Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Zverofaust
Gallente Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 00:06:00 -
[91]
Can you code me a bear riding a dragon CCP Veritas? Slide it into the game somewhere, I'll find it...
|
Ris Dnalor
Minmatar Fleet of Doom RaVeN Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 00:10:00 -
[92]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Emperor Cheney Ugh.
Well, time to stop scanning for a few weeks (months) until some other brave people figure it out and write a new guide.
Well that's a bit melodramatic don't you think?
All the old ideas are still correct - get probes out, surround your target with them, narrow in from there. Just use more than four probes cause probe 5 and above help now.
That the formula pumping the numbers changed doesn't mean the guiding principals changed.
You're dumbing down everything else, and now you're surprised when the people that are left expect to be spoonfed eh? really?
|
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 00:15:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 24/06/2011 00:15:40
Being transparent does not equal "dumbing down."
This is a common confusion, complexity versus complication.
EVE is a great game despite its faults, not because of them.
|
Varcaus
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 00:16:00 -
[94]
I was using 5 probes before so i guess this wont affect me much c/d?
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente Sigma Special Tactics Group
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 00:21:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Varcaus I was using 5 probes before so i guess this wont affect me much c/d?
I was up to 7 and that's because I never could find a pattern for the 8th.
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 00:23:00 -
[96]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: daddys helper
Originally by: CCP Veritas They changed...a lot. We never released the details of the old formulas, I don't see any reason to change that. Consider it a fun puzzle, like sorting out quantum mechanics.
so you're saying you have no idea either
Well, I coded it, so I'm pretty sure I know it rather intimately.
Any possibility to code in a longer scan time, or something that doesn't make sniping a suicidal thing to do?
|
Republica Winder
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 02:37:00 -
[97]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Emperor Cheney Ugh.
Well, time to stop scanning for a few weeks (months) until some other brave people figure it out and write a new guide.
Well that's a bit melodramatic don't you think?
All the old ideas are still correct - get probes out, surround your target with them, narrow in from there. Just use more than four probes cause probe 5 and above help now.
That the formula pumping the numbers changed doesn't mean the guiding principals changed.
You do realize you are speaking to the people who pay your salary, right?
Changes like this ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN PATCH NOTES. Given your shoddy QA, how can you be sure it's even working right? Since no one knew about it, NO ONE TESTED IT!
|
Rasz Lin
Caldari Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 02:47:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Hannibal Ord You will need an Nvidia card to take full advantage of the probing mechanics.
and Noble probes/launcher
|
OMGWTFResearch
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 02:49:00 -
[99]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Emperor Cheney Ugh.
Well, time to stop scanning for a few weeks (months) until some other brave people figure it out and write a new guide.
Well that's a bit melodramatic don't you think?
All the old ideas are still correct - get probes out, surround your target with them, narrow in from there. Just use more than four probes cause probe 5 and above help now.
That the formula pumping the numbers changed doesn't mean the guiding principals changed.
Most companies do not allow that kind of questioning towards their customers. Not to mention downright rudeness with your use of I doubt CCP is any different. Please consult your companies rules and regulations before you end up causing another PR disaster for your company.
And to be frank You are being QUITE rude with your refusal to give basic info that impacts entire industries in this game. We had NO WARNING therefore no time to prepare for the change. The nice thing to do is atleast indicate info we can use to rewrite the guides.
|
Selinate
Amarr Mocking Birds
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 02:51:00 -
[100]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
All the old ideas are still correct - get probes out, surround your target with them, narrow in from there. Just use more than four probes cause probe 5 and above help now.
Only thing about this is that, in the past, I didn't have trouble at all scanning down sites in high sec with a punisher. Now I'm finding sites in high sec that I can't scan down with a rigged anathema.
