open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked BO portal and T3 cruisers
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Quindaster
Posted - 2011.05.22 19:35:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
That's not a QA issue, it's a design issue - I forgot about covops subsystems when I was speccing out the changes, and the "exhaustive" list I gave our testers didn't include them. There's a boring technical reason why I didn't catch it in review but essentially this is entirely my fault. I've just fixed it internally, but I can't guarantee when exactly it will hit TQ, sorry.


So, if this is just stupid mistake, I think we forgive you, and we will see in next patch you will give for Black Ops abbility to portal T3 Covert ships again.

And yes, for Covert ops T3 - you need to add abbility to fit covert cyno.

Cunane Jeran
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.22 20:18:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
That's not a QA issue, it's a design issue - I forgot about covops subsystems when I was speccing out the changes, and the "exhaustive" list I gave our testers didn't include them. There's a boring technical reason why I didn't catch it in review but essentially this is entirely my fault. I've just fixed it internally, but I can't guarantee when exactly it will hit TQ, sorry.


Honest CCP = Best CCP

Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2011.05.22 21:18:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
That's not a QA issue, it's a design issue - I forgot about covops subsystems when I was speccing out the changes, and the "exhaustive" list I gave our testers didn't include them. There's a boring technical reason why I didn't catch it in review but essentially this is entirely my fault. I've just fixed it internally, but I can't guarantee when exactly it will hit TQ, sorry.


I don't see how lack of automatic test coverage is not QA fault. I can't understand how after 8 years you don't have tests systematically checking that kind of stuff, i.e. to cite some that made it past build and were deployed, some didn't pass SiSi but quite a few made it to TQ

  • That only black ops can lock to covert cyno (carriers could at introduction)

  • Exhaustive testing of ships that are authorized to (jump thru gate/jump thru BO portal/jump thru jumpbridge/jump thru titan portal)

  • Exhaustive testing that you can assemble ships

  • Exhaustive testing wrt fleet bonus and gang mods



That's just some examples... 8 years and still not testing basic gameplay. No one is asking you to automatically test massive fleet battles, but frankly some basic stuff we expect not making it in a broken state to TQ...

Malen Nenokal
The Nightshift
Posted - 2011.05.22 21:33:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
That's not a QA issue, it's a design issue - I forgot about covops subsystems when I was speccing out the changes, and the "exhaustive" list I gave our testers didn't include them. There's a boring technical reason why I didn't catch it in review but essentially this is entirely my fault. I've just fixed it internally, but I can't guarantee when exactly it will hit TQ, sorry.


This sort of transparency is really nice, keep it up. Very Happy

Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.05.22 23:48:00 - [35]
 

While the communication is impressive, I do wonder why QA doesn't have a separate check for code that has changed and, in turn, a means for performing regression testing on related features to ensure that stuff that works doesn't become stuff that's broke.

Daneel Trevize
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.22 23:50:00 - [36]
 

AFAIK the devblogs about lag hinted that they've only recently progressed any kind of automated client/bot-based testing. Who knows if individual functions and classes have automated unit testing, but there's certainly the vibe that the thing as a whole is/was only tested by someone sitting in front of a client and putting in the time and manual inputs. It sounded like a notable achievement that 100s of drakes could be made to shoot a POS until they reloaded, there's no ghost fleets being portaled about 24-7 on some spare server/in Jove space.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.05.23 00:55:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 23/05/2011 00:57:22
Ok, so now we're getting into the ins and outs of what actually happened, here's some more insight.

First up, there was zero code touched in this change. We thought we would have to do some initially, but it turned out that the system as-was supported everything we wanted already. All I did was alter the value of some attributes on various types, which is (with a fair bit of hand-waving to avoid having to explain all the ins and outs of our internal tools) essentially just changing some values in the DB.

On all our jump-related stuff we have an attribute (ie, a DB value with a name) called "Jump Harmonics". If the Jump Harmonics on your ship is equal to or greater than the Jump Harmonics on the thing you're trying to jump with (cyno, jump bridge, jump portal etc), you're good, otherwise computer says no. Previously, we had covert-capable ships, modules etc set to 2 and everything else jump-related to 1 (IIRC). What we did was change covert to 5, most ships to 0, and ships with jump drives to -5, along with setting covert mods to 5, normal cynos to -5 and jump bridges/portals to 0. Following the equal-or-greater-than rule, this achieves everything we wanted just by changing a few dozen DB values. The choice of 5 and -5 was just to give us breathing room in the future in case we invented any more levels of granularity in between. (As you will see later, this last bit had unintended consequences.)

When I set this up I looked up everything that had Jump Harmonics set (fun fact, if you don't define an attribute it takes the default value, and the default was and still is 0, so most ships don't have it defined, making the result of this lookup easier to understand), and made changes accordingly, and re-verified it in the same way when I was done.

