Welcome aboard Visitor...

Daily Screenshot

Server Costs Target


99% of target met.

Latest Topics

- How did Darkspace loose it's customers? »
- Crash invof Agincourt Carrier. »
- How we can manage if someone cheating »
- Holly Cow Its alive!! »
- "GCQL MFC stopped working" when launching the app »
- Re: Ich verabschiede mich »
- Things Dark Space needs to Address »
- other games ? »
- Random Lobby Quotes »
- Credits »

Development Blog

- State of DarkSpace Development »
- Potential planetary interdictor changes! »
- The Silent Cartographer »
- Cloaking update... »
- Tools for tips »
- Fleet levels and more! »
- Game Mechanics Question and Answer Thread »
- Under Construction »
- Ship Tiers and You »
- Give Credits feature now live! »

Combat Kills

Combat kills in last 24 hours:
Kills chart
Killboard

Upcoming Events

- Weekly DarkSpace
11/23/17 +5.2 Days
- Towel Day
05/25/18 +187.5 Days
- International Talk like a Pirate Day!
09/19/18 +304.5 Days

Search

 

Anniversaries

No anniversaries today.

Facebook & Twitter

Why not follow us on Twitter or Facebook for more information and fan updates?

[FAQ
Forum Index » » * Development Blog * » » Cloaking update...
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
 Author Cloaking update...
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy


Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
Posted: 2012-02-06 11:36   
As Kenny is belabouring, it sounds entirely reasonable to have ECM and ECCM be of the same base strength (before being modified by ship hulls), particularly since we now have several fun and interesting forms of electronic warfare.

Doesn't mean the energy consumption of the two should necessarily be the same, mind. More on that when I've thought about it.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]


Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3820
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-02-06 12:30   
Quote:

On 2012-02-06 11:36, Gejaheline wrote:
As Kenny is belabouring, it sounds entirely reasonable to have ECM and ECCM be of the same base strength (before being modified by ship hulls), particularly since we now have several fun and interesting forms of electronic warfare.

Doesn't mean the energy consumption of the two should necessarily be the same, mind. More on that when I've thought about it.




Now now. We wouldn't want EW strength to be modified by ship hulls either. This would mean that a dreads's EW would be stronger than a scout's EW. Then we would all rather get into a dread or cruiser with ECM/ECCM.

I think ECM gadgets should be independent of hull values. They should all have the same strength. That'll promote the use of smaller EW ships.


_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy


Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
Posted: 2012-02-06 16:10   
Quote:

On 2012-02-06 12:30, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:

Now now. We wouldn't want EW strength to be modified by ship hulls either. This would mean that a dreads's EW would be stronger than a scout's EW. Then we would all rather get into a dread or cruiser with ECM/ECCM.

I think ECM gadgets should be independent of hull values. They should all have the same strength. That'll promote the use of smaller EW ships.





If memory serves, electronic warfare currently becomes WEAKER as ships become larger. Fairly sure range gets larger, though.

[EDIT] I stand corrected, ewar gets stronger with size. Although smaller ships tend to have more gadget slots.
[ This Message was edited by: Gejaheline on 2012-02-06 16:53 ]
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]


Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3820
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-02-06 18:57   
Quote:

On 2012-02-06 16:10, Gejaheline wrote:
Quote:

On 2012-02-06 12:30, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:

Now now. We wouldn't want EW strength to be modified by ship hulls either. This would mean that a dreads's EW would be stronger than a scout's EW. Then we would all rather get into a dread or cruiser with ECM/ECCM.

I think ECM gadgets should be independent of hull values. They should all have the same strength. That'll promote the use of smaller EW ships.





If memory serves, electronic warfare currently becomes WEAKER as ships become larger. Fairly sure range gets larger, though.

[EDIT] I stand corrected, ewar gets stronger with size. Although smaller ships tend to have more gadget slots.






