Jump to content

Welcome to Dual Universe
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

New PLEX System in EVE, and What DACs can learn from it.

DACs PLEX Finance Trade Debate

  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#81
Hades

Hades

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Ruby Founder

Woah there horsey - what have DACs or EVE PLEXs have anything to do with what I said? I was specifically referring to shops selling in game items for RL cash - not subscription tokens like DACs or PLEXs, in a subscription based game. If I didn't like the idea of DACs, what the hell would I be doing here in the first place, since that was this game's model since the beginning of times. One which I fully support and see huge advantages of over "free to play" models.

 

The thing is, one of the advantages of having a subscription (supplemented with DACs) is specifically to NOT have in game 'cosmetic stores' and the like, which are a necessary evil for f2p games (and also a major reason why many such games eventually crumple under their own weight of priorities, through inevitably putting these stores as the top one). Having cosmetic stores starts a slippery slope of what design concepts are 'held back' from the game, in favour of selling as cosmetics, versus earning or creating them in game. Furthered only by what is considered "cosmetic", like camouflaged armor or bright reflective surfaces on ships that make their silhouette nearly invisible against the background of something like a sun, and eventually concluded by items that really are more than simply 'cosmetic'. As happened with every single game to date.

 

So no, I'm sorry but I will have to vehemently disagree with you here (I think? Sorry if I'm a bit confused over your post). I fully love, support and embrace the idea of subscription, DACs, and DACs earning and trading for RL currency, because I don't want to see in game RL currency shops for in game items.

So much this x100.

 

The only thing that has me worried over what DU has ever said, was when they mentioned a potential cosmetic store.  Practically the only posts I reply on are those about cosmetics... because it IS that important.

 

Best to just keep it out of the game, and I sincerely hope that's the route they choose.



#82
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3727 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

Woah there horsey - what have DACs or EVE PLEXs have anything to do with what I said? I was specifically referring to shops selling in game items for RL cash - not subscription tokens like DACs or PLEXs, in a subscription based game. If I didn't like the idea of DACs, what the hell would I be doing here in the first place, since that was this game's model since the beginning of times. One which I fully support and see huge advantages of over "free to play" models. As I've already stated in every single other thread addressing that point.

 

The thing is, one of the advantages of having a subscription (supplemented with DACs) is specifically to NOT have in game 'cosmetic stores' and the like, which are a necessary evil for f2p games (and also a major reason why many such games eventually crumple under their own weight of priorities, through inevitably putting these stores as the top one). Having cosmetic stores starts a slippery slope of what design concepts are 'held back' from the game, in favour of selling as cosmetics, versus earning or creating them in game. Furthered only by what is considered "cosmetic", like camouflaged armor or bright reflective surfaces on ships that make their silhouette nearly invisible against the background of something like a sun, and eventually concluded by items that really are more than simply 'cosmetic'. As happened with every single game to date.

 

So no, I'm sorry but I will have to vehemently disagree with you here (I think? Sorry if I'm a bit confused over your post). I fully love, support and embrace the idea of subscription, DACs, and DACs earning and trading for RL currency, because I don't want to see in game RL currency shops for in game items.

Well, then, you should have quoted the person you were talking to, that quote was quite the misunderstading..

Also, I didn't knew LADARs, RADARs and other scanners were confused by something low-tech... like a paintjob. Who knew that stleath bombers' real strength came out of their black accents on their hull. :|

Regardless, ships being sold is a no-no from the get-go for voxel-building reasons. But cosmetics is something you gotta see from a certain perspective.

Here's the REALITY of things.

1) The dev team designs a new turret to add in an expansion. The Turret is called "T-Motor Vitriol Artillery". 

2) The Lead Game Designer asks for the art team to come up with 3 models as a concept.

3) The Art Team then builds 3 Mesh Soilds for the concept arts provided. They animate those 3 prototypes of turrets and have them ready for a "beauty pageant".

4) The Dev Team sees if the new turrets fit into the art style of the game.

5) They choose their turret they like.

Now, think about this. The 2 other turrets? They may appeal to a certain part of the playerbase more. They may be funny looking, or whatever. NQ only has to have them as an OPTIONAL model that's cosmetic only. They MADE the model of the gun early on when developing it.

And let's be honest, paint jobs are the easiest thing to do. NQ can have 3 guys doing that - which is more than what most companies invest into such parts of the game.

