. This is one idea which might make it easier to find a niche in existing 'common' systems, and help differentiate systems into 'core' and 'frontier' maybe.1. Make ships harder to find by reducing the base 'encounter' chance in system orbitals (as opposed to planetary orbits) - ships are, after all, far smaller than the asteroids which are rumoured to be out there and incredibly hard to find.
2. Counteract this by giving a bonus to the encounter chance where the ship doing the searching has affiliated, or allied, starbase(s) in the system (triangulation of sensor signals?). This would only be where the starbase(s) have a net posititive scan profile themselves, because it would be counterproductive to have a 'hidden' base aiding system control.
I'd suggest that this would give a 'frontier' feel - it would make it far harder for the pirates to operate in Yank, or the Confederacy to hang about in Capella (but make no difference to jumping through though)... but make it easier for the 'fringes of society' to operate in the claimed, but underpopulated systems, of which there are an abundance.
It also gives a reason to have affiliations ally, perhaps?
JJ
Personally, I cant see why a pirate vessel lurking in orbital 13 of a system with only a couple of hidden mining outposts in it should ever have a realistic chance of being found.
Wheras, adding, say, 2-5% to the chance to scan for every 'non-pirate' starbase in Yank, might make it more realistic...
JJ
Having done a ~lot~ of system patrolling, the encounter rates are very low indeed. I found an asteroid recently in a region of space that I had been through at least 30-40 times with a couple of caravel sensor ships.And then if you do scan something, you've then got to actually pin it for combat, which is a whole other story.
I just thought that even the big power blocks might appreciate that not everyone wants to play 'power block wars', and see the benefits of a little more latitude at the fringes of known space, with tighter control of their 'core' as compensation.
I have read that the Yank system is being plagued with pirates, even though it's supposed to be fairly safe. Under my proposals, Yank would be considerably less safe for pirates, since there they would almost certainly be detected as soon as any vessel with 'PIR' on it's enemy list were to enter the same space sector.
I appreciate that this is not a 'finished solution', and can see it having flaws myself - I dont want to make it impossible for the pirates to detect their prey in the systems they would be forced into, for one (make light and ultra-light vessels easier to scan, and heavy hullers harder, perhaps?).
I would be interested in hearing any views other than 'It's hard enough to detect pirates as it is', since it is not the intention to make it easier or harder averaged over all systems.
JJ
| QUOTE |
| ...the encounter rates are very low indeed. I found an asteroid recently in a region of space that I had been through at least 30-40 times with a couple of caravel sensor ships. |
I think the problem there is that asteroids have a very low sensor profile adjustment, -90% or more. Thus a sensor ship with a +110% base scan percentage would have a net +20%, even if it encountered the asteroid in the first place. Which, in orbital ring 15, would be about 7%, I guess.
I see no need to change these chances, for asteroids.
A broadsword though, has a sensor profile of +65%, despite being MUCH smaller than an asteroid. Granted it would emit EM radiation for the life support... but it still seems large, in the vastness of space. A 50 normal-hulled vessel has +54%, a 75 light +137%, and a 200 Xlight +418%.
This means that they are almost certain to be scanned, if encountered. And, given a squadron of 12 ships, the chance that the vessel will be encountered by one of them will be around 50:50, according to my calculations - even in orbital 15! And, I dont think dozen-ship warship squadrons are uncommon?
Soo... Say these are adjusted down a bit: A broadsword gets a new base adjustment of around -40% say. The warship hunting it has a scan percentage of, say, +60%, giving a net +20% to the chance of being scanned by the hunting vessel. It would then take... a 52 ship squadron passing through orbital ring 15, before the chance of being detected by at least one one of them rises above 50%. Fewer ships in the inner rings, still.
However - I also propose that allied starbases assist this: So, say, having three big starbases in the system add +5% each, seven outposts adding 3% each, and a couple of deep-space platforms add a further 2% each - giving a plus +60% adjustment... back where we were! Systems like Capellan, Yank or Venice would be even higher... for the occupants and their allies.
A newly thought-out modification... lets say the 200 extra light hulled ship is still up at a +80% scan percentage adjustment under the proposed change. To be scanned by the hunter is at a net +140%... The 'extra' 40% above automatic could add to the chance of encounting the vessel in the first place - it's so big it can be tracked like a small comet, say.
JJ
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Aug 29 2005, 02:57 PM) | ||
|
How many patrols are there of this size - going through every orbital in every system? barely a handful I would say!
Why the need for this change? Are your ships being detected too quickly? If you go to a far flung star system and wait in the outer orbitals, I doubt you will ever be found. If you wait in the outer ring of Yank then you are bound to be spotted sooner or later (given the traffic there). In other words, the claimed but unoccupied systems you mention are already the frontier systems to hide in.
Would it make it more interesting for players and pirates? I dont think so - surely a pirate wants to try to board ships where there are lots of them ie. Yank and other starbase-heavy systems. The same systems that would make pirating impossible under the proposals.
