Difference between revisions of "Talk:Gas in W-space"
(Created page with "This page is erroneously implying that increasing your sensor strength (via an ECCM module) will make you harder to scan down. Scanning for ships is based on their signature ...") |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This page is erroneously implying that increasing your sensor strength (via an ECCM module) will make you harder to scan down. Scanning for ships is based on their signature radius, not their sensor strength (else frigates would be far easier to scan down than battleships). Fitting an ECCM will have no effect on how quickly you can be scanned down, the only thing ECCM's protect against is jammers (ECM modules). The article also suggests fitting a medium shield extender, which while it *will* help against being instapopped, also increases the ship's signature radius (by 17.5%, 40 to 47), which will also increase the speed and ease at which you can be scanned down. | This page is erroneously implying that increasing your sensor strength (via an ECCM module) will make you harder to scan down. Scanning for ships is based on their signature radius, not their sensor strength (else frigates would be far easier to scan down than battleships). Fitting an ECCM will have no effect on how quickly you can be scanned down, the only thing ECCM's protect against is jammers (ECM modules). The article also suggests fitting a medium shield extender, which while it *will* help against being instapopped, also increases the ship's signature radius (by 17.5%, 40 to 47), which will also increase the speed and ease at which you can be scanned down. | ||
[[User:Daenika|Daenika]] ([[User talk:Daenika|talk]]) 05:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | [[User:Daenika|Daenika]] ([[User talk:Daenika|talk]]) 05:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Frood Frooster: | ||
| + | The target size of a ship for the scanning formula is indeed based off a ship's (signature radius / sensor strength) so this part is correct. Therefore fitting ECCM modules and backup arrays will help to not be scanned down so easily. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Looks like someone found out about Sentry guns in Ordinary sites the hard way... :) [[User:Dama arishe|Dama arishe]] ([[User talk:Dama arishe|talk]]) 20:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Regarding the suggested merge, maybe. But this article has more info beyond just the raw "site A has this much gas and these rats" that [[Wormhole Exploration Sites]] seems to mostly be about. So I'd say no for now, but both could use cleaning up, cross-referencing etc. [[User:Gerart en daire|Gerart en daire]] ([[User talk:Gerart en daire|talk]]) 18:14, 14 February 2015 (CST) | ||
Latest revision as of 00:14, 15 February 2015
This page is erroneously implying that increasing your sensor strength (via an ECCM module) will make you harder to scan down. Scanning for ships is based on their signature radius, not their sensor strength (else frigates would be far easier to scan down than battleships). Fitting an ECCM will have no effect on how quickly you can be scanned down, the only thing ECCM's protect against is jammers (ECM modules). The article also suggests fitting a medium shield extender, which while it *will* help against being instapopped, also increases the ship's signature radius (by 17.5%, 40 to 47), which will also increase the speed and ease at which you can be scanned down. Daenika (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Frood Frooster: The target size of a ship for the scanning formula is indeed based off a ship's (signature radius / sensor strength) so this part is correct. Therefore fitting ECCM modules and backup arrays will help to not be scanned down so easily.
Looks like someone found out about Sentry guns in Ordinary sites the hard way... :) Dama arishe (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the suggested merge, maybe. But this article has more info beyond just the raw "site A has this much gas and these rats" that Wormhole Exploration Sites seems to mostly be about. So I'd say no for now, but both could use cleaning up, cross-referencing etc. Gerart en daire (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2015 (CST)
