EVE Search - Directional Scanner Improvements as a Local Replacement

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Directional Scanner Improvements as a Local Replacement

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gone'Postal Minmatar Vengeance 8 Interceptors	Posted - 2008.04.24 18:25:00 - [31] Tarminic \0/ Seriously this would rock. V8I
Rawr Cristina Caldari Naqam	Posted - 2008.04.24 18:30:00 - [32] /signed As for having the scanner window open, it should also make you visible on scanner throughout the system. Even for cloaking ships. If you scan, you can be scanned ...
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.24 18:35:00 - [33] Originally by: Tarminic 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. What is the point in the passive scanner if local exists? If local doesn't exist then what do you do about cloaking ships and how do you deal with the passive scanner moving the detection time for all ships very high[reducing the frequency of combat], as well as making engagement time after detection very low[increasing the risk of system]. Such a system is either redundant[local, passive mechanic is just presence], increases the time it takes to find and kill people[local, with passive scan pinpointing] without broadcasting your location/presence[which a pointless penalty because they can see you in local anyway] while making probing ships less valuable[pinpoint possible] thus reducing combat in general and actually nerfing the hunting of production ships, or is utterly broken with regards to cloaking ships while representing a significant nerf to 0.0 production and a reduction in general combat due to the difficulty in finding targets[no local + any mechanic that doesn't let the target know a cloaked ship is within the area within a significant time frame] Vote Goumindong for CSM
Captain Falcord Gallente Reckless Corsairs	Posted - 2008.04.24 18:37:00 - [34] --I agree to the scanner strenght based on skills --I agree to the scan range based on them --However, I DON'T agree with hiding information for those who don't have the appropiate scanner, for example a battleship scanning a frigate. It should not hide it completely, maybe just a "Unknown ship" on scanner, but not 100% hidden, that would become confusing and frustrating. Good ideas tho ^^
Andargor theWise Collateral Damage Unlimited	Posted - 2008.04.24 18:47:00 - [35] I'm at work and in a bit of a hurry, so I didn't read everything posted. The gist I got was that player skill as well as character skill could contribute with more interesting local and scanner mechanics. Correct? Knowing a bit about radar and sonar, your display could show blobs of different sizes. Could be a BS or a group of frigs close together. Active scanning should light you up (like when you "ping" sonar, perhaps a default passive mode with manual "ping"?. Scan signatures should be interpreted as the type of ship if it is illuminated properly and your character has the skills. Perhaps ships that are active scanning should be easier to identify (type of scan used, LADAR, Radar, etc..) EW and dampening should affect your scanning abilities, range, masking signatures, duplicating signatures / making decoys, etc. A practiced eye should be able to interpret the resulting blobs on scan, hence player skills. My 0.02 ISK
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.04.24 18:50:00 - [36] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Tarminic 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. What is the point in the passive scanner if local exists? If local doesn't exist then what do you do about cloaking ships and how do you deal with the passive scanner moving the detection time for all ships very high[reducing the frequency of combat], as well as making engagement time after detection very low[increasing the risk of system]. Such a system is either redundant[local, passive mechanic is just presence], increases the time it takes to find and kill people[local, with passive scan pinpointing] without broadcasting your location/presence[which a pointless penalty because they can see you in local anyway] while making probing ships less valuable[pinpoint possible] thus reducing combat in general and actually nerfing the hunting of production ships, or is utterly broken with regards to cloaking ships while representing a significant nerf to 0.0 production and a reduction in general combat due to the difficulty in finding targets[no local + any mechanic that doesn't let the target know a cloaked ship is within the area within a significant time frame] The problem with local is that it integrates more information about independent properties: 1. presence - ship property 2. player information - character property (sec status, standing etc.) We are too much used to this kind of aggregation. So people are not willing to give up anything from this even if the partial mechanic will be superior. Cloaking ships - should be detectable. If tracable that depends ... I am all for it IF it takes reasonable effort and player skill (not just character skill and ship/module stats). Tarminic - good start, but your proposal is only a partial solution.