As to no new frontiers...there are lots! You mention Demon system - thats common knowledge yet fairly new (and certainly still a frontier). Then there is the FLZ Empire...The humans Inner Empire, not to mention all the other frontiers out there that people are exploring but not talking about.
| QUOTE |
| Why the need for this change? Are your ships being detected too quickly? |
Yup
| QUOTE |
| If you go to a far flung star system and wait in the outer orbitals, I doubt you will ever be found. |
The figures dont support this.
And... why should I just be talking about piracy? How about just access - to set up a hidden outpost to exploit that unique resource that I've found, without having to hand it over to the absentee landlord with his battlefleet and suite of private systems?
Plenty of legit affiliations would support that activity, without wanting pirates on their books - one infraction gets my courier/caravel posted by the big boys, remember. I'm sick of the 'Get orf moi land' mentality... and "It's not allowed that everyone who wants can have their own private system" - Mica G. OK... So you suggest I stick to Yank, or nothing, then?
JJ
| QUOTE |
| Surely there is a frontier effect already. Systems that are lightly settled (if at all) have fewer installations in them with lower sensor abilities, fewer patrols, fewer discovered asteroids and less traffic. |
Consider the case of a completely innocent party
, looking for one of these fabled asteroids in ring 15 of a system that I'm not supposed to be in ['cos last time the GTT, vapourized me, despite me being registered with the viceroy.. "be a legitimate trader", my a**e...].What are the chances of me going round and round until I get dizzy, and successful, without being scanned, posted, and blown up? Too high for any worthwhile risk, apart from groupings with fire-and-forget ships.
As it is, the same squad of a dozen 50-hull sensor/patrol vessels could reliably keep trespassers out of at least one system, irrespective of it's level of development. Fair enough; in Twinkle, or Hydrae, say, but what about Forest, or Lucifer? Shouldn't it be easier to go unobserved in those systems due to underpopulation? I'm not worried about the chance of being randomly scanned by a freighter - sensor power, therefore scan chances, are low. I just think it should take a little more effort to enforce rigid control over vast swaithes of territory.
I can see I'm in a minority of, apparently, one on this so I'll leave it. I only proposed because I thought it might be a step forward for everyone, and would have liked to get a discussion going on the pros and cons maybe? - it would be harder to establish a presence in an enemy home system, but easier in the peripheral systems... which should be less important to FLZ, DEN etc...
Mind you... I was forgetting... you dont need to worry about ignorant tresspassers in your home-world systems. Excuse my foolish naivety.
JJ
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Aug 30 2005, 05:35 AM) |
| I only proposed because I thought it might be a step forward for everyone, and would have liked to get a discussion going on the pros and cons maybe? - it would be harder to establish a presence in an enemy home system, but easier in the peripheral systems... which should be less important to FLZ, DEN etc... |
Actually, it sounds more like you're having a tough time achieving your goals, so you want to change the rules to suit your ends. Sorry if that's way off the mark, but is what it appears to be
The effect you're after, where it is easier to hide in less populated systems is already there. Yank and Solo are very high-traffic areas, so expect to see a lot of ships. But what about Demon, Battlefield, St.Dismas, Kastor and huge parts of the Cluster? There are fewer bases, and that's reflected in the number of ships traversing them.
Trying to build something hidden in the IMP block or DTR/Confed space is going to be difficult purely based on the fact that they are in a war, and will be watching for each other. You don't really expect to be able to fly illegally through the air-space of a nation-at-war do you?
Other things you might consider are: Smaller ships, Korondite plating, cloaking, faster ships
Somehow, Large has managed to avoid being caught for a LONG time. Clearly the game mechanics aloow him to do that, so they allow you too - you've just got to figure out how.
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Aug 29 2005, 06:35 PM) |
| As it is, the same squad of a dozen 50-hull sensor/patrol vessels could reliably keep trespassers out of at least one system, irrespective of it's level of development. Fair enough; in Twinkle, or Hydrae, say, but what about Forest, or Lucifer? |
A dozen 50-hull ships is still a reasonably large investment just to patrol one system, and it's likely that underdeveloped systems wouldn't have that dedicated support.
| QUOTE |
| A dozen 50-hull ships is still a reasonably large investment just to patrol one system, and it's likely that underdeveloped systems wouldn't have that dedicated support |
This is just my calculation of having a better than evens chance of a ship with about two dozen sensors, scanning a broadsword... in orbital ring 15... in a single pass. Tell me if I'm wildly out please David.
Two dozen sensors could be crammed into a a ten normal-hulled vessel. You might only need 8-10 couriers. They could cover rings 11-15 in every sector, every two weeks - and have an even bigger chance of spotting somthing in the inner rings. Trying to spot a caravel would be even easier - and I wouldn't try to set up a secret base with anything less than a caravel, would you?... the rock structural modules alone would take 8-9 trips. For each cave complex.
Of course, the ship could remain in orbit... and be automatically detected by a single sensor ship. It could land...and give away the location of the base. Jump in - ISR - Orbit - Land - Deliver - Pickup - Take off - Leave orbit - ISR - Jump. All in 300 TU's? Tough order.
xxxxxxxxx Long winded whine xxxxxxxx
Just to give my history, in case you are unfamiliar: Feel free to ignore, but the GM doesn't go on the Yahoo forum.