Now, I would ACCEPT people saying "wait, more 3D mesh objects variations on the screen meeans more RAM allocation, means drop in performance in large battles". I WOULD ACCEPT THAT ARGUEMENT.

But since people are just "NAWWWWS, I DON'T WANTZ DIS", I'll just treat people as pulling argueemtns out of their rear.

I mean, someone has to know what they are talking about here. I guess that would have to be me.



#83
Volkier

Volkier

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Gold Founder

Well, then, you should have quoted the person you were talking to, that quote was quite the misunderstading..

Also, I didn't knew LADARs, RADARs and other scanners were confused by something low-tech... like a paintjob. Who knew that stleath bombers' real strength came out of their black accents on their hull. :|

Regardless, ships being sold is a no-no from the get-go for voxel-building reasons. But cosmetics is something you gotta see from a certain perspective.

Here's the REALITY of things.

1) The dev team designs a new turret to add in an expansion. The Turret is called "T-Motor Vitriol Artillery". 

2) The Lead Game Designer asks for the art team to come up with 3 models as a concept.

3) The Art Team then builds 3 Mesh Soilds for the concept arts provided. They animate those 3 prototypes of turrets and have them ready for a "beauty pageant".

4) The Dev Team sees if the new turrets fit into the art style of the game.

5) They choose their turret they like.

Now, think about this. The 2 other turrets? They may appeal to a certain part of the playerbase more. They may be funny looking, or whatever. NQ only has to have them as an OPTIONAL model that's cosmetic only. They MADE the model of the gun early on when developing it.

And let's be honest, paint jobs are the easiest thing to do. NQ can have 3 guys doing that - which is more than what most companies invest into such parts of the game.

Now, I would ACCEPT people saying "wait, more 3D mesh objects variations on the screen meeans more RAM allocation, means drop in performance in large battles". I WOULD ACCEPT THAT ARGUEMENT.

But since people are just "NAWWWWS, I DON'T WANTZ DIS", I'll just treat people as pulling argueemtns out of their rear.

I mean, someone has to know what they are talking about here. I guess that would have to be me.

 

I just replied to the thread rather than quoting a specific post. Didn't read the whole thing, so sorry if I confused you in the process - wasn't my intent.

 

As for everything else, I stand by my argument and feel I've explained why "I don't wantz itz" already, in this and other threads specifically addressing the subject of cash shops.



#84
Ripper

Ripper

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 538 posts
  • Gold Founder

I believe the "paint job" IS part of the US stealth technology. 

 

But agreed on the turret models.

 

One of the things I liked about Star Citizen was the different "ship manufactures" had distinctly different designs and feel to them.  It would be nice to have management give the same project to three different designers and accept the models as being from 3 different manufacturers.  Unfortunately, that's trippling their work, and doesn't add anything but aesthetics. 

 

But it would be cool to have the same elements that look industrial, biological, retro, and contemporary...



#85
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3727 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

I believe the "paint job" IS part of the US stealth technology. 

 

But agreed on the turret models.

 

One of the things I liked about Star Citizen was the different "ship manufactures" had distinctly different designs and feel to them.  It would be nice to have management give the same project to three different designers and accept the models as being from 3 different manufacturers.  Unfortunately, that's trippling their work, and doesn't add anything but aesthetics. 

 

But it would be cool to have the same elements that look industrial, biological, retro, and contemporary...

Agreed. It's either NQ adding the alternative turret models as "cosmetic mesh", or at least, reusing the "Disgarded" models, as some sort of alternative to the standard model, i.e. having some sort of "innovation" system, that allows a person to manufacture the same kind of weapon, only slightly different in some fields - maybe higher tracking speeds or soemthing - represented y a different type of turret model. Experienced players that way can look at a ship's gun and be like "yeah, this thing is a plasma cannon, but it's not the normal one, tihhs one has higher rate of fire cause it has 4 cannons instead of the usual 3 on its model".

Between a cosmetic shop and the latter, I would always choose the latter. It adds to the gameplay. However 3D meshes and Sticekrs (like a Hello Kitty one) are not the same. That's what I'm saying. 


