The Hacker Project - a free online game

Feedback Terminal => Suggestions => Topic started by: ãłþħά-∆9 on March 22, 2010, 09:43:47 PM



Title: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: ãłþħά-∆9 on March 22, 2010, 09:43:47 PM
I was testing out the new Remote malware feature, so i fired it up slapped in the IP and waited, the person I was executed it on then went and logged into the server where it was running the remote process and closed it =/

No need for remote attack disruptor at all

When i did finally attack someone it did a tiny 1000 CPU damage (0.2 malware with 150 hours on it) considering it was a monster gateway, it's a bit crap....

So whats the point in the disruptor at all >_>


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: siremi on March 23, 2010, 01:49:46 AM
Quote from update:
http://www.hacker-project.com/forum/index.php?topic=2041.0

"- malware remote attack power is only 5% and will reset your vir timer just like a normal attack, while activating directly on host will "

Think about it. You only hit with one virus. The remote malware is designed for mass attacks in strategic attacks. It's like nukes, it's better to launch several nukes at once and totally annihilate your opponent then just one to scratch the surface.

This means you need 20 viruses to match the power of one local install on a remote attack, but once you get a few virii farms up, the damage will be great. Keep in mind, that you can use other hosts as virii farms, and use the malware to remote attack... remotely. 200x V 0.1 hardware malware firing at once is very painful, trust me.

As for the closing, as long as you are the owner, you can kill or complete the process on the target or on the source. Anyone else will only be able to kill the attack process on the source, or by using RAD.


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: ãłþħά-∆9 on March 23, 2010, 05:34:29 AM
It just seems mostly pointless to me to use the RAD at all, but I guess if i were to put malware on my own gateway, start the process, then change IP, it wouldn't interrupt the attack?

I didn't know it only did 5% of the full damage until now actually, the 0.2 still took like an hour to complete so a v2 malware would take 10 hours?! Isn't that a bit ridiculous as most players are rarely offline that long  :confused2:


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: ivandrago on March 23, 2010, 07:07:12 AM
It just seems mostly pointless to me to use the RAD at all, but I guess if i were to put malware on my own gateway, start the process, then change IP, it wouldn't interrupt the attack?

I didn't know it only did 5% of the full damage until now actually, the 0.2 still took like an hour to complete so a v2 malware would take 10 hours?! Isn't that a bit ridiculous as most players are rarely offline that long  :confused2:

It's like Emi said .... you can choose to attack with 1 x v2 which would take rather long indeed, but is more AP efficient.
Attacking with 20 x v0.1 is much faster but it'll cost 20x more AP. Your choice ....


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: Brok Ironfist on March 23, 2010, 07:18:41 AM
I ran something like 14x .1 malware attacks against a player testing it out.  I had about 440 hours total in time saved up.  It did something like 15k hpd worth of damage. 

Imagine saving up thousands of hours worth across dozens of malware programs...



Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: bontrose on March 23, 2010, 03:42:39 PM
 :blowup:


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: ãłþħά-∆9 on March 23, 2010, 04:37:50 PM
One thing i'll have to disagree with though is Emi's nuke analogy  :16:
If someone's gonna launch a nuke, it rarely takes more than one!

It takes 10 to hit all the faction HQ's ;) (rev)


bake~well


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: bontrose on March 23, 2010, 06:20:05 PM
yeah, and if you want to destroy an entire place like the unites states instead of just dc?


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: siremi on March 23, 2010, 06:50:42 PM
One thing i'll have to disagree with though is Emi's nuke analogy  :16:
If someone's gonna launch a nuke, it rarely takes more than one!

It takes 10 to hit all the faction HQ's ;) (rev)


bake~well

Yeah, I saw thinking in the terms of cold war end game scenarios, where one incident could cause one missile to go off, then the other county will launch it's whole arsenal that will determine the other country to launch all missiles, and... Doom's Day.

It could be similar when you are trying to destroy a gateway of a player that you know is going to respond to the attack, you will want to launch all your arsenal at once hoping to obliterate him and maybe he won't be able to counter attack...

Of course there are different strategies you can take in HP, it mostly depends on how you setup you attack servers. For example, you could set it up at 10x small un-owned captured servers, each holding 10x V 0.1 malware virs. Now, when you attack, you are coming in from 10 servers, with 10 attacks on each. Very hard to defend or strike back against it, but easier to evade.


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: ãłþħά-∆9 on March 23, 2010, 08:03:35 PM
One thing i'll have to disagree with though is Emi's nuke analogy  :16:
If someone's gonna launch a nuke, it rarely takes more than one!

It takes 10 to hit all the faction HQ's ;) (rev)


bake~well

Yeah, I saw thinking in the terms of cold war end game scenarios, where one incident could cause one missile to go off, then the other county will launch it's whole arsenal that will determine the other country to launch all missiles, and... Doom's Day.

It could be similar when you are trying to destroy a gateway of a player that you know is going to respond to the attack, you will want to launch all your arsenal at once hoping to obliterate him and maybe he won't be able to counter attack...

Of course there are different strategies you can take in HP, it mostly depends on how you setup you attack servers. For example, you could set it up at 10x small un-owned captured servers, each holding 10x V 0.1 malware virs. Now, when you attack, you are coming in from 10 servers, with 10 attacks on each. Very hard to defend or strike back against it, but easier to evade.


Like Defcon then 8D One nuke goes...everyone's nukes go...

Question, so I can duplicate a malware on my own gateway, install a hundred of them or so, start the remote attack, then change IP and they wont know where it came from without tracing or using RAD?

I guess in that sense it's kinda terrifying....


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: siremi on March 24, 2010, 12:52:35 PM

Question, so I can duplicate a malware on my own gateway, install a hundred of them or so, start the remote attack, then change IP and they wont know where it came from without tracing or using RAD?

I guess in that sense it's kinda terrifying....

Quote from the notes page in the update section:

"- "Change IP" will intrerupt outgoing remote attack tasks from the IP that is changing."

So you can't do that if you still want to attack, you need to wait the timer out without changing IP in order to complete the attack. This gives the defender a chance to strike back. This is why I suggested that you spread your attack by using 10 attack servers.



Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: ãłþħά-∆9 on March 24, 2010, 12:55:26 PM
Argh, sorry I should learn to read more carefully/pay attention  :14:

Time to get 999999999999999 Malware


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: bontrose on March 24, 2010, 02:19:53 PM
Argh, sorry I should learn to read more sarefully/pay attention  :14:

Time to get 999999999999999 Malware
yes you should learn to read more sarefully, and carefully as well


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: ãłþħά-∆9 on March 24, 2010, 03:07:33 PM
My mind works in mysterious(dyslexic) ways


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: bontrose on March 25, 2010, 01:47:24 PM
eh


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: Brok Ironfist on April 19, 2010, 11:53:38 AM
Well... Having received the brunt (:crutch:) of a nice large remote malware attack this weekend  I'd have to say that Malware is working just fine  :laugh:

Something like 1500 BW lost, and .6 versions of my software...  Looks like about 1.5 Million in damage.

Just wondering how many hours you guys have saved up on those .2 virii to do that kind of damage?



Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: bontrose on April 20, 2010, 03:26:08 PM
1.5 million in damage? :surprise:


Title: Re: Remote Malware is Fail?
Post by: tomorty080 on April 03, 2013, 09:08:15 PM
i have a malware bomb in progress on an unlisted server, time for it to go
 :blowup:
once it has enough hours, the server will be a piece of metal nobody wants XD  :laugh: