Not really. The concept of sustained damage projection was the goal there, and it was a very close fight. If the guns hadn’t burned out, you wouldn’t have known about it. I completely forgot that 8 guns together melt off a cat pretty fast, i went one cycle too many.
And Agony unleashed regularly employs these cats. I know - I was in Agony, and that’s how I learned about that fit.
And skateboards… =)
And yet, you compared them. Thank you for conceding you used a bad analogy. So, we can add false equivalency argument fallacy to your list of argument fallacies.
And the operation range of the 120 is about 160 KMs on the newest model; still under the 190 of the Phoenix. ahems One of the reasons the Navy didn’t switch over to the F-15 (besides already being invested in the Tomcat) was that it couldn’t handle the Phoenix… although, I suppose you’ll tell me the citation is completely wrong. It doesn’t really matter, this discussion has nothing to do with the original topic as it falls under that false equivalency thing.
Oh, I completely agree with your statement. Again, you’re conceding you literally were using a false equivalency. Good job on the multiple self-owns though.
Really… because I can’t find any fits like that on Agony Unleashed’s zkillboard. Oh, you were in [AGONY] in 2013… apparently they no longer run that catalyst set up.
As a matter of fact, it doesn’t seem anyone runs split weapon Catalysts much…
So, between facts and evidence showing you’re wrong… and the number of argument fallacies (3), I’d say we’re done here.
And all of this code is clearly in the game because that’s exactly what the game is doing when it uses a probe. All that would have to happen is a sequence command, and rename the assets from scan probe (or whatever the engine registers it as) to DSCAN attempt #, make a new Gui for the DSCANNER and move on about our lives. It’s a fairly targeted thing to do, and relatively minor. I’ve seen website code that had sequence oriented lines in it. Check out at Amazon some time… that website has code that takes you from the first step, to the next step to the next step and so on. Now, imagine it in C++, Basic - or whatever language CCP has written EVE in. It’s not that hard and you’re making excuses about whether or not it can be done because of how scary code is. Anyone who ever right clicked and selected “view page source” could verify that such code exists and simply COPY it, examine it, re-write it in the language that EVE is authored in, compile it, and test it. If it works as intended and nothing else broke, awesome. If it didn’t work, tweak one part of your new code at a time until it slowly improves functionality to the point that it becomes fully functional, and nothing else that was working is inoperable. Then put it to a beta test, see where levels of performance need to be met, write a skill, set a skill point requirement per level, training multiplier, and publish the patch. It’s just another day at the office for CCP. It’s what they do, and maybe not exactly how, but generally how that sort of thing gets done.
You’re telling me we can’t apply this basic method in our approach to writing a triangulation sub-routine into the DSCANNER? WRONG! Can’t and won’t are different words.
And here you are AGAIN speaking for CCP while simultaneously admitting to not being a professional programmer. Pick a lane man, and let them answer for themselves. You’re not a programmer, and neither am I. It’s real obvious that the tools are already there and just require being reorganized in the client to achieve the result. Not the biggest project in the world. Not the smallest, but certainly not the level of difficulty you’re suggesting that it is. You just don’t like it, and that’s fine, but stop projecting the level of difficulty as too much when neither of us have any actual ability to know empirically what CCP considers the level of challenge to be.
Might be because they don’t die very often…
Nope. The caparison of paradigm was the point. Despite different environments with similar missions - the strategic occupation of territory, and despite the inferior avionics - the F-14 is the superior tool. The DOD wanted to eliminate the need for two paradigms because for economic reasons it wasn’t plausible for two branches of service overlapped in theater to use distinctly different tactics and strategies that had different logistics. It could also end up costing them due to miscommunication, or by attacking a target that was part of someone else’s strategy. There may have been multiple military interests in a target, or one branch received intel that another hadn’t, and bouncing across multiple paradigms puts a lot of lag time in how you fight a war, and the delay might get someone killed. The DOD had this discussion at length for years before saying "by the time we figure it out these planes will need replacing. What if we just let this go and assembled a team to make a “joint strike fighter”.
I give you the F-35. A lack luster stealth interceptor that neither the DOD or the American tax payer are particularly thrilled with lol.
