These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Adding VALUE to SISI for new or bought Characters.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bullock Brawn
Doomheim
#1 - 2014-10-03 16:58:10 UTC
I've played off and on with EVE since 2011 and have a few suggestions for SISI to make it much more useful for what it's intended purpose appears to be, as well as give players some very useful tools.

First what's SISI for.
1) For CCP to test patches before going live on TQ.
2) Maybe server loads, but unlikely since it's dormant most of the time.
3) CCP sells the idea of testing your ships to reduce loss in TQ.

What's broken about SISI and why it's hardly used.
1) Only Veterans can take advantage of SISI for the most part. New players or bought characters have to wait months to test. Not only do we have to skill on TQ, but also on SISI; and it is rarely current to what we are doing on TQ regarding skills.

What it can be
1) Just remove the skill requirements to use items on SISI and use the account management database (as CCP already does) to allow access to the server for valid accounts. That way everyone can get on the server and test for future goals as well as current ones. You will get many more people logging in to test.
2) Remove item prices as they are meaningless anyway.
3) Show mission and NPC values, but don't have them go into the character account after completion. We don't want people to actually play on SISI.
4) Remove Standings requirements to access agents, etc. to allow planing.
5) Limit access to SISI to 2 hours a day or something with an access timer, to help reduce the fear below.

Downside
1) The only thing I can think of is a false fear that players would get disinterested in playing the real game due to immediate gratification in the fake one. That's sort of like playing minecraft on creative mode though, and at least for me is worthless in terms of enjoyment and challenge.

EvilPLEASE don't troll this thread !!!!!

Make an intelligent comment as to what I am missing and why SISI should remain the 4 mirrors a year thing it currently is, and or why SP is so important on SISI when it's hardly used and translates nothing to TQ regarding an advantage.
Amak Boma
Dragon Factory
xX SERENITY Xx
#2 - 2014-10-03 20:25:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Amak Boma
i disagree to access time 2hours, masstests can take more than hour. theres other way
limit amount of control towers per character max to 10
limit total starbase structures to 100 per character
increase reward for participating in masstest from 2mill sp to 3mill sp
add concord to lowsec/nullsec systems that are outside testing zones to prevent unwanted fights with concord respond time 1 second this will prevent unwanted kills and nonconsesual combat.

for singularity only allow jumping capitals throught highsecs to reach the testing zone if you got baned from moveme channel.

remove standing requirement fro jump clones installation that way people wont need deathclone anymore reduce clone cooldown to 5 hours.

add soveregnity boost bot in chat channel moveme to boost your sov if you want build supercapitals/titans

for singularity only make wormholes easier to scan and force them spawn frequent than now, at the moment is not possible to find wormhole so easy .

another tiny change to improve sisi would be seeding rare ships like ships from alliance tournaments (freki utu etc.)
seed faction and storyline modules in testing zone only faction not deadspace/oficer.


allow individual account copying from TQ to SISI if mirror time is very long .
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#3 - 2014-10-04 05:25:59 UTC
SiSi is fine and doesn't need most of this. The only trouble it has is that mirrors are infrequent and there's no way to add newly-created or newly-purchased characters between mirrors, which I assume has its roots in technical reasons.

If you give everyone skills at all 5, then player testing becomes literally meaningless and CCP loses their way of motivating people to participate in mass testing - 2m SP for each character that participates in each test, with a maximum of 10m SP transferrable from one mirror to the next.

The way it is now, SiSi is pretty low-population and that's fine. It doesn't need higher populations nor is the hardware really intended to support that many. In short, don't try to fix things that aren't broken and you won't end up breaking them.
Oksian
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2014-10-04 10:25:50 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
SiSi is fine and doesn't need most of this. The only trouble it has is that mirrors are infrequent and there's no way to add newly-created or newly-purchased characters between mirrors, which I assume has its roots in technical reasons.

If you give everyone skills at all 5, then player testing becomes literally meaningless and CCP loses their way of motivating people to participate in mass testing - 2m SP for each character that participates in each test, with a maximum of 10m SP transferrable from one mirror to the next.

The way it is now, SiSi is pretty low-population and that's fine. It doesn't need higher populations nor is the hardware really intended to support that many. In short, don't try to fix things that aren't broken and you won't end up breaking them.


+1
Bullock Brawn
Doomheim
#5 - 2014-10-04 12:30:43 UTC
From a character player that has been around a while with skills to spare, sure there is no problem.

however, as you stated the problem I am addressing is the lack of SISI use for everyone else and that truly is the players who would take advantage of a testing ground... The ones who don't already know how to play the game; the new players.


As is, new players, have no use for SISI and they're the ones that need it most.

