Another option would be to cause datajacks to lose durability on use.
I only recently considered serious attempts into hacking, and I've always considered it a matter of the machine network and hostile manipulation first and foremost. When I first considered datajacks, I didn't look at it as a "combat situation option" hardly at all; instead, I saw "ally making machine." Given the extra amount of information and map control I had due to hacking the machine network, I saw allies as a sort of extension to that specific metagame. They could be used as distractions, scouts, room cleaners, escape options, sentries, so on and so forth; at the very least, it was quite different from the firepower I would consider them in combat builds.
The problem I ran into with datajacks, though, was that it was nearly impossible to reliably use them early on. As I practiced hacking builds more, I would favor melee weapons over datajacks in nearly every case. After reading the Discord chat, though, I saw that datajacks seemed to be entirely ignored in every instance other than late game snowballing. In my understanding, they are entirely unappealing to players without detailed knowledge of the snowballing process, yet a game breaking one-size-fits-all strategy for those who do. Perhaps this could stand to be leveled out.
Hacking builds already have access to a reasonable strategic combat option: regular weapons. Datajacks don't need to be kept as a sustainable source of power; on the sliding scale of short term verses long term, it would seem out of place if they were. If the emphasis was taken off of their relevance as a weapon and shifted towards something which becomes more important in the information game, the hacking snowball problem could be solved without sacrificing the novelty of the build. And best of all, machine hacking (which in my experience is spot on ;)) would remain unscathed by the re-balancing!
As far as details go, datajacks could take a number of forms. What makes sense most intuitively to me is a more reasonable chance of hacking success with a very limited number of uses. This would force players to decide whether or not an encounter warrants their "emergency" datajack, for one, which would turn their use into a tactic rather than a strategy. Furthermore, it would provide fledgling hackers (Perhaps -8 onwards) with additional tactical options. A valuable "charge" could be used on an excavator, or it could be saved for an emergency. Cogmind could make an attempt to assimilate an isolated Warden to provide limited security or escape options. And finally, late in the game, an assimilation-based attack on research would be impossible to pull off regardless of hacking suite snowballing, returning those floors to a more reasonable balance. This could prove a far more engaging experience for hackers than the late game steamroll.
Another element of robot hacking is the varying difficulty between robots. A serf, for instance, serves an entirely different purpose than an administrator, and a hunter serves a different purpose than a warden. To stop the weaker robots from being devalued, perhaps more difficult robots could require more durability instead of being more difficult to hack. This would provide more options for Cogmind while balancing every robot assimilation decision it (they?) makes: Four serfs could be argued to be just as valuable as one warden.
Hackware could interface with a limited-use datajack in an interesting way too. System shields could catch up to their more popular brethren, hacking suites, by allowing additional uses of datajacks. Allowing this would also emphasize their relevance to hacking in particular over other types of builds.
The biggest problem I see with this sort of implementation is that it would go against Cogmind's limited-consumables approach. If datajacks were turned into expendable candies to be stockpiled while being readily available, that could cause tedium issues of its own. Still, it would be less tedious to manage datajacks than hackware. I could imagine the frustrating hackware-fabricating rat race continuing even if they started to lose durability over time.
All of this being said, there's a lot of spoilers involved with the hacking metagame which alter my perception of it a bit. While I've found some unauthorized hacks, like Decoy and Overload, there are many more I'm staying away from until I discover them in the game. Botnet, detonate, and the one that acts like a sensor array are all very good examples of seemingly important hacks which don't show up in my games. (I'll find the buggers ANY DAY NOW :P) Likewise, the lore provides a great deal of insight into the information game. The most valuable thing I took away from Warlord, for instance, wasn't the trojans but the description of squad dispatches and garrison functionality. There also may be more to hacking that I don't even know of. While a lot of this doesn't have to do directly with robot hacking, that's my background as far as that entire aspect of the game is concerned. Perhaps the current state of datajacks make more sense given some spoiler knowledge. And besides, the machine network and robot hacking are closely related, since they come from the same build archetype.
Disclaimer: I haven't... Well... Won, per say. I still have a lot of the game to figure out. My perception of the "way things work" is likely a bit distorted, is all: My current understanding can only get me as far as -1.
