It should be noted that while a Null cannon is being hacked it is still shooting at an MCC. So if you wait for the other teamGÇÖs hack to go through so you can get 100 WP to hack it back, then the whole time it is being hacked back it is shooting at your MCC. By counter hacking, you prevent it from shooting at your MCC. In a close match those few Null cannon shots can be the difference between winning and losing.

It should also be noted that counter hacking takes longer, and you only have a limited time to do it. If you have to take time to clear the Reds out before you start counter hacking, then you often do not have time to complete a counter hack. I would say, given that it takes longer (thus is more dangerous) and is only available for a limited time, I think a larger reward than a normal hack would be appropriate.

Well there are a couple different schools of thought but I think the main reason is to ensure that everything stays "balanced".

Also the two mechanics are a bit different. When you hack an objective there is a period of time during which the enemy can negate your reward. When you counter-hack it's like hacking a supply depot insofar as you would get the points instantly.

Right now the reward system encourages offensive hacking. There is no down-side to hacking an objective regardless of whether or not you are actually going to be able to secure it and hold it. Once rewards are introduced for counter-hacking, there would be a down-side (as there should be up-sides and down-sides to everything) but there could also be situations in which this reward would actually unbalance the game in the opposite direction. In other words, create too much of a potential down-side and discourage offensive hacking.

For example: Team 1 hacks objective A from Team 2 five times and each time Team 2 counter-hacks.

In the current system, nobody gets any points from the above exchange. Once a reward is implemented, Team 2 would have 5x the number of WP per counter hack. This certainly increases the incentive to defend objectives. But this must be done without creating a negative incentive to hack an objective in the first place.

In other words, if the reward for counter hack is 100 WP than Team 1 might give up after two attempts to hack objective A knowing that if they attempt and fail 3 more times the reward that they will have effectively "handed" the enemy will out-weigh the reward their team will get if they successfully hack the objective. If the reward for counter hacks is only 50 WP however, the number of successes required to cover the number of failures is reduced.

None of this even takes into account getting assists for hacks or counter-hacks and the additional points those add into the mix. But I am not a numbers guy so perhaps someone who is better with them can delve into this issue a little deeper and perhaps field a more convincing answer.

Personally, I am of the opinion that right now the system is unbalanced and a nominal reward for counter--hacking must be introduced in order to create balance. That being said, due to the reasons listed above and others I didn't get into, I also agree that making the reward too high would cause unbalance in the opposite direction.

I think the magic number here is 50 WP +/- 25.

It has to be equal to the number of points you get from waiting and hacking it back... or people are still incentivized to wait it out.

Also... if you start counter hacking it should stop the transition timer so you don't enter into a situation where it aborts your counter hack cause it had finished before you could get it off.

Also (again)... if an objective is contested it shouldn't still be shooting at the MCC. It should do nothing until its back to an active side, one way or another.

Some of the many reasons I don't care to play skirmish/dom in this game.

50 WP to hack a CRU/Turret/Supply Depot

Divided by the time it takes to hack a CRU/Turret/Supply Depot

Multiplied by the time it takes to Counter Hack an Objective

Equals the amount of WP we should get for a Counter Hack.

Round it to the nearest multiple of 5.

Is this counted at base hacking speed? With how many people hacking? What are their hacking speed? Are any of the Hackers equipped with codebreakers, if so how many? Would it be different for each person?

It should simply be a set number. I suggested 150 because of the risk involved, the time it takes, and the overall team benefit if successful.

What are you on about? All of the cases you mention affect hacking speed by a percentage, so as long as the same variables are applied throughout the equation the outcome would be the same. Maybe you would understand it better if I express it like this:

(50/A)B = C

where:
50 = the number of WP for hacking a CRU.
A = the time it takes to hack a CRU.
B = the time it takes to Counter Hack.
C = the number of WP that should be awarded for Counter Hacking.

So it does not mater whether you go with base hacking time, or if you apply a bunch of bonuses to it, as long as you apply the same conditions (bonuses) to B as you did to A, the value for C will come out the same.

So if it takes everyone 3 times linger to Counter Hack than it takes them to hack a CRU, then 150 WP for a Counter Hack would be appropriate. (50 x 3 = 150)

However, if it only takes everyone 2.3 times longer to Counter Hack than it takes them to hack a CRU, then 115 WP for a Counter Hack would be appropriate. (50 x 2.3 = 115)

I donGÇÖt know exactly how much longer it takes to Counter Hack than it takes to hack a CRU, so I just gave the equation so that someone with the numbers can figure it out.

150 WP for stopping a virus upload.

Stopping the virus upload takes longer than hacking a captured objective and there is more risk involved. This would deter team members from sitting and waiting for an objective to turn so they can hack it for the points and give them incentive to stop the upload and keep the objective blue.

+1 for this idea.

We should also get 10 bonus points for killing someone trying to hack an objective.

...
In other words, if the reward for counter hack is 100 WP than Team 1 might give up after two attempts to hack objective A knowing that if they attempt and fail 3 more times the reward that they will have effectively "handed" the enemy will out-weigh the reward their team will get if they successfully hack the objective. If the reward for counter hacks is only 50 WP however, the number of successes required to cover the number of failures is reduced.
...

25-50WP for counter hack seems about right.

CCP should take care to set a timer on each cannon similar to rep bonuses.
A terminal should stop giving WP if hacked/counter-hacked a certain number of times during a certain period of time to prevent abuse.

What about 50 for hacking plus another 50 when the hack completes? Then a counter-hack can be 50 as well. It'll make fighters stick around to defend for those extra 50 points. It's got balance but the attacker will come out on top if they stick with it.

There's opportunity for exploitation in that scenario but that possibility is already there now.

It has to be equal to the number of points you get from waiting and hacking it back... or people are still incentivized to wait it out.

Also... if you start counter hacking it should stop the transition timer so you don't enter into a situation where it aborts your counter hack cause it had finished before you could get it off.

Also (again)... if an objective is contested it shouldn't still be shooting at the MCC. It should do nothing until its back to an active side, one way or another.

Some of the many reasons I don't care to play skirmish/dom in this game.