Scanner Radius.

[Proxima_Centauri]

Lecic

Sorry, but "if thing happens then I would have to change my tactics, therefore thing is bad!" is not an argument.

Reading comprehension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lecic]

Lecic



Reading comprehension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congrats on completely misunderstanding my argument. I'm not arguing that something being removed is bad because removing things is bad. I'm arguing that removing this tactic is bad because it is removing complexity and possibilities from combat, making the game worse. The person who needs reading comprehension here is you.

 

[Madman198237]

There's no reason whatsoever not to adjust the decloaking mechanic to have a larger range. In fact, it's best if it can uncloak/unjam at any range it can detect a ship at (That said, I want a more realistic scanning system that can detect vessels at any range based on scanner power vs. concealment of the opposing vessel), because it adds tactics to stealth bombing other than "Oh look, permacloaking bomber".
Stealth attacks should not be the one-hit-wonder catchall weapon used to kill everything. They should be rare and dangerous, yet damaging when done right.

A modern stealth bomber is not stealthy at extremely close range, and a modern submarine (I believe that submarines are a very good analog of space detection in many ways) isn't stealthy when someone uses active SONAR to find it. It's just not.

 

[Lecic]

There's no reason whatsoever not to adjust the decloaking mechanic to have a larger range. In fact, it's best if it can uncloak/unjam at any range it can detect a ship at (That said, I want a more realistic scanning system that can detect vessels at any range based on scanner power vs. concealment of the opposing vessel), because it adds tactics to stealth bombing other than "Oh look, permacloaking bomber".
Stealth attacks should not be the one-hit-wonder catchall weapon used to kill everything. They should be rare and dangerous, yet damaging when done right.

A modern stealth bomber is not stealthy at extremely close range, and a modern submarine (I believe that submarines are a very good analog of space detection in many ways) isn't stealthy when someone uses active SONAR to find it. It's just not.

There is a difference between "extremely close range" and "just under two sectors away."

 

[Jaaskinal]

Discouraging stealth ships by increasing the scanner decloak range would only be advantageous for players using long range bobby ai fired weapons such as missile/beam. If lock ons from such weapons are possible at excessively long ranges, the only effective way to build a stealth bomber would be to use excessively long range weapons as well. I do not believe this is ideal because it limits creativity and narrows the meta. Allowing stealth craft to fly in a shorter distance without risking the possibility of decloaking broadens the meta and makes strike craft more interesting, to a point. The point when you would know that the decloak range of scanners is too small is the point where stealth becomes ingrained in the meta and is required for any competitive pvp ship. For that to happen, large ships would have to be wholly inferior to small stealth ships. Simply by having ships decloak on firing makes them significantly less effective, and as such, are not used often, however, we already see the prevalence of radar jamming in combat vessels due to its low power costs, and ability to disrupt some of the *stronger* weapons in the game. To fix this, I don't think range should be increased so much as decloak time should be increased.

Furthermore, every mechanic/counter-play with this current system is boring and broken right now. I would love to see the implementation of more complex vision/spotting mechanics added into the game, where specific ships can be designed to be more stealthy than others, rather than our current blanket stealth system.

 

[Proxima_Centauri]

There's no reason whatsoever not to adjust the decloaking mechanic to have a larger range. In fact, it's best if it can uncloak/unjam at any range it can detect a ship at (That said, I want a more realistic scanning system that can detect vessels at any range based on scanner power vs. concealment of the opposing vessel), because it adds tactics to stealth bombing other than "Oh look, permacloaking bomber".
Stealth attacks should not be the one-hit-wonder catchall weapon used to kill everything. They should be rare and dangerous, yet damaging when done right.

A modern stealth bomber is not stealthy at extremely close range, and a modern submarine (I believe that submarines are a very good analog of space detection in many ways) isn't stealthy when someone uses active SONAR to find it. It's just not.

Well the problem here is that the "stealth bomber" advocates are not interested in using "stealth bombers" at all, only in maintaining the utility of their tactic of using a radar jammer on ships and pelting enemies with missile+beam weapons (which have nearly double the range of any other weapon) while remaining out of the range of enemy ships.

It's not really surprising to see certain people on here defending broken combat balance just to maintain their combat edge over people who don't understand the game's mechanics as well.

If lock ons from such weapons are possible at excessively long ranges, the only effective way to build a stealth bomber would be to use excessively long range weapons as well.

Glad to see you're touching on the real problem, horribly unbalanced weapon ranges.

the point where stealth becomes ingrained in the meta and is required for any competitive pvp ship.

This cannot happen due to the massive power requirements of cloak.
Measuring the usefulness of scanners by this metric is completely useless

 

[Winterhome]

Well the problem here is that the "stealth bomber" advocates are not interested in using "stealth bombers" at all, only in maintaining the utility of their tactic of using a radar jammer on ships and pelting enemies with missile+beam weapons (which have nearly double the range of any other weapon) while remaining out of the range of enemy ships.

It's not really surprising to see certain people on here defending broken combat balance just to maintain their combat edge over people who don't understand the game's mechanics as well.

fyi, beam/beam can hit them quite often, cannon/beam can definitely hit them, etc.

