open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Directional Scanner Improvements as a Local Replacement
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.04.24 15:56:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Tarminic on 24/04/2008 16:57:43
Plenty of people, CCP included, plan on eventually removing local chat as it currently exists due to it's use as an overpowered intelligence tool. However, CCP won't do so until there is a balanced replacement for it. I think that this replacement can come in the form of overhauling the current directional scanner.

In it's current form, the directional scanner is useful but somewhat inconvenient to use. If you're scanning for incoming hostile ships, you have to constantly spam the button in order to get the most up-to-date information. This might not seem like a big deal if you're involved in a 30-second gank and making sure the unfortunate Raven pilot doesn't have buddies bearing down on you.

However, if local was removed it would force any pilot spending time in 0.0 to constantly be scanning for targets or hostiles with it. Considering that this is a potential source of lag and a downright pain in the ass, I think that would be unacceptable. Spending any amount of time in 0.0 would destroy your mouse buttons and turn your hands into withered claws. This leads me to my suggestion, which hopefully is among my good ones. Also, sorry for the long intro.

Directional Scanner Revision

Several things need to happen in order for the directional scanner to become a good intelligence tool.

1 The Directional Scanner (DS) needs to scan constantly as long as the window is open. This removes the need to constantly spam the scan button when viewing it and generally makes it less of a pain in the ass to use.

2 The DS need to be easy to read and sort. In addition to the massive list of objects, the DS needs some better filtering options and a 2D display to represent the relative positions of signals much like a radar screen.

3 The DS needs to be integrated with sensor game mechanics. Currently, the directional scanner is completely independent of any other game mechanics. I think that this is both unrealistic and downright boring. More closely associating the directional scanner with ship attributes add more depth to the game and let users more easily gather intelligence if they sacrifice fittings to do so.

3.1 Scan range should depend entirely on sensor strength. A ship with a sensor strength of 6 would be able to scan up to 3AU's away, while a ship with a sensor strength of 24 would be able to scan up to 12AU's away. This would also give ECCMs a use outside of pure ECM defense.

3.2 Scan Effectiveness should depend on Scan Resolution. Battleships may be able to scan a wide area, but will have a hard time picking up anything smaller than their size Sensor Boosters would help this but also require them to sacrifice more slots. This also creates scenarios where smaller ships are better at intelligence-gathering due to their improved sensor resolution, and would be especially useful for Recon and Covert Ops ships, especially those that aren't quite as combat-effective as others.

4. User Skill Should be a Factor. Too many actions in EVE are based on random rolls of the dice or SP - I believe that effective use of the directional scanner should require player experience and skill, not just SP or T2 equipment. This part I'm not entirely sure how to implement, honestly, but I believe that it's important to keep this in mind.

5. Using the DS Should have Consequences. The constantly scanning should have its drawbacks, just like a submarine actively pinging can reveal its location to potential hostiles in range. One simple way to implement this is to have using the scanner increase your signature radius by a certain percentage when you have the scanner window open.

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.04.24 15:56:00 - [2]
 

I think that with the above changes, the directional scanner could become a much more interesting intelligence tool and a viable replacement for local.

TL;DR Version: The directional scanner can replace local if it's easier to use, better integrated with sensor game mechanics, can be improved by system sovereignty, requires a certain degree of user skill, and should have some drawbacks when used.

As I usually do, I'll close this post by saying that I am a horrible armchair game designer and that I haven't been to 0.0 in awhile, and haven't seriously used the directional scanner recently. Feel free to tell me what I'm doing wrong as long as it's constructive. Smile

And no, this isn't a whine post. Wink

Xparky
The Scope
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:05:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Tarminic

2 The DS need to be easy to read and sort. In addition to the massive list of objects, the DS needs some better filtering options and a 2D display to represent the relative positions of signals much like a radar screen.




How about a 3D radar combined with the map view set to solar system.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:06:00 - [4]
 

"3.1 Scan range should depend entirely on sensor strength. A ship with a sensor strength of 6 would be able to scan up to 3AU's away, while a ship with a sensor strength of 24 would be able to scan up to 3AU's away. This would also give ECCMs a use outside of pure ECM defense."

