Scanners, passive and active

[nrage]

This, or something like it, has probably been suggested before but here goes..

I understand the "game" reasons for having scanners that only operate while you're facing the target. For "active" scanners like warrant and cargo scanners I think this is ideal from a game perspective, despite it making little sense from a realism point of view (yes, yes, I know, we're talking about "science fiction" here - but the best science fiction always has a logical explanation and an internal consistency which seems to be lacking in this case, or at least I haven't yet heard a good reason in this case).

So, I am not suggesting any changes to "active" scanners but how about the introduction of "passive" scanners which can scan any/all targets in range. So, how to classify scanners as active/passive, well the way I see it there is the most "game" reason for calling something an "active" scan if the thing you're scanning doesn't want to be scanned and can move about to prevent it. Anything else, is just going to sit there passively and accept it.

The one exception I would make here is that the basic ship identity (ID) information ought to be obtainable automatically/passively. Lets assume there is some sort of in-game regulation stating that ships must identify themselves to anyone in range, they are actually broadcasting this information, thus it's obtained passively. This creates an interesting situation where buying a "fake ID" might become an option allowing you to fool a passive scan but not an active one, for example. Silent running would presumably stop broadcasting the ID as well.

Once you have the ship ID I presume that their faction and local wanted status are obtained by querying the local database obtained from the nav beacon upon arrival. To be honest, I am not certain what the in-game lore is surrounding faster than light communications etc. It seems that the local authority have faster than light communications, so perhaps we can get this information using FTL-C directly from the controlling station in real-time.

So, I would classify scanners in the following ways (let me know if I've missed any)..

Active scanners

• Kill Warrant Scan
• Cargo Scan

Passive scanners

• Ship ID (and thus faction and local wanted status)
• Frame Shift Wake Scan
• Detailed Surface Scan

These changes could be made in a future update (to all ships) or if desired it could require the fitting of a "multi" or "omni-directional" scanner module to a utility mount, for example.

Once active all passive scanners would be able to scan any and all targets in range at the same time.

The goal here is to make the slightly onerous tasks (selecting and scanning ships, planets, etc) less so without impacting the "game" elements of scanning ships that may not want to be scanned. Basically, more fun with less hassle.

Thoughts?

 

[Tornado]

What's the mechanic behind a passive Frame Shift Wake or Detailed Surface Scan? the frame wake is not going to broadcast any information neither is the surface of a planet.
I always think of the basic scan as being like an IFF interrogation your ship sends a signal to the other ship requesting the information and then the other ship reply's.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

I would at least like a way to use passive sensors that further lowers the chance of detection from sensors when using silent running.

 

[nrage]

Perhaps active and passive were the wrong terms to use as they have many and varied meanings I think Manual (previously active) and Automatic (previously passive) do a better job of getting my meaning across.

What's the mechanic behind a passive Frame Shift Wake or Detailed Surface Scan? the frame wake is not going to broadcast any information neither is the surface of a planet.

When I said "passive" I meant it as a distinction for gameplay purposes and not as a scientific term. For gameplay purposes they are passive scans only because the target of the scan is not moving around (it's sitting passively) - therefore the scan can be done automatically.

In the scientific sense the scanner module will be actively scanning the wake/planet.

The way I imagine it working in-game is that simply flying within range of such an object, with the required scanner equipped (with sufficient power) would automatically trigger a scan which would complete in it's own time (provided you don't move out of range before it does).

The difference from the current mechanic is therefore only:
- There can be multiple targets scanned simultaneously.
- You don't have to be facing the target(s).
- You don't have to trigger the scan with a button, it's automatic.

I always think of the basic scan as being like an IFF interrogation your ship sends a signal to the other ship requesting the information and then the other ship reply's.

Yep, that's definitely a reasonable explanation too, perhaps even a better one

The ship ID scan was always going to be one of those you could reasonably go either way on. I want to make it automatic because I feel this improves gameplay and opens up some interesting possibilities for things like fake IDs and disabled IFF etc.

 

[Daynen]

My two cents: first off, detailed scanners need to be folding into discovery scanners anyway. They add no gameplay on their own and could instead be a parameter in the DS grading scale.

Second off, I do think that some scanners should be more active. Not everything should take up a module slot though. Wake scanning should be active: you might be able to see what direction the ship went, but you have no idea just by eyeballs what system he was aiming for. Cargo and bounty scanning should be completely active and purposeful things, too: just looking at a ship tells me he's wanted? Pffft, okay what the hell. I tried out a kill warrant scanner a while back and found it wasn't worth the extra trips and module slot. If you had to have one to immediately see a wanted status, though...that would be a different story, and I would approve. Cargo scans should be the most tricky, because even if you can see the ship, you can't see the cargo. Shielded ships should reasonably be harder to scan internally as well; perhaps a shield variant designed to reduce scan signature could force peepers to get closer before getting a positive read?

