BUT
I think Jammers should prevent all info... Unless overcome by superior sensor power.
I would have thought you would see the silhouette of the ship and from that can determine it's Hull type... other than that info... not much that isn't broadcast.
Then again, I am a newbie.
GTDoug.
Should not Jammers have a rating as have sensors?Or have they already?
Then a positions sensor power has to overcome the jammer power to get anything more than a basic Aff,ID number,Hull total/type of hull description!
Next we'd be having organic and crystal hull users asking for "normal" scans failing when used against their shipping because normal sensors are set to metallic hulls.
I really thing there are other things that should be implemented far sooner than this change
| QUOTE (Sam_Toridan @ Apr 14 2004, 03:41 AM) |
| Jammers should only block a ships internals. Maybe also make it harder to get a lock-on in combat (reduce accuracy?) |
There's already Tech for that
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
| QUOTE (Sam_Toridan @ Apr 14 2004, 10:41 AM) |
| Jammers should only block a ships internals. Maybe also make it harder to get a lock-on in combat (reduce accuracy?) |
I think Mica's point is that descriptions like "Sensor Ship" give away information on the internals.
From the point of view of a pecking order for changes, I expect this one is fairly simple (probably referring to the same routine that checks whether a scan is sucessful), so that's not an issue for me (cue David getting upset at me if my uninformed assumption is wrong
)Personally, I think that jammers should have some effect in this area. But the effect should be progressively less as you move from internals(full effect) to ship configuration class (some effect) to armour type (minimal effect). If you see the ship you should always be able to see number/type of hulls as that would be possible to work out from the ship's size and shape... and because the more that gets hidden the less valuable cloaking/stealth is
Dan
I was thinking that a fleet of yachts with jammers moving through a system would appear no different to a fleet of nebulons with jammers moving through a system unless they are scanned by a ship with a sufficient sensor power to counter the jammers.
From a personal point of view, I am happy with the system we currently have, this being the absolute determination of the type of ship detected.
If however we do not add this feature, then we cannot justify adding features such as mis-representing the output profile of a ship through technology. It simply does not fit in with the logic of the game.
"mis-representing the output profile of a ship through technology"
I like this idea...
I can just see people building small jump capable ships and using them to bully victims... Just coz they appear bigger and more dangerous than they really are.
Nice idea...
GTDoug.
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Apr 15 2004, 09:55 AM) |
| If however we do not add this feature, then we cannot justify adding features such as mis-representing the output profile of a ship through technology. It simply does not fit in with the logic of the game. |
Could there not be a tech that wasn't called 'Jammers'.
Maybe 'projectors'. This item will project attempt to project a different profile to sensors of nearby ships.
Projectors in essence are just a reversal of stealth technology.
Possible restriction would be that it wasn't a stealth technology (at lower mk anyway), so you couldn't project an image of a smaller ship (ie a neb couldn't pretent to be a yatch, but a yatch could *attempt* to project itself as a neb (and we dont get silly situations of players trying to make 1000 hull platforms look like ships... although maybe a platform could be made to look like an asteroid / orbital debris?)
Of course, the yatch would have no idea if the projection worked until the enemy opened fire, or not as the case may be.
A ship equipped with 'projectors' could choose to project itself as profile X, until orders was sent to turn projectors off (so no TU limit like cloaking).
The only logic change required is that players need to be aware that just because their ship identifies something as 'a caravel class sensor ship', that that is not necessarily what it really is (although they will know that the scanned entity has a maximum size of 75 hulls.
Not sure if projection should have more chance of being sucessful with multiple installations a la jammers / sensors, or if the % should increase with mk version.
Also, projection should automatically end upon docking with a non-aff base or the initiation of combat.
| QUOTE (finalstryke @ Apr 15 2004, 09:46 AM) |
| Could there not be a tech that wasn't called 'Jammers'. Maybe 'projectors'. This item will project attempt to project a different profile to sensors of nearby ships. |
Both would have to be used. It is presumed that 'projectors' would work only if the actual profile of the ship was successfully jammed.
Reasoning - without the original profile being jammed, the projector would have to 'shout' above it... dead giveaway.
Remember that a profile is passive, not active.
A 100 xlight hull ship could be packed full of fighter bays, but given some 'projectors' (or whatever the new tech will be called), and enough jammers would be giving off the description of a standard freighter.
Such a ship would have to be careful of entering the vacinity of any neutral platforms / bases which would have enough sensors to see straight through the disguise / jammers.