Even if the rest doesn't get implemented, which on the whole I think it should, I LOVE this idea.

Give people a reason to fit ECCMs other than not being jammed. (I say this as a falcon pilot)

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:12:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Xparky
Originally by: Tarminic

2 The DS need to be easy to read and sort. In addition to the massive list of objects, the DS needs some better filtering options and a 2D display to represent the relative positions of signals much like a radar screen.




How about a 3D radar combined with the map view set to solar system.


How about this?

Fifth Horseman
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:13:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Fifth Horseman on 24/04/2008 16:18:19
Cloaked Ships.
Recon prices.

There will be no discernable reason to ever fly anything without a cloak ever again, and soon all that will be are Cloak Warpers.

Since mixed race Recon gangs can do it all, that will end up the defacto standard, and ratting will become impossible, since you'll need that scanner open constantly looking for the 1.5 seconds blip of a recon entering your system. Making you easier to find by the people who are impossible to find.

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:21:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Tarminic on 24/04/2008 16:22:26
Originally by: Xparky
Originally by: Tarminic

2 The DS need to be easy to read and sort. In addition to the massive list of objects, the DS needs some better filtering options and a 2D display to represent the relative positions of signals much like a radar screen.


How about a 3D radar combined with the map view set to solar system.

I thought about doing that, but I wanted to make sure that you could still use the directional scanner without having to switch to the system map.

However! You could integrate the two so you can still use the 2D radar view normally but use the 3D view from the system map - this may be the best of both worlds.

Originally by: Fifth Horseman
Cloaked Ships.
Recon prices.

A good point.

How I balance this with recons and cloaked ships depends almost entirely on what CCP choses to do regarding cloaked ships. A non Covert-ops cloak already hinders this process by reducing scan resolution (making it harder to detect ships in general), but this probably isn't enough. Until I know what they're planning I can't really say, honestly. A quick fix would be to have an active cloaking device reduce sensor strength by 90%, effectively blinding cloaked ships unless they cram absurd amounts of sensor upgrades on their ship, but I haven't thought deeply enough about this to say for sure.

Originally by: Fifth Horseman
Since mixed race Recon gangs can do it all, that will end up the defacto standard, and ratting will become impossible, since you'll need that scanner open constantly looking for the 1.5 seconds blip of a recon entering your system. Making you easier to find by the people who are impossible to find.

I think the reduction in sensor strength (above) would help alleviate this issue, but I can't say whether it would be solved completely or would need something else as well.

Xparky
The Scope
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:21:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Xparky on 24/04/2008 16:23:30
nevermind.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:21:00 - [9]
 

This is a good reason why you are not done.

Kyra Felann
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:33:00 - [10]
 

This overall sounds good, but I still like the idea of active vs passive sensors.

Have the directional scanner be like a passive scanner that sees ships or whatever within a certain range if they're moving, shooting, etc. ie: it constantly listens and looks for heat, light, radiation signatures from ships, but doesn't actively scan.

Then have a "active" or "ping" button where you send out an active scan that makes you show up on passive scanners around you, but gives you better range and better intel about what's around (even if they're sitting still and running "silent").

Kind of like submarines.

But I think just about anything is better than local's "all-seeing eye".

Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:37:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Zaiyo Modi on 24/04/2008 16:40:37

Originally by: Tarminic
3.1 Scan range should depend entirely on sensor strength. A ship with a sensor strength of 6 would be able to scan up to 3AU's away, while a ship with a sensor strength of 24 would be able to scan up to 3AU's away. This would also give ECCMs a use outside of pure ECM defense.


3au? Typo? Should it say 12au?

I strongly disagree with having ECCM modules increase scanning range, it does not make sense. Also sensor boosting (scan res) modules on a ship exist already with the "signal amplifier" and "sensor booster" module.

Besides, iirc, i can get 150 and more in gravimetrical sensor strength on a navy raven, so how far would the scan reach then?

