Discussion: Meaningful Implications of Political Assassinations

Banjo

Advocate

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Posts
204
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
It is a very interesting topic and seems intuitively very tangible and exciting. It is probably rooted in some deep animal desire or power fantasy.
However, it falls short in a game world when represented in its simplest form of removing or controlling the physical representation of the player. For multiple reasons. This is a game, which means that when killing or taking another player hostage, you are actually only doing this to a representation of the actual person. The person can still act and metagame without you having a say. This can take the form of still being able to command and talk over 3rd party coms and using alternative characters or other workarounds to still affect the game world. I quite like Hari’s comment on this and won’t add more. Simply put, Straight-up assassination / hostage-taking won’t work outside of RP events.

I do like some of the ideas that you guys have been kicking about, but again they fall short on some points because of the possibility of metagaming. If you overload HC avatars with negatives, the player will simply create an alt to play on instead of the HC account while still acting like the HC. (insert baddbobs quote about shinny text)
If you want to attach consequences for playing an HC avatar you’ll also need to give benefits.
Some of the suggestions have this balance which is definitely in the right direction.

Another aspect to keep in mind is why do we want this feature(as for any feature). Is there a problem we are trying to tackle, or some feeling/experience we want the player to have?
In this particular scenario, I don’t think there is a problem we are trying to correct, perhaps HC avatars are representing themself as important and are instead used for afk mining/scouting?
I don’t think this feature originates from solving a design problem, but rather a yearning for an exciting experience. A hidden assassin who very professionally and stealthily takes out the target, to bring down a dictator or enemy leader. A power fantasy where the player(s) plan and execute a complex and hard challenge to bring huge benefit for his entire group/faction.

I like the idea of HC having a lootable item. An item that gives him great powers worthy to risk for the downsides of being an HC. But also something that will give the enemy a huge benefit if acquired.

I also liked Dick Kickems idea of this complex hacking of the mainframe with multiple cross-faction interactions, coordination, and timing. This idea brings that flavor of planning for the assassination with high complexity and many possibilities for failure. It sadly falls short on the outcome effect, which can be negated by metagaming.

An exciting topic that I’ll have to brainstorm on.
 

Banjo

Advocate

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Posts
204
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I have thought a little bit more about this. I have come to like the idea of an item being involved quite a bit. It is much easier to control an item in the game world than actual players. You can more easily hold an item for ransom and trade it than a player. A player might get bored and log out or meta-game the mechanic. Both of which we don’t want.
My idea is not perfect but I will share it with you regardless, to get the creativity going.

Currently, HC members have the privilege to withdraw funds from territories.
These funds are valuable to the whole faction and would suck to get destroyed or stolen.
Let's say that for some reason, these funds cannot be withdrawn by the click of a button in the TC as it is right now. Instead, an HC member has to transfer the funds by manually executing a 3-way handshake.
First, the HC member picks up a security chip from the faction HQ with the HQ database public key in it. This chip will act as our item that other players may "assassinate" the HC member for and keep "hostage"(more on this later).
The HC member takes the security chip imprinted with his faction’s public key on it to a territory controller they own. The territory controller then uses the public encryption key on the chip to encrypt the funds onto the physical chip.
Now the HC member has to take the security chip back to the HQ to transfer the funds into the faction database.
The security chip is lootable on death, but the funds can only be transferred to the HQ its public key belongs to.

This gives us an item that is valuable for the owner faction held by high ranking members.
It can be destroyed("assassinated") or held for ransom(“hostage”).
Enemy factions see this as a valuable target that benefits their faction by hurting their enemies.
It is possible to make it more profitable by giving the enemy faction the ability to receive some of the funds after collect X amount of security chips.
Or alternatively after X amount of time inside the enemy HQ database.
Note that the security chip should not be able to be placed in a storage, and should drop when a player logout.

This way the HC member takes on knowingly a risk where the outcome outweighs the risk.
It also makes it so the HC member doesn't have to constantly be on his toes as I think that would tier out the player, and possibly cause him to log out.

To be able to capture the security chip, the enemy will have to plan it out, possibly using spies or scouts to figure out when and where the transfer will happen.
They might want to scout out a good location on the assumed path the HC will take and set up an ambush.
Afterward, they will have to find a good hiding spot to hold the security chip in, while negotiating a ransom.

This idea brings together the thrill of planning and executing a violent action against a high-ranking enemy officer to gain control over something valuable for the enemy faction(and possibly themself).

