Cloaking Tech

[unown 21]

Should players and ships and maby even static constructs be able to cloak and disappear? and if so should there be limits?

 

https://youtube/aHgu8jRw4fo

Edited April 17, 2018 by unown006
forgot to add vid

[Felonu 208]

Not enough options

[NanoDot 384]

Cloaking tech probably won't be in before launch.

 

Adding cloaking will also require a whole range of countermeasures and game play rules, so it represents a significant body of work.

[unown 21]

1 hour ago, Felonu said:

Not enough options

then sugest some so this thread can evolve

[Haunty 445]

I think only for dynamic constructs. For players and static constructs, maybe ways to prevent detection but not full invisible cloaking.

[Stig92 71]

Propably wouldn't support total invisibility in any sense, but depending on what kind of means of detecting ships and constructs the game has then also stealth systems would be good. Could for example have underground bunker hidden from sight, but visible to some scanner, but if you invest in stealth tech it would either not be detected, require better scanner/higher skill level of scanner, be detected only at shorter range or show less details.

 

Actually the range of detection should be something you can affect rather than turning invisible. Better sensor sees further, but better stealth tech reduces detection range. Combination of the two determines who sees the other first. 

 

But again, this all depends on the means of detection in the game. If there is radar then stealth tech should follow. If you can only track things visually then no.

[NanoDot 384]

5 minutes ago, Stig92 said:

If there is radar then stealth tech should follow. If you can only track things visually then no.

If there is radar, then jamming (ECM) should follow !

 

Stealth tech would be the next level, with reduced radar signatures via special coatings and/or careful ship design.

 

Things like "invisibility cloaks" should be a distant third, and only be useful in extremely situational applications.

[Lethys 2544]

I'm all in for stealth.....but not in the way eve does it (cause that's just bad)

 

DU could do WAY better in this regard by simply adding a little more stuff (will rewrite the stuff I talked with beloved twerkmotor about)

- do different type of radar/sensor: gravimetric (mass), lidar (light), magnetometric (magnetic fields), radar (cross section), thermal (heat, obviously)

 

each sensor goes for a different attribute of the ship. We've already seen in videos that DU uses a crosssection in the build widget.

 

Smaller crosssection -> radar can't detect you that easily.

Small and light ship -> gravimetric sensors don't catch you well

Dark/light absorbing voxels -> lidar can't detect you well

few elements used (turrets, engines, certain voxels...) -> magnetometric doesn't pick you up

Coat ship in thermal-resistant voxels -> thermal sensors won't be good

 

all of that can be balanced by simply putting different attributes on voxels and elements: you can build an extremely dark ship to evade lidar, but that increases your mass. Use anti-magnetometric voxels ....but increase the heat.

Balance it so, that you can't build a ship which is undetectable - but may be very, very hard to detect. That has to be an extremely small and expensive ship for maybe 1-5 ppl - to allow black ops kind of tactics.

imho this can be added easily as it only adds some more numbers which then can be calculated just like the rest of the pvp system (chances).

 

Such a system would be way more engaging and emergent as the builder would have to pay attention to what he wants to build - and ppl have to think about different ways of defending their base.

You may be able to build a battleship which can't be detected by lidar - but it's cross section is a moon. Works pretty well against an outpost which only has a thermal sensor.....

But radar would be the most basic sensor - because it detects a simple crosssection - and therefor be the cheapest....

 

You see, this system would be easily balanceable and it would add way more emergent gameplay for everyone (shipbuilders, basebuilders, pilots, tacticians, miners, producers,...) than just having a full invisibility cloak element like in eve - which is basically an I win button. Plus it can be implemented very well with the existing idea of pvp-mechanics

 

 

 

 

[vylqun 333]

30 minutes ago, Lethys said:

DU could do WAY better in this regard by simply adding a little more stuff (will rewrite the stuff I talked with beloved twerkmotor about)

- do different type of radar/sensor: gravimetric (mass), lidar (light), magnetometric (magnetic fields), radar (cross section), thermal [...]

 

i absolutely and fully support that.

[CalenLoki 54]

Thanks @Lethys, for saving me all the typing. 

 

I agree that stealth should be function of all ship elements, not just "who has bigger stealth generator".

 

My only concern with so many detection, is that large ship/base/fleet can easily mount all the detectors. It'll be pretty small cost compared to other parts. That would break the stealth completely, as you couldn't be stealthy in all the fields, but you could detect everything.

