open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked This Is How You Remove Local - [No Srsly This Time]
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Callic Veratar
Posted - 2011.08.19 18:44:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Tie it to sec status perhaps... the further down in sec status the system is the weaker the scanner gets. Once you get to -0.9 or -0.95 it fails completely, making the more dangerous systems actually more dangerous.


I like that idea, in a 1.0 system, scanning is easy and gives good information on wide sweep settings. ie You could pick up an interceptor at warp flying 10AU away. Compared to a -1.0 system where you'd have trouble picking up a small fleet at 1AU.

CCP Cascade

Posted - 2011.08.19 18:45:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
@ CCP Cascade - I do understand that, but what about what I suggested in post 8?



Again I am not a programmer, so I wouldn't be able to tell you with certainty that it is or is not possible. But if it was possible, I guess an overlay to the current camera view would make sense. You do a scan, you get a response, you see red dots all around you, you right click them to find out more, or narrow down the angle and do the automatic scan which takes longer time to get an overview of what is around that specific planet.

But what would X, Y, Z tell you as a player? Even if the majority of EVE players are above average intelligence of a MMO player, not everyone knows what to make of a (-3000km, 3000km, -12km) reading.


I guess a textbased representation of it could be something like this:

NAME | SHIP TYPE | DISTANCE | DIRECTION |
Me.......Frigate........10000km.....(Two arrows)

Arrow one, horizontal, arrow two vertical. That way your client does the math for you to decide which direction the scan signature is, so you can spin your camera around until the arrows are shown as "-", since then you would be pointing at the signature and then you'll know where to warp to find that miner. But why not use the graphical representation I suggested in the first part, then? I guess this one requires more user input which would lead to people being better than others at scanning which is always good. But is fun/useful?

More constructive threads like this guys!

Plyn
Posted - 2011.08.19 18:46:00 - [33]
 

+1

Could have it display on the solar system map, which takes care of the "is it 3D?" issue... or, because that would probably make it too easy to "insta-probe" people, could show on a 2D interface with relative altitude compared to you, like how radar functions IRL. Could still use it to try to insta-probe people, but it would take a little longer because you'd have to convert your mental perception of their location to a spot on the map.

Don't like the idea of it showing anything about cloakies though. Sure it would be handy to detect them in some way on local, but if you create a visual representation of where they are, even if vague, you're still going to know when that recon/sb lands on grid with you.

On the other hand, a high-cpu module could be added to show cloakies vaguely... I don't mind people having the ability to do it, if they have to invest time and attention to it beyond what everyone is doing already, and as long as it detracts heavily from whatever else they might be doing.

CCP Cascade

Posted - 2011.08.19 18:47:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Callic Veratar
There's even potential to (optionally) allow each pilot to broadcast an ID number (something in the billions, to make it "secure") that could be used to identify you on the scanner to those who you gave your number.


Only if you are able to somehow "hack" it and disguise yourself as a friendly! YARRRR!!

Callic Veratar
Posted - 2011.08.19 18:51:00 - [35]
 

I don't know that the load generated by something like this would be as bad as DScan. DScan picks up *everything* within it's range when it's used. This tool would be only for finding other pilots, preferably on a 10-30s delay.

The important thing about a menu like this, is that I'd need to be able to do space stuff at the same time as watching for threats. I wouldn't really want it to require me to swap back and forth between the system view and the space view.

Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:03:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Callic Veratar
Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Tie it to sec status perhaps... the further down in sec status the system is the weaker the scanner gets. Once you get to -0.9 or -0.95 it fails completely, making the more dangerous systems actually more dangerous.


I like that idea, in a 1.0 system, scanning is easy and gives good information on wide sweep settings. ie You could pick up an interceptor at warp flying 10AU away. Compared to a -1.0 system where you'd have trouble picking up a small fleet at 1AU.


No, higher than that... maybe -.89 or so. It needs to be ineffective completely in wormholes or you're killing one of the most endearing traits in there... the warm glow of not knowing.

