Different Gameplay Approach

[Ultraviolet]

I apologize in advance for attempting any degree of coherence while using the English language so late at night.

I think a few things in the game would be more fun if they were approached differently. In many instances, breaking security is just a matter of buying the next version of a type of software that, no matter what version you are using against what level of security (firewall software versus firewalls, for instance), seems to function in the exact same way. It's like moving a bigger pile of dirt with a bigger shovel instead of using, say, a different method. This is great for minimizing the learning curve, but it lowers the potential discovery element of the game quite a bit and brings things down to the point of tedium eventually. What I hope for is, for instance, a more secure firewall not simply requiring the next software version, but perhaps a port-scan followed by an IP spoof, log-deletion requiring a "remote filesystem utility" -- would make it so that instead of having log-deleters you would just use your standard local file utilities, and perhaps add a few more to make up for the log utility functions that would be lost by discarding the log utilities in favor of local utilities working universally ("file edit" for one, can't recall anything more at the moment).

The first change or set of changes I would personally like to see would be changes to the implementation of firewalls. Instead of five different, inexplicably more potent than the version under it, versions of the firewall that one must have respectively higher bypass software versions in order to bypass, why not mix it up a bit? A level one firewall could be instead called a "simple" or "basic firewall" -- one that reports "port closures" to you when you attempt to access through it, giving your (must purchase) "port scanner" software the go-ahead to move on to another port. With, say, "version 1" or "basic" port scanner software, that process would work out smoothly, but different software could be required for a more complex firewall. Just a little side-note here, how long any port scan takes should be dependent on connection speed, not processing speed as with the password breaker and decypher.

A more complex firewall might be called a "stealth firewall," one that is configured not to respond at all to port requests, blocking them silently. The first version port scanner software would then be unable to move on to another port because it never gets verification that the port it attempts to connect to is was open or closed. Someone attempting to break a firewall with a higher level than their software would pay dearly, as they would be stuck there waiting to connect to an open port while their software waits for a response from the stealth firewall. The next version of the port scanner software could have a built-in time-out and a processing speed bonus against standard firewalls, just so there is both the ability to break more secure firewalls and a little bit of a bonus against normal firewalls. Waiting on each time-out and trying the next port until the port scanner software finds an open port will, of course, be a bit more time consuming, and the timing should be like the random luck of rolling through the character table such as with the password breaker, as the first open port one encounters could be randomized. Perhaps it could even work like getting and keeping admin access -- if you're detected they change the open ports after you disconnect, forcing you to port scan again if you want back in, but if they don't then you keep your easy-access.

The "ultimate" firewall, which could have a name like... uh... hell if I know, but it would be a stealth firewall as well, and also only respond to port queries from "trusted" addresses. This would require you to have not only the port scanning software used for the stealth firewall, but to have an IP spoofer as well, which in turn will require you to consult the InterNic for valid addresses to give to your IP spoofer. It is good sometimes to break the mold of level X software or above for level X security, level Y software or above for level Y security, because all that really means if you have to hold out a little longer doing lower paying missions until you can afford one more piece of software.

The IP spoofer could also be used for any other hack where you want to leave someone else's address in the server's logs, leaving a direct physical trace back to you as the only way you can be caught. Perhaps "version 2" of the IP spoofer could have a "randomize" button on the side just incase you wanna make something up fast (still leaves the ability to give a specific IP though, for "trusted" networks). I believe that all the software one will be required to run to pull off hacks under my scheme will balance that near-invulnerability out, though, because more user input will be required at all times, and the processors will be loaded-down so the user will have more waiting to do while the traces creep closer and closer...

I'd also like to see the connection analyzer be a little less revealing. If you haven't broken through that firewall that constitutes the outer layer of the target's security, how do you know what's behind it? The connection analyzer shouldn't even display "unknown" items on the connection. The player shouldn't be given even that because if I see three in a row, I know that they are monitor, proxy, and firewall, and there is no mystery to it. I've already got my mouse on the button starting up the necessary software and am ready to go by the time the connection is analyzed. This is why I say that the connection analyzer should only show as far as you have hacked, so you will know what measures to take, but not know what's going on two steps ahead.