 

[Lecic]

Well the problem here is that the "stealth bomber" advocates are not interested in using "stealth bombers" at all, only in maintaining the utility of their tactic of using a radar jammer on ships and pelting enemies with missile+beam weapons (which have nearly double the range of any other weapon) while remaining out of the range of enemy ships.

Hi. Stealth bomber advocate here. You would be correct in that I'm not interested in using stealth bombers, because the playstyle and tactic doesn't interest me. However, the playstyle you just described, which is literal stealth bombing which people are interested in playing, is something that makes the game as a whole more interesting, and I would like for it to remain in the game.

It's not really surprising to see certain people on here defending broken combat balance just to maintain their combat edge over people who don't understand the game's mechanics as well.

Considering how I nor my faction have a single stealth bomber ship, I'd hardly call myself "defending broken combat balance" (stealth bombers are really easy to counter, by the way) to "maintain my combat edge."

And more importantly, the game should not be balanced around newbies who are getting into fights before they know how to fight.

 

[Proxima_Centauri]

fyi, beam/beam can hit them quite often, cannon/beam can definitely hit them, etc.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here?
beam/beam has only 31% of the range of missile/beam
cannon/beam has only 62% of the range of missile/beam

missile beam easily outclasses every other weapon in terms of range and accuracy

Hi. Stealth bomber advocate here. You would be correct in that I'm not interested in using stealth bombers, because the playstyle and tactic doesn't interest me. However, the playstyle you just described, which is literal stealth bombing which people are interested in playing, is something that makes the game as a whole more interesting, and I would like for it to remain in the game.

It's not "stealth" when turrets can still target you.
Maybe the tactic would be more acceptable if missile/beam didn't out-range every other weapon by so much.

Considering how I nor my faction have a single stealth bomber ship, I'd hardly call myself "defending broken combat balance" (stealth bombers are really easy to counter, by the way) to "maintain my combat edge."

See above.
I'm calling out you and HeartUponSleeve for being disingenuous in your assertion that my suggestion/comment above is to kill "stealth bombers," and not to bring some balance to the currently horribly lopsided combat. Maybe you personally don't use those tactics (although your faction's videos would suggest otherwise), but I know for a fact HeartUponSleeve's faction does it.

Also, it's both hilarious and pathetic that you're treating "funny" as a downvote, as if I care. Perhaps you should stick to forums like Reddit. They seem to be more your speed.

 

[Lecic]

Not really sure what you're trying to say here?
beam/beam has only 31% of the range of missile/beam
cannon/beam has only 62% of the range of missile/beam

missile beam easily outclasses every other weapon in terms of range and accuracy

That doesn't matter when you can't hit the enemy from more than 2 sectors away with weapons on your own ship. Sure, you can have your AI fire off towards where you can't see, but if you're that far away, you and your opponent are probably both not moving, and it would be incredibly easy for the opponent to scan, find your coordinates, and jump to you, at which point your stealth bomber would probably be quickly torn to shreds.

I'm calling out you and HeartUponSleeve for being disingenuous in your assertion that my suggestion/comment above is to kill "stealth bombers," and not to bring some balance to the currently horribly lopsided combat. Maybe you personally don't use those tactics (although your faction's videos would suggest otherwise), but I know for a fact HeartUponSleeve's faction does it.

Your suggestion would 100% kill stealth bombers. How are you supposed to stay jammed? There's nothing unbalanced about them in their current state. They're easy to counter and easy to kill once you do.

 

[StormWing0]

Changing from sector zones to actual distance would be rather useful for not just scanners but all things that have range on them. Rather than using rigid zones and not taking into account location in those zone, using actual distance would help deal with some bugs and a few other things.

 

[Zekester81]

Ok, so, what if you made every object project it's scanners, jamming, all that good stuff in an area like several people including me have suggested. Then you add in a feature to each(radar, jamming, ect) that degraded over distance, then make it all configurable in the server config? Then you can have your scans/jamming centered on the object emitting, you can keep your stealth, and find new balance where they meet.

Everything else is pretty simple, most should get what I'm saying about the source of emission. The degradation thing is key though. The farther you get from the source of the scan the less influence it exerts on things like cloaking.

So, if you have enough power to your cloaking, scan does not reveal it, unless you are X amount of distance closer to the source. That would allow the re-work of scan to be based upon block count like everything else and would give meaning to having lots of scanner blocks. The same could apply to jamming, but you might have to add a jammer module to go with the jammer cpu block.

Basically, a more powerful scanner could detect from further away, or overpower small jamming/cloaking devices from distance, but would not affect those devices which were built to overpower the scan. And the closer you get to the scanner, the more cloaking you need to stay hidden. You could even set a distance, say 10% of scanner range, in which all cloaking is overpowered by the scanner due to proximity. The scanner works like normal, but if you get super close, even a small one can OP your cloak. By the same token, cloak is unaffected in say the outer 10% of scan range period. That leaves the middle 80% of scan range to be the place of scanner/cloaking/jamming arms race.

And of course distances and percentages listed above could all be configurable for each server. Diagram specifically about cloaking for your convenience:
The outer line equals extent of scan range, whatever that may be.