Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kyzrati]

Edit: As of Alpha 6, all of these changes have been added to the game. This thread has been locked and further discussion can be continued in the Alpha 6 Discussion thread, if necessary.

I'm planning on tackling the hacking system for Alpha 6, and I'd like to let everyone know what direction I'm considering after going through all the relevant discussions again and thinking on it. None of this has been implemented yet because it's going to be a good bit of work and I want to address this system (in such a big way, anyway) only once, so I'll just submit the ideas themselves for feedback before taking any action.

The plan is to:

1 - Drop all processors and hackware to zero mass. Okay the latter actually already have zero mass, but this first change is one of several listed here which will affect both processors and hackware, as these are really just two names for the same general category of part. (This change would extend even to the better Targeting Computers, which have always been a bit heavier.)

2 - Significantly reduce the coverage of all processors and hackware, making them quite unlikely to be destroyed once attached. (Still a danger: Impact weapons.)

3 - Removing/replacing a processor or hackware part destroys it. We could consider this a free action.

4 - Remove trace resets. Once a trace begins, it will always retain its progress and pick up where it left off if you connect again. Reconnects do not immediately test for trace progress, however, only resuming once you start hacking.

5 - Remove system familiarity as a mechanic, and all related hackware.

6 - Because the above changes still don't fully address what I see as a crucial issue, Is it ever worth continually dedicating one or more slots to hackware instead of other parts?, I also propose combining the five remaining hackware types into only three. Strength (Hacking Suites) and Tunneling (Deep Network Scanners) will remain as is, while the third type will be a combination of all Stealth, Evasion, and Defense modifiers. Note that these latter modifiers will also become much more important in an environment where traces do not reset.


Together I think these changes will result in a much better hacking system.

The one aspect I'm still not 100% keen on is the removal = destruction mechanic, but without which this fix doesn't solve everything. As Happylisk says it's not very Cogmind-like, but for now I see it as the best way to forcibly curb the tedium that is hoarding hackware and swapping it in only for short durations. (No, I'm not going to let them work from the inventory.)

The alternative solution I came up with, permanent hacking/core upgrades, is even less Cogmind-like and presents numerous other issues.

As for visual reinforcement, the drag and drop box could appear in a different color if removal will destroy the part, such parts will somehow be marked differently in the attached parts list, and removal by keyboard command will require confirmation.


Let me know what you think, and this thread may at some point get an experimental preview build like I did for propulsion.

Note: This thread is an official continuation of the Hacking Overhaul thread. Thank you Decker and everyone else who contributed to that discussion.

[Sherlockkat]

The changes are interesting. I think reducing the number of hackware types and eliminating familiarity is a great idea. I am not sure how I feel about the removal = destruction mechanic. Any reason why you don't want to drop the coverage all the way down to zero? Is it to stop people from stacking processors/hackware without relying on other coverage tools like armor?

On the other hand, I am more excited about the fact this allows for a more stable high crit build where we stack target analyzers, core analyzers and targeting computers.

[Decker]

Let me know what you think

I am Decker and I approve this message! That sounds like a good plan to me (I'm biased, of course).

Three notes.

Hopefully the hackware will also have decent integrity so that it can last a while in combat.

The "permanent" (remove=destroy) mechanic would be a good opportunity to make repair stations relevant. When a hackware fries, leave it in place if you don't have replacement (hackware is currently rare -- I mean the first two types). You can bring it back online at the next repair station.

There is a danger of a all-or-nothing tradeoff here for the first two types of hackware. With slots so precious, the player might be forced to invest in only one type of hackware for it to have any significant effect.

I'm excited by the propulsion changes you made. I'll definitely give it a try as soon as I finish my seed run and knocked zxc's score off my spot

[zxc]

1 - Drop all processors and hackware to zero mass. Okay the latter actually already have zero mass, but this first change is one of several listed here which will affect both processors and hackware, as these are really just two names for the same general category of part. (This change would extend even to the better Targeting Computers, which have always been a bit heavier.)