Where this idea falls apart, is that it introduces more manual labor that might or might not bring exciting gameplay.
If found to be too much work, you could alter it to be a weekly event that HC has to do to be able to transfer the funds as normal.

Another possible downside could be timing, perhaps the HC chooses to do ninja transfers in the middle of the night where no one is on.
If this behavior is unwanted/unsatisfying you could introduce a window of opportunity where the transfer has to occur.

Thirdly the idea is kinda shaky lore-wise. If you notice what I called a 3way handshake only actually involves 2 steps and also the manual walking makes no sense.
Perhaps the loremasters (or you) could figure something better out.

Feel free to pick the idea apart so we can find the flaws and improve on them, or maybe just use it as a learning experience for another possible solution.
 

Rian Felix

Dilettante

Golden Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
Apr 21, 2018
Posts
108
Followers of Eternity
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I have thought a little bit more about this. I have come to like the idea of an item being involved quite a bit. It is much easier to control an item in the game world than actual players. You can more easily hold an item for ransom and trade it than a player. A player might get bored and log out or meta-game the mechanic. Both of which we don’t want.
My idea is not perfect but I will share it with you regardless, to get the creativity going.

Currently, HC members have the privilege to withdraw funds from territories.
These funds are valuable to the whole faction and would suck to get destroyed or stolen.
Let's say that for some reason, these funds cannot be withdrawn by the click of a button in the TC as it is right now. Instead, an HC member has to transfer the funds by manually executing a 3-way handshake.
First, the HC member picks up a security chip from the faction HQ with the HQ database public key in it. This chip will act as our item that other players may "assassinate" the HC member for and keep "hostage"(more on this later).
The HC member takes the security chip imprinted with his faction’s public key on it to a territory controller they own. The territory controller then uses the public encryption key on the chip to encrypt the funds onto the physical chip.
Now the HC member has to take the security chip back to the HQ to transfer the funds into the faction database.
The security chip is lootable on death, but the funds can only be transferred to the HQ its public key belongs to.

This gives us an item that is valuable for the owner faction held by high ranking members.
It can be destroyed("assassinated") or held for ransom(“hostage”).
Enemy factions see this as a valuable target that benefits their faction by hurting their enemies.
It is possible to make it more profitable by giving the enemy faction the ability to receive some of the funds after collect X amount of security chips.
Or alternatively after X amount of time inside the enemy HQ database.
Note that the security chip should not be able to be placed in a storage, and should drop when a player logout.

This way the HC member takes on knowingly a risk where the outcome outweighs the risk.
It also makes it so the HC member doesn't have to constantly be on his toes as I think that would tier out the player, and possibly cause him to log out.

To be able to capture the security chip, the enemy will have to plan it out, possibly using spies or scouts to figure out when and where the transfer will happen.
They might want to scout out a good location on the assumed path the HC will take and set up an ambush.
Afterward, they will have to find a good hiding spot to hold the security chip in, while negotiating a ransom.

This idea brings together the thrill of planning and executing a violent action against a high-ranking enemy officer to gain control over something valuable for the enemy faction(and possibly themself).

Where this idea falls apart, is that it introduces more manual labor that might or might not bring exciting gameplay.
If found to be too much work, you could alter it to be a weekly event that HC has to do to be able to transfer the funds as normal.

Another possible downside could be timing, perhaps the HC chooses to do ninja transfers in the middle of the night where no one is on.
If this behavior is unwanted/unsatisfying you could introduce a window of opportunity where the transfer has to occur.

Thirdly the idea is kinda shaky lore-wise. If you notice what I called a 3way handshake only actually involves 2 steps and also the manual walking makes no sense.
Perhaps the loremasters (or you) could figure something better out.

Feel free to pick the idea apart so we can find the flaws and improve on them, or maybe just use it as a learning experience for another possible solution.
Tldr i like
 
  • Like
Reactions: XCali

XCali

Taxpayer

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
May 2, 2020
Posts
35
Followers of Eternity
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
To be honest, this would be good content for FOE since we will probably have siphoning from TCs in the near future. But I hope HCs won’t be corrupted and try to take funds out and give it to other factions as treason. That’s where shady things could possibly happen. But overall it sounds like a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Banjo

Banjo

Advocate

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Posts
204
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
To be honest, this would be good content for FOE since we will probably have siphoning from TCs in the near future. But I hope HCs won’t be corrupted and try to take funds out and give it to other factions as treason. That’s where shady things could possibly happen. But overall it sounds like a good idea.
You could expand it to siphoning by giving foe a faction perk to slowly withdraw the funds from the chip while other factions can only hold it for ransom. Personally I think siphoning should invoke different kind of feelings. I would associate siphoning with leeching and being sneaky.