Actually, it would be good if EW gets slightly weaker as the ship gets bigger, sort of inverse of what we have now.... but not totally proportionate to ship size or hull class, please. A small difference of say 30% from the largest to smallest vessel would do. Too much and it simply nerfs the larger ships from operating effectively.

You could give some kookamamie reason like, oh since there is less mass or hull to impede said device's operation, it actually becomes more effective.





[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2012-02-06 21:24 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


NoBoDx
Grand Admiral

Joined: October 14, 2003
Posts: 784
From: Germany / NRW
Posted: 2012-02-07 06:31   
shouldnt bigger ships have space for bigger, stronger antenas ?
_________________
The only good 'ooman is a dead 'ooman. An' da only fing better than a dead 'ooman'z a dyin' 'ooman who tell you where ter find 'is mates.

Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3820
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-02-07 09:15   
Quote:

On 2012-02-07 06:31, NoBoDx wrote:
shouldnt bigger ships have space for bigger, stronger antenas ?




Maybe, probably. But promoting the use of small ships through better EW, especially now when it will be more needed by both humans and Kluths, is always a good thing isn't it?




[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2012-02-07 20:45 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


-RogueAvenger-
Marshal

Joined: September 11, 2010
Posts: 298
From: England
Posted: 2012-02-08 05:32   
Quote:

- Add in a second type of beacon (switchable with the original) that doesn't raise the sig, but instead does what the anti cloak torp does.



Add- a beacon that has a exsaust like trail so when the ship cloaks the trail remains now with new trails being like only within 500 gu all you need to do is escape fast to counter it ?...
_________________


  Email -RogueAvenger-
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy


Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
Posted: 2012-02-08 09:59   
I wrote some gigantic walls of text about an electronic warfare revamp a while ago which suggested that larger ships would have more powerful (longer-ranged) but lower-resolution (less sensitive) antennas (which in hindsight strikes me as faintly ridiculous; more research required) to justify the place of scout ships, and presumably because dreadnaughts would dedicate more space to armour plating and guns.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]


Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3820
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-02-08 11:35   

Yes I remember that thread.

The question for you was always to make EW realistic or DS'ish?

If you want to make it realistic, you using ECM or ECCM would always make you "detectable" by the enemy, but untrackable or unlockable.

But I have a feeling that you'd rather not go there as it involves many more variables (and their permutations) to take into account. So, we end up with gamey, DS'ish physics which you can define. In that case you won't need to justify things very much.



_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


NoBoDx
Grand Admiral

Joined: October 14, 2003
Posts: 784
From: Germany / NRW
Posted: 2012-02-08 20:55   
i know this is madness, but i just had this weird idea:

why not give sensors limited arcs ?

ships will have a 360 degree weak sensor (maybe 50% of the current ranges)
and a strong active sensor ( range depends on hull, bigger ships a a longer range) but limited to a specified arc

slow dreads take ages to turn and have problems keep a target in sensor focus
while smaller ships can easily keep their focus on dreads (and relocate them)
maybe scout get a bigger arc than other ships (up to 180 degree)

stations should be an exception, cause they doesnt have a real front-side
_________________
The only good 'ooman is a dead 'ooman. An' da only fing better than a dead 'ooman'z a dyin' 'ooman who tell you where ter find 'is mates.

Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3820
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-02-08 21:11   
Quote:

On 2012-02-08 20:55, NoBoDx wrote:
i know this is madness, but i just had this weird idea:

why not give sensors limited arcs ?

ships will have a 360 degree weak sensor (maybe 50% of the current ranges)
and a strong active sensor ( range depends on hull, bigger ships a a longer range) but limited to a specified arc

slow dreads take ages to turn and have problems keep a target in sensor focus
while smaller ships can easily keep their focus on dreads (and relocate them)
maybe scout get a bigger arc than other ships (up to 180 degree)

stations should be an exception, cause they doesnt have a real front-side





This is, of course, an interesting idea. A radar on a fighter has a limited arc. However radar on ships tend to be omnidirectional because they are usually mounted high atop the superstructure on a rotating turret.

