Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Just an idea, of course ...

Remark: Below already an discussion about OP and breaking the game started , so I pick up the proposal to edit this list and add for the points where it might have gone over-the-tops

Talor Barndan is making his living by hacking into highly guarded security systems. He just hit the golden pot by getting access to a starbase-class computer system and now he owns an access code that enables him to disrupt docking operations. But he is not really a frontline-criminal, so he sells his know-how to Aideran Tosh, serving as infiltrator for his corporation. He plans to use the code to disrupt trade on Jita applying a code-set he bought from another hacker a couple of months ago.
Meanwhile, Talor Barndan uses his capabilities to hack into a mobile depot and steal part of the contents, which of course is much less dangerous.


Intent of this profession is to generate disruptive gameplay even in high-sec and open up tactical options for battle-oriented and war scenarios. Existing game mechanics are to be applied wherever possible.

Starting point: (Most) Objects (Containers, Wrecks, Stations …) in EVE can be hacked. The act of “Hacking” results either in an immediate action or in a “stored” action (“Access Code”).

Hacking is done by targeting the object and applying a data / relic analyzer, followed by the “hacking-minigame”. Immediately, the hacking ship is marked as “Suspect” (normal procedure). There is a (number of) skill(s) to reduce the probability to be marked as “Suspect”.


Success:

• The hacking ship must stay within target range for a given time while the target computer is analyzed and data is transferred
• The capsuleer is offered a set of “actions” specific to the type of target.
• Alternatively, the capsuleer can download the action for later use / sale to other capsuleers

Failure:

• The capsuleer is marked a criminal (normal procedure)
• A defensive action by the target object occurs

The complexity of hacking (and also the probability of success, the reward and the risk) depends of the object. There are categories (unbalanced examples just to illustrate the basic idea):

1. Simple: Wrecks, containers
• Switch ownership to the capsuleer (all wrecks on grid owned by “char” to capsuleer …)
• Self-destruct if accessed (like ghost-sites)
• Self-destruct after time (like ghost-sites)

2. Easy: Mobile Depots, Mobile Tractor Units …
• Grant access for given time (limited functionality)
• Self-destruct if accessed
• Self-destruct after given time
• Broadcast position for a given time
• Inhibit docking / access for a given time

3. Medium (multiple access codes, levels): POCOs
• As above
• POCOs: Reroute tax for a given time

The next ones are -over-the-top, so just consider them as idea-in-the-idea


4. Difficult (multiple access codes, levels): POS
• Grant access for given time
• Inhibit docking / access for a given time
• Deactivate modules (category: laboratories, industrial, defense, shield)

5. Extremely hard (multiple access codes, levels): Stations, Stargates
• (Station) Deny docking / undocking for a given time (Jita, but I like it )
• (Stargates) Deny jumps for a given time (I like it )
• Hide from overview

Also the failure effect depends on the category. It could be gradual, with the following basic effects (or):
• Apply damage / destruct attacker
• Empty capacitor
• Disable modules
• Burn out modules
• Call CONCORD in within time span
• Apply warp bubble and show on overview

Due to the failure effect, specific ship types might be created, like a heavy Null-Sec Infiltrator Cruiser capable to mount hacking bonus boosting modules and providing tank against heavy failure effects.

In case of success, the action can be saved for a later time by creating an “Access code”. The application of the access code requires the capsuleer (the “Infiltrator”) to have certain skills in order to optimize his/her changes of success, and a dedicated “Infiltrator-Module” (giving additional bonuses). It can go wrong, with the same negative effects as a failed hacking attempt.

Since hacking can result in “Access Codes”, a black market might spawn, where Access codes are traded. Ninja looters might be interested in codes to switch ownership of wrecks and containers (hated by miners).

Hacking/Infiltration might generate new opportunities and risks for players by additional modes of gameplay. One example: A “Personal deep-space pocket generator” is added to the mobile depot and hides the complete grid against scanning and dscan. However, in high-sec there is a “traffic control unit” that records all those pockets. Hacking might result in a target list, so the hidden locations are not secure any longer. In low-sec/Null-Sec, a “Scanning Unit” might offer the same result.

What do you think?

OP?

Now what does OP mean? And why "stupidly so"? I just don't get the message, I believe ...

He's saying it is an 'over powered' gameplay mechanic. That it unfairly tips the balance in the favor of whoever is using said mechanic.

The idea was fine until you reached POSs... then it became OP (overpowered).

"Hey guys! Lets steal everything in this POS!"
"But we don't have the ships to take it down!"
"Sure we do! Just slap some modules on insured frigates and keep spamming the POS until we break through! And if we die, we'll keep coming back!"

OR

"Alright! I want everyone in the alliance to max train their hacking skills! When that's done we'll have all 2000 of us go into high-sec and lock down all the trading hubs... just because."

A, thanks for the explanation of "OP". I agree that it might get a bit too big, given the numbers of people running around, if not balanced well, or scaled down after some discussion. It would be a kind of weapon (instead of blowing you simply to smitheens, or so, since you are a noob and flying not-really-a-tengu). Locking down Jita for ten minutes might be a bit of a strong example, but I liked the idea ...

But despite OP, and scaled correctly, wouldn't it be an addition-of-possibilities?

To pick up your point - what about strengthening said systems against such an attack? More skills, more modules ...

It may be a valid gameplay suggestion. I'm generally against gameplay that encourages general dickery.

There might be something you could do with this, I would consider security losses, reducing the scope of things you can hit with this?

Having to fit modules on a POS or ship to prevent hacking would be a big disappointment. Also, you are better off editing your original post because people aren't going to read down for your revision.

Yes. No. Actually, I more often die trying to get in that trying to get out (again) ... What is not defined is what you can do with that access (to an POS, or else) - that needs of course (a lot of) balancing. There's people much better to discuss than me, by lack of know-how. When it comes to gates, a lock down of some minutes (?) in combination with cyno inhibitors would enable control of the battlefield, or dry out bubble camps (used offensively).

But I agree that I personally would not include such a mechanic without giving it lots of consideration and discussion. But I liked the idea (especially kind of role-playing-wise)

Yes, and in minutes a cap fleet with a cyno jammer and a bunch of rifter heros on the gate with this module have made sure no pos can be saved by a subcap fleet. And what this could do to the sov game.. no this is really not even worth discussing. Blob warfare is bad enough now.