This sounds cool. It's not a major change.

2 - Significantly reduce the coverage of all processors and hackware, making them quite unlikely to be destroyed once attached. (Still a danger: Impact weapons.)

This sounds very nice. Could you make them 0 coverage and treat them as base of 1 for purposes of impact weapons (if necessary)?

3 - Removing/replacing a processor or hackware part destroys it. We could consider this a free action.

See below.

4 - Remove trace resets. Once a trace begins, it will always retain its progress and pick up where it left off if you connect again. Reconnects do not immediately test for trace progress, however, only resuming once you start hacking.

I like this a lot! Standout change! Very anti-grind! Clever change!

5 - Remove system familiarity as a mechanic, and all related hackware.

It seemed quite a tiny effect even when I sought out familiarity. The botnet trojan makes this obsolete anyway.

6 - Because the above changes still don't fully address what I see as a crucial issue, Is it ever worth continually dedicating one or more slots to hackware instead of other parts?, I also propose combining the five remaining hackware types into only three. Strength (Hacking Suites) and Tunneling (Deep Network Scanners) will remain as is, while the third type will be a combination of all Stealth, Evasion, and Defense modifiers. Note that these latter modifiers will also become much more important in an environment where traces do not reset.

I would perhaps consider going even further and make hacking suites affect both direct and indirect hacks.

The one aspect I'm still not 100% keen on is the removal = destruction mechanic, but without which this fix doesn't solve everything. As Happylisk says it's not very Cogmind-like, but for now I see it as the best way to forcibly curb the tedium that is hoarding hackware and swapping it in only for short durations. (No, I'm not going to let them work from the inventory.)

The alternative solution I came up with, permanent hacking/core upgrades, is even less Cogmind-like and presents numerous other issues.

This is tricky to solve. There is another way: move hacking utilities into a separate category called Processors (along side Utilities, Propulsion etc) which starts with 0 slots. This way you have no incentive to unequip hacking utilities. This approach may not combine well with the simplification of hacking utilities as there wouldn't be a large variety of items to equip there, and it also seems heavy-handed.

Destruction on unequip would appear to solve the issue. This I think is a more flexible version of the above idea, as you have the option of destroying the item and retrieving that slot for other uses. I wouldn't mind this change but it seems inelegant because it's a special case. You could also increase matter costs of equipping/unequipping hackware, but this would also have the same issues of being a special case. Causing corruption on unequip is also possible.

I'll think about it some more.

On the other hand, I am more excited about the fact this allows for a more stable high crit build where we stack target analyzers, core analyzers and targeting computers.

This didn't even occur to me! Now I am really excited!

The "permanent" (remove=destroy) mechanic would be a good opportunity to make repair stations relevant. When a hackware fries, leave it in place if you don't have replacement (hackware is currently rare -- I mean the first two types). You can bring it back online at the next repair station.

There is a danger of a all-or-nothing tradeoff here for the first two types of hackware. With slots so precious, the player might be forced to invest in only one type of hackware for it to have any significant effect.

Making repair stations relevant would be good. I can't imagine a heavy-hacking Cogmind would ever unequip hackware though, unless to upgrade their hackware further and other slots aren't available.

The all-or-nothing dilemma can be solved by merging the two types into one. I would be keen for that, but we don't want to just go around culling all the items in the game... do we?

[Decker]

There is another way: move hacking utilities into a separate category called Processors (along side Utilities, Propulsion etc) which starts with 0 slots. This way you have no incentive to unequip hacking utilities.

That would work if you have Processors and Hackware as separate categories. Otherwise you have every incentive to juggle your combat processors with your hackware. Also, you would still want to juggle network scanners with hacking suites unless they were merged. Which is a good idea, IMO. I never really liked the hard tradeoff between those two. I think a mixture effect would be better (a hackware suits both roles, but it is better at one of these).

