These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Thermal Signature Scanning

First post
Author
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2014-09-06 23:36:43 UTC
Background:
This is not an idea that came directly from the notion of changing the functionality of local nor is it for the sole purpose of nerfing AFK cloaking. I honestly don't know how I feel about AFK cloaking, I often think it's a cheap and effective way of watching a single grid (proto cloak and ibis) and I'm not really sure if it's something that needs to be nerfed or at least have a counter to. Although this suggestion will definitely offer that counter - it honestly isn't why I came up with it. Additionally, while this could be a change that eventually would make it easier to remove the current nullSec Local channel functionality in trade for something more like WH-Space has (which I would absolutely love) I also understand that there would need to be a significant change in how the d-scan works before that and this suggestion would not be that change.

I personally enjoy covert ops and blops far more than standard gangs. They offer a different play-style so this idea, interestingly enough, would make what I like to do the most...more difficult or at least have some added risk.

Why I came up with this:
I initially came up with this while looking over an idea to counter cloakies in another thread. I've never liked how the previous ideas always seemed slapped together and if added to the game wouldn't really fit in well. I figured there had to be a better way of using the same type of actions that are already in the game so the addition would be more natural and make sense.

I thought this would be a cool way of countering cloaking ships that would allow us to expand the current scanning skill group and offer additional content for those who enjoy doing covert stuff in the game. Cloakys' hunting cloakys', to me, just feels right and fun.

The Idea:

If we suppose that Eve's cloaking technology works by bending light around it's hull and trapping it's own emissions then couldn't we work this into a d-scan or combat probe style procedure where instead of scanning for readily identifiable signatures, you're scanning for thermal signatures?

Those ships which sit still will eventually trap so much radiation that the area around their ship will begin to increase in temperature (it's thermal signature) and in order to slowly and safely bleed this off without emitting a large enough thermal signature to track, it must be moving so the heat can dissipate instead of accumulate and eventually bloom.

Larger ships would put out larger amounts of heat thus ships like a cloaked super-carrier would become detectable far quicker than a cloaked carrier, etc etc. I think those ships designed to be reconnaissance hulls (those ships which can fit covert ops cloaks) should be much more difficult to detect and ships like covert ops frigates/bombers should be even more difficult. I also believe that scanning down a thermal signature should require more time than we currently see with combat probing as well.

I see this utilizing the ship scanning equipment already available in the game as well as the d-scan when a pilot switches to 'thermal view' in which ships/deployables/wrecks visually emit a thermal signature if caught in the d-scan angle and the thermal disparities will be more pronounced and thermal signatures will increase in resolution (looking more and more like a ship and less like a blob of color) as the d-scan angle tightens. The d-scan thermal view sensitivity would be based off some base number modified by the scanning modifiers found in ships, subsystems, rigs or modules.

How this might work:

  1. A pilot attempting to thermal scan down a recon would drop thermal probes. These thermal probes would act identically to how combat probing works now, with a much longer scan time (maybe 60 seconds).
  2. After reducing scan probe radius down far enough, the scanner will be able to distinguish between structures and ships on a grid. (its important to note that you cannot get a direct warp-to result, only a grid where a ship is located).
  3. Once on grid, the scanner would then have to decloak and manually scan for a ship in thermal d-scan view. Why?...because your cloak traps your thermal signature and you need it to dissipate before getting accurate readings.
  4. Each time you scan with the d-scanner, you will not only get a list of thermal signatures in your d-scan table but visually see where a thermal signature might be.
  5. Using the d-scan, you can tighten the angle and that thermal signature will increase in resolution giving the scanner a better and better idea where the ship is. The larger the ship, slower it is moving, the bigger and higher the resolution will be.
  6. Pilot approaches and attempts a decloak.


The idea isn't to give a big advantage over cloaked ships but to give others a way to combat them even though a non-afk covert-ops will easily avoid detection but won't allow larger ships like titans and supercarriers to remain nearly 100% safe if they get cloaked. This will also encourage the use of ships specifically designed to perform reconnaissance over those that are not.

I also believe it would be beneficial to give Tech 1 scanning frigates a bonus to it's thermal signature when using a Tech 2 Improved Cloaking device. Additionally, any ship that uses a Tech 2 Improved cloaking device should receive an additional bonus.

Thermal scanning skills could be easily introduced in the scanning skills group. Skills to Add and their bonuses would mirror the scanning skills already published.

Thermic Signature Pinpointing
Thermic Signature Rangefinding
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#2 - 2014-09-07 00:04:53 UTC

+1, if for no other reason than it's not an "omg I can't kill that guy afking in my ratting system" whine.
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2014-09-07 00:23:49 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

+1, if for no other reason than it's not an "omg I can't kill that guy afking in my ratting system" whine.