I spent a year of game time... about £300.. trying to find a single system where I could set up a base and be big enough to defend myself before being found out. I didn't expect to remain undiscovered - and since the concept was for a single 'unregulated' trading starbase, the idea was that it be made public in due course anyway. All through my own efforts. No GM gifts from above.
I broke through to find the same players, who had been making my game life literally a misery for a year or more, there already - specificly the IRS and DEN and was wiped out within ten days by the latter, despite having no history of in-game conflict, simply because it's his 'aff profile'. This was in the Demon system... the 'frontier' system mentioned earlier... where pirates are reportly being scanned right now (not me).
The >300KMU base I'd built up in an unpopulated and unclaimed system, about 300TU's travel away from my main production base (not that I was allowed to use the shortest route), just as a 'jumping off' point for colonization, was threatened with being conquered by an existing affiliation with which I had no previous conflict (and already with their own private system), simply because my single-player 'affiliation' had a vaguly similar profile to theirs and they didn't like the 'potential' competition. I had to hand over said base to a third party, or face total annihilation of all my accumulated assets, worth several million stellars - all accumulated through in-game trade, while running a starbase making a net loss.
Now; with this previous experience, I cant see there is no real potential in the game for a concept I'm willing to pay for Not true: Unlike some PD's of note, I now humbly concede am willing to pay for a political just to be 'in' it, on the grounds that some people have to make a living at this, but no more. ... Not one that remotely conflicts with the blurb for the game either... So; Should I just join a battle aff, and run the free 1,200 heavy hulls that they are offering? Yet another base in Yank doesn't seem particularly worthwhile, let alone doing special actions that cant benefit me, even if I did find something worthwhile.
'Find a unique special resource and sell the information to the owner' - rubbish. It's a case of 'all resouce expoitation must be authorized and rights are retained by the XXX, on pain of posting the position... every position owned by the offending political... and every position in the owning politicals entire affiliation. And I cant even go 'IND' to avoid the loss of just the one ship either, without loosing the right to go pretty much everywhere I'd actually want to.
I see this as a problem which could be addressed without upsetting game balance... does ANYONE agree? Or do I just apply to the DTR/DOM/CNF/IMP?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JJ
| QUOTE |
| Actually, it sounds more like you're having a tough time achieving your goals, so you want to change the rules to suit your ends. Sorry if that's way off the mark, but is what it appears to be |
Yup.
Still got access to the Twighlight system Clay? I dont. Must be nice to set up in total saftey. Did the WMB set up from absolutely nothing - you got a colony surely? No shipbuilding at all, I know - surely you're so cute that people GIVE you ships anyway? Ask for a baseship then... Not even a RACIAL tech? Bloomin 'ek, you did have it rough...
It's like I never went away already...
JJ
I believe it is even counter-productive to what you want to achieve, because with your suggestion the overall level of control will increase over time and heavily colonized systems will soon become absolutely secure. Which would be bad for gameplay.
I also fully agree with Rich Farry's observation that the game as it is already does include the Frontier effect. The IMP/GTT are sending lots of small ships into DTR and CNF space and while we do blow them up from time to time there's no way to tell how many we missed. And the DTR are guarding their space. I'd imagine many outer capellan systems to have little or no attention paid to their security by the IMP...
Finally, the scanning rules on which you base your argumentation are not correct. Scanning a ship in mid-space is a two-layered process:
1) Encounter chance. Due to the sheer size of space, the program first checks if the two positions come within sensor range of each other at all. This chance is almost 100% in ring 1 and in planetary orbits, and very very low in ring 15 (I think about 5%, dependant on ISR speed).
Assuming you have a ship sitting in ring 15 and a fleet of ships passes by, each of the bypassing ships is checked for an encounter with yours. Their sensor rating has absolutely nothing to do with the encounter chance. Only sensor nets on platforms can improve this.
2) Scan. Only those ships which came within sensor range will have a chance to scan you. The chance to scan you is their sensor rating plus your ship's sensor profile, in per cent. The average freighter can be expected to have a sensor rating of about 20%, a small-to-medium standard ship has a sensor profile of about 30% so the average freighter has a 50% chance to scan you if he comes into sensor range.
This means that in the above example, upon entering ring 15, the freighter has only a 5% chance to encounter your ship and will still miss it 50% of the time, so overall a 2.5% chance to scan your ship.
Designated sensor ships may have sensor ratings greater than 100%, but at the same time designated stealth ships have negative sensor profile which means normal ships cannot possibly scan them even if encountering them.
On a sidenote, asteroids are (I think) easier to detect than small ships, so unless you want to hide a large fleet in the asteroid's orbit you would be better off to leave the ships in mid-space.
