These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 - Changing the rules?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#41 - 2012-04-02 18:41:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
Missile War wrote:
i still keep with my suggestion of having a mirror every 1.5 months or near that. since i hate long mirrors because im stuck to the same ship for a LONG time. and can't test any other ships :3
Off-toptic but what? All you need to know is when the mirror happens and you can go sort your Sisi training queue. Also even if you fall behind in training, help in a mass test and get a huge leap in SP, for whatever ships you want to test.

Obviously my vote's for combat constellation. Perhaps it should be lowsec to reduce the gate & station camping, via gateguns? Also to remove the issue of bubbles except for systems where interdictors and HICs are permitted?

How easily could you remove the station guns from a specific lowsec station? And the sec hit of killing people in such a system? Or make a nullsec system act like low/high sec w.r.t. bubbles, supers?
CCP Habakuk
C C P
C C P Alliance
#42 - 2012-04-02 18:42:32 UTC
Hi again!

We had a meeting today to talk about this topic and we are now exploring several options to improve things (mostly through new tools). We won't change any rules right now, but we'll announce changes to rules and support as soon as we have anything ready.

We are mostly looking into splitting the combat system into two systems - but this is not fully decided yet, as we will need additional support (cyno jammer and similar). Several other changes were also discussed (like changes to the mirror script and station seeding), but this will need more work.

Thank you all for helping out in this thread! I'll keep you updated, as soon as we have anything ready.

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

Bug reporting | Mass Testing
Ohnoes Improlapsed
Sperg.
#43 - 2012-04-02 19:17:36 UTC
CCP Habakuk wrote:
Hi again!

We had a meeting today to talk about this topic and we are now exploring several options to improve things (mostly through new tools). We won't change any rules right now, but we'll announce changes to rules and support as soon as we have anything ready.

We are mostly looking into splitting the combat system into two systems - but this is not fully decided yet, as we will need additional support (cyno jammer and similar). Several other changes were also discussed (like changes to the mirror script and station seeding), but this will need more work.

Thank you all for helping out in this thread! I'll keep you updated, as soon as we have anything ready.

With this can you reactivate super building so other people can test the ships in the non-cyno jammed system?
It's not going to affect anyones testing anymore and can be useful for testing especially as the new inferno patch is coming
Comodore John
4S Corporation
The Initiative.
#44 - 2012-04-02 21:07:55 UTC
Chribba wrote:
DonHel wrote:
Chribba wrote:
Reduce the timers when logging off etc (so you disappear quickly). I've lost a number of supercaps to "probers" just because they feel it's enjoyable to kill someone after they log out - regardless if they were in the consensual combat or not.

/c



I don't doubt this is a problem, but isnt that how it functions on TQ?
It is, I was under the impression how to update the SiSi rules though - and while this isn't a rule change and CCP saying that they want more time spent on bugs rather than investigating people breaking the rules, a thing like this could make more time for bugspending since less risk of people breaking rules by non-consensual combat.

/c


The problem isn't getting probed when you log out, it's the aggression you receive on station to ensure you don't disappear when you log out that's the problem.

CCP has told us before it's a very grey area within the rules, but (as you've experienced) you have no way to prove where you died. That's why when these cases generally are reported, the aggressors post a screenshot showing the wreck 1 million KM off the station.



As for seperating the systems, two main systems could work, but the capital system would be desolate due to lack of action. If this were implemented though, killing capitals that are within the sub capital system when the mirror was made is easily dealth with, the same goes with super caps. The problem occurs is when you get a small gang of them together.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#45 - 2012-04-03 01:27:50 UTC
Todes wrote:
My biggest issue is the podding being allowed. I understand the accidental smartbombs. but outright podding can be a massive inconvience, especially if your traveling from a great distance to test ship fits and potency of modules. people do forget to change locations for the medical clone and have to travel that distance back.


Forget to change clone location? Call the waaambulance. That's not CCP's problem. It's also a moot point because of the existance of the 'Moveme' channel, because the only place podding can still legally occur is in the test system. Which is where you will be moved to if you use this service.
Izuru Hishido
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2012-04-03 03:57:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Izuru Hishido
Fird wrote:
Solution: Remove super-caps from eve.