Your posts are great! A lot to go through and digest.
I agree with the strategy being severely overpowered to the point of becoming killjoy. I was nearly invulnerable since end of floor -6 and if I had read the thread earlier I presumably could come close to this on end of -7. The problem is not really limited to late game. It simply reaches absolutely ridiculous proportions there.
You might be the first person to exploit combat hacking at such an early stage of the game. Normally I try to avoid enemies at that stage and just continue to build hackware until research branches. This sort of combat hacking has been possible for several alphas, but wasn't really seen until last alpha and in particular this alpha. I could guess at the reasons:
- Not many people focusing on hacking.
- Datajacks were considered weak for a long time.
- No one had really tried pushing the limit of the hacking snowball, though we've been aware of the massive potential ever since fabrication was overhauled.
- There was a particular datajack introduced in one of the last few alphas which sparked serious interest in combat hacking (I'm guessing you didn't find it or didn't exploit it to its full potential because it's nuts and you would be raving about it).
- Until this alpha, having allies around massively pushed the alert level up. This alpha also accidentally overnerfed alert in general.
- Prototype bots were only introduced in alpha 11 (AFAIK?), and they make for the juiciest assimilation targets.
- Recalling extermination and assault squads was bugged and not possible until this alpha. Extermination squads interfere with hackware farming in factory, while assault squads are unhackable.
In many ways, it's a perfect storm.
Decomposing hackware would affect the well balanced machine hacking. I am afraid it would also suck mightily. Decomposing datajacks sound interesting but those can be farmed from programmers making it hardly a limited resource.
My guess is that neither would have much of an impact on someone focusing on snowballing, but both would introduce another complication and some unpleasantness for many players.
A slight increase of ratings accomplishes only slowing down the snowball without really addressing the core problem. It will make it more difficult to get the ball rolling but overpowering effect is going to remain. I think this is not what you want. On the other hand big increase severely limits the hacking game for machines.
Slowing down the snowball is desirable, as it's easily the most reliable way to win right now, even if you ignore combat hacking entirely. I suggested a small change rather than a large one because snowballing hackware is actually quite fun and we wouldn't want to completely get rid of it I would think. It wouldn't limit the hacking game for machines, though. You can find enough hackware to really control the game well. Snowballing just reaches that point earlier and allows total abuse of machines and bots.
Hacking getting progressively harder is in theme but is also somewhat likely to suck some fun from the game for Cogminds with only some hacking capability. Meh.
I really don't think it would. We're talking making hacking harder when you're completely controlling the game. Small-time hacking ought to be unaffected. How exactly you achieve that, I'm not sure. Perhaps excessive assimilation can result in Main.c patching robots and making their systems more resilient to hacking attempts.
Making robots unhackable is a sad solution and I despise it very much. It is good to know you also dislike taking options away.
I have to say that I agree with this. You've convinced me that it's really not fun. On the other hand, I started to regard behemoths as dangerous terrain to be avoided. What if the game introduced immobile turrets which shoot at hostiles (you)? They could be quite rare, but importantly, unhackable, and it would fit thematically. You could perhaps have a turret be attached to a nearby terminal as well, guarded by an operator... perhaps you could hack it that way :P.
Higher tier hacking difficulty is fine! I would also make converting programmers a tad more difficult. I think a base -5% would be just right.
This is one of my favourite solutions. If you require the player to snowball hackware (and snowball well!) to be able to assimilate the best of the late-game enemies, well, wouldn't that be great? But I'm talking about increasing the difficulty of hacking in general, not just lowering the success cap. I like the 95% cap and would prefer it stayed there. A small-time hacker shouldn't be able to have a chance of assimilating an Alpha 7. You should need to have +100 to hacking success to have any hope of assimilating it. Etc.
Putting a hard cap is already there - the 95% maximum chance. Lowering it further may end up seeming like a crude approach. Avoid?
Yep.
The main problem with this is the instant kill mechanic. Lighter version of core overload could deliver damage to the core itself. Maintenance bots should succumb completely each time from a single hit as everything currently does. Others might take a constant damage. For example around 20 points should be nice. Maybe add single point to this for each 10% over 100% chance. This would allow you to make Behemoths hackable again! Overloading them becomes possible but requires sizable matter supply for remote datajacking. Still a workable plan but no longer an easy kill.
I think swarmers should also go down in a single hit that way.
I don't like this so much. It makes combat hacking more like actual combat. However, maybe it could be a time bomb of sorts? Or perhaps, if overloading gave 1000 heat to the target or something?
Another thing is that combat hacking is weak against large groups of enemies, such as swarmers. You have to deal with them one by one. You can increase the incidence of these enemies to have a subtle effect on combat hacking.
Assimilate:
ADOM's bard has a similar thing. They have music skill which works as "make pets from any kind of animal fast" card. It requires high skill levels but it is very easy to attain on purpose. The problem of ally army is solved by having a maximum number of pets. Presumably the number is determined by character's charisma. The more pets you have the more difficult is to have another one join you. Otherwise the animal is pacified but not made pet.
You might like to use something similar here with some in-game rationale. Suppose the Cogmind when reprogramming Identify Friend or Foe database has to encode there every signature of ally formerly assimilated. This makes assimilation progressively more difficult. Also it would make sense to vary the effect depending on "signature complexity".
Below when using rating I refer to schematic rating, not effective sum of part ratings.
* 1% times rating for every noncombat bot assimilated. This means you hardly feel the effect of assimilating some maintenance entities as cannon fodder. Operators, researchers, machinists and other such noncombat bots will make a dent in your assimilation chances as their ratings are higher.
* 2% times rating for every regular combat bot reprogrammed. The better your army the harder is to have more. As it should be. Assimilating a bunch of bots is still doable but this cannot become a huge army. A cohort, yes.
* 3% times rating for every specialist class combat bot in your entourage. They should be special! Their equipment is also so well chosen it deserves an upgrade.
* 4% times rating for prototype robot assimilated. It definitely should be possible to have an Alpha 7 or Stiker serve you. First time this happens it feels so good it would be a shame to make those unhackable. Two such bots for good hackers and three or four with some luck for elite hackers. If someone goes evolving utility slots for hackware only it could be more but such Cogmind opens itself up so much in other departments it could be excusable.
* A flat 50% for behemoths? Behemoths should be difficult to assimilate.
Having a limit of some kind on number of allies might be interesting. However, having allies impact the alert level more would achieve the same effect and would be cooler I think. You might have to face an altogether different kind of snowball: the alert snowball! Not seen since alpha 11! In one of my alpha 11 runs, and the first time anyone had really tried combat hacking much, I assembled a nice army in testing, but the alert level got out of control and I had to bail in a hurry:
All allies: (https://i.imgur.com/DMXaa9A.png])
And now, they're all dead, and everyone here is an enemy: (https://i.imgur.com/0xVreHk.png)
Also, I think the effect of allied operators on hacking success could be nerfed, at least to diminishing returns like botnets.
New suggested options:
Format hack for robots. This essentially wipes their IFF database turning them berserk, attacking everything in sight. They could also switch targets at random every turn. If robot is corrupted have the corruption amount dictate chance for turning neutral. Robots without weapons will not attack anyone but will still be considered enemies by the AI.
I like this one a lot. Basically frenzy in DCSS.
General suggestions:
Programmer's chance to deflect hack attempts on allies should be triggered before menu of options is presented. This makes them more of a threat to combat hackers and improves quality of life somewhat. It is a bummer to choose something and then be notified your choice effectively did not matter.
This this this! So many times I've been completely mystified as to why my hacks failed after I chose an option. "How could 95% success fail this often?"
Builder: I figure you forbade hacking them to avoid assimilation and using build command to for example wall off exits and garrisons to completely own the place. A sensible goal but in that case only disallow assimilate leaving other options open. Optionally have builders' analysis mention something along this:
"Due to plethora of architectural schematics required to be embedded in builder memory I needed a compromise in design to keep fabrication costs down. Model 05 features no IFF database because it can perform well enough without one and as a result Derelicts have been unable to reprogram it in the field. Unfortunate side effect is groups of U-05 Engineer keep eagerly working in the middle of combat zones until they attract enemy fire. Currently most of my research effort is dedicated elsewhere thus as temporary compensation for this flaw distress signals sent by U-05 are prioritized by reinforcement dispatch center."