You must have been very unlucky to lose several ships in the outer quadrants.
| QUOTE |
| Having thought a little about the proposal, I must say that I do not like it |
Fine
| QUOTE |
I believe it is even counter-productive to what you want to achieve, because with your suggestion the overall level of control will increase over time and heavily colonized systems will soon become absolutely secure. Which would be bad for gameplay.. |
Whose? I cant see it particularly effecting DTR play anyway.
| QUOTE |
| I also fully agree with Rich Farry's observation that the game as it is already does include the Frontier effect. |
Not a particularly significant one. And as I stated - the current situation is advantageous to groupings with throw-away ships - Like the DTR! Still use couriers to assess starbase defensive fire?
| QUOTE |
| Finally, the scanning rules on which you base your argumentation are not correct. Scanning a ship in mid-space is a two-layered process: |
I stand by my figures: The chance of 'encounter' when going around a ring is the reciprocal of the ring number. i.e. 10% in ring ten... 6.7% in ring 15... and 33.3% in ring three. Doing the maths gives the number of scan attempts required before the chance of suceess rises above 50%. I stand to be corrected by somebody with intimate knowledge of game mechanics though.
The scan percentages are based on militory/reconnaisance/patrol vessells with 20-30 MkII/ MkIII sensors. Not on a freighter with three Mk I's - to quote myself: "Im not worried about being casually scanned by freighters'.
| QUOTE |
| On a sidenote, asteroids are (I think) easier to detect than small ships |
You sure about that? I've found a few asteroids (and lost 'em again) - but never with ships less than 100% scan percentage. I've found a few couriers with mere freighters though.
| QUOTE |
| You must have been very unlucky to lose several ships in the outer quadrants. |
It only needs to happen once - 'otherwise, we post you... we post every ship you own... we post your affiliation... we post every affilliation you ever join in future' [ref: Yahoo forum post 20209] I'm not just talking PIRACY here - I'd be quite happy to operate piracy under the present rules... it's something only the big production groups can really afford though.... I'm willing to bet half my house that pirate large is DEN, COH or DTR, and at least a vice PD running two colonies, or similar.
'Jumping Jack' is an ex-pirate, specificly crafted to cause annoyance in specified parties...
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Aug 30 2005, 07:09 PM) |
| Still got access to the Twighlight system Clay? I dont. Must be nice to set up in total saftey. Did the WMB set up from absolutely nothing - you got a colony surely? No shipbuilding at all, I know - surely you're so cute that people GIVE you ships anyway? Ask for a baseship then... Not even a RACIAL tech? Bloomin 'ek, you did have it rough... It's like I never went away already... JJ |
Shows how much you know, doesn't it?
The Wimble Nation has been around for years; I simply changed it to be a player-run aff. Well, simply is the wrong word, it took me two years of RolePlaying to get to the stage where I could do that without being blown to bits. Yep, I got a starbase - the one I built up when I was FGZ.
Yeah I still have access to Twilight, because I negotiated it. The Wimbles technically have more right to Twilght than the FGZ, but I can't do anything about that. As far as Twilight goes, we are totally at the mercy of the FGZ, so don't tell me I am safe. Us Wimbles are actually much safer in non-Twilight space. Why do you think the Wimbles have assets outside Twilight?
| QUOTE |
| Yep, I got a starbase - the one I built up when I was FGZ. |
Sounds like I need to build up a starbase under the unbrella of another aff... Ohang on... did that and got the c**p beaten out of me for daring to exist. I need to research my own private system... damn...
Maybe I just want to be the Wimbles, starting from way below where you did. Of course I've missed out on a few perks since. You did get given Wimble racial tech, right? A few blueprints? I know because I bought a couple of your spares, from open market, within a year of Phoenix starting. The same as all of mine.... and all my ships... and my 2,000+ veterans and 3,000+ employees... 22,000+ civilians... 4,000-odd modules (most carted from a different Periphery, btw).
All I want is a location to EXIST.
JJ
I've found asteroids with low sensor power ships. Found one once with a Courier or a Caravel with 1 sensor onboard. Had to double check the turn to make sure it really was a new asteroid I'd just detected, such was my surprise.
Wouldn't like to say they're easier to find than ships though.
It's actually one of the things I enjoy most about the game, searching for new asteroids.
| QUOTE |
| I've found asteroids with low sensor power ships. Found one once with a Courier or a Caravel with 1 sensor onboard. Had to double check the turn to make sure it really was a new asteroid I'd just detected, such was my surprise. |
I AM amazed.
| QUOTE |
| It's actually one of the things I enjoy most about the game, searching for new asteroids. |
Me too... but what would the chances be, of 1: A ship with a reasonable sensor rating, remaining undetected long enough to locate the asteroid in the first place? And: 2. Ship in enough modules/workers/defenses to be able to set up an outpost, let alone a starbase? 3. Use it on anything more than once in a blue moon basis, as soon as your suspected of being there?
[**** Waits for CIA post claiming "we've done that" ****]
And... this makes the situation worse. If asteroids can be casually detected by somebody not really trying, they're not secret enough to invest a couple of years expense building up into a decent starbase, since all the work is subject to confiscation without warning or recompense.
At present, asteroids are simply an undiscovered asset for the faction owning the system, and those they choose to let in. Unless... I join an aff group and covertly just work to my own ends, instead?
.
.
.
.
.
Can I join the DTR please?
