Test Server Feedback

The lack of WHs on Sisi is due to their mechanics, only one end exists until someone visits it. as most WH start in a WH system, there is no exit in K space until someone in W space visits the WH. As there are so few people on Sisi, that does not happen much. Hence few wormholes.

How about a script that "tickles" all the wormholes, just as if someone visited them, so both ends exist? In this way Sisi would still work the same way as TQ. It would not have special code. Just the downtime maintenance would be different.

Or even just turn off WH time decay/total mass on sisi (at the risk of missing any bugs that may rely on either of those things to happen)

I understand your point about Sisi and TQ mechanics diverging leaving room for bugs to slip through, but how does making wh's more plentiful/easier to find open up holes for bugs? Maybe you're referring to the suggestion about a script tickling wh's. Then yes I think I agree with you that that is a bad method.

As for spending an hour to find a wh to test. Thats my point exactly! Anything you want to test in wh's is inherently more time consuming which means less people do it. If I want to test a combat fit I jump on sisi, use the moveme bot, fit the ship, undock, warp to combat area and commence testing. This can happen in a span of 5 minutes. If I want to test a new feature, again can do that instantly. If I want to test wh stuff I have to spend on average an hour each day of testing just to find a wh. Add more time to find the correct type of wh. My suggestion at least removes that first hurdle from testing making it much easier to test features in wh space.

This brings up another point about testing exploration in general. If we're gonna get static wh's shouldn't we also get static exploration sites? Just a thought

Right. The idea is to not mess with the mechanics at all, leave Sisi and TQ the same.

Special scripting a wh enterance from one system to each of the different types of wh shouldnt be breaking of anything.
just remember that you have 5 different types of wh, and nine different wh types.
- c 1-2-3-4-5-6
normal, mag, bh, rg, cat, pulse and wolf

hs-hs
hs-low
hs-null
low-low
low-null
null-null

42 sigs, though id break that up into each different type of wh static from a different system. so six to a system. those wh systems wouldnt have to have any special script properties of their own .

Currently if one wishes to test the effects of changes on all classes of wormholes and all effects, we will be three releases on before we have found them all on sisi.

We should have three systems with all types opening into it that can be moved to with the command WHmoveme. (WLmove me and WNmoveme) one per sec type.
Anything else just will not cut it. And most changes and mistakes will be missed.

Which is why we usually discover unintentional side effects in production, after the fact.

All three of these options will work, the last one where one can be moved to a specific wormhole would be the perfect solution.
But any one of them would achieve the goal of being able to test the following 3 requirements.

Exit from c class of wormhole to the Kspace one wishes to test
Movement between classes of wormholes.
Effects encountered and tested.

This covers the main requirements, sisi works adequately in the main for K Space, because every gate basically is doing the same thing.

Every wormhole is between different space or class of space.
So much to go wrong, just look at the recent polarisation bug, this was only discovered as people were paranoid about getting another surprise.