These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

the how to correctly seed supers/officer mods thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
hellswindstaff
Syndicate Enterprise
Sigma Grindset
#21 - 2014-07-17 22:02:52 UTC
dropping a nyx on something with a cyno takes no skill

1.intel
2.exit cyno
3.alts
4. usual a member of a supercap heavy entity to save you if u get into trouble.
cheekybot Rotineque
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2014-07-17 22:05:48 UTC
hellswindstaff wrote:
dropping a nyx on something with a cyno takes no skill

1.intel
2.exit cyno
3.alts
4. usual a member of a supercap heavy entity to save you if u get into trouble.




read the link i provided
hellswindstaff
Syndicate Enterprise
Sigma Grindset
#23 - 2014-07-17 22:09:07 UTC
cheekybot Rotineque wrote:
hellswindstaff wrote:
dropping a nyx on something with a cyno takes no skill

1.intel
2.exit cyno
3.alts
4. usual a member of a supercap heavy entity to save you if u get into trouble.




read the link i provided


member of Tri.....not amazed by that and i knew who you was talking about.....
10 cyno alts and intel is what makes thar possible.....not being an amazeballs nyx pilot. the ship moves like an old bus cant do much
OMEGA REDUX
Last Resort Inn
#24 - 2014-07-17 22:16:23 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
How long does it take to build a super?
How long between mirrors in this new development cycle?
how long does it take to upgrade sov from 0 to build a super in the first place?
If i dont have the correct roles in my alliance to build supercaps, but still want to test supers that i can fly, i have to get someone else to give me roles every two months, to build a cap on sisi?

CCP is talking about trying to do a mirror once every 2-3 weeks which makes super building impossible as the total build time is too long to either get the builds done or it would finish hours before a new mirror. They are also thinking about making an implant to speed up manu time for sisi but just seeding these things would be a much better solution.
GreenSeed
#25 - 2014-07-18 00:28:14 UTC
The problem here is people mixing the request to have faster super build time, or supers seeded, with people asking for officer modules... those two crowds are not the same.

one has a sensible request so they can test run ships before they commit months and sometimes years of work into buying their first super hull. so they can get used to the limits and physics of supers, do training drops to get new pilots or would-be pilots acquainted with mechanics, doctrines, extractions, etc etc. the other group is a bunch of people who think pvping in 1k isk officer fit machariels is fun.

im sorry "elite pvpers" but you will not get sympathy or support for your request, and trying to tangle both requests into one wont do either.

hopefully we can get some middle ground for the super situation. would be nice to be at least able to build them without SOV or system upgrades. this would still allow CCP to have the build code and POS code still run and get used by players on the test environment, the shorter timers and the lack of restrictions shouldn't be a problem or a big "contamination" on their test results.
Comodore John
4S Corporation
The Initiative.
#26 - 2014-07-19 21:25:53 UTC
I have a revolutionary idea for you guys who constantly beg for this: OWN THE THINGS YOU WANT TO USE ON TQ. If that's too hard for you, have friends who have said items and ask to borrow. IF that fails you still have the post mirror shopping trips in the main market hubs. There are ways in which for you to accomplish things without having to force a bigger workload onto devs AND keeping the test server as close to a similar testing environment to TQ as possible.

Stop asking for handouts and actually make an effort to get what you want, no idea you come up with to seed supers/faction modules will ever work.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#27 - 2014-07-19 23:52:07 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

10. Discussion of warnings and bans is prohibited.

Such matters shall remain private between CCP and the involved user. Questions or comments concerning warnings and bans will be conveyed through email or private messaging. CCP respect the right of our players to privacy and as such you are not permitted to publicize private correspondence (including petition responses and emails) received from any of the aforementioned parties.

11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category.

26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Darth Behelzebhu
Lair of Demons
#28 - 2014-07-22 08:51:26 UTC
Here is the problems i see with doing this:

1.- Seeding Supers - It will lead to so many features not being tested, SOV mechanics, buildings the supers, this alone tests a lot of modules in the game in the POS to build, like arrays and such, the sov modules also. Losing this testing could lead to bugs leaking into TQ. In previous mirrors when this was done, lead to disaster, which is why they haven't continue to do, even with the adding of the no-cap combat system.

2.- Seeding Officer/Deadspace - Also has been done, and again leads to many mods not get a single test, as this modules don't have the skill requeriments as t2, instead of using all the metas, new-medium-old players, will only use this mods.

