EVE Search - Deviation makes ship-probing hardly doable

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Deviation makes ship-probing hardly doable

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Moonaru Izu Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.05 21:32:00 - [1] Well, although the scanning mechanism seems to work correctly now, this seems to have introduced a serious issue for ship probing. Mainly because of the introduction of deviation. Although deviation is ok for exploration content it seriously hampers and extends the time for ship scanning. The probing itself takes about 5 to 10 minutes IF you know what you are doing and IF you know that you have an initial hit on your right target. However, it is this last part that is the problem. Assume you find the approximate location of your target with the directional scanner. You drop your probes to get an initial hit on the right shiptype. Changes are that this initial hit will have such a large deviation component that the location of the scan hit on the map will be nowhere near the location as found on the directional scanner. Assuming that there will be quite a few hits in the system you have no idea which scan hit to pinpoint further. Hence, it is a turkey shoot. I'd like to propose to remove deviation for ship scanning. Tests done earlier on Sisi, when deviation was always zero showed that ship scanning worked ok. It would take a bit more time as nowadays but surely doable. With deviation in...not gonna work.
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.03.05 21:43:00 - [2] It's a two-sided problem. Probing ships in deadspace would be way too fast, without deviation.
Moonaru Izu Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.05 21:51:00 - [3] Originally by: Space Wanderer It's a two-sided problem. Probing ships in deadspace would be way too fast, without deviation. too fast? not sure about that. The current system on TQ can be just as fast.. but with the current implementation in Sisi it is hardly doable at all. Which is worse in my book
achoura	Posted - 2009.03.05 21:57:00 - [4] Remove ship probe deviation and make ded mroe difficult to probe again, fixes both issues and you're right. Probing ships now is almost pointless. *The EVE servers and their patches*
Johnny Rockefeller Builders League United	Posted - 2009.03.05 23:01:00 - [5] Ah, now things make a little more sense. I couldn't figure out why a few days ago I could track down a site in a 2-3 minutes tops, but now it often takes a good 10-20 minutes. It's pretty frustrating, I loved the new scan mechanism without deviation but now it's really just a pain. All well, I suppose they can't make it too easy =/
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.03.05 23:05:00 - [6] Originally by: Space Wanderer It's a two-sided problem. Probing ships in deadspace would be way too fast, without deviation. No it wouldn't. But then, how many ships per day do you probe out in deadspace? None? Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Ronny Hendriks FireStar Inc Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.03.05 23:07:00 - [7] i found that triangulation with ship probes is a pain. if i build a pyramid around a target is get deviation results. but if the pyramid is on one side i get warpable results :/ filed a bugreport about to see if it's my fault or a bug image that hopefully explains my issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.03.05 23:23:00 - [8] Originally by: Bellum Eternus No it wouldn't. Cogent argument. Really.
Ronny Hendriks FireStar Inc Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.03.05 23:32:00 - [9] after some further testing i also couldn't scan down cosmic signatures like i did before. whichever way i place the .25au probes it would still give deviated results. it seems that with 5 probes is has no trouble at all pinpointing signatures of any kind.. how many probes does ccp want us to use? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moonaru Izu Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.06 06:59:00 - [10] Originally by: Ronny Hendriks Edited by: Ronny Hendriks on 05/03/2009 23:09:02 Edited by: Ronny Hendriks on 05/03/2009 23:08:42 i found that triangulation with ship probes is a pain. if i build a pyramid around a target is get deviation results. but if the pyramid is on one side i get warpable results :/ filed a bugreport about to see if it's my fault or a bug image that hopefully explains my issue it looks weird on the screenshot but on both it has a triangulation pyramid, the bottom one just had the tip of that pyramid more below the target Maybe we are dealing with a bug atm, I'm not sure. Either way, bug or not, probing out ships will become a drag and very time-consuming. Hardly doable. I guess that the pirates in low-sec can rejoice as they'll get what they asked for. Low-sec will be swamped by mission runners. Problem is, there is nothing they can do about it because by the time you have found them and the time you have to spend in the system map, they'll be long dead themselves @grayscale: please look into this and reconsider to remove the deviation component on ships scans.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.03.06 07:01:00 - [11] Erm...use your directional scanner. If you use the directional scanner, you should know exactly where in space he is, no matter what the red dot tells you. Drop probes around where he is and enjoy your hits.
kano donn	Posted - 2009.03.06 07:22:00 - [12] Originally by: Kahega Amielden Erm...use your directional scanner. If you use the directional scanner, you should know exactly where in space he is, no matter what the red dot tells you. Drop probes around where he is and enjoy your hits. i never got the reason why people used probes. the scanner works well. and if you think its deadspace. the probing for them might just be faster....
PSYNERINR	Posted - 2009.03.06 08:00:00 - [13] Originally by: kano donn i never got the reason why people used probes. the scanner works well. and if you think its deadspace. the probing for them might just be faster.... Poster above you makes an interesting point. However your reply makes me wonder if you are aware that it is possible to make a bookmark while warping to a location... it is called a "safe spot" and there's no way someone else can warp to that exact same location of the Space unless he is in your gang or you gave him a copy of the bookmark... the directional scanner doesn't give any warpable result when you are using it to scan for ships, only a direction. Thus the need for probes
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.03.06 08:02:00 - [14] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 06/03/2009 08:06:13 Originally by: Ronny Hendriks Edited by: Ronny Hendriks on 05/03/2009 23:09:02 Edited by: Ronny Hendriks on 05/03/2009 23:08:42 i found that triangulation with ship probes is a pain. if i build a pyramid around a target is get deviation results. but if the pyramid is on one side i get warpable results :/ filed a bugreport about to see if it's my fault or a bug image that hopefully explains my issue it looks weird on the screenshot but on both it has a triangulation pyramid, the bottom one just had the tip of that pyramid more below the target Ehm. You do not seem to be clear about what you have done. You talk about one target. But you got four green dots with 4 probes. That doesn't make sense unless you have 4 orcas lying there. Have you? If so please share that information otherwise it becomes impossible for others (and CCP) to figure out whats going on. Either way looks like a bug and probably related to the one needing an extra probe to find something. One explanation is that three of the four probes all got on the same plane with the target(s) which is why you only needed 3 probes (and the fourth was discarded due to the bug) Regards, M.M.
VicturusTeSaluto Metafarmers	Posted - 2009.03.06 10:50:00 - [15] Edited by: VicturusTeSaluto on 06/03/2009 10:51:23 Edited by: VicturusTeSaluto on 06/03/2009 10:50:01 Originally by: Space Wanderer It's a two-sided problem. Probing ships in deadspace would be way too fast, without deviation. It currently takes me just over 80 seconds to find a ship in deadspace on TQ. There is no way the system in the next patch will ever be that fast.
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.03.06 11:01:00 - [16] Edited by: Space Wanderer on 06/03/2009 11:01:24 Originally by: VicturusTeSaluto Edited by: VicturusTeSaluto on 06/03/2009 10:51:23 Edited by: VicturusTeSaluto on 06/03/2009 10:50:01 Originally by: Space Wanderer It's a two-sided problem. Probing ships in deadspace would be way too fast, without deviation. It currently takes me just over 80 seconds to find a ship in deadspace on TQ. There is no way the system in the next patch will ever be that fast. With the current system WITH deviation you are right. But if you remove deviation, it would take about 40 secs to scan somebody in ds. And no matter how much time it takes you personally to scan, only the last 15 secs would be detectable by directional scanner. You might as well ask for non-detectable probes.
Moonaru Izu Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.06 13:05:00 - [17] Originally by: Space Wanderer Edited by: Space Wanderer on 06/03/2009 11:01:24 Originally by: VicturusTeSaluto Edited by: VicturusTeSaluto on 06/03/2009 10:51:23 Edited by: VicturusTeSaluto on 06/03/2009 10:50:01 Originally by: Space Wanderer It's a two-sided problem. Probing ships in deadspace would be way too fast, without deviation. It currently takes me just over 80 seconds to find a ship in deadspace on TQ. There is no way the system in the next patch will ever be that fast. With the current system WITH deviation you are right. But if you remove deviation, it would take about 40 secs to scan somebody in ds. And no matter how much time it takes you personally to scan, only the last 15 secs would be detectable by directional scanner. You might as well ask for non-detectable probes. There needs to be found a new balance. Ship probing as currently on sisi is certainly not it. Remove deviation completely for ship probing, reduce the deviation to 1/4 instead of half sensorstrength...do and try something. My concern is that this will hit TQ in its current state, which would mean that ship probing in low-sec for pirate activities aswell as probing mission runners in empire will be next to impossible within a reasonable timeframe. 10M is approaching and some attention or acknowledgement for this issue would be welcome.