JJ
| QUOTE (FLZPD @ Aug 29 2005, 10:37 AM) |
| If you go to a far flung star system and wait in the outer orbitals, I doubt you will ever be found. |
Umm - Just to illustrate. First time jumping in (no ISR movement yet) to new system, orbital 15, in a 50-hull sensor ship, with 200 MkII's (I'm told that 800-1000 sensor-ships are not unheard of).
A big hello to the:
XXX SHIP CABAL V (7xxx4) - {10 Heavy Hulls}
Cannon Ball Class Gun Boat {Heavy Ablative Armour}.
I rest, m'lord.
JJ
I'm really wicked impressed that you spotted a 10 HH ship so quickly and easily like that.
I do agree with you though by the way, asteroid bases are quite a risk. Mind you, so long as you keep an outpost at -98% sensor profile. Even if somebody does detect the asteroid, it's still by no means guarenteed that they will detect yoru hidden outpost.
Though I suspect a better way to go might be to set up a hidden outpost in the depths of a gas giant, or via SA somewhere inside an asteroid field.
What i mean here is more, a jump drive can max send you 1 system away, if that was sorted out, then will combat be way more interesting, as people cant just jump tons of systems away in 1 week, but if they had a stargate they could.
As it is now, then will you need 100 systems between the imperial and confederacy empires to get a frontier feeling, because they dont have enough players to control of those systems, others will move in, but we dont have that as well.
In all you will never get a frontier feeling in Phoenix, because movement is too fast and there is too few systems in the game.
| QUOTE (Jerusalem @ Sep 11 2005, 04:09 AM) |
| Though I suspect a better way to go might be to set up a hidden outpost in the depths of a gas giant, or via SA somewhere inside an asteroid field. |
Shhhhhh!!!!
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
For example I have ships capable of jumping from Capellan to Darkfold in one day if I so desire.Great that I can,but not very realistic!!!
Players won't have to put in turns each day.Just order a ship from A to B and it will move there automatically,but only use 60 Tus per day.
So it'll jump to the first system then wait to build up TUs to jump to the second.Yes I know that with regular JEs that's 100 TUs.
So a ship would jump then spend a day in the new system then jump on the second day using 100 Tus of the 120 accumalated(sp)and so on.
That would gve the peripheries a frontier feel.
| QUOTE (Ted @ Sep 12 2005, 09:39 AM) |
| I think ships should only move on a daily basis,not all in one hit. For example I have ships capable of jumping from Capellan to Darkfold in one day if I so desire.Great that I can,but not very realistic!!! Players won't have to put in turns each day.Just order a ship from A to B and it will move there automatically,but only use 60 Tus per day. |
I don't like the idea of 60tus per day restriction at all...
First of all, it will make pirating too easy.. WIth the current markets its already very hard to make an profit and situation is getting worse daily... For most of the items there is no profit to be made and if there is the amount is very low...
Likewise trade wouldn't really change as everyone again are having to use the restricted movement.
At the moment it's pretty unrealistic as well.
For Example.I have one of my fast ships sitting in Capellan and notice that there is a real good bargain to be had at a market in Yank.So I put the orders in to move to the base and buy the goods.
What if another player has a ship already in Yank and decides to go for the same goods,but in the random processing of the turns my ship gets there first.
It's a bit unfair for a ship travelling from 3 jumps away getting to a market before a ship that was already in system!
I did 'think' aloud about the effect this might have on piracy, and ventured another simple tweak - net scan percentages for big merchant vessels, which go above 100%, add to the low change of actually encountering (= getting within scan range).
Another simple one - Jammers reduce effective sensor power of a position trying to detect a starbase/outpost trying to detect them. Or possibly the effective 'visible' mass of the starbase outpost. A 'cloaking device' type of effect, for starbases. Of course it wouldn't work for the big open starbases (Hiding 450K MUs of starbase with 200,000 Jammers) - but it might make a key difference when you're hiding from the local gamekeeper.
It's this kind of thing I was thinking of; simple relatively easy to introduce tweaks to the existing game mechanisms, which might just allow a little more leeway and make it feel more like 'traveller' space opera, and a little less like 'Starship troopers'.
JJ
| QUOTE |
| Another simple one - Jammers reduce effective sensor power of a position trying to detect a starbase/outpost trying to detect them. Or possibly the effective 'visible' mass of the starbase outpost. A 'cloaking device' type of effect, for starbases. Of course it wouldn't work for the big open starbases (Hiding 450K MUs of starbase with 200,000 Jammers) - but it might make a key difference when you're hiding from the local gamekeeper. |
Thats what cave complexes already do. Jammers stop detailed scans.
Whats interesting is that there are 2 ways to hide a SB.
[1] Is to hide it on an ikle rock somewhere out on ring 15.
[2] Put it on a big planet with caves complexes and a thick atmosphere
On large planets the scan factors of a ship are modified by 1/sqrt(width*height) of the planet and optical depth over 15 makes it more difficut to scan also.
So large sensor ships vs large planet can mean that even scanning each sector (which has a posative modifer to the scan factors x4) will not find anything.
For instance a ship with 4000 sensors over 52x36 planet with optical depth 40 has a planetary Scan rating of : 59% and a sector scan rating of: 151%.
