Debate 6: Types of E-War

[Wilks Checkov]

Okay for today's debate I thought I would bring up the subject of E-War, and how it may work within the game structure, and with ships / structures. 

 

As well as what forms of E-War may be around. . .

 

 

E-War Candidates: 

• Sensor Jamming: Form of E-War that blocks active sensors from detecting ships, can be used as a form of primitive cloaking field, only way to distinguish targets is manually - visually. Automated turrets can not lock onto a ship. 
• Sensor Boosting: Form of E-War meant to boost current ship or allied ships via link - decreases lock time on weapons systems, and boosts active sensor sensitivity/radius. 
• Emp Pulse: Form of E-War meant to temporarily disable shielded ship systems for a brief period. 
• Sensor Scrambler: Scrambles lock on targets to make it appear there are several false contacts on scanners. Makes using auto lock far more difficult.
• Jump/warp/hyperspace inhibitor?: Field generator that prevents use of said forms of FTL in its radius. 
• Hacking Module: Hacks ships systems causing the lua code to behave erratically. Potential automation failure. 
• Firewall Module: Protects against effects of said Hacking Module. 

 

These are just a few of my rough ideas on E-War for the game. I am sure you all have your own interpretations of E-War so feel free to express them here - add on to my ideas - or even to ask a question.

 

Meanwhile just have fun debating. . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     #Curse damn MRI head scans, damn drugs I was on earlier today still have me feeling like shit. - Will try to do some extended posts over weekend hopefully. 

[guttertrash]

You missed remote sensor dampeners

 

edit: and tracking disrupts 

[Wilks Checkov]

You missed remote sensor dampeners

 

edit: and tracking disrupts 

Indeed I did - my bad. 

[DaSchiz]

You missed the most powerful possibility ...

 

[Anaximander]

Well, sensor jamming in space, is quite improbable, unless there's a "hacking tree" skill involving worms that can transmitted to the enemy, like a hideen status effect, that has limited charges and can either block a ship entirely from being picked up on sensors, requiring an actual visual confirmation to be identified, or a sort of "werewolf code" , similar to how Curse effects used to work in WoW, were you could only place one of them with different utilities each, let's say a Werewolf code that engages when the enemy tries to fire their weapons, blocking the mechanism from firing, then the gameplay involves the enemy ship to build an immunity to the code with the magic of FutureSpace antivirus software for a short while. This is where the Hacking / Firewall Module could work as a gameplay aspect, with Firewall being the thing that gives you that short immunity, with a Cyber-warfare officer and his skills determining how long he can keep up the immunity, or how well fast can he remove the malware.


As for sensors, that depends. If they are optical sensors, I don't think traditional jamming will work, unless it's cyberwarfare as I explained above. Optical sensors won't work as radars, as they literally pick up distant light like telescopes. 


Radars on the other had, sure, they can be jammed pretty hard if you send a dense volume signal back at them, so much it will literally jam their readings, but THAT, should follow the same rules as any traditional weaponry, with the jammer consmuing power off of the ship's core for the
duration of the channeling of the jamming signal.


As for Jumpdrive inhibitors, no, there should not be a mechanism that can somehow manually prevent jump drives. Instead, make it so the ships must go below a certain certain speed to be able to jump, or be completely inert to do so. That makes more sense in my opinion, than "we can control if the enemy can warp space-time, but we still use rockets to blow them to bits". A Jumpdrive Inhibitor is a cop-out of the highest order in my opinion.


As for the lock-time decrase, if my assessment is correct, velocity, angle of intercept, distance and surface area exposed will be the determined factors to that. Perhaps a signal that reduces enemy accuracy by confusing it and making it consider you are going at a higher speed than you do would be more approriate to complement the 6 DoF gameplay, or even better, making it see your "print" on a weapon's cone of fire as being smaller, hence, lowering its accuracy more, simialr to how in EVE a signature radius reduced enemy ship accuracy.. It's the same logic, only one is more active than passive.

[AttacKat]

 

As well as what forms of E-War may be around. . .

 

E-War Candidates:  *snipped*

 

These are just a few of my rough ideas on E-War for the game. I am sure you all have your own interpretations of E-War so feel free to express them here - add on to my ideas - or even to ask a question.

 

Meanwhile just have fun debating. . .

 

My kind of e-war? K.I.S.S.

 

If you don't, you run into the stupid EVE PvP vs PvE imbalance issues, where a sub 500K isk PvP setup can render a 2T isk PvE setup useless. The more e-war conditions you have, the more imbalance issues you bring to the table.

 

The KISS method: one electronic burst (EMP) splashes an AoE effect, causing device(s) shutdown within effected sections/area based on its strength, forcing the crew(s) having to manually reboot/bring on line those devices. This kind of game play demands a quick and selective reaction time (I may not need to bring everything back on line) vs a set 3 min XYZ is useless approach: responsive play vs predictable play.

