These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dust build Update thread.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#1 - 2012-08-16 10:11:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Salpun
The Dust build has shown up on Sisi.


Lets get the changes documented.



Basic Dust release R4 Build 5607 update= ? MB Deployed 16 Aug 2012.

Reverted to Florance release build 7080 = 6 MB Deployed 16 Aug 2012

TQ update 1.2.5 was 16 MB Deployed 16 Aug 2012

Basic Dust release R4 Build 6245 Deployed 17 Aug 2012
Dust server fuctionality has been transfered over to Sisi.

Eve client 7.4.410429 down loadable and log in able. 75.37 MB down load Depoyed 27 Aug 2012
This build is older then what is currently on TQ

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=148266

Changes.







Issues.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Missile War
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-08-16 10:22:46 UTC
well, my sisi won't update for one...
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#3 - 2012-08-16 10:25:35 UTC
Missile War wrote:
well, my sisi won't update for one...


Not releasing the files so the launcher can update is a standard way to keep us off the server.Twisted

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Missile War
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-08-16 11:20:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Missile War
It's working now, but I can't see anything changed so far :S

edit:a bunch of new gallante catalysts*(Quafe Catalyst InterBus Catalyst Intaki Syndicate Catalyst Inner Zone Shipping Catalyst Aliastra Catalyst )

skins are all the same, must have show all on, and same stats it seems, but still ;o
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#5 - 2012-08-16 11:22:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Salpun
Missile War wrote:
It's working now, but I can't see anything changed so far :S

Went back to close to the current TQ build looks like.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Eraser TR
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS
#6 - 2012-08-16 19:11:57 UTC
Missiles from Guristas rats now appear to be doing thermal damage instead of kinetic, using inferno missiles instead of scourge.

So if that goes live on tranquility, literally everyone's PVE fits will now be nerfed if you're in an area with guristas.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#7 - 2012-08-16 19:14:50 UTC
Eraser TR wrote:
Missiles from Guristas rats now appear to be doing thermal damage instead of kinetic, using inferno missiles instead of scourge.

So if that goes live on tranquility, literally everyone's PVE fits will now be nerfed if you're in an area with guristas.

As the current Sisi build is lower then what is on TQ it was most likely reverted before it hit TQ.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Eraser TR
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS
#8 - 2012-08-16 19:22:56 UTC
Bit of a correction too. Putzing around more, there are still scourge torpedoes and cruise missiles from the battleships. But I very definitely encountered some inferno missiles from cruisers.

Time to log off and check tranquility.....
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#9 - 2012-08-16 19:25:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Salpun
Eraser TR wrote:
Bit of a correction too. Putzing around more, there are still scourge torpedoes and cruise missiles from the battleships. But I very definitely encountered some inferno missiles from cruisers.

Time to log off and check tranquility.....

Might be part of the exploit fix but if they went that route with the damage I would have expected more information.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2012-08-19 05:45:07 UTC
I'm so scared CCP is going ot make each paint job it's own ship instead of it being just paint.....

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Doomheim
#11 - 2012-08-19 06:49:56 UTC
Eraser TR wrote:
Missiles from Guristas rats now appear to be doing thermal damage instead of kinetic, using inferno missiles instead of scourge.

So if that goes live on tranquility, literally everyone's PVE fits will now be nerfed if you're in an area with guristas.


My heart bleeds for the carebears.
Oberine Noriepa
#12 - 2012-08-19 12:30:01 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
I'm so scared CCP is going ot make each paint job it's own ship instead of it being just paint.....

Pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't have a problem with it.

∃
non judgement
Without Fear
Flying Burning Ships Alliance
#13 - 2012-08-20 05:57:57 UTC
Oberine Noriepa wrote:
MotherMoon wrote:
I'm so scared CCP is going ot make each paint job it's own ship instead of it being just paint.....

Pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't have a problem with it.

I don't have a problem with it either. Not sure how it would be a bad thing.

But I doubt it will end up like that. I don't think they would want to update the details of every paint job ship when they modify a ship's bonuses/attributes.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#14 - 2012-08-20 09:47:58 UTC
non judgement wrote:
Oberine Noriepa wrote:
MotherMoon wrote:
I'm so scared CCP is going ot make each paint job it's own ship instead of it being just paint.....

Pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't have a problem with it.

