There is no incentive for players to resecure an objective after the enemy has hacked it. It takes longer to secure and you should get points for it.

Players, now, deliberately allow the hack to go through so they can get the points for hacking it. Meanwhile, the enemy does damage to the MCC and they spawn right behind you on the objective.

Players need points to resecure an objective

There is no incentive for players to resecure an objective after the enemy has hacked it. It takes longer to secure and you should get points for it.

Players, now, deliberately allow the hack to go through so they can get the points for hacking it. Meanwhile, the enemy does damage to the MCC and they spawn right behind you on the objective.

Players need points to resecure an objective

I've also said you should get hack assist points for covering your team while they hack. That way you don't get 3 people facing a console all getting shot in the back because no one wanted to miss out on points. If you are 10 meters from a hack taking place you are helping.

The system should reward players for doing the right thing instead of encouraging them to play poorly.

There is no incentive for players to resecure an objective after the enemy has hacked it. It takes longer to secure and you should get points for it.

Players, now, deliberately allow the hack to go through so they can get the points for hacking it. Meanwhile, the enemy does damage to the MCC and they spawn right behind you on the objective.

Players need points to resecure an objective

Read this somewhere else. Ah yeah I myself made this suggestion a while ago :) +1 Nevertheless

Yea this subject has come up alot, this isn't the first suggestion. It's just that CCP has more important things going on than fixing this minor issue to them.

This is somewhat of a big issue to us though. If MCC shields/armor are = in match and in no threat of losing, why would I want to rehack asap a point of contention? Since no warpoints why not just let it cap and then recap it for 100?

I'd say give us 50pts for every rehack and move along.

I would say even make the points more than capping an objective. If you really think about it it takes MORE skill to resecure it as usually if they made it to the console to secure the defenders were wiped out.

I would agree that rehacking should be rewarded (except for denying points to the enemy of course)

About the "Spawn in the back" thing.
Once you hacked the console, the spawn becomes unavailable for the enemy team, so they can't just spawn at the hacked point to retake it before the virus finishes uploading.

My only guess is that there might be a problem we miss with points for rehacking. Like possibilities to exploit etc.

My only guess is that there might be a problem we miss with points for rehacking. Like possibilities to exploit etc.

everyone agrees completely

...so you missed my post where I pointed out how exploitable the system would be if you have both teams working together?

incentive?

winning is the incentive!!

you sissies with your need for gold stars.

how about take out ALL the points and make it all based on win loss
then if you win, factor in your stats per game

if you lose you get nothing.


friggin sissies.

"i need an incentive to play a video game" duhhhhhh

Peace
B

Garrett, it is actually easier now to exploit it in the manner that you are talking about. Let it go full tilt and rehack nets points, and is faster than trying to stop the hack.

Just saying.

And you don't think that someone on one of the two teams wouldn't run over and just throw a grenade on all of them? I'm not saying that it isn't possible, I'm just saying that it can happen now.

Not when they're deliberately queue-syncing in low-activity periods, as I mentioned, or doing it during private contracts to buff each other's stats, as will undoubtedly happen post-release if this is added as an option.

And Jackal, read my last post for why your suggestion is even worse than the previous one. Imagine how bad that would be if it was 150 points a piece instead of only 75 like people are suggesting.

It's something that should be encouraged, and the best way is to reward it, but I can't see a way to do so that's not going to be open to this kind of cheap exploit.

I see your point Garret, but the exploit you're mentioning requires a dedicated and coordinated sync up. They literally pour their whole team into these exploit matches. Whereas the exploits on the current one are ones anyone can use. All you have to do is wait for the enemy hack to complete, and rehack.

Anyone can do this, but it takes cross-team coordination to do the other. (not saying it wont happen) but that any single rogue element in that game will stop the idiocy, and even if it didn;t it's harder to pull off that exploit than the current one.

For it to be an exploit, there needs to be some benefit to it that can't be achieved in "normal" play. The time taken to wait for two hacks totally negates any value the current system has which could make it an exploit. If you eliminate that forced downtime where you're NOT actively hacking and just waiting for things to happen on their own, then you leave the system open to be ACTUALLY exploited.

The current system allows for a sort of "gentleman's agreement" deal where the side with the advantage can choose to hand a few War Points to their enemies in exchange for some on their own counters. If the defenders choose not to do that, they can rehack and prevent either side from gaining anything. There's no exploit in that, just a choice to go for more WP on your team, or deny the enemy WP for their own side.

If rehack points are added without something to balance the exploitability, Corporations or Alliances WILL use it to pad their members' stats with private contracts. In the current build, yes, you have to queue-sync, but that's not taking the intended final goals of the game into account. Players will be able to effectively create private battles where their choice of players will be the only combatants on the field. They already can, to a certain extent, but by release, it will be easily set up using in-game tools, rather than players having to force their desired scenario. In THAT situation, exploitation and stat-padding will be blatantly facilitated by adding WP rewards for rehacking.

yup! +1

Every comment on this thread has been in full agreement. Not one negative or detracting comment. That tells you something CCP!

Actually, rehacking a point after it's been hacked takes alot longer. Literally twice the time it takes to initially 'hack' the point. So that balance is there. I've often killed the guy who's just hacked said point. Had to bum around and kill another due to not wanting to be killed while rehacking, only to try rehack and not actually rehack before it goes red...

The active portion of an objective hack is about half the time taken to re-hack. But the time taken for a player to hack THEN wait for the hack to complete is longer than the time taken to hack then immediately re-hack the point. When comparing the time taken to EXPLOIT the two systems, the current system takes longer to get WP than the suggested alternatives.

Also, multiple players on a point reduces the time spent actively hacking or re-hacking, but there's NO way to reduce the time spent WAITING between hacks in the current system.

But what of this?!

I would like to get points for rehacking but I can see quite a few people exploiting it to have members on both sides hacking and rehacking to gain fast points just like the repair exploit.

If rehack points are added without something to balance the exploitability, Corporations or Alliances WILL use it to pad their members' stats with private contracts.

There is no incentive for players to resecure an objective after the enemy has hacked it. It takes longer to secure and you should get points for it.

Players, now, deliberately allow the hack to go through so they can get the points for hacking it. Meanwhile, the enemy does damage to the MCC and they spawn right behind you on the objective.

Players need points to resecure an objective