These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Local-list hacking? - Methods, Countermeasures (rough sketch)

Author
Kraal Utrecht
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2013-06-17 11:03:20 UTC
(theoretical intro - if do not like to read, skip to modules proposal)

The remains of the horse have been carefully examined...:
Many have posted their opinion on AFK-cloakers and how they should be dealth with.
In light of fact that Nullsec, a dark and dangerous place where is no nanny or CONCORD forces, due to Local-list has become (in theory) place somehow safer than Lowsec - AFK-cloakers are symptom, not a cause of situation.

Too high relative security in Nullsec is the cause.

Many point Local-list to be culprit as it is 100% accurate list of all pilots being connected to Solar-system facilities.
Unfortunately simple taking down Local-list is way to drastic method, same with simple signing-off it by using cloaking module.
It is unfair to general rule - the bigger risk - the bigger prize.
Nullsec with its prizes have become place of low risk place while care-bearing in Highsec renders often higher risk, not mentioning Lowsec...

Properly managed risk will bring huge profits.
So 'the bigger risk - the bigger prize' rule have been heavily distorted.
AFK-cloakers only use available methods to remind many that there is no such thing as security in Nullsec... or anywhere else. There is just the prize that can make someone willing risk his ISK to get it.

What really is needed is a method to bring back monsters lurking in the dark to Nullsec.



Module proposal.

I propose 2 methods to take off temporarily name of pilot or pilots from Local-list.

1. Personal method.
Pilot equips an hacking implant (only one such possible at any moment) that allows him to connect and hack to Infrastructure Hub.
Implant: Personal hacking Interface
Attributes: Algorithm Transforming Speed (how fast it is at hacking - the higher the better), Chip Interfacing Protocol (how well implant is handling Data Encryption Keys, the higher the better)
Usage: Pilot with Implant and loaded Data Encryption Key get close to Infrastructure Hub and Uses Ships remaining CPU multiplied by Algorithm Transforming Speed modified by Hubs Data Encryption Protocols to hack in and stop Hub from broadcasting that pilots name to other pilots (so taking his name off Local-list).
Range: ships targeting range. Pilot must have Hub locked while hacking. Going out of range or breaking hacking cycle means he must start hacking from start.

2. Squad method.
Pilot fits ship with hacking array that allows him to (similar like in personal method) connect and hack into Infrastructure Hub. The difference is this pilot will take down his and his squad members names off Local-list.
Module: Hacking array.
Same type attributes and usage, etc, as in Personal method. Different values and prereqs tho.


Ships with virus strength bonus like Magnate would multiply its remaining CPU by that factor (so x5 in case of Magnate).

Infrastructure Hub, in military group would gain Data Encryption Cluster upgrade. The higher the level of it, the more strength of protection (which must be broken for pilot with its ships CPU to successfully hack in) and the more complicated the algorithm (making hackers use more CPU to gain same effect so slowing him down).

Whenever pilot that personally hacked or hacked for his squad leaves the system - he will have to do the hacking again when he enters same system.
Normal hacking speed when he enters system after being pod-killed (personal) or his ship got destroyed (squad) or IH got new chip.
2x hacking speed if he has been not ship/pod killed and IH got no new chips/routines.
Hacking speed increased by 33% if IH got only new routines.

If hackers squad member get killed or leave system or got DC or accidentally leave fleet or squad - will have several minutes to get back. If he manages to get back to squad or to system - he will still be hacked out from Local-list.
New squad members that joined after hacking occurred - will not be taken out of Local-list.

Possible situation:
Squad hacker fly into system, breaks into IH, then his squad mates fly in without ever showing on Local-list. Still can be found with use of probes if not cloaked.

Chips and routines.
1. Routine is just rewritten method of encrypting data in IH.
Any member can go and do that if he has sufficient skills to hack such Hub.
Routines can be changed once per 24hr (once per Down Time?) and need same equipment and time as hacking do.
Changing routine after someone hacked IH will not make hacker or hackers squad visible on Local-list.

2. Chip.
Chips are data encryption chips gained from destroyed enemy facilities in Faction Warfare.
Pilots and corporations can obtain them for LP gained in FW (enemy faction chips for LP, other faction chips - on the market from those who want to sell them).
Chips are used either to secure data in IH (due to proper equipment those chips get damaged only when hacked but not so fast as chips used to do hacking) or break into data.
When chip is used to break into data - he is being burned. Chip do not get burned when hacking stopped (successful or not).
Hacker need chip of same faction as one installed in IH to break into it.
So if Solar-system XXX-YYY got Amarr chip installed in IH then Hacker will need Amarr Encryption methods skill and Amarr chip to break into IH.
If IH has no chip then hacker do need any chip and only Hacking (non faction) skill is needed to hack in.


Hacking do not remove ship from Overview!
Overview uses ships internal short range sensors, not Solar-systems sensor array and databases (Local-list).



So what do you think?
Rough sketch so lots of place for changes.
There are hacking skills already, lets make more use of them...
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#2 - 2013-06-17 11:19:58 UTC
mhh sounds as a mandatory hacking alt suggestion for null sec hunting. Unsure how I feel about this.
Kraal Utrecht
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2013-06-17 11:25:20 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
mhh sounds as a mandatory hacking alt suggestion for null sec hunting. Unsure how I feel about this.

Implying ppl dont have alts for everything already...
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#4 - 2013-06-17 11:32:24 UTC
yeah but if you add more and more of them, the game will be unplayable at all at some point for a regular player without at least 2 or 3 accounts. Dunno if it should be this way.

cyno alts, hacking alts, link alts, jita alts..
forgot something?
Vesan Terakol
Trollgrin Sadface
Dark Taboo
#5 - 2013-06-17 13:13:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Vesan Terakol
Then stop making alts, lol. "Nooo, it'll ruin my perfect looking skill list"

Now on topic... i have no idea how will this effect the situation, but sounds fun.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#6 - 2013-06-17 15:02:19 UTC
but, if the gameplay encourages making alts, then people will need to create them just for being able to compete with others!!
Or stop playing alternatively.
Kraal Utrecht
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2013-06-17 15:17:37 UTC
Vesan Terakol wrote:
Then stop making alts, lol. "Nooo, it'll ruin my perfect looking skill list"

Now on topic... i have no idea how will this effect the situation, but sounds fun.


Well, now I know this is bad idea - because it would be fun and we know in EVE fun is not allowed. Roll ;)

When it comes to affecting situation - it would enforce grouping up in Null for security reasons.
It would enforce protecting sectors in active way - scanning duty, IH patrols, guarding industrialists (not only from rats).
So generally it would enforce grouping up - so the way, In my understanding, how EVE in Nullsec should be played.
There is plenty of things to do in Highsec for all those who are not ready for Null...
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#8 - 2013-06-17 15:18:35 UTC
How about when someone who's flying a cloaked ship comes into your system and goes AFK the local chat channel disappears from everyone in system's clients?

This would solve your issue of AFK cloakers as you'd know darned well that there was actually an AFK cloaker in your system whilst also removing the free intel you get from local at the same time.

I believe this would balance the situation. You gain intel and lose intel. Balance.
Coreola
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2013-06-17 16:13:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Coreola
No local = wormhole space. This is a large characteristic that is unique to wormholes. That said, this is a risk that w-space pilots acknowledge and accept. This is not a characteristic of null-sec. If you want to be the monster lurking in space with your prey having no knowledge of your existence, go to w-space.

Cloaky camping is already, for all intents and purposes, zero risk. As a null-sec pilot, I'm fine with that. A cloaky bomber in my system means nothing to me. Either you'll get baited and killed, or go away.

I suppose you could 'Add to Contacts' every cloaky that comes into your system as soon as they enter, and have eyes in all adjacent systems, so you know when they leave local whether they've left your system, logged off, or simply hacked your ihub. Personally, that sounds ridiculous.

Cloaky campers seem to all have similar views on this matter. Null-bears need more risk. I'm fine with shared risk. But what you are talking about is something that makes your job much easier, and lower risk, while doing nothing to balance it.

I understand your point of view, though. You want to be able to gank expensive ships with zero risk to yourself. Don't we all? The difference is, most of us don't dream up convoluted game changes to make it possible.

Jump, jump, jump.

Kraal Utrecht
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2013-06-17 19:49:48 UTC
Coreola wrote:

I understand your point of view, though. You want to be able to gank expensive ships with zero risk to yourself. Don't we all? The difference is, most of us don't dream up convoluted game changes to make it possible.


Well you are far from it as I am on the other side. I am not flying any cloakie.
I would atm find myself as a potential target of such pilot...

