These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Separate Combat Sites from Wormholes, Please
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Valentyn3
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#41 - 2012-02-19 22:08:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Valentyn3
Sprite Can wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:
can we throw in more false singaturs while we are at it?


Yeah, clearly you guys love scanning useless things down so much that it would be a great addition to the game to have false signatures that you can't differentiate from WHs or Combat Sites until 1 or 2 AU, right? How FUN!


Getting a false positive seems like a thing that could happen in reality. But, ya, not being able to tell a rip in the fabric of space a non-rip in the fabric of space is silly.

And seriously guys, you don't get "mondo cohone" points for being in favor of asinine redundancies. If your time if so invaluable to you then that's your own pathetic issue.

I don't always use hax. But when I do, it's because I'm an NPC.. http://i.imgur.com/PUZou.jpg
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
Plucky Adventurers
#42 - 2012-02-19 23:51:42 UTC
please make wormholes harder to live in not easier.
Komen
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2012-02-20 01:10:56 UTC
I and my corp are against this. Stop trying to dumb it down. You get the scan above 25% and you know it's an 'unknown' which is always a wormhole in wormhole systems.

-9 votes for this.

GBTHK.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#44 - 2012-02-20 02:59:16 UTC
Sprite Can wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:
can we throw in more false singaturs while we are at it?


Yeah, clearly you guys love scanning useless things down so much that it would be a great addition to the game to have false signatures that you can't differentiate from WHs or Combat Sites until 1 or 2 AU, right? How FUN!



"Scanning down useless things" would fall under finding a magneto site.

If you scan more and complain less, you will develop a feel for what is a wormhole and what is not by the initial percentage in relation to your AU range in the probes. Much of what is depends on your skills.

Will you follow the advice at least?


Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Caldari Citizen20090217
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-02-20 03:24:54 UTC
Drop deep space probe and write down all sig strengths.

Scan them all out.

Note the strengths of the types you like.

Go to next system. Drop DSP.

Ignore all with unwanted sig strengths. Scan out the ones with sig strengths close to the ones you want. Theres even guides if you google with the DSP strengths already worked out if that seems like effort.

Watch low-end guristas loot drop in price due to oversupply.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#46 - 2012-02-20 03:26:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
Roime wrote:
Sprite Can wrote:
This is a torturous and non-sensical design choice that makes probing an utter nightmare. Please give Wormholes and Combat Sites their own signature types.


Why is it torturous?

It is already possible to distinguish between sigs on one scan.



If you drop a deep space probe, 4/10 complexes and WH's to C1, C2 and C3 w-systems all have the same exact signal strength, as do 6 different radar, mag and grav sites. How do you distinguish between them in one scan?

Wormholes are the vermin of the sky. A way to avoid the tedium of scanning WH after WH when you have no interest in them is needed.

I propose they be given the type "Unstable" instead of "Unknown".

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Sprite Can
#47 - 2012-02-20 03:58:19 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Roime wrote:
Sprite Can wrote:
This is a torturous and non-sensical design choice that makes probing an utter nightmare. Please give Wormholes and Combat Sites their own signature types.


Why is it torturous?

It is already possible to distinguish between sigs on one scan.



If you drop a deep space probe, 4/10 complexes and WH's to C1, C2 and C3 w-systems all have the same exact signal strength, as do 6 different radar, mag and grav sites. How do you distinguish between them in one scan?

Wormholes are the vermin of the sky. A way to avoid the tedium of scanning WH after WH when you have no interest in them is needed.

I propose they be given the type "Unstable" instead of "Unknown".


This.

Refreshing Lemon-Lime~
Valentyn3
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#48 - 2012-02-20 04:01:28 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Roime wrote:
Sprite Can wrote:
This is a torturous and non-sensical design choice that makes probing an utter nightmare. Please give Wormholes and Combat Sites their own signature types.


Why is it torturous?

It is already possible to distinguish between sigs on one scan.



If you drop a deep space probe, 4/10 complexes and WH's to C1, C2 and C3 w-systems all have the same exact signal strength, as do 6 different radar, mag and grav sites. How do you distinguish between them in one scan?

Wormholes are the vermin of the sky. A way to avoid the tedium of scanning WH after WH when you have no interest in them is needed.

I propose they be given the type "Unstable" instead of "Unknown".


Well, according to many in this thread you just, gotta get, like, a feeling for it. Ya know? Clairvoyance ftw.

I don't always use hax. But when I do, it's because I'm an NPC.. http://i.imgur.com/PUZou.jpg
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-02-20 04:15:49 UTC
crappy prober detected.

all 'unknowns' in whs are whs so this is a non issue anyway :P

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Sprite Can
#50 - 2012-02-20 04:16:33 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
crappy prober detected.

all 'unknowns' in whs are whs so this is a non issue anyway :P


It's an issue when your not looking for WHs.

