DSCAN Skills?

Communications Center Skill Discussion
81

#include <cstdlib>

#include <time.h>

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int main() {

  srand(time(0));

  int number;

  number = rand() % 100 + 1;

  int guess;

  do {

        cout << "Guess my number between 1 and 100: ";

        cin >> guess;

        if (guess < number)

              cout << "Incorrect, you're number is less than my number." << endl;

        else if (guess > number)

              cout << "Incorrect, you'renumber is higher than my number." << endl;

        else

              cout << "Correct, that was the number I picked!" << endl;

  } while (guess != number);

  system("PAUSE");

  return 0;

}

There, that’s some code I wrote for my original C++ coding class in college… 20 years ago. Its pretty simple code really. I’ll break it down for you.

It loads the various commands needed. It then picks a random number between 0 and 99 (it says 100; but computers consider 0 to be the first number); therefore, we include ‘+1’ in the code to get the number between 1 and 100. If you’re curious, the random number is actually picked off a seed based on the computer system time.

Next, we ask for the player to guess the number. The program then compares the guess (the variable name assigned to the number entered by the player) to the number randomly generated by the program. If the guess is lower than the number, it outputs a statement and then ends the ‘do’ list. If it fails that (the number is either equal to or larger than the guess), it goes to the next line of code that determines if its larger. If it is larger, it outputs another statement; and we leave the ‘do’ list. If its fails that if statement, it is both not NOT higher than the guess and NOT lower than the guess; and therefore is correct, and we output a statement saying they guessed the number.

Yes, they do. And they are working on other projects, I’m sure. Like cleaning up other problems in the code… and likely working on the T2 Edencom ships. In case you didn’t notice, we recently had another patch… which is something the coders were likely working on. So, this statement is pointless.

Its not hard to argue against you. You have no facts and no evidence to support your argument.

Show me an argument fallacy I’ve had… outside a few ad hominem attacks… which you opened the door with by using them.

Nope… wrong. Round one was won by me. No fouls committed here. Try again. You want a do over because you’re buried and you know it. That doesn’t happen in debates.

What facts? Your entire argument is ‘I think this idea is cool and therefore it should be done’. That’s not facts, that’s not evidence. That’s an opinion. You need to support it with facts.

Dude, its not hard to find basic code online to help with computer programming classes. Hell, you’ll probably argue I found that simple program online. And I’ll let you know now, you’ll likely find a program similar to it. Why? Because its literally the same project used to introduce the commands, do, if, else.

First of all, as someone already pointed out: you do not set the terms for discussion on these forums. And no, if I don’t accept to continue it doesn’t prove I’m out to prove myself to be out to belittle someone. You wanted to start a new round and you’ve already done an argument fallacy: argument from silence.

And let me explain why I won’t accept your terms. Judging by your current ‘debate’ skills, I’d be playing Calvin ball with you magically changing the rules whenever you couldn’t defend your position. You’ve already had to resort to multiple argument fallacies… and then claim I’ve made several of them too… which I’ll concede I’ve made a few ad hominem attacks… but you’ve used far more argument fallacies.

Not your forums… you don’t get to tell me what I can and cannot do here. I’ve explained why your idea doesn’t have merit. If you understood the basics of coding, you’d understand that what you’re suggesting is a good sized undertaking. And as many of us have pointed out: why write code to do something that can already be done in-game with existing code? Literally your own argument is: because its new, which is an argument fallacy as already explained: appeal to novelty. Literally, that has been your entire argument. That’s it. Its new and you think its cool. That’s not factual, that’s not evidence… its strictly opinion.

I’ve already engaged you on these terms. You want to backtrack because you’ve been called out for how weak your argument is. You want to start fresh because you’ve been called out for using argument fallacies. You want to start fresh because you know you’ve been beaten and don’t want to concede.

Pointing out your argument fallacies isn’t antagonism, its pointing out the flaw in your argument. Also quit trying to butter me up with complements about being in Moira and my intelligence… that ■■■■ doesn’t work on me.