The reason T3s slipped through is because by default they have Jump Harmonics 0, as you'd expect, and it's set to 2 (well, 5 now that I've fixed it...) using a different attribute, which was necessary (and sensible) given the way we apply effects. This attribute obviously doesn't come up when you look at things with Jump Harmonics set, because it's not Jump Harmonics. Add to that the fact that using Covert Reconfiguration subsystems in conjunction with Black Ops is a fairly niche activity (we've all seen the Black Ops usage stats...), and the fact that Design had handed over an (incorrect) list of stuff that should and shouldn't work, and you end up with this sort of thing being missed on occasion.

So yeah, this isn't a case of an old code bug being reverted and not caught, it's a case of doing DB value updates and forgetting that certain things are special-cased. For the record, the original "fix" for letting Covert Reconfiguration work with Black Ops is still working on TQ right now - it's setting Jump Harmonics to 2, just like it was supposed to Embarassed

Nemesis Factor
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.23 02:43:00 - [38]
 

I always like a look behind the curtain. Thanks Greyscale.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.05.23 04:49:00 - [39]
 

So when can we expect T3's with covert sub systems to be allowed to take the covert jump bridge again? Or is it fixed already?

KWyz
Posted - 2011.05.23 07:57:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: KWyz on 23/05/2011 07:58:42
CCP Greyscale said they had the problem fixed internally but he couldn't specify a date for when this fix would go live. I think it's because, from what i understand, he's not responsible for the whole patching process.

Just as everyone else,i enjoy the look behind the courtain, but i can't help feeling that you guys need some more people for these jobs. From what I understand, the work that needs to be done in order to enact any *large* changes is quite an endeavour, the volume of it is impressive, hence the lack of celerity in implementing a great deal of stuff. Not to mention the whole theorycrafting involved with ANY change in the game.

I appreciate all your hard work, but I think you guys need more skilled people like you to share some of the load.

Niveon
Posted - 2011.05.23 08:07:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Stuff about "Jump Harmonics" being a DB change and thus not checking the code
Sounds like the code's a bit too spaghetti for someone to easily do a grep for this variable and see the conditional statements around it that would have guided you to that special case other variable.

Hemmo Paskiainen
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.23 12:28:00 - [42]
 

Could u share the black op usage stats with me? Out of your answere i can get that it is known how much ships and witch ship types are using the cov op bridge. I would like to process the stats in my fix black ops topic in the assembly hall. It would be much appriciated Rolling Eyes

Captian Conrad
Minmatar
Empyrean Warriors
Posted - 2011.05.23 12:46:00 - [43]
 

Kudos to your honesty and balls sir!, very nice to see CoolVery Happy

Othran
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.05.23 12:59:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Othran on 23/05/2011 13:00:39
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
it's a case of doing DB value updates and forgetting that certain things are special-cased. For the record, the original "fix" for letting Covert Reconfiguration work with Black Ops is still working on TQ right now - it's setting Jump Harmonics to 2, just like it was supposed to Embarassed


Mmmm surely it would be a good idea to require attributes to be defined before you can link/build it? ie you can't make the change without defining the associated attribute defaults.

I know its a monumental PITA but your post explains an awful lot about Eve and "retro" bugs.

Time to do surely before you inflict barbieville on us? Razz

Ghurthe
Posted - 2011.05.23 13:17:00 - [45]
 

Thank you greyscale! Though, still very frustrating.

Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
Posted - 2011.05.23 13:37:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Mendolus on 23/05/2011 13:40:17
Originally by: captain skinback
are you ****ing kidding me
im 1 day away from using the portal
i wish i knew about this a few months ago before i started skilling for black ops






If you've played for more than a couple years you should know by now that most of the time you train to something really useful, it gets nerfed or balanced before you get to it, why else would you be training it?

Razz

I finished Interceptor training six days *after* the nano nerf.
I only flew my Falcon for a couple weeks before the Falcon nerf.
I was two weeks away from a Golem after *months* of training when T3 came out.
I trained to T2 Large Pulse only to see Projectiles buffed to epic levels of win.
And on and on and on...

About halfway in, around the time I was training to a Golem, I stopped worrying about it. I play to have fun, whether the thing I spend months training to gets bent over and reamed or not.

They will fix T3 jump potential eventually, until then, relax! Wink

The R00k
Posted - 2011.05.23 17:09:00 - [47]
 

So we will soon be able to jump the t3 covops sub system? Does this also mean we will be able to light cov ops cynos from the covert ss?

Dinsdale Pirannha
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.24 02:18:00 - [48]
 

Gotta say, wonderful logic at CCP.

Ram through a 0.0 nerf, even though there are 100 pages of screaming. Nope, CCP is going to make it happen. Rams it through with 2 weeks notice.