Reimburse SP, lose some bitter-vet players, gain new people after friends tell them how much better the game is.



Second. Then you'd never need to 'balance supercapitals' ever again.

Remove all supers, never have this issue again. They've been a problem since their inception, so just get rid of the damn things.

Quote:

Obviously my vote's for combat constellation. Perhaps it should be lowsec to reduce the gate & station camping, via gateguns? Also to remove the issue of bubbles except for systems where interdictors and HICs are permitted?

How easily could you remove the station guns from a specific lowsec station? And the sec hit of killing people in such a system? Or make a nullsec system act like low/high sec w.r.t. bubbles, supers?


With respect to that idea, it still wouldn't work. Sentry gun fire can easily be mitigated by a well tanked hic, and if they really want to harass someone, they'll find a way. Also, it is a great deal more effort to remove the security penalty than simply have the combat constellation be entirely in nullsec.

That said, having a lowsec system inside the testing constellation might not be a bad plan as it would allow people to test combat under those conditions, i.e. having sentries on the field, so on.
Missile War
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-04-03 06:50:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Missile War
CCP Habakuk wrote:
Hi again!

We had a meeting today to talk about this topic and we are now exploring several options to improve things (mostly through new tools). We won't change any rules right now, but we'll announce changes to rules and support as soon as we have anything ready.

We are mostly looking into splitting the combat system into two systems - but this is not fully decided yet, as we will need additional support (cyno jammer and similar). Several other changes were also discussed (like changes to the mirror script and station seeding), but this will need more work.

Thank you all for helping out in this thread! I'll keep you updated, as soon as we have anything ready.


several systems will not work, i'll tell you now. if you split capitals and subcaps from each other, you will make capitals almost completly useless since i can't think of a subcap that would willingly fight an army of capitals...supercapitals even since they will just pwn the capital system thus change nothing at all.

and changing the mirror/station seeding? how do you mean that exactly?(just so i don't understand wrongly) do you mean seeding more/all ships and mirrors at a regular interval? or just changing it in the way that only certain things are transferred over like no supers and no capitals in the subcap system if your making it 2 systems?
Orator de Umbras
Doomheim
#48 - 2012-04-03 08:08:08 UTC
Missile War wrote:
...several systems will not work, i'll tell you now. if you split capitals and subcaps from each other, you will make capitals almost completly useless since i can't think of a subcap that would willingly fight an army of capitals...


A single sub-capital wouldn't want to fight an army of capitals, but sub-capitals don't want to see a single capital ship killing everything in the FFA combat areas.

If they implement the split systems, sub-capitals could easily form a fleet to wage combat against the capitals. Or the capitals can ask for a duel from sub-capital fleets.

At the very least, the use of super-capitals needs to be limited. They cannot be seeded, as that would be pure chaos, but it is unfair to sub-capital and regular capital pilots for super-capital owners to have the only "I WIN!" button on SiSi. Fleets can be formed to combat them, but it is rare to see that happen.

Personally, I've stopped going to the FFA arenas. If I've needed to test something, I've asked for a duel, or dueled with my alts.
Missile War
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-04-03 08:41:41 UTC
Orator de Umbras wrote:
Missile War wrote:
...several systems will not work, i'll tell you now. if you split capitals and subcaps from each other, you will make capitals almost completly useless since i can't think of a subcap that would willingly fight an army of capitals...


A single sub-capital wouldn't want to fight an army of capitals, but sub-capitals don't want to see a single capital ship killing everything in the FFA combat areas.

If they implement the split systems, sub-capitals could easily form a fleet to wage combat against the capitals. Or the capitals can ask for a duel from sub-capital fleets.

At the very least, the use of super-capitals needs to be limited. They cannot be seeded, as that would be pure chaos, but it is unfair to sub-capital and regular capital pilots for super-capital owners to have the only "I WIN!" button on SiSi. Fleets can be formed to combat them, but it is rare to see that happen.

