EVE Search - The great big WORMHOLES AND SCANNING megathread of fun and win

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

The great big WORMHOLES AND SCANNING megathread of fun and win

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 21 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 26 post(s)
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2009.02.15 17:25:00 - [541] i like on-grid probing for sniper ships and stuff... in this case i even flew across FFA to set up a perfect tetrahedron :o anyways: 144m (extended) huginn, 28 sensor, MWD off, 0.5au probes -> 5.14 -> ~80% therefore can never be probed as long as the MWD is off - putting the gist back into logistics
Schinella	Posted - 2009.02.15 18:11:00 - [542] i have with 4 probes results..signal strength 98-98,80% and i still cant warp to the sig...what im supposed to do now???
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.02.15 18:11:00 - [543] For some UI feedback, a couple of things that come to mind (along with woohoo it's a great improvement and I like the concepts presented ): Recalling probes - please provide a yes or no question for this as with probe destruction. It's incredibly irritating to have patiently positioned your probes and then with one mis-click have them all warp straight back to you. It is placed right next to Analyze after all. RSI - I've little experience with the previous exploration system as I only recently got into it, but this new one is making my mouse hand hurt. So many clicks and subtle movements because the solar system UI has so many overlaps, picks that pick the wrong item, boxes that move counter-intuitively, and a display that makes 3D positioning actually harder than it could be. Dragging to change probe range - I don't like this at all. I'd rather have a single right-click that sets all my probes to a given range. I'm finding I'm accidentally changing the probe range instead moving a box a lot. The solar system map doesn't necessarily rotate around your currently viewed center, it's darned difficult to pick a given center (being able to auto-center on a given result would be very very handy), and the UI likes to move to center on probes at the slightest provocation, as though this is something helpful. I'd echo that the current boxes are most awkward to work with. I am finding myself wanting to click on the actual probe and move it (which makes no real sense in 3D without other input I know). Put simply, whenever I use a 3D interface, and I use a lot of them, and I find myself wishing to reach into the screen and yell 'no you stupid thing, go that way!' - which I am - I would argue the UI still needs some work ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.15 18:28:00 - [544] Is it just me or is scanning with core and deep space probes limited to gravimetric atm? Looks like we can only find gravi/mining sites and sites that historically were the "unknowns" in the miltifreq scans. No arch or hacking it seems. These I found after latest restart of Sisi: 0.40 Rogue Drone Asteroid Infestation (3/10) 0.40 Mal-Zatak Monastery (4/10) 0.40 Exploration Medium Gneiss 0.20 Minor Blood Annex 0.20 Outgrowth Rogue Drone Hive (5/10) 0.20 Regional Blood Raider Data Processing Center Regards, M.M.
Xelios Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.02.15 18:38:00 - [545] Don't think so, I've found some hacking sites. Though they seem to be really rare, maybe some of the unscannables are hacking sites. 0.16% Wormhole 0.20% Central _____ Survey Site 0.20% Hierarchy 0.20% Exploration - Large Bistot 0.39% Ruined Serpentis Monument Site 0.39% Central Serpentis Sparking Transmitter (hacking) 0.39% Goose Nebula 0.39% Exploration - Small Arkonor, Bistot 0.78% Exploration - Small Bistot
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.02.15 18:38:00 - [546] Originally by: Sophia Truthspeaker When I scanned with only two probes I would get two hits (100% sig strength like all other hits) if the angle between the two probes was less than perhaps 35%. Yes, I did not mention this effect in my feedback report to not mess the issue, but I believe that what you are seeing here is the countermeasures implemented to avoid the "drop probes in a single spot" technique, as mentioned by greyscale. Basically, if you have two probes which form too strict an angle with the source they will both report a 1 probe hit, instead of a single 2-probe hit. This is where greyscale's "you have to triangulate" comes into effect. When I scanned with 21,(23 or 24 or 25),26 I got a hit to which I could actually warp. Opening the angle further to 27 or 28 wouldn't change that. Quote: This is probably due to the fact that your probes lie on the same plane. Greyscale said that if the two results obtained by three probes are too close they are collapsed ina asingle result, which it seems is what is happenening here. Quote: Scanning with 23,24,(25 or 26) I'd get three hits, so the probes where too close to even collapse the distances into one finding. Quote: 23,24,(25 or 26) would give me the same three hits, Again, the "you have to triangulate". Quote: 23,24,27 would get me a collapsed non warpable hit I think a different breed of the same issue. Two probes where collapsed into one, effectively giving you only two "active" probes, thus the non-warpable hit. Quote: and 23,(24 or 25 or 26 or 27), 28 would allow me to warp. 26,27,28 would also give me something to warp to. Note that the angle of 28 with the other probes is much larger, thus the countermeasures probably do not get into effect.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.02.15 19:22:00 - [547] Originally by: Miss Moonwych Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 15/02/2009 00:43:33 Originally by: Rawr Cristina Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 14/02/2009 23:26:37 Just done some deepspace probing now and it seems to work pretty much exactly like this And some others I found: ... Great data . I found several more too so combined we now get this list of sites (grouped by 1024 AU signal strengths): 0.80% - Rogue Trial Yard 0.80% - Provisional Serpentis Outpost 0.80% - Serpentis Base 0.80% - Exploration Small Gneiss 0.40% - Material Acquitision Mining Outpost 0.40% - Serpentis Fortress 0.40% - Serpentis Phi-Ouput (4/10 complex) 0.40% - Calabash Nebula 0.40% - Regional Serpentis Mainframe 0.20% - Hidden Asteroid Belt (Bistot/Arkonor) 0.20% - Hidden Asteroid Belt + Space Stonehenge (Medium Dark Ochre, Gneiss) 0.20% - Hidden Asteroid Belt (Small Crokite, Dark Ochre, Gniess) 0.20% - Serpentis Military Complex 0.20% - Chemical Yard 0.20% - Regional Serpentis Command Center 0.20% - Regional Serpentis Database Center 0.20% - Wormhole to a 0.0 system according to pop-up (WH wasn't there when warped to, and thus not jumpable) 0.16% - Minor Serpentis Annex 0.10% (not detectable with 0.25 au probes) 0.05% (not detectable with 0.25 au probes) Ok. Seems like a clear pattern. Not many wormholes to be found right now. No hacking sites aswell it seems. Hope we see some real WH's soon . But the single 1024 AU scan is a pretty good way to determine whats in a solarsystem. Regards, M.M. If you click on a 0.10 strength signal - change your range down and move the probe to center on the result - the sig str will increase and it's trivial to track down.
Xelios Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.02.15 19:43:00 - [548] Originally by: Red 7 If you click on a 0.10 strength signal - change your range down and move the probe to center on the result - the sig str will increase and it's trivial to track down. But it won't be warpable until you have 4 probes on it, and with 4 the signal strength won't go above 80% no matter how close you put them.
Hoshi Eviction.	Posted - 2009.02.15 19:47:00 - [549] Originally by: Space Wanderer Hoshi, wouldn't this formula work to evaluate the sig str of a probe left on the spot? sig str = size * probe-base-str / range. Applying that to a scorpion means: 20 (size) * 20 (base str of combat probe) / 8 (range modifier for 4AU) = 50 It seems more intuitive to me. That does seem to fit better with the numbers reported by the probe info window. As for intuitive it has both strengths and weaknesses, personally I find my way to be easier to compare to target size. But yeah I should probably use your way for any possible future guide. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Kurann Amarr Blood Money Inc. Blood Money Cartel	Posted - 2009.02.15 20:21:00 - [550] I too found a hacking site, in low sec though...dunno if that made a difference, and of course, i started reading the last few days of this thread after i had moved on, so i don't remember the sig str of it anymore...i may have to head back to low sec and look for some more. -------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Ruze "If you like playing EvE, but don't like to pvp ... you don't really like playing EvE, do you?"

Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.02.15 20:45:00 - [551] Edited by: Space Wanderer on 15/02/2009 20:50:02 Edited by: Space Wanderer on 15/02/2009 20:45:40 More Feedback: This time I studied much more the effect of probing on ships. 1) Skills and equipment Astrometrics 4 astro triangulation 3 astro pinpointing 3 sig ack 4 covop 5 Using covop ship with grav rigs and sister's expanded scanner. Virtue implants to increase scan str for about 10%. 2) Observed data There are two important observations: a) deadspace does not shield ships sigs anymore. sig str of a ship in deadspace is the same outside it. I have been able to obtain a warpable point to a ship in deadspace, using the same probes/range/str I needed to warp to the same ship outside deadspace. I don't know if it is by design or a bug. b) A battleship fitting 3 ECCM will be unfindable. Probably two ECCM should be enough too. I tried it with a rokh. With two ECCM it would have its size at about 5.81, probably already beyond the detectability threshold. With 3 ECCM the size goes to 3.75, well below the detectability threshold. 3) Opinions It seems that with this new system, ships in deadspace will be either easily found (certainly much faster than before), or will be unfindable. No middle ground. I am not sure I approve of either extremes. On one hand it seems to me you can find ships in deadspace too easily. On the other hand, players willing to sacrifice two midslots will have a 100% guarantee to not be found. I am not sure I like either situation.
Hoshi Eviction.	Posted - 2009.02.15 20:48:00 - [552] Originally by: Space Wanderer b) A battleship fitting 3 ECCM will be unfindable. Probably two ECCM should be enough too. I tried it with a rokh. With two ECCM it would have its size at about 5.81, probably already beyond the detectability threshold. With 3 ECCM the size goes to 3.75, well below the detectability threshold. Another reason why base strength needs to be brought up to around 100. That would reduce min size for finding down to 1.25. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.02.15 20:53:00 - [553] Originally by: Hoshi Originally by: Space Wanderer b) A battleship fitting 3 ECCM will be unfindable. Probably two ECCM should be enough too. I tried it with a rokh. With two ECCM it would have its size at about 5.81, probably already beyond the detectability threshold. With 3 ECCM the size goes to 3.75, well below the detectability threshold. Another reason why base strength needs to be brought up to around 100. That would reduce min size for finding down to 1.25. Yes, but that would open another can of worms, since combat probes would be better than core probes at finding sites... Well, now that I understand better your math I'll go back to read your balancing post, trying to gather more info. Hope to be able to give more insights later.
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.15 20:54:00 - [554] Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 15/02/2009 20:57:04 Originally by: Hoshi Originally by: Space Wanderer b) A battleship fitting 3 ECCM will be unfindable. Probably two ECCM should be enough too. I tried it with a rokh. With two ECCM it would have its size at about 5.81, probably already beyond the detectability threshold. With 3 ECCM the size goes to 3.75, well below the detectability threshold. Another reason why base strength needs to be brought up to around 100. That would reduce min size for finding down to 1.25. And it might also be a good idea to have the option to increase strength at the cost of scanning time. It should be a substantial increase though (since 2 secs times anything might not have much of an effect). My current problem is that scanning time is not a variable anymore while it can be really useful to balance stuff.
Hoshi Eviction.	Posted - 2009.02.15 20:55:00 - [555] Originally by: Space Wanderer Yes, but that would open another can of worms, since combat probes would be better than core probes at finding sites... Well, now that I understand better your math I'll go back to read your balancing post, trying to gather more info. Hope to be able to give more insights later. They can easily rebalanced core probes and site sizes around these values, ship sizes are the only fixed value in these equations, everything else can be changed at will by the devs without effecting any other part of the system. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.02.15 21:36:00 - [556] Originally by: Hoshi They can easily rebalanced core probes and site sizes around these values, ship sizes are the only fixed value in these equations, everything else can be changed at will by the devs without effecting any other part of the system. Yes, but the rebalance you suggest would leave the deadspace scanning problem open. I personally like more miss moonwych suggestion, where if you want to find small ships or ships fit for being difficult to probe you can increase probe str by significantly increasing scan time. In this way nobody is unfindable, but people who invested in trying to avoid detection (by using light ships or ECCM) will still have obtained something from their investment (in terms of forewarning time).