Wreck man-years of work setting up jump bridge networks on a whim, ram that change through with one week's notice.

Screw up something in the game, admit it is a screw-up, then say, "we will get around to fixing it sometime".

Awesome customer service CCP.
And yeah, I am bitter.


Ketton
Posted - 2011.05.25 05:34:00 - [49]
 

Any specific info on when this will be fixed then?

ivar R'dhak
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.25 08:36:00 - [50]
 

*points at OP Gurista jamming boost

Sometime end of this summer, I guess. Rolling Eyes

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.05.25 09:01:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Dinsdale Pirannha
Gotta say, wonderful logic at CCP.

Ram through a 0.0 nerf, even though there are 100 pages of screaming. Nope, CCP is going to make it happen. Rams it through with 2 weeks notice.

Wreck man-years of work setting up jump bridge networks on a whim, ram that change through with one week's notice.

Screw up something in the game, admit it is a screw-up, then say, "we will get around to fixing it sometime".

Awesome customer service CCP.
And yeah, I am bitter.




Comparing this bug to a couple fixes to how 0.0 works is hardly the same thing. The 0.0 fixes are intentional. And the 100 pages of tears your talking about? Delicious!!! Very Happy

hired goon
Posted - 2011.05.25 10:27:00 - [52]
 

Honest communication from CCP Grayscale again demonstrates CCP superiority Very Happy

Forumena Altair
Posted - 2011.05.25 11:54:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Forumena Altair on 25/05/2011 11:57:49
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 23/05/2011 00:57:22
Ok, so now we're getting into the ins and outs of what actually happened, here's some more insight.

First up, there was zero code touched in this change. We thought we would have to do some initially, but it turned out that the system as-was supported everything we wanted already. All I did was alter the value of some attributes on various types, which is (with a fair bit of hand-waving to avoid having to explain all the ins and outs of our internal tools) essentially just changing some values in the DB.

On all our jump-related stuff we have an attribute (ie, a DB value with a name) called "Jump Harmonics". If the Jump Harmonics on your ship is equal to or greater than the Jump Harmonics on the thing you're trying to jump with (cyno, jump bridge, jump portal etc), you're good, otherwise computer says no. Previously, we had covert-capable ships, modules etc set to 2 and everything else jump-related to 1 (IIRC). What we did was change covert to 5, most ships to 0, and ships with jump drives to -5, along with setting covert mods to 5, normal cynos to -5 and jump bridges/portals to 0. Following the equal-or-greater-than rule, this achieves everything we wanted just by changing a few dozen DB values. The choice of 5 and -5 was just to give us breathing room in the future in case we invented any more levels of granularity in between. (As you will see later, this last bit had unintended consequences.)

When I set this up I looked up everything that had Jump Harmonics set (fun fact, if you don't define an attribute it takes the default value, and the default was and still is 0, so most ships don't have it defined, making the result of this lookup easier to understand), and made changes accordingly, and re-verified it in the same way when I was done.

The reason T3s slipped through is because by default they have Jump Harmonics 0, as you'd expect, and it's set to 2 (well, 5 now that I've fixed it...) using a different attribute, which was necessary (and sensible) given the way we apply effects. This attribute obviously doesn't come up when you look at things with Jump Harmonics set, because it's not Jump Harmonics. Add to that the fact that using Covert Reconfiguration subsystems in conjunction with Black Ops is a fairly niche activity (we've all seen the Black Ops usage stats...), and the fact that Design had handed over an (incorrect) list of stuff that should and shouldn't work, and you end up with this sort of thing being missed on occasion.

So yeah, this isn't a case of an old code bug being reverted and not caught, it's a case of doing DB value updates and forgetting that certain things are special-cased. For the record, the original "fix" for letting Covert Reconfiguration work with Black Ops is still working on TQ right now - it's setting Jump Harmonics to 2, just like it was supposed to Embarassed


So if jump harmonics is a simple DB value that can be modified by changing a subsystem, it shouldn't be a huge leap to assume that ships can or cannot use Covert Cyno Generators is also a similar DB value that can be modified via subsystem.

And if that's the case, When the T3 covert subsystem was originally introduced it was supposed to be able to use the Covert Cyno Generator as shown here : Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Why did you guys the delete the description in a patch instead of "fixing the bug" and claming this line of crap? :

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
we actually don't mind the subsystem having the ability to fit a covert cyno. The issue we encountered was our use of new fitting restrictions was never really meant for subsystems and we have to wait for code changes to allow that happen or revert the covert cyno back to using a good old cpu based fitting restriction.


The "niche" players haven't forgot about that. Evil or Very Mad

VIP Ares
Minmatar
BALKAN EXPRESS
HUN Reloaded
Posted - 2011.05.25 13:03:00 - [54]
 

Cheers for honesty. At least for me - it is easier to live (play) with bugs that way.