But valid point has been raised - proposed feature would lower risk for potential attacker even more.
The only balance to the high risk pilots take by flying in Null is higher prize that is gained from not only seizing, but KEEPING in ACTIVE WAY control of Nullsec regions.

I do not know if CCP is planning any rebalance, but Making Null even more profitable and making High less profitable would
1. Push more pilots into low/null
2. Justyfy risk Corps/alliances would take and that would induce one of two:
- acceptance of higher losses in trade for higher profits
- organizing more active way to defend its sectors than hiding whenever hostile or unknown pilot enters system...

Also kills are not anonymous. You know who destroyed your ship so you can get your revenge against him or his corp etc...
We have all seen butterfly effect EVE video...

So, going back to monsters in the dark - it is allright for them to be there if there is a treasure worth taking risk meeting that monsters.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#11 - 2013-06-17 20:27:35 UTC
Coreola wrote:
No local = wormhole space. This is a large characteristic that is unique to wormholes. That said, this is a risk that w-space pilots acknowledge and accept. This is not a characteristic of null-sec. If you want to be the monster lurking in space with your prey having no knowledge of your existence, go to w-space.

Cloaky camping is already, for all intents and purposes, zero risk. As a null-sec pilot, I'm fine with that. A cloaky bomber in my system means nothing to me. Either you'll get baited and killed, or go away.

I suppose you could 'Add to Contacts' every cloaky that comes into your system as soon as they enter, and have eyes in all adjacent systems, so you know when they leave local whether they've left your system, logged off, or simply hacked your ihub. Personally, that sounds ridiculous.

Cloaky campers seem to all have similar views on this matter. Null-bears need more risk. I'm fine with shared risk. But what you are talking about is something that makes your job much easier, and lower risk, while doing nothing to balance it.

I understand your point of view, though. You want to be able to gank expensive ships with zero risk to yourself. Don't we all? The difference is, most of us don't dream up convoluted game changes to make it possible.

Hi there.

PvE miner here, and I am here to inform that I consider the current use of local to be highly damaging to my play style.

I have no interest in competing by use of several alts all mining at once. I know people who do this, and I respect their play choices. I should not need to follow this path to compete, however.

I would prefer to see miners in other alliances explode nicely, so they stop grinding out mass produced ore. My prices are being held down by risk free mining groups, using ships that would be considered at-risk in high sec for suicide ganking.

I am interested in quality of play, not quantity.
I want to make more effort to be secure, in order to mine minerals and ice that is not available in safer parts of the game.
But since the bar on effort is dictated by free and complete presence intel, no effort I make can overcome this to achieve better results.

It makes no difference if I have scouts alerting me two systems over, if my competition needs only see a new name in local to be able to avoid them 100% of the time. My efforts mean nothing to gather intel, because the added quality has no in game benefit.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#12 - 2013-06-18 08:26:41 UTC
Yet another afk cloaking thread, nerf local, get rid of it and replace it with constellation chat, that way you know someone is nearby but you don't know where exactly and I can also shut down your mining bots across an entire constellation just by showing up. Problem solved.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#13 - 2013-06-18 09:28:24 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Yet another afk cloaking thread, nerf local, get rid of it and replace it with constellation chat, that way you know someone is nearby but you don't know where exactly and I can also shut down your mining bots across an entire constellation just by showing up. Problem solved.


best suggestion which is regularly broght up on forums.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#14 - 2013-06-18 13:05:38 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Yet another afk cloaking thread, nerf local, get rid of it and replace it with constellation chat, that way you know someone is nearby but you don't know where exactly and I can also shut down your mining bots across an entire constellation just by showing up. Problem solved.


best suggestion which is regularly broght up on forums.

Heck yeah, THIS.

If you can't be bothered to figure out where a hostile is located after being flat told he is in your region, YOU are in the wrong region.
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#15 - 2013-06-20 09:33:27 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Yet another afk cloaking thread, nerf local, get rid of it and replace it with constellation chat, that way you know someone is nearby but you don't know where exactly and I can also shut down your mining bots across an entire constellation just by showing up. Problem solved.


best suggestion which is regularly broght up on forums.

Heck yeah, THIS.

If you can't be bothered to figure out where a hostile is located after being flat told he is in your region, YOU are in the wrong region.


Whilst I also like this idea it did occur to me that this could actually be more useful to pve types (particularly miners). For the clever miner, sit in the middle of a constellation and you can definitely get safe if a red comes as you have more notice than you did with local.