Seems like the guiding principles have to change if it became that much harder, but that's just from my perspective...
|
|
Rasz Lin
Caldari Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 02:59:00 -
[101]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: daddys helper
Originally by: CCP Veritas They changed...a lot. We never released the details of the old formulas, I don't see any reason to change that. Consider it a fun puzzle, like sorting out quantum mechanics.
so you're saying you have no idea either
Well, I coded it, so I'm pretty sure I know it rather intimately.
If anyone read glassdoor CCP employee reviews you will understand this attitude quickly. Documentation is required in Agility .. unless you are facebook buddy with your manager, drink with him or make him laugh, one of those makes you immune to corporate policies and you become sacred cow.
Who wants to bet this was a ninja patch with no documentation, no changelog, and no planning?
|
Caphelo
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 03:05:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Caphelo on 24/06/2011 03:06:33
Originally by: CCP Veritas
All the old ideas are still correct - get probes out, surround your target with them, narrow in from there. Just use more than four probes cause probe 5 and above help now.
That the formula pumping the numbers changed doesn't mean the guiding principals changed.
Wow. Do you even play your own game? How the hell do you come up with an idea that makes it MORE of a clickfest and think it's good?
"Let's see, probing requires four probes right now, clicking and dragging four items isn't enough tedium, let's make it 8! Where's my promotion?"
|
Selinate
Amarr Mocking Birds
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 03:10:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Caphelo Edited by: Caphelo on 24/06/2011 03:06:33
Originally by: CCP Veritas
All the old ideas are still correct - get probes out, surround your target with them, narrow in from there. Just use more than four probes cause probe 5 and above help now.
That the formula pumping the numbers changed doesn't mean the guiding principals changed.
Wow. Do you even play your own game? How the hell do you come up with an idea that makes it MORE of a clickfest and think it's good?
"Let's see, probing requires four probes right now, clicking and dragging four items isn't enough tedium, let's make it 8! Where's my promotion?"
For once I agree with someone raging (even if I would prefer less rage since rage is just.... meh).
This has pretty much caused me to not explore anywhere near as often as I used to before I started noticing this. It just makes it more of a pain in the ass. I really would like if it was changed back.
|
ELECTR0FREAK
Eye of God
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 03:34:00 -
[104]
Same thing happened with the missile damage formula, why is everyone surprised?
I discovered the formula back in 2005 when missiles were originally revamped. They were tweaked again in 2008 (with little fanfare) and the formula was rediscovered by some other guys here on the forum. Most people kept on firing away with their missiles and hardly noticed a thing.
Obviously this change made a more visible change and should probably have been communicated a little better, but I'm surprised that people are acting so shocked that CCP changes formulas for game mechanics without posting the intimate details of the change.
They've never done it that way so people can really stop acting like it's a personal affront that they didn't post the formula.
In short: CCP should have worded it as such: All probes can now contribute to a scan result, as opposed to the previous limit of four. More than four probes will need to be used to match pre-patch scanning effectiveness.
Discoverer of the Original Missile Damage Formula |
Muddy Miner
Gallente Tiny Fleet
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 03:44:00 -
[105]
I've always used five myself. *wave* Epic EvE Thread "[Competition] Best picture of door" |
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 04:19:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Zachstar on 24/06/2011 04:22:10 Edited by: Zachstar on 24/06/2011 04:20:04
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Emperor Cheney Ugh.
Well, time to stop scanning for a few weeks (months) until some other brave people figure it out and write a new guide.
Well that's a bit melodramatic don't you think?
All the old ideas are still correct - get probes out, surround your target with them, narrow in from there. Just use more than four probes cause probe 5 and above help now.
That the formula pumping the numbers changed doesn't mean the guiding principals changed.
Oh By the way I tried your "You can use more probes now" thing.
Located a site to be found with 4 got to 3.2 percent launched a 5th and guess what? still 3.2 percent.
IF what you said was correct that 5th probe ought to have given more towards the percent no?
Care to explain?