Personally, I've stopped going to the FFA arenas. If I've needed to test something, I've asked for a duel, or dueled with my alts.


http://test.true-sansha.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=83211

they indeed can be killed by non supers :3(yeey my fleet)
anyway, he only died cuz we were with quite alot, and he was alone. when a 2 or 3rd super would be on, our chances would have been VERY low.
so yeah, i agree, supers must be gotten rid of. but not normal capitals, they are fine. normal capitals can't **** a CA on their own, carriers don't do enough dps usually. and dreads can't track, can't point(usually), and can't lock fast enough in most cases if the subcap has some mind....
Jaiimez Skor
The Infamous.
#50 - 2012-04-03 10:15:19 UTC
This is my feelings towards the current rule set and any changes that may need to occur.

Currently with the seeding script only having certain ships seeded is causing issues, I do agree for the most part with Comodore John that all faction SHIPS need to be removed, however I believe that you SHOULD seed the most common faction ammo (e.g. Caldari Navy Missiles, Republic Fleet Autocannon Ammo(Because Hall is still pointless)) because nobody uses T1 ammo for PVP on TQ, so this is not like TQ in that sense, and as a side note with this, faction cap booster charges should be seeded.

As far as supercapital construction, I have spoken with QA staff before and appreciate the time it was taking up from the staff members day to handle all supercapital requests, sov boosts ect, so a possible suggestion that would satisfy most people, allow supercapital speedup's for the first 7 days of a new mirror, any requests that havn't been submitted within that 7 days would have to wait for it to build the old way, it would also stop people loosing them needlessly because they have another one they can have sped up in a day.
As a side note to the above comment, if something like this was to occur I believe that the time/date or mirrors need to be announced more, so people know when it's coming, that way they have time to get on and put any supercapitals they do want into production.

As far as cyno-jamming the main combat system, I don't think that's a very good idea, although what I do think is possibly having 2 combat systems, the main combat system being seeded and clone station w/o a cyno jammer, then having a secondary combat system 1 jump away, that is cyno-jammed either without a seeded market, or one with capitals not seeded, so those desperately seeking a solely subcapital fight will make the effort to travel. You'll find the majority of people will not bother tho.

Stronger Monitoring on the rules relating from TQ to Sisi purchases, it is well known that certain players on Singularity are paying on TQ to use somebody's supercapital on Sisi as well as other services/items.
Lucas Quaan
DEMONS OF THE HIDDEN MIST
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#51 - 2012-04-03 10:20:21 UTC
Missile War wrote:
several systems will not work, i'll tell you now. if you split capitals and subcaps from each other, you will make capitals almost completly useless since i can't think of a subcap that would willingly fight an army of capitals...

Which is the entire point people are trying to make. Subcaps don't want to fight the capitals.
Missile War
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-04-03 11:36:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Missile War
Lucas Quaan wrote:
Missile War wrote:
several systems will not work, i'll tell you now. if you split capitals and subcaps from each other, you will make capitals almost completly useless since i can't think of a subcap that would willingly fight an army of capitals...

Which is the entire point people are trying to make. Subcaps don't want to fight the capitals.



capitals aren't the problem supercapitals are. normal capitals are easily avoided while supercaps aren't.

and i Quote myself:
Missile War wrote:
o yeah, i agree, supers must be gotten rid of. but not normal capitals, they are fine. normal capitals can't **** a CA on their own, carriers don't do enough dps usually. and dreads can't track, can't point(usually), and can't lock fast enough in most cases if the subcap has some mind....


last post i'll make about supers/capitals since we are sticking on it too much
DaDutchDude
Some Random Corporation
#53 - 2012-04-03 12:44:01 UTC
I'll probably get booed for saying this, but how about only allowing player access to Sisi on a limited number of days and for specific reasons? As it stands, it seems like some people dedicate themselves to playing their space ship games on Sisi instead of TQ, and to me, that's bad. Let people try things out and fail with consequences, not with the safety blanket that Sisi provides.