Callic Veratar
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:07:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Callic Veratar on 19/08/2011 19:10:28
Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Originally by: Callic Veratar
Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Tie it to sec status perhaps... the further down in sec status the system is the weaker the scanner gets. Once you get to -0.9 or -0.95 it fails completely, making the more dangerous systems actually more dangerous.


I like that idea, in a 1.0 system, scanning is easy and gives good information on wide sweep settings. ie You could pick up an interceptor at warp flying 10AU away. Compared to a -1.0 system where you'd have trouble picking up a small fleet at 1AU.


No, higher than that... maybe -.89 or so. It needs to be ineffective completely in wormholes or you're killing one of the most endearing traits in there... the warm glow of not knowing.


Unless you wanted to make it really fun and in wormholes it would occasionally spew false positives and false negatives. You might be able to trust it, but might not. Though, that changes it from passive paranoia of not knowing to active paranoia knowing that you might be being lied to.

It could also give you variation on the intel you can gain from different wormholes, each class giving its own style of false info.

Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:10:00 - [38]
 

Another thing... active scanning has always historically made the scanner easier to find. If something like this were activated it should:

Drain cap, enough to really matter.
Give your position away with ease, such that a ship's scanner would find you to 100%, similar to a combat site.
Interfere with/ prevent your ability to warp, or disable on warp requiring you to start over.
Warn all other ships in range, probably even further out, that there's active scanning going on.

Think "sonar ping". You scream your presence to determine someone elses.

Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:13:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Callic Veratar
Edited by: Callic Veratar on 19/08/2011 19:10:28
Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Originally by: Callic Veratar
Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Tie it to sec status perhaps... the further down in sec status the system is the weaker the scanner gets. Once you get to -0.9 or -0.95 it fails completely, making the more dangerous systems actually more dangerous.


I like that idea, in a 1.0 system, scanning is easy and gives good information on wide sweep settings. ie You could pick up an interceptor at warp flying 10AU away. Compared to a -1.0 system where you'd have trouble picking up a small fleet at 1AU.


No, higher than that... maybe -.89 or so. It needs to be ineffective completely in wormholes or you're killing one of the most endearing traits in there... the warm glow of not knowing.


Unless you wanted to make it really fun and in wormholes it would occasionally spew false positives and false negatives. You might be able to trust it, but might not. Though, that changes it from passive paranoia of not knowing to active paranoia knowing that you might be being lied to.

It could also give you variation on the intel you can gain from different wormholes, each class giving its own style of false info.


Screw that. Last thing we need is a system that actually punishes wormholers. I'd rather drop combats and find you that way. It's not a good system for wormholes, that's why it should be ineffective by the time you reach the lowest sec statuses.

Callic Veratar
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:15:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Another thing... active scanning has always historically made the scanner easier to find. If something like this were activated it should:

Drain cap, enough to really matter.
Give your position away with ease, such that a ship's scanner would find you to 100%, similar to a combat site.
Interfere with/ prevent your ability to warp, or disable on warp requiring you to start over.
Warn all other ships in range, probably even further out, that there's active scanning going on.

Think "sonar ping". You scream your presence to determine someone elses.


This could go two ways.

First our current system could be "passive" and turning it on would be active. Active would give you scanning data, better targetting, but a massive sig radius (and maybe primary target for any FoF weapons).

Alternately, our current system is active with the scanner built in, (maybe bump the sig radius of all ships up by 40-50%). Turning it off would drop your sig radius down to almost nothing, but it may also disable targeting, weapon tracking, scanning, and even the overview...

Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:15:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 19/08/2011 19:22:01
Originally by: CCP Cascade
But what would X, Y, Z tell you as a player? Even if the majority of EVE players are above average intelligence of a MMO player, not everyone knows what to make of a (-3000km, 3000km, -12km) reading.


I guess a textbased representation of it could be something like this:

NAME | SHIP TYPE | DISTANCE | DIRECTION |
Me.......Frigate........10000km.....(Two arrows)



What I mean is...