Gimpb	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:00:00 - [37] Well, this is probably the 345674th version of this kind of idea to be posted, but does seem to be the most well thought out version to appear so far. So, thumbs-up
Face Lifter	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:10:00 - [38] Originally by: Tarminic 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. This is the main thing that needs to happen before local is removed. Everything else is just extra 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 12AU's away. This would also give ECCMs a use outside of pure ECM defense. That may sound cool in theory but will be horrible in practice. It is a great nerf to the scanner. It will be used as powerful argument against local nerf. Just think about this: frig sized ships are the main scouts in PvP. But frigs don't have enough mid slots to fit ECCMs and they have small sensor strengths. The result is that the ships most suitable for scouting role get the worst ability for scouting. 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. This is also a great nerf to the scanner, absolutely not acceptable for real pvp situations. There must be no uncertainty over scan results, otherwise local nerf will never go thru. Originally by: Tarminic 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. This is simply not necessary. Adding more fluff will only help those who oppose local nerf. Originally by: Tarminic 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. More nice sounding useless fluff
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:10:00 - [39] Originally by: Hugh Ruka The problem with local is that it integrates more information about independent properties: 1. presence - ship property 2. player information - character property (sec status, standing etc.) We are too much used to this kind of aggregation. So people are not willing to give up anything from this even if the partial mechanic will be superior. Cloaking ships - should be detectable. If tracable that depends ... I am all for it IF it takes reasonable effort and player skill (not just character skill and ship/module stats). The thing is, there needs to be a system that contains at least 1. Presence in system or within large area 2. Standings You don't really need anything else, which means you can get rid of local and get rid of all the extraneous info[player name, notes, etc] it provides, but you must at least have a universal presence in system/significant area that orders by standings. In my second post on the first page i go into a bit more depth about why that is and what the extraneous info is and what the benefits and costs of each way of doing it are. Presence in system alone does not cut it, because the player options change significantly whether that person is hostile or not. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:19:00 - [40] One new feature that can help minimize the pain of local nerf is this: *) Allies can choose to share scanner info automatically. For example, if your alliance/fleet member is sitting on a gate and sees some hostile guy enter local, then your scanner would also see it, even tho you may be way out of scan range. This scanner data sharing can be system-wide only and it serves as considerable improvement over current system, which helps offset loss of functionality due to local nerf.

Torik Tavitas	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:42:00 - [41] Originally by: Goumindong The thing is, there needs to be a system that contains at least 1. Presence in system or within large area 2. Standings You don't really need anything else, which means you can get rid of local and get rid of all the extraneous info[player name, notes, etc] it provides, but you must at least have a universal presence in system/significant area that orders by standings. In my second post on the first page i go into a bit more depth about why that is and what the extraneous info is and what the benefits and costs of each way of doing it are. Presence in system alone does not cut it, because the player options change significantly whether that person is hostile or not. Why exactly should a player know what standing a ship halfway across the system has and where would a scanner get that information?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:51:00 - [42] Originally by: Torik Tavitas Why exactly should a player know what standing a ship halfway across the system has and where would a scanner get that information? Because if they do not the game balance between hunter and hunted changes drastically and all the hunted go off to greener pastures[empire and noob corps] while all the hunters form up ever more massive gangs [many of which are likely to all be cloaked] because of the likelihood that the run into another massive gang has increased.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:53:00 - [43] Originally by: Ephemeron One new feature that can help minimize the pain of local nerf is this: *) Allies can choose to share scanner info automatically. For example, if your alliance/fleet member is sitting on a gate and sees some hostile guy enter local, then your scanner would also see it, even tho you may be way out of scan range. This scanner data sharing can be system-wide only and it serves as considerable improvement over current system, which helps offset loss of functionality due to local nerf. That would only work in highly populated friendly systems. That type of mechanic does not support smaller roaming gangs and incursions since its harder for the to know what they are about to run into.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.04.24 19:54:00 - [44] Originally by: Torik Tavitas Why exactly should a player know what standing a ship halfway across the system has and where would a scanner get that information? And also because the game already has this function. Our main goal should be to make local nerf as painless as possible.
