These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Issues, Workarounds & Localization

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

SMAs not dropping ships, large objects no longer dropping as loot

First post First post First post
Author
Death by Degrees
#41 - 2013-06-25 22:55:04 UTC
Arn Dog wrote:
Let me get this straight. CCP have changed a specific mechanism that means its not as tastey to gank someones P.O.S?

The changes mean its not possible to loot lets say a Rokh if you destroy a hanger in a W.H? well logically you shouldnt be able to loot any ship if you blow up the building it is within!


Looting intact spaceships from a hangar makes a lot more sense than looting intact modules from a spaceship with exploding fusion reactors.
#42 - 2013-06-26 00:00:26 UTC
Kmelx wrote:
Fix this s**t please.


What he said!

thakes the fun out of sieging posses everywhere!
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-06-26 03:58:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Wait, this STILL hasn't been fixed? *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
#44 - 2013-06-26 04:47:42 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
BUT IT WONT STOP ME TO BUMP THIS THREAD WITH MY BARE HANDS
OR WITH MY FEET

(beware CCP, or I'll begin to bump it with my private parts).

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Northern Coalition.
#45 - 2013-06-26 11:41:25 UTC
WInter Borne wrote:
I would agree, CCP needs to "fix" this issue. We lost out on several billions worth of ships recently.


As in yesterday? It was a busy day in that pipe...
#46 - 2013-06-26 13:09:16 UTC
Fix this please CCP....this is hardly a minor issue.
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2013-06-26 13:30:11 UTC
I have also experienced this and would like it fixed.

Seriously just have any assembled ships eject upon hangar destruction.
#48 - 2013-06-27 04:35:38 UTC
Judas Lonestar wrote:
Its not the fact the bug exists that bothers me. Bugs happen, its a fact of life. What really bothers me is how CCP is handling this. Its simply appalling to me support is quite literally saying "Working as intended, no reimbursement for you".


The GMs are mistaken, it is not actually working as intended, it's a recognised bug - if you wanted you could direct them to the bug report ID I posted on the first page as it's attached to a defect. However, you still won't get any form of reimbursement due to the aforementioned rules about who owns what is in a wreck and there's also a rule about not reimbursing 'potential gains' (though I seemed to manage to persuade a GM that this shouldn't apply to bugs, only to run into the wreck ownership rule).

Sorry, you're really not likely to get anything through your petition.
C C P Alliance
#49 - 2013-06-27 10:36:05 UTC
I think I can clarify a few things.

When it changed to its current behavior that change was made intentionally for performance reasons. Therefore it is not a "bug", but that doesn't mean it will always stay the way it is now either.
When something is considered "working as intended" that doesn't mean we're happy with every aspect of the design, but it does mean that there is a reason for the status quo.

We are aware of the significant downsides to the current mechanic and we're not married to the current design for SMA destruction but we can't promise anything specific about it at this time.

The GMs were not mistaken in their communication on this issue.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

#50 - 2013-06-27 11:30:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I think I can clarify a few things.

When it changed to its current behavior that change was made intentionally for performance reasons. Therefore it is not a "bug", but that doesn't mean it will always stay the way it is now either.
When something is considered "working as intended" that doesn't mean we're happy with every aspect of the design, but it does mean that there is a reason for the status quo.

We are aware of the significant downsides to the current mechanic and we're not married to the current design for SMA destruction but we can't promise anything specific about it at this time.

The GMs were not mistaken in their communication on this issue.


AKA: Dont hold your breath....

It seems like this would be higher on the list of things to do than making NOS's better. As stated by several in this thread it cuts out a lot of profit in POS bashing.
The 20 Minuters
#51 - 2013-06-27 12:56:02 UTC
I appreciate the clarification, although obviously it's disappointing to learn that there's not a fix on the horizon.
#52 - 2013-06-27 14:49:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Istyn
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I think I can clarify a few things.

When it changed to its current behavior that change was made intentionally for performance reasons. Therefore it is not a "bug", but that doesn't mean it will always stay the way it is now either.
When something is considered "working as intended" that doesn't mean we're happy with every aspect of the design, but it does mean that there is a reason for the status quo.

We are aware of the significant downsides to the current mechanic and we're not married to the current design for SMA destruction but we can't promise anything specific about it at this time.

The GMs were not mistaken in their communication on this issue.