Sophia Truthspeaker THE INTERNET. Goodfellas.	Posted - 2009.02.15 21:39:00 - [557] Originally by: Space Wanderer stuff Yeah, but I think its interesting that only the largest angle was necessary. If two probes made a big enough angle, it didn't matter anymore where the third probe between them. Perhaps it would even matter in 3d? Position your probes like the letter D. With two probes forming the \| and two forming the ) while the spot to be scanned is in the middle of the \|. Concerning ships that can't be scanned... I actually thought it could be a nice idea, especially if you can scan cloaked ships. Small ships would fall under that threshold, and bigger ones could help by increasing their signal strength, giving eccm a nice extra buff. Erebus needs to run the active t2 eccm and the passiv in the low slot eccm backup array and it would become impossible to be scanned... I think there really needs some rebalancing ^^ _________ Proposed Mining and Attribute Changes The truth is out there
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.02.15 22:42:00 - [558] Originally by: Sophia Truthspeaker Erebus needs to run the active t2 eccm and the passiv in the low slot eccm backup array and it would become impossible to be scanned... Sorry, I don't understand if you are jesting here or not. Anyway, currently erebus cannot avoid scanning. Erebus size is 80, which even with 3 t2 eccm would fall at more than 10, well above the scan threshold. More ECCM and the stacking penalty kicks in hard. Moros and Thanatos, on the other hand....
TaX DoDger Caldari Digital assassins	Posted - 2009.02.15 23:05:00 - [559] Gutted about 10 hours of scanning over 40 systems and found one warped to it and it wouldnt let me jump lol. Wormhole n432 in aty-2u. Least ppl who want to try to find one, know where one is now tho dont forget: This wormhole has not yet begun its natural cycle of decay and should last at least another day. This wormhole has not yet had its stability significantly disrupted by ships passing through it.
Sophia Truthspeaker THE INTERNET. Goodfellas.	Posted - 2009.02.15 23:08:00 - [560] Originally by: Space Wanderer Originally by: Sophia Truthspeaker Erebus needs to run the active t2 eccm and the passiv in the low slot eccm backup array and it would become impossible to be scanned... Sorry, I don't understand if you are jesting here or not. Anyway, currently erebus cannot avoid scanning. Erebus size is 80, which even with 3 t2 eccm would fall at more than 10, well above the scan threshold. More ECCM and the stacking penalty kicks in hard. Moros and Thanatos, on the other hand.... Ah my mistake... took what eft said literal and didn't check in game... sensor strength in eft is 1000, so i got to 16 before installing eccm... with 80 its gets a bit too hard, ture enough ^^ _________ Proposed Mining and Attribute Changes The truth is out there

Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.02.15 23:46:00 - [561] Currently T3 cruisers, or at least the amarr one cannot be scannod, and do not appear on directional scanner as well. Guess I'll bug report it.
Tobin Shalim Warped Mining Strip Mining Club	Posted - 2009.02.16 00:25:00 - [562] Have scanned around 35 systems and have STILL yet to actually find a wormhole. What happened to the dev post that said we wouldn't have to go more than 3 systems to find a wormhole? Think your "seeding" code in that respect is broke. ----- Originally by: Gierling Tech III is going to be "Fully modular" until someone crams the "EW Bonus" modules together with the "8 Midslots" modules...
Xelios Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.02.16 00:58:00 - [563] Seems like 1 in 10, maybe even 1 in 20 systems will have a wormhole in it. There could be more though, because of the signals that are too weak to find right now.