I don't have a problem with it either. Not sure how it would be a bad thing.

But I doubt it will end up like that. I don't think they would want to update the details of every paint job ship when they modify a ship's bonuses/attributes.


I'm guessing it's a bad thing, since from the player perspective it's propably the worst and most inconvenient way to implement them. It screams of a lazy and crude hack instead of a well thought out ship customization system.

Just compare two potential systems in your mind. One is where each paintjob is tied to a separate ship with no way to change that paintjob and the other is a system where the paintjob is just added to an existing hull. In the first system you can potentially end up with a hangar full of copies of the same ship type, logistical nightmares and you're stuck with potentially very expensive hull/paintjob or changing the paintjobs is a hugely cumbersome loyalty point shop style transaction. Point is it sucks.

In the other system you just buy the paintjobs once and have them unlocked on your ship(s) type(s). Then you just choose the paintjob you want to use with your current ship from an easy to access and navigate menu. Easy to buy and use, no fuss, no logistical headaches, no ugly/expensive/redundant hangar ornaments. Alternatively you buy each paintjob individually and apply it to a ship like a rig or module. Still easy to use, exchange and move around, but the difference is, that the painjob is lost when the ship is lost. The actual details how it is done is somewhat secondary, but the point is, that requiring each paintjob to be an individual ship is propably one of the worst ways to implement ship customization.
Noriko Mai
#15 - 2012-08-20 20:05:18 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:

I'm guessing it's a bad thing, since from the player perspective it's propably the worst and most inconvenient way to implement them. It screams of a lazy and crude hack instead of a well thought out ship customization system.

Just compare two potential systems in your mind. One is where each paintjob is tied to a separate ship with no way to change that paintjob and the other is a system where the paintjob is just added to an existing hull. In the first system you can potentially end up with a hangar full of copies of the same ship type, logistical nightmares and you're stuck with potentially very expensive hull/paintjob or changing the paintjobs is a hugely cumbersome loyalty point shop style transaction. Point is it sucks.

In the other system you just buy the paintjobs once and have them unlocked on your ship(s) type(s). Then you just choose the paintjob you want to use with your current ship from an easy to access and navigate menu. Easy to buy and use, no fuss, no logistical headaches, no ugly/expensive/redundant hangar ornaments. Alternatively you buy each paintjob individually and apply it to a ship like a rig or module. Still easy to use, exchange and move around, but the difference is, that the painjob is lost when the ship is lost. The actual details how it is done is somewhat secondary, but the point is, that requiring each paintjob to be an individual ship is propably one of the worst ways to implement ship customization.


You're absolutely right. This would really be the worst possible solution. I hope and pray that it has some other purpose than paintjobs.

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
Velicitia
XS Tech
#16 - 2012-08-20 20:23:32 UTC
Noriko Mai wrote:
Destination SkillQueue wrote:

I'm guessing it's a bad thing, since from the player perspective it's propably the worst and most inconvenient way to implement them. It screams of a lazy and crude hack instead of a well thought out ship customization system.

Just compare two potential systems in your mind. One is where each paintjob is tied to a separate ship with no way to change that paintjob and the other is a system where the paintjob is just added to an existing hull. In the first system you can potentially end up with a hangar full of copies of the same ship type, logistical nightmares and you're stuck with potentially very expensive hull/paintjob or changing the paintjobs is a hugely cumbersome loyalty point shop style transaction. Point is it sucks.

In the other system you just buy the paintjobs once and have them unlocked on your ship(s) type(s). Then you just choose the paintjob you want to use with your current ship from an easy to access and navigate menu. Easy to buy and use, no fuss, no logistical headaches, no ugly/expensive/redundant hangar ornaments. Alternatively you buy each paintjob individually and apply it to a ship like a rig or module. Still easy to use, exchange and move around, but the difference is, that the painjob is lost when the ship is lost. The actual details how it is done is somewhat secondary, but the point is, that requiring each paintjob to be an individual ship is propably one of the worst ways to implement ship customization.


You're absolutely right. This would really be the worst possible solution. I hope and pray that it has some other purpose than paintjobs.


Perhaps it's just the "crude hack" that is needed so that people can see what they look like before going through the trouble of re-tooling the fittings to allow for changeable paintjobs ...


then again ~CCP~ ...

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