Hello. Welcome to the “skills discussion” sub forum, where players discuss existing skills, and propose new ones.
With respect, that’s what this sub forum is for.
Based on what?
READ THE INTERNET.
There are tons, litterally tons of interviews of popular game developers who’ve put figures like this to the press. Do a little digging:
And I’m ignorant? Just quit denying that you don’t like the idea, and not that it can’t or shouldn’t happen. It’s really obvious that you just want me to think I don’t know something and that you have no intention of ever getting off your laurels about that particular point.
Answers ranging from 5-10 years in my opinion imply either a very indepth project, or a a team that just doesn’t have the know how or leadership or funding. Could be anything, but as an investor I pulled the plug on a few things I was willing to invest in because of continual set backs - I didn’t think it wise to wait that long. None of those projects have yet to produce a product and are still in the development process and still begging for more crowd funding. Kinda scary when a name like CIG is involved because they aren’t light weights. Mean while CCP has developed and released Valkyrie and Gunjack. Sometimes the answer for why it’s taking so long isn’t acceptible, and even if it is, doesn’t mean you can wait…
Second answer. 18-36 months - now that sounds very very familiar in a lot of software driven environments. I’ve waited 12 months for a Garmin pilots display software update. It happens and it’s not uncommon.
Last answer: “… On a brand new AAA title, with no sequel to draw from or, if you are doing a sequel but using new technology and/or rewriting everythin, it can take 4+ years from start to launch.”
Or did you think I didn’t look into the answer before I made it? Appeal to fallacy? Again, completely and totally, absolutely 100% wrong, incorrect, convoluted and unsubstantiated. Why is it so hard for you to do your own research and bring truth with you when you discuss things with me? What makes it so incredibly hard that you can’t ask a search engine a simple question?
Where is it written that you and you alone don’t ever have to accept anything anyone ever says? No one but you knows about this provision and it’s getting to the point where your arbitrary responses are beginning to show just how little of this subject you can actively engage in. You know what DSCAN is. You aren’t a programmer, and you’re unwilling to perform even the most cursory research before responding to anything I post.
You’re not here for the discussion, you’re here for a very different, and entirely useless reason because if you don’t start supporting and qualifying your statements you’ll put even more stripes on the tiger. You’re too obvious for your own good, and not capable enough an antagonist to disrupt me to the point you’re hoping for. I’m not going to insult you. I’m going to accuse you and that’s a different thing.
You’ve proven you care to respond to me, and you’ve proven that you won’t do any research. I am openly accusing you of laziness. The proof is above. It’s not an insult, and it’s not a fallacy - it’s just the truth and because you can’t resist, you put the writing on the wall your self.
I will remind you of your laziness each and every time you post with out first having done your homework.
If you don’t like it, too bad.
Adding code, alters code. We’ll be adding for this feature to be implemented. We will also delete the asset “combat scanner probe 1”.
Stop being lazy. And you’ve earned it.
Why mention the difficulty level *if not to instill a sense of challenge or fear into anyone who would question whether or not to undertake a task?
It’s not like the phrase, “I’m not going to lie, this will be difficult, are you sure you want to give this a try?” doesn’t exist. People try and deter one another all of the time. Mostly due to laziness and a fear of having to compete in a changed environment that is foreign to them. There are other reasons like monetary gain - but again fear of losing market share and there fore profit is still fear.
I can only deduce you mean to scare me off the subject because “coding is scary”. Helicopters are scary - I tangle with that all the time. =)
Yes, you have. You do literally do it again…
This is altering code. What you are suggestion would be more akin to writing a tic tac toe game instead. It is a false equivalency to compare alterong code to writing new.
Your idea is not a tweak.
Well, thank you saying this. You just countered your own argument about how easy it is to pick this stuff up. The number your change would create would be between -1 and 99.