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.03.06 18:54:00 - [18] Originally by: Moonaru Izu There needs to be found a new balance. Ship probing as currently on sisi is certainly not it. On this I would agree... partially. I don't see the problem of the current system in probing mission runners. Takes a little more, granted, but i don't see anything wrong in pirates or ninja-looters learning to scan instead of just "drop probe-hit scan". The real issue of this system is scanning safespots, which is really slow for the necessities of combat. But I can't see an easy solution. Quote: 10M is approaching and some attention or acknowledgement for this issue would be welcome. You can read the devs stance on this issue on the first pages of scan sticky.
Moonaru Izu Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.06 19:29:00 - [19] Originally by: Space Wanderer Originally by: Moonaru Izu There needs to be found a new balance. Ship probing as currently on sisi is certainly not it. On this I would agree... partially. I don't see the problem of the current system in probing mission runners. [snip]. but this is for a large part where the problem is. Let me try to explain. Assume an average mission system, lets say we are looking for a BS and we have like 10 BS in there doing missions. We find the right ship via the directional scanner and determine its relative position in the system. now the probes come out. We drop four with, lets be optimistic, 16au strength. Lets say we find all the 10 BS. Assuming a deviation of 8 AU (which is a lot) the hits can be all over the place and most likely will not be in the relative position you have determined with the directional scanner. Here lies the actual problem. Which hit are we going to pinpoint further? With the current deviation system you have almost no chance at all to figure out which hit is your actual target. The time it takes to scan a target down is not the issue. When done properly you can do that within 3 to 4 minutes which is fine by me. The problem is..you don't know which hit to pinpoint!
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.03.06 20:52:00 - [20] Edited by: Space Wanderer on 06/03/2009 20:52:04 Originally by: Moonaru Izu but this is for a large part where the problem is. Let me try to explain. MMmmmhh... I can see the issue is not what I originally assumed. Still I can't grasp it, exactly. Specifically I can't understand this point: Quote: Here lies the actual problem. Which hit are we going to pinpoint further? Does it matter? One or the other, what difference does it make? I think I am missing something here, but don't know what it is. Besides, with the previous system you had to narrow the mission runner position to 4AU using the directional scanner, before dropping the racial probes. Why don't you do just the same, and use the probes only starting from a range of 4AU?
Moonaru Izu Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.06 21:25:00 - [21] Originally by: Space Wanderer Edited by: Space Wanderer on 06/03/2009 20:52:04 Originally by: Moonaru Izu but this is for a large part where the problem is. Let me try to explain. MMmmmhh... I can see the issue is not what I originally assumed. Still I can't grasp it, exactly. Specifically I can't understand this point: Quote: Here lies the actual problem. Which hit are we going to pinpoint further? Does it matter? One or the other, what difference does it make? I think I am missing something here, but don't know what it is. Hopefully this clears it up...It matters for empire wars where you want to find a specific wartarget in the bunch of probe hits. In low-sec/0.0 it might be indeed of less importance. Originally by: Space Wanderer Besides, with the previous system you had to narrow the mission runner position to 4AU using the directional scanner, before dropping the racial probes. Why don't you do just the same, and use the probes only starting from a range of 4AU? Your comment about getting into 4AU range via the direcitonal scanner is partly valid though. That could circumvent the problem a bit in the sense that you do not have to start probing with a range of 32/16au. Yet, getting in this 4 AU range is most of the time hard to do without previous bookmarks. Any prober can tell you that.This will take considerably extra time aswell making the probing even longer as it is. Still, even when using a 4au probe with a deviation of 2 AU...that is still a lot of other hits that might show up, especially considering you need to drop 4 probes to get a fix. Hence you basicly stil have the same problem. The solution is pretty easy though. The amount of deviation for ship-probing needs to be less as it is now but does not have to be zero. This can be done by design or influenced by the skills and implants we already have. Only their effect needs to be increased a bit...