Because if you want to have an honest debate, you have to stick to the facts and not use argument fallacies.

Actually, yes, you have. Let’s go over it. You said my response was:

Like it or not, this is an attack on me and not my argument. So, yes you did insult me. Let’s continue:

You called me negative. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t make it negative.

Parochial? The definition of that term is having a narrow or limited scope… I see your view, I just see all of the issues with it. Again, this was an attack on my person and not on my argument. Again, you want a reset because you have used ad hominem attacks.

You even apologized for it:

I refused your apology because I said you didn’t mean it based on how you were acting… and considering you’ve continued use of multiple argument fallacies as I’ve outlined… my reason for not accepting your apology was proven correct. Because you did this:

Another ad hominem attack including a switching of roles. I became the new guy and you became the status quo guy. rolls eyes

Next, you attempted to say I didn’t know anything about code… which I proved above. Its a simple program, I admit. But I haven’t done coding in… 20 years… but I still remember the basics.

Actually, I have the entire deck here. I’ve done coding, you have not. I’ve done debate; its pretty obvious you have not considering the number of argument fallacies you use.

Actually, most of the spam they need to sift through is you going on about aircraft… which you’ve used as both a false equivalency and a red herring argument fallacy.

Ummm… who has been doing the ad hominem attacks between us? You. I’ve addressed the topic with valid and legitimate facts. You’re the one who has provided no real facts other than ‘this is a new idea and I like it; therefore, its good’. Again, not a personal attack… but an assessment of you using the appeal to novelty argument fallacy.

If you invalidate the probe, you invalidate the probe launcher since the launcher does nothing except launch the probe… and maybe buff it, depending on the launcher. This statement is wrong. Its factually incorrect.

Again, you are providing no facts related to this argument. You use red herrings, appeals to novelty, and factually incorrect statements (see the above comment about probes).

Seriously, you should be thanking us for responding. This thing would necro in 3 months if we didn’t. Which might be for the best.

3 Likes
82

Goddamn guy.
You know the 19th Amendment makes it illegal to own someone like that.

2 Likes
83

Almost forgot… You ask for a reset and here’s another ad hominem attack. You can’t make it one post with your own rules.

1 Like
84

I need some clarification on something here. Not trolling. Are you saying that if you’ve been DScanned that you don’t see that you could have been dscanning back? Because with the exception of the combat recons, if I’m on Dscan, potentially so are you if I’ve aimed it your way, or set it to 360. Am I not reading you right?

In terms of the Scanner itself, it’s the same button and faders though. You just do it three times while your ship is moving - even towards what you’re scanning you’d get three different readings. That means at 2 seconds a scan, you take 6 seconds, plus potential align time. If the target ship isn’t scanning too that’s not really anyone’s fault. It’ll be on scan, and yes at your backside - that’s how hunting works. If you’re in space, who’s job is it to look out for you? Yours right? I’m not seeing that part as having changed.

Now with skills to increase range, adjust cost size, reduce scan time to triangulate, and provide a longer slider/fader for more precision increments on range and such sure, more things like that have a little edge in descanning, and due to training time mean that an opponent temporarily seems like they are a combat recon ship - but only because they invested in more range with skills. If you train them too, you can catch up - and when a new skill drops, everyone is presented with the same amount of opportunity to invest in that ability. Your preference for a passive isk stream, or plex to isk with a CC or having acquired it in look or as some other means is a player by player decision. But a newbie and a salty vet received the same build - it’s your path to choose right?

At a greater range, a 1 degree cone can have the same foot print as the 5 degree cone because of how angular translation works - so you’re still going to have some slop in the system - but a greater level of situational awareness at greater range, and a more precise awareness at closer range. What we actually do in dscanner doesn’t change, it’s actually less providing more.