As for corruption I believe that the current fund redrawels already allow for corruption. I kinda like that this is possible, since it fits with the cyberpunk theme. But yes it is a disadvantage. The hc could willingly hand over the chip to the enemy for ransom, even if they can't take the money. Keep in mind though that we are only talking about the funds in a territory and not the entire faction funds. So the scope of harm is limited.
 

Myth

Dweller

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Posts
10
Civilian
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I dumbed down my ideas to this, as some sort of Proof of Concept:

1. The assassination of a player consists in removing them from play for a definite amount of time chosen by the assassin (a week, two weeks...). It does not imply a final death of the assassinated player. The more time the player is removed from play, the higher the cost to perform the assassination. There should be a maximum time a player is removed from play.
2. Whenever an assassinated player logs in his character, he is stuck in a cloning tub, somewhere it is stated how much time remains until full recovery. During this time, the player can't leave the cloning tub nor communicate with anyone through ingame means.
3. The assassin can choose to disclose the substances used for the assassination which would cause the acceleration of the recovery of the assassinated player, this could provide a negotiation element to bring back the assassinated player into play prematurely.
4. When a player fully recovers from assassination, he is compensated by the new Dolly INC with increased cover that prevents him from being assassinated again for the same amount of time he spent fully recovering (or an amount of time to be defined). This time is intended to be used by the recently assassinated player to build his defences or amend his wrongdoings to prevent another potential assassination attempt.
5. Any player in the game is subject to be assassinated, regardless of their role or rank.
6. The process the assassin has to follow to assassinate someone is to be defined. However it should not be easily accessible for individuals.

I think it is very difficult to prevent someone from contributing in any way to the game due to third party programs and the like, so I kind of focused on removing the player from contributing to war/economy efforts (e.g. an assassination target could be a well-known target caller, leader, good fighter, a rank with specific ingame privileges... prior to declaring a war), I think this would in turn cause factions to be more dynamic and train more players into specific positions rather than rely on a handful of people and avoid the creation of circle jerks (or perhaps encourage the creation of bigger ones, which would accelerate their downfall anyway, I guess).

I think it is balanced in the sense that it won't be a deciding factor in the scenario of a war for a well structured faction, but can create several inconveniences depending on the players assassinated. I do not feel it is too punishing for players either as to be hiding when playing or not logging in to avoid being assassinated.

4 is so that someone is not constantly assassinated and has the opportunity to get resources back against another potential assassination, I do not think the protection can be abused as to exploit it you would need to anticipate when someone will attack you, which you should not know unless told by the other party in some way or they are too obvious.

Not too much detail, but I'll try to get dive more into the specifics of my suggestions as I get more familiar with MR.
 

Safwan

Activist

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Posts
314
Civil Protection Commission
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
Honestly I want casual/serious RP. Not hardcore RP. Hardcore RP becomes a bit much.
 

Banjo

Advocate

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Posts
204
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I dumbed down my ideas to this, as some sort of Proof of Concept:

1. The assassination of a player consists in removing them from play for a definite amount of time chosen by the assassin (a week, two weeks...). It does not imply a final death of the assassinated player. The more time the player is removed from play, the higher the cost to perform the assassination. There should be a maximum time a player is removed from play.
2. Whenever an assassinated player logs in his character, he is stuck in a cloning tub, somewhere it is stated how much time remains until full recovery. During this time, the player can't leave the cloning tub nor communicate with anyone through ingame means.
3. The assassin can choose to disclose the substances used for the assassination which would cause the acceleration of the recovery of the assassinated player, this could provide a negotiation element to bring back the assassinated player into play prematurely.
4. When a player fully recovers from assassination, he is compensated by the new Dolly INC with increased cover that prevents him from being assassinated again for the same amount of time he spent fully recovering (or an amount of time to be defined). This time is intended to be used by the recently assassinated player to build his defences or amend his wrongdoings to prevent another potential assassination attempt.
5. Any player in the game is subject to be assassinated, regardless of their role or rank.
6. The process the assassin has to follow to assassinate someone is to be defined. However it should not be easily accessible for individuals.