You can reduce the amount of information in any given starsystem into something that Looks Like This


Pure "packman" mathematics and physics (aka no Physics). My ship, as it moves would be cataloged in terms of it's position on the x,y and Z axis and then would be plotted on a grid and compared to all others "dots" on said grid. 50 Packmans are not hard for a server to keep track of, especially when they are being recorded only as a dot, a ship type and a character name (not rendered)




By taking the complex information of EVE Online's physics and simply "cataloging" a ship's location into what amounts to a "Dos Prompt" complex sets of information could be conveyed with very little math done via the server and very little bandwidth.





So If We Ignore Possible Client Hacks/Exploits



The server could be sending my client a complete (and highly reduced) slow moving "Packman version" of what is happening inside of the entire starsystem that I am in via Dos Promt Text ONLY. My client can then do the math in terms of what I actually see and what is displayed on my screen with next to no server side load.



See? Smile


Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:24:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Callic Veratar
Originally by: Ingvar Angst
Another thing... active scanning has always historically made the scanner easier to find. If something like this were activated it should:

Drain cap, enough to really matter.
Give your position away with ease, such that a ship's scanner would find you to 100%, similar to a combat site.
Interfere with/ prevent your ability to warp, or disable on warp requiring you to start over.
Warn all other ships in range, probably even further out, that there's active scanning going on.

Think "sonar ping". You scream your presence to determine someone elses.


This could go two ways.

First our current system could be "passive" and turning it on would be active. Active would give you scanning data, better targetting, but a massive sig radius (and maybe primary target for any FoF weapons).

Alternately, our current system is active with the scanner built in, (maybe bump the sig radius of all ships up by 40-50%). Turning it off would drop your sig radius down to almost nothing, but it may also disable targeting, weapon tracking, scanning, and even the overview...


First is better than second... you shouldn't be punished for not using it, using it should carry the costs. If not using it provides less information or capabilites than current systems do right now in wormholes, you're doing it wrong.

Callic Veratar
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:24:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 19/08/2011 19:19:30
Originally by: CCP Cascade
But what would X, Y, Z tell you as a player? Even if the majority of EVE players are above average intelligence of a MMO player, not everyone knows what to make of a (-3000km, 3000km, -12km) reading.


I guess a textbased representation of it could be something like this:

NAME | SHIP TYPE | DISTANCE | DIRECTION |
Me.......Frigate........10000km.....(Two arrows)



What I mean is...



You can reduce the amount of information in any given starsystem into something that Looks Like This


Pure "packman" mathematics and physics (aka no Physics). My ship, as it moves would be cataloged in terms of it's position on the x,y and Z axis and then would be plotted on a grid and compared to all others "dots" on said grid. 50 Packmans are not hard for a server to keep track of, especially when they are being recorded only as a dot, a ship type and a character name.




By taking the complex information of EVE Online's physics and simply "cataloging" a ships location into what amounts to a "Dos Prompt" complex sets of information could be conveyed with very little math done via the server and very little bandwidth.





So If We Ignore Possible Client Hacks/Exploits



The server could be sending my client a complete (and highly reduced) slow moving "Packman version" of what is happening inside of the entire starsystem that I am in via Dos Promt Text ONLY. My client can then do the math in terms of what I actually see and what is displayed on my screen with next to no server side load.



See? Smile




50 is not hard to keep track of, but what about a missioning system where there are 400 pilots, each on their own grid? Each pilot then gets info about each other pilot (~400x400=16000).

It doesn't seem like a lot at first, but it can add up really quickly. You also have to consider that it's not just the server that matters. A user with a low end computer on a slow connection may have to deal with a significant amount more calculation than they're capable of if too much is pushed to the client.

Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:31:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 19/08/2011 19:34:04

@ Callic Veratar


Never in my life have I hit the 360 Dscan and seen 400 ships (never bothered trying it while blobbing)



Even in Jita, if ships on the same grid appeared as a larger "blotch" with minimal information associated with them (and not as individual blips) things start to get allot simpler. In null sec where 2 blobs are going at it, the fight would only have to be interpreted as a really large grid of ships (literally a blob) with no other info required.