P.S. : Not really, the paint job is just a visual detection hinderance, it's already outdated with more and more thermal vision technology being used and becoming more accessible. The Stealth Bombers "stealth" comes from the fact they are able to "glide" their way to a target on approach, with thier shape designed to refract radar beams without reflectign them back (RADARs work by detecting their signal beign reflected). IF you were to look up in the sky, you COULD hear a stealth bomber fly over, or glide over. And surprsie, Stealth Bombers only work on "Approach". They need precise intelligence of where a radar unit is so they can zero in on it to avoid being detected. If the radar beams hit them on the side, they are going to be visible. It's science, not magic after all :P


The problem with paintjobs on SPACESHIPS, is that on the background of 3 Kelvin in space, ANYTHING stands out like a firework on a thermal scanner or even better and more logically, a LADAR (like a radar, but it can detect all light and obviously twice as fast, as it doesn't have to shine light to detect it).



#86
ostris

ostris

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • LocationAustin Texas
  • Gold Founder

Agreed. It's either NQ adding the alternative turret models as "cosmetic mesh", or at least, reusing the "Disgarded" models, as some sort of alternative to the standard model, i.e. having some sort of "innovation" system, that allows a person to manufacture the same kind of weapon, only slightly different in some fields - maybe higher tracking speeds or soemthing - represented y a different type of turret model. Experienced players that way can look at a ship's gun and be like "yeah, this thing is a plasma cannon, but it's not the normal one, tihhs one has higher rate of fire cause it has 4 cannons instead of the usual 3 on its model".

Between a cosmetic shop and the latter, I would always choose the latter. It adds to the gameplay. However 3D meshes and Sticekrs (like a Hello Kitty one) are not the same. That's what I'm saying. 


P.S. : Not really, the paint job is just a visual detection hinderance, it's already outdated with more and more thermal vision technology being used and becoming more accessible. The Stealth Bombers "stealth" comes from the fact they are able to "glide" their way to a target on approach, with thier shape designed to refract radar beams without reflectign them back (RADARs work by detecting their signal beign reflected). IF you were to look up in the sky, you COULD hear a stealth bomber fly over, or glide over. And surprsie, Stealth Bombers only work on "Approach". They need precise intelligence of where a radar unit is so they can zero in on it to avoid being detected. If the radar beams hit them on the side, they are going to be visible. It's science, not magic after all :P


The problem with paintjobs on SPACESHIPS, is that on the background of 3 Kelvin in space, ANYTHING stands out like a firework on a thermal scanner or even better and more logically, a LADAR (like a radar, but it can detect all light and obviously twice as fast, as it doesn't have to shine light to detect it).

Kinda off topic but do you have any source on the info about stealth bombers....


  • SegaPhoenix likes this

#87
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3727 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

Kinda off topic but do you have any source on the info about stealth bombers....

Is my name Google?



#88
ostris

ostris

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • LocationAustin Texas
  • Gold Founder

Is my name Google?

Well google doesn't agree with anything you say...so that's why i asked for a source


  • SegaPhoenix likes this

#89
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3727 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

Well google doesn't agree with anything you say...so that's why i asked for a source

lol

Please, give me a link on a source that says stealth bombers' trick is their paintjob. If their paintjob was absorb the radar-waves, it only means the bomber is more easily discerned on thermal scans - you know, the easily accessible tech nowadays. If you confused infrared stealth on frigates with infrared stealth on bombers, you did something terribly wrong. But you do know that FRIGATES in our world are ships and not spaceships, right??? I hope you do. 

Radar-Cross-Section reduction means the Bomber won't be seen until a certain range from the radar, NOT that it will be invisible from it full way. It's why the Locheed Stealth Fighters have a lot of speed. And again, they are built for being used with intelligence. They won't approach a position like it's a Battlefield game session. Also, the aircraft's shape? Yeah, it only reduces the signature radius on the radar, possibly confusing radar operators thinking it's a bird, you know, it's Stealth, not Magic.

Now, if you confused Aircraft exterior design for the paintjob itself, you are totally, hilariously, wrong. Stealth Pilots wear bulky suits, cause the stealth bombers are built to trap radiation from radars inside them in order to mitigate reflecting it - for a certain length of time, this is not the MAss Effect space-magic universe, heat-sinks eventually melt. And even then, if the ship is scanned by mobile radars - they exist - or UAVs that fly above them (yes they do), the stealth bomber's wooping 50 meters WINGSPAN is not gonna do it any good. It's gonna stand out like a thief dressed in black in a Pink Panther furry convention.



#90
ostris

ostris

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • LocationAustin Texas
  • Gold Founder

lol

Please, give me a link on a source that says stealth bombers' trick is their paintjob. If their paintjob was absorb the radar-waves, it only means the bomber is more easily discerned on thermal scans - you know, the easily accessible tech nowadays. If you confused infrared stealth on frigates with infrared stealth on bombers, you did something terribly wrong. But you do know that FRIGATES in our world are ships and not spaceships, right??? I hope you do. 

Radar-Cross-Section reduction means the Bomber won't be seen until a certain range from the radar, NOT that it will be invisible from it full way. It's why the Locheed Stealth Fighters have a lot of speed. And again, they are built for being used with intelligence. They won't approach a position like it's a Battlefield game session. Also, the aircraft's shape? Yeah, it only reduces the signature radius on the radar, possibly confusing radar operators thinking it's a bird, you know, it's Stealth, not Magic.

Now, if you confused Aircraft exterior design for the paintjob itself, you are totally, hilariously, wrong. Stealth Pilots wear bulky suits, cause the stealth bombers are built to trap radiation from radars inside them in order to mitigate reflecting it - for a certain length of time, this is not the MAss Effect space-magic universe, heat-sinks eventually melt. And even then, if the ship is scanned by mobile radars - they exist - or UAVs that fly above them (yes they do), the stealth bomber's wooping 50 meters WINGSPAN is not gonna do it any good. It's gonna stand out like a thief dressed in black in a Pink Panther furry convention.

Look i really didn't want to get into a debate i just wanted some source about your info.

 

But ill bite:

Your original statement: "Not really, the paint job is just a visual detection hinderance...."

 

http://science.howst...lth-bomber4.htm

 

The B-2 has two major defenses against radar detection. The first element is the plane's radar-absorbent surface. The radio waves used in radar are electromagnetic energy, just like light waves. In the same way that certain materials absorb light very well (black paint, for example), some materials are particularly good at absorbing radio waves. The B-2's body is mainly composed of composite material -- combinations of various lightweight substances. The composite material used in the B-2 bomber is specifically designed to absorb radio energy with optimum efficiency. Parts of the B-2, such as the leading edge, are also covered in advanced radio-absorbent paint and tape. These materials are very expensive, and the Air Force has to reapply them regularly. After every flight, repair crews have to spend many hours examining the B-2 to make sure it's fit for stealth missions

 

https://en.wikipedia...ology#Materials

Radar-absorbing material

Radar-absorbent material (RAM), often as paints, are used especially on the edges of metal surfaces. While the material and thickness of RAM coatings can vary, the way they work is the same: absorb radiated energy from a ground or air based radar station into the coating and convert it to heat rather than reflect it back.[33] Current technologies include dielectric composites and metal fibers containing ferrite isotopes. Paint comprises depositing pyramid like colonies on the reflecting superficies with the gaps filled with ferrite-based RAM. The pyramidal structure deflects the incident radar energy in the maze of RAM. A commonly used material is known as "Iron Ball Paint‟.[34] Iron ball paint contains microscopic iron spheres that resonate in tune with incoming radio waves and dissipate the majority of their energy as heat, leaving little to bounce back to detectors. FSS are planar periodic structures that behave like filters to electromagnetic energy. The considered frequency selective surfaces are composed of conducting patch elements pasted on the ferrite layer. FSS are used for filtration and microwave absorption.

 

Im not sure what your heat sink comment is about, i would assume the amount of heat generated by this approach is not easily detectable as it is probably dissipated into the air.  The B-2 is capable of all-altitude attack missions up to 50,000 feet. Air temp at 50k is -70F (http://www.engineeri...here-d_604.html)

 

Its not the primary source of radar reduction but it is relevant and important enough that they spend a lot of money developing RAM paints and maintaining them on these plans.

 

 

As far as this statement: "If the radar beams hit them on the side, they are going to be visible. It's science, not magic after all"

 

http://science.howst...lth-bomber4.htm

 

The stealth bomber's peculiar shape deflects radio beams in both ways. The large flat areas on the top and bottom of the plane are just like tilted mirrors. These flat areas will deflect most radio beams away from the station, presuming the station isn't directly beneath the plane.

The plane itself also works like a curved mirror, particularly in the front section. The entire plane has no sharp, angled edges -- every surface is curved in order to deflect radio waves. The curves are designed to bounce almost all radio waves away at an angle.

 

All in all i just asked for where you got this info cause I was mostly curious about it. Maybe my googling is all wrong just asked for source about where you go your info. Doesn't need to turn into a whole debate, just post some links.


  • SegaPhoenix and Kurosawa like this

#91
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3727 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

Look i really didn't want to get into a debate i just wanted some source about your info.

 

But ill bite:

Your original statement: "Not really, the paint job is just a visual detection hinderance...."

 

http://science.howst...lth-bomber4.htm

 

The B-2 has two major defenses against radar detection. The first element is the plane's radar-absorbent surface. The radio waves used in radar are electromagnetic energy, just like light waves. In the same way that certain materials absorb light very well (black paint, for example), some materials are particularly good at absorbing radio waves. The B-2's body is mainly composed of composite material -- combinations of various lightweight substances. The composite material used in the B-2 bomber is specifically designed to absorb radio energy with optimum efficiency. Parts of the B-2, such as the leading edge, are also covered in advanced radio-absorbent paint and tape. These materials are very expensive, and the Air Force has to reapply them regularly. After every flight, repair crews have to spend many hours examining the B-2 to make sure it's fit for stealth missions

 

https://en.wikipedia...ology#Materials

Radar-absorbing material

Radar-absorbent material (RAM), often as paints, are used especially on the edges of metal surfaces. While the material and thickness of RAM coatings can vary, the way they work is the same: absorb radiated energy from a ground or air based radar station into the coating and convert it to heat rather than reflect it back.[33] Current technologies include dielectric composites and metal fibers containing ferrite isotopes. Paint comprises depositing pyramid like colonies on the reflecting superficies with the gaps filled with ferrite-based RAM. The pyramidal structure deflects the incident radar energy in the maze of RAM. A commonly used material is known as "Iron Ball Paint‟.[34] Iron ball paint contains microscopic iron spheres that resonate in tune with incoming radio waves and dissipate the majority of their energy as heat, leaving little to bounce back to detectors. FSS are planar periodic structures that behave like filters to electromagnetic energy. The considered frequency selective surfaces are composed of conducting patch elements pasted on the ferrite layer. FSS are used for filtration and microwave absorption.

 

Im not sure what your heat sink comment is about, i would assume the amount of heat generated by this approach is not easily detectable as it is probably dissipated into the air.  The B-2 is capable of all-altitude attack missions up to 50,000 feet. Air temp at 50k is -70F (http://www.engineeri...here-d_604.html)

 

Its not the primary source of radar reduction but it is relevant and important enough that they spend a lot of money developing RAM paints and maintaining them on these plans.

 

 

As far as this statement: "If the radar beams hit them on the side, they are going to be visible. It's science, not magic after all"

 

http://science.howst...lth-bomber4.htm

 

The stealth bomber's peculiar shape deflects radio beams in both ways. The large flat areas on the top and bottom of the plane are just like tilted mirrors. These flat areas will deflect most radio beams away from the station, presuming the station isn't directly beneath the plane.

The plane itself also works like a curved mirror, particularly in the front section. The entire plane has no sharp, angled edges -- every surface is curved in order to deflect radio waves. The curves are designed to bounce almost all radio waves away at an angle.

 

All in all i just asked for where you got this info cause I was mostly curious about it. Maybe my googling is all wrong just asked for source about where you go your info. Doesn't need to turn into a whole debate, just post some links.

Good for you to ignore the Radar-Cross-Section. You know, the real part of how Stealth Bombers work. I guess that part didn't write "here is paint possible answer" on Wikipedia, right?

You just agreed with me on all the above you copied. It would have helped if you didn't skim over the facts. 

Also, the altitude an aircraft can fly and the altitude it actually needs to fly, are not the same. Just as an air-carrier can technically go "forever", it doesn't mean its crew can go forever. That's why carriers, need either to be resupplied or reach a port. And on top of that, do not mix what the Lockheed U-2 planes are equipped with and what Stealth Bombers are equipped with. U-2s are meant to fly and take air-photos, cause they are very, VERY lightweight. Bombers weight 70 tons without payload. Guess which one of those two will fly at a low altitude, cause, you know, it's not fuelled by unicorns' piss. U-2s can afford to reach maximum altitude, Bombers not so much. Yugoslavia downed a Lockeed Nighthawk in 1999 you know. It was perfectly hidden... until it wasn't. I guess that paint didn't do it any good, uh?

U-2s are the main recipient of R.A.M. parts, the stealth recon, not B-2s, the stealth bomber. You know, cause you don't really need a nuke bomber, when drones exist.

Also, you clearly missed the fact RAM paints are coating edges, while the rest of the ship's design does the heavy lifting for stealth. But do go skim wikipedia and copy paste paragraphs out of anything you can. I'll be waiting.

I could go on, but you proven you are a wall of knowledge. Pardon me for not picking a fight with another brick in the wall.



#92
ostris

ostris

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • LocationAustin Texas
  • Gold Founder

Good for you to ignore the Radar-Cross-Section. You know, the real part of how Stealth Bombers work. I guess that part didn't write "here is paint possible answer" on Wikipedia, right?

You just agreed with me on all the above you copied. It would have helped if you didn't skim over the facts. 

Also, the altitude an aircraft can fly and the altitude it actually needs to fly, are not the same. Just as an air-carrier can technically go "forever", it doesn't mean its crew can go forever. That's why carriers, need either to be resupplied or reach a port. And on top of that, do not mix what the Lockheed U-2 planes are equipped with and what Stealth Bombers are equipped with. U-2s are meant to fly and take air-photos, cause they are very, VERY lightweight. Bombers weight 70 tons without payload. Guess which one of those two will fly at a low altitude, cause, you know, it's not fuelled by unicorns' piss. U-2s can afford to reach maximum altitude, Bombers not so much. Yugoslavia downed a Lockeed Nighthawk in 1999 you know. It was perfectly hidden... until it wasn't. I guess that paint didn't do it any good, uh?

U-2s are the main recipient of R.A.M. parts, the stealth recon, not B-2s, the stealth bomber. You know, cause you don't really need a nuke bomber, when drones exist.

Also, you clearly missed the fact RAM paints are coating edges, while the rest of the ship's design does the heavy lifting for stealth. But do go skim wikipedia and copy paste paragraphs out of anything you can. I'll be waiting.

I could go on, but you proven you are a wall of knowledge. Pardon me for not picking a fight with another brick in the wall.

Sigh, shouldn't have bothered. Still no sources, guess links were just to hard. Once again doesn't need to be a debate just post links supporting your original posts statements(not the moving the goal post arguments you put forward later) of:

 

-"Not really, the paint job is just a visual detection hinderance....."

-"And surprsie, Stealth Bombers only work on "Approach""

-"If the radar beams hit them on the side, they are going to be visible"

-"Stealth Bombers "stealth" comes from the fact they are able to "glide" their way to a target on approach"

 

That's all i asked for originally, does not matter if I'm wrong or right in anything I said, and all this debating you still have yet to put forward anything of actually proof or source information of any kind to the above statements you made.


  • SegaPhoenix and Kurosawa like this

#93
0something0

0something0

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Guys, lets never post on this thread again.

 

Why has a discussion about the EVE online PLEX system degenerated into an argument about Stealth Bombers?



#94
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3727 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

Guys, lets never post on this thread again.

 

Why has a discussion about the EVE online PLEX system degenerated into an argument about Stealth Bombers?

That's an easy answer, because reasons.



#95
Noblehouse

Noblehouse

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

plex is smart

CCP ern money player can ern money from money there is already paid 

an when you blow up ships yeah if not you gather the money  minerals BPO your selv af build it you can buy a plex sell the plex for gametime money ingame  an buy a ship from other players

its perfect in anyway..



#96
ChatterFreeze

ChatterFreeze

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Ruby Founder

I believe splitting it into 500 pieces would do lots of good for the economy.



#97
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3727 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

I believe splitting it into 500 pieces would do lots of good for the economy.

No it won't.

EVE gets to do that because they merged it with Aurum (1 PLEX = 500 Aurum when converted).

Now it's 500 PLEX, plain and simple.

Problem is, DU has no plans for cosmetic shops like EVE, so it's pointless.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: DACs, PLEX, Finance, Trade, Debate

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users