So. Now you see why I want a better radar dish. First look down, first shoot down. Now you can see why I compared fighter aircraft to internet spaceships. Now you can see why you’re wrong about the number of fallacies and now you can see that you’re not done here unless you’re resting your argument. So, between the facts (which most of us watched over the last decade on the evening news) and the evidence - we don’t fly either plane because it kept the Air Force and the Navy from bickering at the DOD - I suppose it’s time to accept the evidence supports my claims.
Nooooooooooooooooo. Stop. Don’t be silly. To get a solid bearing you need 6. Four with max skills and a lot of experience.
How in blazes do you think that I don’t know that? I’m trying to eliminated it, and saying that you need a minimum of two only speaks to how “triangulation” works - not the way I use a probe scanner in the game because of the current game mechanics.
Get your facts straight.
A fair number of tutorials on youtube, and my training with Dscan in Agony unleashed didn’t even bother with the system map (F9 or F11), But yes, a GUI is preferable. Then again, that is what the Dscanner and F9 and F11 displays are… Seems like this comment is unfounded.
Nope. Also I can fly the T3C and T3D’s with level 5 Mastery certificates in hand. I’m at 96mil SP. There are oodles more things to train though. The fact is frigates and destroyers are rather specialized in their uses, and can’t hold a lot of things. With man power concerns being what they are, it’s hard to get anyone to want to probe scan for precision warp ins on targets. Especially considering the expense.
Sp regarding cost - Yes. Obviously. It’s difficult to adopt the play style owing in part to the cost, and in part to the level of complexity. Asking a newer player to put that on the laundry list isn’t out of the question, but it’s not the easiest sell either. Pvp pilots tend to want to just get to business. However, addressing both of these issues with Triangulation makes for a much more more engaged player base and gives more pilots more opportunity more often to fly more kinds of ships in new ways if they aren’t module and hull dependent. EVE is strange in it ignores that any actual space craft would have to have some means of triangulation to navigate at all in the real world and very few “probes” of a dedicated navigational sense have been used. Almost every single thing Nasa has put in to space is basically required to be able to perform that task. Every single manned vessel we’ve made had the the capability I’m talking about. Very little real world dependence upon “probes” to find other vessels in space, and a lot more “on the ship” radar and lidar technologies in use for this purpose at present. No need for a combat scanner probe when an existing tool can be upgraded. You’re a “lets build the F-35” kinda guy. I’m a “lets maintain and upgrade the fleet” kinda guy.
I’m cheaper by far. =)
Why does your internet space ship need a special module? It doesn’t.
Did you just seriously compare code inside a game to the code to display pictures and words? Clearly you don’t know anything about coding. There is a lot more coding in a game than a website. Your lack of knowledge continues to impress me.
I never said it couldn’t be done. I said it wasn’t worth the time and trouble. You are trying to change my narrative… that’s another argument fallacy (you seem to be racking these up).
I’d suggest you do the same when you make stupid comments comparing gaming code to the display of a webpage. I’ve got some rudimentary knowledge of how coding works. You continue to show you have no lack of knowledge of how coding works.
How would you know? You don’t even have the basic knowledge in coding that I have. I’m not going to claim to be an expert… but it terms of coding, I’m the one-eyed man and you’re blind.
I’m not projecting the difficulty. I know its well within the skill set of a professional game designer; the questions remain: does it enhance the gaming experience enough to be worth their time? Considering everyone else says no, you’re pretty much wrong. Considering you’re up to 4 argument fallacies (by my count and I haven’t been keeping a close count), your argument has no substance other than your desires.
I would ask you to prove that, but we both know you can’t. And we both know that’s not true because you already lost one. And I went back several months into [AGONY]'s killboard and no ship had split weapon types. Try again.
Oh, this is another argument fallacy: argument from ignorance
I won’t quote this entire paragraph because its fluff trying to hide the fact you used an argument fallacy and are trying to prove you didn’t use one, when in fact you admitted you used one.
Then why did you say this here:
Now, you’re lying. You literally said: seems like needing to launch more than two is a waste of time unless you’re watching multiple locations. Damn, you’re bad at this.
