[Poll] Should Infiltrators be able to hack vehicles?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Dr. Euthanasia, May 14, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JudgeDeath

    Not hack but temporarily disable.

    Disable could be overridden by anyone doing a "reverse countdown" on the vehicle.
  2. Aimeryan

    Heh, he was being sarcastic!

    More seriously, take a look at the actual statistics before you says things as if they are facts; last time I looked, infiltrators have the lowest kills per unit time - so they most certainly do not "cause significant anti-personal hindrance", not in relation to other classes anyway.
  3. LT_Latency

    This is by choice, most inf are sniping from 2 miles out to get the uber head shot of doom or doing the job of running around blowing up generators and hacking stuff. That doesn't make them bad at killing
  4. Tekuila

    Definitely yes.
  5. Evilsooty

    Yep. I don't play Infiltrator, but I'm sure it would be fun to do and punish vehicle owners who leave their tanks lying about.
  6. Calisai

    I'd love the option to simply undeploy the AMS. Nothing else would be needed. Talk about annoying a sundy driver, each time he leaves his AMS unguarded, it gets undeployed and he has to come back to redeploy. :)

    Also, the option to be able to hack the terminals on the AMS to use them to resupply would be nice as well.
  7. Vaphell

    Thank SOE for their uselessness. They *start* with sniper rifles and are weaksauce in cqc until they get a brand new 1000c toy. Not everybody can be a top100 player with enough leet skillz to overcome the hassle of using very long range weapons not tailored for these kinds of scenarios. On top of that they are increasingly hardcountered by bugged NW that affects especially undergeared infs, so cert gain is even slower than it would have been otherwise.
  8. Kenny007

    I'd be interested in seeing the mechanic explored further, and I hardly ever play infiltrator myself.

    Perhaps hacking a stationary, empty vehicle could sabotage the vehicle with a 'car bomb'; a silent, but noticeable device that the driver, upon returning, could notice on their vehicle, assuming they didn't just rush to enter it. Holding E on the small, colorful device would disarm it. If not, I want to see an epic explosion from over the horizon for their carelessness...

    ...by no means am I honestly advocating that, but nor am I saying no to it. I know I'd play Inf. more if it were in; if only for the (very situational) lulz.
    • Up x 1
  9. Spookydodger

    Yes, but only to disable / inconvenience them, not to take them over / destroy them.

    Slowing them down or making a weapon system go offline for a period of time would be pretty cool, while not making life as a vehicle driver worse than it already is. Would also allow them to incapacitate sunderer spawning, allowing their mates to get to the vehicle to destroy it.

    Of course, said activities should reward xp.
  10. EliteEskimo

    I'd say only if there is no one in the vehicle, and they are only able to disable (which can be re enabled) not hijacked. Or else you're removing my incentive to leave my tank and help the team if I have low mechanized resources or am in a heavily contested area. The fact that you can sneak up to me with a clock and SMG me while repairing also leads me to believe you shouldn't be able to permanently disable or hijack the vehicle. After all it isn't costing you any resources to do so.
  11. Phrygen

    snipers and sneaky stealthers having the lowest kills per minute? You DONT SAY!???!!

    and that statistic is completely meaningless with regards to infils being able to destroy vehicles.

    Lastly, i know he was sarcastic.
  12. Luighseach

  13. Sharmanti

    Tottaly annihilates Prowlers special ability...

    Engineers should be able to do it if anyone. Not invisible small dudes that can just crouch next to the vehicle and take it over.
  14. FlameGankin

    Yes, i really struggle to see it as OP.
    As a tanker i spam 3rd person and try not to stay immobile for 5+ seconds because c4 will instagib you. If it takes a longer amount of time for the Infiltrator to hack the vehicle, the driver might get a roadkill if they're mobile. With 3rd person its easy to see Infiltrators hacking you as well so i don't think some warning message is needed, perhaps a very light recon dart sound though. In Mbts your second gunner should be spotting around for you anyway so you have to look even less. For air vehicles i dont see it being a problem at all. AMS sundies should probably get a cloak bubble and one of the longest hack times though. Harassers are always on the move and can have up to 3 people on watch for a hacker so i see less of a problem there as well. Thats assuming PS1 jacking occupants though, anything less and i really don't see it as anymore then a minor annoyance unless you suddenly come under fire from every HA around you.

    As an infiltrator i see this being hard to use and rarely useful, but effective at times. Large zergs of tanks would kill you instantly unless you picked off the loner tankers. AMS's would ideally be hard to find and they are swarming with enemys so jacking one would be harder then tankmining/c4 ubgl it as well. Stealing ESFs that land on towers would usually be an easier task depending where the tower is but you'd probably get a weakened esf and an engi in an AA turret if you weren't able to deal with him. If there was a way to get past vert/horizont shields stealing a defending AMS would be pretty damn funny but would probably get killed before the attacking zerg spawned at it, though i do see platoons using it alot.
    • Up x 2
  15. Oreo202

    Yes. Because if I sit still in my lighting like an idiot for 20 seconds to get hacked by an infiltrator with maxed hacking, I don't deserve my lightning.

    Also: Why not just double the time it takes to hack a prowler in anchor mode?
  16. Palladuix

    Wanted to thank the good doctor for making this thread here, as mine is as ztiller pointed out in a bad place for it. Also wanted to clarify again that this is not PS1 vehicle hacking, just some sort of "Fight" instead of flight.

    My own input, i think we should be able to mess with the enemy tanks and fully hack stationary vehicles. Just my 2 cents.

    Thanks again Doctor.
  17. Get2dachoppa

    Any class can get into a turret and shoot vehicles. Any class can blow up a terminal to deny vehicles. Any class can kill the support crew around the tank. Main difference here is every class BUT the infiltrator has a direct attack in their arsenal to use against vehicles.

    I'd also like to point out the OP never said HACK = DESTROY. The specifics of what kind of effect hacking a vehicle would cause was intentionally left out. If that's all you are basing your "No" vote on, you are either being intentionally biased or just plain didn't read the OP.

    For me, YES. Infiltrators should be able to hack vehicles.
    • Up x 1
  18. iller

    Yes obviously... And again, we don't neeed to outright Hijack their precious "wheels". We're the Infiltrator class, not Thieves. There's tons of way to do this and make it practical yet balanced enough that it can be done against moving or even flying vehicles given it takes enough time to pull it off.
  19. Brusilov

    Yes please!
  20. OrbitalNZ

    Yes infiltrators should be able to Hack Vehicles with the following provisions.

    1.) Hack needs to take a between 30 to 60 seconds and the Vehicle Owner gets a Hack Warning/Alert
    2.) You cannot rearm the vehicle if its faction specific. Your faction doesn't hold opposing ammo stocks.

    With Item 2. in place I would also potentially allow a Infiltrator to hack the corpse of a enemy to retrieve 1 random weapon from thier kit. (Allow multiple attempts for each weapon left in the corpses kit)

    Deployed Sunders.
    Allow hacking but significantly increase time to hack (2m min.) with an alert to owner. refer to Item 1.
    That way this will only work against abandoned sunders, or against extremely poorly defended sunders.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.