These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Discovery Scanner / Sensor Overlay - remove from wormhole
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Penny Ibramovic
Wormhole Engineers
#21 - 2013-12-28 22:11:10 UTC
I am disposable wrote:
Combat sites and ore sites would need to be changed to require scanning if they made the changes the OP wants. Right now gankers can warp to them freely without revealing themselves with probes. So to do what the OP wants would unnecessarily nerf wormhole PVE and mining.


Combat anomalies were always available to be found without using probes. The on-board scanner took 10 seconds to find every anomaly within 64 AU of your ship.
Mr D Williams
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#22 - 2013-12-29 16:53:53 UTC
I am disposable wrote:
Combat sites and ore sites would need to be changed to require scanning if they made the changes the OP wants. Right now gankers can warp to them freely without revealing themselves with probes. So to do what the OP wants would unnecessarily nerf wormhole PVE and mining.

Why? If you are afraid of being attacked while making money in your hole, then in my opinion you don't belong in your hole.. this kind of secure feeling does not fit with wormholes IMO.

Leave the unknown the unknown, the last thing wormholes need is a mechanic that lets people know if someone entered their system.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#23 - 2013-12-29 17:42:58 UTC
PENNY!
also - I dabble in WH's occaisionally but mostly HS
put ore sites back as sigs (in WH's) that's your security - so you don't need the discovery scanner, which removes so much of the excitement/****-scared-ness
I get that in low and null people got the better ore without an associated risk from the old system - but in HS - they also ought to be sigs not anoms, as they provide no added security, and only added bacon for no effort.....

this then cacks things up for lo and null-sec...... or maybe just leave the system assymetrical in the name of balance - sure it'll ruin my OCD's happy streak, but in the name of balance, I think I can accept that

I'm a little wired - did that make any sense anyone?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2013-12-29 18:54:36 UTC  |  Edited by: I am disposable
Mr D Williams wrote:
I am disposable wrote:
Combat sites and ore sites would need to be changed to require scanning if they made the changes the OP wants. Right now gankers can warp to them freely without revealing themselves with probes. So to do what the OP wants would unnecessarily nerf wormhole PVE and mining.

Why? If you are afraid of being attacked while making money in your hole, then in my opinion you don't belong in your hole.. this kind of secure feeling does not fit with wormholes IMO.

Leave the unknown the unknown, the last thing wormholes need is a mechanic that lets people know if someone entered their system.


And why shouldn't you have to scan down your prey if everything in wormholes is "unknown"? Stop asking for CCP to make ganking easier.
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2013-12-29 19:00:19 UTC
Penny Ibramovic wrote:
I am disposable wrote:
Combat sites and ore sites would need to be changed to require scanning if they made the changes the OP wants. Right now gankers can warp to them freely without revealing themselves with probes. So to do what the OP wants would unnecessarily nerf wormhole PVE and mining.


Combat anomalies were always available to be found without using probes. The on-board scanner took 10 seconds to find every anomaly within 64 AU of your ship.


The OP wants wormholes to be about the "unknown". From that perspective everything should need to be scanned down no?
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#26 - 2013-12-29 19:27:47 UTC
I would agree, as, and I suspect that the two you've quoted wouldn't be against it for anything other than the sheer AMOUNT of scanning........ever tried scanning down 18 sigs.... (takes a Looooong time)

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2013-12-29 19:41:02 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
I would agree, as, and I suspect that the two you've quoted wouldn't be against it for anything other than the sheer AMOUNT of scanning........ever tried scanning down 18 sigs.... (takes a Looooong time)


I do a dozen or more all the time. It's not that big of a deal in my opinion. Personally I think if you really want to go the unknown, mysterious route with wormholes it's the only way to go. That said, I suspect the OP really wants w-space ganking to be made easier more than for it to be truly "unknown".
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#28 - 2013-12-29 20:44:51 UTC
from what I read into it - I suspect it's more a case of making things unknown and YES - more dangerous

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Penny Ibramovic
Wormhole Engineers
#29 - 2013-12-29 23:24:47 UTC
I am disposable wrote:
The OP wants wormholes to be about the "unknown". From that perspective everything should need to be scanned down no?