I like the topic this thread is covering; please continue.

 

[nrage]

My two cents: first off, detailed scanners need to be folding into discovery scanners anyway. They add no gameplay on their own and could instead be a parameter in the DS grading scale.

Locating objects and analyzing them are two different tasks, so from that POV it makes sense to have different scanners for those tasks. The gameplay that detailed scanners add is that you have to chose what to scan and go and actually scan it, I don't mind this all that much, it's what being an explorer "is all about" to me. That said, I would like to streamline the process a little, in that I want the scan to start as soon as I am in range, and whether I am facing the object or not. Allowing multiple objects to be detailed scanned at the same time - saving me some time. I would still have to approach the objects to the required range(s) - which is currently based on the object size (not mass but physical size), and I like this.

Second off, I do think that some scanners should be more active. Not everything should take up a module slot though. Wake scanning should be active: you might be able to see what direction the ship went, but you have no idea just by eyeballs what system he was aiming for. Cargo and bounty scanning should be completely active and purposeful things, too: just looking at a ship tells me he's wanted? Pffft, okay what the hell. I tried out a kill warrant scanner a while back and found it wasn't worth the extra trips and module slot. If you had to have one to immediately see a wanted status, though...that would be a different story, and I would approve. Cargo scans should be the most tricky, because even if you can see the ship, you can't see the cargo. Shielded ships should reasonably be harder to scan internally as well; perhaps a shield variant designed to reduce scan signature could force peepers to get closer before getting a positive read?

Are you using "active" the same way I (perhaps confusingly) was?

To clarify..

Active = Manual = press/hold a button to trigger the scan, must be facing the target of the scan for the duration.
Passive = Automatic = scans everything in range (may not be immediate), no need to face the target.

To reiterate my thoughts..

I think Kill Warrant and Cargo scans should be Manual, because the target may actively be avoiding the scan, basically I think the gameplay involved in scanning evasive targets is fun.

The other scanners I want to be Automatic, they should just scan everything in range automatically. Scans which take time should still take time, but you should not have to trigger them or be facing the target of the scan.

 

[Daynen]

Locating objects and analyzing them are two different tasks, so from that POV it makes sense to have different scanners for those tasks. The gameplay that detailed scanners add is that you have to chose what to scan and go and actually scan it, I don't mind this all that much, it's what being an explorer "is all about" to me. That said, I would like to streamline the process a little, in that I want the scan to start as soon as I am in range, and whether I am facing the object or not. Allowing multiple objects to be detailed scanned at the same time - saving me some time. I would still have to approach the objects to the required range(s) - which is currently based on the object size (not mass but physical size), and I like this.

The point I was getting at was actually this: Scanning objects with a discovery scanner and closing in for identification is done in the exact same manner, whether you have a detailed scanner or not. The detailed scanner doesn't actually CHANGE the gameplay at all; it just seems to add more credits to your data sale. I learned how to use scanners correctly, and then took off my detailed scanner; nothing changed. I don't miss the extra money, and I DO like having that internal slot freed up.

In other words, if the discovery scanners simply picked up more details and increased the credit value of scans based on their own rating/class, the detailed scanner would be unnecessary as a separate item. In the current game, it has no actual functionality on its own, and is really just a module tax for more long-term profit.

 

[nrage]

The point I was getting at was actually this: Scanning objects with a discovery scanner and closing in for identification is done in the exact same manner, whether you have a detailed scanner or not. The detailed scanner doesn't actually CHANGE the gameplay at all; it just seems to add more credits to your data sale. I learned how to use scanners correctly, and then took off my detailed scanner; nothing changed. I don't miss the extra money, and I DO like having that internal slot freed up.

In other words, if the discovery scanners simply picked up more details and increased the credit value of scans based on their own rating/class, the detailed scanner would be unnecessary as a separate item. In the current game, it has no actual functionality on its own, and is really just a module tax for more long-term profit.

Ahh, yes, I forgot you can scan without the "detailed" scanner. Yes, it does seem to be simply a module tax for more profit, but this seems reasonable to me. As an explorer I've never really had an issue with lack of module spaces, in fact more often than not I am taking modules off you make myself lighter.

 

[Daynen]

I can understand that it's not a crippling opportunity cost, but my point is that it didn't need to be a cost to begin with. I would much rather have the detailed scanner actually add or change the gameplay in some way, but if it's not meant to do so, then nobody would miss it if it was removed, and the point of its existence simply folded into the basic scanner. If it were something that could only be used when inside the low orbit of a system, was used in some different manner, and got some actually relevant information unavailable to long-range scans, then I would give it the thumbs up with no questions asked.

It's less a 'problem' and more a 'significant opportunity for streamlining with zero gameplay loss.'