Edit2: Just tried with 7 and guess what? Three Point Two Percent
|
Arista Shahni
Amarr Murasaki Mining and Manufacturing
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 04:53:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Tobiaz
Only for the hardest sigs and ships are 8 probes necessary and finding those is the rewards for the specialists that bothers with spending a good two months and a big wad of ISK on their profession.
EVE can only thrive if there's enough diversity and scanning has already become way too easy.
Well, I've only been subbed for 4 months. I've *been* bothering with my profession.. it's just painfully new, like the toon. (Covert ops, scanning, etc, with noobish non-optimisation of training queues and lack of 'feed them in fast' funds thrown in there and all.) Was also subbed briefly in 2009 though so I know the pattern and I"m willing to wait the few more months and give it the attention it needs to do exploration full time. I am enjoying it as a niche profession and it shouldn't be launch-probe click button lol-win. Just sort of personally hurt because I had just reached the point of not having to cry for a more accomplished (read: older account) corpmate to come zero in a sig for me. (This is highsec I'm talking about BTW.) Once I repacked the launcher and fiddled with probe positioning by tightening up the diamond I was using a little more, things re-clarified again well enough to be comfortable.
My QQ is more of an "okay." meme-face than a "FUUUUUU" meme-face, if that makes sense. It will wash once the skills get a few more weeks into them anyway, I'm sure.
|
Ospie
The Python Cartel. The Defenders of Pen Island
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 05:06:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Zachstar Edited by: Zachstar on 24/06/2011 04:22:10 Edited by: Zachstar on 24/06/2011 04:20:04
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Emperor Cheney Ugh.
Well, time to stop scanning for a few weeks (months) until some other brave people figure it out and write a new guide.
Well that's a bit melodramatic don't you think?
All the old ideas are still correct - get probes out, surround your target with them, narrow in from there. Just use more than four probes cause probe 5 and above help now.
That the formula pumping the numbers changed doesn't mean the guiding principals changed.
Oh By the way I tried your "You can use more probes now" thing.
Located a site to be found with 4 got to 3.2 percent launched a 5th and guess what? still 3.2 percent.
IF what you said was correct that 5th probe ought to have given more towards the percent no?
Care to explain?
Edit2: Just tried with 7 and guess what? Three Point Two Percent
As I said earlier, it seems (from my experience so far) that the actual positioning of probes is far more important now. Possibly to the point where 6 well placed probes will give a better result than those same 6 probes with a 7th out doing some random stuff pulling the focus of the probe away. This IS speculation on my behalf based on my testing so far (which is not extensive, but is enough to feel comfortable with the new system).
Again as I stated earlier simply by moving 2 out of 6 probes a very small distance I was able to bring a result on a previously unprobeable loki from 27% to 68% using same strength probes.
|
Cloora
APEX Unlimited APEX Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 05:23:00 -
[109]
This kinda sux. I don't know if anyone else had this style of probing as I did, but as a PvP combat prober I am pretty 1337 (sorry to toot my own horn). My alliance likes to catch people that go GCC after they commit a crime in low sec. We either get them WHILE they commit the crime through bait or using mission runners and hapless noob miners as bait (they don't know they are bait)
I ALWAYS used 8 probes. I was made fun of by people that thought they knew about probing and thought I was an idiot for using 8 probes and they saw them on scanner. I was actually using 2 groups of 4 probes since 4 was all you needed. I had them grouped in a 0.5 AU range cluster and off directional. I used to alts for a total of 16 probes.
"16 Sisters probes? Really?
I could have most of the celestial groups covered with these 4 groups of 4 probes. Most people run to a planet after commiting a crime. Some warp around on grid. Either way, I get em. I would have to move them around to get normal safes, but for the most part I caught 80% of my prey this way.
This is the first time I have shared my sekrit with anyone outside my alliance. It might be something other people are using but I developed this style all by myself hunting pirates.
It all started when I use to probe out sniper HACs in Aunenen... ah the memories!