And if your computer can run shader 4 than it can play EVE and packman at the same time.




So I don't really see your issue being a realistic one in terms of actual game play.

zljuka
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:36:00 - [45]
 

Well actually if a ship is a cloaky one, it doesn't mean it shell not be visible on D-scan like that. But definitely there shouldn't be a way to get a warp in on it or to tell if it's on long or short range scanner.

Local chats need to be preserved, at least the way they are in WH. Talking in local chat is very important part of a game.

Callic Veratar
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:40:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Callic Veratar on 19/08/2011 19:42:35
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 19/08/2011 19:32:11
Callic Veratar

Never in my life have I hit the 360 Dscan and seen 400 ships (never bothered trying it while blobbing)

Even in Jita, if ships on the same grid appeared as a larger "blotch" with minimal information associated with them (and not as individual blips) things start to get allot simpler. In null sec where 2 blobs are going at it, the fight would only have to be interpreted as a really large grid of ships (literally a blob) with no other info required.

So I don't really see your issue being a realistic one in terms of actual game play.


Problems don't come out of common situations, but rare ones. I've never seen fleet lag or a client de-sync, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Unlike D-Scan that's user initiated, this active scanner would run automatically. If every pilot is attempting to pull scanner info it will cause problems.

Thinking about it, though, has ruffled some ideas:

If you're in the middle of a large blob, the scanner might not be able to work, being jammed by all the nearby pilots. This means a large fleet would be blind without scouts, or at least smaller escort fleets.

Too many nearby pilots running their scanners could dampen the effects of each individual pilot.

Composition of such a blob should be hard/impossible to determine for a scanner at range outside a few of the biggest ships in the fleet. (Warning: May contain Titans!)

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.19 19:50:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: James Duar on 19/08/2011 20:58:51
Edited by: James Duar on 19/08/2011 20:31:24
A submarine-style signals intelligence system could make EVE very cool.

Basically, make D-Scan and scanning work more like actual radar with the same risks and limitations.

So every ship has some type of direction-finding subspace gear (I'm going with subspace signalling as the means by-which D-scan works).

D-Scan gets active and passive modes - passive is always on. Passive mode detects D-scan events as a direction in space and signal intensity based on distance and spread. It doesn't *distinguish* D-Scans so multiple scans lead to multiple possible triangulation solutions which appear on the map.

Active mode produces events - either continuously (active pinging) or manually (so you can fire your scanner once and not reveal yourself). Active mode let's you set 3D direction in space and signal intensity (up to some maximum) thus determining range. Signal returns give results similar to passive, but also give ship types if the return is "intense" enough and *maybe* a fuzzy shot of hi-slot armaments (i.e. pulses or beams, autocannons or arty etc.)

Within this system, things like the on-board anomaly scanner and probes would be considered innately passive systems: anomalies are big and spotted from stellar telemetry, and combat probes are used *precisely* because they don't "paint" ships (or because they let you triangulate directly).

I think if you did this, it would let you get rid of local because the replacement would be *incredibly awesome* and have a lot of possibility: let ships fit out with D-scan power boost modules for longer range scans, or resolution boosters for long range passive detection. Let people counter by scattering large objects around to give false readings (without upping your scan power).

Cov Ops and other cloaky ships are effectively countered since they can't "go active" without revealing their activity and potentially position (if they don't move around constantly). Gangs of ships could mess with passive ships by deciding to spread out and fire up their active radar, throwing passive blips all over the map.

Probably most importantly though: it's not implicitly one-sided. Both the attacker and the defender gain from this - if you're being scanned (or someone is attempting to scan you) - you know. Scans can over-shoot - a ship with good scan capabilities can pick up passive emissions without giving a return signal (or cloak and do the same at shorter range).

