DSCAN Skills?

I’ve said this to a few people. Lets let CCP handle answering about coding issues themselves. No offense, but unless you’re a CCP employee, let them answer for themselves. CCP hires bright intelligent people and there is no need to make assumptions about their intelligence, or whether or not they see the same issue as challenging or not.

As for the rest of it. As I said I agree to some extent, but honestly sometimes certain tasks are just a little fluffy for my likely, and I’d rather give it a shave.

I’ve also noticed that anyone who criticizes me (and it’s a relatively small number of forum users, so far 3 in total) have the tendancy to believe that sacrifice is the only philosophy that can be used when having discussions about game play and and game mechanics.

Not everyone subscribes to this view. I consider it realistic, but intrinsically negative. I’ve routinely invented solutions in my life so I didn’t have to suffer existing market solutions that didn’t suit me.

Before cupholders in cars were a standard option people were inventing window frame hook based cup holders for their cars.

I see this issue as that kind of an issue. We may disagree, but I think you’re a little parochial in your views. Dogma has it’s place, but I don’t just consider the status quo when attempting to generate a new idea or experience. I consider what would the environment have developed into with out the reigning dogma.

You’re intelligent Phalen and I like that. I don’t require you adopt my views, but I’ve entertained the existing dogmas for 7 years of game place now… I’m ready for a change. If you’re not, to each their own. =)

Thanks for the debate!

I feel like lots of times people want change for the sake of change, without seeing the downsides of such a change.

I like change, when it’s a good change. To determine if it’s a good change, I like to consider both the benefits of such a change and the possible downsides before I form my opinion.

In this case, I see little benefit and some large downsides from the proposed change.
I have no situations where I want more refined increments or cone sizes than currently available for Dscan (because currently the finest option is sufficient to combat scan someone in one go) and I have no situations where I think that a greater maximum AU range Dscan would improve my gameplay. It would merely ‘change’ my gameplay by making large solar systems act like smaller solar systems do now, with less safe spots outside Dscan range.

I do see downsides where new players are forced to train into even more mandatory skills before they are able to play the game (and no, injectors are definitely not a counterargument here. Your ‘just inject’ does not remove this downside, that just trades a SP setback to an ISK setback for newbies).

I’m ready for a change, if it’s a good change. This is a bad change.


In the history of EVE this one is comparatively small set back and a little premature to consider a significant one as well. We don’t know what level of SP would be assigned per level. Also, a pilots ISK fountain - how ever it’s derived is a fairly sensitive subject too. Factors in, I agree - but I wouldn’t call it impossible. I’ve played for years - we get over this kind of thing pretty quickly. The thrill of being able to “fly it at 5” is awesome, but I can fly lots of things at that level, and it doesn’t give that big an advantage. I’ve seen t1 hulls wreck pirate hulls. It’s not a clear cut thing.

The other issue is that this kind of an optional thing. It’s not something you have to do, you’d still have your DSCAN right how it is at the start. You’d just be able to have a little finesse now.


If Dscan stays like it is now, with your skills on top, that just makes one skill mandatory and two useless.

Directional Scan Fidelity - do not train
Directional Scan Range - get ASAP
Direction Scan Acquisition - do not train

Apart from a bad idea, it’s badly balanced as well.

1 Like

Incredibly useful feedback =) Thanks!

Ok, so revising it to a single idea then - I think we’d have at least one skill I’d be willing to let a new guy have to suffer a train for. It is true, Scan fidelity is not needed - I completely forgot when I made the original post that you can in fact manually enter a value. I’m still not sold on Acquisition, but I can see how you see it - I just don’t prefer it.

All in all this is really eye opening though. A lot to consider. Thanks again!

Glad to see how you pick up the feedback, was worried it didn’t come through in my other posts and may have been a bit blunt in the last ones. :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyway, about Acquisition: if you want to check whether someone is in one sig and not in another, but your cone is big enough to cover them both, try to Dscan with the edge of your cone between the sigs so that you exclude one sig and include the other. You may also include some other sigs that way, but that doesn’t really matter if you have already checked that your target isn’t there. This way you can single out a single signature, no matter how big your cone is. A smaller cone can make this process a bit quicker, but the current smallest cone is good enough for that in my experience.

Finer cone is not needed in my opinion.

I’m resilient enough to accept legit constructive criticism. =)

The problem with your technique as I’ve experienced is that sometimes there are ships in every thing. being able to pinpoint and relay accurate intelligence is what I’m after. I use this technique a lot though. It’s not always bad, and a lot of the time it pans out. But there are cases where because you can only zoom in so far on the system map (F9) that a finer cone is needed - especially if you’re not trying to draw attention to yourself.