I am bound to get posts that say I am doing just that but I have lived AFK cloakers for years, in fact I do it myself nearly every day (although in a covop) so it truly is not that.

I do, however, believe that everything should have a reasonable counter and I while I do feel that afk-cloaking has far greater reward for little to no risk, it is not my primary reason for posting the idea.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#4 - 2014-09-07 00:38:09 UTC
Well, nice story, still doesn't convince me to rattle on CCPs statement "we won´t change cloaks or what affects them".
Cloaks are fine and they don't need a counter like this .

"nor is it for the sole purpose of nerfing AFK cloaking" - still haven't found anything else in your post besides this. So what is beyond the sole purpose if the only purpose is to find cloaked ships ?!

I rather have more options to hide from, diffuse and distort scans ... there was a nice thread a bout mass and energy shadows around celestial and such, worth looking into. Way more interesting and offering a big meta game of hide and seek.

But no matter how elaborate or exclusive the mechanics you make out to be are, its still just a 'cloak probe/scanner' with 'warp to'-decloak.

-1
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#5 - 2014-09-08 22:57:57 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
In hindsight I have come to the conclusion there is not sufficient base to warrant the lock.
In other words, I made a mistake. My sincere apologies for the inconvenience this caused.

Thread re-opened.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2014-09-09 01:53:51 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
In hindsight I have come to the conclusion there is not sufficient base to warrant the lock.
In other words, I made a mistake. My sincere apologies for the inconvenience this caused.

Thread re-opened.

Thank you, it was very frustrating to see it locked so fast, especially since I searched for a duplicate or even similar idea.
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#7 - 2014-09-09 01:59:16 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Well, nice story, still doesn't convince me to rattle on CCPs statement "we won´t change cloaks or what affects them".
Cloaks are fine and they don't need a counter like this .

"nor is it for the sole purpose of nerfing AFK cloaking" - still haven't found anything else in your post besides this. So what is beyond the sole purpose if the only purpose is to find cloaked ships ?!

I rather have more options to hide from, diffuse and distort scans ... there was a nice thread a bout mass and energy shadows around celestial and such, worth looking into. Way more interesting and offering a big meta game of hide and seek.

But no matter how elaborate or exclusive the mechanics you make out to be are, its still just a 'cloak probe/scanner' with 'warp to'-decloak.

-1

I realize that some people just won't believe my actual motivations seeing how often 'nerf afk cloaking' comes up and the only action I can take is to say that it isn't my primary motivation. I do, however, realize that it would be a side-effect of an added mechanic such as this.

There has already been an option to hide from scans (although probably not as in-depth as what you are suggesting) by the use of the new mobile structure.

Additionally, this suggestion does not contain any mechanic to 'warp-to' your target. If you read the suggestion, it allowed you to warp to a _grid_ that contained the thermal signature of a ship and then, using the d-scan, narrow it down and attempt a manual decloak. There is warning that someone might be hunting you, as a cloaker, because in order for the thermal d-scan to work properly, they must be uncloaked.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#8 - 2014-09-09 02:12:48 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
In hindsight I have come to the conclusion there is not sufficient base to warrant the lock.
In other words, I made a mistake. My sincere apologies for the inconvenience this caused.

Thread re-opened.

First thank you for re-opening, this is a topic near and dear to the hearts of all serious cloak pilots and those that have reason to fear or hate them.

I am not sure on this idea, I neither hate it nor do I like it so a few thoughts.
Alter your idea and allow for this heat signature scan to give a general location only say about a 30% to 40% max signal strength and I would be more inclined to go with this. If you allow for these heat scans to give any more of a signal return than this and I say no, and here are my reason for this.

First is the reality of space, there simply is not enough of anything in space for the radiant heat to "warm up" to the point where this would be plausible no matter how long a ship stayed in one place.

However there would still be a low grade heat signature created by the internally generated heat against the cold of space and it is plausible for this signature to be picked up by probes dedicated specifically to this task. But these probes would have to be able to scan for heat only.

As for this low grade heat signature showing up on d-scan I say no. The general purpose nature of the d-scan would mean that it's sensors would not be able to register these minute amounts of heat.
Adrie Atticus
Circle Mercs
#9 - 2014-09-09 11:55:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Adrie Atticus
This would ruin on-grid stealth bombers scanning for a warp-in, would this affect all cloaks or T1 only?