Cost of a combat recon is significant. I don’t see this as more complicated, just more complete, and the game play work load remains more or less the same. Just no probes involved. Still need probes, but it doesn’t not have to be for this task if we don’t want it to be.

Some like probes, but they don’t have to be the only way to do it. There are a couple tasks in EVE that have more than one solution. You can still just roll a hole with a big plated battle ship - or you can use a higs anchor now, and this idea is what I’m looking to apply to the Dscanner. I don’t disapprove of the higs anchor, know what I mean? Some one might. No clue, can’t ask everyone lol.

85

No, fallacy is fallacy. And we’ve both done it. Discussion closed. If you have to resort to it, and you did (and first), then you’re done.

86

Bruh.
With your suggestion, I could be warping back and forth in a recon ship or anything else with covops, have a location on tracking, then push V three times before warping in on some unsuspecting mission runner.

What kind of idea is that? Why not just outright say “pve in highsec only” as that would be literally the only result that happens from this.

It takes less than 30 seconds to gradually reduce scan radius until you know where your target is. I do this all the time because I enjoy ninja salvaging and looting. Then you drop combat probes on a pinpoint location and push the scan button once.

What you’re suggesting is asinine and that’s all I gotta say about that.

87

Not all fallacies are fatal to an argument or conclusion. And who did it first has zero bearing. Stop trying to free yourself of your many faults by suggesting the significantly fewer and less damaging faults of your opponent cancel out your own.

1 Like
88

Actually, a few corps use both plates and higgs anchors on their rolling ships… It depends on the size of the hole you are rolling on if you want to use plates or a higgs.

A higgs was also added so people could use shield ships for rolling… see, that was a change that enhanced the game. And it didn’t take much coding to create it either because all of the modifications it did to the ship were attributes already on the ship; and, attributes that were already affected by other rigs, they just added more lines of variable changes to the higgs rig and done. That’s not a huge amount of coding.

You take the rigs code template (they have one, trust me). They just create the item in the database giving it a database reference number (these exist… sell a bioresponder skin in the market and look at it on the Eve app… you’ll see its number because the app doesn’t parse its name), and the various modifiers. Hardest part of coding the Higgs was probably determining how much they wanted the numbers to change with the use of the rig.

89

Nope. In debate, you’d lose points for using a fallacy… however you don’t automatically lose. However, racking up multiple fallacies (like you have) would result in a loss. This is like saying that a small neutron blaster is the same as a medium ion blaster because they are both blasters.

You can’t even tell me what argument fallacies I’ve committed. I admitted to the ad hominem, but it was after I called you out for yours. My first real ad hominem attack was when I said you weren’t worthy of my time since all you had was argument fallacies. That was after you called me prochial.

So, according to your rules (I said we’d be playing Calvinball, didn’t I?), you lose. You did it first, you’re done. Your rules. See… lose by your own rules.

Well, according to your rules, you lost…

90

Ok, from: Random Number Between 1 And 100

init_page = "rnp";
init_calc_func = "resultNew";
init_page_title = "{{n}} Random Numbers between {{l}} - {{h}}";
init_numbers = '1';
init_low = '1';
init_high = '100';
init_unique = true;
init_oddeven = '';
init_csv = '';
init_order_matters = false;
init_sorted = false;

function pageReady(){
	initPage();		
}	

function addSetRNPClicked(){

	var n = $("#numbers").val(); 
	var l = $("#low").val();
	var h = $("#high").val();	
	var lines = 1;
	var unique = getBooleanValue($("#unique").val(), true);
	var csv = $("#csv").val();	
	var oddeven = getOddEven();
	var oddqty = getOddQty();
	var sorted = getBooleanValue($("#sorted").val(), false);
	
	window.location = "/randomnumbergenerator/combinations-generator#!lines="+lines+"&numbers="+n+"&low="+l+"&high="+h+"&sets=1-1-10"+ "&unique=" + unique + "&csv=" + csv + "&oddeven=" + oddeven + "&oddqty=" + oddqty+"&sorted="+sorted;
}

I took that right out of the source code for this site. - It would seem you can embed such things pretty easily into a website. So my question here is this - Does it not stand to reason, that if I can provide this, that easily, that it would be relatively easy to continue to search the internet to find more or less exactly what you provided?