Togg Bott Minmatar	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:17:00 - [45] Edited by: Togg Bott on 24/04/2008 20:17:28 i like the direction of this idea... never understood why ccp allowed local after it was seen how badly it got abused. but oh well. this is something i could sign on to.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:21:00 - [46] I too like where this idea is going. Inspired by the OP and the discussion, here's a revamp of the Scanner I imagined: A "Local-less" Scanner Revamp The Scanner can be adjusted along a Broad-Narrow spectrum, and does not require any button presses to activate - it is always running, just the way the Overview is always running. On the Broad end of the spectrum the scanner passively detects piloted ships within X AU of your ship, telling you their name and corp affiliation. (thus if you set your scanner all the way to Broad detection, you can detect the presence of piloted ships within, say, 14 AU and what corp they belong to - but no other information). Thus upon jumping into a system with your scanner set to the Broadest setting, you would be able to see how many ships were within (say) 14 AU of your position. As you adjust your scanner towards the Narrow or Focused end of the detection spectrum, the range of detection decreases. Let's say for example the possible settings look like this: Broadest: 14 AU radius, tells you how many Pilots are withing range and their Corp Tickers. Narrower: 8 AU radius, now the info includes ship types and distance. Even Narrower: 4 AU radius, now includes a position on the system map with a scan deviation of 1 AU (which you can warp to a la Exploration). Most Narrow: 2 AU radius, now includes position on system map with scan deviation of 100km, allowing you to warp on-grid with ships you detect at this setting. Thus if you jump into system with your Scanner set to Broad, you can immediately detect the presence of Players within 14 AU, exactly as if their names appeared in Local. But players on the other side of the system (more than 14 AU away) are not yet detected. Of course, any player that you can spot can also spot you. To get more information and hunt down a player, you can move about the system, tuning your Scanner to a tighter and tighter bandwidth. Probes Probes can then be changed to augment the ship-board scanner of the ship that dropped them, in a couple exciting ways. Note that these uses are not "click and wait for the scan to resolve" uses, but a "drop the probe and it automatically augments your scanner" type thing. 1. A ship dropping a probe can get increased range on their scanner, allowing the pilot's scanner to see out to beyond normal ranges, and to be tuned to greater accuracy than would normally be possible at longer ranges. For instance if the on board scanner normally needed to be tuned to 1 AU to pinpoint the location of a nearby ship, a dropped probe could instead allow you that level of accuracy at 5 AU - a nice advantage. 2. Probes could be dropped throughout a system and augment the coverage of a pilot's scanners - allowing them to see all ship movement across the whole system on their system map if the probes are arranged and tuned properly. Since probes expire after a duration, part of a battle would be quickly dropping your probes and establishing your "satellite network" to be ready to report enemy movements in the system and gain the upper hand, or to drop probes at the other gates in a system to spot incoming forces during a gatecamp. This also opens up a fantastic intelligence warfare element to combat, with Covert Ops frigates hunting down each other's probes and eliminating them in order to gain intel superiority for their side. That alone is worth the price of admission!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:21:00 - [47] Edited by: Kelsin on 24/04/2008 20:24:41 Edited by: Kelsin on 24/04/2008 20:23:33 cont'd: Cloaks The question of how the removal of Local would make Cloaking ships harder to deal with has been brought up. To me there are several easy fixes that would ensure cloaking ships didn't become overpowered under this kind of system. 1. "There's a cloaked ship around!" As Jade mentioned in his post ( http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=755364 ) on Local and the CSM Candidates in EVE General, one fair and easy way to handle cloaks would be for the on-board scanner to be able to tell you "There is a cloaked ship within scan range" without revealing where exactly. Essentially Cloaked ships would be detected on the Scanner the same way non-Cloaked ships are at the Broadest setting, but no additional intel on them can be gained by tuning the Scanner to be more focused. 2. Perhaps while cloaked, your own on-board scanner is reduced in effectiveness. A simple intel drawback like that would be an easy way to balance cloaking in the battle for information superiority. Ships not designed for the use of cloaks could (and come to think of it, probably should) even have their on-board scanners completely deactivated while cloaked, making it possible to "go dark" at the expense of blinding yourself. The Overall Idea At core, the idea behind this sort of Scanner revamp would be to make detecting other Players in space a matter of Proximity, and to allow the gathering of more detailed intelligence by sacrificing the range of that Proximity Detection. At the broadest setting, the scanner approximates the current state of Local Chat - telling you who is within X AU. By reducing the range you gain new and better information about what is around you.
Shadow Joy	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:40:00 - [48] A thought on how to make user skill a factor: give people the ability to adjust the scan they are performing. Say, for instance, I am in a battleship and I know there is an enemy scout flying around in a frigate. My scanner is having a problem picking him up, so I reduce my scan range to improve my resolution. Conversely, say I am not worried about frigates, but am concerned about any ship big enough to suicide gank whatever I am flying. I decrease my resolution to increase my scanning range. The skill in these instances comes from knowing what the proper resolution to range ratio is for your particular situation.
