That’d be an excellent step in the right direction, but it just adds a slight increase in difficulty - in terms of needing to memorize wire configurations for particular departments. I don’t know about you, but I have trouble keeping all the wire functions straight in my head while they’re universal. Perhaps if the “color” was replaced with text indicating the function of the wire after you’ve discovered it.
I don’t know. I think something more different would be better, rather than just expanding the RNG on what we already have.
It would be a much more elegant fix however, and would largely be fine with the community
Elegance is always simple, but simplicity isn’t always elegant. Yes, in terms of a very simple addition that would likely improve what we already have - great point. I favor something more ambitious. There would also be the near-impossibility of memorizing wires for every department as well, as I’d mentioned. I favor a universal approach, since that strikes me as more logical, and less arbitrary. One shouldn’t sacrifice gameplay on the altar of realism/universality, but realism/universality dictates the ability for players to have expectations which align with how the game plays. It’s good to have when one can.
The memorization just means you actually have to use the notes btw.
No argument here, yes, that’s the principle way that adding another layer of RNG could be circumnavigated. I stand by my last post, though.
We actually kinda scuffed the discussion, a very easy way to discuss a new idea is to list all of the negatives of the old system
- shallowness.
- meta dominant.
- not enough risk.
- not enough engagement.
- too accessible on the fly
- rng dependent.
Feel free to add or discard points from this list
That’s a great list. The only point I would contend is there being not enough risk. I think the current level of risk is more or less okay… But, by marginally increasing the time required to hack, if one has full competency with a system like the one I proposed, risk is also increased. You pointed out something I hadn’t considered a few posts ago - the concept of the risk/reward system that hacking entails. I would love to mesh that with a reduction in RNG, and in increase in the scope of expertise one could achieve.
I believe that my initial notion generally addresses all of those points. What do you all think?
Something else I’ve considered - if a system like the one I proposed is implemented, it would have more application than hacking. I generally think of hacking as a subset of engineering, rather than standing on its own right. Hacking is the incidental exploitation of weaknesses in a system. That’s not a very popular view though, I assume.
sorry i like my signallers to turn off speed sensors on doors and do remote open/close so i can crush people with them whenever i want
You’d still be able to do that, under the system I proposed. Read the threaaaad.
again… i like my… signallers not signaller
Not a clue what you mean, then. Can you elaborate?
insert a signaller into the “assembly” that is the machine, and wiring it to components
either i can put more than one in or its no fun.
Oh, yes. You’d be able to pop in as many as you like. The only mechanical difference would be the one or two clicks required to link the signaller to a particular component via a wire.
EDIT: Bonus points - you’d be able to dictate even more specific behavior by manipulating more than one component at once, with a single signaller. Want to shock an airlock? You could specify the specific length of time it’s shocked. Want to open it, shock it, and spam the emergency lights? You could do all that at once with one signaller.
if it aint broke dont fix it
think about what you’re doing, you’re taking something that is supposed to be quick (because chances are you’ll be doing it alot, every game) and making it some stupid QTE flash game cringe. it will get old very, very fucking fast. you wonder why nobody likes lockpicking minigames in bethesda games? because they take a long time for something you’re doing alot. this is the same exact same
tldr horrible idea
3 Likes
Based. I don’t think this new hacking minigame or whatever would actually improve anyone’s game experience.
Yes, that’s the primary complaint I expected to face. Consider - this isn’t simply a method of expanding the depth of hacking. It’s a method of increasingly the depth of interacting with machine wires in general. I’d love for you to break down specific complaints against the particulars.
As above, so below - if the goal is simplicity, then why bother with the level of complexity that currently exists? The current system is - very much as you describe - QTE flash game cringe, to an even more obscene degree than my proposition.
As I describe above - if you bothered to read the thread - mechanically, the difference would be two or three clicks per variable change. The primary divergence is that it would require more expertise, and less RNG. If anything, the above proposition makes the process less tedious - as it’d rely less on RNG.
It seems like your complaint more describes the exsisting system, than it does my proposition.
The current system doesn’t seem to have “gotten old” - despite how shallow, simplistic, and lazy it is.
tl;dr smooth-brains hearting a post which reads “new thing bad >:^(”, without reading the thread, or offering any input for or against. As I said in the OP - if it isn’t broken, indeed - don’t fix it. But surely with such a shallow, vital system - there’s room for improvement of some kind?
Why not just increase the time it takes to open a door with a crowbar.
Reference Barrel’s excellent post, which neatly lays out the current issues with hacking:
We actually kinda scuffed the discussion, a very easy way to discuss a new idea is to list all of the negatives of the old system
- shallowness.
- meta dominant.
- not enough risk.
- not enough engagement.
- too accessible on the fly
- rng dependent.
Yes, increasing the time required to open an airlock with a crowbar would neatly and simply (though only marginally) increase risk - but how would it help with the other issues?
I don’t think these are issues tbh, you can just add plasteel to a door so they have to take more time to hack it. Also it’s not about risk, it’s about giving the poor hop a bit more response time, as people can hack and open a door in <1s.
1 Like
If you don’t think the quoted problems are issues - why not? Do you believe that hacking deserves the shallowness of mechanics that it currently has? Read the thread - and then post up with specific thoughts, please. Should hacking just stay as it is? Is it the best it can be?
That’s really the focus of the thread. The two primary questions are:
- Is hacking the best it can be?
- If not, how can it be improved?