 

Making detection equipment expensive (big/heavy/power hungry) just makes small fleets/ships blind, and large would see everything. Quite against intuitive "scouts are better small" rule.

 

Making one detector hinder function of another can be worked around by spreading them between fleet members.

 

So I'd rather have general "stealth" (blocks, elements, layout, ect.) compete with firepower, speed, agility, cargo capacity, range and durability. Not against other stealth mechanics.

 

 

 

Regarding visual invisibility - I'm against. It's OP in most games that have it.

[Lethys 2544]

2 minutes ago, CalenLoki said:

My only concern with so many detection, is that large ship/base/fleet can easily mount all the detectors. It'll be pretty small cost compared to other parts. That would break the stealth completely, as you couldn't be stealthy in all the fields, but you could detect everything.

 

Making detection equipment expensive (big/heavy/power hungry) just makes small fleets/ships blind, and large would see everything. Quite against intuitive "scouts are better small" rule.

 

Making one detector hinder function of another can be worked around by spreading them between fleet members.

Well yes, that's true and tbh I don't see a problem with this.

You can also check ingame skills for operation efficiency of those sensors.

IF the enemy manages to have all those sensors up and online, manned 24/7, fueled, spread over many territories/ships and constantly checked by members - then so be it.

Then that very small black ops ship comes into play....

[vylqun 333]

sensors and jammers can also have different tech Levels, so just because a fleet includes every possible sensor it doesnt mean they'll detect everyone.

[CalenLoki 54]

@Lethys It all depends on effort required to run those sensors.

Hypothetical question: Does the fact that they have full detection running means my fleet (of the same cost, player numbers, tech level, character level, player skill, ect) without that much detection will have significant advantage if we meet?

Is it something like 1% of their total investment, thus cheap no-brainer that everyone need to check out to be stealth-proof?

Or closer to 20%, which gives them advantage over stealth fleet (which spent even more on being stealthy, maybe 50%), but put at severe disadvantage against one dedicated to raw firepower?

Is that ratio constant, thus viable for both small and large fleets? Or maybe stealth is totally OP in small and totally useless in large encounters?

 

The problem I see is that stealth, which gives quite constant advantage, scale with size (proportionally or even exponentially harder to make large stuff hidden). While countermeasures have quite constant cost, thus are large investment at low level, and pretty much no cost at high. Thus at low level you have quite random chance to sneak past enemy (because you're stealthy against half of detection systems, and enemy can't afford to have them all. Dice roll if they see you), but at high level you have absolutely no chance (they always have all the detection equipment, because it's dirty cheap).

[Nanoman 615]

Having a deep stealth mechanics with different types of detection also allows for the gameplay around it to keep evolving, because it provides ways of adapting to trends.

[Lethys 2544]

1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:

@Lethys It all depends on effort required to run those sensors.

Hypothetical question: Does the fact that they have full detection running means my fleet (of the same cost, player numbers, tech level, character level, player skill, ect) without that much detection will have significant advantage if we meet?

Is it something like 1% of their total investment, thus cheap no-brainer that everyone need to check out to be stealth-proof?

Or closer to 20%, which gives them advantage over stealth fleet (which spent even more on being stealthy, maybe 50%), but put at severe disadvantage against one dedicated to raw firepower?

Is that ratio constant, thus viable for both small and large fleets? Or maybe stealth is totally OP in small and totally useless in large encounters?

 

The problem I see is that stealth, which gives quite constant advantage, scale with size (proportionally or even exponentially harder to make large stuff hidden). While countermeasures have quite constant cost, thus are large investment at low level, and pretty much no cost at high. Thus at low level you have quite random chance to sneak past enemy (because you're stealthy against half of detection systems, and enemy can't afford to have them all. Dice roll if they see you), but at high level you have absolutely no chance (they always have all the detection equipment, because it's dirty cheap).

And that wholly depends on how they balance it - you could implement all kinds of drawbacks:

- interference of overlapping spheres of detection (reduce effectivity). So you can cover an area with all sensors, but every single one takes a hit on resolution. Or you place them further apart to avoid that, but someone might slip through

- minimum distance to different sensors (and at the same time make it impossible to send data from other orgs - prevents them from making alt-orgs. yes they can still place it, but they would need to man it 24/7 because they can't send the data via lua)

- reduce effectivity of automated turrets

- the more sensors there are -> the more power they need. Thus they'd need more power plants, which might need to be outside the shield

 

if they put enough manpower in detection 24/7 then it should be harder (but not impossible) to sneak past them.