Winterblink
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:39:00 - [12]
 

To add;

Emissions should have an effect on this. Weapons fire for instance should light up like a christmas tree on the scanner. People fighting, ratting, would show up clearly. Your ship's scanners and pilot skills should play into how accurate the hits are.

This would go for mining lasers as well, to a slightly lesser extent.

Obviously needs refining, but you get the gist I think. ;)

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:43:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Tarminic
Edited by: Tarminic on 24/04/2008 16:22:26
Originally by: Xparky
Originally by: Tarminic

2 The DS need to be easy to read and sort. In addition to the massive list of objects, the DS needs some better filtering options and a 2D display to represent the relative positions of signals much like a radar screen.


How about a 3D radar combined with the map view set to solar system.

I thought about doing that, but I wanted to make sure that you could still use the directional scanner without having to switch to the system map.

However! You could integrate the two so you can still use the 2D radar view normally but use the 3D view from the system map - this may be the best of both worlds.

Originally by: Fifth Horseman
Cloaked Ships.
Recon prices.

A good point.

How I balance this with recons and cloaked ships depends almost entirely on what CCP choses to do regarding cloaked ships. A non Covert-ops cloak already hinders this process by reducing scan resolution (making it harder to detect ships in general), but this probably isn't enough. Until I know what they're planning I can't really say, honestly. A quick fix would be to have an active cloaking device reduce sensor strength by 90%, effectively blinding cloaked ships unless they cram absurd amounts of sensor upgrades on their ship, but I haven't thought deeply enough about this to say for sure.

Originally by: Fifth Horseman
Since mixed race Recon gangs can do it all, that will end up the defacto standard, and ratting will become impossible, since you'll need that scanner open constantly looking for the 1.5 seconds blip of a recon entering your system. Making you easier to find by the people who are impossible to find.

I think the reduction in sensor strength (above) would help alleviate this issue, but I can't say whether it would be solved completely or would need something else as well.


With respect to cloaks:

Set the sensor range penalty to be the same as the scan res penalty. A 40% reduction is fairly severe. (50% for the T1)

Another option would be to make cloaks incompatible with ECCMs; if the ECCM is active, you can't cloak (your ship is putting out more sensor signals?); if your cloak is online, you can't online your ECCM.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:44:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Zaiyo Modi
Edited by: Zaiyo Modi on 24/04/2008 16:40:37

Originally by: Tarminic
3.1 Scan range should depend entirely on sensor strength. A ship with a sensor strength of 6 would be able to scan up to 3AU's away, while a ship with a sensor strength of 24 would be able to scan up to 3AU's away. This would also give ECCMs a use outside of pure ECM defense.


3au? Typo? Should it say 12au?

I strongly disagree with having ECCM modules increase scanning range, it does not make sense. Also sensor boosting (scan res) modules on a ship exist already with the "signal amplifier" and "sensor booster" module.

Besides, iirc, i can get 150 and more in gravimetrical sensor strength on a navy raven, so how far would the scan reach then?


Most systems are only 20-40 AU across. Having limited scan range would make things much more interesting.

ECCMs increase sensor strength; would does having stronger sensors being able to scan further not make sense? It sounds perfectly obvious to me.

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:51:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Tarminic

3.1 Scan range should depend entirely on sensor strength. A ship with a sensor strength of 6 would be able to scan up to 3AU's away, while a ship with a sensor strength of 24 would be able to scan up to 3AU's away. This would also give ECCMs a use outside of pure ECM defense.



If Scan range is dependent on sensor strength (that makes sense) then why would a ship with a sensor strength of 6 be as effective as a ship with a 24 sensor strength?

It would seem to me that the more strength the farther you can scan...

Originally by: Tarminic

3.2 Scan Effectiveness should depend on Scan Resolution. Battleships may be able to scan a wide area, but will have a hard time picking up anything smaller than their size Sensor Boosters would help this but also require them to sacrifice more slots. This also creates scenarios where smaller ships are better at intelligence-gathering due to their improved sensor resolution, and would be especially useful for Recon and Covert Ops ships, especially those that aren't quite as combat-effective as others.



