Nope. Now that you've started it, you will do nothing else before this research has been completed. I expect a revised method statement on my desk first thing tomorrow morning along with a reasonable timetable for completion or you can kiss your ARHC funding goodbye.
Krait mk II unlikely to get scanned?
- Thread starter Thetele
- Start date
Nope. Now that you've started it, you will do nothing else before this research has been completed. I expect a revised method statement on my desk first thing tomorrow morning along with a reasonable timetable for completion or you can kiss your ARHC funding goodbye.
Of course this would have to all blow up after I decided to take a break from measurements to re-check the Eta Carina nebula for Guardian structures. Still, it's only 10k Ly, so I should be able to get back in the office before anyone notices
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
Slightly confused by where the "unlikely to get scanned" comes from? I thought that the Krait was a ship that had the potential to run colder than other comparable ships and so would therefore be better for slightly nefarious activities.
So I would say that temperature is a big part of the equation. I always thought of it as having the potential to run colder than most ships, not, if you have one you're unlikely to be scanned.
It's mostly academic anyway as silent running (and the lack of heat build up from it) makes a mockery of potentially being scanned.
So I would say that temperature is a big part of the equation. I always thought of it as having the potential to run colder than most ships, not, if you have one you're unlikely to be scanned.
It's mostly academic anyway as silent running (and the lack of heat build up from it) makes a mockery of potentially being scanned.
Last edited:
The only drawback I can see in your testing methodology is that the amount of ships that are spawned into the instance could be highly variable.
So there could be 100 ships passing your Krait by the nav beacon, of which 30% scan you, making 30 ships.
On contrast, maybe only 30 ships joined the instance with your Cobra MkIII, and 30% of them scan you, making 10 ships.
So you would have to normalize your data by the amount of ships that were in the instance in the measured time slot.
So there could be 100 ships passing your Krait by the nav beacon, of which 30% scan you, making 30 ships.
On contrast, maybe only 30 ships joined the instance with your Cobra MkIII, and 30% of them scan you, making 10 ships.
So you would have to normalize your data by the amount of ships that were in the instance in the measured time slot.
One thing I've noticed is that the police around stations never scan me (regardless of ship) once I'm allied. It doesn't seem to have noticeably changed how likely ones in other parts of space are to, though.
Making sure that the reputation relative to system factions is kept constant needs to be part of the controlling of variables.
System security level may also be a factor - War, Civil Unrest and Lockdown states of the controlling faction change this (sometimes visibly, sometimes just invisibly within the same band) - so that would also need to be controlled for.
For tests around stations - which may be the most important location - using a fresh solo instance each time, and ideally from the same direction, would probably be best.
Making sure that the reputation relative to system factions is kept constant needs to be part of the controlling of variables.
System security level may also be a factor - War, Civil Unrest and Lockdown states of the controlling faction change this (sometimes visibly, sometimes just invisibly within the same band) - so that would also need to be controlled for.
For tests around stations - which may be the most important location - using a fresh solo instance each time, and ideally from the same direction, would probably be best.
I think it comes form a recent discussion on this forum where Sandro mentioned that every ship has a rating that determines how quick they get scanned.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...picuous-quot?p=6812017&viewfull=1#post6812017
Last edited:
It's like a FDL's small weapon resistance a ship specific buff we don't really understand.
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
Ah great cheers!
Raises the question of whether we really needed a whole separate thread for this as it could have just been discussed there
Well considering I have got a mildly engineered Krait flying along at 15% heat (12% if I turn off my shields), then I reckon combined with the conspicuousness (or lack of) I should do alright in it
I love obfuscated stats, because it drives min/maxers crazy! [haha]
That is why I'm assuming it has to do more with the scan order your ship is put in the scan list than the possibility of being scanned.
Other variables to consider:
- wings will only scan you once. 3 pirate ships = 3 scans, 1 wing of 3 pirates = 1 scan
- police will only scan you once, unless there is a new crime committed or a new police spawn. 10 police ships = 1 scan, but if ships come and go while there is always 1 police ship you wont get scaned again.