Maybe force the launcher to be bigger than the current line-up and eat hundreds of CPU as the signatures are extremely faint.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#10 - 2014-09-09 12:20:15 UTC
Quesa wrote:
I realize that some people just won't believe my actual motivations seeing how often 'nerf afk cloaking' comes up and the only action I can take is to say that it isn't my primary motivation. I do, however, realize that it would be a side-effect of an added mechanic such as this.

Motivation does not matter.
"Wanted to built a toaster - turned out to be a radio" - Still a Radio
"I totally did not want to kill that guy, just checked if the gun was loaded by pulling the trigger" - The guy is still dead.
"Was thinking of creating more interesting scan diversity - turned out to also be of use to scan down and decloak" - Still anti-cloak

And I said no matter how elaborate the mechanic, no matter how much of a side product, .... and yeah, you might not catch an active cloak .. but then we drift again in the anti-AFK-cloak discussion ...

No matter how you put it, word it, phrase it ... it is still the same old discussion we have every week.
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#11 - 2014-09-10 00:27:07 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
This would ruin on-grid stealth bombers scanning for a warp-in, would this affect all cloaks or T1 only?

Maybe force the launcher to be bigger than the current line-up and eat hundreds of CPU as the signatures are extremely faint.

I don't see this ruining ships designed around reconnaissance, recons, stealth bombers, covops. Yes, it is entirely possible to get the general location of those ships after a period of time if they remain motionless but this type of mechanic giving an exact location for those types of ships, no.

The idea is to use existing mechanics and equipment, not create an entirely new set of equipment needed to perform this because it's already quite similar to combat ship probing as it is.
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#12 - 2014-09-10 00:28:28 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Quesa wrote:
I realize that some people just won't believe my actual motivations seeing how often 'nerf afk cloaking' comes up and the only action I can take is to say that it isn't my primary motivation. I do, however, realize that it would be a side-effect of an added mechanic such as this.

Motivation does not matter.
"Wanted to built a toaster - turned out to be a radio" - Still a Radio
"I totally did not want to kill that guy, just checked if the gun was loaded by pulling the trigger" - The guy is still dead.
"Was thinking of creating more interesting scan diversity - turned out to also be of use to scan down and decloak" - Still anti-cloak

And I said no matter how elaborate the mechanic, no matter how much of a side product, .... and yeah, you might not catch an active cloak .. but then we drift again in the anti-AFK-cloak discussion ...

No matter how you put it, word it, phrase it ... it is still the same old discussion we have every week.

You're just taking a very generalized view on the whole thing. Maybe you're just so used to those threads popping up that it's all you see. Either way, you've said your peace, thank you for your input.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#13 - 2014-09-10 07:55:29 UTC
@Donnachadh, Not to stick real physics in our beloved fluidic space game... But the amount of heat generated would in no way be insignificant or hard to spot. Space is awash in various radiations and is a fairly harsh environment. Our atmosphere does a lot more for us than most realise-- and EVE space is presumably worse since it disintegrates unprotected ships, cans and various other things in about 2 hours. If you had something just absorbing that radiation and not bouncing it, or radiating what it is itself generating (I assume those engines and semi sentient computers use energy and produce some waste), it would indeed get fairly hot in fairly short order.

Not that I disagree with you that cloaks should be huntable... I have myself argued they are far too safe, safer even than being docked in some stations.... But what is the primary purpose of the idea if not hunting down cloaked ships?

If that's it, then it still gets +1 from me, but I am curious what other function you feel this would serve.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#14 - 2014-09-10 11:29:17 UTC
The sad thing here is, the OP had a good idea, but that idea was killed by bad physics. Too bad.

(Look up what "infrared" is, OP. Then you'll know why a cloak capable of bending light around it handily defeats your "thermal" scans.)
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#15 - 2014-09-10 12:51:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Quesa wrote:
Cloakys' hunting cloakys', to me, just feels right and fun.


This does feel right and fun, except this doesn't fit with your concept in any appreciable way.

Without going into any real depth a rough outline for what might work would be:

1. cloaked hunter ships can function against cloaked vessels as if they were not cloaked, finding the cloaked could be done by D-scan from cloaked vessels or by special cloaked vessel only probes that themselves dont show on normal scans and probes.

2. The entire cloaked concept might have to go through major functional changes.

3. Put in place some restrictions on secondary involvement in the conflict, so as to preserve the cloaky vs cloaky concept.

4. restrict the ability of cloaked hunters to participate in normal pve or pvp.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Gebe
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#16 - 2014-09-10 13:31:43 UTC
Quesa wrote:
Adrie Atticus wrote:
This would ruin on-grid stealth bombers scanning for a warp-in, would this affect all cloaks or T1 only?

Maybe force the launcher to be bigger than the current line-up and eat hundreds of CPU as the signatures are extremely faint.