So if you scan every sector on a planet taking 6 weeks there is only a 50% chance you will spot a cave complexed SB (-98%). There is no chacne you will spot it just passing by.
25 Rock structural modules are needed for a cave. Lets say, I find a good local exploitable source of them, on site - 3 RCM/week with a high 'drop' say. So... I set up two resource complexes... which have to stay hidden for four weeks in order to get enough RCM's to hide themselves (lets say I ship in the one I'm short), adding 3,000 MU's week... It's then got to accumulate another 24,000 MU's of mass before it can build a second cave complex... and so on...
Having to import RSM's because there's not local source is a whole differet suit of problems...
All I was thinking was somethin along the lones of... A single jammer might reduce 'visible' mass by 80%. Each additional jammer has only 90% of the effect of the one before. Jammers thus become quite good at helping hiding small outposts keep hidden while starting off, but for large starbases there effect would be pretty much just as now.... except the starbase mass might be wrongly reported to a scanning position...which is a nice-to-have effect itself I think..
Scouting and agent/operatives might become more of a factor, too.
JJ
| QUOTE (David Bethel @ Sep 13 2005, 11:02 AM) |
| You could just setup a few cave complexes up first - you can make them from structural moduals. |
ok...
How many strcutual modules do we need for a cave complex?
(I know we can use 3 RSMs as 1 SM... didn't know we could do it the other way round too...)
GTDoug.
| QUOTE (David Bethel @ Sep 13 2005, 06:02 AM) |
You could just setup a few cave complexes up first - you can make them from structural moduals |
You absolutely sure about this? It has been a thread on here before - you can use three Rock structural modules on place of one normal structural modules to contruct 'normal' complexes. You cannot, however, use 75 normal structural modules in place of 25 Rock structural modules to build a cave complex.... Unless the program has been changed since last time I tried.
| QUOTE (Rich Farry @ Sep 13 2005, 05:29 AM) |
| There are alternatives to cave complexes. |
I'm sure there are - I suggested one to try by special action, to another player, only the other evening. It depended on the special circumstances of the planet. But, there is no other widespread easily available substitute for cave complexes... Unless you are willing to share your secret on here?
| QUOTE (Jerusalem @ Sep 13 2005, 06:32 AM ) |
| There might also be scope for issuing an SA to search an asteroid/planet for a pre-existing cave system in which to set up an outpost, to start off with a few cave complexes already in situ? |
Rather counts on the luxury of hanging around long enough to do the explorations and investigations.
TonyH
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Sep 13 2005, 11:46 AM) |
| Rather counts on the luxury of hanging around long enough to do the explorations and investigations. |
That do not necessarily need to be a problem.
| QUOTE |
| You absolutely sure about this? It has been a thread on here before - you can use three Rock structural modules on place of one normal structural modules to contruct 'normal' complexes. You cannot, however, use 75 normal structural modules in place of 25 Rock structural modules to build a cave complex.... Unless the program has been changed since last time I tried. |
You may well be right - works on my version of phoenix but may have been something that was never fixed.
| QUOTE (David Bethel @ Sep 13 2005, 08:36 AM) |
| So if you scan every sector on a planet taking 6 weeks there is only a 50% chance you will spot a cave complexed SB (-98%). There is no chacne you will spot it just passing by. |
I have wondered if sending a ground party to scout sectors that are suspected of having hidden enemy starbases would have a better chance of finding them than a ship with the same number of sensors.
Also, does "scouting" a location have a better chance of finding a hidden base than scanning?
Goth
Geoff
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Sep 13 2005, 04:46 AM) | ||
I'm sure there are - I suggested one to try by special action, to another player, only the other evening. It depended on the special circumstances of the planet. But, there is no other widespread easily available substitute for cave complexes... Unless you are willing to share your secret on here? |
You are right, there is no widespread, easily available substitute for caves - and there is a legitimate reason for this.
The benefit derived from Cave complexes (or other methods of concealment) needs to be balanced against the effort required to implement those methods of concealment. Keeping a starbase, or even an outpost, hidden in Phoenix is a monumental task because of the sheer number of opportunities said outpost can do against enemies.
If it were easy, the CIA would have the IMP bloc on the ropes right now
Cheers,
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
| QUOTE (David Bethel @ Sep 13 2005, 01:48 PM) |
| You may well be right - works on my version of phoenix but may have been something that was never fixed. |
Will we get the option to substitute 3 SCMs for 3 RSMs this version?
At the moment I consider it unlikely that a 1-3 complex outpost could remain undetected for long sharing a planet with one or more major starbases and their sensor-packed orbital platforms.
Am I correct in this - and either way, does anyone have anything to comment on the original proposal; jammers could reduce the 'visible mass' of an outpost, the effect of each jammer becoming progressively less.
There is a potential scope here for higher-mark jammers, which I have not seen in the game this far. e.g.
MkI Jammer - Reduces 'visible' mass by 10%, and each additional jammer is only 80% as effective as the last...
MkII Jammer - Reduces 'visible' mass by 15%, and each additional jammer is 85% as effective as the last....
etc.
