| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Space Wanderer
LdW Industries
Nulli Tertius
6
   |
Posted - 2013.04.07 17:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
Writing the piece down, might take a little bit. |
Space Wanderer
LdW Industries
Nulli Tertius
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 17:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved |
Space Wanderer
LdW Industries
Nulli Tertius
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 17:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Reserved |
Space Wanderer
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 07:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:In my experience 3) is where you hit a wall because we do not have sufficient granularity in the interface to get a precision read on where the result collapse occurs given different probe sizes.
I am not sure I understand what you say. Could you elaborate a little? |
Space Wanderer
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 08:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Ok, sure, good work figuring it out but what is this useful for?
All of this is extremely irrelevant to anything regarding probing ability/speed.
For heaven's sake, how things have changed since the apoc beta phase...  Hoshi, Miss MoonWych, I guess we wasted our time back then, didn't we? 
Anyway, I beg to differ from your opinion. There are many infos that can be extracted from what is written above. Some examples:
1) What is the minimum scan strength that you need to find any site or ship.
2) How good, or bad, is a certain geometry, compared with your needs. Let's take your case: you say that you use a flat 8 probe setup. Well, rest assured that you are getting a sizable loss in reported signal strength. With the information written above you KNOW how much of a hit you are taking, and you can decide consciously whether the advantages are enough to compensate for it.
3) You can even decide to use different geometries or probe numbers according to the site/ship type.
Sure, nothing stops you from deriving everything empirically, but takes so much more time and is much less reliable. And, let's be honest, you don't really understand what's going on. I have seen many self-styled "explorers" stating BS about scanning like it was gospel. I tend to think that they too derived their "information" empirically.
Jack Miton wrote:I probe a lot and over the years have tried several layouts but I have always returned to an 8 probe flat setup.
Most of your objections up here stem from the fact that you clearly use a dedicated character for probing, or at the very least a dedicated ship. Using a fully equipped covop is an overkill if you are hunting sites and not people. People like me who don't take pleasure in metagaming and enjoy flying solo in low and nullsec have to pack a scan strength high enough to find sites and WHs in a combat ship. The information up here are invaluable for anybody that want to go beyond the ordinary treadmill and perform a risk-benefit trade-off. |
Space Wanderer
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Suit yourself.
For the record: If you think that a covops is overkill for probing then you are doing it wrong.
I mistrust such blanket statements. I sure think that a covop is NOT an overkill when hunting people. When hunting sites, though? Very situational. By judging from your alliance name I would gather that you are member of a wormhole corp, which of course means that scanning is a chore, and the faster the better. In that context I agree that it is nice to have a dedicated covop, especially since you have a POS and corp support. Not everybody plays like that though. Shocking, I know. 
Jack Miton wrote:here's what you don't get though...
with your information, youre going to end up with a 3d probe layout as being the best on paper for strength, which it is.
Really? I wonder why I ended up with a 2d layout myself, then. 
Of course the formula won't be able to tell me everything. Does this mean that I have to ignore the information it conveys? Obviously if my priority is speed instead than scan strength, it won't be telling me anything about scanning speed, so I will have to use enough brain power (which is a very scarce good, I gather) to extract the information I might need instead of following the formula blindly.
|
Space Wanderer
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:surprisingly enough, you still need to scan down a sig after DSPing it.
Besides, you cannot understand the data obtained by the DSP if you don't know the "useless" formula. |
Space Wanderer
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 17:43:00 -
[8] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Space Wanderer wrote: I am not sure I understand what you say. Could you elaborate a little? Sorry. I was meaning to refer to "3) Derive what "decently spread around the target" in step 3 actually means." Trying to fit forum whoring time into my schedule is difficult atm.
Ok, I get what you mean now. I have to admit that among the three things that still need some research I think the easier to find out is 3). The wall you mention exists if you rely only on the user interface, but playing with a goniometer on a flat screen allows to collect reasonably realiable data, and I actually collected a bundle. The issue here is that the thresholds seem to be highly dependent on the scan strength, which of course throw a wrench in attempts to derive them. Coupling this with my chronic lack of time I couldn't be able to find it (yet). Still, it's easier to find data for 3. Now, solving number 2 is REALLY hard...
Zircon Dasher wrote:Kudos to expending the effort to get the actual formula more polished though. Its easy for people to forget that if it was not for someone expending the effort to work this stuff out, most of the tools and concepts they employ regularly would not be available. Its sad to see that the "stop doing math and log in...derp" sentiment still holds today as it did back before so many of the formulas were fleshed out publicly.
Eh, most of them are probably the same people that were screaming "scanning is too hard!" when apoc launched, while myself and the very few other people who actually understood the system made an effort to explain how things were working... How do people forget. |
Space Wanderer
15
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 13:19:00 -
[9] - Quote
Gentle bump |
Space Wanderer
23
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 11:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:It gives me great joy that people are still trying to figure it out ;)
Implying that there is still something to be found, I suppose? |
Space Wanderer
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:50:00 -
[11] - Quote
Another slight bump. |
Space Wanderer
33
|
Posted - 2013.04.22 15:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
A shameless bump. |
Space Wanderer
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 17:32:00 -
[13] - Quote
Another firm bump. |
Space Wanderer
106
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 22:17:00 -
[14] - Quote
Brujo Loco wrote:I can-Št wait for Probe Setup formations saving as they promised for Odyssey
Oh, the irony... 
Anyway, even with all the scanning changes the scanning formula is not changed, as well as jack milton's formation effectiveness, so I'll give this thread another bump. |
| |
|