Then learn to argue. You are lazy. You’ve got a book about it from the looks of things. Maybe dust that off, and read it lol.
Don’t complain to me because you split hairs to avoid the topic. It’s lazy. Do some research, do some math. Quit the insults and the petty slights and address the topic.
With all your programming familiarity maybe just make a functional example of how something like that might hit a rut, instead of just saying “because programming”. If you claim that’s a significant problem, it’s your assertion even if you’re using that assertion in rebuttal to someone elses claim now you made one too.
That means you’re gonna back it up. Now do it. Prove that this idea is just miles and miles of spaghetti that couldn’t be wrangled by anything or anyone than the first author. Until you prove that, and again CCP still hasn’t said a -thing- in response, just let go of the split hair, because you’re not going to prove yourself right with out a functional example.
I’ve already pleaded a lack of knowledge, and pointed out that it’s CCP’s call on how hard they think it is, and it’s not your place as a person who is not employed by that firm to tell them how hard their job is or is not. They know, not you. You have an idea, more developed than man, but far less substantial than theirs.
The reason I’m ASKING THEM is because they know, and I’ve already proven than I didn’t. I didn’t say I was correct for being wrong I said that it’s a simple mistake that is easy to see when you make it and easy to correct because it’s going to mean we just go the other way with the variable. Not deep stuff.
So learn to argue and recognize the difference between fact and whatever it is you call what you have been doing. With out the evidence, in a discussion like this, you don’t have facts. All of this topic can be solved with empirical evidence. None of this topic can be solved with flawed ontology. Also remember that ontology is the process by which we support an empirical condition or fact. It is not fact in or of itself. It’s what connects the facts that propagate the empirical phenomena. You have a lot of ontological ground to cover before you’ve successfully argued. There is plenty of ontological support for what a modification to combat scanning would entail and how it would effect game play.
I’ve provided sound, reasonable, rational and logical points of support for how the PVE aspect wouldn’t be helpless, how new and old players benefit, and how and why I think it would be a valuable asset for the community.
I didn’t provide an evidence of how fast or good I am at DSCAN. I don’t think it’s a good idea to do while simultaneously performing meta research. However, if the only prerequisite is dscanning to a tackle, regardless of the engagements out come solely to limit the discussion of how often a scan results in a tackle in terms of statistical average - I may be willing to obtain legal software for the purpose of generating that data for peer review.
I will not consider the combat outcome as relevant to the activity of DSCAN-to-tackle, because with out support, if a tackle escalates, it would invalidate whether or nor there was any point in attempting the tackle. We take fights we can win, not fights we can get - unless we haven’t got a vested interest in the outcome.
So if you’re gonna argue, do it properly.