[Anaximander]

My kind of e-war? K.I.S.S.

 

If you don't, you run into the stupid EVE PvP vs PvE imbalance issues, where a sub 500K isk PvP setup can render a 2T isk PvE setup useless. The more e-war conditions you have, the more imbalance issues you bring to the table.

 

The KISS method: one electronic burst (EMP) splashes an AoE effect, causing device(s) shutdown within effected sections/area based on its strength, forcing the crew(s) having to manually reboot/bring on line those devices. This kind of game play demands a quick and selective reaction time (I may not need to bring everything back on line) vs a set 3 min XYZ is useless approach: responsive play vs predictable play.

The problem with EMP bursts are shields. You know, shields are EM in nature, plus, Friendly Fire. IF you fire that, you'll probably catch your guys in it as well, there's no magic that protects you from friendly EMPs and it would throw tactics off the window if it was to be implemented in such a way. And to top it off, the EMP burst will fry your ship as well, unless you have everything powered off, in which case, you are risking getting hit by the dense EM wave as it goes off without shields on. It's not THAT easy, as the explosion creating the EMP will probably shatter you, your ship and possibly, kill everyone on board.

 

 

And bringing EVE as a comparison for a 6 DoF game is silly IMO, as in EVE they had 18 km ships like the Titans, for no other reason than "cool factors". In Star Citizen, a ship like the Bengal Carrier is 1 km in length and it's filled with so much firepower, it makes the Titan look even more disproportional as of their firepower Me and Wilks had a discussion that if a Titan was to be built as of its size in Dual, it could literally server as a mobile base of operations, housing like 500 jets in it ,or even bombers for that matter. In layman's terms, you can't expect a guy driving an eighteen-wheeler to stand on the same ground in combat with a guy driving a sherman tank. One them got a vehicle meant for combat.

 

 

.And I get it, it's a game, it's not meant for rrealism, but DUAL aims for some realism. They even implemented their server tech as to mimick relativistic effects, which makes the game look even more immersive than it actually could have been if they didn't.

 

 

And PvE in DUAL will be more in the sense of the voxel building and travelling the enviroment in interstellar space. There's no need for "atributes" in that department, only skill and experience play a role in that. If you are a guy that outfited his ship for exploration and not combat, there's no snowball's chance in hell you'll be able to fight toe to toe against a warship -- and you shouldn't, they are WARSHIPS after all, they are not meant for exploration, they are meant for conflicts and expenditability, dealing as much damage as possible per firing run, while the exploration ship is meant for sustainability over trekking distances.

[AttacKat]

... plus, Friendly Fire. IF you fire that, you'll probably catch your guys in it as well, there's no magic that protects you from friendly EMPs and it would throw tactics off the window if it was to be implemented in such a way.

...

.And I get it, it's a game, it's not meant for rrealism, but DUAL aims for some realism. They even implemented their server tech as to mimick relativistic effects, which makes the game look even more immersive than it actually could have been if they didn't.

 

And this is the reality of war. There is NO magic bullet that can only hurts the enemy and not cause friendly fire. IMHO we shouldn't implement that kind of magic bullet in game either. To allow that is like players asking for massive nukes that can blow up a death star from the opposed side and their own team never have to worry about any damage when the bomb blows.

[GalloInfligo]

The problem with emp, our current military has their systems shielded from emp damage.

[Wilks Checkov]

The problem with emp, our current military has their systems shielded from emp damage.

Military targets yes - use shielded electronics for most critical systems. However not all ships including some of the older military ships that do not use shielded electronics are vulnerable. 

[GalloInfligo]

My point is, we use them now, so how common will it be to do this 500 years from now?

[AttacKat]

My point is, we use them now, so how common will it be to do this 500 years from now?

 

That depends, how much will the laws of physics change 500 years from now? 

[Anaximander]

That depends, how much will the laws of physics change 500 years from now? 

Laws of Physics do not change. Technology does though. And if they managed in DUAL's future to warp space-time, I don't see how shielding electronics would be much of an issue.

[Anasasi]

As far as the EMP topic goes, both the offense and defense would change over that many years, so they may have kept up enough to kill electronics or use blasts that are directed at specific things thus overwhelming the protection vs a blanket EMP.

Anyway, 
As far as E-WAR goes, I would like to see a plethora of old and new things that you can do, as an expansion or otherwise.
Sensor Dampeners shouldn't just shorten targeting range/lengthen lock on time (i.e, EvE Mechanics) but should also make sensors extremely ineffective (unless strengthened) giving you no 'visual' of the enemy on what ever sensor system you are using. 

But that's just me hoping for the ability to shut someone down both visually and sensory based.

As for Warp/Hyper/Jump Drive inhibitors, I would enjoy this aspect immensely, as it means traps and such can be used better. 
I don't mind how its implemented, it just needs to happen  

 

[GalloInfligo]

I would lo e to have a futuristic version of the EA-6B Prowler