The advantage would be that the carrier would not be immediatly identified as such to every 1 sensor ship that happened to scan it en route.
Yeah, think the extra depth and tactical possibilities would be a good addition to the game.
btw - I know that sensors need to outnumber jammers on a 1:1 basis in order to get a scan, but does this ratio change if it's mk III sensors trying to scan mk I jammers?
| QUOTE (finalstryke @ Apr 15 2004, 12:27 PM) |
| btw - I know that sensors need to outnumber jammers on a 1:1 basis in order to get a scan, but does this ratio change if it's mk III sensors trying to scan mk I jammers? |
It is based on total output comparisons. Each sensor has an output, this is totalled. Higher mk sensor have higher outputs.
Well this topic has completely removed any surprise potential if these devices are allowed into the game. So much for that idea
My thinking behind this was the device would be a mix between sensor data generator and holographic projector. I would think that the effectiveness of the device would rely on projecting your size "up". Appearing smaller than you actually are is stealth technology.
| QUOTE (Sam_Toridan @ Apr 15 2004, 03:37 PM) |
| Bugger! Well this topic has completely removed any surprise potential if these devices are allowed into the game. So much for that idea |
seeing as this kind of idea was a logical extension of the mechanics changes suggested, there wasn't too much surprise potential anyway....
Dan
| QUOTE (Sam_Toridan @ Apr 15 2004, 04:37 PM) |
| I would think that the effectiveness of the device would rely on projecting your size "up". Appearing smaller than you actually are is stealth technology. |
With you all the way
| QUOTE (Sam_Toridan @ Apr 15 2004, 04:37 PM) |
| Bugger! Well this topic has completely removed any surprise potential if these devices are allowed into the game. So much for that idea My thinking behind this was the device would be a mix between sensor data generator and holographic projector. I would think that the effectiveness of the device would rely on projecting your size "up". Appearing smaller than you actually are is stealth technology. |
I got the impression that Mica had a pretty much standard answer to a SA on similar lines that I did several weeks ago....so I guess quite a few peope have explored the idea already!
| QUOTE (Duckworth-Lewis @ Apr 15 2004, 11:00 PM) |
| I got the impression that Mica had a pretty much standard answer to a SA on similar lines that I did several weeks ago....so I guess quite a few peope have explored the idea already! |
More than a few. This said, I noticed that the thread was spooling off at a tangent and last thing I wanted was a consensus for an overly complicated system to actually achieve something quite straightforward:
Sufficient jammers hide profile.
Single device (approx 40mu) projects preformatted profile.
Insufficient jammers means prefomatted profile is ignored by scanning ship.
(as for the 'surprise', some players see these as unannounced and unacceptable core code changes
) I guess that 10 Jammers would be sufficient to block the sensors of 95% of ships.
The trick will be in avoiding the other 5% and enemy platforms.
| QUOTE (Avatar @ Apr 16 2004, 03:32 PM) |
| Then, I hate it!!! An equal number of jammers as sensors cancelling the internal scan, seems fine, but that also applying to the ships outsides!!!!!!! If this goes on then a 2:1 in favour of jammers and we can make the ship disapear, who needs cloaks, which though smaller are limited in the time one can stay cloaked |
You need to Jam first, then project.
projectors will be an advanced tech (I imagine).
projectors will not make a ship disappear, they will simply make the ship give off different sensor readings than normal.
Would it not make more sense to reduce the proposed size of the projector (say to 10MU which is the same as sensors and Jammers) and make them a bit more high tech i.e. MkII or MkIII Jammers. From what has been said the technology is all along similar lines, just slightly different applications of it.
If there is still a case that they are too much better than Jammers (thus making them obsolete) then reduce the output per device. So instead of needing a 1:1 ratio to be successful they need 1.5:1 or 2:1 ratio (or whatever calculates as the best option).
| QUOTE (Sam_Toridan @ Apr 16 2004, 04:06 PM) |
| It does make the 10 hull ship trying to pose as a 100 hull Battleship pretty hard to manage if you also need Jammers Would it not make more sense to reduce the proposed size of the projector (say to 10MU which is the same as sensors and Jammers) and make them a bit more high tech i.e. MkII or MkIII Jammers. From what has been said the technology is all along similar lines, just slightly different applications of it. If there is still a case that they are too much better than Jammers (thus making them obsolete) then reduce the output per device. So instead of needing a 1:1 ratio to be successful they need 1.5:1 or 2:1 ratio (or whatever calculates as the best option). |
I'd hope that even with a successful jam, there would be an increased chance of failure with a bigger attempted deception.
Thus a 10 huller trying to masquerade as a 100 huller would be fraught with difficulties anyway (at mk I at least).
At the other extreme a 100 xlight hull carrier class may easily sacrifice a single fighter bay for 10 jammers and still be more than operational.
The thing is, if your flying along in space are you going to scan every ship that comes nearby. And if you are, should this not have a TU cost? As for the detailed scan order, how often is it used? By the time the order has been done, then ship your scanning has probably moved.
Hence how about having an option set whereas the ship will scan any other ship it sees, but the TU cost is something like 5. This would be great for explorer and war/patrol ships. Whilst cargo ships would not use the option because they want to deliver their cargo asap! This auto scan would give a general desciption of the ship and maybe some internal information based (and this is the point) on the number of sensors used and the number of jammers the other ship has!
Gareth SMS Vice-PD
| QUOTE (StellarMining @ Apr 19 2004, 12:46 PM) |
| The thing is, if your flying along in space are you going to scan every ship that comes nearby. And if you are, should this not have a TU cost? |
I'd have thought that it was a no-brainer that you do a basic scan on everything that comes within range and that these basic scan would be mainly, or mostly, automated by the ship's computers.
If you are driving along you are not consciously looking to identify the details of every car that you pass, but the chances are that you would unconsciously pick up a certain amount of information (colour if nothing else, possibly make and model, or at least general "family").
Your ship's scanners are (one would assume) connected directly through your ship's computer which would hold a database (updated from EEM) of the basic profile signature of each type of ship. Scanners would normally be passive, collecting general information from your vicinity and the computer would "filter" out that information ("You are going to hit a planet." rather than "There is a 0.000034% fluctuation is background radiation."). This would take very little time (plus think about how long TUs are in real terms - 300 TUs a week means 1 TU is about half an hour?).
Now to do a detailed scan you are using your scanners (ok, sensors :) actively, and this will need your highly skilled crew _and time_ to configure the sensors and interpret the results...
I only say that we should have an option to do a slightly more detailed scan of a ship as a standing order. And that more detailed scan would give the general type of ship (eg: sensor class type, or war type etc).
Also do try to remember that we are not talking about the same type of speed that cars do
Space ships move a lot faster. You try getting information from something that is moving away from you at high speed. Made more so difficult by the fact you are also moving. I say have a small TU cost due to the fact you may need to slow down to take a proper look at the other ship.Gareth SMS Vice-PD
| QUOTE (StellarMining @ Apr 19 2004, 01:24 PM) |
| I totally agree that you would do a basic scan of every thing (not just a ship) that comes near you. The point is, how much information should that basic scan give you? I also agree that a ship would have in it's databanks information on class of ships. However just because I have a SOL for example, doesn't mean I haven't totally reconfigure that ship and maybe it is now an explorer ship! |
Actually in this I tend to agree with you. I've always thought the types that are automatically assigned (sensor ship, High G freighter, etc) are
a) somewhat unrealistic - as your point explains, and
b) somewhat arbitray and not entirely accurate.
You could argue, however, that a reconfigured SOL would give a different sensor profile, in which case the ship's computer would not know what to call it. If however, you get a detailed scan, then the computer would be able to identify identical designs in the future. How you would translate this to the game though starts getting overly complicated.
I'd be happy for the basic, automatic scan to just show the ships "blueprint" class to keep it simple (after all most of the differences in reconfigured ships are internal).
I don't have a problem with a standing order for a "level 2" scan, but I don't think I'd put an awful lot of faith in the computer's interpretation and probably wouldn't ever bother with it (I remember putting a few tractor beams on an explorer to give it a chance to escape if it was attacked (or so I thought), and then having the ship reported as being as warship!).
As for relative speeds, well, I'd expect a computerised sensor at the level of technology we are talking about here, is as much faster than the human eye/brain as starships are to cars...
Richard
AFT
| QUOTE (MasterTrader @ Apr 19 2004, 09:30 PM) |
| If I see a new type of vehicle on the road, I probably won't know the make or model. |
Well, you might think "is that some kind of new Audi?" or "what's that, looks like an Escort, but, well, stylish?" and of course your brain isn't connected to the DVLC by subspace link... Is it? ;)
But we may be getting far from the beaten thread...
If I remember correctly, the original rationale for the ship types being displayed was largely aesthetic rather than realistic. The scan results are more interesting and appealing when the description is included.
<lurk>