These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Overview Upgrade Suggestion (RADAR)

First post
Author
Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
#141 - 2013-01-10 19:03:17 UTC
Change equals chaos?

LOL for screwy arguments based off that one.
Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
#142 - 2013-01-20 18:32:55 UTC
Still have not seen a comprehensive sensor idea better than this one.
Nick Asir
Doomheim
#143 - 2013-01-20 19:03:20 UTC
eve is already submarines in space, makes sense to add sonar type sensors.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#144 - 2013-02-07 20:57:01 UTC
Nick Asir wrote:
eve is already submarines in space, makes sense to add sonar type sensors.

Inspired by sonar indeed.

And somewhat fitting, considering the comparison to fluidic space I have heard the flying described as.
(Limited top speed, ships slow down on their own when not under power, etc)
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#145 - 2013-02-12 23:17:41 UTC
Intel should be competitive, and demand effort.

I want to be able to make a better effort than my counterpart, and succeed more than he does because of it.

This is a competitive game. Let's compete.
Teshania
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2013-02-13 18:33:56 UTC
This would bring in a good "Real" aspect into the game, by implementing a GUI Read out of a "D-Scan" type mod that can been used Tactile and relayed to the bigger Fleets. This would be Ideal to create small "Wolf" packs in eve, and make it a valuable asset to any FC in this game, regardless of what there end mission is.

We need a Bounty Button on the Forums

Sarok Zateki
Doomheim
#147 - 2013-02-15 04:08:29 UTC
will add immersion to the game, help with the hostile in system warp out problem, and keep current "occupations" still viable.

and those wolfpacks could be used to secure areas before a fleet battle.
anishamora
Atelierele Grivita
#148 - 2013-02-15 08:27:36 UTC
I really really like the idea. I mean, let's face it, people that usually use D-Scan will mash the button every second causing unnecessary traffic/load (as little as it might be) and it's an artificial hindrance - make it cycle at regular intervals.

I also agree with the proposed changes to interaction with allies, cloaked ships and local (that needs to lose it's free-intel role).
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#149 - 2013-03-11 21:18:56 UTC
anishamora wrote:
I really really like the idea. I mean, let's face it, people that usually use D-Scan will mash the button every second causing unnecessary traffic/load (as little as it might be) and it's an artificial hindrance - make it cycle at regular intervals.

I also agree with the proposed changes to interaction with allies, cloaked ships and local (that needs to lose it's free-intel role).

I agree.

We can have a lot of fun if we get to play, and not just watch local chat do it for us.
Daenel
Perkone
Caldari State
#150 - 2013-03-15 17:41:13 UTC
Bump for an awesome idea, one of the better ones around to actually make gathering intel more interesting. Paired with delayed local in null it would make using sensors a lot more important than currently.

For WH space it would save a lot of hassle of spamming the scan button although as for cloaking it'd have to be very carefully balanced not to make it useless.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#151 - 2013-03-15 18:04:06 UTC
Daenel wrote:
Bump for an awesome idea, one of the better ones around to actually make gathering intel more interesting. Paired with delayed local in null it would make using sensors a lot more important than currently.

For WH space it would save a lot of hassle of spamming the scan button although as for cloaking it'd have to be very carefully balanced not to make it useless.

Thank you for your feedback, it is appreciated.
I wish more were able to see this as objectively as you seem to.

I hate to state the obvious after seeing so many threads do the same, but players relying on local has become a center point for too much game play.

Because of it, and players trying to counter it, we have AFK Cloaking, Hot Dropping, and dumbing down of strategies to the point where blobbing is the only practical option far too often.

I really wish they would test this for themselves, and not just the extreme example of wormhole space either.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#152 - 2013-04-30 19:59:40 UTC
Bump for radar.

We don't need to be carried when we can walk on our own.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#153 - 2013-05-08 20:57:31 UTC
It's about having fun, and not just watching from the distance.
joshua mckayne
Bubblewrap.
#154 - 2013-05-15 03:16:47 UTC
+1 for a great system idea.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#155 - 2013-06-24 19:38:34 UTC
joshua mckayne wrote:
+1 for a great system idea.

I appreciate the positive feedback, Thank you!
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#156 - 2013-07-16 15:57:25 UTC
Wormerling
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2013-07-19 20:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Wormerling
Okay, the head post is pretty vague, but I guess I've caught the idea while reading though thread posts. I'm going to leave a positive feedback, but some particular points look dispute. That way I'm supporting the general mind of the author and of the most people who posted there as well. My main concerns include cloaking detection, equipment that have to be used in the process, and the idea of skills impact on the system. But let me start from the beginning.