Further to that, ECM and ECCM pods also radiate their signals in all directions so we can't have directional EW too.

Lastly... I think it's gonna be hell to code directional scanners or EW. The server will then have to keep track of so many more variables.

If it can be implemented, it'll be great. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


NoBoDx
Grand Admiral

Joined: October 14, 2003
Posts: 784
From: Germany / NRW
Posted: 2012-02-08 21:27   
the small-range, omnidirectional scanners will be the ones on top (and below, space have a z-axis )

but those long-range sensors are focused antennas, covering only a narrow corridor in front of the ship (maybe some ships have multiple antennas, in multiple directions eg the comand-dread have 4 to cover the full 360 degree but at 4x the energy-consumption)

correct me, if im wrong, but doesn't icc-ships have an antenna in their nose anyway ?
_________________
The only good 'ooman is a dead 'ooman. An' da only fing better than a dead 'ooman'z a dyin' 'ooman who tell you where ter find 'is mates.

Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3820
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-02-08 22:27   
Quote:

On 2012-02-08 21:27, NoBoDx wrote:
the small-range, omnidirectional scanners will be the ones on top (and below, space have a z-axis )

but those long-range sensors are focused antennas, covering only a narrow corridor in front of the ship (maybe some ships have multiple antennas, in multiple directions eg the comand-dread have 4 to cover the full 360 degree but at 4x the energy-consumption)

correct me, if im wrong, but doesn't icc-ships have an antenna in their nose anyway ?




The antennas are cosmetic. It's just part of the model.

Don't get me wrong, I said it was an interesting idea, but I was just wondering if it was feasible to code in the first place.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3820
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-02-08 22:34   


Just throwing out an idea about cloaking. Nothing serious. Just thoughts.

We've seen Babylon 5, where the Shadows supposedly use a type of phase cloak where the ship is actually in hyperspace or whatever-in-between-space when they cloak. That means that they are impervious to enemy fire (they're not in the same plane of existence).


I was wondering... if cloak can be made in the same way.

Hear me out first. This is not a total advantage to the Kluth.

When a Kluth ship cloaks, he isn't in the same dimensional plane anymore. The human ships can't see him or ping him. Can't shoot at him either as the shots will just go through him.

But... From the Kluth point of view, all human ships disappear too. Kluth can still see planets and stars though because let's just say that "these objects have huge mass that exists over several dimensions".

Kluth players will then have to guess where the human ships are the same way human ships have to guess where the Kluth ships are. They will have to time their decloaks or guess when is the best time and place to decloak and attack. Decloak in the right place, and you're in a good position. Decloak at the wrong place and you could find yourself in the middle of the human fleet.

Makes it more of a submarine warfare kinda thing.


Of course, this renders EW completely useless against cloak. Just throwing out ideas anyway. Don't take it too seriously.


_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy


Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
Posted: 2012-02-09 09:42   
Having played a tabletop space wargame where cloaking devices did almost exactly that (They made the ship completely invisible, but the ship itself couldn't see either; the player had to give the ship movement orders without knowing where it was), it was nigh-impossible to use effectively (you needed godlike skills of mental geometry) and was balanced out by being hideously heavy, meaning your ships were slow, under-equipped and often died instantly if they were even slightly out of position.

It WOULD, however, demonstrate to K'luth players how frustrating it can be to guess where the enemy at a given moment.

It also makes cloak, once again, perfect, which just encourages people to cruise around in invisible dreads rather than using smaller, ostensibly stealthier, ships.

And I'll spare you the wall of text on why submarine combat rarely involves two groups of blind combatants groping for an invisible, unhittable enemy.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]


Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Page created in 0.032475 seconds.


Copyright © 2000 - 2017 Palestar Inc. All rights reserved worldwide.
Terms of use - DarkSpace is a Registered Trademark of PALESTAR