Keith F Caldari United ALT Forces	Posted - 2009.02.16 03:07:00 - [564] ok , I think i got the hang of finding sites launch 3 probes and move them to furtherest planets in sys to get triangle and set range to overlap in middle. Scan and select probe with a result and move other probes to overlap the site you want to probe, possibly changing range to same size as the result. Rescan and slowly narrow down size and position of probes to overlap until you get either a large red circle to move a probe into the centre, or a coloured hit to place a probe directly on top of. Then moving 1 probe at a time and resize/rescan to fine tune the hit. once a good strength is obtained drop 4th probe and bring that in as well ,and get all 4 as small as possible and all overlapping the hit. then warp to site. EASY (yeah right). NOW how do i get my damm probes back? they all recall back to my ship but thats as far as they go Once recovered(or not as the case seems atm) they dont work anymore, same message as when you move then but once in position they still say same "03:04:09 Notify Some of your probes are not ready to start scanning."
Nethras Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.02.16 04:09:00 - [565] Originally by: Xelios Edited by: Xelios on 15/02/2009 18:49:19 Don't think so, I've found some hacking sites. Though they seem to be really rare, maybe some of the unscannables are hacking sites. 0.16% Wormhole 0.20% Central _____ Survey Site (hacking) 0.20% Hierarchy 0.20% Exploration - Large Bistot 0.39% Ruined Serpentis Monument Site 0.39% Central Serpentis Sparking Transmitter (hacking) 0.39% Goose Nebula 0.39% Exploration - Small Arkonor, Bistot 0.78% Exploration - Small Bistot Not in game to check the current probe strength ratios, but do those difficulty numbers compared to similar level grav sites correspond to what we'd see if the probes on Sisi had the same strength ratios as current grav probes do? You can certainly find some of the easier site with non-matching probes on TQ, so this still seems a likely explanation.
Major Hill Caldari Sigillum Militum Xpisti	Posted - 2009.02.16 05:45:00 - [566] Just found something with 100% now how do i warp there. Tried right clicking in scan results box but nothing happens how do i warp too it?
Kaitou Shiroi Hakata Group Blade.	Posted - 2009.02.16 06:16:00 - [567] Originally by: Keith F NOW how do i get my damm probes back? they all recall back to my ship but thats as far as they go Once recovered(or not as the case seems atm) they dont work anymore, same message as when you move then but once in position they still say same "03:04:09 Notify Some of your probes are not ready to start scanning." I'm having the same problem. All the probes warp back to me and burn to within about 1000m, and then just sit there. Is it because I'm scanning in a Proteus? --- Unless specifically stated otherwise, the opinions expressed in my posts do not reflect those held by my corporation or alliance.
Major Hill Caldari Sigillum Militum Xpisti	Posted - 2009.02.16 06:22:00 - [568] Figured it out. Must have just been the FD- lag worked in the next system
Miss Moonwych Formedian Shadows	Posted - 2009.02.16 06:32:00 - [569] Originally by: TaX DoDger Gutted about 10 hours of scanning over 40 systems and found one warped to it and it wouldnt let me jump lol. Wormhole n432 in aty-2u. Least ppl who want to try to find one, know where one is now tho dont forget: This wormhole has not yet begun its natural cycle of decay and should last at least another day. This wormhole has not yet had its stability significantly disrupted by ships passing through it. Thanks for the info. Sadly its gone now. Could you tell what signature strength it had (at 1024 AU)? And maybe how far it was from any planets? Regards, M.M.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2009.02.16 08:53:00 - [570] Originally by: Miss Moonwych Edited by: Miss Moonwych on 15/02/2009 20:57:56 Originally by: Hoshi Originally by: Space Wanderer b) A battleship fitting 3 ECCM will be unfindable. Probably two ECCM should be enough too. I tried it with a rokh. With two ECCM it would have its size at about 5.81, probably already beyond the detectability threshold. With 3 ECCM the size goes to 3.75, well below the detectability threshold. Another reason why base strength needs to be brought up to around 100. That would reduce min size for finding down to 1.25. And it might also be a good idea to have the option to increase strength at the cost of scanning time. It should be a substantial increase though (since 2 secs times anything might not have much of an effect). In short: my current problem (with the new system) is that scanning time is not a variable anymore while it can be really useful to balance stuff. I like this ... you'd give up speed for accuracy, sounds legit :-) --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 21 :: 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.