The solution of adding another combat system, and coding acc gates, could work, but will suffer the same fate than the actual second combat system, which is always desserted, not to mention all the agregated code the Devs would need to do to make this work correctly.

This both things have been done before, and ended same way, after the novelty ends in top a week, the server gets almost empty, with only 10 people in local, which really disrupts the real necessary testing
OMEGA REDUX
Last Resort Inn
#29 - 2014-07-22 09:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: OMEGA REDUX
1. how exactly is that any different than the current seeding for everything below supers? are you saying no one tests manufacturing ANYTHING sub-super? cause im pretty sure manufacturing as a whole got tested ALOT and im willing to bet that super manufacturing wasnt even remotely near the top of what most people tried to test. also those that don't care about flying supers don't care about testing them. However alot of people do and want the ability to do so without a bunch of unnecessary hoops to jump thru. your flawed reasoning could be applied to ANY ship in the game as an excuse to not seed that ship.
Darth Behelzebhu wrote:
1.- Seeding capitals - It will lead to so many features not being tested, SOV mechanics, buildings the capitals, this alone tests a lot of modules in the game in the POS to build, like arrays and such, the sov modules also. Losing this testing could lead to bugs leaking into TQ. In previous mirrors when this was done, lead to disaster, which is why they haven't continue to do, even with the adding of the no-cap combat system.This both things have been done before, and ended same way, after the novelty ends in top a week, the server gets almost empty, with only 10 people in local, which really disrupts the real necessary testing
the above quote is what you said but me replacing "supers" with "capitals" so if your no super reasoning is good then i guess we should remove capitals as well??? or battleships or battlecruisers or....are you seeing a pattern here??? also if the server empties in a week then it would be the same amount of testing going on as is now...and in the same areas as is now except supers could have flaws found in them or tested for usefulness in pvp/sov warfare/whatever to a MUCH greater extent than is currently.

2. once again just because you can fit that way doesn't mean everyone will when it comes to testing. Especially if there really and truly are THAT many people who want to test non faction mods and are THAT scared of people flying with faction/deadspace/officer mods. As is, it is almost impossible for me to test if a golem fitted for soloing c4/5 sites that i made using evehq is actually workable as that fit REQUIRES faction mods and we all know how short those stay on the market after a mirror. Testing on mods that already exist in the game and are relatively cheap has been done for the past 10 years on the live server and bugs have been found so no reason to test them for the purpose of finding bugs on Sisi. The only people who fit those mods to test with are those who want to test how good they are at pvp (or other non pvp purpose) NOT testing to find bugs in mods that have been around longer than 99% of the eve population. My solution guarantees that those people can get their fair fight...and the other solutions suggested are also great ways to make sure your testing is getting done.

3. When at first you don't succeed you try again, not give up and claim "it can never be done". Learn from the mistakes and fix the issues (hello this is a test server after all finding and fixing issues is the main focus ain't it???)...not cower under some rock crying "don't let the evil super/>meta5 mod get me!" cause that's literally all I've seen posted from those who don't want these items able to be tested thoroughly.
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#30 - 2014-07-22 09:38:17 UTC
OMEGA REDUX wrote:
AFAIK concord is still enabled in Sisi highsec so live EFT as you put it is already in the game. Go to any highsec system, fit ship you wish to test, undock, fire 1 volley at the station (attacking the station does trigger concord right?...maybe i should go test that haha!), watch concord blap you, get live EFT results from the loss mail.

To anyone following the rules the measures I suggested are already "in place" since those people would not even attempt to light a cyno in PVH8-0 nor attempt to attack anyone on the stations/gates. These measures simply provide actual unbreakable rules to the rules you already said no one should break but they totally can and apparently aren't receiving any punishment for doing so. I don't understand how that is in any way making any part of Sisi something other than a test environment since those following the rules would not be doing anything different.

Also we did just go over how since you are not a coder you have no idea how much coding it would take to do that (thou I will admit the station/gate gun thing might get measy since IDK how yall wrote the aggression mechanic code...but since you aren't a coder neither do you know how measy or not measy it would be to do so)


I undeleted your post because I don't believe you were trying to be malicious, but please do ensure that you write in as friendly a tone as possible as other mods might not be so willing to interpret your text Smile

I can't code, but I understand it having worked with it for 3 years, and have a very good idea of how long certain things will take (primarily because we've discussed them internally at one point or other - we do try to come up with ideas too!) I talk to the guys currently working on the dogma rewrite every day, and am fully aware of the complexities and pitfalls of anything to do with sentry guns.

