These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CANCEL CIRIUS: Titans could be build for 20-30b

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#21 - 2014-07-03 18:48:28 UTC
One more tidbit i noticed.

Capital ship assembly arrays, the ones that build carriers, dreads, and Roquals, can be anchored in 0.5 systems on SiSi.

I have tested this, anchored 10 of them at a high sec POS in a 0.5 system.

So looks like carriers and dreads are coming to high sec.

I doubt it is a bug, as the attributes state "restricted to security level of at most 0.5.

might be a typo/mistake, but it seems intended. And it is working os SiSi.
Josclyn Verreuil
Dark 0rder.
#22 - 2014-07-03 23:31:34 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
One more tidbit i noticed.

Capital ship assembly arrays, the ones that build carriers, dreads, and Roquals, can be anchored in 0.5 systems on SiSi.

I have tested this, anchored 10 of them at a high sec POS in a 0.5 system.

So looks like carriers and dreads are coming to high sec.

I doubt it is a bug, as the attributes state "restricted to security level of at most 0.5.

might be a typo/mistake, but it seems intended. And it is working os SiSi.


Pretty sure that's a bug, related to the syntax of the statement
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-07-04 08:25:28 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
One more tidbit i noticed.

Capital ship assembly arrays, the ones that build carriers, dreads, and Roquals, can be anchored in 0.5 systems on SiSi.

I have tested this, anchored 10 of them at a high sec POS in a 0.5 system.

So looks like carriers and dreads are coming to high sec.

I doubt it is a bug, as the attributes state "restricted to security level of at most 0.5.

might be a typo/mistake, but it seems intended. And it is working os SiSi.


That was stated to be "0.499... and below", someone just allowed the engine to round up again.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#24 - 2014-07-04 11:52:25 UTC
Yeah, we had a bug where facility TE bonuses were being applied as ME bonuses; fixed internally, will be on SiSi whenever it gets there.


Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
One more tidbit i noticed.

Capital ship assembly arrays, the ones that build carriers, dreads, and Roquals, can be anchored in 0.5 systems on SiSi.

I have tested this, anchored 10 of them at a high sec POS in a 0.5 system.

So looks like carriers and dreads are coming to high sec.

I doubt it is a bug, as the attributes state "restricted to security level of at most 0.5.

might be a typo/mistake, but it seems intended. And it is working os SiSi.


This is a bug, we changed how the attribute worked but missed a few cases where it had been authored "properly" in the old system. Fixing this after lunch, along with all the sov upgrades that now say they can be anchored in 0.1 even though you can't claim sov there.
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
#25 - 2014-07-04 11:58:34 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Fixing this after lunch, along with all the sov upgrades that now say they can be anchored in 0.1 even though you can't claim sov there.


hmm hidden feature!
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2014-07-04 12:16:16 UTC
guys, those are the bugs you DO NOT EVER REPORT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES !
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#27 - 2014-07-04 22:29:26 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
One more tidbit i noticed.

Capital ship assembly arrays, the ones that build carriers, dreads, and Roquals, can be anchored in 0.5 systems on SiSi.

I have tested this, anchored 10 of them at a high sec POS in a 0.5 system.

So looks like carriers and dreads are coming to high sec.

I doubt it is a bug, as the attributes state "restricted to security level of at most 0.5.

might be a typo/mistake, but it seems intended. And it is working os SiSi.

Why'd you say it X

"A City made of Dreams is built in heaven"
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#28 - 2014-07-05 10:17:05 UTC
* sets hair on fire, runs around as if the world is ending due to bugs on Test server*
Alexa Coates
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2014-07-05 18:36:14 UTC
cheaper capitals is welcome in my book.

That's a Templar, an Amarr fighter used by carriers.
Alexa Coates
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-07-05 18:37:00 UTC
I hope ccp wants to close the huge gap between caps and subcaps, so more people fly caps.

caps are fun.

That's a Templar, an Amarr fighter used by carriers.
Kora Ethereal
Ethereal Beings
#31 - 2014-07-05 22:37:28 UTC
Alexa Coates wrote:
I hope ccp wants to close the huge gap between caps and subcaps, so more people fly caps.

caps are fun.


#CapsAreFun

#CoffinsAreFun
KanashiiKami
#32 - 2014-07-06 07:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: KanashiiKami
good ... now more miners can buy dreads for mining with absolute safety in HS
i can hope to get 1 and join chribba ... :D

now all miners need is ... LARGE mining drones ... n T2 miner ships to be able to hold LARGE mining drones

WUT ???
H3llHound
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2014-07-07 17:48:27 UTC
Tenguboi tell 'em!
Hopped up out the bed,
Turn my swag on,
Took a look in the mirror said what's up
Yeah I'm getting money (oh)
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#34 - 2014-07-08 01:46:41 UTC
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
One more tidbit i noticed.

Capital ship assembly arrays, the ones that build carriers, dreads, and Roquals, can be anchored in 0.5 systems on SiSi.

I have tested this, anchored 10 of them at a high sec POS in a 0.5 system.

So looks like carriers and dreads are coming to high sec.

I doubt it is a bug, as the attributes state "restricted to security level of at most 0.5.

might be a typo/mistake, but it seems intended. And it is working os SiSi.

Why'd you say it X

I considered not saying it, but I was actually hoping it was intended.

Would it really be so bad having dreads and carriers in 0.5 systems, they still could not use gates, and since cyno's can not be lit in high sec, could not jump anywhere, except out of high sec.

It would add something to high sec industry, being able to build them at high sec POSes in 0.5 systems. Would also go along with the theme that the empires are losing control to the capsuleers, slowly infiltrating high sec with things that were, up until now, not allowed.
guess I was getting a little Ahead of the curve. Seems my initial instinct was right, it was due to being changed for 0.4 systems, before the code was fixed so that 0.4 actually included 0.4.

Well back to plan A, building dreads in low sec.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#35 - 2014-07-08 01:51:27 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Yeah, we had a bug where facility TE bonuses were being applied as ME bonuses; fixed internally, will be on SiSi whenever it gets there.


Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
One more tidbit i noticed.

Capital ship assembly arrays, the ones that build carriers, dreads, and Roquals, can be anchored in 0.5 systems on SiSi.

I have tested this, anchored 10 of them at a high sec POS in a 0.5 system.

So looks like carriers and dreads are coming to high sec.

I doubt it is a bug, as the attributes state "restricted to security level of at most 0.5.

might be a typo/mistake, but it seems intended. And it is working os SiSi.


This is a bug, we changed how the attribute worked but missed a few cases where it had been authored "properly" in the old system. Fixing this after lunch, along with all the sov upgrades that now say they can be anchored in 0.1 even though you can't claim sov there.

hey, do i get a reward for finding, and actually reporting this?

A few mil skill Points on SiSi for my main character on this account would really help out my testing.
Romana Erebus
Syndicate Enterprise
Sigma Grindset
#36 - 2014-07-08 15:10:46 UTC
relax no cause for alarm
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#37 - 2014-07-09 13:36:48 UTC
/thread

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Smugest Sniper
neko island
Deedspace Consortium
#38 - 2014-07-11 07:40:11 UTC
Did we ever resolve what the real ME bonus on Amarr outposts is gonna be after this I assume got fixed?

Answers appreciated.
Previous page12