Additionally, suppose I wanted numbers greater than 100, to say add more gradient on a the dscanner, would it not be a fairly simple bit of code to wrangle and simply adjust the number of 0’s? Or in the “+1” as you coded - just add as many “9”'s as needed to get a finer degree of resolution?

This is what I’m talkin about - it’s clearly not that complicated to alter the code, let alone find it on the first search. A simple text editor is the most basic programming tool out there from what I can see. Between word wrap, and the “find” function - it seems as though is would be alarmingly simple and very smooth to do if you’ve taken the time to keep your code organized.

And, there are better quality tools availible that batch together common code clusters to make a little more “lego” style a code authoring experience, which then you can then trim down to size.

So, why - if a complete novice at it like me can see this - do you think CCP wouldn’t be able to do it in a reasonable amount of time, or at a nominal level of difficulty? I don’t see your reasoning as being wholly accurate here. I think about a year of hitting the books and you could probably de-compile EVE, make it the way you want it and then just dump the assets, redo the names, ships and such (huge amount of work on that end for artists and such) and basically have a competing game, with similar code at least, and get exactly the game you want.

It’s plagiarism - but I the technique of generating similar if not identical results exists. There’s a case to be made for “just how different do I have to program something” before it’s not. Some kinds of code - like the ones that generate a blank window with one tab on the task bar that says “exit”, and is capable of being expanded, minimized, and closed get reused all of the time. However 3 years later and a significant amount of financing and CCP has a problem on it’s hands, ya know?

That’s why I want CCP to speak for themselves. They’ve been here for 20 years, by now even if it’s a new staff, I think it’s safe to say they’ve got it in the bag. And that said, what incentive do I have to believe that it’s beyond the common mind to learn, understand or produce the code? None. That means I don’t believe that it’ll be hard to implement and I do believe wholly in CCP’s ability to eventually put any proposal to the engine and bench test with a beta team of players. That means I don’t think comments like “breaks the game” can be made until and idea is entertained through discussion and a series of parameters reached to see if it’s worth putting in the engine and not just “oh no, that’s a novel idea”. New doesn’t mean bad. We have higgs anchors, and we didn’t when I took a break from the game. Not upset, very happy with it. Mutaplasmids are new to me too. Not upset with them either.

Now do you see why I question you the way I do?

91

Um, no, not really. I had already explained why in a post to @Mkikaden Tiragen. Who says you don’t need to be aligned when you mission run in high sec? Where did that come from? War Decs man. That’s not a good answer at all.

As for the covops or recon sure. But you’re going to pay for it, and with this, you wouldn’t have to and that’s the kind of content I’m seeking. And wanting a ship scanner to scan other ships and provide me with a warp in is not asinine.

Keep it above the belt. I didn’t insult you.

92

Evidence?

93

You’re not talking about changing one number in a number guessing game; you’re talking about a whole new code with new variables and new calculations. Those are two different activities. That’s like saying putting higher octane gas in your car is the same as putting a turbocharger on it. False equivalency… again.

My code is organized. By the way, your code is just a random number generator; not a guessing game. Also, my program is in C++; I believe yours is in Java (someone correct me if I’m wrong). Again, you don’t know anything about the subject matter… and you are trying to act like you do.

Except you don’t actually see what you think you see. You said my code wasn’t organized when you compared it to a different programming language… and a different program, no less.

Also, your question uses the term 'reasonable. What’s reasonable? Clearly define this for me. A week? A month? A year?

Wow. You think you could learn to code Eve in a year. That’s a bold statement since I’m betting most of the coders at CCP have at least 4 years of schooling.