Raid'En
Posted - 2011.05.25 13:44:00 - [55]
 

would be cool if you were honest more often.

moreover as you can see ;
* if you don't answer, or say no : mass forum whine
* if you answer, even saying your guilty : not much whine

Tao Zun
The Roaches
Posted - 2011.05.28 12:44:00 - [56]
 

Bump so more attention can be paid, so is there really no way possible to give us a general time frame on when this will fix itself? I don't think CCP realizes that T3s truly make the black ops work. They provide the vast majority for a normal fleets DPS. And black ops have only recently gained a lot of popularity because of the t3s, and with the growing number of players in EVE maybe it is something ccp should take another look at.


black ops is best ops

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2011.05.29 18:29:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
That's not a QA issue, it's a design issue - I forgot about covops subsystems when I was speccing out the changes, and the "exhaustive" list I gave our testers didn't include them. There's a boring technical reason why I didn't catch it in review but essentially this is entirely my fault. I've just fixed it internally, but I can't guarantee when exactly it will hit TQ, sorry.
Do you work alone at CCP? I would like to use the word re+tard here, because man, you people are simply so embarrassingly bad at anything approaching competence it's just not funny. Always big words about how awesome, wise, mystical etc you are until the sun rises and reality hits you in the face at 200kph.

Morons.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2011.05.29 18:34:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 23/05/2011 00:57:22
Ok, so now we're getting into the ins and outs of what actually happened, here's some more insight.

First up, there was zero code touched in this change. We thought we would have to do some initially, but it turned out that the system as-was supported everything we wanted already. All I did was alter the value of some attributes on various types, which is (with a fair bit of hand-waving to avoid having to explain all the ins and outs of our internal tools) essentially just changing some values in the DB.

On all our jump-related stuff we have an attribute (ie, a DB value with a name) called "Jump Harmonics". If the Jump Harmonics on your ship is equal to or greater than the Jump Harmonics on the thing you're trying to jump with (cyno, jump bridge, jump portal etc), you're good, otherwise computer says no. Previously, we had covert-capable ships, modules etc set to 2 and everything else jump-related to 1 (IIRC). What we did was change covert to 5, most ships to 0, and ships with jump drives to -5, along with setting covert mods to 5, normal cynos to -5 and jump bridges/portals to 0. Following the equal-or-greater-than rule, this achieves everything we wanted just by changing a few dozen DB values. The choice of 5 and -5 was just to give us breathing room in the future in case we invented any more levels of granularity in between. (As you will see later, this last bit had unintended consequences.)

When I set this up I looked up everything that had Jump Harmonics set (fun fact, if you don't define an attribute it takes the default value, and the default was and still is 0, so most ships don't have it defined, making the result of this lookup easier to understand), and made changes accordingly, and re-verified it in the same way when I was done.

The reason T3s slipped through is because by default they have Jump Harmonics 0, as you'd expect, and it's set to 2 (well, 5 now that I've fixed it...) using a different attribute, which was necessary (and sensible) given the way we apply effects. This attribute obviously doesn't come up when you look at things with Jump Harmonics set, because it's not Jump Harmonics. Add to that the fact that using Covert Reconfiguration subsystems in conjunction with Black Ops is a fairly niche activity (we've all seen the Black Ops usage stats...), and the fact that Design had handed over an (incorrect) list of stuff that should and shouldn't work, and you end up with this sort of thing being missed on occasion.

So yeah, this isn't a case of an old code bug being reverted and not caught, it's a case of doing DB value updates and forgetting that certain things are special-cased. For the record, the original "fix" for letting Covert Reconfiguration work with Black Ops is still working on TQ right now - it's setting Jump Harmonics to 2, just like it was supposed to Embarassed
Again, do you work alone? Is actual communication forbidden within CCP, or is continually making really pathetically poor excuses for not having any internal communication process the way you think CCP will succeed as a company?

Also, wasn't Chronotis the one in charge of the web team disaster? Wasn't it enough for him to ruin that and make poor excuses there?

Lady Spank
Amarr
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.05.29 18:46:00 - [59]
 

more :excellence: in action.

Quindaster
Posted - 2011.05.30 15:28:00 - [60]
 

New patch, new patch notes and...NOTHING about Black Ops and T3 !

Only idiotic abbility for avatars in dock and on ships and useless trash.

Return back abbility for Black Ops and T3 use portal!

I don't want to sit in dock for weeks and wait till you return that you crashed in last useless patch!

I don't need NEW, nothing new in patches, I don't neew incarna or any other stupid patch!

Only return T3 to jump to BO portal!

And forget about patches after it!

No more patch - you will crash something usefull and add useless things again!


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only