open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Unprobalble mach arti fitt (nuke those targets form 180km!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Caldari Citizen20110707
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

Caldari Citizen20110707
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.

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
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.

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.

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? Laughing

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? Laughing


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.

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. Neutral

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.

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.


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. Neutral

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.

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? Laughing


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? Laughing


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.

Shereza
Posted - 2011.07.04 17:58:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: NoNah
God bless you.


Doesn't do a bit of good for IE. Wink

It also doesn't fix the problem. It's like "cold medication" in that respect.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only