EVE Search - Unprobalble mach arti fitt (nuke those targets form 180km!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Unprobalble mach arti fitt (nuke those targets form 180km!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
HyperFaggas The Official Hyperdallas Fanclub	Posted - 2011.07.02 11:44:00 - [1] Due ccp error unprobable ships are still possible: mach loki bonus
ThrashPower Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2011.07.02 12:17:00 - [2] what error, those ships look probeable to me
HyperFaggas The Official Hyperdallas Fanclub	Posted - 2011.07.02 12:28:00 - [3] Originally by: ThrashPower what error, those ships look probeable to me they arnt
NoNah	Posted - 2011.07.02 12:31:00 - [4] first off, learn how to link images from sites like imageshack. Secondly, all you're saying is that the ships that were unprobable last patch would still be unprobable if the mechanics were unchanged. And all that is known regarding probing ships in incarna is that the mechanics have changed. The publicly known method they've nerfed it to is through a cap. Basically saying that you can never get the ratio below 1.1 even if the sig radius and strength would imply much less. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 218850
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation Frontline Assembly Point	Posted - 2011.07.02 13:40:00 - [5] Originally by: Hyper*gas Originally by: ThrashPower what error, those ships look probeable to me they arnt go read the patch notes. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Ranka Mei Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.02 14:39:00 - [6] Originally by: NoNah The publicly known method they've nerfed it to is through a cap. Basically saying that you can never get the ratio below 1.1 even if the sig radius and strength would imply much less. Exactly. It's capped at 1.14, to be precise. -- "All your monies AUR belong to us." -- CCP
Rasz Lin Caldari Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated	Posted - 2011.07.02 15:05:00 - [7] If only there was this one change in incarna, sadly Scanning got NERFED. what you could scan down with 4 probes now requires 6 for SAME result.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2011.07.02 15:37:00 - [8] Edited by: Furb Killer on 02/07/2011 15:38:18 Considering that getting 6 probes is a few hours of training, and most people can use more probes, it actually got boosted. (well granted you need to launch a few more probes, but due to alt-dragging probes repositioning them after the first time doesnt cost more time).
Ralagina Caldari ReviveX Fleet White Noise.	Posted - 2011.07.02 16:05:00 - [9] 5 probes does it fine. I've always used 5 probes, I continue to use 5 probes and I have scanned out "unprobable" ships since the patch with 5 probes. --
Shereza	Posted - 2011.07.02 21:09:00 - [10] Originally by: NoNah first off, learn how to link images from sites like imageshack. People still use imageshack even though it forcibly redirects you to sights that try to get you to load malware and force you to completely shut down your browser (or completely and utterly disable all scripting/controls/what-have-you) just to get away from the page?

NoNah	Posted - 2011.07.02 22:28:00 - [11] Edited by: NoNah on 02/07/2011 22:29:48 Originally by: Shereza Originally by: NoNah first off, learn how to link images from sites like imageshack. People still use imageshack even though it forcibly redirects you to sights that try to get you to load malware and force you to completely shut down your browser (or completely and utterly disable all scripting/controls/what-have-you) just to get away from the page? never said imageshack was desirable int he first place, but if he must use it, atleast link the images rather than their bloatpages. =( Originally by: Rasz Lin If only there was this one change in incarna, sadly Scanning got NERFED. what you could scan down with 4 probes now requires 6 for SAME result. I find that insanely unlikely. Mostly because you'd have to redesign near enough everything to get it that way, including distance it from anything remotely logical. Which in turn would render the "fix" they actually did implement - the cap - not only bulky and stupid, but much heavier workloadwise than just having the new system not allow anything unprobable. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 297047
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors	Posted - 2011.07.02 23:46:00 - [12] Originally by: NoNah Originally by: Rasz Lin If only there was this one change in incarna, sadly Scanning got NERFED. what you could scan down with 4 probes now requires 6 for SAME result. I find that insanely unlikely. Mostly because you'd have to redesign near enough everything to get it that way, including distance it from anything remotely logical. Which in turn would render the "fix" they actually did implement - the cap - not only bulky and stupid, but much heavier workloadwise than just having the new system not allow anything unprobable. Ummm... this is CCP we're talking about. Also... Incarna Patch Notes Quote: Scanning - It is no longer possible to set up a ship to be impervious to scanning while uncloaked. - All probes can now contribute to a scan result, as opposed to the previous limit of four. _______________________ "Just because I seem like an idiot doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2011.07.03 00:49:00 - [13] a mach can snipe around a gate without needing to be unprobable, its fast as hell and agile as a cruiser it does fine with a good setup as it is.
