DUST Search - [IDEA| Hacking Nanohives and Drop uplinks

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[IDEA| Hacking Nanohives and Drop uplinks

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Altina McAlterson TRUE TEA BAGGERS 363	Posted - 2012.10.23 06:32:00 - [1] - Quote No one gets WP for just throwing out a drop uplink or nanohive, so you shouldn't really get any for hacking it (installations are different since they're npc units). That being said, you should get the standard WP amount when it gets used, the same as throwing one out there. The 25 WP you get whenever someone spawns for example should be more than sufficient without getting any WP for actually hacking it.
Altina McAlterson TRUE TEA BAGGERS 363	Posted - 2012.10.23 06:37:00 - [2] - Quote Chunky Munkey wrote: Totally in favour. Perhaps not 50wp. A diminished amount maybe, but just the wp from team use sounds best to me. No hacking module required. It doesn't't make sense that anyone can hack a gigantic cannon, but would need a module to convert a nanohive. I like the idea of matching the hacking skill requirement to the device's skill requirement: anyone can hack militia stuff, you have to level hacking to take on a repair nanohive. The same should go for vehicle hacks too. For whatever reason, I'm not sure of the game lore, the installations are there for the express purpose of being hacked. Nanohives and drop uplinks would naturally be hardened against this with truncated dynamic algorithm encryption or some other techno babble gibberish. I don't think just anyone should be able to hack them. Players that might want to specialize in hacking really need something that only they can do. I can see having uplinks hackable by just anyone removing a lot of their tactical value, as no one's going to want to throw one out there if all you're going to do is get flanked as soon as a single red dot finds it.
Altina McAlterson TRUE TEA BAGGERS 363	Posted - 2012.10.23 08:32:00 - [3] - Quote Chunky Munkey wrote: Hacking alone is hardly a specialisation, & you say nobody would want to deploy an uplink if they're just going to get hacked, but as things are, they're just going to get destroyed instead. If players are put off using something for fear of losing it, they sure picked the wrong game to invest their time in. Destroyed uplinks don't spawn red dots behind you.
Altina McAlterson TRUE TEA BAGGERS 363	Posted - 2012.10.23 10:12:00 - [4] - Quote Chunky Munkey wrote: Altina McAlterson wrote: Destroyed uplinks don't spawn red dots behind you. If someone was there long enough to hack an uplink without you killing them, it's time to accept the fact that you''ve lost that strategic ground. Not to mention the fact that they could easily deploy one of their own. Sorry mate, but your objection to this idea seems solely based on the fact that it would work. Do you object to the ETA time for vehicles too? In case you're killed in the meantime and lose your investment? The ETA on vehicles? Object to it "solely based on the fact that is would work." What would work? Lose what investment? I'm going to remove all the crazy from what you said and address the rest. I never said no one could hack them ever, I just said it should require the module to be fitted. With the module and requisite skills we're talking a very short time to hack them, a couple of seconds at most I'm imagining. Uplinks aren't usually dumped out in open so someone sneaking over there with the module equipped and hacking it would be a tactical move. I'll concede that you are probably right about having lost the ground, probably. But uplinks are hard to fit and most combat units aren't going to carry them, so they shouldn't be able to hack them.
Altina McAlterson TRUE TEA BAGGERS 363	Posted - 2012.10.23 11:13:00 - [5] - Quote Chunky Munkey wrote: The "crazy" really? You couldn't gather that I was referring to the vulnerable period (ETA) when your vehicle (investment) is on it's way to you? Or that I was making a comparison with the risk of handing over your vehicle and handing over your strategically placed uplink? What "would work" is the strategy of turning somebody's deployed equipment advantage against them by overcoming it. Seriously; if people have to explain fairly straightforward in-game references to you, spending time on a forum really isn't advised. Ok, let's take this down a notch here. I understood what the words you were using meant, I just didn't understand why you were using them. I failed to draw the connection between anything I said and removing the timer on vehicle drops. And I also didn't understand what I was objecting to solely because it would work. We've cleared that up now. What exactly did you disagree with me about?
Altina McAlterson TRUE TEA BAGGERS 363	Posted - 2012.10.23 17:45:00 - [6] - Quote Governor Odius wrote: Maybe require a matching meta level to hack? E.g., hack militia hive with militia codebreaker, proto hive with proto codebreaker. I like the idea of not being able to use low skills and militia gear. Not sure about hacking V, maybe. This also seems like a reasonable idea.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.