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)
Ordo Lucius Soliders Of Eve	Posted - 2008.04.24 23:28:00 - [61] On realism, i think Winterblink hit a good point: Emissions. I mean, rather than having a straight forward "Sonar" basing its results purely on whats in range, why not focus it all on the concept of your sensors picking up energy signatures? ie. Frigate is in a belt, doing nothing. Your scanner displays nothing. Frigate is flying towards an asteroid at full speed. Your scanner displays a "contact", and a rough approximation on the location (derived by your ships scanner range and resolution) maybe over a few AUs area. You dont know what it is or where exactly it is (there may be multiple belts/planets near by). Frigate is firing on a rat. Your scanner displays "Light weapon discharge" and gives you a far narrower focus on where he/she may be. The scanner can tell you what type of weapon signature its picking up, but hey, it may be a battleship with one light pulse laser and seven heavies. This way, your ACTIONS determine what someone can see and what they cant. Just my thought on the subject, and it ties in with some realisim (dont start moaning about the speed of light etc. because i really dont care). :D Yikes! My sig is MELTING!!
Sergeant Spot Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.04.25 00:11:00 - [62] The MINIMUM requirements for a scanner based replacement of Local: -- Must be able to sort out unmanned junk (cans and abandoned ships, etc) -- Must be able to sort out friendly stuff -- Must update every second (minimum) -- Must AUTO UPDATE, so you can just open the scanner window and keep an eye on it. -- Must be able to detect the PRESENSE of cloaked ships. To avoid over powering this function, make it strictly a 360 degree minimum 1000km range function (perhaps allow a specialty ship to use this fuction with directional scanner....) -- Must have an clear and distinct game sound that goes off when anything within the scanning criteria enters scan range. The effect of all this would be a scanner that was blank, even in highly cluttered system, until some unknown ship entered scan range. Play nice while you butcher each other.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.25 01:05:00 - [63] Originally by: Sergeant Spot Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 25/04/2008 00:28:30 The MINIMUM requirements for a scanner based replacement of Local: -- Must be able to sort out unmanned junk (cans and abandoned ships, etc) (So, for example, when you jump into a new and cluttered system, you can set it so you see ONLY manned ships and maybe POS towers) -- Must be able to sort out friendly stuff -- Must update every second (minimum) -- Must AUTO UPDATE, so you can just open the scanner window and keep an eye on it. -- Must be able to detect the PRESENSE of cloaked ships. To avoid over powering this function, make it strictly a 360 degree minimum 1000km range function (perhaps allow a specialty ship to use this function with directional scanner....) -- Must have a clear and distinct game sound that goes off when anything within the defined scanning criteria enters scan range. The effect of all this would be a scanner that was blank, even in highly cluttered system, until some unknown ship entered scan range. All excellent points. I can't see any downside to cloaked ships showing up on the directional scanner, but not the overview.
Morfane The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.04.25 01:23:00 - [64] This thread has win written all over it. I would add that I would really like to be able to warp to weapons fire/missile explosions if they are close enough. Wishful thinking, I know, but it would really add to the amount of pew pew without local to help.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2008.04.25 02:11:00 - [65] Originally by: Sergeant Spot The MINIMUM requirements for a scanner based replacement of Local: -- Must be able to sort out unmanned junk (cans and abandoned ships, etc) (So, for example, when you jump into a new and cluttered system, you can set it so you see ONLY manned ships and maybe POS towers) But that's not how it works now. This would be an additional feature that provides information currently not available with local chat. The minimum in that sense would be knowing how many people are in local without identifying who is flying what by long range scanner.
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.25 02:53:00 - [66] 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. ;) Exactly what I was getting at in my post above. I think this sort of thing would add to the gameplay a lot.
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.25 03:01:00 - [67] Originally by: Ordo Lucius I mean, rather than having a straight forward "Sonar" basing its results purely on whats in range, why not focus it all on the concept of your sensors picking up energy signatures? ie. Frigate is in a belt, doing nothing. Your scanner displays nothing. Frigate is flying towards an asteroid at full speed. Your scanner displays a "contact", and a rough approximation on the location (derived by your ships scanner range and resolution) maybe over a few AUs area. You dont know what it is or where exactly it is (there may be multiple belts/planets near by). Frigate is firing on a rat. Your scanner displays "Light weapon discharge" and gives you a far narrower focus on where he/she may be. The scanner can tell you what type of weapon signature its picking up, but hey, it may be a battleship with one light pulse laser and seven heavies. This way, your ACTIONS determine what someone can see and what they cant. This is pretty much what I was getting at, but if a ship is just moving, it should show up as what class at least, maybe even race if they use different types of drives (I know Minmatar use a more primitive drive system than the others) and thus a different heat/light/radiation signature. So maybe "contact - frigate class" Actively scanning would give away your position, but would give you much better intel, like exact ship type, better locational coordinates, longer detection range, etc.