When combined with the sensor strength, you could modify results in that at some point, your scan could detect something, but not identify it... further scans may or may not identify the object as something of interest... As you close the distance, the sensor strength and Scan Resolution will eventually identify the object... in the case of cloaked ships, the identification may not be able to be done outside of the range that would disable the cloak...

A BS (uncloaked) may show up at extreme range as an unknown object where a cloaked ship would not show up at all... a cloaked ship may start to show up as unknown at a range that is much less (Is that unknown a BS at extreme range or a cloaked ship that is within line of sight?)...

Ridjeck Thome
DEATHFUNK
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:56:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Ridjeck Thome on 24/04/2008 16:56:49

why not tie the ship scanner into an enhanced tactical overlay? - giving a constant readout of ship positions within a certain radius of your ship (ala homeworld somehwat?)

Winterblink
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:59:00 - [17]
 

Well, the whole thing needs to be more tightly integrated into the system map view, in my opinion. You still have your overview open so you can deal with things in your local vicinity if need be, but turn the system view into a proper 3D scanner, completely with scanning distance and cone displays.

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:06:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Zaiyo Modi
Edited by: Zaiyo Modi on 24/04/2008 16:40:37

Originally by: Tarminic
3.1 Scan range should depend entirely on sensor strength. A ship with a sensor strength of 6 would be able to scan up to 3AU's away, while a ship with a sensor strength of 24 would be able to scan up to 3AU's away. This would also give ECCMs a use outside of pure ECM defense.


3au? Typo? Should it say 12au?

I strongly disagree with having ECCM modules increase scanning range, it does not make sense. Also sensor boosting (scan res) modules on a ship exist already with the "signal amplifier" and "sensor booster" module.

Besides, iirc, i can get 150 and more in gravimetrical sensor strength on a navy raven, so how far would the scan reach then?

Yeah, the second "3AU" is a typo. Fixed. Smile

Sensor strength only dictates the maximum range of the scan - the effectiveness (i.e. chance of catching something) depends on the scanning resolution of the ship as well. You may be able to get a ship to a scan range of 150AU, but in order for it to reliably detect ships smaller than capital ships you'd need to trade out slots for sensor boosters. I'd say that 8 mids slots should give you 15AU scanning range, OR ability to detect frigates reliably, but never both. Those abilities may still seem somewhat extreme for a battleship, but keep in mind that you're sacrificing a lot of slots to achieve that.

Originally by: Winterblink
To add;

Emissions should have an effect on this. Weapons fire for instance should light up like a christmas tree on the scanner. People fighting, ratting, would show up clearly. Your ship's scanners and pilot skills should play into how accurate the hits are.

This would go for mining lasers as well, to a slightly lesser extent.

Obviously needs refining, but you get the gist I think. ;)


Hrm, I like this idea. Very Happy

The strength needed to find it could even depend on the largest amount of damage done in a single hit, so ten frigates would be much less likely to show up than a few battleships.

Originally by: Ridjeck Thome
Edited by: Ridjeck Thome on 24/04/2008 16:56:49

why not tie the ship scanner into an enhanced tactical overlay? - giving a constant readout of ship positions within a certain radius of your ship (ala homeworld somehwat?)

That's yet another way to improve the directional scanner. It would be awesome to have a fully integrated scanning system (tactical overlay, seperate UI window, or system map view.

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:12:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
This is a good reason why you are not done.

Assuming that CCP implements the changes you suggest, do you believe my ideas would still have merit?

I believe that in the past you've spoken regarding how easy it is for an FC to make a decision regarding whether to engage or retreat due to the intel local provides (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). I suppose that if you distill my idea down to it's basic principles I want to give pilots the option to improve the quality of their intel at the expense of tanking/armament/e-war. FC's would have to make a judgment call regarding to what extent that tradeoff is worthwhile.

Trathen
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:14:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Trathen on 24/04/2008 17:22:37
Originally by: Malcanis


Most systems are only 20-40 AU across. Having limited scan range would make things much more interesting.

