I've experimented with one approach, but it's been controversial whenever I've proposed it. It would mask off the sector numbers from course plots unless you've visited them. So if you plotted a course from 1 to 100, whether in a move command, in CIM, or in the computer, it might look something like this:

1 > (7) > (*) > (*) > (918) > 10842 > (11964) > (*) > (*) > (*) > (100)

Since you're in sector 1, you'd see that. Also, since from sector 1 you can see all your adjacent sectors, you'd see those numbers. Sector 10842 has been visited, so you'd see it, plus the adjacent sector numbers, even if you haven't visited them. Sector 100 would show as the target sector, but since you haven't visited it, you wouldn't see adjacent sectors.

Course plots can only be done from a sector you've visited to any arbitrary target sector.

This tells you length of course plot, which is important in determining turns, and it allows you to set avoids in your current adjacent sectors so you can test alternative routes. If I really needed to, I could provide a way to automatically test an alternate route by setting an avoid in the second-to-last sector on the plot without telling you what that sector number is.

When I suggest this, people get all bent out of shape saying the game would be unplayable. I don't agree. It would be different, but playable, and it would remove the use of course plots for free mapping. You'll have to explore sectors either by moving and scanning or by probe. Then the game could control the timing and circumstances of releasing map information to players. The info could become available at a designated time, or it could be available for sale in sections or as a whole.

The game would not be unplayable, but it would be different to the point that many might not play it.

That's true of any of these settings. I think anyone interested in playing a game where map info is controlled by the game rather than extracted by script would find this setting acceptable. The missing sectors would be available at some point in the game, just not immediately. It would slow things down, and that's the goal.

i seem to remember some other space trading game that had obscured unexplored sector numbers in its course plots also. i can't remember which one it was, perhaps galactic trader or something. making a change like this would have a huge impact on the game; maybe in a good way. however, teams that are used to having sector data and have the ability to write code will probably start sharing sector data through a live side-channel and coordinate their exploration to gain a data advantage. i think that would be great, but that's just me. other players will not be able to rise to that level and will probably suffer against well equipped teams. fortunately for them, such teams today can probably be counted on one hand.

I think it's reasonable to expect that players might share exploration data. In fact, why not make it an option to have all Corp explored sectors automatically shared? If one member of a Corp explores a sector, why wouldn't everyone on the Corp gain that information?

As with everything, I'd like to just experiment with this and see how it goes. It's an easy thing to implement. I've implemented it a couple of times for testing purposes. It's about 10 minutes work. Maybe I'll add it as an option and open a test game on the beta.

Now, there's an idea. Right now we can share Swath Cim port and sector reports. I can "see" the port in the sector I've not been to, but I cannot pull a port report until I actually visit the sector. Are you proposing that all corp members have access to CIM reports if there's a corp fig on the port?

I think that may encourage more gridding.

As I mentioned before, Some GameOps share this data on their websites so that everyone has access to it. On other servers, players already share data with other corp members. The writers of Swath and Attack created the TWX v2 XML schema so that they could share this data between each other, and made it a free open format that any helper can use.
Since this data is already shared between players, it makes sense to make it available "in-game".

Right. It would be nice to have in-game support for anything that players are doing with certain tools, so you're not required to have a certain tool to be competative.

I agree with the intent, but it will just play into the hands of script writers (as opposed to scripters/script users). Writers will just look for and find another angle. Those who cannot write will be behind the eight ball again as usual. It really is a no win situation, sad to say.

I don't agree.

I just want to be clear - you are only proposing that we are capable of sharing explored sector info, including the type of port, but not the port report until we actually visit the port?

Or are you proposing that if my corpie has visited a port and deployed a corp fig, that I will now be able to get the port report from a port I've never visited?

The latter is a new twist that I don't think is capable now with any "tools", I could of course be mistaken. But, keeping with the "story" if you will, I don't see why a corp fig couldn't have the ability to report to the entire corp the status of the port it's deployed over.

So now a corp of 2 has another advantage over solo players and a corp of 4 has more of an advantage over a corp of 2. I see more solo players than I do corp players in the game when bouncing from server to server.

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

But the point is that people can already get these kinds of advantages through advanced tools that are not equally available. Doesn't matter if I think they should be available. If it can be done by anyone in any way, then there are two solutions. a) Remove the ability if possible or b) add the ability to the game so a player isn't required to get and learn special tools to use it. Otherwise, the advantage is given to those who have access to these tools over those who do not. If it's available to everyone, then it's your choice whether you want to build a Corp and gain the advantages that come with a Corp, or you still prefer to play solo.

If I can ZTM, then I can build a map, if I can't then I have to explore to determine the same thing. I make 500 moves and burn my turns, I can no longer explore or ztm - a corp of two does 1k moves. Preventing a ZTM or eliminating the plotting courses just gives the advantage even more to the larger corps.

It doesn't matter, it is a function of he who has the largest corp gaining a greater advantage than they already have mathematically. The ZTM does not provide sector/port information, and for that you have to explore or eprobe.

Check the games and see how many corps vs solos are out. I haven't checked in several months so I really don't know if there are more 2-3 player corps or not.

[edit] If you are just talking about providing port information, that isn't an issue. I usually don't care about ports, but I do care about which sectors I am going through. This thread seems to have wandered in different directions, but nothing unusual about that.[/edit]

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

Hence the whole thing in a nutshell. If you force a player to visit a sector to know what it is, then you slide the advantage back towards the individual player. If you are worried about the advantage of a corporation sharing the data against the single player, then you need only limit the corp size.

There is one other thing no one has mentioned. What happens when someone joins a large corp, gains the data, then drops corp? Wouldn't that be a cool new form of corporate espionage? Imagine the power you could have with that data set? A player that tends to the evil side could start good, join a large corp, gain the data, then drop corp, go evil and be a real threat in the game.

I like JP's idea.