So the cat is out of the bag. But with this change it won't matter if I share my methods because now it is useless.... ------------------------------------------
CEO and Major Shareholder of the APEX Conglomerate Producer of Starsi brand softdrinks and Torped-Os! brand cereal as well as many other fine products |
Frau Klaps
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 05:31:00 -
[110]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Emperor Cheney Ugh.
Well, time to stop scanning for a few weeks (months) until some other brave people figure it out and write a new guide.
Well that's a bit melodramatic don't you think?
All the old ideas are still correct - get probes out, surround your target with them, narrow in from there. Just use more than four probes cause probe 5 and above help now.
That the formula pumping the numbers changed doesn't mean the guiding principals changed.
I spent about 6 hours testing out damn near all aspects of probing and frankly concluded what I had assumed within the first 30 minutes of doing so. I just needed to do so in some combat situations and you know how hard it is to get hostiles to behave as you want them to. It's like trying to replace trained actors with cats
Anyway, everyone whining about undocumented changes... it WAS documented, there was a change, you just have to get your thumb out of your arse and figure stuff out. It's not exactly hard. When apocrypha was released the difficulty of scanning dropped radically and many MANY people got in on the act and were enthusiastic about learning the ins and outs of how it works. There were multi-page threads full of theory crafting which were great fun to read and contribute to.
What you are asking for here is a complete removal of any ... exploration ... of the mechanic which supports exploration. Granted it affects pvp scanning too but not that much and anyone dedicated to doing so will make an effort.
Everyone else can GTFO and stop crying, thanks. ~~~
(ಠ_ృ)
|
|
Fighter26
Orion's Fist
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 05:36:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Fighter26 on 24/06/2011 05:37:11
Originally by: CCP Veritas Yeah, pretty much. Some things got dropped on the editing room floor and I apologize for not noticing that sooner.
Originally by: CCP Veritas They changed...a lot. We never released the details of the old formulas, I don't see any reason to change that. Consider it a fun puzzle, like sorting out quantum mechanics. Smile
Pathetic. This is not the attitude CCP should be offering to a community that was bull****ed over micro-transactions. You are wrong. Perhaps you should buy a monocle to see the reason you are wrong. This is just another slap in the face to your loyal community- try to treat them right while they are still loyal.
-Fighter -
|
Frau Klaps
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 05:46:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Fighter26 Pathetic. This is not the attitude CCP should be offering to a community that was bull****ed over micro-transactions. You are wrong. Perhaps you should buy a monocle to see the reason you are wrong. This is just another slap in the face to your loyal community- try to treat them right while they are still loyal.
-Fighter
Rosewood, Mahogany, Teak? ~~~
(ಠ_ృ)
|
Cutslawn2
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 06:07:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Frau Klaps
Originally by: Fighter26 Pathetic. This is not the attitude CCP should be offering to a community that was bull****ed over micro-transactions. You are wrong. Perhaps you should buy a monocle to see the reason you are wrong. This is just another slap in the face to your loyal community- try to treat them right while they are still loyal.
-Fighter
Rosewood, Mahogany, Teak?
Lol?
|
Zachstar
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 06:14:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Zachstar on 24/06/2011 06:14:40
Originally by: Ospie
Originally by: Zachstar Edited by: Zachstar on 24/06/2011 04:22:10 Edited by: Zachstar on 24/06/2011 04:20:04
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Originally by: Emperor Cheney Ugh.
Well, time to stop scanning for a few weeks (months) until some other brave people figure it out and write a new guide.
Well that's a bit melodramatic don't you think?
All the old ideas are still correct - get probes out, surround your target with them, narrow in from there. Just use more than four probes cause probe 5 and above help now.
That the formula pumping the numbers changed doesn't mean the guiding principals changed.
Oh By the way I tried your "You can use more probes now" thing.
Located a site to be found with 4 got to 3.2 percent launched a 5th and guess what? still 3.2 percent.
IF what you said was correct that 5th probe ought to have given more towards the percent no?
Care to explain?