And you got it wrong. And again, adding triangulation isn’t a simple tweak. Its a full series of new code. Yes, it using existing variables… but its not the same thing…
And you’ve just shown code isn’t as easy as you think it is…
And you just proved how little you actually know and thus why your argument about how easy you think it is can be easily dismissed.
yes, that’s one of the reasons this suffering exists. But just because something is new, doesn’t make it a good idea. You’re appealing to novelty to defend why this is a good idea. Its an argument fallacy.
Finally, some facts… not the most reliable source, but at least its some facts. Okay, so you think its reasonable to dedicate at least 3 months of Eve’s programmers’ time to create your project. Okay, now sell me on the idea of why… which brings me back to all of my original questions which you always answer with: because its new (an appeal to novelty)
How does it enhance the experience or content of the playerbase?
Can this concept easily be explained to new players… especially considering we already have a system that locks down ships to warp in already.
Rule of debate: He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents’ use if desired.
You’ve already said I’m intelligent so…
Actually anyone who has done formal debate or taken a logic class knows exactly where I’m getting this list from…
My responses aren’t arbitrary… you keep using argument fallacies. Stick to facts and what you can prove. Then you won’t get called out.
A slew of ad hominem attacks.
you’ve already proven you don’t understand code enough to change a random number generator from 1-100 to 1-99. And I’m supposed to believe you have a clue on adding a feature thats going to require well over 100 variables. You can’t even deal with 2.
Laziness is using argument fallacies…
An entire final post of red herring argument fallacy.
You lost again in your bold attempt to show me how easy it is to alter code. Seriously, you failed at that as you boldly explained how easy it was.
Part of it was adjusting max range, and that is definitely a tweak. Re-read the OP. That’s what I had wanted was more range. Even if triangulation is all I got, and I’d be happy for it (and it wasn’t my idea by the way), increasing range is definitely a tweak.
Regarding how easy it is - this is precisely how easily the error will manifest - indicating that a simple tweak by exactly 1 integer would correct my mistake.
In other words, the second try provides me with a working example of the programming principle in question, and as I compile to discover, and then roll out V1.1 the error is resolved by a minor tweak because I can now see whether or not the first action had the desired effect. As we learn to see the exact impact our changes make, our confidence grows and more of the principles become manifest and the context to which they apply and eventually basic competence is formed. I had already said I didn’t know much and was hazarding a guess, but I’ve just learned something very simple and very valuable which I can now add to the list of things to double check in my own work when it comes to this kind of work and this so worth knowing.
I’m also certain this is the kind of thing about the first months worth of reading, trial and error would illuminate for the prospective programmer on their path towards competence.
No it can’t and I just proved it. Moving on.
Source? And why don’t you ever do this?
Someone literally already explained the reason why D-scan mostly likely has the range it has. Remember the whole 32 bit conversation before you started to obsess over this triangulation thing.
Still waiting on that quote of me using an argument fallacy before you. Considering how much you were banging that drum, we can safely assume you can’t provide one since you didn’t say anything.
That is the reason you’re here. I’ve already established that. You left the discussion a long time ago. Instead I’m just white washing your graffiti. It’s not art, it’s laziness, and you know that full well.
Competitive Debate: Rules and Techniques ,
by George McCoy Musgrave. New York: H.W. Wilson, 1957
And yet, I’m attacking your argument, not you. Well, except when I said you were unworthy…
Clearly you don’t know the difference between an attack on your argument and an attack on your person.
It’s been nothing but fact the whole time, you’ve just been lazy about accepting that. Eventually it’ll register.
As for selling you? It’s not you I need to convince, it’s CCP, but if I were to make the case, which I have a few times now, it’d go something like this. We don’t need an offensive and defensive scanner, one for awareness and one for warp ins. If you have to train to use probes, why not have to train to use a dscanner? Why not have similar skills for the dscanner and just use probes for sigs like WH and sites and such? Situational awareness isn’t dictated by whether or not you see a probe on dscan. It’s dictated by whether or not you pay attention, and or know how to with any or every tool availible.