- According to Sandro, I'm not sure pirate and bounty hunter scans are affected by this stat.
Other variables to consider:
- wings will only scan you once. 3 pirate ships = 3 scans, 1 wing of 3 pirates = 1 scan
- police will only scan you once, unless there is a new crime committed or a new police spawn. 10 police ships = 1 scan, but if ships come and go while there is always 1 police ship you wont get scaned again.
- According to Sandro, I'm not sure pirate and bounty hunter scans are affected by this stat.
The FDL's small weapons resistance is entirely reflected in it's armor hardness (it's tied for the second highest in the game with the Corvette and Cutter; only the T-10 has higher hull hardness than the FDL) and probably always was. Armor hardness was hidden for a long time, but isn't any more.
I'm a "min/maxer" and I'm perfectly willing to use approximations, if detailed measurements aren't available, and I make an attempt to quantify things that will never have in-game statistics because they aren't even in game. My own personal abilities for example.
I'm a "min/maxer" and I'm perfectly willing to use approximations, if detailed measurements aren't available, and I make an attempt to quantify things that will never have in-game statistics because they aren't even in game. My own personal abilities for example.
Last edited:
We should campaign for an obfuscation level slider that you can't directly adjust but is at a different setting every time you look at it.
We do understand that, since Frontier released the Hull Hardness values in 2.2: it just meant the HH of 70 which when the FdL was released would have been the greatest small weapon negative multiplier then in game.
EDIT: Morbad ninja...
Last edited:
Well considering I have got a mildly engineered Krait flying along at 15% heat (12% if I turn off my shields), then I reckon combined with the conspicuousness (or lack of) I should do alright in it
And therein lies part of it's Kraitness - it can run cold enough to evade detection, and even when it does show up in sensors, it's a low priority ship within the system authorities institutionalised vehicular profiling scheme. It's a midnight blue Lexus, probably flown by a mild mannered gentleman wearing tweed, not a beat up white van with three dodgy geezers filling the cab with smoke, or a black low rider VW golf with a couple of boy racers pumping out the base.
Last edited:
huh?
THAT attribute of the FDL can be seen ingame at its stats.
it has the highest hull hardness of any medium ship ingame
*ninjaed*
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
Are you a real min/maxer then as you appear to have some level of tolerance
(disclaimer: not all min/maxers are obsessives who throw their toys out of the pram if they can't see all the underlying stats/workings)
That's a beautiful analogy!
The point is, this value means nothing if:
a) there are no other ships, so the police can't just pretend it is not there and scan it.
b) all the other ships around have a lowest conspicuous value than the krait, which makes it the top of the list.
The way it makes sense to me personally, is that the hidden variable is simply a check of if (having already spotted the ship, heat, etc etc etc) the security decide to scan you.
Only if the decision is based on all ships at the same time, instead of checking a ship for if it should be scanned at all.
If it's a check on if a ship should be scanned at all, regardless of other ships, then the value would be useful.
Only if the decision is based on all ships at the same time, instead of checking a ship for if it should be scanned at all.
If it's a check on if a ship should be scanned at all, regardless of other ships, then the value would be useful.
We already know the krait gets scanned.
.
Next to the problem of different instances having different seeds and thus a different density of police, I also wonder if you differ between scans at all. The Krait is not supposed to be less likely to be scanned by criminals or bounty hunters. The only thing which should happen less frequenty is cargo scans from system security. And even there, if I understood that right, it's not like they refuse to scan the Krait, only reduce the priority of doing so.
.
All in all, it means the Krait should have a bit longer time window before getting scanned when flying towards a station. How to properly test this, that's the real question. And due to the number of variables around, I fear that no single person is able to come to a reasonably accurate result in any reasonable time. The only concept I'd come up with would be automated. It would require a number of bots doing the same "leave to supercruise, return, take the time till you are scannen, repeat" cycle in many different ships. But as this would be a bannable offense, I think the price outweights the gain.
.
All we can do is collecting impressions of many players and see how things turn out in the long run.
.