EDIT: Giving this some thought, I think in practice you'd probably implement it on a per-grid scale at a 1 second tick-rate (same as the physics system). So firing a scan from any ship on a grid would give scan returns to all ships on that grid. It would be an interesting effect letting ships "stack" to boost each other's sensor range.

EDIT 2: In fact I really like the idea of being able to "pirate" other ships active pings. Sidle up in a cov ops and check out what your enemy is checking out.

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2011.08.19 20:43:00 - [48]
 

Great idea bud, I like it.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.19 21:32:00 - [49]
 

Well, it would certainly be a good replacement for Dscan, but it is serving a completely different purpose than local.

Even the intel function of local only tells you who is around, it doesn't give you any clue as to where they are in the system or what they are flying or any of the other information you get from dscan or your radar.

zljuka
Posted - 2011.08.19 22:09:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: James Duar
Edited by: James Duar on 19/08/2011 20:58:51
Edited by: James Duar on 19/08/2011 20:31:24
EDIT: Giving this some thought, I think in practice you'd probably implement it on a per-grid scale at a 1 second tick-rate (same as the physics system). So firing a scan from any ship on a grid would give scan returns to all ships on that grid. It would be an interesting effect letting ships "stack" to boost each other's sensor range.


How much load on a server would it create? I mean 1 second radar tick?

Black Dranzer
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.19 23:42:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Black Dranzer on 19/08/2011 23:41:59
I'd like to take an alternative to this.

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Two types of scans. System scan and focus scan.

The system scan is what you see above. It's basically a sort of mini-view of the entire system. It reveals "blobs" of ship activity which are basically grids. For example, if you have 50 ships on a gate, it's going to show up as one big red dot on scan. Or maybe a blue dot, depending on hostility or general ship size or whatever. The details are less important than the general feel. You could adjust range and resolution; Range does what it says, resolution influences how much data those blobs actually give you initially. The amount of time it takes to scan is a product of the two. The lines are warp signatures; They're what you get if your scan finds a ship mid-warp.

Now, if you click on one of those balls, you can perform a focused scan, which gives you detailed information like you'd usually get from a d-scan. Perhaps it takes more time, perhaps it's not as accurate. Maybe it gives you pilot names, though. Again, I'm being purposely vague here. Essentially it tells you what ships are on that grid.

Now there are three things I'd want to note here:

Firstly, you can't actually WARP to these grids. Oh, you can get a good idea of the location, but without probes, you ain't landing on them.

Secondly, cloaked ships would show up on scan. This would actually solve the AFK cloaker dilemah rather neatly, I think; Because you see, you'd be able to tell where a cloaked ship is, but only their general area, and secondly, you could tell when they were warping. At the same time, you wouldn't be able to scan them out or reveal them. You'd just be able to tell what grid they're on. The average cloaker wouldn't actually lose any real stealth advantage.

Thirdly, If you did this, I'd probably remove local. I'm not sure what you'd do to Wormhole space to make up for this. Maybe scans are fuzzier in wormholes or something?


You could do other things with this. You could make scan resolution affected by what kind of ship you're in, so that certain ships have more accurate scanners than others. It also wouldn't really require much additional content development; It'd mainly be recycling readily existing graphics.

So yeah, my take on the OP's idea. It's technically a d-scan replacement rather than improvement, because, well.. there's no direction anymore.

So, yeah. Thoughts?

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.08.19 23:54:00 - [52]
 

Be advised that any delay to a automated scanning system has to be comparable to that of a combat probe set.

I bring this up because a proper amount of D-scan FU and probes on standby could get a warpable hit on a ship in 6 seconds or less. It takes a little practice but it works.

Being able to set it is reasonable, with less information per cycle, like a rader - nice idea, but if there is any reason why this "radar" didn't pick up small ships, then you might as well not even have it, because the ship that probes you out and arrives first will be a tackler.

It would, since modern fighter aircraft have it (having worked on them myself), be nice to have some kind of warning when being picked up on someoene elses scanner. At best, at least when being scanned specifically on a narrow beam. This would really help because being just a blip on a wide sweep gives an opponent a chance to choose: "Do I go after this without knowing, and hence no warning for my victim, or should I find out first, but this will warn him?".

(That sort of thing is what makes the game interesting).


One thing that the vast majority of players agree on: if local goes, there must be some revamping of the directional scanning system or this is going to become a bigger clickfest than PI.


Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.08.20 00:03:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: CCP Cascade
Originally by: Callic Veratar
There's even potential to (optionally) allow each pilot to broadcast an ID number (something in the billions, to make it "secure") that could be used to identify you on the scanner to those who you gave your number.


Only if you are able to somehow "hack" it and disguise yourself as a friendly! YARRRR!!


A system that exists in our reality is called "IFF" or transponder and it actually has several modes. For example, when you look at a radar in a air traffic control tower, and you see the planes on it with data floating about the little dot, that's "Mode 2". It's not reall "Identify Friend or Foe". That's actually refered to as "mode 4".

A military aircraft can send out mode 2 data, which is really helpful for non-military systems too. Mode 4 is a more secure system that I won't get into but there are numerous recorded incidents of what happens when the system "gets it wrong".

If ships had switchable transponders featured along these modes, players would have a choice of optionally "keeping local" by allowing their ships to automatically identify in local - this would be helpful for system defenders who see as many blips on their radar as they see in local - if such defenders don't mind being easily visible to any offenders.

On the other hand, a "mode 4"-ish system would only generate identification data to corp or fleet members, but otherwise not be visible or useful to anybody else.

Finally, empire navies would not know if someone who has their transponder off in secure space is a criminal or enemy or not - this could give players at war a chance to decide if they want to run from the local navy or another corp or player they are at war with who might be more effective at catching them - this would only work if local were removed from high sec, of course, but anybody flying around in high sec without their identity transponder switched on is going to be too busy getting chased around by the faction navy (this would certainly make wardecs more interesting).


James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.20 07:09:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: zljuka
Originally by: James Duar
Edited by: James Duar on 19/08/2011 20:58:51
Edited by: James Duar on 19/08/2011 20:31:24
EDIT: Giving this some thought, I think in practice you'd probably implement it on a per-grid scale at a 1 second tick-rate (same as the physics system). So firing a scan from any ship on a grid would give scan returns to all ships on that grid. It would be an interesting effect letting ships "stack" to boost each other's sensor range.


How much load on a server would it create? I mean 1 second radar tick?


From the Team Gridlock dev blogs it was mentioned the physics simulation basically runs at a 1 second tick-rate, and actual physics was a very small percentage of the load.

If the signals system ran at the same tick-rate, and had a grid-level resolution, then the workload would lend itself to being easily minimized.

The workload would go something like:

1. at the start of each tick, all the signals being fired from a grid are summed together, and intercepted grids are determined.

So each grid can "emit" 1 signal to another grid, which has a summed intensity of all the signals being fired on that grid.

2. when the physics for other grids are run, objects have their signal returns summed up when the object is enumerated.

3. since all ships on grid "share" signals, the same return data is sent to every client.

The most work computationally would be in 1, but it lends itself to optimization: the number of grids in system changes only slowly, and they're fixed points in space. Each grid can easily maintain an oct-tree or other structure, with the distances to other grids on the leaves.

Scans with a narrow-beam just walk the tree to get find which grids they're hitting, and then the distance calculations are already done for them (no square roots) - the entire thing becomes a simple look up operation. And, since we sum signals, for each distance/direction combo we only do this operation once.

So it becomes a very fast look up.

In (2), we're simplying tagging a small referencing operation to the physics simulation - the list of objects on grid is added as signal returns.

(3) is at worst, a memcpy, and is efficient because all ships on grid (ergo all clients) get the same data simply (presumably a situation amenable to the new network stack).