So, why not just get ride of probes, modify the dscanner and shuffle the training accordingly. It only removes the combat scanner probe, and requires a redesign of one tool common to every ship. it provides excellent improvement in response time to threats and excellent improvement to the ability to keep pressure on a threat. It does as a by product require PVE contexts to consider the manual piloting in terms of alignment with each pocket of dead space, and requires the same behavior in high sec if you’re war dec’d.
The way the tool is used only changes slightly in that you have the item in question provide you with a right click window that contains the “warp to” and “warp at range” options, as well as fleet options if you’re in a fleet for squad, wing and fleet warps. The rest just requires pushing a button at 5 to 1 degrees of accuracy to get the warp in.
It doesn’t garantee a good warp in cause you don’t know the heading or velocity of the ship, you may have wanted 30 km, and instead wound up at 5 cause the ship was headed towards you, you may have been at 55 cause he was headed away. The only difference is the location of the person is taken into account instead of a celestial or station or gate or what ever you warped to from your overview settings.
The tool is used the same, but now does more, and with training provide expanded upon ability with a greater level of usability.
So that addresses everthing you’ve asked for. Provides alot of people a lot of things, including new players, and doesn’t break the bank for CCP as a project, or anyone as a player and it’s not any harder to learn DSCAN than before.
New ideas are not intrinsically fallacies. We’ve been over that. This is where new ideas come to be presented and not accused of being a fallacy because they are new.
And why have you not held your self to these standards the entire time?
I love this… you think because you were wrong, it proves you right. No, you proved just how inaccurate your assumptions are. It took you two guesses to do a simple switch. What makes it worse is I literally explained how it worked when I showed you the code you demanded as proof I knew some coding… here let me show you:
I literally tell you how it works and less than 8 hours later, you fail at it. You could have looked at what I said and been able to use my comments as notes to get it right.
I also notice you haven’t answered my question explaining to me how the code you borrowed from that website worked. With your basic insight into coding, you should be able to handle that. But you can’t… because you seriously under-estimate what it takes to actually create code.
I’d talk to you more about gaming engines and how most games are built over a skeleton code which is why they can get out new games faster, but it wouldn’t matter…
All you can do is call me lazy. More ad hominem attacks and you claim thats the only thing I’m here for.
Let me clue you in on something. No one in this thread agrees with you. No one. If you can’t convince anyone this is a good idea, CCP isn’t going to waste their time… because its pretty obviously more of the player base thinks this is a waste of time. And considering they are a business, they will likely go the direction of the majority of players.
You’ve said it yourself: d-scans are a basic part of the ship. Also, we already have the magic 14, why make more skills players feel required to have. You don’t need probe skills unless you plan on doing exploration or scanning down wrecks and ships.
D-scan is needed to survive in j-space and even in low sec and null to a point. People still mine with people in local until a dangerous ship shows on D-scan.
because probes can already do the job. And a redesign takes time and could cause unforeseen errors and break D-scan.
Also, this isn’t a good reason to put in the new system. Youre just changing the training to something new… because its a novelty.
No, it doesn’t. Numerous people have pointed out they can d-scan and combat probe in a faster time than doing multiple d-scan from various locations.
that already exists. If you d-scan down someone in dead space and then combat probe, you appear at their warpgate. By the way, dead space was added to make PvE players be safer. Missions used to be in normal space.
No, its not the same tool. By your own words, its a different tool. And it works very differently; it adds complexity And how does it do more? It just provides a warp in location on a ship. That’s not an expansion as it does the same thing.
No, it doesn’t address everything. Your answer is just this is a different way of getting the same result… and I like it better.
It doesn’t provide new players with anything… other than having to learn how triangulation works… and considering how many people have problems with the just move and narrow down the scanning area of probes… it won’t be easier for them to learn.
I never said new ideas are intrinsically fallacies. I said appealing to novelty is an argument fallacy. Jusy because something is new, it doesnt make it good; nor does it make it bad
But your argument has been: this is good because its a new idea. Youre appealing to the novelty of it… that’s not fact or evidence… its an emotional appeal. And thus an argument fallacy.
I have. I’ve just been pointing out your argument fallacies. And if you check, I actually provided hyper-links to the early ones so you could read what they were. In short, I did hold myself to those standards.
You didn’t click on the link… its not my fault you didn’t look at the data I provided.
Again, nothing but facts were provided to you the whole time, and with out regard for them you’ve responded with accusation of fallacy every single time.
The problem with you is that you think that the way things are with respect to DSCAN and Comabt Probing are in a good place, but haven’t got any metrics to prove that there is a sufficient level of interest in those methods. Not one shred of evidence in terms of average time to scan that results in say 3 legitimate tackles in a row. That data doesn’t exist. That means that your claim that things are fine and what I’m proposing is baseless is not substantiated by fact. I can tell you that I DSCAN more than I probe scan, and not because I can’t or won’t - it’s because there is a signifcant cost and DSCAN is a more expedient means for the same task. It lacks the precision of probes though. The argument was that because real world applications already chose the meta of not launching probes, as in the case of fighter aircraft rather routinely finding and destroying one another with out probes it made perfect sense that a space ship could do the same thing - and as standard equipment. No fighter in the real world comes with out radar in this day and age, and the reason they do is because you’d die if you didn’t.
You responded with turbo chargers don’t have an octane rating. You’re right, and that’s a silly thing to bring to the discussion, because a vessel in 3d space looking around itself is 100% what fighters do, and what a space ship must do to survive, and turbo charging and octane ratings were not involved.
You then complain that the coding is too difficult or not worth the effort. We don’t know that. Only CCP will, and you still won’t acknowledge that point either.
It’s been a fact driven argument on my end the entire time and I’ve been about as cordial with you as I think you deserve in view of the fact that you refuse to address any of the argument in a real way.
Post a video clip of how easily you get a warp in on someone with dscan and it results in a tackle. We’ll count the seconds on the video player.
Post a video now long it takes you to get a warp in on someone with your combat probes. We’ll count the seconds on the video player.
Then lets see what your fact based argument can hold in view of some actual metrics and not unfounded statements. There are healthy enough number of videos on youtube about both, but I want your ethos here. Lets see you do it, instead of argue about the fact that it can be done. Lets see you really prove that it’s a viable task to ask someone to accept, and lets see that it’s a consistently viable way for a fleet to gain an engagement.
Metrics. Data. Evidence. Facts. Where are yours? Because I can, quite easily from the time I enter a system, if theres someone I want scanned down, or a situation I want to be aware of make a video that shows exactly how long it takes to get the tackle. I can also high light exactly where what I’m asking for would help, when it would be used, and why it would benefit the game.
The only reason I don’t do it is to protect my own techniques from being used against me. No one is required to give the competition a better knowledge or methodology.
However, all things considered there are plenty of facts to my argument. Like it or not, you’re coming up short. And since you won’t identify who you are as a combat pilot I won’t grant you the credibility that you know how to do these things in a combat environment and that everything is just fine. Since you won’t take off the mask, and because it’s the internet you can’t prove which one is the real slim shady anyway… The Sparticus privacy defense means you don’t get the credibility a combat veteran pilot would recieve - even if some of the information you mention has some level of accuracy. That’s why it’s important to be genuine about your identity.
I’m Renge Ukyo, CEO of Charm School, and this is my main. This is my combat pilot character. I fly that way, and my public record confirms it. Your identity lacks that credibility. I’m not the best pilot in the world, but I’m not the worst. I have an honest record that shows I continually try to get a performance assesment of any given meta I choose to investigate. It does not indicate that I have fully understood how best to utilize any given meta. That is precisely why you see so many of the same kind of loss - I’m gathering data, not bragging about how good I am as a pilot.