USERNAMES! Always assuming the username to be "admin" is half of breaking the password! The "password breaker" should be renamed to "text field breaker" and be used on username and password fields the same way. Some systems could have additional login security that won't allow usernames and passwords to be entered seperately (where a normal one will let you break the username, then break the password, then enter, this would make each loop have to try a full username and password together and submit it for verification, taking a whole lot more processor time and bandwidth usage).

I read some of Scramby's ideas, and I am particularly fond of the idea of having other places to shop aside from Uplink. One should also have to provide for one's own transaction security, so that informants within the black market vendors can't inform the feds that some guy at such and such a location purchased this and that -- one must hack the vendor and delete the transaction logs! It can't always be the case, though, because not all vendors can be scum like that.

Being able to purchase and locate computers around the world would also be pretty cool.

This has been my two (maybe fifty) cents for the evening. Please discuss.

(Edited by Ultraviolet at 7:01 am on Mar. 7, 2004)

[Corruptation]

This is like applying features and you can do that in a mod.

But most of them are making Uplink more realistic which is not what we want. But then, you can choose let other people try.

Your ideas are about upgrading firewalls. This will result in a chain reaction. Different Firewalls => More coding on the firewalls, more programs to add => More text to add => A major change in the game => Uplink becomming realistic => Too Boring...and so on.

So attempting to change the hacking part of the game is like making Uplink 2.

[Ultraviolet]

Quote: from Corruptation on 12:25 pm on Mar. 7, 2004[br]This is like applying features and you can do that in a mod.

Oh, if ever there was an inappropriate place for the second-person accusatory... :-P

[Corruptation]

But it is a feature. Like in a game description:

Uplink 2 Features
New Proxy
Upgraded Firewall
New Softwares
Different difficulties
Different accounts to use on a server
Multiple plots
...

[Raistlin]

Quote: from Corruptation on 8:25 pm on Mar. 7, 2004[br]But most of them are making Uplink more realistic which is not what we want.

Dunno, that's exactly what I want.

[Ultraviolet]

As far as the realism concern goes,  the difference between a more complex version of Uplink and a "hacking simulator" is that Uplink STILL has magic buttons that let you hack, whereas in real hacking you still have a whole lot more work to do. Difficulty is not realism.

[Ahdinko]

Isn't real hacking all the console typing and evil boring tedious stuff?
Movies make things look so simple.. sword fish is cool

[edd8990]

What has been suggested here and in some other places, would not make Uplink boring. Indeed, more likely the opposite, requireing you to actually think for a change, which doesnt happen after abput 2 hours of playing Uplink.

[Ultraviolet]

Real hacking would be discovering security flaws/exploits/oversights and using them to bypass other security measures in use on a target machine. You could find such things within the GUI, I'm sure. "Real hacking" doesn't have to be all text. Of course, the portrayal of all the tedium one sees in "real hacking" is likely more accurate than we can imagine. For instance, on something like a Windows 2000 machine, you will first have to see if you are allowed to view directory permissions in order to see what you can and can't do, but if you can't even VIEW the permissions, then you have to sit there and test every different way of reading, writing, executing, and traversing directories and files to find one that works. It's not likely that one will find anything useful in the first 5 minutes.

[Raistlin]

Quote: from Ahdinko on 8:00 am on Mar. 8, 2004[br]Isn't real hacking all the console typing and evil boring tedious stuff?

Nobody says you can't simulate that console typing with a gui.

Movies make things look so simple.. sword fish is cool

Matrix Reloaded was even cooler for an opposite reason

(Edited by Raistlin at 4:27 am on Mar. 9, 2004)