 

Those are only examples and should only give you an idea. And yes, there are ofc counter arguments against those. And I will find counter arguments against the counter arguments....

It's a never ending discussion - and only guessing because we just don't know what NQ has in mind.

All I'm saying is that a simple "FUFUFUFU I win" button as in eve is just not fun and boring. There could be way more - though we don't know the exact mechanic yet

[dualism 5]

I was thinking about "cloaked" barriers the other day as a result of no actual gravity allowing the smallest possible volume of stuff to be left "hanging in mid air" all over the place if you want. Wouldn't they stop vehicles from flying at much of a speed due to constant stops by collision detection?

I wondered if the same applied to space after the info that the whole of big ships will really be moving across the single shard. Could they be stopped by 'mines' simply in the path of a ship? I realise it's not the same way round that is probably meant here - cloaked ships, but maybe as a result something is needed for ships to be able to 'slip' through too...

[Korvid Rin 16]

Possibly an active jamming component for ships up to X size to counter larger installations?  Or maybe like real life.  More money=better stealth/detection. That seems like a more viable reality. 

[vylqun 333]

In the end, if people invest a large amount of work and wealth into detection components they really should detect every ship that comes close, but i'd imagine that all the necessary components will be quite big/heavy/power hungry so you would need a dedicated "radar-ship" if you want foolproof detection.

[Korvid Rin 16]

^^^^ this

 

Space is BIG.  We have trouble tracking all the crap we've put into earths orbit , and we know where we put most of it for years.  It's a planetwide effort to keep up with all the satellite, boosters, abandoned modules, etc.  If someone is willing to outlay that kind of effort,  they should be able to detect anything in range of said system,  say a million kilometers. Gauge accordingly to scale of construct.  Just an idea. 

[Korvid Rin 16]

Larger power source better detection.  Smaller weaker construct, easier to avoid detection.  ??? Having a hard time putting words to this idea.  

[Nanoman 615]

27 minutes ago, Korvid Rin said:

We have trouble tracking all the crap we've put into earths orbit , and we know where we put most of it for years.  It's a planetwide effort to keep up with all the satellite, boosters, abandoned modules, etc

Didn't know we had cloaked junk up there...

[vylqun 333]

15 minutes ago, Nanoman said:

Didn't know we had cloaked junk up there...

we do, some are cloaked as tv sattelites while in reality they are and send just garbage^^

[Korvid Rin 16]

We don't.  I was referencing how hard it is to track things that are not cloaked,  even when we know where they're supposed to be.  

[unown 21]

11 hours ago, Korvid Rin said:

Possibly an active jamming component for ships up to X size to counter larger installations?  Or maybe like real life.  More money=better stealth/detection. That seems like a more viable reality. 

 

18 hours ago, Nanoman said:

Having a deep stealth mechanics with different types of detection also allows for the gameplay around it to keep evolving, because it provides ways of adapting to trends.

 

19 hours ago, vylqun said:

sensors and jammers can also have different tech Levels, so just because a fleet includes every possible sensor it doesnt mean they'll detect everyone.

You could desighn a black ops fleet to surprise your enemy

22 hours ago, NanoDot said:

If there is radar, then jamming (ECM) should follow !

 

Stealth tech would be the next level, with reduced radar signatures via special coatings and/or careful ship design.

 

Things like "invisibility cloaks" should be a distant third, and only be useful in extremely situational applications.

Then jam it or incrse your radar to counter jamming

 

On 4/17/2018 at 5:22 PM, NanoDot said:

Cloaking tech probably won't be in before launch.

 

Adding cloaking will also require a whole range of countermeasures and game play rules, so it represents a significant body of work.

There is no confirm or deny yet from what I know

[0something0 98]

On 4/18/2018 at 1:53 PM, Korvid Rin said:

Space is BIG.  We have trouble tracking all the crap we've put into earths orbit , and we know where we put most of it for years.  It's a planetwide effort to keep up with all the satellite, boosters, abandoned modules, etc. 

On the other hand, space is a vaccum. Heat transfer by radiation is inefficient. So active vessels that emits heat can be seen easily. Espacially when said heat is literal plasma coming out the back of your engines.