Obviously, you’ve never came into a coding project halfway through and had to work with someone else’s code. My program was stupid simple with not a lot of ways to do it with the limited knowledge I had when I wrote it. But as you add more commands and more variables, programmers start to do things differently. More than one way to skin a cat, as they say.

Yes, because you literally think you know more than you do. You just confused two different programs and two different languages. You dont have the basic understanding to talk about code or how long it takes.

And it doesn’t mean good either. Appeal to novelty… again

As I explained: adding a new rig is much easier than adding a new system and command structure to the game.

Also, Higgs rigs added something. It enabled shield ships to be used as rolling ships. That was a change that improved the game… especially for wormhole corps that wanted to live in pulsar systems…

You said:

The first argument fallacy was you appealing to novelty. According to your rules, the first person to resort to an argument fallacy is done. And you were the first one to use one and therefore you’re done… and thus lose.

94

False is the wrong word - just a little inaccurate. Lets be realistic when we appraise the situation. False presumes I’m actively encouraging you to believe that a turbo charger has a higher octane rating than regular gas. I’m not with that line of reasoning.

I’m just saying, “Do you not see that it’s possible to alter the code?” and that’s all that I’m saying.

95

Didn’t accuse you of disorganized code, only said that code organization is important. Yes, it isn’t quite the same thing, but like I mentioned, how long before a search generates a similar result to what you’ve posted? I’m aware that they are different languages, but will a search reveal a resource that helps you translate one kind of code into another?

Yes. It will - so not the hardest objection to over come.

Had already said I don’t know jack squat about code. I’m just showing you how quickly anyone can get an over view of how programming and language conversion work - which means it’s not as mysterious as it seems.

I personally have absolutely no interest in becoming a programmer. But I do tend towards technical sciences and technologies that flock with them. Doesn’t mean I can’t understand programming if I’m not a programmer but would have a significan’t gap in my knowledge. But I think it’s safe to say that it’s plenty possible with a moderate investment in time and energy to determine that this isn’t all that complicated. Listening to people complain can pay a lot of money as both a bar tender or a psychologist. Probably easier to do as a bar tender though. So viewing source code the way I do and getting as much from it as a programmer isn’t likely, but not beyond my ability to close the gap on. Again, stop the insinuation and insults. It’s time you let go of that little tool.

96

I would think that professional programmers with bachelors degrees in either software engineering or software development should be able to tackle a change like this where there is an existing asset in an existing frame work within about 1-3 months and have a working prototype ready to go to beta. A seasoned pro with 10 years experience might have it in a week.

I would say having to start completely from scratch that the average game development for an extremely deep game like EVE would be in the 3-5 year range before a finished product was ready to be advertised and sold. I think an experienced staff and seasoned leaders with subject matter experience would have it shaved down into the 2-4 range. This assumed no funding difficulties with an LLC frame work. And Inc is likely to have a much shorter development time, and a lot less difficulty finding funding owing to the speculatory nature of the entertainment industry as a whole being something easy to invest in. It’d be harder than investing in Sony or Microsoft (consoles), but easier than attempting to put this level of interact into an android device - I don’t think that technology is quite there yet in terms of raw processing power, but it’s probably close, and it’s also probably likely in 1-3 years.

97

A year is probably enough to understand what you’re seeing. In order to really create with it - yes, more education and experience would be required.

However while I haven’t come into some elses code - I’m an aircraft mechanic, and I’ve had to sort out plenty of botched jobs some other mechanic got in the weeds with. I’ve rang the daddy bell a few times too - more as a junior mechanic than as a more seasoned professional. Suffice to to say it’s an eerie feeling when you realize you’ve just shaved 35 man hours off a job that the shops existing heavy weight takes 80 man hours to do. And that’s just replacing the canopy on a plane. I just found a better way to uninstal, label and reinstall cockpit components, never take them out of the cabin, prep, reseal and install, and reassemble the cockpit. Didn’t even get a raise for generating that kinda value for my boss. Suffice it to say I do not turn wrenches for that guy.

