These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Combat Area Class Restrictions

First post
Author
Galaron Crendraven
Mine 'N' Refine
Goonswarm Federation
#1 - 2016-10-20 01:16:49 UTC
I would like to see if the developers could enact ship class restrictions in Combat Area 9, 8, 7, and 6, similar to what they do on some missions and FW space. I propose that CA 9 be battleship and below, 8 be cruisers, 7 be destroyers, and 6 be frigs. The reason for this is because it is often very difficult to test things below capital size. As it frequently occurs you can be engaged in meaningful combat when a carrier lands on you, neuts your cruiser, and kills you. This becomes a hindrance to actual testing. Most combat occurs in Combat Area 1 and the other sites are frequently empty, therefore i dont think that these 4 combat sites will be missed by the capital pilots. Subcaps who want to try things out against capitals can still do so, but when bs, cruisers, and frigs want to try things they can. CCP can you enact this change? I think it will be very useful.
Jiggs Casey
O.N.E.
#2 - 2016-10-20 17:41:26 UTC
Used to be this way, many years ago. They took that out and made everything free-for-all. Had many discussions on with my friends and have done a lot of thinking, and I still can not for the life of me figure out why they would do what they did. I saw someone say something once about people camping accel gates if those were used to restrict size, best way to counter that would be to put gate guns on it. Not normal ones either, ones that do like 5mil dps.

Playing on SiSi is 100% cancer anymore and it's mainly due to the free-for-all combat areas.
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
#3 - 2016-10-20 17:54:03 UTC
Unfortunately we have so far no way to enforce such ship restrictions, which would not cause other problems - without spending a lot of time in enforcing them manually. There are some ideas for automated systems for the future, but all of them require quite some development time.

CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five 0 | (Team Gridlock)

Bug reporting | Mass Testing

Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#4 - 2016-10-20 18:09:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentient Blade
Can we get some gated areas maybe?

I completely understand 6-C is a consent-on-undock system but I'm getting a bit tired of trying to use SISI to test fleet compositions with 5 or 6 people in my fleet, only to warp to a testing site and get blapped by people multi-boxing Vehements and Supercarriers before it's possible to get any worthwhile combat underway.

There's no point reshipping into a dread fleet to kill them, as they'd get instantly replaced for less than a million ISK.

Some neigh-invisible NPCs in the sites that doomsday anything above a certain sig would certainly be appreciated.
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
#5 - 2016-10-20 18:17:58 UTC
CCP Habakuk wrote:
Unfortunately we have so far no way to enforce such ship restrictions, which would not cause other problems - without spending a lot of time in enforcing them manually. There are some ideas for automated systems for the future, but all of them require quite some development time.

What? Sure you do. In many missions there are accel gates that sort my ship class. Just do two things with these gates:

1) Have them launch ships into deadspace far enough that slow boating there will take longer than the typical time between mirrors. That way no one can slip in.

2) Unless I mis-remember the sisi rules, you are not supposed to do combat at the station. Put the accel gates right next to the station.

-OR-

I believe any kill has its location logged in X Y Z coordinates. Have an automated script go over every kill, looking at who was shooting. If any ship is of a type that should not be in a particular combat area, the pilot of that ship is banned from Sisi.

-OR-

Wormholes sort by ship size. Set up wormholes that have their entrance in a non-PvP system, and their exit in the PvP system, but deep in deadspace (so the only viable way to get there is via the wormhole.) Give the wormholes unlimited total mass, but limit the individual ship mass.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Jiggs Casey
O.N.E.
#6 - 2016-10-20 18:43:52 UTC
CCP Habakuk wrote:
Unfortunately we have so far no way to enforce such ship restrictions, which would not cause other problems - without spending a lot of time in enforcing them manually. There are some ideas for automated systems for the future, but all of them require quite some development time.




Put accel gates on station so it's automatically an offense to engage on them. If that doesn't work, put gate guns on it. If anyone engages within 500km, those gate guns start shooting, make them do concord-level damage. If 0.0 mechanics don't allow for that, simply move the testing system to lowsec or turn 6-cz into a lowsec system(idk how possible that would be)
Jiggs Casey
O.N.E.
#7 - 2016-10-20 18:45:10 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:


Wormholes sort by ship size. Set up wormholes that have their entrance in a non-PvP system, and their exit in the PvP system, but deep in deadspace (so the only viable way to get there is via the wormhole.) Give the wormholes unlimited total mass, but limit the individual ship mass.


You're definitely on to something, I hadn't thought of that before. Save capitals for 6-cz, and allow people to go to wormholes for various subcap sizes.
Amak Boma
Dragon Factory
#8 - 2016-10-20 18:52:20 UTC
giving us gated area for combat is something we would want to have combat area from 1 to 5 could have no restrictions combat area 6 frigates/destroyers combat area 7 cruisers t2 and t3 aswell combat area 8 battlecruisers combat arena 9 battleships and below . combat area 10 would be for industry testing so maye some gas and ore and ice for mining ?
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
#9 - 2016-10-20 18:53:56 UTC
Both "accel gates at station" and "special wormhole" would be such possible solutions, which would need quite a bit of dev time to make sure that it works properly without causing bad side effects for testing and without affecting TQ in any way.

CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five 0 | (Team Gridlock)

Bug reporting | Mass Testing

Jiggs Casey
O.N.E.
#10 - 2016-10-20 18:55:03 UTC
CCP Habakuk wrote:
Both "accel gates at station" and "special wormhole" would be such possible solutions, which would need quite a bit of dev time to make sure that it works properly without causing bad side effects for testing and without affecting TQ in any way.


How would they affect TQ?
Bracholi
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#11 - 2016-10-20 22:13:10 UTC
Jiggs Casey wrote:
CCP Habakuk wrote:
Both "accel gates at station" and "special wormhole" would be such possible solutions, which would need quite a bit of dev time to make sure that it works properly without causing bad side effects for testing and without affecting TQ in any way.


How would they affect TQ?


Isn't SISI basically a mirror of what future TQ would be? So I'd assume that the devs already have plenty of work to do making changes to the SISI image before updating TQ with a patch. Adding onto the changes to be made would inevitably add additional time and increase the probability for bugs and what not to be added to TQ image. At least that is if I understand the process correctly. Seems like you'd be increasing the rate of mistakes, bugs, errors as you increase the amount of SISI specific features.
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
#12 - 2016-10-21 00:24:26 UTC
Jiggs Casey wrote:
CCP Habakuk wrote:
Both "accel gates at station" and "special wormhole" would be such possible solutions, which would need quite a bit of dev time to make sure that it works properly without causing bad side effects for testing and without affecting TQ in any way.


How would they affect TQ?

You have to insure none of those features make it to TQ. But CCP does that aready. There are several beacons on Sisi that do not make it to TQ.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Luscius Uta
#13 - 2016-10-21 11:41:21 UTC
When Thera was introduced, people who would use /moveme command to get their would get instapopped if they were in a capital ship. I don't see why something like that could be introduced for combat areas in 6-CZ, although I suppose that such feature is probably easier to implement when its system-wide than grid-wide.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.