I think it is very difficult to prevent someone from contributing in any way to the game due to third party programs and the like, so I kind of focused on removing the player from contributing to war/economy efforts (e.g. an assassination target could be a well-known target caller, leader, good fighter, a rank with specific ingame privileges... prior to declaring a war), I think this would in turn cause factions to be more dynamic and train more players into specific positions rather than rely on a handful of people and avoid the creation of circle jerks (or perhaps encourage the creation of bigger ones, which would accelerate their downfall anyway, I guess).

I think it is balanced in the sense that it won't be a deciding factor in the scenario of a war for a well structured faction, but can create several inconveniences depending on the players assassinated. I do not feel it is too punishing for players either as to be hiding when playing or not logging in to avoid being assassinated.

4 is so that someone is not constantly assassinated and has the opportunity to get resources back against another potential assassination, I do not think the protection can be abused as to exploit it you would need to anticipate when someone will attack you, which you should not know unless told by the other party in some way or they are too obvious.

Not too much detail, but I'll try to get dive more into the specifics of my suggestions as I get more familiar with MR.
It seems like you have glanced over/ignored player enjoyment and the use of alt accounts as workarounds. These problems have been previously discussed in this thread and would be nice if you could expand on these topics. I see these 2 points as the biggest flaws with your suggestion. A 1-2week removal from the game seems like a rather radical approach (it is basically a player-controlled ban, and worse than going to jail). Especially since you say that it should be accessible to individuals.
I can see this being massively abused to mass ban players from the game, especially since no guidelines for how to execute the assassination. If someone is unable to play the game for 1-2weeks they are much more likely to find another game and not come back. This implementation seems harmful to player retention in a world where peoples attention span is becoming smaller and smaller and the market is growing bigger and bigger.

I'm worried that you are more focused on removing players from the game, rather than expanding the experiences the player can have in the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Myth

Myth

Dweller

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Posts
10
Civilian
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
It seems like you have glanced over/ignored player enjoyment and the use of alt accounts as workarounds. These problems have been previously discussed in this thread and would be nice if you could expand on these topics. I see these 2 points as the biggest flaws with your suggestion. A 1-2week removal from the game seems like a rather radical approach (it is basically a player-controlled ban, and worse than going to jail). Especially since you say that it should be accessible to individuals.
I can see this being massively abused to mass ban players from the game, especially since no guidelines for how to execute the assassination. If someone is unable to play the game for 1-2weeks they are much more likely to find another game and not come back. This implementation seems harmful to player retention in a world where peoples attention span is becoming smaller and smaller and the market is growing bigger and bigger.

I'm worried that you are more focused on removing players from the game, rather than expanding the experiences the player can have in the game.
I thought that alt accounts were not allowed in MR, I probably misread.

I do agree with most of what you said, and I also do not like the idea of keeping players out of the game. But how else can you make someone's death really meaningful? I feel anything related to money such as more expensive clones or blocking the sources of income are negligible for a faction/individual that is already wealthy, and if the process is meant to be expensive/time expensive for the assassin/s then perhaps it does not make sense for them to do if it is going to be costly for them and negligible for the target.

Your concept about security chips looks interesting but I think it transforms HC into some form of futuristic pizza delivery guys chained to some ingame artefacts and puts them in a position where they have to do cumbersome work to get money for their faction when they are also players meant to enjoy the game. In terms of balance I think it also benefits the already wealthy/powerful factions because someone with more than enough money will not risk going through all that process until they have guarantees that it is safe to do so, and can afford to wait until it is safe to get their money, or simply hire mercs if short of manpower, while poor factions will become poorer if they become the target of this mechanic.
 

Banjo

Advocate

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Posts
204
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I thought that alt accounts were not allowed in MR, I probably misread.

I do agree with most of what you said, and I also do not like the idea of keeping players out of the game. But how else can you make someone's death really meaningful? I feel anything related to money such as more expensive clones or blocking the sources of income are negligible for a faction/individual that is already wealthy, and if the process is meant to be expensive/time expensive for the assassin/s then perhaps it does not make sense for them to do if it is going to be costly for them and negligible for the target.
I think the focus on assassinations with individual effects will only lead to a negative player experience.
HC members should be more concerned about the faction, as they have likely already achieved all the individual goals in the game at that point. Likewise, when you look at high-profile assassinations, they are executed to have a ripple effect through the organization they represent. JFK was not assassinated because he said "Fuck you" to some guy on the street,
he was assassinated for his influence over the political landscape. While impossible to have a similar effect in the game,
I believe that we should mirror the scale of the consequence to be directed towards the larger organization. Other people have suggested to hand over faction privileges/abilities to the assassinator, which likewise could have ramifications on a faction scale.