ECCMs increase sensor strength; would does having stronger sensors being able to scan further not make sense? It sounds perfectly obvious to me.


I would think that sensor strength translates more roughly to "sensor integrity" rather than "sensor power" because it doesn't really make sense that Electronic Counter-Countermeasures would do anything but counter countermeasures. They could just as easily change the name of the mods though. (Seems more of a job for a sensor booster script).

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:26:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Trathen
Originally by: Malcanis


Most systems are only 20-40 AU across. Having limited scan range would make things much more interesting.

ECCMs increase sensor strength; would does having stronger sensors being able to scan further not make sense? It sounds perfectly obvious to me.


I would think that sensor strength translates more roughly to "sensor integrity" rather than "sensor power" because it doesn't really make sense that Electronic Counter-Countermeasures would do anything but counter countermeasures. They could just as easily change the name of the mods though.


But as I said above, it would provide a very good reason to fit ECCM. Both the other EW counter modules are useful in and of themselves; sensor boosters and tracking computers/enhancers are something people fit even if they're not expecting to be EW'd. ECCM isn't, and that's part of the reason that many people feel that ECM is overpowered.

Additionally, giving larger ships bigger scan range would be a (small) indirect nano-nerf.

Trathen
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:36:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Malcanis


But as I said above, it would provide a very good reason to fit ECCM. Both the other EW counter modules are useful in and of themselves; sensor boosters and tracking computers/enhancers are something people fit even if they're not expecting to be EW'd. ECCM isn't, and that's part of the reason that many people feel that ECM is overpowered.

Additionally, giving larger ships bigger scan range would be a (small) indirect nano-nerf.


Yes I will be the first to say that making a connection from the name does not necessarily mean its a good idea (such as people's wild RL parallels with insurance). I am still sitting on my hands in hi-sec until I reach that magic 5 mil SP mark so I won't pretend to know how ECCM works - but I did have to point out that as I saw it, the concept that ECCM has always and should be activated and kept ready only in response to ECM is rather intuitive.

Though if ECCM needs a boost, that's a new thread altogether.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:41:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Trathen
Originally by: Malcanis


But as I said above, it would provide a very good reason to fit ECCM. Both the other EW counter modules are useful in and of themselves; sensor boosters and tracking computers/enhancers are something people fit even if they're not expecting to be EW'd. ECCM isn't, and that's part of the reason that many people feel that ECM is overpowered.

Additionally, giving larger ships bigger scan range would be a (small) indirect nano-nerf.


Yes I will be the first to say that making a connection from the name does not necessarily mean its a good idea (such as people's wild RL parallels with insurance). I am still sitting on my hands in hi-sec until I reach that magic 5 mil SP mark so I won't pretend to know how ECCM works - but I did have to point out that as I saw it, the concept that ECCM has always and should be activated and kept ready only in response to ECM is rather intuitive.

Though if ECCM needs a boost, that's a new thread altogether.


On a tangent to your tangent: there is no "magic 5M SP mark" (unless you're wanting to join a specific corp or alliance that sets this as a requirement). Stop sitting on your hands and start dying!

ECCM modules increase sensor strength by 80% (T1 basic) - 96% (T2), basically halving your chance of being ECM'd. That's all they do though. Sensor boosters improve locking range/speed, so they're the counter to sensor damps which do the exact opposite. But better range/lock speed is always useful anyway. Likewise Tracking Computers vs Targeting Disruptors.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:43:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Tarminic

Assuming that CCP implements the changes you suggest, do you believe my ideas would still have merit?


Part of the main problem with implementing a solution in the face of not having local is that you will either get too little information, too much information, or too cluttered information. E.G. in a system with a bunch of POS your scanner will pick up tonnes of ships sitting in the POS that you now need to filter out of your head. But if you only have piloted ships on the scanner then you both limit its function to scout and make it much too easy to find people.