Local
First of all, my vision of the problem of local chat: local shouldn't be used to gather intel. Period. I personally support the following solution: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=990533 In a nutshell. There are two modes: broadcast and silent. While in broadcast mode you see and can chat with everyone who are also in broadecast mode in the same system. People in silent mode doesn't see anyone in chat at all. This is spiritually close to what is proposed in this thread for d-scan, so I suggest below that local is either works like this or it is in delayed mode.

Scanning games
This said, I want to point out my vision of the scanning overall. I'm seeing it as a game between two or more parties with no shoots made. These two parties are usually attacker and defender (of course one may easily think of the other possibilities but l'm going to stop on this case as the most important). In this game the so called defender loses when it's location is revealed. The attacker loses when his identity is revealed before defender has lost. It's really simple.

How it works now
We all know how the scanning system is currently working, but I'll examine it from the perspective of the game. The defender is sitting in drake and killing rats or mining rocks in a mining barge and constantly hitting the scan button looking for an unkown vessel or probes on scan overview. The attacker is trying to cloak after jump or drop his scanning probes as fast as he could and rely on God and the laziness of the defender. This is just plain, stupid and as a consquence is not fun at all. I believe many of us wished this activity was less repetitive and involved more intelligence for both the attacker and the defender.

My vision
Here comes the author with his idea described in the head post. My point of view is as follows. The system shouldn't require using any ship equipment or largely rely on skills. Then I think that a speparate customizeable overview should be used for all non-grid objects in space (yes, gates, planets and the other warpable objects included too, but it isn't important for the following discusstion). The d-scan window works well for this kind of overview, but needs lots of love from developpers to include customizeable persets (that are independent from general overview) and other stuff (more about it below). In this case an act of active scan happens when pilot hits the scan button: the ship sends a burst of gravitational waves to scan the surroundings and by that act reveals it's own identity in some way. There should be an option to put this activity in the repeat mode when scan is automatically hit every N seconds (where N is customizeable). In this terminology the passive mode is just a strategy when pilot doesn't use the scan button at all, but only watches the scan overview window for active scans (as proposed they appear automatically on overview in some form).

D-Scan result strength
Now let me elaborate deeper into my vision on how the new scanning system should work. D-Scan results should also have some kind of "strength" much like probe results. The important difference here that I want to stress is that at 100% it doesn't give you a warpable point like with probes. After all, probes should remain probes and D-Scan is proposed to be used for intelligence. A 100% D-Scan result only shows the maximum intelligence possible: the name of the object, approximate distance and direction on the sky overlay (pretty accurate), and if it's the ship it shows the pilot or says that the ship is empty (for POSes, containers and wrecks shows the owner as well). At 0% it shows only that there is an indefinite object and probably it's mass and very vague information about distance and direction. Then the palette of various result strengths from 0% to 100% may gradually increase the accuracy of distance and direction detection and show the class of an object (ship, deployable equipment or structure) at approx 35% and class of the ship at let's say 75% (of course numbers aren't important ATM).

The look of D-Scan overview
Further about D-Scan overview. The overview must automatically collapse all similar results under folders. For example I don't want to see a list of 168 indefinite objects each occupying a separate line, I just want to see one folded line that says there are 168 of them with a total mass of 42b kg. Then I probably don't want to see 12 containers or 50 wrecks as well and so on. That way, only results that are at 100% are showing each on separate line with the rest gathered by their type under folds that I can open any time and look specificaly when I need. This is not everything. Since the delayed nature of the scanning results there should be a column that shows the age of the result. I may want to sort my D-Scan overview by age to see new results appear on top of the list. Moreover, the difference between the current and the previous scan result should be highlighted in color: I want to see new results in some color that is slowly fading out with time.

More in the next post.
Wormerling
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2013-07-19 20:02:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Wormerling
D-Scan sky overlay
These active-passive scan games require some kind of visual notification on the sky. I'm talking about a D-Scan sky overlay. When someone is actively scanning and you catch his signal there is a blink on the skyscaper that is represented by an oval blob of some color (sorry, this is the best I can describe it). The intencity of the blink, the accuracy of the origin point and the fuzziness of the blob depend on the strength of the incoming signal. For instance if someone scans from a distant point you may only receive barely noticeable redness (let's say red is the color) of the sky without a particular direction in the whole plane of the system (much like a milky way is seen on the sky). But if there is a strong scan happening right nearby then you will see a strong blink in a particular direction (like a lighthouse blinks in the night). These blinks don't completely fade away from overlay but leave a shadow of color behind. Shadows for each object in the system sum up and give a static view of the D-Scan results distribution over the skyscaper. I'm sorry for vaguness of the description but when this overlay is on it should look much like planetary resources view projected to the sky that shows approximate distribution of scanning results. Hopefully you'll understand me there.