I don't see this ruining ships designed around reconnaissance, recons, stealth bombers, covops. Yes, it is entirely possible to get the general location of those ships after a period of time if they remain motionless but this type of mechanic giving an exact location for those types of ships, no.

The idea is to use existing mechanics and equipment, not create an entirely new set of equipment needed to perform this because it's already quite similar to combat ship probing as it is.


Maybe idea to let a active cloak drain cap?
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#17 - 2014-09-10 14:31:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Mike Voidstar wrote:
@Donnachadh, Not to stick real physics in our beloved fluidic space game... But the amount of heat generated would in no way be insignificant or hard to spot. Space is awash in various radiations and is a fairly harsh environment. Our atmosphere does a lot more for us than most realise-- and EVE space is presumably worse since it disintegrates unprotected ships, cans and various other things in about 2 hours. If you had something just absorbing that radiation and not bouncing it, or radiating what it is itself generating (I assume those engines and semi sentient computers use energy and produce some waste), it would indeed get fairly hot in fairly short order.

Not that I disagree with you that cloaks should be huntable... I have myself argued they are far too safe, safer even than being docked in some stations.... But what is the primary purpose of the idea if not hunting down cloaked ships?

If that's it, then it still gets +1 from me, but I am curious what other function you feel this would serve.


Interesting thoughts, but you are wrong on one important point.
As a cloak pilot on another character I do not want others to be able to hunt me down and force a de-cloak. In it's basics the whole idea of being able to scan a cloaked ship is well crazy. I am told by many old timers(think from the beginning of the game here) that cloaked ships could be scanned at one point. CCP changed this so it is obvious that they intend cloaked ships to be hidden from view with no way to scan or locate them.

I agree that the amounts of heat generated by our ships if they were real would be significant, but the OP theory was faulty and that is what I was trying to point out. Space by any definition contains vast amounts of nothing and you cannot heat up nothing no matter how long or how much heat you apply to it.

It was posted that heat waves are essentially the same as light waves and any cloak that was capable of bending light waves to hide a ship could easily bend heat waves to achieve that same affect rendering a ship completely hidden and un-scanable. Yet as you point out this is a game where real world physics does not always apply and there is always a give and take, a balance of sorts to be had and to be fair. It is in that spirit of give and take that I offer the alternative to the OP.

Scan us cloaked ships? yes because nothing is ever perfect so a tiny heat signature would still be detectable.
Scan us to the point that you can get a general location within the system? I am OK with that as well.
Scan us to the point where you can warp to us, or get an actual location based on d-scans and I say no as that breaks CCP's obvious intent for cloaked ships.
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#18 - 2014-09-11 00:59:26 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Not that I disagree with you that cloaks should be huntable... I have myself argued they are far too safe, safer even than being docked in some stations.... But what is the primary purpose of the idea if not hunting down cloaked ships?

If that's it, then it still gets +1 from me, but I am curious what other function you feel this would serve.

Yes, the primary purpose would be to hunt cloaky ships.
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#19 - 2014-09-11 01:02:52 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
The sad thing here is, the OP had a good idea, but that idea was killed by bad physics. Too bad.

(Look up what "infrared" is, OP. Then you'll know why a cloak capable of bending light around it handily defeats your "thermal" scans.)

Physics has little to do with this game in general. Infrared is just radiation of a different wavelengths than other radiated energy. You could bend the radiated energies that are of the visible light spectrum but not others or sensors could only detect certain types of radiation.

Even if the physics aren't 100% accurate, it's a bit ridiculous to insist that this mechanic stay true to known physics while other areas are pretty far off. In other words, you're argument against is a bit...off.
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2014-09-11 01:05:34 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Quesa wrote:
Cloakys' hunting cloakys', to me, just feels right and fun.


This does feel right and fun, except this doesn't fit with your concept in any appreciable way.

Without going into any real depth a rough outline for what might work would be:

1. cloaked hunter ships can function against cloaked vessels as if they were not cloaked, finding the cloaked could be done by D-scan from cloaked vessels or by special cloaked vessel only probes that themselves dont show on normal scans and probes.

2. The entire cloaked concept might have to go through major functional changes.

3. Put in place some restrictions on secondary involvement in the conflict, so as to preserve the cloaky vs cloaky concept.

4. restrict the ability of cloaked hunters to participate in normal pve or pvp.

1. The current idea is to have cloakies hunted by cloakers until the last phase where you would need to be decloaked in order to use the thermal d-scan.
2. I don't see how.
3. Artificial restrictions or special cases detract from the game far more than they add.
4. Absolutely not.
12Next page