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.03.07 09:45:00 - [22] Edited by: Space Wanderer on 07/03/2009 09:45:45 Originally by: Moonaru Izu Hopefully this clears it up...It matters for empire wars where you want to find a specific wartarget in the bunch of probe hits. In low-sec/0.0 it might be indeed of less importance. Oh ok, now I get the issue. I get involved in much that goes on in lowsec, 0.0 and solo highsec, but never got involved in empire warfare, so didn't consider it. Apologies. However: Originally by: Moonaru Izu Originally by: Space Wanderer Besides, with the previous system you had to narrow the mission runner position to 4AU using the directional scanner, before dropping the racial probes. Why don't you do just the same, and use the probes only starting from a range of 4AU? Your comment about getting into 4AU range via the direcitonal scanner is partly valid though. That could circumvent the problem a bit in the sense that you do not have to start probing with a range of 32/16au. Yet, getting in this 4 AU range is most of the time hard to do without previous bookmarks. Any prober can tell you that.This will take considerably extra time aswell making the probing even longer as it is. I think you are ignoring many things here. 1) On one side it will make probing longer, because of the need to get bookmarks. On the other side it will make probing itself faster because you are skipping the hardest part, i.e. getting close to your target. Namely, the part where deviation issues are worse. 2) Once you are at 4AU range with DSPs you are just one step from getting a 100% signal strength perfect fix. Actually, if you are hunting battleships you can already get 100% signal strength at 4AU. I am thinking at scorpion, for instance. Its signature size of 20 should guarantee a 100% hit even with 4AU DSPs. 3) Deviation is only nominally 2AU. Train pinpoinitng at 5, and MAX deviation goes to 1AU. Get a decent signal strength and it drops dramatically. Get over 75% signal strength (very easy using DSPs) and you know also the exact type of the ship you are probing. That is more than enough to know what dot pursue. 4) Looking at the points above I can't see why it would take longer than the old system to probe a specific empire ship. In the old system you had to get bookmark, drop racial probe, wait 80 secs. In the new system you have to get that same bookmark as above, drop 6 probes in a proper formation (it might take 20 secs to put them in the proper form), wait 15 secs to scan (5 warp, 10 scan), and you get a 100% hit (so no deviaton) with exact ship types. Honestly, I don't see any problem. It's just a matter of learning the new system.
5pinDizzy	Posted - 2009.03.07 09:48:00 - [23] Originally by: Ronny Hendriks Edited by: Ronny Hendriks on 05/03/2009 23:09:02 i found that triangulation with ship probes is a pain. if i build a pyramid around a target is get deviation results. but if the pyramid is on one side i get warpable results :/ filed a bugreport about to see if it's my fault or a bug image that hopefully explains my issue it looks weird on the screenshot but on both it has a triangulation pyramid, the bottom one just had the tip of that pyramid more below the target I'd just like to say I've been finding exactly the same as you. I'd like to thank you actually as your tip has increased my scanning efficiency.
ollobrains2 Gallente New Eve Order Holdings	Posted - 2009.03.07 09:49:00 - [24] for those probing mission runners in empire welcome to easy mode For those scanning elsewhere expect a slightly harder time but the smalelr hte sytem the better
Moonaru Izu Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.07 10:26:00 - [25] Originally by: Space Wanderer [snip] Originally by: Moonaru Izu Originally by: Space Wanderer Besides, with the previous system you had to narrow the mission runner position to 4AU using the directional scanner, before dropping the racial probes. Why don't you do just the same, and use the probes only starting from a range of 4AU? Your comment about getting into 4AU range via the direcitonal scanner is partly valid though. That could circumvent the problem a bit in the sense that you do not have to start probing with a range of 32/16au. Yet, getting in this 4 AU range is most of the time hard to do without previous bookmarks. Any prober can tell you that.This will take considerably extra time aswell making the probing even longer as it is. I think you are ignoring many things here. 1) On one side it will make probing longer, because of the need to get bookmarks. On the other side it will make probing itself faster because you are skipping the hardest part, i.e. getting close to your target. Namely, the part where deviation issues are worse. And here lies the problem...in the current TQ system you can rely on two things to get you into 4AU range. First there is celestial objects. That still stands. The other thing that you can make use of is previous probing hits because you could ALWAYS warp to them. This won't work anymore. first of all because they are NOT warpable. Second, because deviation will kill the use as you have to start with 32 or 16au probes resulting in a major deviation. Hence you don't know if the hit will indeed land you within 4AU of your INTENDED target. Originally by: Space Wanderer 2) Once you are at 4AU range with DSPs you are just one step from getting a 100% signal strength perfect fix. Actually, if you are hunting battleships you can already get 100% signal strength at 4AU. I am thinking at scorpion, for instance. Its signature size of 20 should guarantee a 100% hit even with 4AU DSPs. I wasn't aware of that and that is good to know. However, the problem we empire warriors are facing is still the same. How to get into RELIABLE 4AU range with this new probing system. Not even counting the fact that we have to create and maintain a motherload of bookmarks AGAIN with whatever result this will have on server performance. I was hoping the new probing system was such that we could get rid of that by now.