Weak point of this explanation is when unaware accidentally shoot builders no reinforcement squads are dispatched.
I like this.
I thought it was intended that you could assimliate ARCs via reprogram. In any case, I think the robots that burst out of an allied ARC should be allied to you. I don't see a problem with ARCs being unhackable. They're probably the most thematic bots of the game to make unhackable. At least you can let them unload and hack the bots that come out.
- There was a particular datajack introduced in one of the last few alphas which sparked serious interest in combat hacking (I'm guessing you didn't find it or didn't exploit it to its full potential because it's nuts and you would be raving about it).
Are you thinking of guided remote datajack? I lost that one in delayed machine explosion. I assumed it was stable because it did not blow up for like five turns. It sure was nice for a short time while it lasted. Most probably it has far greater potential than I see there because I was only slightly impressed.
A small-time hacker shouldn't be able to have a chance of assimilating an Alpha 7. You should need to have +100 to hacking success to have any hope of assimilating it. Etc.
I think this is best approach.
The main problem with this is the instant kill mechanic. Lighter version of core overload could deliver damage to the core itself.(...)
I don't like this so much. It makes combat hacking more like actual combat. However, maybe it could be a time bomb of sorts? Or perhaps, if overloading gave 1000 heat to the target or something?
It is true my suggestion kicks hard into the overload hack feeling. On the other hand one shot kill is way too reliable to leave it without consequences.
Another thing is that combat hacking is weak against large groups of enemies, such as swarmers. You have to deal with them one by one. You can increase the incidence of these enemies to have a subtle effect on combat hacking.
Indeed, it will be subtle. Typically I wait until sufficient robot fodder to shield me is available. Then those are attacked first providing cover and ample opportunity to convert first swarmer/grunt. I choose one closest to me so that only a few enemies have chance to target me. The converted one will become next target so I concentrate on hacking another one but choose one with highest core integrity from now.
Having a limit of some kind on number of allies might be interesting. However, having allies impact the alert level more would achieve the same effect and would be cooler I think. You might have to face an altogether different kind of snowball: the alert snowball! Not seen since alpha 11! In one of my alpha 11 runs, and the first time anyone had really tried combat hacking much, I assembled a nice army in testing, but the alert level got out of control and I had to bail in a hurry:
Agreed, having alert rise high would solve all that much better. No matter how strong Cogmind's forces eventually MAIN.C will prevail like it did with Sigix.
Also, I think the effect of allied operators on hacking success could be nerfed, at least to diminishing returns like botnets.
Is this not the case already? I read somewhere the bonus is +10, +5, +2, +1, +1, +1, +1, ...
All I can find now is changelog entry for bugfix in Alpha 4 saying Operators after the fourth were giving nothing instead of +1.
I don't see a problem with ARCs being unhackable. They're probably the most thematic bots of the game to make unhackable. At least you can let them unload and hack the bots that come out.
If you look at it that way ARC could be regarded as a dumb vehicle whose core has no autonomy. Makes sense to forbid hacking but in that case you are right reprogram trojan should either not work or have ARC carry allies.
Slowing down the snowball is desirable, as it's easily the most reliable way to win right now, even if you ignore combat hacking entirely. I suggested a small change rather than a large one because snowballing hackware is actually quite fun and we wouldn't want to completely get rid of it I would think.
Increasing hackware rating will shift a) from early/mid factory to mid/late factory which will slow the build down significantly. Flight units are getting nerfed, so that will probably have an impact on fab meta game. Increasing the datajack rating will definitely affect how quickly the build comes online.
Hmm. Improved tier has rating four which makes it available at -7 where fabrication first becomes available. At the extreme this means fabbing regular system shields and hacking suites could be skipped entirely at lowest factory level. If improved hackware (and subsequently advanced and experimental tiers) were shifted to higher rating this would leave makeshift hackware to fit very nicely at rating four. I like this! Color me convinced.