Trathen	Posted - 2008.04.25 03:55:00 - [68] We might be taking it too far at this point. I think the task of replacing local with anything would be daunting enough, so some skeleton radar would be cool enough. I definitely think CCP could take a look at some sub sims to get some inspiration.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.25 04:21:00 - [69] The feel of deep running subs pinging for enemies in the murky depths would be a very exciting thing. We should be so lucky if Local is revamped to be like that!
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.04.25 05:46:00 - [70] Originally by: Kelsin The feel of deep running subs pinging for enemies in the murky depths would be a very exciting thing. We should be so lucky if Local is revamped to be like that! I remember SH3, that game was fun. Pity it doesn't run well on 1280x1024 monitors (****ing fixed 1024x768 resolution). -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth

Sergeant Spot Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.04.25 06:47:00 - [71] Originally by: Face Lifter Originally by: Sergeant Spot The MINIMUM requirements for a scanner based replacement of Local: -- Must be able to sort out unmanned junk (cans and abandoned ships, etc) (So, for example, when you jump into a new and cluttered system, you can set it so you see ONLY manned ships and maybe POS towers) But that's not how it works now. This would be an additional feature that provides information currently not available with local chat. The minimum in that sense would be knowing how many people are in local without identifying who is flying what by long range scanner. Sounds to me like you don't object to local on realism issues, but only because it works. Play nice while you butcher each other.
Terminus adacai Caldari	Posted - 2008.04.25 06:57:00 - [72] This is one of the best posts I have seen here in 2 years. A lot of GREAT ideas in here. I was one of those that did not wan't to see local go, but after reading a lot of ideas in here, I am ready to have one less chat window..... Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Terminus adacai Caldari	Posted - 2008.04.25 07:03:00 - [73] Originally by: Sergeant Spot Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 25/04/2008 00:28:30 The MINIMUM requirements for a scanner based replacement of Local: -- Must be able to sort out unmanned junk (cans and abandoned ships, etc) (So, for example, when you jump into a new and cluttered system, you can set it so you see ONLY manned ships and maybe POS towers) No, pos' should not light up your scanner. Surely that pretty blue aura bends waves and allows them to pass without a return to scanners :) Opinions reflected on my posts are just that, my opinions. They do not reflect views held by my corp or alliance.
Zaerlorth Maelkor	Posted - 2008.04.25 07:12:00 - [74] Some good ideas here, but. 3-12 AU range is very short. Would only give you a couple of seconds warning before someone is on top of you. Which isn't really enough. Beyond that there is the problem of Recons warping cloaked, against those there will be no defense. So I agree that these changes should be made, ie. removal of local and a more indepth, ingame intel gathering tool, but balancing is needed. ================================================== I should really get a sig.
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.04.25 08:34:00 - [75] Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 25/04/2008 08:34:18 Originally by: Goumindong 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. This is my biggest hurdle I have to climb over. Once I can solve this in a satisfactory way, my proposal will be almost complete :-) I was thinking about IFF devices in PODs. This would accomplish 2 things (ok 4): 1. IFF will still be player bound (you can't exist without a pod) 2. You can sort out unmanned ships signatures based on active IFF signal 3. You only get standing/sec status but no player name - this is a step up in my oppinion from local as it leaves a certain error margin ... 4. Enables to create special ship classes that can manipulate their IFF signals (new depth) However 4. can become a large problem if abused or implemented incorrectly. Absence of player identification might pose a problem for many people. With player ID, this will preserve local functionality except the system wide and instant warning. --- SIG --- Goumindong for CSM.
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.25 09:04:00 - [76] They can't afford to remove Local. The last time it disappeared by 'accident' it caused a huge uproar. I find it amazing all the folks that come and whine about Local, yet when it is someone else complaining about something they tell that person adapt or die. Local helps pirates as much as it hurts them if not more so.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.04.25 09:15:00 - [77] I've elaborated at some length on a passive/active approach in this thread. Feedback & constructive criticism would be appreciated. It involves making some tradeoffs to avoid an overly powerful scanner that combines all the information from local and the directional scanner, and I'd like to know whether people think I've got the right sort of balance. My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Rawr Cristina Caldari Naqam	Posted - 2008.04.25 11:26:00 - [78] Originally by: Kelsin The feel of deep running subs pinging for enemies in the murky depths would be a very exciting thing. We should be so lucky if Local is revamped to be like that! ^^ On the note of IFF - It's currently broken. Currently people NPCing/Mining/whatever know you're there the second you enter local (a problem emphasised by standings in local, even more so by BACON) and if they want to completely avoid all forms of PvP, they just dock up/cloak/ctrl-q. It stinks of consensual PvP, IMO. ...
