparently it is.
Bad news, apparently using that skill will cause a CTD for you and most of the people around you.
Keatsnam
Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:20 am
#3
Ah, maybe that's why I keep crashing every 5 min. I wonder if someone at the starport is using it.
Deadtech
Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:27 am
#4
well it hasn't caused me to crash yet but al those poor people on tcgorath are feeling the CTD rage of Gout.
WildBil2Me
Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:34 am
#5
Keatsnam wrote:
Ah, maybe that's why I keep crashing every 5 min. I wonder if someone at the starport is using it.
As soon as I got away from the starport I stopped crashing. I do get an occasional crash while travelling too... but not nearly as many CTDs when I'm alone and there's definitely no one covered up nearby.
Almagill
Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:55 am
#7
It'll either be fixed before going to Live, a patch will be ready to roll out a couple of days after Live, or development on it will be 'suspended' until they get it sorted.
fwiw, I don't think it was ever said that it was "technologically impossible" but that introduction of a stealth mode was impractical as it could be circumvented by a geek with packet sniffing software.... uhm, yeah.
Presumably they've found a way round that concern or have ralised that if somebody was goign to go to those lengths to get 'the upper hand' you're going to have problems with them no matter what.
fwiw, I don't think it was ever said that it was "technologically impossible" but that introduction of a stealth mode was impractical as it could be circumvented by a geek with packet sniffing software.... uhm, yeah.
Presumably they've found a way round that concern or have ralised that if somebody was goign to go to those lengths to get 'the upper hand' you're going to have problems with them no matter what.
Mandalaia
Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:59 am
#8
Technologically impossible? More like... Technologically Lazy
Has anyone here ever played Ultima Online? There's not only a Hiding Skill (and an Invisible spell) but a Stealth skill that lets you walk around invisible...
No one can see you (except the Game Masters) not players, creatures, NPCs... no one. Not unless they step on you, that is.
UO is *FAR* less technologically advanced as SWG. I think the "Technologically Impossible" excuse is just another way of saying "Yes, we can do it, but we're just that damn lazy."
rversaw
Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:37 pm
#9
Mandalaia wrote:Technologically impossible? More like... Technologically LazyHas anyone here ever played Ultima Online? There's not only a Hiding Skill (and an Invisible spell) but a Stealth skill that lets you walk around invisible...No one can see you (except the Game Masters) not players, creatures, NPCs... no one. Not unless they step on you, that is.UO is *FAR* less technologically advanced as SWG. I think the "Technologically Impossible" excuse is just another way of saying "Yes, we can do it, but we're just that damn lazy."
Just because one game engine is written in such a way that implementing a new feature is relatively easy, does not mean it will be that way in all engines. It is quite possible that, at the time of that quote, hiding one from the radar would be next to impossible, and over time it has changed to become much more simple to implement. Game engines can change drastically over time, especially in the world of MMO's.
frightwig
Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:35 am
#10
I played UO for several years and hide/invisibility/stealth were really useful and functional. As many hacks as that game had, I don't think anyone ever discovered a way to circumvent a hidden player. They also caused a player to be transparent to him/herself and invisible to all others.
At first it bothered me, but now I really don't care that riflemen get /cover. Because it's in game now, it just gives rangers a better chance of having this skill -- but something even more useful.
I picture /conceal as being a cross between SWG /cover and UO's "stealth". It removes us from radar, makes us invisible/transparent on screen, but we aren't limited to staying in the /prone position. Ranger stealth would have the ability to stand and walk around, but with slowed movement (like UO).
At first it bothered me, but now I really don't care that riflemen get /cover. Because it's in game now, it just gives rangers a better chance of having this skill -- but something even more useful.
I picture /conceal as being a cross between SWG /cover and UO's "stealth". It removes us from radar, makes us invisible/transparent on screen, but we aren't limited to staying in the /prone position. Ranger stealth would have the ability to stand and walk around, but with slowed movement (like UO).
Jolandir
Sun Apr 17, 2005 10:09 am
#11
Rversaw, I will not argure that what you are saying is true. Certainly the game engine may not have been designed with such afore thought in mind, but to be told it could not be implemented and would not be even if it could really hurts when we see it appear and then is giving to a group who never asked for it, and they don't even have to /maskscent or use camo and to go up long skill branches to "achieve" a complete /conceal that even takes them off the radar (and no I am not saying that rifleman should not have this, I have a MRanger/MRifleman) and then not give this to use, nor require them to have to train in at least /maskscent and train to become more and more efficient with /conceal does frustrate us very much. There is now no reason we should not get this.
Jolandir
rversaw
Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:44 pm
#12
I agree completely with what you are saying. I think it would be a nice thing to have, but I just didn't want complaints to be thrown out just because of the developers' original statement on the matter. Instead, I would think it would make more sense that people discuss the changes as you have just done.
KundoJet
Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:52 am
#13
The challenge with introducing /cover previously was that they were trying to do it at the client (PC) end, and there it was susceptible to third-party hacks. The new /cover (which, as has been noted, is substantially bugged atm) is at the serve side, and therefore is not vulnerable to hacking.
Page 1 of 1