EVE Search - The WORMHOLES AND SCANNING megathread: bigger, longer and uncut

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

The WORMHOLES AND SCANNING megathread: bigger, longer and uncut

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 27 post(s)
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.16 21:58:00 - [1] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: Sniper Wolf18 Again, Mr Poast muncher The probe moving interface is more painful than having a cactus rammed up your ass then inflated with an over 9000 psi inflator hose How do you know this? I was wondering, too. I'd call the probe moving interface about as painful as an inflamed zit -- sometimes it hurts when you poke at it, but mostly you can ignore the pain and get on with your life. All in all, I'm really pleased with the new approach to probing, especially if we see incremental improvements to the interface in future. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.16 22:09:00 - [2] Originally by: Hoshi Both these ships and a small handful of other ships will still need a virtue set to be possible to be locatable by probes, but I think I can live with that considering most of the ships that will fall into this category are cloaking ships anyway. Will have to do some math on ECCM on cruiser sized ships, guess this might be that boost to ECCM that people have requested, fit 2 on your t2 cruiser and become impossible to find with probes. That could be balanced not sure. I'm not very familiar with ECCM, but am I correct in thinking it comes in midslot (active) flavors as well as lowslot (passive) flavors? That will make a difference, as the active stuff (if I'm right) won't impede me from finding ships that are currently unpiloted. Like you, Hoshi, I think I'm cool with covops being unprobeable. Cruisers specially fit to avoid probing strikes me as more interesting than problematic, too. I like game mechanics that are not absolute; the idea that you can fit your ship (and accept the tradeoffs that entails) to avoid being probed strikes me as kinda fun. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.16 22:14:00 - [3] I understood "Everything which used to give a scan duration bonus now gives a scan strength bonus" as applying to the Sisters launchers. I doubt their market value will be unchanged, but if I'm right, they'll still be a very valuable tool in your probing arsenal. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.17 01:08:00 - [4] I don't have a strong opinion on the 4 versus 5, but their design function is similar to the Observator, which has always been 5. For finding things that are a really long way away from anything, I don't think 5 is unreasonable. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.17 20:42:00 - [5] Originally by: Red Woodson Originally by: CCP Greyscale Why shouldn't the deadspace protection be dropped? Simplest reason i can think of is that it makes low sec mission running or plexing even more dangerous. Meanwhile, it becomes more difficult to probe out pirates in low sec due to the increased time required to find their safe spots. Result: Low sec becomes more dead than it is now. I have my doubts about this reasoning. I've done a lot of mission probing (for salvaging purposes, not piracy per se) under the existing system. It's really not very hard to find mission runners, and there wasn't much they could do to make it harder, before. Now, with the probing system sensitive to ECCM, I can see mission runners setting up in smaller ships with some ECCM and being very hard to find. I'm still waiting for the patcher fix so I can't test this yet, but I'm far from convinced the changes will be a net loss for mission runners. Just for example, most of my warpable hits under the existing system are to mission runner's drones, simply because they represent five out of six of the available targets in the current chance-based system. If it becomes (as it looks likely to) hard-to-impossible to get a warpable hit on drones, that's a huge boost in mission running safety right there. Moreover, it's 100% clear to me that for people (read, newbies) in smaller ships, low sec will become a lot safer because they'll be harder to scan down. So, I don't think low sec will get even more dead; I think the changes could make it more populous overall. Finally, it looks to me like the probing system changes will add another compelling reason to fly smaller ships. People who currently refuse to fly anything smaller than a BC may want to reconsider. I'd say that's a good thing. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.17 21:55:00 - [6] Originally by: Ydyp Ieva Not everyone can see colors, and also some people have it harder to see contrasts. This. As I posted somewhere else, the tiny "red" ring is to me the exact same color as the orbital paths of all the orbital objects on the solar system map, making it very hard to distinguish. It also vanishes entirely "behind" the texture/color of the probe-moving widgets. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.17 22:01:00 - [7] What about the T1 Astrometrics frigates? I'm talking about the Heron and its equivalents in the other races, the ships that currently have a "5% reduction to duration/activation time of modules requiring Astrometrics per level." With the duration bonus on covops changing to a scan strength bonus, the Heron and its sisters should get the same bonus at half the strength, just as they have now. It was so long ago I barely remembered, but early in the skill tree I used the Heron a lot for probing. The only reason I remembered it just now is that I was looking over all the frigates in my hangar, trying to decide on which of the disposeable ones would be best for jumping into unknown wormholes in. As a 90,000ISK frigate with a probing bonus (which it currently has and should retain) the Heron has plenty to recommend it in that role. Greyscale, you're probably way ahead of me and have already made this tweak, but just in case you forgot, please consider this an official elbow-jostling. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.17 22:11:00 - [8] Originally by: Red Woodson Were you probing for a specific mission runner? Were you in a crowded system? did you use ship probes or quest probes? It isn't that hard to find any random mission runner in a crowded mission hub. Usually I was just looking for "mission runners" but I did it both ways -- a ton of quest probes at pre-set bookmarks or carefully overlapping ship probes that covered the entire core of the system. Neither method was a guarantee of finding the only MR in an empty system, I'll grant you; but having spent many hours in low-pop systems, I grew fairly confident in my ability to find most of the mission runners present at any given time. I'm not certain you're wrong here, far from it -- in fact, I think taking chance out of it means that for a dedicated mission prober like me, mission probing will get a little more certain and possibly even a little faster. I'm certainly looking forward to the changes. My point, I guess, is that I don't think the balance is going to shift all that much given the return of a greater player-skill component the greater amount of "interface time" that will now be required. However, as you say, if I turn out to be terribly wrong it's a fast and easy fix they can make. Also worth keeping in mind that there's plenty of sentiment (outside the MR community anyway) that missions are currently too well protected. Obviously that opinion is subject to bitter dispute. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.17 22:38:00 - [9] Originally by: Bimjo a question Bimjo, I just finished skilling one of the probe skills to five and was looking at the other two (which are currently at 4 for me, they'd be 19 day and 30 day trains to take to 5 for me.) I'd like to max them, but there's always opportunity cost to consider. In looking over the nine different skill training plans I've set up in EveMon for various purposes, I see that my default "Combat skills" plan has half a dozen different ship handling and combat skills that I could advance in the time between now and March 10. Given that W-space is going to be ultra dangerous (between the rats and the lack of security) I (regretfully) decided to work on my combat skills. The way I figure it, after the probing system goes live, I'll be able to see how keenly I miss having those extra probing skills, and if I miss them, I can start training them then. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.18 15:02:00 - [10] Originally by: Marlenus What about the T1 Astrometrics frigates? ... With the duration bonus on covops changing to a scan strength bonus, the Heron and its sisters should get the same bonus at half the strength, just as they have now. ... Greyscale, you're probably way ahead of me... And, he was! Heron has scan strength bonus in this patch. Excellent. ------------------ Ironfleet.com

Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.18 15:28:00 - [11] I don't know which changes were in 79298 and which were in 80418 because I never successfully patched to 79298, but despite the current borkedness of scanning I've got some positive feedback on the aesthetics. 1) The scanner window is much more attractive now, and seems to auto-resize its interior windows properly as you launch more probes so they aren't hidden. 2) I really LOVE the appearance of the new sphere-of-influence globe around the probes, with the meridian lines that rotate. That's visually awesome. It's especially cool when your camera is inside one such globe. Downside: as many have pointed out, the spheres are a bit bright when viewed from outside and become opaque when they overlap; some brightness tweaking would be nice. 3) The arrow and cube widget is much better behaved now, size-wise. It seems to have lost some attractiveness textures that it used to have, though; it's now pretty much pure white rather than metallic. (Strike that -- with HDR and bloom turned off, it's back to what it used to look like, texture-wise. Maybe you could lower its virtual albedo a smidge?) Next iteration is gonna rock! ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.18 17:27:00 - [12] Edited by: Marlenus on 18/02/2009 17:30:42 Originally by: Ikar Kaltin Is the Astrometrics bug back? Logged in to try some more probing again, changed probes for long range scans and got told I cant do this as I dont have astrometrics 5. That's not a bug but it may change -- the Deep Space probes had their skill requirement put at Astro V because they are the analogs of the old Observator Probes, which also required Astro V as a prerequisite. Info source: Post 8 in this thread ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.24 16:37:00 - [13] Positive feedback: despite my rant in another thread about using the color red as a critical interface feature, having the selected plane of the probe moving arrow box widget change color is a huge interface improvement. The gridded-plane that becomes visible when you click the mouse to drag is, though not perfectly intuitive from all angles, also a huge help when moving the widget. We're making good progress. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.25 19:40:00 - [14] I am of the opinion that the target marker circles are just broken and will be coming back. (Probably still differentiated only by reds and greens that color vision impaired people like me can't see, so it's no big to me either way.) I finally got some testing time on the current build, so I decided I'd go back to the notoriously hard-to-find Bantam that I spent so much time on with the first SISI build. I used the method quoted and expanded on in this post, with special emphasis on getting a marker probe to a distance that's measured in kilometers rather than AUs. It worked much better this time. (I deleted my Bantam bookmark first, so all I had to get started was the general memory of the region in space.) I got one probe a few hundred thousand klicks away, then placed another straight down and a third just off to the left. Each of these probes had 100% hits but were a fraction of an AU distant. Before placing the fourth probe, I thought I'd check for a lucky collapse on three probes. Sure enough, 100% and warpable. Total elapsed time (judging by the age of my probes) was about sixteen minutes -- a distinct improvement over the hours and hours it took before skills and hardware were making a difference. Bantam went from ZOMG-hard! to just another ship. I would expect it to get much faster with practice, especially if the interface is improved as I expect. (Don't get me wrong -- I'd be perfectly happy if the current opaque system goes live. But it's awfully non-intuitive with a harsh learning curve, and I don't think EVE's devs will do that to the new players. I'm pretty sure the goal of this redesign was to increase, not decrease, the accessibility of scanned resources.) ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.25 20:13:00 - [15] I'm noticing that (perhaps because of deviation being applied to the scan step instead of the "display results" step?) my probes are picking up signatures that are not within their maximum range. For instance, if I take a combat scanner set at 64AU and center it in my solar system, it finds a ton of drone signatures and half a dozen ship signatures. If I then move it, so that it's centered way out in empty space beyond the system with the edge of its range-shell just kissing the 64AU orbital distance I was scanning previously, it shows essentially the same same set of signatures, or at least a large subset of them. From other tests and probing on Tranq, I'm fairly convinced that the actual space within 64 AU of the probe is empty. All I can figure out is that it's also applying deviation to the range of space it's looking at. Anybody else noticed anything like this? I'm not sure I can describe it well enough to bug-report it. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.25 20:34:00 - [16] Originally by: Jimer Lins There is some indication that probe ranges are displayed incorrectly. The bubbles may not be showing the right actual range used. I've seen similar problems. The problem I'm seeing seems like more than that. I'm getting returns -- lots of them -- when my probe is in a location where (I'm fairly confident) space is actually 100% empty within the maximum design range of the probe. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.25 20:57:00 - [17] Originally by: Space Wanderer Can you give us more details? How are you sure that the whole area is empty. Well, that's my problem; I can't figure out how to set up a reproducible test for a bug report. The reason I'm confident (not the same thing as "sure") is that I'm in my home system, where I've run many thousands of Observator and 40AU scans on Tranq during the last year. Outside the orbital distance of the most distant stargates, this system is as empty as a desert. Could there be a few frigates out there somewhere? Yes. But a dozen-plus drones, lost there since the last cleanup routine? I don't think so. So, in the system as a whole (measured from the sun with a 64AU probe) I can see half a dozen ships and a couple dozen drone signatures. If I take that same probe and move it to a should-be-empty globe of space that's tangent to the first globe, I still see most of those ship and drone signatures. Not all, but most. If I was just seeing half a dozen, I'd say "different signatures, from objects that have escaped my careful attention." But I'm seeing pretty much (80%) of the total signatures that exist in this system, in a region of space where that much stuff just isn't likely to be. Again, my certainty relies on local knowledge, and I've got no way to convince anybody else (certainly not bug hunters) that I'm not "doing it wrong." That's why I asked if anybody else had seen similarly anomalous results, before I spend hours trying to find an empty system to drop one frigate in so I can try to reproduce the result repeatedly. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.25 21:40:00 - [18] Edited by: Marlenus on 25/02/2009 21:42:17 Originally by: Space Wanderer Originally by: Jimer Lins There is some indication that probe ranges are displayed incorrectly. Almost certainty. The coverage area shown on map is only half of the real coverage. Already bug reported, not yet acknowledged. I can confirm this; I think this screen shot proves it. The Bantam in the screen shot is at the "you are here" marker. My probe is .493 AU away, set as the screenie shows to .5AU range. The displayed globe, obviously, is half the size it should be. P.S. This also means Jimer [edit: and Space Wanderer] were right and I was wrong about my "results outside the range" problem. Trouble was, I'd set the probe to 64AU, not fully conceptualizing that the visual globe was only 32AU in radius. When I moved it, I only moved it 32AU, so it still encompassed much of the center of the system. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.25 21:42:00 - [19] Originally by: Space Wanderer Gotcha. Remember that the size fo the globes are only half of what they should be, due to bug. That means that when you move the globe tangent to the previous one you are actually moving it upwards only by 32AU, NOT 64.... Obvious result I would say, once you know what's going on. Yup, you're right. I was just figuring this out while you were typing it. I didn't fully comprehend that the bubble I was seeing was only half the size it says (right there on the screen!) that it is. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.25 22:11:00 - [20] OK, after pinning down the formerly-hard-to-find Bantam with relative ease, I wanted to see how tough it would be to find cheap frigates fitted for low signature strength. I'm not good at the maths and formulas; hands-on comparison is how I get a feel for things. Every indication so far is that ships still have the signature strength they've always had, determined (according to Hoshi, who is a whiz with formulas) by dividing the signature radius by their sensor strength. For the Bantam, that's 44/7, or roughly 6.29. However, if you take a Crucifier (Amar EW frig?) you have 46/14, or roughly 3.29. Then, if you add three Radar Backup Array I's, you take the sensor strength to 32. (I tested this manually, it being easier for me than fumbling with formulas.) 46/32 is 1.43 -- considerably smaller than my drifting Bantam. My next step was to fly the Crucifier out and park it next to the bantam. Then I went and got my probe ship, came back so that I could see both frigates out my front viewscreen, and launched a combat probe. I set that probe to minimum (.5AU) and scanned. Two frigates, two 100% signals, just as expected. Without moving anything, I set the probe to 1AU. Still a 100% signal on the bantam, but the signal on the Crucifier had dropped substantially (I forgot to take notes, but it was in the 60-70% range.) So, I think I just proved that to find the cheapest, hardest-to-find T1 frigate, you'll need to be using combat probes at their .5AU setting, because you can't zero a probe in on them when it's set to 1AU or larger. But that's as expected. My real goal was to see how fast, as a practical matter, the signature strength on that Crucifier drops with range. So I moved my one probe out until it was .493 AU from the Bantam, and scanned again. Still getting a 100% hit on the Bantam, but the 100% hit on the Crucifer (when the probe was bumping the hull) drops to 60.24% at .5AU. BTW, that's when I saw this on my screen and realized my earlier mistake about not understanding the "probe range display" bug properly. So, final question and goal of this test -- how close to the Crucifier do I have to get with a single .5AU probe before I can get a 100% hit on it? Turns out, the answer is somewhere between .34 (100%) and .342 (99.64%) AU. That's as fine as my mousing skills would let me define it. So, still a fairly reasonable volume of space where that frigate shows a 100% return. Fiddly, but not impossible, to find. (FWIW I am scanning with skills at 4, a covops with 2 grav capacitor rigs, no sisters launcher, no implants. Your mileage will vary.) ------------------ Ironfleet.com

Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.25 22:36:00 - [21] Originally by: Jimer Lins I'd be curious to see if there's a difference between a piloted and unpiloted ship as well. There shouldn't be, in theory, unless there are some implants the pilot might be wearing that affect sig radius or sensor strength. As far as I know, no skills do. However, when I put 3x ECCM Radar I in that Crucifier and turn them on (which, obviously, I have to be piloting the ship to do) it brings the sensor strength to 73 and takes the overall signature strength to .63 (roughly speaking, about half the strength of the unpiloted Crucifier I am probing for.) ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.26 02:36:00 - [22] Originally by: Mashimara You forgot about the sig reduction for all interceptors. So YES, piloted vs unpiloted makes a big difference. I didn't so much forget about it, as I never knew about it in the first place. I've never flown interceptors. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.26 16:20:00 - [23] Edited by: Marlenus on 26/02/2009 16:20:15 Originally by: Omu Negru I have a question. Do I need to train Astrometrics lvl5 to be able to scan the wormholes? Nope -- as it stands and so far as I know, the only things for which you need Astro V are the Deep Space probes, which make it more convenient (not necessary, just easier) to find things in really deep safespots. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.02.27 16:54:00 - [24] Even though scanning is broken in 81762, I thought I would check to see if the probe-range globe-display issue (where the globe is only shown at half the size it should be) has been fixed. It hasn't. I launched a drone at my location, roughly 32AU from a stargate, and set the drone to 32AU. Probe says "Probe 2 ( IDLE ) 32.0 AU" but the globe only extends about half-way to the stargate, another way of saying the globe is only 16 AU in radius. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.01 20:01:00 - [25] In the solar system map I'm suddenly having a great deal of trouble seeing the orbital paths of the orbital bodies, which (on topic) makes it harder to orient myself during probing. Did they dim those lines? (Actually, given my poor color vision, I'm worried that some genius might have set them to a red color that's zero-contrast for me against black space.) ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.02 02:49:00 - [26] It took me half the day to notice it, but the map toggle button at the top right corner of the scanner window is pure win. My overall impression of the scanning function at this time is that it's functional and engaging. Get the filters working and the scan groups / types sorted out, it will be game on. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.03 00:28:00 - [27] Originally by: Kaelei Torchwood 2) Always make a scan result warpable, even if it's not 100%. I assume that the point is like the old system in that it is a deviation from the actual site, in which case allowing someone to warp to it wouldn't hurt anything. This of course means you do have a red, yellow, or green dot. A circle and sphere would not be warpable as they are just broad spectrum hits. (Why can't we have the map center on a scan result like a planet or other map object?) I want to pull this out for special attention; I agree fully. This was an important feature of the old system. Just for instance, if you got a close point to a mission runner, you could warp to it and use your directional scanner to find out what ships, wrecks, etc were in the mission. Then you could decide whether it was worth probing in more detail, or even (gasp!) slowboating to a nearby grid. (I did this the other night when I got a 900km off-grid hit on what proved to be a guy in a battlecruiser slowly and laboriously looting and salvaging a double-digit number of large Sansha wrecks. I just cranked on the afterburner until I hit his grid, warped to a can he'd created, and was there in plenty of time to "help" him salvage his last ten wrecks. I have been feeling bummed about that fact that all the non-perfect scans are non-warpable, and I can't see any obvious reason for the new scanning system to require perfection before letting me warp. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.03 16:54:00 - [28] Edited by: Marlenus on 03/03/2009 16:54:46 Originally by: Space Wanderer Originally by: Marlenus I have been feeling bummed about that fact that all the non-perfect scans are non-warpable, and I can't see any obvious reason for the new scanning system to require perfection before letting me warp. You are basing your opinion on the current, broken system. Once deviation is inside the system, the reason is obvious. Guide to creating deep safes with warpable imperfect hits: Good point. One used to be able to make deep safes using Observators in a similar fashion. I do wonder, though. Given the power of this scanning system, is the ability to make deep safes such a bad idea? There will, after all, be no such thing as a safe so deep it can't be probed out. As Greyscale just said: Originally by: CCP Greyscale I totally agree that the old old (pre-Rev1) system was the golden age of ninja-probing, and personally I'd love to go back to those idyllic times when people thought that "safe spots" were actually safe and would sit still for hours, until you warped a couple of battleships on top of them. However, the exploration/scanning system has moved on, there's a lot of content that's accessed through scanning and we can't just bundle that up and say that only the really hardcore people can use all that content. Ship scanning is kinda rolled into this by extension as having separate systems for the two would be confusing to say the least. If/when we revisit intel tools we might find other ways to make the PvP side more interesting, but PvE exploration at least is fairly firmly mainstream now and we can't reverse that trend nicely. (That said, if we come up with an ingenious way to add some hardcore mechanic along the same lines for bonus content, we might just do that.) I wonder whether the ability to create deep safes might not restore at least a bit of that functionality. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.03 19:42:00 - [29] Cyberus, there was an "archive" feature (not yet working) in the very first SISI build. Unfortunately it looks like they had to take it out: Originally by: CCP Greyscale 4) We were going to have an archive but ran out of time, sorry I think we all hope it will stay on the list of features to revisit in an early patch. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.05 00:34:00 - [30] One change between last patch and this is that the Deep Space probe lost its old Observator-style "satellite with wings" icon and is now just another boring cannister. I'm really going to miss that Observator icon -- was this a considered change, or some automatic tweak that we could get tweaked back? ------------------ Ironfleet.com

Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.05 19:18:00 - [31] By the way, a huge thank-you to whomever changed the highlight color on the probe moving widget arrows. As EVE's biggest whiner about red-green color vision issues in the interface, I appreciate the change away from red. That said, I think the current blue (if that's what it is) could stand to be a shade more intense -- when you're manipulating very small widgets, it's still hard to see the change. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.05 20:01:00 - [32] Edited by: Marlenus on 05/03/2009 20:05:18 Fascinating. I was stuck for several days in a "deadly" unknown space, one that has substantial effects on my systems (I'm still trying to figure out what all they are.) With the scanning improvements, I finally found a wormhole "out" to a merely "dangerous" unknown space. Popped through, my systems were normal. Popped right back into "deadly" with no problems (second transit). Sat there for awhile, decided to screenshot my fitting screen and then jump back through to "dangerous" and take another screenshot. Got this message: "Wormhole unstable: A recent transit through this wormhole has polarized your secondary coils, making it unsafe to re-enter right now. The polarity charge should dissipate within 1 minute 39 seconds." Sounds like I met the mechanism for making it harder for people to kill a hole by many rapid transits. Update: After waiting out the timer in "deadly", I jumped back through to "dangerous", uncloaked, and was able to return immediately to "deadly". Interesting. Possibly the mechanism only affects holes in "deadly" space? More data points needed. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.05 20:09:00 - [33] Another issue: Uncharted asteroid belts. They appear (triangle) in local view, but not on the overview or on the system map, and especially not in the right click navigation menu (like the uncharted planets do). Also, they are unpopulated with roids -- somewhere I seem to think I heard this was intended and they shouldn't be in here at all. However, if that's bad info and they belong here, they should (1) either appear on the right-click navigation menu and in the solar system view or (2) not be visible as triangles at all. Just seems like an inconsistency. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.05 20:27:00 - [34] Originally by: Space Wanderer Originally by: Marlenus Update: After waiting out the timer in "deadly", I jumped back through to "dangerous", uncloaked, and was able to return immediately to "deadly". Interesting. Possibly the mechanism only affects holes in "deadly" space? More data points needed. Nothing new here. The timer kicks in after two transits. It allows you to quckly flee if there is something you don't like beyond the wh. First, I never said it was new -- just new to me. I haven't seen in mentioned on these forums, so I mentioned it in an attempt to share the info to others who may not have encountered it. Second, you don't have it quite right. I got the timer on my second passage through my wormhole from deadly-->dangerous; I did not get it on my second passage from dangerous-->deadly. So there's some sort of additional variable beyond a simple increment or counter. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.05 23:47:00 - [35] Originally by: Space Wanderer From what I read in your post I see you got the timer every two consecutive passages through wormholes. That is what has been observed up to now. OK, when you put it that way, I think we're in agreement now and my observations are consistent with that. It makes more sense than whatever I was imagining. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.06 01:10:00 - [36] Some of the differences in the tactical spaces are pretty radical. Jumping from my "dangerous" W-system to my "deadly" W-system, the following stats changed (that I noticed) on my Buzzard: Cap recharge time: 140.63 sec to 70.41 sec Shield recharge: 3 hp/s to 7 hp/s Shields: 660 hp to 1320 hp Effective HP: 1334 to 1952 Targeting Range: 62.5km to 125km So, basically, a whole bunch of combat stats suddenly got twice as good. Fun times. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.06 03:17:00 - [37] Originally by: Draco Argen This is hardly my first attempt. After 4 days of comprehensively testing Apoc on SISI the new scanning was fast becoming a favorite of mine. The introduction of deviation as it stands has taken all the fun out of it for me. I still say less deviation, or another balancing factor perhaps. Not that I'm suggesting deviation isn't a good idea, but it's just a little too harsh for a player of my skills, unless I've got completely the wrong end of the stick. I would agree with this up to a point. I think the folks who still say it's too easy are posturing a just a wee bit, because they relish the prospect of being able to work a system that deters folks from climbing up the steep learning curve they've already climbed. I've climbed part of that curve myself, and I can work with this build, but it's a slow challenge with a lot of mis-steps and false starts. Eventually I get there, and it will get faster. If it goes live like this, I'll buckle down, get better, and make it work, even have fun with it. But I think, to be honest, that it's a little too harsh for the mass appeal and general use CCP has repeatedly stated they are going for. Thus, I don't think this is the tune that's going to go live. It feels to me like deviation is a little too big, or a little bit too poorly indicated by the interface. I expect we'll see a reduction in the amount of deviation. The other approach would be to have the deviated results displayed more usefully, in some fashion that I'm not smart enough to visualize and propose. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.07 17:26:00 - [38] New in 83913: Filters work! And there was much joicing. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.07 17:49:00 - [39] I'm still unclear about the intended functionality of combat scanners, which are still finding both ships and signatures. The combat scanner probes are described as an "all-in-one package" that "allows the rapid location of target vessels." Some contradiction there. Currently finding signatures as well as vessels. Working as intended? Or broken? The other two I think are working as intended: The core scanner probes are described as unable to scan down ships, drones, and structures, and indeed they do not do so. Obviously working. The deep space scanner probes are described as "latest-generation multi-mode probes" without any mention of intended targets. So their current function (scanning everything) I'm guessing is as intended. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.03.08 15:46:00 - [40] Originally by: Neddy Fox Yes, we DO need a way to scan for WH's only. It's a game, people have limited time, and just can't spend 1 week (!) trying to find a wormhole. Yes, that's 1 hour a day, and I haven't found a WH in 7 hours yet. I can't agree with your logic, to be honest. EVE is a huge game, I think there's room in it for content that requires patience, even if some players won't be in a position to take fullest advantage thereof. That said, I do agree that the profusion of results in w-space makes scanning for any one thing a bit of a chore. ------------------ Ironfleet.com

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.