Because you literally said it…
Oh, my facts are in order. That’s why I’m not having to rely on argument fallacies to defend my position. That’s why I’m not making bold claims like ‘maybe the split weapon catalyst doesn’t appear on zkillboard because they don’t die often’ without having some facts to prove it.
What does this have to do with anything? The fact people didn’t tell you about F9 and F11 has nothing to do with triangulation and how its not worth the time. By the way F9 is literally the same map you get with the scanner probe, only without the probe scanner overlay. Seriously, open the probe scanner window and click on the X in the Scanner Probe area. Its the same map…
Actually, its quite founded. Because you’d have to work in another GUI and the variables to work on those maps. The comment seems unfounded because you don’t know anything about the basics of coding.
Really? Half my corp is willing to do it. And I know plenty of people in other corps willing to do it as well. Maybe its the people you run with.
Lots of skill points don’t mean you know lots about Eve. I’m not impressed. I’ve taught people with far more skill points than I have about things in this game; and, I’ve had people with far fewer skill points teach me things about this game. Most people who play Eve understand that skill points does not equal knowing how Eve actually works.
And you think they are going to want to take the time to learn how to triangulate down ships… when using combat probes would be faster. Now, you’re just countering your own argument.
Seriously… did you just compare a game to real life? Eve’s navigation system doesn’t function like real space either; its actually closer to being a submarine. Also, you just added another argument fallacy: a red herring.
Umm… because its how the game is coded. Also, in real life… if you get exposed to the vacuum of space (getting your pod blown up), you don’t get your mind magically transported to a new clone body. In real life, we’d do our best to block the transmission to avoid you using knowledge you’d learn since your last brain mapping… you probably think this would be a good thing for the game too. rolls eyes
Umm… no, you’re wrong here. I’m the maintain and upgrade the fleet guy. Remember, I’m the one who is… how did you put it:
See… you’ve switching our roles. Now you’re claiming to want to maintain the status quo… when in fact, you’re the one wanting to build something new… you’re the one wanting the new feature… you’re the one wanting the F-35.
Also, another ad hominem argument fallacy.
Umm… you know you have to pay coders to add this new feature right? Maintaining the status quo is cheaper than adding a new feature. So, no… you’re not the ‘cheaper by far’ guy. I’d suggest you pick a lane and stick with it. Either you’re the guy who wants to build something new… or you’re the status quo guy.
Because that’s the way the game is coded. So, yes… it does need a special module. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean its wrong. Just because your idea is ‘new’, doesn’t make it right.
Your entire argument hinges on argument fallacies. ALL of it.
Ok hotshot. Prove it.
Write us some code. We’ll wait.
So you don’t think CCP has people on salary already?
Easy there - you’re drenched in the same sauce if that’s the case.
And lets just clear the air here - you like to antagonize me because it’s hard to argue against me. You need to split hairs about argument fallacy? Fine. We’ve both done it. But if that’s the case it’s time for both of us to keep the gloves above the belt.
Round one is over - no score - conduct fouls on both sides.
Now address the topic, or just leave the topic because we won’t get to explore the idea if you can’t keep your opinions about my facts out of your responses. Bring evidence in the form of mathematics, examples of CODE, leave CCP out of it - and I’ll do the same.
If you accept, continue, if not you prove that you aren’t accepting the terms I’ve set for the discussion and prove yourself to only be out to belittle someone, instead of to engage in a legitimate discussion about a proposed idea. Your opinion about my idea is not why I came here. I don’t need that kind of feed back - I need math, code, and a plausible scenario in order to flesh out an idea - not the kind of contribution you insist on bringing.
Put yourself to this standard and I’m happy to engage you, but if you fail to meet these terms - since we’ve both made mistakes now - then I’m no longer willing to engage you. It’s a waste of my time to sort through your responses when they only attack me in a passive manner.
You’re smart, and I can acknowledge that, but if you’re that smart you do not need to resort to antagonism to rebut an idea or an argument to one. Why do you insist on that kind of response? Did I walk up to you and insult you? No. In fact I’ve been trying to weather your conduct. You’re not as bad as some, but you really don’t have the whole deck here, so lets just re-deal and see where the idea goes - and that’s IF you want to discuss it. If not, simply don’t.