[zxc]

There is another way: move hacking utilities into a separate category called Processors (along side Utilities, Propulsion etc) which starts with 0 slots. This way you have no incentive to unequip hacking utilities.

That would work if you have Processors and Hackware as separate categories. Otherwise you have every incentive to juggle your combat processors with your hackware. Also, you would still want to juggle network scanners with hacking suites unless they were merged. Which is a good idea, IMO. I never really liked the hard tradeoff between those two. I think a mixture effect would be better (a hackware suits both roles, but it is better at one of these).

I did mean for hackware to be its own category if we went that route. I guess Processors was a bad name, but Hacking Utilities seemed too redundant. And yes, there would be an incentive to juggle the direct/indirect types unless they were merged. Also, there would still be an incentive to juggle if you made them a mixture, just probably a lower incentive. The trick would be to come up with new forms of hackware that would not be juggled and yet still be useful.

edit: Another issue with having a mixture of effects from hacking utilities would be that it complicates the calculation of success chance when comparing direct vs indirect.

[Happylisk]

I don't like the remove = destroy mechanic but I'm having trouble thinking of an alternative.  A new item slot for hackware and processors wouldn't work.  As decker said, that would just mean people would slot in targeting computers unless they were hacking.

A slot just for hackware wouldn't work either - you'd still be incentivized to keep that slot empty to avoid damage to the parts, only equipping the hackware when necessary. 

The one thing I can think of is fairly radical.  Remove hackware entirely and change how cogmind evolves.  Instead of just selecting from 4 slots, add a separate column to improve cogmind's hacking abilities (direct hacks, indirect hacks, and evasive hacking).  This would allow any cogmind to have hacking prowress irrespective of the whims of the RNG (ie what hackware drops), at the cost of slots and therefore combat strength.  Food for thought.

[Decker]

Also, there would still be an incentive to juggle if you made them a mixture, just probably a lower incentive.

Correct. I meant that for the remove=destroy scenario.

A slot just for hackware wouldn't work either - you'd still be incentivized to keep that slot empty to avoid damage to the parts, only equipping the hackware when necessary.

I bow to your superior reasoning skills.

This would allow any cogmind to have hacking prowress irrespective of the whims of the RNG (ie what hackware drops), at the cost of slots and therefore combat strength.

That's too much of a straightjacket for my tastes. You lose the reward of finding rare utilities (which is your point, but still) and you cannot change strategy mid-game.


EDIT.

Another issue with having a mixture of effects from hacking utilities would be that it complicates the calculation of success chance when comparing direct vs indirect.

Would it? What if you display the overall chances in the hacking HUD?

[zxc]

I don't like the remove = destroy mechanic but I'm having trouble thinking of an alternative.  A new item slot for hackware and processors wouldn't work.  As decker said, that would just mean people would slot in targeting computers unless they were hacking.

Misunderstanding what I meant.

A slot just for hackware wouldn't work either - you'd still be incentivized to keep that slot empty to avoid damage to the parts, only equipping the hackware when necessary. 

Solved by 0 coverage hacking items. However K has said he wants impact weapons to still have an impact, which is an issue because you would be incentivised to remove these hacking items when in danger of being hit by impact weapons. However, this is probably not a big deal as impact weapon-wielding enemies are rare, can probably be outrun on most hacking builds (flying), and you probably don't have the inventory space to just unequip hacking items.

edit:

Would it? What if you display the overall chances in the hacking HUD?

I support this! Still seems somewhat unnecessary to have hacking utilities that boost one type of hack slightly more than others, to me.

Fast moving threads with lots of edits are hard :/

[Happylisk]

As long as impact weapons do damage to hackware, you'd be incentivized to swap out when bashers come near, just like you use to drop scrolls in crawl when molted dragon showed up.  Although those enemies are slow, ambush traps happen and sometimes a tread cogmind wants to hack too.

