Just a point with ship scanners… Sometimes that is what the gankers use to find a profitable target too. Ship Scan say a golem, see if it has a lot of expensive mods and any big resist holes. If yes to both, it can be a profitable gank. So removing cargo scanners may accomplish little more than shifting ganks from freighters to mission runners.
1 Like
Just remove all scanners, even ore scanners. To the players who scan a huge asteroid and mine it down to just a couple of units, but don’t pop it. You know who you are. Let’s see how petty we can get with this scanning nerf…
Sure. I’m all for more gameplay around scanning - more ways to obfuscate what you are carrying and more ways to improve the accuracy of the scan.
Sounds good to me.
Just removing cargo scanning? Yeah, no thanks. That removes all the art around selecting targets and turns pirates into indiscriminant thugs. It benefits the bad haulers, and disadavantages the prudent.
We have enough tears over empty haulers being exploded. No need to institutionalize it.
Probe scanners too? Then nobody can mess with the exploration sites. Issue solved. 
2 Likes
Yep, no scanning down mission runners either…
Nerf all the things!!!
THIS!
True. It can be important to scan a Capital, maybe a BS, but not more little vessels. But honestly, there is a difference between Ship and Cargo Scanners mechanics and consequences.
Hold on!
What is the range and cycle time of the Ore Scanner? What is the deviation and strength of Combat and Probe scanners and how many skills are required to improve them a bit?
A Cargo Scanner, which can scan in near 1 sec at 70km range with 100% accuracy is a way to far compared to other EVE scanners and IRL scanners…
Thank you for the effort.
Cmon, it will be funny when Player A will accept a 5B ISK delivery contract from Jita to Ammar and will fly empty towards Niarja, fitted with Bulkheads II and being in a T2 BC fleet.
+1 for removing the Cargo Scan mod, highly doubtful it’ll happen.
I think making Cans at Hacking sites immune to Cargo Scans would help remove the ‘Cherry Picking’ aspect. Also the Hacking sites should de-spawn if a player leaves the grid after hacking 1 can.
As for Freighters and Transports, just have Containers immune to Cargo Scan. That will balance out the ‘Risk -v- Reward’ aspect for ganking those ships.
3 Likes
There are problems with this. Say I am hacking a site in nul in my cheetah. Someone shows up in local so I cloak up and start flying away from the cans. If I have hacked any, then player knows I’m somewhere on grid.
Or if I find a site with one can hacked and one person in local, I know they will be in that site waiting for me. In essence, it changes the hunter/prey dynamic of the sites.
That said, an untouched site will disappear after 2 days or so, much like ore anomalies. I would support a speed up of this decay time if a site has had at least one can hacked, but make it say 4 hours. That way an explore can run from a site if someone shows up but won’t instantly lose it.
1 Like
Blockade Runners doing it already, but they are too fast, agile and sneaky. In good hands and with little intel makes them near invulnerable. This takes away all the fun from the game. I’m talking overall, about all ships from small and agile Shuttles, which can be Smart Bombed by one pilot, to slow and big Freighters, which can be suicide ganked by a small fleet.
Gankers don’t like the true cargo immunity and even Cargo Scanner nerfs by chance end accurate, what is strange. I thought previously, that Hi-Sec gankers are doing this for fun, for excitement, for gambling, for playing a hooligan role, but not to react this way.
Thanks for the chuckle.
As I said before, have the site de-spawn if you leave the grid after hacking one can. Grid size is very large now so if you’re in a Cheetah and someone enters the system, you can easily get some distance from the can and cloak up without actually leaving the grid. As such the site will remain active.
As for warping in to a site and seeing 1 can already hacked, you can pretty much count on the good loot being gone and now the site just sits there for a few days.
However if the site would de-spawn after 1 can is hacked and player leaves the grid, that will allow a new site to spawn somewhere within the constellation.
‘Risk -v- Reward’ for cargo scanning currently needs to be balanced. Having all Containers, Freight and Secure, being immune to Cargo Scans will create that balance.
So a player scans a Transport ship to see it’s hold is filled with Containers. That player then decides to either take a risk and hopefully net a large reward or just wait for another Transport ship that’s not using Containers to transport goods.
1 Like
+1 to OP. An explorer with a cargo scanner can bypass the risk of a gank by quickly scanning cans from a safe distance and moving on. That’s extremely over-powered.
2 Likes
With one condition, the immune containers shouldn’t be empty or they must be filled over 50% with something.
It makes sense. This is another option of compromise. The idea of scan chance, like ECM, or scan accuracy, which is even better, also will introduce some sort of doubts - to take the risk or not. Almost anything in EVE was changed since its release, nerfed and balanced in some way. Like, Reprocessing, stacking penalty, number of fitted modules. Even salvaging has its mechanics. We can’t salvage any things in one sec cycle with 100% chance. Some old things were not changed and they looks broken in 2018, compared to other parts of the game.
But, I’d like the Cargo Scanners to be removed.
Wasn’t funny at all, I thought. OP did indeed manage to make some reasonable points only to nuke it with another anti-ganking idea, and one that’s pretty horrible, because it puts every reasonable freighter pilot into the same target group as the “not so clever” ones. It left me pretty sad.
How would the removal of cargo scanners affect the operations of hauling corps Red Frog etc?
At present they place restrictions on certain cargoes and total value on the assumption they will be scanned and passed over as not being profitable to gank.
As for cans, I can see the point in restricting usage of cargo scanners as I have seen sites with the remaining cans with only carbon and other junk. 
No. Go away.
2 Likes