Last offer for you. There are other people here who’d like to not have to sift through heaps of post to find where the discussions starts and stops. Please stop trying to monopolize the topic with character driven discourse, and just address the topic in a valid, legitimate fact driven way with the kind of evidence listed above.
News flash: you don’t get to set the terms of discussion on the EVE forums.
This entire thread has been you refusing to acknowledge that your idea, while interesting in the real world, simply adds unnecessary complexity to EVE without delivering anything that cannot already be achieved in a balanced fashion using current game mechanics and modules. Please stop arguing completely unrelated and off-topic crap in an effort to shout down your opponents - it just makes you look like a pompous jerk. That’s not an attack; it’s an observation of your behaviors.
There is already a method for tracking down ships, that is specifically designedly to force players to sacrifice other fitting elements to utilize it. Combat Probe launchers serve as the restriction on a very powerful feature - hunting other players in space - while D-scan is a defensive tool to help players recognize risks and respond accordingly. Turning it into an offensive tool that everyone can use with just a little skill time and no equipment investment renders probes utterly meaningless and significantly changes the fitting dynamic and threat levels for ship hunting. Wormhole life would be virtually impossible, since players could not spam their own D-scan to catch probes and know they need to GTFO.
No support.
You’re completely correct about the existing ability, and that I am in fact seeking to remove combat probes.
Being aligned, and spamming DSCAN would save you in a wormhole, and leave your core probes available in greater number to keep eyes on sigs so you know which direction to be aligned if you need to leave system. I do this all of the time in FW. I’m aligned more often than not, and when I do get dropped in on, it’s largely when I have to splash a rat. When I’ve piloted correctly; I’ve manipulated the rat into flying into a direction that provides me an align point. I do this routinely in missions as well. If this isn’t being done in wormholes I’m going to recommend that this be done by those pilots. It’s just good mission planning.
Being able to use the tool both offensively and defensively speaks to the flexibility of how the tool can be and currently is being used. Sometimes you get a good warp in, some times you don’t. All triangulation will achieve is a smaller margin of error on warp in and a little less tedious a time scanning to keep the momentum in the engagement. Should a player desire less of that momentum a strategic withdrawal is always advised. Leave system, wormhole, plex, belt etc. DSCAN being better isn’t really going to change whether or not you can stay in a system when it’s hot.
Ship hunting is intrinsically high risk behavior and this proposed change does not strictly speaking change that. It’s a double edged sword, sure, but not beyond learning to use and that goes for DSCAN in it’s current incarnation as well.
It’s not as broken as it sounds, and doesn’t invalidate the probe launcher, only the probe. I can’t say that I’d see this as an unfair trade off. You’ll still need the prob launcher, and indies still get to sell probes. Just not combat probes.
What the ■■■■ even has this thread become?
Look.
Triangulation already exists via DScan. In fact it’s a way to drastically reduce the time to scan someone down with combat probes. I seriously can’t even concentrate with the walls of text going on right now.
With most ships you can even just use DScan until you can get a general idea of the “where” via reducing the angle then immediately drop combat probes at a very fine radius on that spot and find most ships near immediately (save for the really small ones). Adding all this extra garbage just makes ■■■■ more complicated and uses even MORE time than doing the latter. It’s not a fix, it’s just busy work. And the worst part is the defender now has absolutely no clue they’re being scanned down now as the probes don’t show up on DScan anymore. It’s just a sudden ship up your backside.
No, that was an attack. Observation or not, I believe you’re mature enough to see that, so please don’t do that again.
As for the rest of your argument, I’ve already responded.
OP officially ranks below A.G. on forums. I never thought I’d live to see the day…
Pointing out how your behavior causes others to perceive you is not an attack. It is an attempt to raise awareness of the impact of your behavior, so you will stop and think about it and consider modifying it.
Combat probes are are a carefully balanced mechanic. You have not addressed the negative impacts of removing them - you keep ignoring that they are literally the only warning most people get of inbound PCs intent on killing them. Hunting players already have the advantage in being able to perform probe scans while cloaked, whereas explorers have to uncloak to make their money. Giving hunters yet more advantages (ship itsef invisible on Dscan AND able to hunt without any sign of presence via probes on Dscan) is not a good thing in regards to game balance perspective. How do you care for that in your proposal?
