These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

singularity wh absence

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Annunaki soldier
Perkone
Caldari State
#1 - 2014-03-12 12:35:14 UTC
Hello
I been searching all morning for a wh entrance to test something.
Does WH exists in sisi server?
I done more than 50j , searched half of those times found everything but wh entrance

Is there something i need to know or wh dont exist ?

Ride hard, live with passion 
hydraSlav
Synergy Evolved
#2 - 2014-03-12 15:25:06 UTC
Annunaki soldier wrote:
Hello
I been searching all morning for a wh entrance to test something.
Does WH exists in sisi server?
I done more than 50j , searched half of those times found everything but wh entrance

Is there something i need to know or wh dont exist ?


I've been this same situation a few weeks ago. You started your search from 6-CZ i bet, right?
Pod-express yourself to the other side of the Universe, set your shortest route to the closest 0.0. Don't bother scanning in high-sec unless you want C1 wormholes. Since few people play on Sisi, there will be virtually no K162s.

If you are still having no luck, evemail me and i will drop you a BM to the WH i am in on Sisi (just promise you will leave). Can't guarantee when i will be on though.
Annunaki soldier
Perkone
Caldari State
#3 - 2014-03-13 01:21:32 UTC
Thing is that you cant test anything. Devs should really work on it. Scanned 5 hours. Found hs to hs, a c3 and a c1. They didnt had any signature in at all !!! At least make a smaller area on full respawn for us so we can actually test tnings. At the momment its a test server for everything else but wh people

Ride hard, live with passion 
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#4 - 2014-03-13 01:26:31 UTC
There are wh it's sometimes just hard to find. 50j sounds like a lot. Maybe just very bad luck?

I'm not sure but i hear there is a test alliance that runs sov upgrades. maybe they might have a system with those wh spawning upgrades.
Annunaki soldier
Perkone
Caldari State
#5 - 2014-03-13 01:44:22 UTC
If they have the same mechanics then its a sad panda that is talking here. There are hardly people on sisi that live on wh to have things spawn , entrances opened etc.

Any other aspect of the game can be tested quick but that doesnt apply to wh. Maybe we get a descent answer from a dev or provide them with the people that is intrested so they can apply a fix to smooth things up a bit

Ride hard, live with passion 
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#6 - 2014-03-16 22:51:32 UTC
Everything on SiSi works the same as it does on TQ. That means wormholes are spread out to the uninhabited reaches of the galaxy, as are sigs and sites and everything else that moves around.
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#7 - 2014-03-17 10:41:11 UTC
Wormholes can be tricky to find on Sisi for sure (the K162 absence is very notable!). Thing is, there's no clean way to make them more accessible. If we use a moveme bot pointing at wormhole space, then that one wormhole will be carnage and we will get complaints. As it stands, the main use cases for people wanting to get into wormhole space is either to test out their anomaly fittings/efficiency, or practice is relative peace for a tournament. In some cases tournament organising devs have supported the latter, but we do not support the former as a service we provide for the same reasons that we don't spawn sites and such on demand - we cannot provide that level of service on demand.

I'm sure some of you are about to ask why we can't just have a permanent wormhole or what have you, for which the answer is simple. Our test environment has to resemble TQ as closely as possible, so we don't tend to mess around with things like distribution of sites in the backend.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#8 - 2014-03-17 13:18:30 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Wormholes can be tricky to find on Sisi for sure (the K162 absence is very notable!). Thing is, there's no clean way to make them more accessible. If we use a moveme bot pointing at wormhole space, then that one wormhole will be carnage and we will get complaints. As it stands, the main use cases for people wanting to get into wormhole space is either to test out their anomaly fittings/efficiency, or practice is relative peace for a tournament. In some cases tournament organising devs have supported the latter, but we do not support the former as a service we provide for the same reasons that we don't spawn sites and such on demand - we cannot provide that level of service on demand.

I'm sure some of you are about to ask why we can't just have a permanent wormhole or what have you, for which the answer is simple. Our test environment has to resemble TQ as closely as possible, so we don't tend to mess around with things like distribution of sites in the backend.