JJ
There are items of kit that reduce sensor profile in the game already - and they require research in order to build/use. Let's not duplicate the effects of higher tech equipment with commonly available tech or there will be a lot of very disgruntled players.
Cheers,
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
| QUOTE |
| Let's not duplicate the effects of higher tech equipment with commonly available tech or there will be a lot of very disgruntled players. |
I can see there would be a lot of disgruntled CIA players maybe, but I dont see how having the capacity for the more general player base to engage in a bit of skullduggery, at a lower level of effectiveness than the CIA say, would be remotely harmful to anyone else. I wouldnt be put out if the CIA chose to research my secret items that give a trade or exploration advantage - because there are none.
There are getting to be whole aspects of the game that are closed down unless you choose to join one of the major affs who, with the advantages of principles, techs and a major research bases, are already reputedly already running off the end of the tech chart. I presume the secret items that you allude to are already in the possession of ther CIA and maybe the FET, so to gain access to them I'd have to join one of those - but what if I dont want to join in the whole, to me boring and increasingly pointless, IMP/CNF/DTR 'Starfleet battles' baggage which goes with joining one of those affs?
All I am asking for is the chance to be able to set up and maintain small, indeed TINY outposts, from scratch, with a reasonable chance of not being discovered for years - which is something which I dont beleive exists at the moment. And, I dont want to have to do yet more research at a -7 penalty at best, or face impossible penalties at worst, in order to do so. Would that really make you so disgruntled?
JJ
As has already been said, there are ways in the game already to quickly set up a small hidden outpost - without necessarily needing high tech. No they are not always easy - but not too much effort to do either if you pick your spot with care.
It's hard to get the balance right with technology and what you can do with the commonly-known baseline that anybody can use. But allow a player to be able to do too much without tech and you remove a lot of the reason for researching tech in the first place.
The game is meant to be long-term, it's not meant to hand out everything on a plate... It's much harder to make something decent as an IND, without an aff backing you up, but not impossible. I know of at least one IND that is close to making his million starting with just his three startup ships and about a year's hard work.
Dan
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Sep 18 2005, 10:39 PM) |
| There are getting to be whole aspects of the game that are closed down unless you choose to join one of the major affs JJ |
JJ
The whole premise of the game revolves around Affiliations. I have found this out the hard way.
There is no easy come, easy go, independent positions other than possibly running a single ship for free.
If you want the "goodies" you must pay the price in loyalty and freedom of action. How many people would join affiliations if they could have the tech/ability to do in game things that you are talking about?
You want to be able to hide bases, a war minded player might wonder why they couldn't automatically be able to get free BPs for 100 HH warships, etc.
Join an affiliation that you have the most in common with or find one that will help you achieve your goals without compromising their's.... there really is not any other reasonable way. I think you know this already...maybe you just don't like it. Don't expect the game to change to suit a play style that is counter to the premise of the game.
John
| QUOTE |
| The whole premise of the game revolves around Affiliations. I have found this out the hard way |
Yes, I agree - I am not arguing with the way things are, just proposing a few minor amendments to the way things could be.
The reaction to any proposals along these lines, however innocuous, always seem to be from the vested interests and power blocks who like things the way they are. I am simply suggesting there should be more niches to operate in between - I dont want to challenge the CIA and have 'stealth highports' and cloaked bases or whatever - just a minor tweak or two which would make it at least feasible to hide an asseblage of 2000 MU's of rock structural modules at a single resouce-complex outpost while I do the 8 or 12 trips in with rock structural modules for the caves to hide it.
If people want to advise me that the odds are so low that it would never be found anyway, I stand to be corrected - but I stand by the figures I quoted earlier in this thread with respect to chances of ships being detected, and no-one has come up with any better - because they are correct.
At the moment, the game is heavily biased towards the affiliation and meta-affiliation groupings, which the current situation favours (the only new groupings with any remote game impact where both created at an aff-level base) and that is perhaps why I get so much flack from PD's and VPD's for proposing what are fairly innocuous changes.
Cut some slack. I dont want to stop anyone doing whatever they want to do already; mega-fleet battles or stealthed starbases. I just think a few small fry should be able to operate in between in the supposed 'vastness of space' to filche a few uniques maybe, or do explorations where I dont want to turn over any exploitable results to the local robber barons.
As it says in the Phoenix bumph:
| QUOTE |
| You can strike out on your own, and live by your wits in a hostile universe. |
...not the way the odds are stacked at the moment, you cant.... Unless! There's always a demand for yet another IND starbase in Yank, isn't there!
JJ
Personally i feel it's too easy to spot an asteroid, and it's not even a little bit hard to find an outpost on a 1x1 planet even at -98% profile. But thats a side issue. If you want a hidden base you can do it easily enough without caves, at least to the point where you can build a cave complex a day.
| QUOTE (ptb @ Sep 19 2005, 02:07 AM) |
| Outposts with very few complexes are almost invisiable anyway, your sensor profile is less that 0% with around ten complexes and thats plenty enough to exploit rock structural modules. |
Ahh - thanks for a meaningful engagment at last... Ok; So yo are saying that If I set up two resource complexes to generate three RSMs/week each, they stand a good chance of being undetected, even when the outpost stands at 14,020 MUs? - That would be the two complexes and 24 RSMs after the first four full weeks.