Live EFT is fine, it's just not the primary use case of Sisi, and the prime directive (testing features, not fits) cannot be violated!

To your other suggestions. Making a system cynojammed is something we can do, for instance. We are also currently considering attaching the "QA ECM Burst" effect to stations and gates, to make these less of a preferred combat hotspot. If people chose to use smartbombs or an equivalent untargeted system, they would be few in number and easy to ban.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#31 - 2014-07-22 10:29:53 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Live EFT is fine, it's just not the primary use case of Sisi, and the prime directive (testing features, not fits) cannot be violated!


Depends if it helps you meet your goals really. If having more people use it for live-eft gets you more people using it for feature testing too, it's probably worth it.
OMEGA REDUX
Last Resort Inn
#32 - 2014-07-22 10:43:39 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:

I undeleted your post because I don't believe you were trying to be malicious, but please do ensure that you write in as friendly a tone as possible as other mods might not be so willing to interpret your text Smile
i will simply leave taking my money elsewhere before i make sure every sentence i say doesn't step on someone's precious little toes. God didn't put me on the earth to beat around any bushes and I ain't about to start now. Sometimes the truth hurts, a person can take it and grow from it or they don't, the choice is up to them. Also I believe the quote "HTFU" might be a little bit appropriate (and more in the spirit of EVE).
Quote:
Live EFT is fine, it's just not the primary use case of Sisi, and the prime directive (testing features, not fits) cannot be violated!

Ok i think by Live EFT you are refering to the current major use of the combat areas which is to test different fits for pvp/whatever. The test server is going to see that simply because it exists. My question to you however is if the shall we say "unnamed" method of doing the latest drone bug was more readily accessible to test in Sisi don't you think that just maybe that bug would have been found and corrected possibly years ago?(since from my understanding of it it may very well have been around for a very long time) What if there is some bug with the "vepa's modified torpedo launcher" that allowed it to use t2 missiles or what it there was some bug that had the avatar giving a tracking speed buff to those in it's fleet command. I realize these are highly unlikely but since it's extremely difficult to test such items then there really could be bugs that you simply haven't found and that is after all the kind of thing we are supposed to be doing on Sisi, testing all the things not just everything but the OP things (and let's be honest faction mods aren't all THAT OP as is shown daily when some noob gets his multi billion isk ship blown up by a suicide gank in highsec).

On a side note the out of game fitting tools have ALWAYS been better at designing a fit than the ingame fitting tool and ingame fit testing is literally just used to make sure the paper numbers/ability matches up in game (aka reality check) not as some uber Live EFT thing.
Quote:
To your other suggestions. Making a system cynojammed is something we can do, for instance. We are also currently considering attaching the "QA ECM Burst" effect to stations and gates, to make these less of a preferred combat hotspot. If people chose to use smartbombs or an equivalent untargeted system, they would be few in number and easy to ban.

that's a good idea and works on the same level as my instablap one does (removing the aggression from taking place in the wrong spots)
OMEGA REDUX
Last Resort Inn
#33 - 2014-07-22 10:49:36 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Live EFT is fine, it's just not the primary use case of Sisi, and the prime directive (testing features, not fits) cannot be violated!


Depends if it helps you meet your goals really. If having more people use it for live-eft gets you more people using it for feature testing too, it's probably worth it.

Another thing to mention here is that where as there is the ability to "Live EFT" it has always been at the understanding that it's isn't something officially supported/major reason for Sisi being around. That stil doesn't mean that it should be restricted by some arbitrary rule of "because supers/>meta5 mods"
Darth Behelzebhu
Lair of Demons
#34 - 2014-07-22 14:15:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Behelzebhu
The difference between any other ships and supers are the game mechanics that are involved in their construction, so doesn't really apply to all ships or manufacturing alone

Also, you said you want the ability to test this ships without having to go through "unnecessary hoops" to do so, but this "hoops" need testing.

About the mods been seeded, ok, i'm not that against this and i do understand the problem when wanting to test if a particular high end fit will solve the problem, like the example you gave of the golem in sites, or t3's etc. But not cause a mod has been tested and retested live in TQ means a new expansion or patch couldn't break it, as this is still everytime time there's a new deployment many bugs that weren't found in sisi go to TQ, as is hard to test every scenario when normally are only around 150 people in sisi
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#35 - 2014-07-22 16:24:36 UTC
OK guy, I was just trying to help... Thread locked.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
Previous page12