|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jack Miton
WeebleCORP
4658
   |
Posted - 2015.09.16 08:35:03 -
[1] - Quote
No, this idea is awful.
Scanning is already WAY too easy, it's not CCP's fault if you don't know how to do it well.
Most importantly, this change would do nothing at all to address the issue of wspace being empty since it is completely unrelated.
If you don't like scanning, then wspace is not for you. That's the bottom line.
Comments like this:
Moo Moocow wrote:
The easiest way of introducing content/people into wh space would be to make scanning easier.
are just flat out wrong. Wspace activity has been at a steady decline for years now while scanning has only been made easier and easier in the same time period.
(Also, coming from a HK member makes it all the more ironic but that's neither here nor there i suppose...)
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Jack Miton
WeebleCORP
4658
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 08:42:04 -
[2] - Quote
Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:Chain scanning should be relatively painless.
it IS completely painless...
it takes no time at all now and if you're finding it takes you more than 3-5min a system, regardless of sig count, then the fault lies with you, not the scanning system.
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Jack Miton
WeebleCORP
4664
|
Posted - 2015.09.16 14:10:44 -
[3] - Quote
Jez Amatin wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Chesterfield Fancypantz wrote:Chain scanning should be relatively painless. it IS completely painless... it takes no time at all now and if you're finding it takes you more than 3-5min a system, regardless of sig count, then the fault lies with you, not the scanning system. it is entirely dependent on how many sigs there are and to a lesser extent how large the system is.
im telling you, it's NOT dependent on how many sigs there are, almost at all.
after maybe 10 sigs, the scanning time doesnt go up much since the extra sigs tend to get filtered out in bulk.
the system size can have some noticeable impact if the planets are wide apart and there are also a lot of sigs but it's still not that significant.
this is a good example of what I mean when I say people don't know how to scan.
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Jack Miton
WeebleCORP
4673
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 11:51:39 -
[4] - Quote
Jez Amatin wrote:in the spirit of adding some actual data to this thread:
I scanned a small C2 with 18 sigs today and it took about 12 minutes.
there were 4 WH (other than the in WH, 2x C1, 1x C2, 1x HS), and the rest was predominantly a lot of data sites...
- the ship used was anathema with a full t2 scanning fit (including one t2 scan rig), using sister core probes.
- the pilot is a maxed covops pilot 5, with all scan skills to 5.
- I was using the standard pinpoint probe config for most of it, and focusing on celestials... (i've tried other probe layouts with no real improvement on the standard probe layouts)
I could have gained a bit of time by being a bit more manic, and spending a bit more on faction probe launcher and probes may help a bit - but i don't see how i could have got it down to half that time.
If you want some numbers, just did a few systems for the hell of it:
14 sigs: 3min
14 sigs: 3min
19 sigs: 3min
4 sigs: ~30sec
No, I did not use the default probe layouts.
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Jack Miton
WeebleCORP
4676
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 13:37:44 -
[5] - Quote
Jez Amatin wrote:interesting, so aside from probe layout what ship and probes are you using? i assume this could be improved with a t3, but honestly haven't looked into it.
Buzzard. Max skills. Correctly fit.
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Jack Miton
WeebleCORP
4676
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 14:05:15 -
[6] - Quote
Kalel Nimrott wrote:Can I post the video, Jack?
*shrug* don't see why not, it's been posted a bunch before.
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Jack Miton
WeebleCORP
4676
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 16:36:11 -
[7] - Quote
Jez Amatin wrote:Kalel Nimrott wrote:Can I post the video, Jack? pls do! thx
I assume he means this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TisDb8c2aS4
(Yeah it's old, still valid though.)
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Jack Miton
WeebleCORP
4680
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 23:14:46 -
[8] - Quote
Do people really scan without sister's gear?
That's kinda like T1 fitting your T3s...
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Jack Miton
Anomalous Existence
Low-Class
4685
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 21:39:43 -
[9] - Quote
You're welcome
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
|
|
| |
|