Remember - the penalties for being found out are quite severe: If spotted I stand to not only have the vessels in question posted, but maybe my entire grouping of player-positions wiped out (like I need to tell you that
).An there's also the issue of shipping in/out... proposals for which started this entire thread...
JJ
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Sep 19 2005, 07:56 AM) |
| An there's also the issue of shipping in/out... proposals for which started this entire thread... |
With a small ship equipped with a cloaking device it should not be a problem. Just have enough trust power to land/take/orbit quickly.
At least one <cough> market sells them...
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Sep 18 2005, 03:39 PM) |
| I presume the secret items that you allude to are already in the possession of ther CIA and maybe the FET, so to gain access to them I'd have to join one of those - but what if I dont want to join in the whole, to me boring and increasingly pointless, IMP/CNF/DTR 'Starfleet battles' baggage which goes with joining one of those affs? |
I am certain that you are more clever than that. There are more ways to obtain items of kit than to be gifted them by an Affiliation.
As for your original suggestion with Jammers - the proposed effects are FAR in excess of what currently exists for MkII kit of similar function. Why bother spending the hundreds of thousands of stellars to research something if it's effect is going to be given away for free to everyone a year or two down the line?
As for falling behind the tech curve - that will only get worse as time progresses and is a consequence of Game Mechanics, pure and simple. IND and new Affs do not have the tech/industrial base to start from that established Affiliations and their dedicated players have built upon for 10+ years. For a RL comparison: If you start a software company out of your garage and expect to compete with M$ on an even footing, then you are deluding yourself...
Affiliations have become powerhouses because of the multiplication of effort that organizing their playerbases provides.
Cheers,
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
| QUOTE (Lord Scrimm @ Sep 20 2005, 11:43 AM) |
I am certain that you are more clever than that. There are more ways to obtain items of kit than to be gifted them by an Affiliation. |
Umm.. There are?
| QUOTE |
| As for your original suggestion with Jammers - the proposed effects are FAR in excess of what currently exists for MkII kit of similar function. Why bother spending the hundreds of thousands of stellars to research something if it's effect is going to be given away for free to everyone a year or two down the line? |
Well, I dont know what the effects of this kit 'are'... I was envisaging an effect for jammers something along the lines of reducing 'visible mass' of a 12K MU startups outpost down somewhere in the range 5-10K, and reduce the 'visible mass' of a 700K starbase down to say 400K MU - i.e. not remotely 'hide' the latter, but make the estimation of it's attributes a little bit harder to ascertain - the CIA would benefit from this, since they would be most effective at the agent actions to establish the true situation.
If you are telling me that these effects would outclass your specialist tech, all I can say is: I cant see what benefit your exotic technologies can be at all. What lesser effect is there?
| QUOTE |
| As for falling behind the tech curve - that will only get worse as time progresses and is a consequence of Game Mechanics, pure and simple. |
Agreed. It's a major flaw in the game which will need to be addressed imo. I dont expect to be 'given' anything though, and have negotiated for, or bought on open market, all of my own blueprints and technologies - more than one from the CIA btw, for which I am seriously grateful. I just wish these factions who have benefited from the multi-5,000 MU's of Principles, multi-1,000 MU's of techs and blueprints would stop lecturing me about whining.
| QUOTE |
| IND and new Affs do not have the tech/industrial base to start from that established Affiliations and their dedicated players have built upon for 10+ years. |
I was playing the game before the CIA were created 'ex nihilo' and remember that they wern't created with 'nothing' but as a mirror of what the FET had got from a year of active play. Of course those days are long-gone now... well, at least a few months gone anyway...
| QUOTE |
| For a RL comparison: If you start a software company out of your garage and expect to compete with M$ on an even footing, then you are deluding yourself... |
A good job you didn't work for microsoft when they were still in that garage, up against the 'might' of IBM eh? Bill gates would still be there now...
| QUOTE |
| Affiliations have become powerhouses because of the multiplication of effort that organizing their playerbases provides. |
... IRS and previous examples excepted, of course.
| QUOTE |
Cheers, Rich Fanning aka Lord Lawrence Scrimm CIA Intelligence Director |
Honestly, I'll leave this now. I think of a minor tweak that would possibly make the game interesting for everyone, not particularly advantage myself, and instead of the benefits of knowledge, or reasoned arguments, I get the complete swaith of vested interests down on me like a ton of bricks. Might as well jack it in and join the DTR I suppose...
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Sep 19 2005, 08:56 AM) |
| undetected, even when the outpost stands at 14,020 MUs? - That would be the two complexes and 24 RSMs after the first four full weeks. |
Is 14k really that easy to notice?
I admit I havn't done maybe tests along these lines but i know you can hide pretty big outposts on larger planets with almost no chance someone will find it, even if they know it's there.
(hell we had a RIP player unable to find a whole starbase for a week, even though we'd given him the exact location)