Now, I know this means that for most miners that will mean they can be locked in station by one red in the constellation but for those like me who like to reship and go try to find the red it means that we can pretty much guarantee not losing another mining ship.

So, I love the idea but it would reduce the ability for pvp typed to jump miners. Not sure whether people will see that as good or bad.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#16 - 2013-06-20 09:45:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
+1 for pointing out that nullsec is safer than highsec. It sounds ridiculous but if you consider it carefully the statement is indeed true.

I would like to point out a small inaccuracy though. The Infrastructure Hub (I hate that acronym so much) has nothing to do with the communication networks. Those are handled by the stargates themselves, which are actually hacked into by the TCU.

The TCU hacks into the stargate's protocols, transferring de-facto control over to whatever alliance onlined it. The SBU hacks into the stargate as well, overriding the TCU's hacks and putting things back to default CONCORD standard. So much hacking, honestly. If even our computers can't live in harmony, how can we ever hope to do so?

Anyway, without voicing any specific approval or disapproval of this idea, I would recommend you center your hacking attempts on the TCU where they should be, or on the stargate itself where the actual "heavy lifting" goes on.

As for approval or not.. I agree that this would more than likely just result in people needing to make more alts. Saying "people already make a billion alts anyway" isn't even justification for effectively requiring another alt, let alone justification at all. The goal is to un-stupid the presence and gathering of intel, not to make it more annoying and add extra steps to it. Besides, if it were possible to hack local like this, the sighting of any neutral would result in that entire constellation's worth of TCUs/Hubs being watched for trouble, unless the system was empty in the first place which makes it pointless to hack there.
Kraal Utrecht
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2013-06-21 18:23:41 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:

As for approval or not.. I agree that this would more than likely just result in people needing to make more alts. Saying "people already make a billion alts anyway" isn't even justification for effectively requiring another alt, let alone justification at all. The goal is to un-stupid the presence and gathering of intel, ...


Well the "collective" Locale per Nullsec constelation or region wch I imagine should be far quicker and easier to do) did not pin attention of devs.

I do not kid myself it is not about money.
More alts in theory = more profits to CCP so I try go along this line.

I am jut trying to think an proposal that would in some degree satisfy both ends.

The hacking In my opinion would fit in above frames.
- new content
- way to hide from Locale
- potential for rise in plex demand (yet another alt way)
- achievable without need for alt

Good point with gates and TCU. So Locale-hacking should be on TCU, not on IH? Not a big change.
Te thing is to drive it from gates as those are often camped or watched so hacking on them would be virtually impossible.
Coreola
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2013-06-26 20:36:21 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Yet another afk cloaking thread, nerf local, get rid of it and replace it with constellation chat, that way you know someone is nearby but you don't know where exactly and I can also shut down your mining bots across an entire constellation just by showing up. Problem solved.


best suggestion which is regularly broght up on forums.

Heck yeah, THIS.

If you can't be bothered to figure out where a hostile is located after being flat told he is in your region, YOU are in the wrong region.


If there's no local and no way to detect a cloaked player, how do you propose someone figures out where the hostile is located?

Jump, jump, jump.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#19 - 2013-06-26 20:53:09 UTC
Coreola wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Yet another afk cloaking thread, nerf local, get rid of it and replace it with constellation chat, that way you know someone is nearby but you don't know where exactly and I can also shut down your mining bots across an entire constellation just by showing up. Problem solved.


best suggestion which is regularly broght up on forums.

Heck yeah, THIS.

If you can't be bothered to figure out where a hostile is located after being flat told he is in your region, YOU are in the wrong region.


If there's no local and no way to detect a cloaked player, how do you propose someone figures out where the hostile is located?

You are getting ahead of yourself.

Point one, if there is no local, it is already been stated there must be something of equivalent value that is effort based.

Point two, if there is an effort based alternative, all the cloaking types I know of are willing to take a risk being hunted as well.
The balance point in many discussions agree that to hunt cloaked vessels, the free awareness that they are present must be missing from local.

That means you can hunt them proactively, in case one might be present, or reactively in the cases where they are proven in the area.
Samuel Wess
Doomheim
#20 - 2013-06-27 12:52:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Samuel Wess
Make local per region and done. Register pilot name/ship type/ship name when entering the region, also
to be possible to see logged off pilots (with ship types).
Add AFK tag if pilot is not using the interface of the game. AFK should not be used as a force multiplier.

Walk into the club like "What up? I got a big cockpit!"

12Next page