Sergeant Spot Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.04.25 11:34:00 - [79] Currently it is pure 100% suicide to not watch local all the time in 0.0. 0.0 MUST be survivable for small groups and even individuals who are careful. Any change that does not allow this is incorrect. Play nice while you butcher each other.
WillageGirl	Posted - 2008.04.25 11:56:00 - [80] Every argument against removing or nerfing local in this thread assumes that the target is alone and there are a gang of recons coming at him. Simple solution, dont fly alone if you think you cant handle what ever might be coming for you. Its up to the pilot if its worth the risk to go somewhere with less people sharing local assets. If you can see a stealth ship when ever it gets in scan range then its really not a stealth ship anymore is it? Would kinda make the whole ship pointless. As for not geting advance warning untill stealth ships are ganking someone. WRONG! Every single time a ship, cloaker or not, goess through stargate, it is NOT cloaked. You can see the gate fire, you can see the ship and you can even see the ship type. Its only a matter of aranging your defence so that you can control the gates. What a shock it would be if large alliance would actually need to start defending their entire space instead of sending a blob against every small roaming gang showing up on someones local. No more mega alliances controlling half of know map when they need to cover about every system in their space (as it should be), resulting more space in 0.0 without adding new regions. Fighting for Our right to Cloak since 2004

Fifth Horseman	Posted - 2008.04.25 12:47:00 - [81] Edited by: Fifth Horseman on 25/04/2008 12:48:01 tbh, the whole idea sounds like a chance/skill based local with player names swapped out for ship types. I'm not seeing any advantages for the vast majority of players, though it would nicely pander to the vocal few. I can see the new eve ad banners. "Death, quite literally, can come from nowhere, sign up, it's loads of fun being constantly smashed by entire Veteran fleets you have no hope of detecting" The more ideas I hear about replacing local, the more I find that I quite like local, despite it being a pit of crap, it's the best crap suggested so far. With maybe the exception of 0.0 sovereign territory holders get to Select where local is on, or off. Perhaps CCP can run a test, and answer a lot of those assumptions. Switch local off for two weeks. Then switch it back on, and discuss.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2008.04.25 13:01:00 - [82] Originally by: Fifth Horseman tbh, the whole idea sounds like a chance/skill based local with player names swapped out for ship types. While that's a bit of an oversimplification...yeah, that does sum it up. Quote: I'm not seeing any advantages for the vast majority of players, though it would nicely pander to the vocal few. Balancing the advantages and disadvantages is the hardest part. Perfect intel discourages combat because a FC can clearly see if he's likely to lose or not - the disadvantaged side will simply retreat instead of engage. Intel that is too poor will reduce combat because FCs are less willing to charge into situations where they have no accurate intelligence. This is also true of miners/NPCers. Quote: I can see the new eve ad banners. "Death, quite literally, can come from nowhere, sign up, it's loads of fun being constantly smashed by entire Veteran fleets you have no hope of detecting" This is the case already, honestly. It it any worse than being a victim of a logon trap, or being destroyed by ships you can't even see due to lag? And the system shouldn't ever allow people to move about completely undetected, cloaks or not. The problem is balancing this detectability - how much should the attackers sacrifice to remain undetected? How much should the defenders sacrifice to maintain the ability to detect the enemy? I believe that if these two aspects can be balanced we'd end up with a system that is far more interesting and promotes combat more than local currently does (with smaller gangs, anyway). Quote: Perhaps CCP can run a test, and answer a lot of those assumptions. Switch local off for two weeks. Then switch it back on, and discuss. Not too long ago, one of CCP's patches broke the chat in a way that made it so you couldn't see who was in a channel, including local. Based on the forums (massive grain of salt required, of course), it seemed like half of the players wanted it back and the other half wanted it to stay gone. Personally I thought it was great fun to roam low-sec in an anti-pirate gang without local. However, this is too short a period to really gauge how the removal of local would affect things like POS operations, large fleet battles, or how well an alliance can defend its industrial base. ---------------- Tarminic - 35 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)
Andargor theWise Collateral Damage Unlimited	Posted - 2008.04.25 13:05:00 - [83] Originally by: Fifth Horseman Perhaps CCP can run a test, and answer a lot of those assumptions. Switch local off for two weeks. Then switch it back on, and discuss. I disagree with your opinion, but it is however representative of the non-vocal majority opposed to remove local, and thanks for putting it concisely. Removing local without an alternative is precisely the mistake that this thread is trying to avoid. For the record, I was against removing local before reading it, but the alternatives proposed preserve balance and are far more fun at the same time. To continue with the brainstorming, I'd like to see AWACS-like modules for some ships that can see into neighboring systems. Also Wild Weasel functionality that allows a ship properly equipped to really mess up other ship's scanners. A whole new level of EW. - Stop the Feature Glut: Take the API to the Next Level
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.04.25 14:46:00 - [84] Originally by: Fifth Horseman Edited by: Fifth Horseman on 25/04/2008 12:48:01 tbh, the whole idea sounds like a chance/skill based local with player names swapped out for ship types. I'm not seeing any advantages for the vast majority of players, though it would nicely pander to the vocal few. I can see the new eve ad banners. "Death, quite literally, can come from nowhere, sign up, it's loads of fun being constantly smashed by entire Veteran fleets you have no hope of detecting" The more ideas I hear about replacing local, the more I find that I quite like local, despite it being a pit of crap, it's the best crap suggested so far. With maybe the exception of 0.0 sovereign territory holders get to Select where local is on, or off. Perhaps CCP can run a test, and answer a lot of those assumptions. Switch local off for two weeks. Then switch it back on, and discuss. Do tell me about any other PvP MMO that has something similar to local ... Any fantasy MMO has only a minimap of limited reach if at all ...