They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I always have the best intentions for others ...
Missile War
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-04-03 14:35:59 UTC
DaDutchDude wrote:
I'll probably get booed for saying this, but how about only allowing player access to Sisi on a limited number of days and for specific reasons? As it stands, it seems like some people dedicate themselves to playing their space ship games on Sisi instead of TQ, and to me, that's bad. Let people try things out and fail with consequences, not with the safety blanket that Sisi provides.


inderdaad, ik ga je boeeee zeggen! dus...boeeee

anyway, sisi is fine as it is, if there wouldn't be a group of people "ruling" over sisi from their high thrones
Lanasak
Doomheim
#55 - 2012-04-03 16:37:18 UTC
I've noticed that a particular group of test server warriors enjoy ECM bursting supercapitals logging off at the station in order to gank them at their logoff spot.
J3ssica Biel
Caldari State
#56 - 2012-04-03 16:59:13 UTC
Lanasak wrote:
I've noticed that a particular group of test server warriors enjoy ECM bursting supercapitals logging off at the station in order to gank them at their logoff spot.

Shame ECM burst doesn't work on super capitals anymore
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#57 - 2012-04-03 17:05:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
Two requests:

1) Seed faction ships and ammo. I can understand not seeding high-end deadspace/officer mods that are hardly ever used on the real server, but faction ships and especially faction ammo are frequently used on TQ. In fact, I'd argue that any balance testing that doesn't include faction ammo is worthless.

2) Enforce SiSi rules with TQ bans. None of this "please don't do it" nonsense, create a set of rules that allow testing to function properly and then ban anyone who ignores them. Sure, you can't catch every violation, but maybe if people were putting their TQ accounts at risk they might think twice about things like station camping or bringing supercapitals into the frigate arena.


Jaiimez Skor wrote:
Stronger Monitoring on the rules relating from TQ to Sisi purchases, it is well known that certain players on Singularity are paying on TQ to use somebody's supercapital on Sisi as well as other services/items.


No, LESS monitoring of this stupid rule. There is no reason for CCP employees to be wasting time on something that doesn't cause any harm on SiSi*. If people want to waste TQ money on test server assets, there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to do it.

Maybe if pointless rules like this one are removed there will be more time to enforce rules against things like station camping.



*Remember, the assets in question already exist on SiSi, all that changes is exactly which player is flying the offending supercap.
Lanasak
Doomheim
#58 - 2012-04-03 17:31:26 UTC
J3ssica Biel wrote:
Lanasak wrote:
I've noticed that a particular group of test server warriors enjoy ECM bursting supercapitals logging off at the station in order to gank them at their logoff spot.

Shame ECM burst doesn't work on super capitals anymore


it still aggresses them
Vin Ott
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2012-04-03 18:44:49 UTC
Missile War wrote:
Lucas Quaan wrote:
Missile War wrote:
several systems will not work, i'll tell you now. if you split capitals and subcaps from each other, you will make capitals almost completly useless since i can't think of a subcap that would willingly fight an army of capitals...

Which is the entire point people are trying to make. Subcaps don't want to fight the capitals.



capitals aren't the problem supercapitals are. normal capitals are easily avoided while supercaps aren't.

and i Quote myself:
Missile War wrote:
o yeah, i agree, supers must be gotten rid of. but not normal capitals, they are fine. normal capitals can't **** a CA on their own, carriers don't do enough dps usually. and dreads can't track, can't point(usually), and can't lock fast enough in most cases if the subcap has some mind....


last post i'll make about supers/capitals since we are sticking on it too much


You're saying nicely that caps don't cause any problems however they do against subcaps, carriers got massive amounts of rep and dreads can hit subcaps easly just gotta refit a bit.

So it's not just the supers that cause problems everything is, that happends in tq as well, so stop saying that supers are the only ones that cause problems because that's just bullshit -_-"

Beter na denken he meneer de racist tegen supers.
J3ssica Biel
Caldari State
#60 - 2012-04-03 18:50:24 UTC
Lanasak wrote:
J3ssica Biel wrote:
Lanasak wrote:
I've noticed that a particular group of test server warriors enjoy ECM bursting supercapitals logging off at the station in order to gank them at their logoff spot.

Shame ECM burst doesn't work on super capitals anymore


it still aggresses them

No it doens't...