So yeah, I know what you mean, but I don’t think that a capable person need fear the challenge of already chewed on work. It’s par for the course in the professional world. Just gotta roll up your sleeves and get at it. Some people clamp, and some people zip tie, but it’s my knuckles either way.

98

Conveniently overlooking all of your insults prior to that point I see. Read back a bit further…

99

But you are not talking about altering code. What you are suggesting is adding code. And not just a few lines, but a whole new system in the game.

No, false is the correct word. In a false equivalency, you are comparing two things as if they are similar when they clearly not. The common term for a false equivalency is ‘comparing apples to oranges’.

Change a few variables in a code is much different than adding a whole series of code to create a new feature in a game… but you have acted like they are quite similar when you said: its clearly not that complicated to alter the code.

Look at the full price of that program… per year. Also, this is a red herring. A program that translate from one computer program to another has nothing to do with this.

Then quit acting like you do…

Yes, you can buy a program to translate for you. That doesn’t show me how quickly anyone can get an overview of how programming works. The code you pulled from that website… since you can quickly get an overview of how programming works, could you explain what each command is doing for me? I actually do know what it’s doing even though I can’t program in Java.

You admit you dont know anything about coding yet you think I should take your advice on how complicated your idea is… umm… going to have to decline that. Also, argument fallacy: appeal to common sense.

There were no insults or insinuations in my last post. Just explaining the failures in your argument. Explaining the errors in your argument isn’t insulting you.

How do you know this for certain? Oh, wait… argument fallacy: appeal to ignorance, again.

I didn’t say they should fear it. I said it makes it more difficult. Again, trying to change my narrative again.

You’re perfectly capable of quoting me. And I’ve gone back twice. Pretty comfortable that my first ad hominem attack was saying you weren’t worthy. Also sure you did the first argument fallacy since your entire argument rests ob appealing to novelty.

100

This is not an accurate assessment. I didn’t confuse them, and I have already determined that a converted exists. There’s no validity there - it may take a few tries of feeding the converter certain things to reveal how it should look in C++ but it doesn’t mean that I can’t be a complete novice and not be able to see how these things work. It’s very clear to me that I can look at the code and say "ok, so this command performed this function, therefore if I add “+2” to your code I should receive 101 for a guessing game range instead of 100. It’s not that complicated. That’s all I’m getting at. That is precisely what “tweak” is.

So suppose I wanted a range from between 1-99? I’d change your +1 to -1 and there it is. Why would anyone not see that more or less immediately? It’s a completely obvious solution. As for the Seed - change the range there too so it doesn’t put “100” as a number for you to guess.

And if I had to hazard a guess I would say the correct code would be…

number = rand() % 100 -1;
cout << "Guess my number between 1 and 99: ";

Is all it would take to tweak. I’m confident CCP can do that to the range on a dscanner. More places in the code to find and modify, but there is a command in a lot of C++ editors called “change all within range” and you specify between which lines you want the following values changed. The max number of KM on a dscanner is a -really- specific number in the EVE code. Couldn’t be hard to use the find function for.

See? I don’t know much, but I know the tools make this so much *less difficult that it might look at first glance. Just like understanding how the scissors and sleeve and swash-plate and support go together, and how gyroscopic procession is manipulated in those two technologies to achieve lift, thrust, and lateral control of a helicopter by increasing and decreasing the angle of pitch in the main rotor blades. Do this a second time at the tail rotor in the correct ratio of energy to the main rotor and you now have directional control of the air craft. That means you can hover and fly! And it’s not as hard to understand as ya might think, but it’s a little different to get used to at the start. But diagnosing and fixing problems is a little less straight forward, and trouble shooting requires a deeper understanding of how to interpret the symptoms present to determine what is not functioning correctly or within tolerance, and more pressingly how to correct it - because throwing parts at it won’t always be the solution.