K162 wormholes spawn in known space when someone warps to the grid containing the other end in W-space. That is why there are no K162s on Sisi. No one is warping to the other end. Could there be some sort of automatic script you could set up which would plop a ship on grid in several wormholes each day, just for sisi?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#9 - 2014-03-17 19:50:22 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Wormholes can be tricky to find on Sisi for sure (the K162 absence is very notable!). Thing is, there's no clean way to make them more accessible. If we use a moveme bot pointing at wormhole space, then that one wormhole will be carnage and we will get complaints. As it stands, the main use cases for people wanting to get into wormhole space is either to test out their anomaly fittings/efficiency, or practice is relative peace for a tournament. In some cases tournament organising devs have supported the latter, but we do not support the former as a service we provide for the same reasons that we don't spawn sites and such on demand - we cannot provide that level of service on demand.

I'm sure some of you are about to ask why we can't just have a permanent wormhole or what have you, for which the answer is simple. Our test environment has to resemble TQ as closely as possible, so we don't tend to mess around with things like distribution of sites in the backend.


I understand why you cannot make them more accessible, just why do they seem to be less accessible compared to TQ?

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Nash MacAllister
Air
The Initiative.
#10 - 2014-03-17 20:12:49 UTC
Desert Ice78 wrote:

I understand why you cannot make them more accessible, just why do they seem to be less accessible compared to TQ?


Because the majority of entrances into w-space from k-space are K162's. Meaning, they are generated from the wh side. Given the fact there is essentially zero population in w-space on SiSi, that means the routes into k-space are never spawned. Make sense?

Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you...
ZergRushJohnny
The Order of Atlas
#11 - 2014-03-18 01:18:38 UTC  |  Edited by: ZergRushJohnny
CCP Goliath wrote:
If we use a moveme bot pointing at wormhole space, then that one wormhole will be carnage and we will get complaints.


I don't know about that. The main k-space point people get moved to has "rules", but it's still nullsec, people can undock and shoot each other all day long. This isn't too much different from a wormhole. Place them at a beacon and have the rules laid out in beacons just like the nullsec system (don't shoot people here, don't pod people, etc). I don't think there would be any more "carnage" than anywhere else.

Place them in a C5 / C5, from there people could branch out and map the chain, find their own little dead ends and collapse themselves in. That would solve the solution to practicing in peace.

Failing that though, yea, some kind of dev script to populate wormholes (the k162 entrances) once a day would be great.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#12 - 2014-03-19 10:55:04 UTC
Move me bot to a random wormhole?

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Commander Ramnov
Black Omega Security
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#13 - 2014-03-19 11:13:17 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Move me bot to a random wormhole?



This.
Matthew97
#14 - 2014-03-19 11:19:09 UTC
Commander Ramnov wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Move me bot to a random wormhole?



This.


But then you get all the people whining about how they had to spend 5 minutes trying to get the correct class / effect / find the pos they put down because they moveme'ed out etc etc etc

Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2014-03-20 22:32:50 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Wormholes can be tricky to find on Sisi for sure (the K162 absence is very notable!). Thing is, there's no clean way to make them more accessible. If we use a moveme bot pointing at wormhole space, then that one wormhole will be carnage and we will get complaints. As it stands, the main use cases for people wanting to get into wormhole space is either to test out their anomaly fittings/efficiency, or practice is relative peace for a tournament. In some cases tournament organising devs have supported the latter, but we do not support the former as a service we provide for the same reasons that we don't spawn sites and such on demand - we cannot provide that level of service on demand.

I'm sure some of you are about to ask why we can't just have a permanent wormhole or what have you, for which the answer is simple. Our test environment has to resemble TQ as closely as possible, so we don't tend to mess around with things like distribution of sites in the backend.


K162 wormholes spawn in known space when someone warps to the grid containing the other end in W-space. That is why there are no K162s on Sisi. No one is warping to the other end. Could there be some sort of automatic script you could set up which would plop a ship on grid in several wormholes each day, just for sisi?


You could always leave an alt in a wh on tranquility and wait for the mirror.
Darkblad
Doomheim
#16 - 2014-03-22 11:14:05 UTC
It appears like this confirms the "myth" to be true, that wormholes only appear when warped to (or does scanning them down to 100 % suffice?). Nice to know!

