Missions & Complexes

Ok, I should have have published this before, but RL always meddles. I don't have ALL of it nailed down perfectly (again the RL thing), but I took care to mark down the steps that for one reason or another could not be derived exactly. Besides, I didn't want to have CCP Veritas get away with his own mischiefs. So here we go....

Here is what I believe to be a close approximation of the formula employed by the game (after Incarna) to evaluate the combined scan strength of one to eight probes. Part of the formula is similar to the apochrypha formula, but as you will see there are some key differences.

The formula proceeds in separate steps:

1) Evaluate the signal strength of each probe.
2) Evaluate the angles of each couple of probes with the target.
3) Evaluate the total signal strength.


1) Evaluate the signal strength of each probe.

This is where the formula takes from the apochrypha system, but with some important differences:

base-signal-str% = size * probe-str * distance-modifier / 4
signal-str% = f(base-signal-str) + g(f(base-sig-str), position)

where:
- "size" is the target's signature size
- probe-str = probe-base-str*bonusmodifiers(skills,ship, equip,etc)/range modifier (1, 2, 4, 8... depending on the range the probe has been set to)
- "distance-modifier" is roughly the same in the old formula: e^-((Target Range / Max Range)^2).
- "position" are the 3-d coordinates of the probe relative to the target.
- "f(x)" is an asymptotic function, which is f(x)=x for x below 25% and then goes to diminishing returns up to f(x)=75% for x=infinity. I didn't have time to check what the exact asymptotic law is, so this part may still benefit from improvement.
- "g(x, y)" is a function that returns a percentage of x, variable between its 1,5% and 3,5% (or perhaps 1 and 4%? The exact amount is uncertain) depending on the position of the probe relative to the target.

What this means in crude words is that the single probe has a strength which is, for low strenghts, about half as strong as it used to be in apochrypha, and it will never return little more than 75%. In any case the value will be affected by a small random fluctuation depending on the position of the probe, but rest assured that you will never be able to get a 100% intensity with just a single probe.


2) Evaluate the angles of each couple of probes with the target.

For each couple of probes the game determines the angle P1--target--P2. The angles are counted up to 180 degrees (differently form the old formula that would count them only up to 90 degrees). From this angle a value (that we will call "angle-modifier", for reasons that will soon be clear) is derived as:

angle-modifier(P1,P2)=beta(angle(P1,P2),X,Y) where "beta" is the regularized beta function, and X and Y values depend on the ratio between the strengths of the two probes and the strength of the strongest probe (the best values are for strengths lower than 25%). Specifically the best values are X=1 and Y=2.5 and are obtained when both probes have the same strength and the strongest probe has strength lower than 25%. Conversely the worst values seem to be X=3.5 and Y=3.5. Note that I am not certain at all that the formula is actually the beta function, and even if it is, I have not clear ideas on the specific formula that changes the X and Y values. Let's just say that the beta function whose coefficients are described up here is a very, very close approximation. In most cases you will just want to use the best case values.

What this means in crude words is that having different probes hitting the same target with very different scan ranges is less efficient (i.e. gives out a worse coefficient) than actually having the same types of probe at the same range.


3) Evaluate the total signal strength.

The total signal strength is a simple weighted sum, that goes like this:

total-signal-str% = signal-str-P1 + signal-str-P2*angle-modifier(P2,P1) + signal-str-P3*angle-modifier(P3, P1)*angle-modifier(P3, P2) + signal-str-P4*angle-modifier(P4, P1)*angle-modifier(P4, P2)*angle-modifier(P4, P3) + ....(up to 8 probes).

The order in which the probes are selected is probably as follows: probe1 is the probe with the strongest sig-str. Then the value sig-str-probeX * angle-modifier(X,1) is evaluated for each unused probe, and the highest value is selected as probe2. Then the value signal-str-probeX * angle-modifier(X, 1) * angle-modifier(X, 2) is evaluated for each unused probe, and the highest value is selected as probe3. Etc, etc...

What this means in crude words is that the stronger hit will always fully contribute to the total strenght, while the other hits will contribute according to the specific geometry the probes have been deployed, where the better located probes will contribute more.

Note that no matter how high is this final scan strength, if your probes are not decently spread around the target you will get a reported strengt of 99.99% and get the usual behavior for a one, two or three probe hit. I am still working on the exact condition that defines what "decently spread around the target" actually means.

Reserved

In my experience 3) is where you hit a wall because we do not have sufficient granularity in the interface to get a precision read on where the result collapse occurs given different probe sizes.

At first I wanted to scoff but you actually have a good point. Just moving probes around in 2 dimensions instead of 3 should save a great deal of time.

Although, don't you have to use a bigger scanning radius for your probes to make sure you don't miss anything above and below? Meaning you delay getting to that 100% scan.

I am not sure I understand what you say. Could you elaborate a little?

Suit yourself.
For the record: If you think that a covops is overkill for probing then you are doing it wrong.


here's what you don't get though...
with your information, youre going to end up with a 3d probe layout as being the best on paper for strength, which it is.
in reality though, if youre probing many sigs your 3d layout will be slower than my simpler 2d layout which is something no formula will tell you.

look, you can learn the basics of applying DPS in PVP by knowing the tracking formula off by heart but it's not going to make you good at PVP.

I mistrust such blanket statements. I sure think that a covop is NOT an overkill when hunting people. When hunting sites, though? Very situational. By judging from your alliance name I would gather that you are member of a wormhole corp, which of course means that scanning is a chore, and the faster the better. In that context I agree that it is nice to have a dedicated covop, especially since you have a POS and corp support. Not everybody plays like that though. Shocking, I know.



Really? I wonder why I ended up with a 2d layout myself, then (often with only 4 or 5 probes).

Of course the formula won't be able to tell me everything. Does this mean that I have to ignore the information it conveys? Obviously if my priority is speed instead than scan strength, it won't be telling me anything about scanning speed, so I will have to use enough brain power (which is a very scarce good, I gather) to extract the information I might need instead of following the formula blindly.

exploring and looking for specific sigs to run is not the same as just probing a system.
for that you want to be using the DSP probing guide in any case. (or ideally, an alt in a covops... ;) )

Besides, you cannot understand the data obtained by the DSP if you don't know the "useless" formula.

And this is why education spending is cut.