Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I like this idea. This would compliment the direction CCP seems to be taking with Rubicon - subterfuge and sabotage deep behind the enemy lines.

But I would add a little diversity to this mechanic. For example, when you hack an afk POS, you have several options:

Insert a wrecking virus that will cause reactor meltdown or something like that, blowing up the tower and damaging the modules around it. Anyone can then freely pick up any (surviving) modules, but would have to repair them before being able to re-deploy them. This would have a relatively short timer - a day or two.

Insert a takeover virus that will un-anchor the tower and all the surrounding modules. This would have a longer timer - 3 to 7 days.

I would go even further with this idea and introduce viruses that can even attack online POSes. It would use a module that can only be fitted on Electronic Attack Frigates and/or Recons. The technique for infecting an online tower would have to be such that it would require great player ability to execute on a well defended tower. The skill for this module would reduce the time it takes to perform the hack.

These active POS viruses would also come in different flavors:

"Eye of Sauron" virus, aka I can see you - nuff said

Sabotage virus - messes up the targeting of defensive modules and/or reduce the effectiveness of POS gunners. It could also cause various malfunctions in industrial or manufacturing processes (stuxnet anyone?).

Fuel consumption virus - Increases the consumption of fuel and/or Starbase Charters.

Overlord - This virus would be the tech 2 version of the normal virus and should require as much dedicated science training as it would take to fire off a doomsday. Upon infection, this virus would slowly spread throughout the control system of the tower until it gains complete control over it. Once complete, the owner of the virus gains root control to basic tower functions, such as change password and change access rights, remove shield (5 minute timer), emergency reactor overload (15 minute timer, AOE damage inside the shield), hijack defense systems..and of course, the normal offline command. The time it would take this virus to complete the infection would have to be extremely long to prevent unbalance (several weeks to a month).

All these active POS viruses would give active groups a whole new arsenal with which to harass and defeat larger groups who've grown fat and lazy. There would of course have to be a counter mechanic as well (anti-virus scanner) that would allow POS owners to scan their towers for infections and/or remove them. These active viruses would not give the owner of the tower any warning of infection (except in the case of fuel virus, where the owner would receive the normal low fuel warning), so POS owners would have to perform periodic checks to make sure they're safe. This way, small and active groups won't be harmed much, while large space holding alliances would have to allocate considerable resources to keeping their backyard safe and industry grinding, as should be the case.

+1 from me

There is also a very large difference between a pos that is active (having owners who maintain it and care about it) and a pos that has been abandoned. As such, the attackers of an abandoned pos should be able to commit less resources to conquer the thing.

I'm certainly not saying that if you find an offline pos, all you should do is show up with a hacking frigate and win a free tower. There should certainly be a chance for the owner to come to the aid of his tower ... he should get mails that his tower is being hacked just like he get mails that it's running out of fuel.

There should also be a 24 hour 'system reinforcement mode' that kicks in when half the towers systems have been compromised, so the owners can return and reset their tower if they want.

not everyone enjoys combat.
the only thing pointless was your response.

this is a good feature. we have run across several towers in worm holes from corps that havent been active for months.
prolly podded out and emoragequit, who cares.

point is, the tower is taking up memory. why waste a day trying to reinforce it, when we can just turn it back on and take it down?

where is it writren that things in space MUST be destroyed? where is it written things CANNOT change?

beat it troll.


i have been on threads like this. i think the idea is superb even though its been tossed around a bunch.
make it difficult. give the tower a timer/battery like like a CMOS battery. if it goes offline tomorrow, its full. it has like 200 hack strength. after 2 weeks, its fading. give it 100. give it a decay rate. this would give the owners time to return. it would also make it easier over time.

I like the idea of being able to hack player owned structures. I had few ideas of my own, but I never got out with it since I'm really not into explaining to everyone that instead of typing non-constructive posts, you can just post your thoughts in a calmer manner. I've given you +1 because I think EvE has stagnated for way too much, and I like the idea. The negative part about your post is that it's missing 'meat'. It's a broad topic and it requires some thought-process in between. If treated correctly, it can lead to many good things : ). Hopefully you'll like the post which I'm leaving here, if not be gentle ;).