Range and angle
Both active and passive scanning is using these 2 adjustable properties. Objects can't be scanned outside of the cone set by double angle, double range and camera direction. Angle and range here work like falloff for guns, with 50% scanning strength at a distance of range (the same with the angle). The less is the overall volume of the figure the better is the scanning strength of the scan attempt. This implies that if you want to scan distant objects you have to use a long range (which isn't limited to 15au), but that also implies that nearby objects will be seen very faded. On the other hand, if you want to focus on the closer range you won't be able to see the long range results at all. The same with the angle. And the same mechanics also applies to passive scan: you can put it on maxiumum range to catch every active scan in the system, but then you may miss important information if an active scan appears right near to you. It's similar to adjusting your photocamera lens: you can have a great zoom, but you miss short distance objects, or you can adjust it to macro level, but then you can't see anything farther than your nose.

As an addition to range and angle discussion is that an active scan isn't detected from out of the cone described above. In other words, if you didn't found anything, anything didn't found you. Gravitational waves are only send in the particular direction, limited to a particular distance and aren't caught outside.

Passive vs active
I can't fully describe why but I feel the following must be the rule of the thumb: the signal strength of the active scan attempt should be more powerful than the strength of the revealing signal that it sends to the universe. For example, you had an active scan attempt and found an enemy ship at 50% signal strength. You can be sure that the enemy in passive mode receives a base signal from you at strength of 25% (once again, numbers are irrelevant). This signal is a subject to further angle and distance modifiers that depend on the angle and range settings of the enemy ship, but generally the revealing power of the active scan should be stronger than it's unmasking weakness.

Passive scan detection barrier
I believe there should be a border below which active scan attempts aren't recognized by passive scanner and are identified a space noise. Let's say if an active scanning attempt reaches you with strength of 10% or less then you aren't notified about it. I believe there should be a little room to stay in the dark with the active scan. That way a cautious pilot may deliberately adjust the strength of the active scan signal to remain unseen by passive observers. This pilot of course won't be getting more information than that there is an object of the approximate mass out there. But don't forget that the passive observer-hunter may also adjust angle and range to amplify weak active scan attempts.

Cloaking
I'm very catious besides changing every cloaking mechanics, even if it's only a notification about presence of a cloaky ship. I would have stopped on the following solution: cloaked ships may do active scan attempts without decloaking on grid, but these attempts reveal them on D-Scan overview for passive observers. People that are actively scanning still can't see any cloaked ships.

Fleet
I've seen proposals to share a D-Scan overview with your fleet members. Once again, while this is a nice idea in a nutshell that I'm also carrying for a while, I'm not sure how it should be implemented. In particular if you think carefully how the two or more D-Scan overview results from different ships should compare? The scan result is just an imprint of a particular moment in time and space. There might be a ship on your overview that isn't on it's place anymore, this ship may be scanned by your fleet memeber at a different location, then what? both scanning results of the same ship should appear on your overview and the overview of your fleet member? or what? This is a point of great nicety.

Special equipment
As I've said I think this ability to passively and actively scan should be available without special equipment. The strength of the active scanning and the sensitivity of the passive scan should depend on the ship scan resolution and signature radius (and/or a mass) of the target ship. I don't think any special modules are necessary, because all equipment that is there to improve or reduce these parameters could be used for the purpose of scanning.

More in the next post.
Wormerling
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2013-07-19 20:03:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Wormerling
An example
Let's say there is a drake ratting in the system. There are two main strategies that drake pilot can take, both have their cons and pros.

The first one is to silently sit there and don't hit the scan button at all. In this case he won't be visible to passive scan observers-hunters. If anyone would try to activate the scan to find drake it's pilot will be immediately notified. However this strategy isn't perfect because drake pilot is run the danger of combat probes, which don't show up on passive scan. That way anyone can probe drake for free.

The second strategy is to set active scan to a fast full strength repeat to look for enemy probes and ships. This time drake pilot is run the danger of cloaked ships that passively see him for free on their overviews. If it's a publicly available spot they can simply warp there and catch drake, if it's a hidden location they will still need to drop probes, but it will happen much faster because they already know the position of the drake.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#160 - 2013-07-19 20:20:54 UTC
Very interesting, Wormerling.

Your suggestions would also constitute an overall improvement of the game.

Myself, I kept my ideas modular, since key aspects were not entirely interdependent upon one another.
That being said, they do work better as a group.

They happened to evolve at different points, so they are not part of the OP, but are mentioned occasionally in the thread as need indicated.

Here, try this out for size:

Local fixing, so it is still social and yet doesn't offer intel beyond logical limits:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2369739#post2369739


How to hunt cloaked vessels, using as much as possible to balance them fairly:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2668453#post2668453
(Yes, the title specifies the condition that local not hand out their presence for free, a condition which is satisfied by the first thread above)