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2011.08.20 12:02:00 - [55]
 

ZOMG radar with an IFF system. This is so futuristic! Oh wait...Laughing

Cheap shots aside, I like this proposal a lot. Cloaked ships should of course not show up, since they are cloaked. Sort of like a stealth plane of today. Perhaps give them some return, but have it be too vague to be of use other than to say "yes, there is a ship somewhere in system." I would give them 360 by 360 degree scan however, 180 is too limiting. I'd also flip your proposal around on scan times, narrow scan arcs should be faster, not slower than the full arc. I'd simply give it a set rotation speed and let the size of the arc determine how long it takes to complete a cycle.

That said, having the cycle slow down for more detailed/longer range scans would certainly be good. That way you could have a fast but very general scan or slow it down to have much slower but more accurate scans with greater range. So it would have the following controls: scan cone size (360,180,90 and so on, same as now) and strength (let's say 0% to 100%). Increasing strength would result in more information and greater range, but greatly increase the time required for a scan of any given arc.

As a further complication, I'd also like a radar warning system added too. It should be possible to see a ship by listening for it's radar signal and using it against them. Obviously you'd need the option to turn off your own radar for stealthier travel/hunting to go with this. End result would be active scanning for ships and passive detection of those who are scanning. Ideally, both could be used for locating and identifying ships. I would mold scan probes into this system as well. Making it so that a probe launcher would become a "high accuracy radar/RWR" or something that would allow you to use this new d-scanner for getting warp ins. Without the revised launcher, you wouldn't be able to do that still.

Not sure if any of this is really viable in eve, but I'd like to see it happen.

Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.08.20 12:24:00 - [56]
 

1. Cloaked ships showing up on scan... bad idea.
2. Automating any DScan functions - bad idea. DScan does and should require human interaction to activate. Earn your intel, don't have it spoon fed like nubs using local.
3. TMI. Wormholes have limited intel gathering for a reason, and that's one of the beauties of them. Like I'd mentioned before, if something like this were to crawl from the depths of hell into being, it needs to degrade with sec status to become completely ineffective as you approach, say, -0.9 or -0.95.
4. If you used something active like this, you should completely give your position away, enough that you can be warped to.


Look, it's cute. It's pretty. It would also screw up the frontier lifestyle wormholes provide, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.08.20 13:28:00 - [57]
 

Cloaked ships being detectable in WHs - awful, gamebreaking idea.

Cloaked ships bing detectable in nullsec - only acceptable if the detector can be disabled easily by a single player. Such as a deployable structure with limited range (not at a POS) that has ~100k EHP before being disabled.

Anything that gives you effortless, infallible, system-wide intel = bad idea.

Lady Aja
Posted - 2011.08.22 03:36:00 - [58]
 

to all those that ***** about removing local is bad. well how many other mmo's you see with local?

Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
draketrain
Posted - 2011.08.23 05:23:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: CCP Cascade
Nice constructive suggestion! Keep it coming.

I like the idea of different "modes" and that they give more information if you are investing more time. I also like the idea that you have to click on a ship to find out if it is hostile or not, that way you are able to mask your radar signature by staying close to a blob (blending into an already large scan signature).

Will it deal with cloaked ships at all?
Also, what about giving different ships different kinds of scan time?
How will it deal with moving ships?


i like the idea that cloaked ship would show up if it has been moving i.e. every ship which uses engines or warps will leave a "trail" which can be scanned.

Miso Hitome
Posted - 2011.08.23 07:34:00 - [60]
 

I likey the concept Eternum.

A few things to add to this discussion:

Set filters on the scanner similar to the overview filters, so I can ignore friendly ships, wrecks, and structures. Also would help in high and low sec for finding war targets. An option to ignore objects on your grid on the scanner would help to reduce clutter as well. For long range scans, deep space probes have enough range to scan most systems, and can be dropped far enough away to not be detected on current d-scan range, so the long range option is already in-game.

Ship sensor strength/signature should effect your scanning range, as well as scanning skills, modules, local effects (similar to wormhole effects) and deployable structures. In essence, the better your sensor system compaired to your electronic footprint, the farther your scan, and more detail is available. (Re-reading this, it seems to be an indirect nerf to shield drakes, heh)


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only