Introducing risk
For those who say there is not enough risk, let's introduce it; but before that, let's see through some mechanics in game:

- Current exploration (Relic/Data sites which don't have NPC entities within them) gives you two attempts per container. If you don't manage to access it, it will explode.
- CCP can place AOE explosions within items/structures (e.g. level IV mission: "Damsel in distress").

If we combine those two together, you might have an 'explosive' experience upon hacking the tower. Based on a tower faction or size, the explosion will deal 'X' damage of certain type. This approach can be abused if not treated correctly: player can access tower two times fast in a row, and make it explode, freeing the moon within just few seconds of your time. That's why you might combine few processes: tower access locking and tower self-destructing. E.g. if a tower locks itself, it's being locked for T time units before next attempt. After several attempts, the tower can explode. With that we are constraining abuses and make sure that you can not remove the tower without some effort or investment. This can lead to some in game trolling where a person can deliberately close the tower access because he can. A lot of things to think about. Also, you might want to give the access to control tower owner.

Hacking is illegal?
As few have mentioned before, there is another variable you have to think about. Is it allowed to hack without a war declaration? What kind of flags will you trigger? Even if you have payed for a war declaration, with above-mentioned access it might be that you will lock the tower ...

Introducing risks with new ship types
We have seen that CCP is implementing SOE ships ... Why not expanding the 'offer' by introducing new ships specialized for scanning and hacking. These ships would not be ready for combat, they would not be able to cloak, they would not be able to do anything else other than hacking. Maybe that's too restrictive, maybe not? But it's another risk ... since the ship does not have the tank capabilities, if you fail to hack, you will lose a ship (maybe?). Just to expand the area we can discuss about.

Introducing risks with new skills
Introduce specialized skill group for hacking or just insert them within the 'scanning' skill group. Do you want to have skills only for four main factions, or you want to expand the skills down to the e.g. 'Serpentis Hacking Skill'? If you hack the 'Serpentis' do you need to have 'Serpentis' skill, or you will combine two main factions?

I would really like that you have to bring your own specialized ship for different control towers. Of course, the battleship hull would maybe have extra bonuses while accessing medium and small towers (virus strength etc.).

"all players were all for it" -- PLEASE be careful about using generic, blanketly FALSE statements like this.

Should this mechanic be implemented? Maybe, but with what time frame or mechanic to "hack" a tower?

In my opinion, 2 weeks is waaay to short, even 2 months is waaay to short.

What about the person that uses their POS on a regular basis for a few days a month to do "X activity". They turn it on, do their stuff, then turn it off - saving fuel in the process.

If the corporation is active, I don't think you should be able to hack the tower - you must wardec them.

If the corporation is inactive / dead / no members, then yeah, hack away after "X" amount of time.

Totally ok with that.



How about you read about what I wrote on the topic of moons that hold no value because of substitutes.

I think the problem really is that 'blowing it up' is a long and tedious process. Especially in Wormhole space / High Security where dreadnaughts are not an option and you are limited to the number of ships you can bring. In High-Sec you cannot mine the moons so the only valuable ones are moons which are around trade-hubs. You can't infiltrate an inactive corporation, and I don't think including meta-gaming as an argument against not allowing a proposal like this is really valid. Being a moon janitor really sucks.

Shooting 50 million HP is a slow and time consuming task for the majority of players who aren't involved in large nullsec coalitions. Especially in the above circumstances.

I don't think there is much risk involved when it comes to shooting offline towers, as mentioned, T1 fit Vexors, Omens, Oracles etc. can do it AFK insured for very little loss if you happen to get ganked. Structures are useful as conflict drivers but when they are offline and disused they provide nothing aside from a grind.

Hogging server resources is one reason why it's dumb.
Another is the part where thing exists only because it's not worth killing.

Is that supposed to be normal?

+1 in favor of some sort of hacking mechanic to allow the yoinking of abandoned towers and attached resources. Not quite sure on the details and timeframes proposed here, but in general:

Yes, please.