These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Scanning // Deviation way off

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#21 - 2013-06-19 10:25:05 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
astrolabus wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
This would probably squeak in at number 5 on my 5 most annoying things about the new scanner list.

What are the rest 4 ?Lol


there are so many to choose from...

1. sigs automatically showing in results with no scan needed (dumbing down at its absolute peak)
2. rearanging probes being horribly painful.
3. probe always snapping to formations, not launching where your ship is (can't easily ID return wh sig)
4. probes relaunching at the same relative position to your ship
5. result off 3 probes being sh*t
6. icons being moved from top top middle of scanning window
7. scanning window frames not remembering their sizes

i could go on...


1. it is dumbing down, but as a pure gameplay mechanic I think it is better, you enter and know the relative number of sigs in the wh/system. If you are also skilled enough you can scan the planets with the most sigs first etc. It is easier, but not that much actually.
4. I don't understand the problem with this. (i really don't, how is that causing problems)
5. why would you scan with 3 probes? (other than in the rare cases where you only have 3, especially that probes automatically return to the cargo hold on jump)
GunnersMate07
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-06-19 11:11:37 UTC
Did you not read the rest of the thread? His number 5 is what the rest of us were talking about. Its not scanning with only three probes, its the partial result we get when only 3 probes touch the sig
Zara Arran
Overload This
#23 - 2013-06-19 11:21:30 UTC
Joan Greywind wrote:
1. it is dumbing down, but as a pure gameplay mechanic I think it is better, you enter and know the relative number of sigs in the wh/system. If you are also skilled enough you can scan the planets with the most sigs first etc. It is easier, but not that much actually.


Getting information like a new signature appearing without having to do anything for it, but have your eyes open, in my opinion is bad. And I kind of hope that all PVPers find this a bad thing. For me, this is indeed dumbing things down. Safety in wormholes should be something you have to work for, not what you get handed on a silver platter. It gives pilots outside of a POS the knowledge that someone new could be out there hunting you (and POS up again).

IMHO: bad direction of CCP to take. It's making WHs more and more safe.
Resilan Bearcat
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-06-19 18:57:38 UTC
I spent some time playing with this last night and was able to reliably reproduce the behavior with any signature. I have the following skills for scanning.

Astrometrics 4
Rangefinding/Acquisition/Pinpointing 3
The three new scanning modules
Sisters launcher and probes
Covert Ops 4
+6 scanning implants

I lose signatures most often when moving from a 4 AU scan to a 2 AU scan. It doesn't happen every time but it is happening fairly frequently.

Last night, I had a couple of troublesome sigs so I decided to experiment and found that I could reliably reproduce the issue with any signature. It is happening when only 3 probes hit the signature which is often the case with sigs which are close to or slightly beyond 4 AU from the planet. The incorrect mathematical result is being returned as the signature. Nice feature CCP! This is extremely confusing to new scanners.

The best workaround I found was an initial scan of a planet at 8 AU and then skipping 4 AU and jump straight to 2 AU for the next scan. It wasn't perfect, but overall I had much fewer issues with this approach.
Shpongleye
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2013-06-20 00:55:40 UTC
Seven probes give the issue as frequently as eight probes.

CCP, can you confirm if this is a bug?
Evangelina Nolen
Sama Guild
#26 - 2013-06-20 07:46:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Evangelina Nolen
Zara Arran wrote:


IMHO: bad direction of CCP to take. It's making WHs more and more safe.


Your in for a surprise next time some1 jumps in.

Edit: I've realized that the scan deviation problem only exists when using the truly terrible pinpoint config. 6 probes on one plane is just begging for problems & inefficiencies.
Shpongleye
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2013-06-20 09:36:01 UTC
Evangelina Nolen wrote:
Zara Arran wrote:


IMHO: bad direction of CCP to take. It's making WHs more and more safe.


Your in for a surprise next time some1 jumps in.

Edit: I've realized that the scan deviation problem only exists when using the truly terrible pinpoint config. 6 probes on one plane is just begging for problems & inefficiencies.


Not true, it does occur when using any kind of formation as long as three probes hit the sig and we get the "ghost" dot.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#28 - 2013-06-20 10:04:53 UTC
Evangelina Nolen wrote:
Edit: I've realized that the scan deviation problem only exists when using the truly terrible pinpoint config. 6 probes on one plane is just begging for problems & inefficiencies.

Yeah, I don't think you understand how the system works. Sorry.
Zara Arran
Overload This
#29 - 2013-06-20 10:28:08 UTC
Evangelina Nolen wrote:
Zara Arran wrote:


IMHO: bad direction of CCP to take. It's making WHs more and more safe.


Your in for a surprise next time some1 jumps in.


I did't say it was safe, I said more safe.
Previous page12