Does this also apply to it affecting the behaviour of wrecks when salvaged and destroying any single item over the size of 27,500m3, and all plastic wraps no matter their size?
C C P Alliance
#53 - 2013-06-27 15:17:46 UTC
Istyn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I think I can clarify a few things.

When it changed to its current behavior that change was made intentionally for performance reasons. Therefore it is not a "bug", but that doesn't mean it will always stay the way it is now either.
When something is considered "working as intended" that doesn't mean we're happy with every aspect of the design, but it does mean that there is a reason for the status quo.

We are aware of the significant downsides to the current mechanic and we're not married to the current design for SMA destruction but we can't promise anything specific about it at this time.

The GMs were not mistaken in their communication on this issue.


Does this also apply to it affecting the behaviour of wrecks when salvaged and destroying any single item over the size of 27,500m3, and all plastic wraps no matter their size?


Yes, both that and the SMA behavior are caused by the same change.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Caldari State
#54 - 2013-06-27 15:39:47 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Fozzie... normally I don't rant but this is ridiculous, so you are telling me if I blow up an industrial ship carrying something in a plastic wrap I cannot get it no matter what? *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
seriously fix this, performance reasons or not, I m sure not that many freighters and poses explode simultaneously like to cause a serious hit on server performance if that was true, it would have been disabled ages ago and not recently..
Men with Fancy Hats
#55 - 2013-06-27 16:13:51 UTC
The blanket replies are getting worse and worse around here.......Shocked
#56 - 2013-06-27 16:16:59 UTC
Does this affect nullsec rats that often were dropping more loot (haulers) than regular can size? Will they now be always limited or if I am really lucky I get nothing because normally I would got big?
Bitten.
#57 - 2013-06-27 16:34:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Oxandrolone
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Istyn wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I think I can clarify a few things.

When it changed to its current behavior that change was made intentionally for performance reasons. Therefore it is not a "bug", but that doesn't mean it will always stay the way it is now either.
When something is considered "working as intended" that doesn't mean we're happy with every aspect of the design, but it does mean that there is a reason for the status quo.

We are aware of the significant downsides to the current mechanic and we're not married to the current design for SMA destruction but we can't promise anything specific about it at this time.

The GMs were not mistaken in their communication on this issue.


Does this also apply to it affecting the behaviour of wrecks when salvaged and destroying any single item over the size of 27,500m3, and all plastic wraps no matter their size?


Yes, both that and the SMA behavior are caused by the same change.


please start giving a **** about wormholes, this was one of the major conflict drivers.

For god sake hire a dev who lives in wormholes and who is aware of how changes like this screw them. We have Chitsa Jason and James Argent now on the CSM, they are both experienced wormholes. Either of them would shoot such a silly idea down in 5 seconds. I know this was changed before their term but still.

edit: not aiming this directly at you fozzie, not trying to shoot the messenger
#58 - 2013-06-27 18:13:59 UTC
I was wondering why no ship would ever drop from SMAs and other things.

The lack of transparency on the issue is rather disappointing.
Stranger Danger.
#59 - 2013-06-27 18:21:46 UTC
this is bullshite ccp you need to fix this this week not soon tm

╔╗║║ ╔╗║║╦ ╦ ╦╦╔╗ ╔╗ ╦╔╗╔╗╔╗ ║║╠╣ ╚╗╠╣║ ║ ║║╚╗ ╠╣ ║╠╣╠╣╠╝ ╚╝║║ ╚╝║║╩ ║ ╩║╚╝ ║║ ║║╚║║║

Goonswarm Federation
#60 - 2013-06-27 18:37:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Rutger Janssen
I wonder what causes such a big performance drop(I assume here that server/client performance would be problematic and not programmer performance(bugs fixed/day))?

The spawning of multiple containers? Just put it all in 1 container, who cares that it overloads? Can't scoop it as a container, can't put anything in because it's already full (and if you could, make it so you can't drop anything in like wrecks). Don't see a way that can be exploited.

The volume itself can't really be a problem.

Just the amount of items to be moved? Limit the number of items that are dropped in worst case. Best case, make moving items less expensive.

And if you want to gain some performance, when you install a t2 blueprint, don't have it assemble all the required R.A.M.s one by one and consumer them afterwards one by one :)
Forum Jump