Have you ever done ANY coding in your life? I’m not a programmer by profession, but I did take multiple computer programming classes in college. Which means while I’m not an expert, I’m semi-aware of what it takes to actually code something.

And I want you to consider that there is literally 17 years of coding… and changes in code. And that likely means there is a lot of spaghetti code. And there have already been several posts on reddit and here by CCP talking about how hard it is to alter the code as it sits because most (if not all) of the original programmers are gone.

I’m very aware of how much I know about coding compared to the people who are hired by CCP to create content for Eve Online. As you said, I’m intelligent; and part of being intelligent is knowing how much you know compared to the experts.

Is your idea doable? Yes. Is it worth CCP’s time to actually do it? Well, that’s CCP’s call… as a player, I can think of several other options I’d rather see added to the game over this; I won’t go over the list because that has no relevance on this discussion.

My criticism isn’t generally directed at you proper (although, I don’t think you are as competent at probe-scanning as you think you are); but, rather with your argument over why this is a good idea. I refrain from resorting to ad hominem attacks… unless someone pokes me enough that I decide to troll them (which is rare).

As for sacrifice, I am only speaking in terms of return on investment. Is your idea going to return enough content to make it worth the time invested. Again… between the coding and then listening to players talk about how complex it is (there are people who still don’t understand how missile damage application works who have been playing for years).

Definition of dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Well, I suppose I’m laying out a set of principles… but here’s the rub on that. The best way to counter dogma: facts and evidence. My issue with your idea is when I asked very simple questions, your answers contradicted themselves. As I’ve already explained. And frankly, I feel like you’re no longer actually trying to defend your argument or counter mine… this is an attempt to appeal to novelty and/or bulverism/Irrelevant fallacy.

You are no longer discussing the merit of your idea or the mistakes in my argument, you are simply saying I’m wrong because I’m ‘Old Guard’ and don’t want anything new (which is false) and/or you are simply trying to dismiss my argument by attacking my motivations rather than my argument.

LOL. The debate ended when you started using terms like dogma… and making bold assumptions about whether I want change or not. I want change for the game, I want to see improvements. But your idea… I don’t see it as an improvement…

1 Like

I would like to apologies then, I certainly didn’t mean to come across that way. I’ll qualify this for you.

The facts and evidence are that DSCAN currently works, and that ships are in fact able to scan space. It has been observed that certain elements of DSCAN had the flexibility I was looking for. I had’t modified the OP but a discussion with @Gerard_Amatin revealed some of what you’ve said.

I think we missed each other in the thread here somewhere. If I’ve attacked you unduly I’m sorry about that. Not my intention. I still think that there’s something else you’re hovering around, but I’m not quite certain how to phrase it just yet. I wouldn’t be so bold as to say I’ve spoken for you, but I do of course intend to challenge your position. It’s also a fair statement - I’m not the best probe scanner there ever was, and I’d prefer what to me seems at present as a simpler solution. And I suppose I can partially recant on the subject of sacrifice, because I am in fact stating I’d rather train a Dscanner than a probe scanner. I hadn’t really realized that in so many words at the onset =) So yes, fair criticism in truth. Not enjoyable lol - but fair.

The idea that a bunch of forum fanboys can judge the difficulty of adding a feature is dumb.

The idea of triangulating based on dscan is not reasonable. Most people warp to celestials and can be found easily enough using dscan - making safe spots is a hassle. You also cannot triangulate based on 5% dscan cones. Do the math. You want to warp in at +/- 10 km based on a very crude measurement for angle. Plus, what is this triangulation algorithm supposed to do if the target ship moves between your three dscans? No. That is what combat probes are for.


To the contrary, the other thread in question is comprised of everyone poking holes at your proposal, which is categorically inferior to the status quo in each and every single conceivable fashion. This is not an insult, this is objective truth.

In response to the community’s peer review process repeatedly invalidating your idea on multiple fronts, your behavior has been accurately described as follows:

Indeed! Here you are talking behind our backs - yet another bout of unwarranted personal attacks, of which there have been many directed at the most level-headed and nicest of the forum regulars. It’s interesting that so much effort is expended making insults and shaming others (bringing up topic-irrelevant killboards in an alt-centric game to “shame” their non-PVP characters, for example) and accusing them of logical fallacies and violating rules of argumentation when they are not (though several examples exist in which you are - and they have been called out as such) instead of addressing the concerns raised by others. I do not know why you are accusing others of doing what you doing orders of magnitude both more often and purposefully. (Evidence of the preceding claims is ample through the other thread.)

I already said this in the other thread and I’m going to say it again:

Be the better man that you claim to be and hold yourself up to the same standings you repeatedly expect of others: stop making personal attacks even if you perceive personal attacks being levied onto you. (Note: harsh criticism of your idea on objective grounds is not the same thing as a personal attack.)