I still don't understand the reason for SP on SISI, could someone explain it in a bit more detail. How does having SP on SISI add value to testing in any way, when you have so few people able to access it who need it.


best
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#6 - 2014-10-04 16:43:22 UTC
Bullock Brawn wrote:
From a character player that has been around a while with skills to spare, sure there is no problem.

however, as you stated the problem I am addressing is the lack of SISI use for everyone else and that truly is the players who would take advantage of a testing ground... The ones who don't already know how to play the game; the new players.


As is, new players, have no use for SISI and they're the ones that need it most.

I still don't understand the reason for SP on SISI, could someone explain it in a bit more detail. How does having SP on SISI add value to testing in any way, when you have so few people able to access it who need it.


best


I can understand CCPs logic here: Older players have generally better knowledge over the game mechanics, so having them do the most of the testing makes sense. And if you have a bought character, you get several months to learn EVE so you are also better at testing then some random newbie.

New players aren't really needed for testing. And new players don't need the test server for themselves. The test server is for testing, not for tutoring newbies. We have tutorials and older players on TQ for that.
Bullock Brawn
Doomheim
#7 - 2014-10-05 16:31:53 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:


New players aren't really needed for testing. And new players don't need the test server for themselves. The test server is for testing, not for tutoring newbies. We have tutorials and older players on TQ for that.


Well, I would have to disagree with that statement for the following reason.

Are you talking about the many older players who teach the new players by blowing them up, due to having more game knowledge.

Game Play features (including test ones) that allow one set of players an unfair advantage over other players is somewhat of a bias and certainly favoritism. If I am a vet and can test my builds without risk of losing them, I have an advantage over others who can't.

The obvious advantage for Vet players over new players (who are risking their stuff just as much or more than vets) on TQ is the lack of options the new players have to test ships, missions, etc.. on the test server.

I get it, that you think SISI is exclusive for CCP to test things, great, then don't allow anyone on SISI other than CCP staff, if you're going to limit a large group from access for months or more. Don't let any players test ship builds who are going to use that knowledge in TQ, etc.. etc..

Do you get it?

It's very clear how SISI is just another unfair advantage for Vets and even possibly an exploit.


CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
#8 - 2014-10-05 16:59:31 UTC
As, you stated - the most important use of Singularity is to test new patches before they go to TQ. Because of this the mechanics on Singularity need to be as close to TQ as easily possible.

Bullock Brawn wrote:
...
What it can be
1) Just remove the skill requirements to use items on SISI and use the account management database (as CCP already does) to allow access to the server for valid accounts. That way everyone can get on the server and test for future goals as well as current ones. You will get many more people logging in to test.
2) Remove item prices as they are meaningless anyway.
3) Show mission and NPC values, but don't have them go into the character account after completion. We don't want people to actually play on SISI.
4) Remove Standings requirements to access agents, etc. to allow planing.
5) Limit access to SISI to 2 hours a day or something with an access timer, to help reduce the fear below.
...


ad 1) a) Remove skill requirements: This would reduce the value of testing new patches on Singularity drastically. We could boost the skills on character, but we cannot remove the skill requirements (without compromising the value of Singularity).
1) b) account management database: Singularity has its own "account management database", if you call it this way. Singularity and Tranquility are very much separated and moving data from TQ to Singularity is very restricted. We are trying to improve the situation with more frequent mirrors, but it is not as easy, as the last month showed.
2) Ehmmm, I do not follow you. Where should item prices be removed? On the market you can only buy items with a price.
3 + 4) Singularity should be as close to TQ as possible on how game features work. We can for example boost standings (as we did for the testing of Burner missions), but we cannot remove the restrictions, while keeping the restrictions on TQ.
5) Not needed in my opinion.

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

Bug reporting | Mass Testing
Bullock Brawn
Doomheim
#9 - 2014-10-06 02:21:52 UTC
CCP Habakuk wrote:
As, you stated - the most important use of Singularity is to test new patches before they go to TQ. Because of this the mechanics on Singularity need to be as close to TQ as easily possible.


ad 1) a) Remove skill requirements: This would reduce the value of testing new patches on Singularity drastically. We could boost the skills on character, but we cannot remove the skill requirements (without compromising the value of Singularity).
1) b) account management database: Singularity has its own "account management database", if you call it this way. Singularity and Tranquility are very much separated and moving data from TQ to Singularity is very restricted. We are trying to improve the situation with more frequent mirrors, but it is not as easy, as the last month showed.
2) Ehmmm, I do not follow you. Where should item prices be removed? On the market you can only buy items with a price.
3 + 4) Singularity should be as close to TQ as possible on how game features work. We can for example boost standings (as we did for the testing of Burner missions), but we cannot remove the restrictions, while keeping the restrictions on TQ.
5) Not needed in my opinion.


thank you very much for the response... as many who play, I don't know the software dynamics behind the game so my suggestions were from a purely balance point of view considering new players.

If it can't be done, well... that's that..!!

Best