Refreshing Lemon-Lime~
Valei Khurelem
#51 - 2012-02-20 05:54:00 UTC
Sprite Can wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:
can we throw in more false singaturs while we are at it?


Yeah, clearly you guys love scanning useless things down so much that it would be a great addition to the game to have false signatures that you can't differentiate from WHs or Combat Sites until 1 or 2 AU, right? How FUN!


I bet you if CCP implemented half the changes the people against this wanted they'd end up leaving EVE Online, what you don't realise is that making the game much more tedious to use is not only going to affect everyone else and make them leave but you're also going to leave too when you get on the receiving end as well.

If you're going to pour stupid hate on people for having a certain playstyle or wanting a fun game to play seriously, gtfo of the games industry.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2012-02-20 06:06:22 UTC
everyting i start doing something people all jump onto it, whyso many people scanning combat sites now X_X
St Mio
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2012-02-20 06:16:27 UTC
Are we going to remove Drone cosmic signatures from non-Drone regions too while we're at it?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#54 - 2012-02-20 07:51:23 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Roime wrote:
Sprite Can wrote:
This is a torturous and non-sensical design choice that makes probing an utter nightmare. Please give Wormholes and Combat Sites their own signature types.


Why is it torturous?

It is already possible to distinguish between sigs on one scan.



If you drop a deep space probe, 4/10 complexes and WH's to C1, C2 and C3 w-systems all have the same exact signal strength, as do 6 different radar, mag and grav sites. How do you distinguish between them in one scan?

Wormholes are the vermin of the sky. A way to avoid the tedium of scanning WH after WH when you have no interest in them is needed.

I propose they be given the type "Unstable" instead of "Unknown".


Because they don't have the same sig strenght. Now I assume you explore in hisec, and according to this superb tool by St Mio, 4/10s only share their band with wormholes leading to C3s. The tool has been reliable so far in my experience.

I have made billions and billions from wormholes. They are not the "vermin of the skies", they are beautiful islands among the stars, literally bursting with treasures- and by far the best gaming experiences New Eden has to offer. I explore in w-space, null and lowsec and wormholes are at least as interesting as combat sites.

This "problem" in this thread seems to be related to instant gratification mentality and hisec farming, and I do not wish the game mechanics to be changed to make these attitudes more popular.

.
Sprite Can
#55 - 2012-02-20 07:55:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Sprite Can
I do not explore in hisec, I explore in lowsec. I seem to be finding a combat site for every 20 or so wormholes I find, and half of those sites have someone watching them waiting for someone to try to run them so that they can gank. They've yet to succeed in killing me so far, but it does prevent me from running the sites, cutting down my "success rate" to even more abysmal lows.

Refreshing Lemon-Lime~
Valei Khurelem
#56 - 2012-02-20 08:04:41 UTC
Quote:
This "problem" in this thread seems to be related to instant gratification mentality and hisec farming


Stop trying to claim that wanting working game mechanics is about 'instant gratification' and it is a bad thing, you should consider not buying video games if you consider grinding or dealing with tedious UI's to be fun.

Maybe you might find Forex more to your liking, but I doubt you'll be able to take the amount of risk it involves.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#57 - 2012-02-20 08:58:14 UTC
I disagree this being a broken game mechanic.

.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#58 - 2012-02-20 15:20:16 UTC
Roime wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Roime wrote:
Sprite Can wrote:
This is a torturous and non-sensical design choice that makes probing an utter nightmare. Please give Wormholes and Combat Sites their own signature types.


Why is it torturous?

It is already possible to distinguish between sigs on one scan.



If you drop a deep space probe, 4/10 complexes and WH's to C1, C2 and C3 w-systems all have the same exact signal strength, as do 6 different radar, mag and grav sites. How do you distinguish between them in one scan?

Wormholes are the vermin of the sky. A way to avoid the tedium of scanning WH after WH when you have no interest in them is needed.

I propose they be given the type "Unstable" instead of "Unknown".


Because they don't have the same sig strenght. Now I assume you explore in hisec, and according to this superb tool by St Mio, 4/10s only share their band with wormholes leading to C3s. The tool has been reliable so far in my experience.



That tool has different strengths than the last one I got, but still shows 4/10 complexes share the same strength as the most common WH, the ones to C3, along with 9 different radar, mag and grav sites. Which means I cannot toss out that sig strength to avoid scanning out WHs without tossing out desirable sites as well.

If I wanted to work a WH, I'd log into my pilot that lives in a WH. The reason I do high sec scanning is I like to mix up my game content, do different things. And scanning out WH after WH is not doing different things.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#59 - 2012-02-20 15:39:52 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Quote:
Skills + implants/ship bonus = fun


Fixed that for you :)


Why are you dividing implants by ship bonus?

I should think ship bonuses would be a positive factor in the equation. :)


tl;dr on the rest of the thread: "I pushed the button, where's my bacon?"

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Previous page123