As for this proposal… just like the other one, this proposal:

  • does not address a need
  • does not enhance the game
  • introduces unnecessary complexity
  • makes the game less enjoyable
  • is categorically inferior to the status quo
  • that the idea is “interesting” does not merit serious consideration any more than putting propellers on a lunchbox does.

(The other proposal had additional faults.)

All of the above truths are self-evident to any knowledgeable and experienced EVE player. (I should point out that, as a rule of thumb, newbies, particularly those which admit themselves to be such, have no business making game wrecking suggestions when they do not understand or appreciate the implications of such changes, their consequences, or in this case lack of benefits.)

I further point out that just because it would technically “work” (quantitatively ) doesn’t mean it would work well regarding game balance or be enjoyable for the game (qualitatively). I’ve said that in the other thread and I’ll say it here yet again.


You’re awesome.

Two things though. I did ask for a 1 degree cone lol - but I know that the time to get the 1 degree cone on something is kinda hard. It’s a fair criticism, and I’m dropping that idea.

Now let me say this about probes. All they do is triangulate, and presumably by using the exact theoretical technology that a Dscanner is. Triangulation only requires at a minimum two signals to get a reading. More signals, more accuracy - but as technology improves there’s less and less need for larger numbers of signals.

You’d be amazed what kind of technology is out there. It’s damn small, and does what I’m talking about, with out probes. This kind of tech already exists IRL. Northrup Grumman and Ratheon are SCARY companies. =) There are existing hand-held technologies that contain 2 transcievers that can plug into a micro usc port on a cell phone that can enable that kind of functionality with out a satilite. They’re based on line of sight - and it’s really scary to know that exists. But - that’s been a thing since the 80’s. Hell, they did this in an episode of MacGuyer! Two hand held radio’s. Seriously - we don’t need probes! - I mean for moon mining and PI and such - yes, sure. Combat? Eh… I’d rather not.

But, I can see that there’s a lot of resistance. I just think placing game play in a slightly more realistic place is useful. Triangulation doesn’t have to mean three scans from a single emitter in three separate locations - I just proposed it to limit the instant ability to warp in on someone.

Maybe we need three scans from a single vector, and skills dial in how accurate your warp in is and how long each scan takes? You may have selected @ 10km, and wind up 90km off until your skills are up? Instead of a 2 second scan, maybe with DSCAN at 5 it’s 2 seconds, and at 1 it’s 10? - Having to wait 6 seconds for a warp in isn’t an unrealistic time, and it allows someone who lands a little align time =) and at 30 seconds, it’s a fairly useful posh response time when being pursued.

As for safe spots… they still have to find you =)

But what about my mobile depot? TAKE IT WITH YOU =) keep your fits saved - ninja refit/reload start the unanchor and leave. I’m not sure if it’ll keep unanchoring if you leave, but if anyone knows - do let me know!

I hear ya, I do - but I think this might be a little easier and more realistic than the probes - which still take skills to train. it’s a 50-50 problem in my mind on the skill queue angle.

In-game probes are primarily using distance as the means of triangulation. Because all the probes fire at once, you can get a very accurate reading. Dscan, on the other hand, is inexplicable.

It seems to use some kind of crude ranged radar-like technology. It (presumably) sends out a wave of some sort and then waits to see if a signal bounces back, without any ability to determine the reflection time (and therefore distance). So, in my opinion, any triangulation done by dscan would need to be based on the angles involved, not on the distances - unless you are willing to manually tweak the dscan range in 100 km increments - which would be horrible gameplay.


While it’s true that angle is how triangulation works, the reality is that the hand held tech in this day and age has transceivers about 1 inch apart from each other. I’m not certain what level of accuracy they give - it’s not a tech available to the general public unless you make it yourself. You can have more than one antenna on a ship of a 45m sig radius very easily and generate an amazing level of accuracy.

As for the increments - a slider fixes that - and it’s in the game now. That’s why I wanted a skill to give a finer adjustment on the slider. Imagine the implication of allowing a sensor booster to have a DSCAN script? That might be a possibility too?

I hear you though. Keep it coming, you’re an engaging person and I really respect you for it. Thank you! =)

What is it, precisely, that you don’t like about scan probes? Because those really are the answer for what you are trying to accomplish.

1 Like

EVIDENCE? None yet…

Hardly an unwarranted criticism of your public behavior. And yet again, you are accusing me of your behavior and not my own. Use facts, bring evidence.

If you’d been reading you’d see that’s not uniformly the case either. Instead for unwarranted harassment because you refuse to bring facts and evidence.