I doubt there's going to be an elegant solution that pleases everyone.  Remove = destroy might be the way to go just for simplicity's sake. 

[Decker]

However, this is probably not a big deal as impact weapon-wielding enemies are rare, can probably be outrun on most hacking builds (flying), and you probably don't have the inventory space to just unequip hacking items.

In my specific case, it would be a problem. I run lean combat builds with few weapons, and I want hacking capabilities no matter what -- it's too vital. I definitely don't one-shot fighters (they're too tough), so I'd have to protect my hackware.

Sorry for the edit earlier, I won't do it again.

[zxc]

I have also made edits. It's fine really, I'm just noting it's hard to keep up at times. I'll be stopping now till Kyzrati posts or one of you comes up with an incredible solution.

[Kyzrati]

Any reason why you don't want to drop the coverage all the way down to zero? Is it to stop people from stacking processors/hackware without relying on other coverage tools like armor?

I considered it, but I think it's better if there is at least some chance for them to be destroyed by normal means (however small--the specific number has yet to be determined) and, yes, as you say a more important aspect is I don't want them to be completely invulnerable without at least some kind of protection from other parts.

Hopefully the hackware will also have decent integrity so that it can last a while in combat.

No, I didn't plan on increasing integrity significantly. Lower coverage serves as a more effective defensive quality, and less likely to be hit but also less likely to survive one is more in line with expectations for this type of part. Though I was thinking of increasing any of the lower values slightly so that they can often survive one hit from weaker weapons.

treat them as base of 1 for purposes of impact weapons (if necessary)?

As we discussed a while back (via email I think it was) I plan to change the impact weapon behavior so that coverage will no longer be a factor there (though yeah even low coverage parts will be more susceptible to it).

4 - Remove trace resets.

I like this a lot! Standout change! Very anti-grind! Clever change!

Funny. (Credit: This was zxc's idea.)

I would perhaps consider going even further and make hacking suites affect both direct and indirect hacks.

I think that's probably a pretty good idea. Only two types would be more reasonable than three, although some tweaking in terms of effect might be necessary. We'll see. Certainly I segregated the hacking utilities far too much for the original Alpha, but then that was the biggest system that was less integrated with the game overall when I added it, and from the beginning I've planned to do this overhaul once we had more collective gameplay experience to draw useful conclusions from.

The all-or-nothing dilemma can be solved by merging the two types into one. I would be keen for that, but we don't want to just go around culling all the items in the game... do we?

Heh, hackware are fairly secondary, and there are only a handful anyway, plus I'll be adding more items in the future

By merging them into only two types, they'll also be easier to acquire since you can get them from Operators.

I think a mixture effect would be better (a hackware suits both roles, but it is better at one of these).

I was thinking this might be a more interesting way to implement it. I'll see what it looks like when I start implementing the numbers. zxc has a point there, too, though: we don't want it to be annoyingly complicated.

The one thing I can think of is fairly radical.  Remove hackware entirely and change how cogmind evolves.  Instead of just selecting from 4 slots, add a separate column to improve cogmind's hacking abilities (direct hacks, indirect hacks, and evasive hacking).  This would allow any cogmind to have hacking prowress irrespective of the whims of the RNG (ie what hackware drops), at the cost of slots and therefore combat strength.  Food for thought.

Interesting, though yeah it sorta loses many of the benefits of being a Cogmind. (As you said before as well =p)

From what I'm seeing I think we can get away with only two types of hackware under more or less the original system.


...whew, the thread exploded suddenly while I was asleep ...


So my overall takeaway at this point is everything's probably good as stated, except we might go as tight as two types of hackware (possibly with the direct+indirect bonuses being non-parallel for some items).

I like leaving the threat of Brawlers taking out hackware. It's something you have to deal with and there are a number of strategies to do so. And yeah sometimes they might just get that terrifying whack in!

[Draco18s]

I'm pretty ok with 1-5, but...