Nielas	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:47:00 - [49] Edited by: Nielas on 24/04/2008 20:48:35 Originally by: Ephemeron Originally by: Torik Tavitas Why exactly should a player know what standing a ship halfway across the system has and where would a scanner get that information? And also because the game already has this function. Our main goal should be to make local nerf as painless as possible. I do not believe any relevant change that removes local as it is can be achieved without 'pain' to some group of players. It just will not happen. There is a very fine equilibrium built up around the way local functions now. Any change to it will severly shake up the status quo. Local right now gives near perfect information as fast as lag permits. Any change that reduces that amount of information will hurt some group of players. Any group of players that feel that local as it is now hurts their playstyle by giving too much information will welcome changes to it. Groups that like the current status quo will fight it tooth and nail since they rely on the information it gives them. Personally I do not care about the status quo so I am all for changing how this works and then seeing how things balance out on the other side. But that is just my opinion.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:49:00 - [50] Excellent thread, Tarminic. I love the idea of having different ships with different directional scanner characteristics. I think that the two biggest issues with the directional scanner are 1) Not enough control over over what it displays It's absolutely ****** to have to wade through pages of secure cans and POS components if I want to see what probes people have out 2) Not updating automatically** I can update the scanner as fast as I want, so why not make it auto update every 30s or so? Having to click it myself is just busy tedious busy work. You could even put in skills that determine how fast it auto updates.

Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.24 20:52:00 - [51] Quote: Why exactly should a player know what standing a ship halfway across the system has and where would a scanner get that information? It's science fiction, you figure it out. As long as people get into systems using jump gates, it would be trivially easy to simply query the jumpgate and see who just jumped into the system. All kinds of IFF transmitters or drive signatures or coded identity transmissions, etc, would work as justification for figuring out the standing of a ship you just scanned.
Nielas	Posted - 2008.04.24 21:07:00 - [52] Originally by: Ulstan Quote: Why exactly should a player know what standing a ship halfway across the system has and where would a scanner get that information? It's science fiction, you figure it out. As long as people get into systems using jump gates, it would be trivially easy to simply query the jumpgate and see who just jumped into the system. All kinds of IFF transmitters or drive signatures or coded identity transmissions, etc, would work as justification for figuring out the standing of a ship you just scanned. Well if you want to approach it from the sci fi side you also have to allow for id spoofing and masking. 'Sailing under a false flag' has been around forever. Any system that allows for friend-or-foe identification can be fooled or hacked.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2008.04.24 21:12:00 - [53] Originally by: Nielas Originally by: Ulstan Quote: Why exactly should a player know what standing a ship halfway across the system has and where would a scanner get that information? It's science fiction, you figure it out. As long as people get into systems using jump gates, it would be trivially easy to simply query the jumpgate and see who just jumped into the system. All kinds of IFF transmitters or drive signatures or coded identity transmissions, etc, would work as justification for figuring out the standing of a ship you just scanned. Well if you want to approach it from the sci fi side you also have to allow for id spoofing and masking. 'Sailing under a false flag' has been around forever. Any system that allows for friend-or-foe identification can be fooled or hacked. True, but realism takes a backseat to game balance. I'd still like to think that the system might work, but Goumindong brings up good points that will have to be solved first. ponders ---------------- Tarminic - 35 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.24 21:20:00 - [54] Complete removal of local 3 AU autoscanner, shows everything(even cloaked) on scanner. Alliances can move their poses to planets, that do not have belts or ban leaving empty ships in forcefield. This would work against the "too easy" passive defense for the defenders, and also make it harder to find ratters just by jumping into a system. Roamers would focus on high-end systems, and often ignoring low-end systems due to low probability of targets. This would encourage 0.0 alliances to spread out, rather than focus all the "carebear" power onto a few high-end systems. At the moment, -0.1 and -1.0 have the same risk, yet different reward...