To start, you need, at the very least, some kind of friendly, neutral, and hostile count that is absolute within some reasonable range. The local window is good for this because it gives all that information and its hard to parse when it gets large. On the other hand, it also tells us exactly who is in local and via copious notes one can have a very good and fast indication of who an enemy is, what he likes to fly etc.

For instance, i will often if i have time, click on a guy on local and add a list of known ships. That way if i see him pop up again, i can tell you that he is likely in a vagabond or a rapier. Now we have advance warning of what is coming in when we probably should have to rely on the scanner. In order to make that impossible you would have to simply count the numbers of hostiles, neutrals, war targets, and friendlies in system, and that makes assembling hostile counts a whole lot easier[No more having people scan 400 person long lists to figure out how large the enemy fleet is likely to be].

But lets say we use that and its system wide[if its not system wide and just x AU where x is some distance > 14.5 AU this creates problems with systems with far single celestials, but is possible]

So we have a scanner, and right across the top is lists friendlies, hostiles, neutrals, and war targets[and say, nothing shows up here until its gate cloak deactivates]

Now we need to find ships via the directional scanner and all problems are U.I. problems via the directional scanner being a clunky system with no hot keys and no on screen visual indicators of what you are looking at and not an overarching problem with how ships are found.

A passive/active sonar type scanner might be interesting, but i don't think is the right direction. This is because active scanning is typically a mutual system where everyone knows that someone is searching. This increases the amount of time it takes to find and kill miners/ratters etc because once someone pings the miners and ratters are going to have a nice big visual indicator they probably can't miss[and well they shouldn't have missed the hostile/neut count increase so this might be a moot point]

So then its just fixing the U.I. Making the mouse wheel change scan distance and/or scan angle instead so you can easily run between scan distances or angles.[a good way to do this might be a keyboard hotkey toggle so if its activated you chance with the angle and if its deactivated you run up or down in hundreds of thousands of kilometers]. Giving a visual cone on your heads-up of the area you are scanning[and better yet, a change in the color of celestials that are within that cone and its range] which can be turned on or off in the same manner as the tactical display[or simply make it active when the tactical display and scanner is active]. Adding a visual cone on your system map same as above. Adding a hotkey to scan, so that you can move scan angle and range with your mouse fast and then make scans quickly to find targets.

So no i don't really believe that the scanning system needs a complete overhaul[though the one i see in my post i would very much like} and i don't believe that a single mechanic can produce the right results without some sort of functionality that is similar to local[due to the reasons explained in the linked post linked in post 9 of this thread]

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:45:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 24/04/2008 17:53:40
Edit: Ok, Goumindong got here a little sooner...

Suggestion: active & passive modes
  • The scanner is always active, either in passive or active mode.
  • In active mode, you can see everything within range as per Tarminic's ideas.
  • In passive mode, all you can see is other pilots who are scanning in active mode.

This forces pilots to reveal themselves if they want to attack, but only to fairly vigilant defenders. If you want to hide, you can't see anyone else who's trying to hide.

Ideally, I'd include blobs on the scanner that correspond to sig radius (for active mode) or sensor strength (passive mode), coloured by the standing from your corp to theirs, but without showing any individual pilot names.

Aphoticus
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:47:00 - [26]
 

I like the idea as well. How ever it is done, all relative skills, Sensor Variables, etc. should be concidered.

To add to this, I would think that strength versus resolution should not be set in stone.

If I want to see further, dial it up, but loose resolution, if I want to resolve in a smaller area, dial it down, increasing resolution (That is the inverse - I may have high or low resolution mixed up).

Ultimately, with skills, equipment, Active system equipment (weapons, scanner devices, mining lazers, what ever) have different reolution modifiers, would allow for a very interresting configuration for specific tasks.

It would be cool if you were mining, tucked between 3 asteroids, had things configured to detect incoming, and then shut all systems down, reducing your signiture, no energy emissions, etc. and maybe go unnoticed if not for the naked eye.

Or maybe, they were configured in such a way that they reduce or trasnfer the sensor's functionality to a shorter range but be able to pick up the smallest of tell-tale signs that my ship is there.

Maybe they just didn't have the skill, and move on to the next belt.

Very interresting scenarios...all skill and player based manipulation.

Trathen
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:48:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Trathen on 24/04/2008 17:49:17
Originally by: Malcanis


On a tangent to your tangent: there is no "magic 5M SP mark" (unless you're wanting to join a specific corp or alliance that sets this as a requirement). Stop sitting on your hands and start dying!

ECCM modules increase sensor strength by 80% (T1 basic) - 96% (T2), basically halving your chance of being ECM'd. That's all they do though. Sensor boosters improve locking range/speed, so they're the counter to sensor damps which do the exact opposite. But better range/lock speed is always useful anyway. Likewise Tracking Computers vs Targeting Disruptors.



Only halves? Yeah that doesn't sound like good ECCM anyway. I concur then, though now I just think it should work better. There should be no reason that replacing an ECM fitting with an ECCM fitting shouldn't nullify another for balance purposes.

Continue tangent/derail: Yeah like R.E.C.O.N. Surprised and most actively-recruiting small-gang corps, but yeah I'd be more suicidal if losing a head full of implants didn't conflict with that goal.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:54:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 24/04/2008 17:56:59
Edited by: Malcanis on 24/04/2008 17:55:25
Originally by: Trathen
Edited by: Trathen on 24/04/2008 17:49:17
Originally by: Malcanis


On a tangent to your tangent: there is no "magic 5M SP mark" (unless you're wanting to join a specific corp or alliance that sets this as a requirement). Stop sitting on your hands and start dying!

ECCM modules increase sensor strength by 80% (T1 basic) - 96% (T2), basically halving your chance of being ECM'd. That's all they do though. Sensor boosters improve locking range/speed, so they're the counter to sensor damps which do the exact opposite. But better range/lock speed is always useful anyway. Likewise Tracking Computers vs Targeting Disruptors.



Only halves? Yeah that doesn't sound like good ECCM anyway. I concur then, though now I just think it should work better. There should be no reason that replacing an ECM fitting with an ECCM fitting shouldn't nullify another for balance purposes.

Continue tangent/derail: Yeah like R.E.C.O.N. Surprised and most actively-recruiting small-gang corps, but yeah I'd be more suicidal if losing a head full of implants didn't conflict with that goal.



I can tell you for a fact that people have joined R.E.C.O.N with less than 5M SP.

I used to run a corp a bit like RECON, and I had no problem with recruiting people straight out of the trial period, as long as they had good attitude and were fun to talk to.

EDT: As for your implants, there is no reason you should ever lose your implants outside of 0.0 except by smartbombing BS (rare). Try joining Red or Blue, or the Noob Mercs; they're both empire-based.

EDT2: And as a falcon pilot, I can assure you that ECCM-fitted BS are a pain in the fundament. Because if you're in a falcon and you try and jam a sniper BS and fail, you will die.

William Alex
Viscosity
Ocularis Inferno
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:16:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: William Alex on 24/04/2008 18:16:10
Originally by: Tarminic

stuff



Man I love this post on so many levels!

<3

This would be very much a game change though so it'd have to be dribbled out slowly.

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:17:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
A passive/active sonar type scanner might be interesting, but i don't think is the right direction. This is because active scanning is typically a mutual system where everyone knows that someone is searching. This increases the amount of time it takes to find and kill miners/ratters etc because once someone pings the miners and ratters are going to have a nice big visual indicator they probably can't miss[and well they shouldn't have missed the hostile/neut count increase so this might be a moot point]

What about something between a purely passive and purely active system?

I think that a good system would be one in which your ability to detect incoming hostiles is proportional to your chances of being detected by them, and I believe this is possible with the system I have in mind. You can be actively scanning constantly, which provides you with the best chance of detecting hostiles early, but it also make it much easier for hostiles to detect you as a result (Obviously this should be balanced somewhat towards the attackers; otherwise it's just a different form of local where everyone with a brain stem warps to safety as soon as hostiles come through the gate). Pilots should have to make a judgment call regarding how much they want to advertise their presence or have a designated scout keep an eye out for them.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

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