Edit2: Just tried with 7 and guess what? Three Point Two Percent
As I said earlier, it seems (from my experience so far) that the actual positioning of probes is far more important now. Possibly to the point where 6 well placed probes will give a better result than those same 6 probes with a 7th out doing some random stuff pulling the focus of the probe away. This IS speculation on my behalf based on my testing so far (which is not extensive, but is enough to feel comfortable with the new system).
Again as I stated earlier simply by moving 2 out of 6 probes a very small distance I was able to bring a result on a previously unprobeable loki from 27% to 68% using same strength probes.
It has always been that it always used the closest probes to the target for the result. That never changed. What he is Claiming is that more probes actually help. Which is BS in my opinion because I tested. 5 probes 6 and 7 all had the same result.
I think it is an attempt to hide the fact that there was a massive reduction in scan strength eh CCP?
|
Lucas41
Gallente SOMACOM Growth Disorders
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 06:16:00 -
[115]
I first noticed it when trying to probe my way out of my wh. In rigged Anathema I could no longer use the probing method that had worked a few days ago. I was forced to actually earn my keep and probe down each sig I came across until I found the right one.
|
OMGWTFResearch
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 06:21:00 -
[116]
BTW I used to probe in the days where you had to use a probe just to see what kind was in system. That was Nintendo hard and did need to be changed.
Yet this change to make it harder in my opinion is being hidden in a bunch of bs saying you can use more probes to get a better result. You could always use more probes to get a better result if you had some closer to the target than others.
The claim is the more you have the better you have. I tested it and it was not the case now CCP I request an explanation.
|
MisterAl tt1
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 06:57:00 -
[117]
Originally by: CCP Veritas
Well, I coded it, so I'm pretty sure I know it rather intimately.
Well, please. There are two screenshots on the 1st or 2nd page, with 4 and 8 probes giving THE SAME results, when being on the same horyzon with the signature. Maybe you will explain at least that? As it deffinitelly looks like a bug for many people. _________________________ Dynamic WH map for everyone! |
Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 07:25:00 -
[118]
Sure is a lot of derp in this thread Try arranging probes in different patterns. The mechanics have changed. A 2D horizon probably isn't good enough any more. Put a probe above, a probe below, one each on "north, south, east and west". Put one probe right on the sig for positioning and the final one...somewhere else.
We just need wizards to work out the best way to scan, now.
|
Fighter26
Orion's Fist
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 07:37:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Vice Admiral Spreadsheet Sure is a lot of derp in this thread Try arranging probes in different patterns. The mechanics have changed. A 2D horizon probably isn't good enough any more. Put a probe above, a probe below, one each on "north, south, east and west". Put one probe right on the sig for positioning and the final one...somewhere else.
We just need wizards to work out the best way to scan, now.
No. The issue is that CCP went and took the whole probe system out behind the chemical shed (shot it and left for dead) and replaced it with a ******ed puppy, but it is okay because it will all work out with more probes... and then the extra probes do NOTHING. But it is a big secret the code so users cannot help out in troubleshooting the issues for the broken untested new system which was implemented because a dev felt like it. -
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 07:49:00 -
[120]
Frankly, I find most of the replies in this thread disgusting.
When apochrypha came out there were many threads out there trying to find out the ins and outs of probing. The usual quota of "it's too hard!" (sic! ) was there but most of the people were trying to understand the new mechanics and it was a really fun discussion.
What do I see now? A single thread full of self-styled "explorers", some of them not even knowing the basics of the old scan formula, and crying to be spoonfed. In the middle of that, few voices that actually try to exchange information, drowned in the noise of people shouting "gimmegimmegimme".
I am seriously tempted to not write down the formula even if I mamage to derive it. But after all I am pretty sure that most of those who didn't bother to learn the previous the previous formula will bother even less with the new one (it's more complex) so it's probably not an issue.
Still CCP, I agree with those who say that this is your fault. You spoonfeed people, and then you are surprised when they shout "gimme" at every occasion?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |