These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Probes and Probe Launchers Charge/Launcher group wording discrepancies.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eric Agerwal
Cryosoft
#1 - 2012-07-19 14:28:20 UTC
Expanded Probe Launcher I and Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher say under the attributes tab:
Used with chargegroup : Scanner Probe & Survey Probe

Core Probe Launcher I, Core Probe Launcher II, Sisters Core Probe Launcher
Used with chargegroup: Scanner Probe

When you do a Market Browse of Probes under the classification:
Ammunition & Charges -> Probes
There are 3 sub groups.
Interdiction Probes (will ignore these)
Scan Probes (containing)
Combat Scanner Probe I
Core Scanner Probe I
Deep Space Scanner Probe I
RSS Core Scanner Probe
Sisters Combat Scanner Probe
Sisters Core Scanner Probe
Sisters Deep Space Scanner Probe
Each of thse says : Use with launchergroup : Scan Probe Launcher
Survey Probes
Discovery Survey Probe I
Gaze Survey Probe I
Quest Survey Probe I
Each of thse says : Use with launchergroup : Scan Probe Launcher


Well had the descriptions been accurate & synchronised , Survey Probes would say use with launchergroup Expanded Probe Launcher.

But the lunacy doesn't end there. Per a petition I filed:
In fact the Expanded Probe Launchers are for use with Combat Probes (& probes of larger size - whatever that means?)
The expanded probe launchers are supposed to be able to hold more charges too. So sounds a better deal all round to go for them.

If it was just Combat probes - you'd think we'd have a Combat Probe chargegroup instead of Survey Probe charge group - seeing as they appear to use the Scan Probe Laucher.

Not CCP's finest hour!
If you have comments to add pertaining to the vagueness of 'larger sized probes' , feel free to share the wealth. :-)
Kyle Ward
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-07-19 14:46:25 UTC
Still better than "(+5% Velocity Reduction)^(-1) per level"

The Sandbox, you're playing it wrong!
Jafit
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-07-19 14:56:07 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Eric Agerwal wrote:

Not CCP's finest hour!
If you have comments to add pertaining to the vagueness of 'larger sized probes' , feel free to share the wealth. :-)


-snip- Edited to delete offensive remark. - ISD Tyrozan
Eric Agerwal
Cryosoft
#4 - 2012-07-21 16:01:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Eric Agerwal
I finally got the clariification from the GM about what ' larger probe types' means:
"The larger probes are called combat probes and deep space space probes and survey probes. All of these probes require the expanded probe launcher to be used".
Since this is the case I think all those Probes should all say that the launchergroup is Expanded Probe Launcher, not the Scanner Probe Launcher. Confusion would then be resolved.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#5 - 2012-07-21 16:11:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Eric Agerwal wrote:
Well had the descriptions been accurate & synchronised , Survey Probes would say use with launchergroup Expanded Probe Launcher.
…but that's not a launcher group — that's a launcher type. All probes are loaded into probe launchers, as opposed to missile launchers or dictor sphere launchers. The description is entirely accurate (if a bit opaque since it refers to behind-the-scenes attributes rather than anything that the payer really needs to be concerned about).
Eric Agerwal
Cryosoft
#6 - 2012-07-22 19:43:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Eric Agerwal
Tippia wrote:
…but that's not a launcher group — that's a launcher type. ... it refers to behind-the-scenes attributes rather than anything that the player really needs to be concerned about.

Ok. I concede I did not make the subtle distinction between type and group. Then just tag group to end of expanded description. That would be far more intuitive.
However, I beg to differ. I definitely think it is something the player needs to concern themself with. If he/she gets some combat probes and finds the generic probe launcher he/she just bought won't fire then, he/she will be pretty peeved for the duff purchase! I fell into that very trap myself.
Noriko Mai
#7 - 2012-07-22 20:01:25 UTC
Is it so hard to post you ideas in F&I?

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
Eric Agerwal
Cryosoft
#8 - 2012-07-23 13:47:01 UTC
Noriko Mai wrote:
Is it so hard to post you ideas in F&I?

No idea what you mean by that. So until I do I guess it is!
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-07-23 14:13:57 UTC
Eric Agerwal wrote:
Noriko Mai wrote:
Is it so hard to post you ideas in F&I?

No idea what you mean by that. So until I do I guess it is!

Features and Ideas Discussion
Eric Agerwal
Cryosoft
#10 - 2012-07-23 21:13:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Eric Agerwal
Cebraio wrote:

Features and Ideas Discussion

Thanks for the enlightenment. Will do in future. Is there a way I can administer thread myself and move it there? (I have another thread going that probably would be better suited there too now that I know.
Pipa Porto
#11 - 2012-07-23 21:37:17 UTC
Eric Agerwal wrote:
Cebraio wrote:

Features and Ideas Discussion

Thanks for the enlightenment. Will do in future. Is there a way I can administer thread myself and move it there? (I have another thread going that probably would be better suited there too now that I know.


Just report your OP and ask for the move. Should get moved reasonably quickly.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Shameless Avenger
Can Preachers of Kador
#12 - 2012-07-23 22:12:08 UTC
I bet the op bought the wrong launcher for the probes and got mad. I know, it happened to me to. Maybe CCP FoxFour could sprinkle some dev dust on this, just like he did with the auto-targeting missiles (dev blog).

"This is the Ninja. He will scan you down; he will salvage your wrecks and there shall be no aggro"
Shameless Avenger
Can Preachers of Kador
#13 - 2012-07-23 22:13:32 UTC
Cebraio wrote:

Features and Ideas Discussion


That's where good ideas go to die Cry

"This is the Ninja. He will scan you down; he will salvage your wrecks and there shall be no aggro"
ISD Dosnix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#14 - 2012-07-24 20:19:39 UTC
Moved to Features&Ideas Discussion
Have a nice Day Big smile
ISD Dosnix

[b]ISD Dosnix Lieutenant Community Communication Liasons (CCL) Interstellar Service Department[/b]
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#15 - 2012-07-24 20:45:18 UTC
As Tippia pointed out, it's working as intended and works exactly like it says it does. There is only one group for scan/survey probe launchers and having two would be pointless. If there were two groups, core probes would need both attributes. Wheras if you leave it as-is and simply remember that anything other than core probes won't fit in a core launcher, than everything works perfectly as intended.
Eric Agerwal
Cryosoft
#16 - 2012-07-31 19:35:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Eric Agerwal
mxzf wrote:
As Tippia pointed out, it's working as intended and works exactly like it says it does. There is only one group for scan/survey probe launchers and having two would be pointless. If there were two groups, core probes would need both attributes. Wheras if you leave it as-is and simply remember that anything other than core probes won't fit in a core launcher, than everything works perfectly as intended.

Don't care what you say. There's no way you can convince me. The naming of the groups and the correlation to the market classifications is at odds with each other. And totally bafling using the names given.
It's the whoel point of having to remember idoesyncratic stuff vs intutitive naming that I am at odds with. Why not have a comma seperated list of probe types a launcher can use that corresponds to the market classifications. That sort of thinking is logical...
Pipa Porto
#17 - 2012-07-31 19:46:49 UTC
Eric Agerwal wrote:
Don't care what you say. There's no way you can convince me.


Great. That means you're not interested in debate. At all.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Velicitia
XS Tech
#18 - 2012-07-31 19:50:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Velicitia
Eric Agerwal wrote:
mxzf wrote:
As Tippia pointed out, it's working as intended and works exactly like it says it does. There is only one group for scan/survey probe launchers and having two would be pointless. If there were two groups, core probes would need both attributes. Wheras if you leave it as-is and simply remember that anything other than core probes won't fit in a core launcher, than everything works perfectly as intended.

Don't care what you say. There's no way you can convince me. The naming of the groups and the correlation to the market classifications is at odds with each other. And totally bafling using the names given.
It's the whoel point of having to remember idoesyncratic stuff vs intutitive naming that I am at odds with. Why not have a comma seperated list of probe types a launcher can use that corresponds to the market classifications. That sort of thinking is logical...



Core Probe Launcher --> The small launcher in the launchergroup "Scan Probe Launcher".
Expanded Launcher --> The "big" launcher in the launchergroup "Scan Probe Launcher".

This is opposed to the launchergroup "Missile Launcher Heavy" (i.e. Heavy [Assault] Missile Launcher) that fires Mjolnir Heavy Missiles...

mx/tippia is right --> the "group" is really a backend database name that we "shouldn't" be seeing.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia