Post
Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:06 am
#61
Re: Unethical Behavior and Information Warfare
and fancy things like "radar" dont exist?
To be fair, we're not talking about a couple kilometres of ocean, we're talking about thousands of kilometres of EMPTY space, which would be substantially harder to use a RADAR like system in.Cornflakes_91 wrote:and fancy things like "radar" dont exist?
errr, EMPTY doesnt change the effectivity of RADAR, thousands of kilometres neitherBlack--Snow wrote: To be fair, we're not talking about a couple kilometres of ocean, we're talking about thousands of kilometres of EMPTY space, which would be substantially harder to use a RADAR like system in.
While being fully incompetent, I would guess that distance matters.Cornflakes_91 wrote:errr, EMPTY doesnt change the effectivity of RADAR, thousands of kilometres neitherBlack--Snow wrote: To be fair, we're not talking about a couple kilometres of ocean, we're talking about thousands of kilometres of EMPTY space, which would be substantially harder to use a RADAR like system in.
Luckily we have toolsets that deal with RADAR already deployed in ships.CSE wrote:While being fully incompetent, I would guess that distance matters.Cornflakes_91 wrote:errr, EMPTY doesnt change the effectivity of RADAR, thousands of kilometres neitherBlack--Snow wrote: To be fair, we're not talking about a couple kilometres of ocean, we're talking about thousands of kilometres of EMPTY space, which would be substantially harder to use a RADAR like system in.
I assume the "ping" response is proportional to the proportion of the solid angle where an object reflects the radar. So if the object is far away, it will have a (inverse square?) smaller response.
So assuming that the scale of operation increases quicker than the square root of vessel sizes, the use of radar is indeed made more difficult with distance.
Very much so.
As the reflected signal will itself spread over a whole sphere (and be partially adsorbed as well) the energy needed is much higher to allow a signal/noise sufficient compred to an active transponder from the "target" ship.
Unless I would happen to be wrong?
Just a small comment to say that Rebel Galaxy had a very similar mechanic, whereby a user-initiated scan would reveal additional items in the vicinity of your ship. To be honest I didn't find it a particularly worthwhile addition - the items could simply have been shown on the map/radar with little impact on gameplay.Flatfingers wrote:[What if "sensors" are generally passive and always-running detectors of long-range energy sources, while "scans" are an active interrogation of relatively nearby objects and energy sources through a deliberately-activated ping?
Suppose that "running a scan" has the following effects:
There might be more features, but a design similar to this would seem to me to offer some interesting gameplay choices between sticking with sensors (mostly passive) and firing off a deep scan (very definitely active).
- Depending on distance to target, research level of the scanner, and the power used, a scan can reveal:
- target ship's true size
- target ship's general maximum possible power generation
- average research level of target ship's major components
- identification of a random number of items in the target ship's cargo hold (poss. incl. contraband)
- target ship is notified that they're being scanned
- scanning ship is clearly highlighted in the target ship's sensors
- running a scan disables the scanning ship's shields for several seconds
Flatfingers wrote:Assuming we're going to take a one-line, eye-rolling comment seriously, there are two points that could be made.
1. The points about about how real-world physics work are good. Distance does matter for active scans of objects because space is feckin' enormous. Audio from the Earth to the Moon takes 1.2 seconds at the speed of light; a little under 3 seconds for a round trip (as a scan "ping" and data response would require). Light from the Sun takes 8 minutes to reach the Earth.
So active scans of objects outside extreme visual range, if something like real-world physics is modeled, would probably take too long to come back to be fun as gameplay.
(Note that energy sources, like stars, can show up just fine on passive sensors at great distances as they're continuously radiating across many spectral frequencies.)
2. LT is a game, so you certainly could just ignore this and say "sensors are magic and can see anything anywhere." That would probably be fun.
Sensors for passive data collection and scanners (sending a short-range signal that gets bounced back) for active data collection could be fun, too.
Problem?
+1 for ignoring light speed delay.Flatfingers wrote: So active scans of objects outside extreme visual range, if something like real-world physics is modeled, would probably take too long to come back to be fun as gameplay.
You forgot the important point, enormous power outputFlatfingers wrote: (Note that energy sources, like stars, can show up just fine on passive sensors at great distances as they're continuously radiating across many spectral frequencies.)
Yes, the hard cut is my problemFlatfingers wrote: Sensors for passive data collection and scanners (sending a short-range signal that gets bounced back) for active data collection could be fun, too.
Problem?
to be honest, what would give us that delay mechanic? it doesnt add anything to play with, why bother?Silverware wrote: The real-world physics can give rise to gameplay mechanics this way
This part still is fuzzy for me.Cornflakes_91 wrote:This will of course light up your ship, but if you are lucky and have a good receiver compared to the other ships, they may not detect you.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests