Jump To Lightspeed Archive
Thread: Concerning the Pro's of Forced PvP Mastership......
Naquiel wrote:
Again, you proved my point. And to go further, target a npc ship this time that happens to be out 8k away, and do the same tests. Since you have stated that you want to know where a target is to see if there tuff or not. i want to see your results.
Oh that's rich. I proved you right by proving you wrong. Cute, explain that if you wish.
You pretty much just went beyond any point of credability right now. It would not matter if I targeted a NPC ship or not, the only thing that would differ on the radar is the shape and size of the dot compared to the station. The space station is straight ahead and 4k away. Or are you going to dispute this?
The reason I took the station as the target was to give a visual representation of the target on screen at range. With a ship, we wouldn't have had that. So give it up already.
I've not at all stated that I want to know where a target is to see if they are tough or not, I have stated that it's not humanly possible to keep track of all ships within 5k of your location in a stressful combat situation. You, on the other hand, have stated that not only is it possible, but that you are able to do this very thing. I find that very peculiar since... You don't even know how the radar works at all!
Please, just save yourself the trouble and admit that you were wrong on this. People might actually start taking you seriously if you do. I just don't see how anyone could do that after this.
Naquiel wrote:
Slarus wrote:
Vic is right on the radar.
And your point is? I said that he just pointed out everything i said. But both me and vic are getting away from the main point we where disscusing and that was keeping tabs on everything on the radar and being able to judge where a target is in relation to your ship. And useing the station as a target is different than targeting a ship since the station is hard to miss and no matter if your close to it or not it fills up the radar really easy.
No, it's not different to target the station that it is to target a ship. The only real difference is the size and shape of the dot on the radar. (and the simple fact that the station does not move). I could just as well have taken a target on a far away ship for these pictures, but that is less practical because of their size on the radar and the fact that you wouldn't have had a visual representation of them. (And of course, they move).
Explain to me how I can prove you right by proving that you are wrong and that you have no idea how the radar works? Give it up already, admit that you were wrong and move on.
This was exactly the point i was trying to point out. the station is static, where ships move.The size of the ships matter when playing in the game and we have to keep tabs on where there at, and the point of our debate. So go back and test again like i asked. And i like how you scaled the radar to prove your point, bring the scale back down to the 5k area you keep talking about.
Vicotnik wrote:
Naquiel wrote:
Slarus wrote:
Vic is right on the radar.
And your point is? I said that he just pointed out everything i said. But both me and vic are getting away from the main point we where disscusing and that was keeping tabs on everything on the radar and being able to judge where a target is in relation to your ship. And useing the station as a target is different than targeting a ship since the station is hard to miss and no matter if your close to it or not it fills up the radar really easy.
No, it's not different to target the station that it is to target a ship. The only real difference is the size and shape of the dot on the radar. (and the simple fact that the station does not move). I could just as well have taken a target on a far away ship for these pictures, but that is less practical because of their size on the radar and the fact that you wouldn't have had a visual representation of them. (And of course, they move).
Explain to me how I can prove you right by proving that you are wrong and that you have no idea how the radar works? Give it up already, admit that you were wrong and move on.
Message Edited by Naquiel on 11-04-2004 10:35 AM
Naquiel wrote:
This was exactly the point i was trying to point out. the station is static, where ships move.The size of the ships matter when playing in the game and we have to keep tabs on where there at, and the point of our debate. So go back and test again like i asked.
Vicotnik wrote:
No, it's not different to target the station that it is to target a ship. The only real difference is the size and shape of the dot on the radar. (and the simple fact that the station does not move). I could just as well have taken a target on a far away ship for these pictures, but that is less practical because of their size on the radar and the fact that you wouldn't have had a visual representation of them. (And of course, they move).
Explain to me how I can prove you right by proving that you are wrong and that you have no idea how the radar works? Give it up already, admit that you were wrong and move on.
Uh? You're not even making any sense at all. First off: The fact that stations are static and that ships moves are very much unconnected to the fact that people can't possibly have such a spatial awareness as you suggest that they have. If your point is that stations are static and ships move, then what the hell is the point? Sounds like a point that is completely unrelated to this issue, it would have done you just as well to state that your point had been strawberries.
We were discussing the ability of people to keep track of everything that happens within 5k of their position. Part of this discussion was your complete lack of knowledge of how the radar works. Now you are saying that I proved your point? Lol. I've heard better arguments from a brick wall. The size of the ships, or the fact that they move does not matter since the argument just proved that you are clueless when it comes to how the radar works. And you are saying that I proved your point? Sheesh.
Vicotnik wrote:
Naquiel wrote:
This was exactly the point i was trying to point out. the station is static, where ships move.The size of the ships matter when playing in the game and we have to keep tabs on where there at, and the point of our debate. So go back and test again like i asked.
Vicotnik wrote:
No, it's not different to target the station that it is to target a ship. The only real difference is the size and shape of the dot on the radar. (and the simple fact that the station does not move). I could just as well have taken a target on a far away ship for these pictures, but that is less practical because of their size on the radar and the fact that you wouldn't have had a visual representation of them. (And of course, they move).
Explain to me how I can prove you right by proving that you are wrong and that you have no idea how the radar works? Give it up already, admit that you were wrong and move on.
Uh? You're not even making any sense at all. First off: The fact that stations are static and that ships moves are very much unconnected to the fact that people can't possibly have such a spatial awareness as you suggest that they have. If your point is that stations are static and ships move, then what the hell is the point? Sounds like a point that is completely unrelated to this issue, it would have done you just as well to state that your point had been strawberries.
We were discussing the ability of people to keep track of everything that happens within 5k of their position. Part of this discussion was your complete lack of knowledge of how the radar works. Now you are saying that I proved your point? Lol. I've heard better arguments from a brick wall. The size of the ships, or the fact that they move does not matter since the argument just proved that you are clueless when it comes to how the radar works. And you are saying that I proved your point? Sheesh.
No, we where disscussing keping tabs on ships, and you came upwith the statment ofwatching the enemy that are 5k away. I said it is possible to keep tabs and yousay it is not relivent to the test, when the test is what we where focusing on.And I find it funny that when you did your little test you kept changing the scale of the radar to fit your answer. From this it proves that you are trying fake the sceento make the outcome fit youranswers , but in fact your tricking ppl. From this itsnot even worth talking about anymore since you like to falsify your answers.
I said ppl can work the radar, and you tried many things to make it look wrong, so i will endthis debate saying Good luck trying to convince the devs to move the mission, and have a good day.
Message Edited by Naquiel on 11-04-2004 01:31 PM
Naquiel wrote:
Vicotnik wrote:
Uh? You're not even making any sense at all. First off: The fact that stations are static and that ships moves are very much unconnected to the fact that people can't possibly have such a spatial awareness as you suggest that they have. If your point is that stations are static and ships move, then what the hell is the point? Sounds like a point that is completely unrelated to this issue, it would have done you just as well to state that your point had been strawberries.
We were discussing the ability of people to keep track of everything that happens within 5k of their position. Part of this discussion was your complete lack of knowledge of how the radar works. Now you are saying that I proved your point? Lol. I've heard better arguments from a brick wall. The size of the ships, or the fact that they move does not matter since the argument just proved that you are clueless when it comes to how the radar works. And you are saying that I proved your point? Sheesh.
No, we where disscussing keping tabs on ships, and you came upwith the statment ofwatching the enemy that are 5k away. I said it is possible to keep tabs and yousay it is not relivent to the test, when the test is what we where focusing on.And I find it funny that when you did your little test you kept changing the scale of the radar to fit your answer. From this it proves that you are trying fake the sceento make the outcome fit youranswers , but in fact your tricking ppl. From this itsnot even worth talking about anymore since you like to falsify your answers.
I said ppl can work the radar, and you tried many things to make it look wrong, so i will endthis debate saying Good luck trying to convince the devs to move the mission, and have a good day.
Message Edited by Naquiel on 11-04-2004 01:31 PM
What the hell are you talking about? Are you actively trying to loose more credibility? Are you now stating that my screenshots are faked? LOL!
Yes, we were discussing keeping tabs on ship, and yes you said it is possible to keep tabs of all ships withing 5k on the radar while busy doing other things. This statement you did base on your divine knowledge about how the radar works. Guess what? You don't even know how the radar works, so your statement is false by default.
And I am faking the screenshots now too, huh? How? By changing the scale of the radar? That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day. The radar scale (visual range in fact) stays the same throughout most of my screenshots. In fact, if you look again, the only time the radar changes scale (or range rather) is when the space station is too far away to be visible at the setting it's on in the other screenshots.
I'm trying to make it look wrong? LOL. If my screenshots are so "fake" go take your own damn screenshots and prove me wrong. Don't be a complete moron and make such accusations when there is nothing to back them up. Sheesh.
And you are not going to talk to me now either, huh? Since you obviously know that you can't prove me wrong since the screenshots are in fact ACCURATE!!! Sounds to me like you are completely giving up and while doing so you are trying to hide your defeat behind some rather silly notions and accusations. Get a grip, a clue and some sense for crying out loud. I have better things to do than to doctor some damn screenshots of a game radar while trying to convince someone that their grasp of how the radar works is absolutely false.
Again, get a damnclue for crying out loud. LOL.
Message Edited by Vicotnik on 11-04-2004 10:44 PM
TulasiKid wrote:
I agree Ace is a title that should be reserved for the best of the best. Maybe Top Ace should be higher. Perhaps this should require a minimum number of PvP kills. Seems fair to me.
As I recall you had to have a minimum number of player kills to get an Ace title in the old XvT series.
However, I don't understand why you'd have to become an Ace to pilot certain kinds of ships. This would just be an impediment to people who don't like PvP. Maybe making Ace should just give you access to certain kinds of factional equipment (to put on your ship) and missions.
Thoughts?
Tulasi Kid
Traditionally, the ace title is given when you get your fifth kill. 
I don't see the need to deny PVE players any skill boxes at all. If there needs to be some sort of "proving ground" for PVP players, let the reward be a symbolic one or one that is not required for the profession.
Let these kinds of things be post master content, optional content.
Naquiel wrote:
Vic you said:
Now look at this picture, it shows the corellian space station at quite some range, but still it is dead center in our radar. It's straight ahead. Had Naquiels interpretation of the radar been true, it would have been in "the area around us". Image: Clicky. Had his interpretation of the radar been correct, the space station should actually have been in area B.
I find that you changing the radar to 8192 to try to prove me wrong was a low blow. If you would of kept the radar at 2048. the whole time you did the test. then i would of been proven right, But since you changed the radar on many occations, i see you like to cheat to make yourself look right. lets see the first pic of the radar was set at 2048, the next pic was set at 8192(wich forces everything to be in the middle, so in fact the station would of been in section b). The next pic the radar was at 2048, the next was 8192, then 2048, 4096, 2048, and 2048.
Since you like to cheat and lie to get what you want, there is just no point to post anymore. Good day.
Are you completely insane? That number is the range. If I had set the radar to 2048, do you actually even believe we could have seen the station, which was over 4k away, on it? No! Of course we couldn't, so that's why the range is set to what it is. I changed the range WHEN I HAD TO DUE TO RANGE. Nothing else. Get your damn head out of your rear end.
Please do give up, I'm not going to miss arguing with someone who can't even loose an argument when they have ACTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE in front of their eyes. Leave, be gone, please.
Naquiel wrote:
lets see the first pic of the radar was set at 2048, the next pic was set at 8192(wich forces everything to be in the middle,
Vicotnik wrote:
Naquiel wrote:
lets see the first pic of the radar was set at 2048, the next pic was set at 8192(wich forces everything to be in the middle,
Oh, and another thing: Get in the damn game and test the radar some. THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS. The center is what is directly in front of you. Stand still anywhere within 3-4k of the space station in Corellia. Turn your radar settings to the lowest one (so that the station will be out of range), turn towards the space station and gradually increase the range. You will quite obviously notice that when the station pops into range on the radar, it will be in the center. THE RANGE DOES NOT WORK THE WAY YOU BELIEVE IT DOES. If you're at least trying to prove my EVIDENCE wrong, go take your own damn pictures. Don't just make slanderous accusations.
I do have the game and i do know how it works, by you changing the radar range you in fact forced the station to be in the middle of the screen when in fact the station would of been in section b, So in fact you lied to prove your point. So now you keep saying that im wrong, when in fact you knew i was right and you had to change the radar settings to make it look i was wrong, to me that is just wrong, you doing this shows that you will go at nothing to cheat and lie to get what you want and deserves no further debate from me.
So again good day.