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.03.07 11:43:00 - [26] Originally by: Space Wanderer 2) Once you are at 4AU range with DSPs you are just one step from getting a 100% signal strength perfect fix. Actually, if you are hunting battleships you can already get 100% signal strength at 4AU. I am thinking at scorpion, for instance. Its signature size of 20 should guarantee a 100% hit even with 4AU DSPs. Why DSPs and not CSPs? I read somewhere that DSPs are always preferable, but I have no idea why - does anyone have a link to a current explanation of the probing system? There was one on this forum a while ago, but I can't find it anymore, and I don't know whether it includes all the additions (including Deviation etc.). :-/
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2009.03.07 12:01:00 - [27] is if probing mission runners was (by far) the most used application for probes. but yeah, let's change the game for a few 0 m/s ravens - and boost isk selling 0.0 farmers while we're at it - putting the gist back into logistics
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.03.07 12:04:00 - [28] Originally by: Moonaru Izu Originally by: Space Wanderer [snip] 1) On one side it will make probing longer, because of the need to get bookmarks. On the other side it will make probing itself faster because you are skipping the hardest part, i.e. getting close to your target. Namely, the part where deviation issues are worse. And here lies the problem...in the current TQ system you can rely on two things to get you into 4AU range. First there is celestial objects. That still stands. The other thing that you can make use of is previous probing hits because you could ALWAYS warp to them. I still don't see what's the difference with the previous system, timewise. To get those hits with the old probing system you had to use long range combat probes, like spook, which required a lot of scans to give you just a single specific dot. OR, yo had to generate manually your bookmarks. The only probes that would give you results after a single scan cycle are quest probes, which would however give you the perfect position, not a generic spot where to warp to and refine your search. Originally by: Moonaru Izu This won't work anymore. first of all because they are NOT warpable. Second, because deviation will kill the use as you have to start with 32 or 16au probes resulting in a major deviation. Hence you don't know if the hit will indeed land you within 4AU of your INTENDED target. Spots are not warpable, but you can warp probes there anyway. And again, you don't need to deploy 32 or 16AU probes. Using a covop with decent skills, wven an 8AU deep space probe will give you a 100% signal strength on a scorpion with very little effort, not to speak of a passive tanked drake. Thus if you want to know what ships to hunt for, saturate the area with 8AU DSP, get tons of single hits with complete details on ship and ship type, and hunt the proper ship type. With proper (player) skill two scans are enough to find big ships with 8AU DSPs. Of course it would be more difficult to find smaller ships, but that is by design. Honestly I don't see the problem, it seems to me that people will just have to exploit the advantages of the new system.
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.03.07 12:07:00 - [29] Edited by: Space Wanderer on 07/03/2009 12:08:43 Edited by: Space Wanderer on 07/03/2009 12:07:19 Originally by: Arkady Sadik Why DSPs and not CSPs? Because in last patch DSPs have received the same sig str and base deviation ratio of CSP, but have a larger base range. As it stands now, consider them as T2 CSP. Don't know if that is intended., or whether it will change on M10.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.03.07 12:15:00 - [30] With the directional scanner, you know the range and direction of the target, so it's easy to move a probe to roughly that point. Fiddle with it until you get a 100% strength, then send the other probes in. Seems straightforward enough. I much prefer this over the current TQ system, where to probe mission-runners you either need recon probes and a lot of patience/luck, or to have dropped hundreds of BMs in the system to guarantee getting within Quest range. In one system, I have over a thousand of these BMs. I'll be glad to never have to do that again.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.