Your concept about security chips looks interesting but I think it transforms HC into some form of futuristic pizza delivery guys chained to some ingame artefacts and puts them in a position where they have to do cumbersome work to get money for their faction when they are also players meant to enjoy the game. In terms of balance I think it also benefits the already wealthy/powerful factions because someone with more than enough money will not risk going through all that process until they have guarantees that it is safe to do so, and can afford to wait until it is safe to get their money, or simply hire mercs if short of manpower, while poor factions will become poorer if they become the target of this mechanic.

Yes as I pointed out in my post the solution as described is labor-intensive, however as I wrote it can be solved by limiting the security transfer to once a week or any other period, which would greatly reduce the required labor and increase the risk involved through increased funds in the chip.
I'm however open to hear more elegant solutions.

"wait until it is safe" Is likewise covered in the original post.

About balancing the risk/reward:
This can be done by increasing the time between security checks, increasing the funds held by the chip. Which I believe I also mentioned in the other post.

I don't see how hiring mercs is a bad idea for this task, it increases the UC in circulation and creates content.

It is impossible to make a game with hostile mechanics where lesser skilled players/organizations will not
be punished by their poor performance. This is another conversation that stretched to more issues than just an assassination.
There are of course solutions to it, so I don't see this as a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Myth

Myth

Dweller

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Posts
10
Civilian
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I think the focus on assassinations with individual effects will only lead to a negative player experience.
HC members should be more concerned about the faction, as they have likely already achieved all the individual goals in the game at that point. Likewise, when you look at high-profile assassinations, they are executed to have a ripple effect through the organization they represent. JFK was not assassinated because he said "Fuck you" to some guy on the street,
he was assassinated for his influence over the political landscape. While impossible to have a similar effect in the game,
I believe that we should mirror the scale of the consequence to be directed towards the larger organization. Other people have suggested to hand over faction privileges/abilities to the assassinator, which likewise could have ramifications on a faction scale.




Yes as I pointed out in my post the solution as described is labor-intensive, however as I wrote it can be solved by limiting the security transfer to once a week or any other period, which would greatly reduce the required labor and increase the risk involved through increased funds in the chip.
I'm however open to hear more elegant solutions.

"wait until it is safe" Is likewise covered in the original post.

About balancing the risk/reward:
This can be done by increasing the time between security checks, increasing the funds held by the chip. Which I believe I also mentioned in the other post.

I don't see how hiring mercs is a bad idea for this task, it increases the UC in circulation and creates content.

It is impossible to make a game with hostile mechanics where lesser skilled players/organizations will not
be punished by their poor performance. This is another conversation that stretched to more issues than just an assassination.
There are of course solutions to it, so I don't see this as a problem.
I do agree with most of the things you said, my focus on removing people from play was to prevent the faction from having good fighters, ecolords, target callers, leaders during a war... but the individual effect is far too punishing.

Ok, dropping some ideas:

- The faction HQ holds a key, "HQ Key", this key has a public component and a private component.

- Each territory controller holds a key, "TC Key", this key has a public component and a private component.

- A territory controller is capable of generating "encrypted funds packages" from the "funds" currently available in it, using the private component of its "TC Key" and the public component of the "HQ Key". The "encrypted funds package" consists of the "funds" and the public component of the "TC Key".

- A faction HQ is capable of recreating the "funds" from the "encrypted funds packages", using the private component of the "HQ Key" and the public component of the "TC Key" in the "encrypted funds package".

- Whenever an "encrypted funds package" is generated, it creates an item in the inventory of the person that triggered it, after a (short) time window, it is removed from their inventory and transferred to the Faction HQ for it to be decrypted and transformed into "funds". This is the "transfer process".

- Whenever an "encrypted funds package" is received in the Faction HQ via a "transfer process", the "decryption process" automatically starts, this uses the private component of the "HQ Key" and the public component in the "encrypted funds package". After the "decryption process" finishes, the funds are available for the faction.

Now, there are a few things here that can be exploited by attackers:

- It is possible to hack a territory controller by an attacker and inject his own version of the "TC Key", this generates a "corrupted encrypted funds package", the original faction is unaware that it is corrupted. This triggers the "transfer process" and the "decryption process" as usual. However, a "corrupted encrypted funds package" will fail to be transformed into "funds" after the "decryption process". This also causes the territory controller to be sane again and would need to be hacked again with another "TC Key" to exploit this.

- It is possible for an attacker to disclose to the original faction the hacked "TC Key", which introduces a negotiation element, so that the original faction can decrypt the "corrupted encrypted funds package" and get the "funds".

- It is possible to hack a faction HQ to obtain the current "HQ Key" in use by that faction to decrypt their "encrypted funds packages" and transform them into "funds" for their own faction.

- It is possible to raid a faction HQ to obtain "encrypted funds packages" that are currently in the "decryption process", and decrypt them with the "HQ Key".

- It is possible to kill the person of the original faction during the "transfer window" and recover the "encrypted funds package" from them, either to be held for ransom, be destroyed or to be decrypted if the attacker has the "HQ Key".

- A faction that suspects that their "HQ Key" has been compromised can regenerate the "HQ Key" manually, which would be available again after a time window, however this would imply that that all the "encrypted funds packages" generated so far will fail to be decrypted for the original faction, thus losing those funds. It is not possible to collect "encrypted funds packages" until the "HQ Key" is regenerated, as there is no key to encrypt them with.

I feel this removes manual labour and allows weaker factions to use the element of surprise and stealth to weaken factions and perhaps even live off them. I feel the post is already quite long to write much more stuff.
 
Last edited:

Banjo

Advocate

Bronzed Donator
Alpha Tester
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Posts
204
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I do agree with most of the things you said, my focus on removing people from play was to prevent the faction from having good fighters, ecolords, target callers, leaders during a war... but the individual effect is far too punishing.

Ok, dropping some ideas:

- The faction HQ holds a key, "HQ Key", this key has a public component and a private component.

- Each territory controller holds a key, "TC Key", this key has a public component and a private component.

- A territory controller is capable of generating "encrypted funds packages" from the "funds" currently available in it, using the private component of its "TC Key" and the public component of the "HQ Key". The "encrypted funds package" consists of the "funds" and the public component of the "TC Key".

- A faction HQ is capable of recreating the "funds" from the "encrypted funds packages", using the private component of the "HQ Key" and the public component of the "TC Key" in the "encrypted funds package".

- Whenever an "encrypted funds package" is generated, it creates an item in the inventory of the person that triggered it, after a (short) time window, it is removed from their inventory and transferred to the Faction HQ for it to be decrypted and transformed into "funds". This is the "transfer process".

- Whenever an "encrypted funds package" is received in the Faction HQ via a "transfer process", the "decryption process" automatically starts, this uses the private component of the "HQ Key" and the public component in the "encrypted funds package". After the "decryption process" finishes, the funds are available for the faction.

Now, there are a few things here that can be exploited by attackers:

- It is possible to hack a territory controller by an attacker and inject his own version of the "TC Key", this generates a "corrupted encrypted funds package", the original faction is unaware that it is corrupted. This triggers the "transfer process" and the "decryption process" as usual. However, a "corrupted encrypted funds package" will fail to be transformed into "funds" after the "decryption process". This also causes the territory controller to be sane again and would need to be hacked again with another "TC Key" to exploit this.

- It is possible for an attacker to disclose to the original faction the hacked "TC Key", which introduces a negotiation element, so that the original faction can decrypt the "corrupted encrypted funds package" and get the "funds".

- It is possible to hack a faction HQ to obtain the current "HQ Key" in use by that faction to decrypt their "encrypted funds packages" and transform them into "funds" for their own faction.

- It is possible to raid a faction HQ to obtain "encrypted funds packages" that are currently in the "decryption process", and decrypt them with the "HQ Key".

- It is possible to kill the person of the original faction during the "transfer window" and recover the "encrypted funds package" from them, either to be held for ransom, be destroyed or to be decrypted if the attacker has the "HQ Key".

- A faction that suspects that their "HQ Key" has been compromised can regenerate the "HQ Key" manually, which would be available again after a time window, however this would imply that that all the "encrypted funds packages" generated so far will fail to be decrypted for the original faction, thus losing those funds. It is not possible to collect "encrypted funds packages" until the "HQ Key" is regenerated, as there is no key to encrypt them with.

I feel this removes manual labour and allows weaker factions to use the element of surprise and stealth to weaken factions and perhaps even live off them. I feel the post is already quite long to write much more stuff.
This seems to step away from the feeling of an assassination experience and closer in the direction of capture the flag or a spin on siphoning.
I say this because factions can now directly start the hostile funds take over themself making the transfer process less important although still requiring similar labor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Myth