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.25 16:28:00 - [85] Originally by: Andargor theWise Removing local without an alternative is precisely the mistake that this thread is trying to avoid. This. For all the pitfalls of removing local, there is something that could be put in its place that would introduce the proper amount of uncertainty and fun without being unbalancing. Coming up with that 'something' is what should really concern anyone addressing the question.
Izzy Lizzy Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.04.25 16:31:00 - [86] 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. If different ships scan out to different max ranges then I think this would bring about the need to rework how SS are made. Wouldn't this make a lot of SS useless for scanning and force you to remake new SS for your ships with smaller range? Would it be viable to rework that by allowing ships to enter their own value for warping to a celestial object if they want to? Say I'm in a ship with a max scan of 6 A.U. It would be nice if I could warp to within 6 A.U. of a celestial cluster I'd like to scan. And if you were allowed to manually input the warp value then it might cut back the need to make a lot of SS in the first place since it would still be hard to warp directly to someone unless you got lucky and manually input the same value they did. Does this make sense or am I missing something? Quote: The average man will bristle if you say his father was dishonest, but he will brag a little if he discovers that his great-grandfather was a pirate.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2008.04.25 16:37:00 - [87] Originally by: Izzy Lizzy 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. If different ships scan out to different max ranges then I think this would bring about the need to rework how SS are made. Wouldn't this make a lot of SS useless for scanning and force you to remake new SS for your ships with smaller range? Isn't the maximum scanning range something like 5AU now? If you're scanning in a frigate, you can do things to boost your scan range significantly like fitting a few ECCMs - even with two mid-slots you could get your scanning range out to 9+ AU and be able to reliably detect just about anything. Also keep in mind that the numbers I used for the Sensor Strength / Scan Range relationship are pretty much placeholders. Quote: Would it be viable to rework that by allowing ships to enter their own value for warping to a celestial object if they want to? Say I'm in a ship with a max scan of 6 A.U. It would be nice if I could warp to within 6 A.U. of a celestial cluster I'd like to scan. And if you were allowed to manually input the warp value then it might cut back the need to make a lot of SS in the first place since it would still be hard to warp directly to someone unless you got lucky and manually input the same value they did. Does this make sense or am I missing something? That seems fine as long as the distance is smaller than the current distance from the ship to the object. People can already do this, it just requires setting a bookmark mid-warp. Allowing people to warp to objects at a certain number of AUs wouldn't d anything other than making this process more convenient. ---------------- Tarminic - 35 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.81 (Updated 4/8)
Andargor theWise Collateral Damage Unlimited	Posted - 2008.04.25 18:16:00 - [88] Edited by: Andargor theWise on 25/04/2008 18:17:02 Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Izzy Lizzy Would it be viable to rework that by allowing ships to enter their own value for warping to a celestial object if they want to? (...) That seems fine as long as the distance is smaller than the current distance from the ship to the object. People can already do this, it just requires setting a bookmark mid-warp. Allowing people to warp to objects at a certain number of AUs wouldn't d anything other than making this process more convenient. A step further, I think being able to enter or exit warp at will meshes very well with the submarine-like scanning being proposed in here. It reinforces the cat-and-mouse game. EDIT: enter and exit warp at will = freely warp in the direction you are pointing until you decide to drop out
Stratten	Posted - 2008.04.25 19:42:00 - [89] no no and no. :) removing local only really benefits certain play-styles at the expense of others. Why after 5 years this seems to be such an issue I don't understand, It is how eve is, why break it since it works and everyone already accepts it daily.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2008.04.25 19:44:00 - [90] Originally by: Stratten no no and no. :) removing local only really benefits certain play-styles at the expense of others. Could you expand on this? What play-styles do you believe it benefits, and harms, and how does my proposal fail in addressing those issues?



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.