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2011.07.03 08:54:00 - [14] Originally by: Ranka Mei Originally by: NoNah The publicly known method they've nerfed it to is through a cap. Basically saying that you can never get the ratio below 1.1 even if the sig radius and strength would imply much less. Exactly. It's capped at 1.14, to be precise. Way to nerf something by .04; and look at all the tears. I can imagine if they nerfed something by .2 people would emo cut themselves all day over that. . Adapt and overcome or become a monkey on an evolution poster.
Mutnin Amarr Mutineers	Posted - 2011.07.03 11:32:00 - [15] Originally by: Rasz Lin If only there was this one change in incarna, sadly Scanning got NERFED. what you could scan down with 4 probes now requires 6 for SAME result. You must not know how to probe, I still get 100% hits on ships with 4 probes just as fast and easy as I did before the patch.
NoNah	Posted - 2011.07.03 12:05:00 - [16] Originally by: ShahFluffers Ummm... this is CCP we're talking about. Also... Incarna Patch Notes Quote: Scanning - It is no longer possible to set up a ship to be impervious to scanning while uncloaked. - All probes can now contribute to a scan result, as opposed to the previous limit of four. Absolutely, but the step from making a fifth or sixth probe add to the result to making it required is HUGE. If you have 4 points with known distances to a certain unknown you can ALWAYS find the position of it(assuming you have infinite precision in the distances and none of the points locations are at the same place), but it could very well be helpful to have more knowns. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 409417
Shereza	Posted - 2011.07.03 15:26:00 - [17] Originally by: NoNah Edited by: NoNah on 02/07/2011 22:29:48 Originally by: Shereza Originally by: NoNah first off, learn how to link images from sites like imageshack. People still use imageshack even though it forcibly redirects you to sights that try to get you to load malware and force you to completely shut down your browser (or completely and utterly disable all scripting/controls/what-have-you) just to get away from the page? never said imageshack was desirable int he first place, but if he must use it, atleast link the images rather than their bloatpages. =( Never said you did. My response was more of a sarcastic off-side comment against the idiots that use that site even though it redirects you to ad sites that try to trap you on the page until you agree to download their anti-viral/malware/spyware product that conveniently just told you your PC was infected. I find it laughably stupid that even though, so far as I can tell, Photo Bucket doesn't pull that crap and even provides links for direct linking of photos it's used in maybe 1% of image links I see while ImageCrap is used in 99% despite the fact that at best it's run by people too stupid to properly vet their ads. /shrugs. Yeah, it's a sore spot. Been one ever since someone on GameFAQs provided a non-direct image link to ImageShack and upon clicking it the site then redirected me to one of those "herp a derp, your PC is infekTED!!!!" web-sites. Given that I then had to pretty much shut down everything from scripting to controls to get out of the page without terminating the browser processes it was an incredibly stupid amount of hassle for a single picture.
NoNah	Posted - 2011.07.03 20:57:00 - [18] Originally by: Shereza Originally by: NoNah Edited by: NoNah on 02/07/2011 22:29:48 Originally by: Shereza Originally by: NoNah first off, learn how to link images from sites like imageshack. People still use imageshack even though it forcibly redirects you to sights that try to get you to load malware and force you to completely shut down your browser (or completely and utterly disable all scripting/controls/what-have-you) just to get away from the page? never said imageshack was desirable int he first place, but if he must use it, atleast link the images rather than their bloatpages. =( Never said you did. My response was more of a sarcastic off-side comment against the idiots that use that site even though it redirects you to ad sites that try to trap you on the page until you agree to download their anti-viral/malware/spyware product that conveniently just told you your PC was infected. I find it laughably stupid that even though, so far as I can tell, Photo Bucket doesn't pull that crap and even provides links for direct linking of photos it's used in maybe 1% of image links I see while ImageCrap is used in 99% despite the fact that at best it's run by people too stupid to properly vet their ads. /shrugs. Yeah, it's a sore spot. Been one ever since someone on GameFAQs provided a non-direct image link to ImageShack and upon clicking it the site then redirected me to one of those "herp a derp, your PC is infekTED!!!!" web-sites. Given that I then had to pretty much shut down everything from scripting to controls to get out of the page without terminating the browser processes it was an incredibly stupid amount of hassle for a single picture. God bless you. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 174831
Shereza	Posted - 2011.07.04 17:58:00 - [19] Originally by: NoNah God bless you. Doesn't do a bit of good for IE. It also doesn't fix the problem. It's like "cold medication" in that respect.


Pages: [1] :: 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.