Nielas	Posted - 2008.04.24 21:41:00 - [55] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Nielas Originally by: Ulstan Quote: Why exactly should a player know what standing a ship halfway across the system has and where would a scanner get that information? It's science fiction, you figure it out. As long as people get into systems using jump gates, it would be trivially easy to simply query the jumpgate and see who just jumped into the system. All kinds of IFF transmitters or drive signatures or coded identity transmissions, etc, would work as justification for figuring out the standing of a ship you just scanned. Well if you want to approach it from the sci fi side you also have to allow for id spoofing and masking. 'Sailing under a false flag' has been around forever. Any system that allows for friend-or-foe identification can be fooled or hacked. True, but realism takes a backseat to game balance. I'd still like to think that the system might work, but Goumindong brings up good points that will have to be solved first. ponders I was primarily trying to point out that using the 'realism' angle to justify one point of view exposes you to eqully justified 'realism' arguments that support the other point of view. At the same time any game mechanic that tries to maintain a balance cannot be too arbitrary or players will not buy it. That means that the game mechanic has to make some sense within the environmant of the game. Any game change that introduces a new level of interactivity or strategy to the game will upset the balance. Adding T2 items, POS, capital ships, jump gates, cloaks, invention all threw the game out of balance in one way or another but after a period of turmoil a new equilibrium was reached.
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.04.24 21:43:00 - [56] About the 3Au thing... it's way too small, regardless how you justify it (scan str for example). You have to keep in mind how fast most ships warp. Having 1 second or less to see any incoming isn't going to cut it when the scan itself currently takes about that long. And assuming they won't go for a design that's going to flood their network, I doubt the refresh rate on your "continuous scan" version would be any better. It basically kneecaps the scanner's useability as a heads up tool. And having to pack on upgrade mods, whatever they might be, just to get it back to a useable level would pretty much suck. I'd stick with the 15AU as the minimum range and work out. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2008.04.24 22:01:00 - [57] Originally by: Roy Batty68 About the 3Au thing... it's way too small, regardless how you justify it (scan str for example). You have to keep in mind how fast most ships warp. Having 1 second or less to see any incoming isn't going to cut it when the scan itself currently takes about that long. And assuming they won't go for a design that's going to flood their network, I doubt the refresh rate on your "continuous scan" version would be any better. Don't forget that a lot of time in warp is accelerating and decellerating. Though a 3AU minimum range is pretty short notice, it's more than enough for a frigate to align and warp out. Regarding the server impact, the nature of warping in EVE makes it possible to cache some scanner data without revealing too much information to the client, so I believe that it would actually be better than a player spamming the "scan" button (because no caching of any kind takes place during that process). Quote: It basically kneecaps the scanner's useability as a heads up tool. And having to pack on upgrade mods, whatever they might be, just to get it back to a useable level would pretty much suck. I'd stick with the 15AU as the minimum range and work out. The 0.5AU per point of sensor strength is just a placeholder, really. The real distance would be decided by game designers more qualified than myself. The basic scanner on a ship, without any upgrades, should be able to detect threats moderately well. Improving it would make it much better but at the same time have the tradeoff of making you easier to detect and/or having to sacrifice slots you would normally use to tank or tackle with. ---------------- Tarminic - 35 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)
Drachma Golea Caldari hunter killers	Posted - 2008.04.24 22:01:00 - [58] I definitely like the idea, but If you look at (possibly) the communication transport and the data retrieval The way it works now: Enter System (local channel): - server pushes your (client) data into database - server get's all people in that system - server pushes your client data to all people just gathered Entering Grid - server pushes your location (client) data into database - server get's all people in that system with locations and such - server pushes all other people data to all your client which it just gathered The way it is proposed, Making a scanner rather seamless it all is like Entering Grid Even if the client is or would be rather smart, or would act as a node, it would create lag, because it has to handle more data continuesly Now the way the scanner works now, is indeed like information on demand (you press a button and the server starts doing it's thing...) If you look at submarines, it continues to send and receive information. just my 2 cents, and tbh I hope there will be such a solution...
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 22:07:00 - [59] Has there been any information from CCP about the viability of a continuously running long distance scanner (as in one that you don't have to manually refresh)? If that would be too stressful on the server that would indeed put a damper on the idea of revamping the scanner to replace local.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2008.04.24 22:24:00 - [60] Originally by: Kelsin Has there been any information from CCP about the viability of a continuously running long distance scanner (as in one that you don't have to manually refresh)? If that would be too stressful on the server that would indeed put a damper on the idea of revamping the scanner to replace local. I've theorized on it, but basically anything I come up with is just an educated guess. Due to the way that warping works (once you enter warp your destination has already been decided), a lot of scanner data can be cached once the client has initially detected someone. In addition, if the scan is run every 5 seconds you can cache additional data at the server level since the server knows that it would run at a set interval. ---------------- Tarminic - 35 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.