The request is to remove the discovery scanner from w-space. If that involves reverting ore sites to be cosmic signatures, that's fine by me.
Mr D Williams
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#30 - 2013-12-30 18:14:13 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
from what I read into it - I suspect it's more a case of making things unknown and YES - more dangerous

Correct, for gankers and non gankers. This is simply how wormholes used to be and in my opinion how they still should be.
Mr D Williams
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#31 - 2014-01-02 16:26:54 UTC
Wormholers, let your voice be heard!
Sarah Flinnley
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2014-01-02 20:26:57 UTC
It's easy to tell that the discovery scanner is messed up. Can anyone else tell me of another mechanic in the game that allows for a brand new pilot to jump into their rookie ship, cycle a module, and return with 100% accurate results at the maximum range 100% of the time?

The thing might have made sense originally when local gave you similar information in all systems in game, but Eve's grown beyond that now.

And honestly, having all the anomalies up on the DScanner without fail? You saved the explorers what? I cycle of their probes while causing all sorts of shenanigans in WH space.

As far as Ore sites being in the Plex list... I personally don't care, but can see how other would get their panties bent.

And since this thread was taken for a tangent, while CCG is fixing things, please take out the server side optimization that causes WH connections not to be made until someone warps to it. People are obviously using the mechanism as traffic control, and should either be labelled a bug (or an exploit if you're feeling vindictive). You can keep the time not starting until it's been warped to. This largely keeps the server-optimization but takes away the traffic control element of it since people will have no clue if that new WH is just another timed out connection or is soon to have a fleet on it. And make the change without telling us, so everyone get's messed with. Twisted
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#33 - 2014-01-02 21:01:09 UTC
Sarah Flinnley wrote:
It's easy to tell that the discovery scanner is messed up. Can anyone else tell me of another mechanic in the game that allows for a brand new pilot to jump into their rookie ship, cycle a module, and return with 100% accurate results at the maximum range 100% of the time?


D-scan.

Also the starmap, which doesn't even require you to log in.

Or local, which doesn't require you to undock.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2014-01-03 03:47:11 UTC
Mr D Williams wrote:
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
from what I read into it - I suspect it's more a case of making things unknown and YES - more dangerous

Correct, for gankers and non gankers. This is simply how wormholes used to be and in my opinion how they still should be.


I guess cloaks should stop working in wormholes as well then, because otherwise I'm not really seeing increased danger for gankers.
uyguhb
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2014-01-03 07:36:13 UTC
Ya know what i would love? just the option to turn the damn thing off...

its nice and all but it serves no purpose other than more work for me and my PC when i have to turn it off ( everytime i enter a new system ) while in fleets.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#36 - 2014-01-03 08:45:20 UTC
Wormholes haven't been unknown since about two weeks after they were implemented. Now they are just another fully mapped out farm fest.
If they actually were unknown and continually changing, I could buy the arguments about 'unknown'. But they are well & truly known now.
Mr D Williams
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#37 - 2014-01-03 15:40:51 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Wormholes haven't been unknown since about two weeks after they were implemented. Now they are just another fully mapped out farm fest.
If they actually were unknown and continually changing, I could buy the arguments about 'unknown'. But they are well & truly known now.

Understood, but making them less unknown surely isn't the right direction to go in?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#38 - 2014-01-03 17:39:38 UTC
Mr D Williams wrote:

Understood, but making them less unknown surely isn't the right direction to go in?

First make them unknown again, then worry about hiding anoms & sigs. Hiding anoms & sigs first is the wrong direction to travel in, as it just adds more tedium to them.
Mr D Williams
ROOKS AND KRAKENS
#39 - 2014-01-04 18:02:27 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Mr D Williams wrote:

Understood, but making them less unknown surely isn't the right direction to go in?

First make them unknown again, then worry about hiding anoms & sigs. Hiding anoms & sigs first is the wrong direction to travel in, as it just adds more tedium to them.

If you have any better ideas to bring the unknown back, please do let them be heard.
Previous page12