NPE – ISD – RIP
Todd Jaeger
Mayhem and Destruction
#17 - 2014-03-25 01:35:29 UTC
Darkblad wrote:
It appears like this confirms the "myth" to be true, that wormholes only appear when warped to (or does scanning them down to 100 % suffice?). Nice to know!


That is correct - it's not a myth. In fact merely initiating warp is enough. Scanning itself does not spawn the actual wormhole.
Jonny Copper
The Cadre Arareb Foundation
#18 - 2014-03-29 20:04:55 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Wormholes can be tricky to find on Sisi for sure (the K162 absence is very notable!). Thing is, there's no clean way to make them more accessible. If we use a moveme bot pointing at wormhole space, then that one wormhole will be carnage and we will get complaints. As it stands, the main use cases for people wanting to get into wormhole space is either to test out their anomaly fittings/efficiency, or practice is relative peace for a tournament. In some cases tournament organising devs have supported the latter, but we do not support the former as a service we provide for the same reasons that we don't spawn sites and such on demand - we cannot provide that level of service on demand.

I'm sure some of you are about to ask why we can't just have a permanent wormhole or what have you, for which the answer is simple. Our test environment has to resemble TQ as closely as possible, so we don't tend to mess around with things like distribution of sites in the backend.



What about dedicating a system like PVH is for subcaps for wormhole anoms where you spawn some of each class wormhole anoms?
Or is that too much work behind the scenes?
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#19 - 2014-03-31 10:13:30 UTC
Jonny Copper wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Wormholes can be tricky to find on Sisi for sure (the K162 absence is very notable!). Thing is, there's no clean way to make them more accessible. If we use a moveme bot pointing at wormhole space, then that one wormhole will be carnage and we will get complaints. As it stands, the main use cases for people wanting to get into wormhole space is either to test out their anomaly fittings/efficiency, or practice is relative peace for a tournament. In some cases tournament organising devs have supported the latter, but we do not support the former as a service we provide for the same reasons that we don't spawn sites and such on demand - we cannot provide that level of service on demand.

I'm sure some of you are about to ask why we can't just have a permanent wormhole or what have you, for which the answer is simple. Our test environment has to resemble TQ as closely as possible, so we don't tend to mess around with things like distribution of sites in the backend.



What about dedicating a system like PVH is for subcaps for wormhole anoms where you spawn some of each class wormhole anoms?
Or is that too much work behind the scenes?


We've had a notion for a while to get some "content systems" that have skewed distribution and are accessible via moveme bot. It's a fair bit of work with noone to do it right now though, so it's a back burner idea.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
Merida DunBrogh
Black Screen Of Raging Defeat
#20 - 2014-03-31 11:12:59 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Jonny Copper wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Wormholes can be tricky to find on Sisi for sure (the K162 absence is very notable!). Thing is, there's no clean way to make them more accessible. If we use a moveme bot pointing at wormhole space, then that one wormhole will be carnage and we will get complaints. As it stands, the main use cases for people wanting to get into wormhole space is either to test out their anomaly fittings/efficiency, or practice is relative peace for a tournament. In some cases tournament organising devs have supported the latter, but we do not support the former as a service we provide for the same reasons that we don't spawn sites and such on demand - we cannot provide that level of service on demand.

I'm sure some of you are about to ask why we can't just have a permanent wormhole or what have you, for which the answer is simple. Our test environment has to resemble TQ as closely as possible, so we don't tend to mess around with things like distribution of sites in the backend.



What about dedicating a system like PVH is for subcaps for wormhole anoms where you spawn some of each class wormhole anoms?
Or is that too much work behind the scenes?


We've had a notion for a while to get some "content systems" that have skewed distribution and are accessible via moveme bot. It's a fair bit of work with noone to do it right now though, so it's a back burner idea.


At least the idea is there! I fully understand(And agree) that there are far more important things to do right now.
Thanks for the information at least!
Btw, any news on when the next expansion info will start appearing on sisi?(Or get released to begin with)
I could use a few more masstests :P