6 - Because the above changes still don't fully address what I see as a crucial issue, Is it ever worth continually dedicating one or more slots to hackware instead of other parts?, I also propose combining the five remaining hackware types into only three. Strength (Hacking Suites) and Tunneling (Deep Network Scanners) will remain as is, while the third type will be a combination of all Stealth, Evasion, and Defense modifiers. Note that these latter modifiers will also become much more important in an environment where traces do not reset.

That's the crux of it, isn't it? Why would I dedicate slots to such a (relatively) niche use?
And my answer is:

I don't know. Not unless they provided some benefit outside hacking. One of the big issues I have with the various hackware and processors is their high energy/heat and low benefit. I remember once equipping a targeting processor for +4% to-hit and finding I couldn't keep it enabled do to the heat demands it made on Cogmind (and I was using ballistics!) [Note: memory may be faulty or incomplete. 12% corruption detected in primary core.]

The defensive utilities were usually better on average in terms of upkeep and benefit. The only one that tended to overheat me or run me out of energy unexpectedly were the force fields....Under sustained fire. So, doing exactly what I wanted them to and keeping me alive in the process.

As for what kind of...combat benefit the hacking utilities might have, I don't know. I know I had to go back to the drawing board with the game I'm working on. My attributes system wasn't covering my needs, the stats (despite being abstract) were too specific and didn't cover things like attack strength, accuracy, range, or the comparable defense values. Especially when I didn't want vision range (that is, detection range) to be determined by the same stat as attack range. Doubly especially if I wanted different types of attacks to key off different attributes, damage a second, and be armored by a third. I definitely didn't want a combat build that focused on blinding enemies to have the same stat allocation as one that hampered movement ("I don't care I'd you see me, but good luck giving chase!"), just like how a thermal build and a ballistics build have different power, weapon, and utility ratios: the thermal build will want more overall juice and its utilities will be primarily devoted to heat sinks. Even if the number of slots doesn't differ that much, how they're used is vastly altered.

[Kyzrati]

I remember once equipping a targeting processor for +4% to-hit and finding I couldn't keep it enabled do to the heat demands it made on Cogmind (and I was using ballistics!) [Note: memory may be faulty or incomplete. 12% corruption detected in primary core.]

Corruption, indeed, no processors nor hackware produce any heat whatsoever

The defensive utilities were usually better on average in terms of upkeep and benefit. The only one that tended to overheat me or run me out of energy unexpectedly were the force fields....Under sustained fire.

None of the 12 different types of force fields generate any heat, either . I think you're mistaking heat generation for energy consumption, which some utilities do have heavier requirements for (like shields). (Only a small percentage of utilities generate any heat at all, and almost all of those are armor, purely because they retain heat.)


With respect to the usefulness of hacking utilities, with a plan to combine all of the current effects into only two types of hackware, I think they'll be a lot more useful and worthy of slots. I almost think they'll be OP, if not for the fact that they don't have as much use during combat. That said, they're not entirely useless in combat, either, depending on your strategy. Robot hacking is a thing (to be more useful later), as is defending against Programmer hacking. I also never intended for non-stealth builds to be able to do very well at hacking, although that's the direction these changes are heading towards...

Maybe we should have Programmers be able to directly hack you for corruption as well, and the defensive hackware type would protect against that, too (though I don't want to go as far as making it seem required).

Looking at the new lists, with a single Hacking Suite you'd be better at:

- direct terminal hacks
- indirect terminal hacks
- robot hacking
- rewiring robots
- rewiring traps

And with a single piece of defensive hackware you'd be better at:

- reducing the chance of hacking detection
- reducing the chance of a floor-wide database lockout
- avoiding detection rate increases
- slowing trace progress
- avoiding feedback from traces
- protecting allies from Programmer hacking

That's a lot of benefits!

[Draco18s]

I blame the corruption on not having an opportunity to play some the contest. I knew it was heat or power and I was trying the fast flyer archetype, so the two were strongly correlated.

[Sherlockkat]

I also never intended for non-stealth builds to be able to do very well at hacking, although that's the direction these changes are heading towards...

Hacking is far too useful for certain non-stealth builds (any build as a matter of fact) to completely ignore it. For example, A mid-rangey combat build (2 power sources, 5 legs, 3~4 weapons and rest goes to utilities), which I enjoy playing, remains effective only within a certain region of the alert level spectrum. Once the alert level hits the deeper end of 2Z or early 3Z, things go south very fast. At that point, strategy goes out the window and you are just scrambling looking for the exit while being chased down by ARCs, hunters (I hate them) and programmers.

The problems don't end once you find the stairs, due to the positive feedback phenomenon which decker bought up a couple of days ago. The alert level doesn't go down enough and it soon climbs back up to a point where you can no longer keep up with attrition. Most of my runs end on -4 and -3 due to this. You cannot just ignore hacking and keep at it.

Hacking, at this point of alpha, plays a crucial support role for the mid-rangey combat builds. You need to constantly alert(purge)  and occasionally, get lucky with access(main) to get anywhere. As you mentioned in the positive feedback post, this might be alleviated a bit with the inclusion of branches.

On a completely different and unrelated note, what's up with this item called error protection suite? -10 matter upkeep wth ?? I had it turned on without reading the stats and it ate through my matter reserves in a couple of turns and I died on -5 as I went allin on kinetics . Killed by my own utilities.

[Kyzrati]

Yeah, once there are more mid- and late-game branches, regardless of what they contain, the security level issue will change significantly and that build will be more viable even into end. I'm on it! (Adding two new maps this week, though for now still in the same branch I'm working to expand in full--Extension...)

Another important change coming to Research in Alpha 6 is more terminals.

I have special things planned for Research... In fact, part of said changes were already included in Alpha 5, but I can say no more...

what's up with this item called error protection suite? -10 matter upkeep wth ?? I had it turned on without reading the stats and it ate through my matter reserves in a couple of turns and I died on -5 as I went allin on kinetics . Killed by my own utilities.

That one is a bit of a problem because it's the only item in the game that requires matter upkeep. (Well, there's one other but no one's seen it yet ) As such, it's easy to overlook that it's eating your reserves until it's too late, even with the alarm sound.

From a design standpoint it requires a matter upkeep so that there is a real cost associated with its permanent benefit, otherwise it's trivial to use and you'd want to use it every time.

It's been complained about several times before, so something should probably be done about it. Rather than remove it from the game (my first reaction ) an alternative would be to have it deduct matter only when it actually takes effect, though that is also a completely new system. That's the main intent of its design, that you only activate it for the one turn you need it, then deactivate it afterward. This was a way to use the existing mechanics to create such a part, but it's obviously problematic and not very intuitive.

I'll change it to the alternative! And also just remove its energy upkeep, which is kinda pointless anyway since you don't often use it in combat, when energy matters most.

[zxc]

With respect to the usefulness of hacking utilities, with a plan to combine all of the current effects into only two types of hackware, I think they'll be a lot more useful and worthy of slots. I almost think they'll be OP, if not for the fact that they don't have as much use during combat.

You realise I'm gonna have a ball on my stealth Cogminds

[Kyzrati]

Heh, I imagine so, since they're already reliably winnable!

I believe these and other future changes will enable a wider variety of viable non-combat/semi-combat builds in general. I know I'll be running some different builds come Alpha 6. Previously I've mostly not bothered with focusing on hacking since I know there will come a time when the system is significantly improved and better suited to it.

There are more hacks to come, too, to fuel your indecision when you can no longer wait for trace resets and every terminal becomes that much more precious

[zxc]

One thing that niggles me about hacking is that sometimes I'm not sure if I can make one more hack before system lockout. Is it semi-randomised (so it's a risk) or is it not random but merely hidden? Anyway I am just wondering if more clarity there is desirable.

[Kyzrati]

It's based on whether or not you succeeded in your hack, and if you failed, then how badly. So the last stretch of the hack is meant to be risky (unless you don't care about being traced--you did win the AC2015 achievement for that ).

It can be decreased significantly with defensive hacking utilities, so they'll become more important if you want to get more out of a single machine. And I think using one of those more frequently will make it more apparent how the system is working, enough to get a feel for when you might be able to push it. Right now if you don't use one you get traced fairly quickly.

That'll be an important difference remaining between semi-hackers and true hackers.

[Gaspard]

I think that currently hacking lacks a bit connection to the "real cogmind world" and relies a bit to much on meta-knowledge.
What follows here is a proposition for a very wild change of the hacking system.
I read the devblog about to be sure I wasn't proposing something that already exists, and some parts do overlap.
Take from this what you will.
The way I understand it, cogmind takes place in the future, and I would expect the future to be very interconnected.
Remove all indirect hacks. Remove all hacks giving locations.
Add a hacking utility to install trojans and a hacking utility for brute force hacks.
The hacks are listed if you have them activated while accessing a terminal.
Add a "connect" command, a "reconnect" command, and a "locate" command.
"Connect" allows to connect to a specific machine or robot in range of the terminal to access it. Range is greater for high security stuff.
Upon successful connection, a new list of available commands is displayed. Some of them have no risk associated (orders) others do (hacks).
If the entity you connect to is lower in the hierarchy, you can give it orders.
Hierarchy is as follows: Terminals can give orders to terminals of same or lower security level and robots / non-terminal machines.
Robots and non-terminal machines have no power.
If the entity cannot be given orders, you can try to hack it.
Upon doing something else than a "connect" command, the connection is terminated, and you're back to the original terminal.
You can then attempt the "reconnect" command to re-establish the same series of connections.
"Locate" allows to retrieve the position of something, it should be an easy hack.
Robots could have more commands like "view", "goto", "target" etc. (Most commands you can give to allied robots should be there too)
Each command you give through is a new hack of course, so those robots aren't allies.
Add some hacking weapons like "wifi connector" which before firing the volley allows you to attempt to "connect" to something in range and maybe just give orders from a nearby terminal to a programmer to flee, or quantum connector which can be generated at a terminal and will connect to that terminal whatever your position. These kinds of weapons would act just before your volley. Locate could give a +% hit chance on the robot you locate for that turn etc.
 
Why I think this system would be fun:
This would allow to get intel about what is on the floor, without knowing where. It should ideally be easier to move around from terminal to terminal than to locate one.
Access(Main) instead to be a small percentage of chance to pull off(how is that any fun?) would be more about going around in the network and locating stuff, downloading map data, etc.
If you want to purge(threat), you need to move around the network to find a terminal who can perform that command, not just remember what letters to type.
This would also make hacking more useful in combat. Reprogramming traps while not next to them and the enemies are coming at you, telling some serfs to come between you and your opponents to serve as meat erm scrap-shield, making some machine blow up at the right time etc.
For stealth you could tell a watcher at the other end of the map to send out a distress signal, see that some squad is nearby etc.

These are all suggestions of course, do what you want with them 

[Kyzrati]

Hey Gaspard. Um, that's a pretty different game

And much more complicated! Hacking is meant to be a relatively quick system to use, and has been trending towards increasingly quick as it's further streamlined. Complexifying it in this way would slow down the flow of the game.

Regarding the option to manually enter commands (which as you know are not the same as directly hacking them because success is more difficult and you don't know the chance, either), one possibility is to allow your buffer contents to be a clickable menu. That would be more accessible, though I really like that you have to type them in, or at least search a bit back through your buffer. Either way, more buffer improvements coming.

[zxc]

The main indirect hacking improvement I want is to be able to type in the commands without caps!