The killboard does indicate to some extent that a certain level of situational awareness is either present or lacking. That many atron losses might indicate to some a lack of fitting knowledge, or a lack of situational awareness both in terms of competing meta, or which engagements to take on certain terms. What it does not show is how long it took for a mistake to be made, and what the mistake was. It’s a level of detail I’d love on the KB, but it’d have to be reported to ZKill during downtime in order for all of the relevant data to be exported on one side and aggregated on the other. That, I’d think would be both awesome and a pain in the neck to implement. I’m not sure how the server load would be effected in terms of game play either, but it’d sure answer a lot of questions for a lot of people if that kind of data were available. Things like “number of Dscans in system” and “average time to kill after dscan registered vessel”.
The killboard also doesn’t address how many systems worth of chase and cat and mouse the engagement sprawled over, or whether or not more than one engagement was undertaken (separate tackles) before a kill. You may have lost a ship, but been one hell of a pilot. You may have also chosen to bait a problem away from a strategicly sensitive situation resulting in a strategic shift of power in your organizations favor, but at the expense of the calculated loss.
All of this information is missing from killboards, and all of this information factors into how “good” a pilot is, and all of those kinds of concerns and behaviors speak directly to why both the need and want for a better more simplified tool for space based situational awareness, and scan-to-tackle options like triangulation would be both advocated for and useful to new and old pilots alike.
The existing niche of cov-ops cloaked ships and combat recons of course benefit from this, but it doesn’t hide their presence in local chat. It only takes one off of Dscan when cloaked, and the other impervious to it no matter what. That play style and the supporting modules and hulls are again already qualified economically for that ability, and the range and fidelity improvements I’ve advocated for apply to all vessels - even your pod.
There is no real down side other than if you were good a combat probing, you now need to be good at dscanning, which is what was probably learned first anyhow.
These are the facts of the entire proposal. They didn’t change, you just ignored them.
Here’s my problem.
Your argument
Triangulation of ships would be a new and interesting way to scan down ships.
You believe it would be faster and easier to learn.
Counter-arguments
Other players believe it wouldn’t be as fast and would be harder to explain. Consider if the target ship moves between scans 2 and 3; you now start from scratch. Using the current system, it only needs to be d-scanned down once if you know how to combat probe.
It would require a significant addition to the coding system.
It would effectively remove an already established portion of the game and make combat probes useless.
Making combat probes useless would be upsetting to the people who make them as industry pilots… and mission runners who buy the T1 probes and sell the Sister ones to make a profit. People get upset when their favorite ship gets nerfed; the outrage of just removing something they had made ISK off of would be much worse.
It would devert coders away from already planned projects.
Balancing D-scan while cloaking and combat recons. (And yes, it would need to be balanced)
Related to balance: covert ops, T3Ds, and T3Cs lose some of their roles and will need to be enhanced to offset this loss.
Your idea doesn’t add anything new; it’s just a new way of doing an already established ability. There is a lot of issues that go with the change.
I find the discussion on dscan improvements interesting, but I do not like the idea of being forced into yet another set of crucial skills to train, especially one involving a vital and basic survival ‘skill’. They would indeed have to be added to the Magic14 list.
Another issue I see with a 1 degree cone is of a practical nature. I already find it a hassle to use the 5 degree cone by pointing the camera somewhere in space (no celestials or w/e present) while triangulating from distances of say less than 25000 km. 15 degrees works for me to finally reach the grid of what I’m chasing, even with reasonable transversal of the target, and without many extra kilometers for course correction.
If anything, dscan would benefit from having cone angles shown on camera, with a reference grid, which may be challenging technically and dependent on hardware.
How often does the average pilot have the need to triangulate ? Would that justify the ton of work involved to design this ? 5 degrees precision combined with a single combat probe scan is more than enough to find someone who’s not paying a full 100% attention to his surroundings, in my opinion.