Player Features and Ideas Discussion

TD;DR: The POS bash is bad, small gang warfare is good. How do we bring small gang wafare to combat over structures? Introduce hacking as a parallel way to remove (or gain control of a structure).

---

I don’t like the grind of operating POS’s and I don’t like the grind of busting them. I used to do it way back in the day and I hope to never have to do it again. So (like many others) I really like this talk of modular POS and smallholdings and the implied promise of how they will be superior to the older system.

In past discussions I’ve read some interesting proposals about applying hacking to POS’s. However, I seem to recall these posts where really for offline high sec or wormhole space POS’s that had been abandoned. I think this is a great idea, and would be even greater if it was applied more broadly, namely as a tool to shorten the POS bash. So I propose this;

HACKING POS’S

0) You can still bash a POS in the old manner; Reinforce it and re attack when the stront runs out.

1) An active or inactive POS can be hacked. Reinforced POS can’t be hacked.

2) Of course, active POS’s have active defenses. Inactive POS’s will be very easy to hack.

2a) After hacking preliminary systems, the POS will enter reinforced mode as a defensive measure. The hackers will have to wait until for the stront to runs out before compromising the last systems. An inactive POS's preliminary systems will already be inactive, so you can skip right to the main systems.

3) Anyone can fly up to a POS and begin hacking it with the Codebreaker Module. Hacking is a hostile act. So expect to get Concorded in high sec unless you are at war.

4) However, hacking an inactive POS is not a hostile act. Serves the owners right for not looking after their stuff.

5) Hacking should not be like mining; not ‘activate module and wait’. Instead, there will be various routes through various sub systems to get down into the central processor and take control. These routes should be different depending upon the racial characteristics of the POS, to how it is configured and to what new electronic defense modules are fitted, just to keep things interesting.

6) You can only hack/counter-hack (is that the right term?) while outside the bubble.

7) Over time, an active POS will reset it’s systems. No so for an inactive one. But a friendly ship with hacking module can do it much faster.

8) Whichever pilot hacks the final module, takes ownership of the structure.

9) Hacking a POS should be a fairly involved process, giving the owners enough time to mount a defense.

VARIATIONS:

1) Might it be worthwhile letting these ship attack fully functioning (active, non-reinforced) POS’s

2) Might it also be worthwhile to let a hacking ship fit a module that can temporarily spoof a POS’s unmanned defenses? This will marginalize the anti-POS blob even further. Of course, it could not spoof the guns if a player was manning them.

3) Allow deployable hacking modules, just like turrets, so that the POS operators can recover their systems that way instead of point 7) above.

4) Could this same concept be applied to other structure bashing? Sov warfare or the FW i-hub bash?

PURPOSE:

Unless we adopt the variations, you will still have to bash the POS with a fleet, but afterwards the hacking will be done by ships with hacking bonuses (ie: the rebalanced T1 exploration frigates, or a new ship). These are small ships that would probably be able to evade the weapons of a Blob of BS’s. Of course, a strong defense would have to be driven off first before the hacking can begin.

Picture 20 man fleet BS gang trying to warp onto a group of hackers, only to have them warp away, then return on the opposite side of the pos? This means the best counter would be a cruiser/frigate type gang, which translates into less blob warfare. Or perhaps a more integrated fleet with fleet or skirmish BS’s/cruisers/frigs.

The bash fleet would have to return, but they have a choice between the same bash fleet or in exploration ships with hacking modules (and w/support).

However, I see your point and there is a hole in my concept. As the it stands, is there a risk of the owners loosing the POS even before it gets out of R-mode. There shouldn't be a way to circumvent renforced mode as it needed to alow offline players a chance to defend thier assets.

So, I’m thinking we should modify the proposal the say that you can hack an active or inactive POS, but a reinforced POS is immune. It would fit with game immersion, because everything that uses CPU shuts down anyways when a tower is pushed into reinforcement. So we can say that all the connections with the outside environment that hackers use to attack the system are shut down as well.

I’ll edit the original post.