Ah yes, that healthy wee stint in EVE I mentioned in the other thread OP. You are again lacking facts. I’ve been active for 7 years out of the 10 I’ve had this account. A newbie? Again - verify your claims before making them. While I may not be as knowledgeable as some or as experienced as others - I wouldn’t say that I lack either knowledge or experience with EVE. While anyone reading this can easily surmise you feel differently it doesn’t mean that your emotions are correct regarding the critical reality.

I suspect that is the only consistently true statement you’re ever going to make to me. However, this idea - as with any idea I’ve put to the forums thus far (or would be willing to submit to public scrutiny), may work swimmingly. We won’t know unless they are implemented - which would be flattering to say the least.

You can already drop probes off grid, easily dscan them down to 2au or less, move probes in get lock remove them before all but the most v-spammy have a clue. Also you have used your alotment of o’s for the month, please bear this in consideration when replying or we shall have to report you.

1 Like

:see_no_evil: :hear_no_evil:
I invite everyone to read the entire thread. No shortage of evidence. You just refuse to acknowledge it as such…

It reminds me of an interview some years back where Bill Nye the Science Guy described for the layman cognitive dissonance relatively well:

“People have a certain worldview; [then] they’re confronted with evidence that conflicts with the worldview, so they have dissonance, conflict in their minds,” Nye says. “[So] instead of changing your worldview, which you may have held your entire life, you dismiss the evidence—and along with that you dismiss the authorities that may have provided the evidence.”

A few things:

  • In EVE moreso than any other game in the history of mankind, your “newbieness/veterancy” has virtually zero proportionality to the number of manhours you’ve spent playing the game. There are newbs who have actively played the game for years and there are veterans who have actively played the game for months.
  • Your ignorance is self-evident throughout the other thread. And this thread. Not an insult. Anyone can examine the numerous exhibits for themselves.
  • In the other thread, you repeatedly ignore to address specific metas that are left out because of your arbitrary proposal. I’m sure if we’ve bought up more, you’d also ignore them. In this thread, you don’t address how the game is actually enhanced by imposing what is a useless amount of granularity in practice, or how such an excessively sized D-Scan sphere might be OP from what it is now (ignoring the technical limitations suggesting how it came to be to begin with).

Sure. Boeing won’t know if an airplane with flapping wings would work well until they’ve spent all that time and money manufacturing and field testing one, because we all know how bogus computer modeling and chalkboard brainstorming and holistic reasoning and common sense are.

If you actually received constructive criticism well, if you had the humility to consider the possibility that your ideas had zero merit, if you focused more on objective points and on what benefits EVE and its player base (ie. people other than yourself) moreso than defending your ego and making personal attacks on others, then I would be more than happy to point out the numerous ways not yet mentioned in which this idea falls short categorically short of the status quo. I am perfectly content to engage in a debate that goes somewhere with someone possessing such humility and consideration. If anyone else on the forums brought this up for discussion, I’d happily engage in a discussion that goes somewhere.

Based on how the other thread has gone and how this one is going so far, this is how I extrapolate the rest of this thread to go:

I was away for the game for a brief time and returned about a month ago. The first thing i noticed was all these hangars just sitting around in space and I assumed they were new content. So I managed to triangulate the location of these hangars just using dscan and bookmarks until I could get within warpable distance. It took over 100 bookmarks, possibly as long as 2 hours and a lot of swearing. I got some carbon and metal scraps for my collection.

1 Like

Apology not accepted. You’re apologizing because you ran into a student of debate (that’s me) who called you out on your argument fallacies… and now, you’re backtracking hard.

You literally said:

Parochial: having a limited or narrow outlook or scope.
And then you went on with the whole dogma speech. I, then, called you out and pointed out the argument fallacy.

And then you proceed to backtrack:

Yes, D-scan currently works and ships can scan space with probes. And yes, its been observed that D-scan can already do finer increments for range. Later, you attempted to play the whole:

You didn’t even know how to do different increments in D-scan and you claimed you’re not a novice. I didn’t smack you for this before, but it appears you have a tendency to make claims about how knowledgeable you are about Eve Online… when in fact, you don’t even have some of the most basic of skills. And you have the gall to tell people not to comment on subjects they don’t know about… like when you said:

Seriously, your entire argument revolves around an appeal to novelty… and then dismissing anyone who might disagree with you by saying they don’t know what they are talking about.

And while I consider it poor form to bring up other discussions (like Archer en Tilavine did), when I look at your posts… it shows your tendency to do the following:

appeal to novelty
Ad hominem attacks on people making assumptions on their knowledge of the game or how code works.

Look through this… literally everyone is telling you this idea isn’t a good one. And when I’ve asked the basic questions of adding something to a game, your response is: because I think it will be cool…

So, no you’re apology isn’t accepted until you actually start to show some changes in your ‘debate’ methodology.