open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Just a suggestion....
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Titss McGee
Posted - 2011.08.07 08:50:00 - [1]
 

Would this not solve most of the bickering on SiSi?Laughing

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

w1ndowmaker
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2011.08.07 08:53:00 - [2]
 

Oops, posted this on the wrong account. Anyway - I would love to undock from 6C and see this thing just below it. It would be interesting to hear the pros/cons of something like this.

fab24
Gallente
Tax Fraud Corporation
Posted - 2011.08.07 11:11:00 - [3]
 

Capitals can't take gates.

Flying Apocalypse
Amarr
Fracture.
Posted - 2011.08.07 13:34:00 - [4]
 

perfect! no more damn carriers and supers \o/
and make an ffa for the capital to than(just a beacon)

Jack Tronic
Posted - 2011.08.07 16:27:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: fab24
Capitals can't take gates.


Capitals can use acceleration gate if the gate is set to allow them unlike star gates.

Marcus Sin
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2011.08.07 19:44:00 - [6]
 

The problem then becomes camping the Warp Gate drop off. As it stands, you can warp at distance to the beacon from several different angles, which creates at least some layers in beginning engagement ranges.

Once you're there, you can of course make a Warp In bookmark (or 10) to give you some breathing room upon landing. But IIRC, that doesn't work for Warp Gate areas. I could be wrong on that one-- it's been over 3 years since I've messed with it. Embarassed

But you WILL still have a ton of goobers in a Fleet, with fighters, sitting around in FFA's staring at each other until a single person actually trying to test their ship warps in. Only now, you've given them an extremely easy way to blob the new ship the instant it lands.

Good notion of course, but the realities of it are still problematic. IMO, if you go back to the old rules and enforce them as best as possible, but extend all bans/lock outs to TQ (they're EULA violations, after all), you'd see things cleaned up in a hurry.

CCP Konflikt

Posted - 2011.08.08 14:03:00 - [7]
 

Content (such as the gates) shouldnt be authored for singularity, because in the same time we could make a dungeon or mission for TQ where over 45000+ players can use a dungeon daily instead of 100-200 players on sisi using a few jump gates.

Fighting would happen at the gates. Interdiction would mean that you wouldn't have a choice about it if someone wanted to do that while a Bughunter or QA Tester isn't on singularity. This reduces the value of this idea.

We'd have to change the sisi rules to support it, the current ethos is less rules, so QA testers spend more time testing and less time supporting the "Eve Arcade Mode" of sisi. This means Eve is a better game instead of sisi is a better arcade mode.

The problem I see with Singularity is that people go to play "Eve arcade mode" and admittedly the idea that players can self police is possible but difficult in the current implementation, because everyone has their own set of skill points meaning not everyone has a capital ship or has a ship larger than the ship that just killed them, when that ship is not "suggested" ship for the beacon.

I do see the frustration of the "arcade mode" crowd and while many of them are not directly contributing to reporting problems, they are generating load and logs and these are indirectly useful to QA testers.

We will look into this a little more and see if there is a need to adjust anything, but this won't change quickly, people are still on holiday and we need time to consider the changes (if we make them).

Titss McGee
Posted - 2011.08.08 21:07:00 - [8]
 

Some very valid arguments between the last two posts, thanks for bringing them to light. The term "arcade mode" for SiSi fits perfectly. I guess its a large part of the problem as well, people see it as a giant sandbox to play in rather than as a tool.


Marcus Sin
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2011.08.08 22:40:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: CCP Konflikt
[The] current ethos is less rules, so QA testers spend more time testing and less time supporting the "Eve Arcade Mode" of sisi. This means Eve is a better game instead of sisi is a better arcade mode.

The problem I see with Singularity is that people go to play "Eve arcade mode" and admittedly the idea that players can self police is possible but difficult in the current implementation, because everyone has their own set of skill points meaning not everyone has a capital ship or has a ship larger than the ship that just killed them, when that ship is not "suggested" ship for the beacon.

I do see the frustration of the "arcade mode" crowd and while many of them are not directly contributing to reporting problems, they are generating load and logs and these are indirectly useful to QA testers.


While I fully understand the concept outlined in the first statement, I can't imagine that the theory actually correlates with reality. First and foremost, with fewer combat instances of scope (or in general) taking place as a result of the "fewer rules", there's simply less data being generated-- either for the logs, or for individuals creating de-bug reports. Second, I can't imagine what aspects of combat these "dedicated Bughunters" are testing by sitting in Supercaps day in and day out, staring at their buddies and performing the occasional gank.

They are however quite effective at running out people who did indeed come for "Arcade Mode", but may well have submitted a report of their own if they encountered a bug. And in terms of the myriad other elements of Eve-- the combat rules on Sisi have no bearing at all. Limiting FFA rules to suggestions doesn't effect any aspect of the game other than PvP-- and it's effectively limiting participation in that field in terms of both scope and scale.

As a counter point-- the problem I see with Singularity is that it's still being used as "Eve arcade mode", only now by a limited and organized group that make it impossible for others to do testing of their own. While said group may well completely debug Supercaps in a matter of days, that is but a tiny cross section of the PvP environment-- and comes with the cost of limiting testing in those other areas.

I won't hesitate to say that I'm there primarily to get re-acclimated with the combat mechanics, that have changed dramatically since my hiatus. I have at the same time produced a bug report in my ~10 hours on Sisi, and am trying to duplicate a couple more issues to help pin them down. I'm here to tell you that it isn't easy, with the current state of affairs.

Now I'm not behind the scenes on this, and can't make any definitive statements. But based on what I've seen, I can't imagine the people using Sisi as their personal "no risk Arcade game" are producing that much quality Debugging. They are however limiting the options of those who may, through dedicated focus or pure happenstance, offer up some bug reports of their own.

Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
Posted - 2011.08.09 00:26:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 09/08/2011 00:27:21

If the warp gates were on grid with the station...
Then people can catch a ban for bubbling or camping them.


See how simple that is?
And how awesome and ingenious I am?



Why not do this? I just don't know... So I guess I'll just keep playing supercarriers online, even on the test server, while CCP keeps thinking about it.

fab24
Gallente
Tax Fraud Corporation
Posted - 2011.08.09 08:11:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 09/08/2011 00:27:21
See how simple that is?
And how awesome and ingenious I am?



You're not.
What if I want to test a tachy apoc? I have no other choice than warping at 0 and shooting gleam on the gang camping gate drop? The gate system would give more work to do. :CCP:

ColdStealth
Minmatar
Trixi IFI
Posted - 2011.08.09 09:15:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: fab24
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 09/08/2011 00:27:21
See how simple that is?
And how awesome and ingenious I am?



You're not.
What if I want to test a tachy apoc? I have no other choice than warping at 0 and shooting gleam on the gang camping gate drop? The gate system would give more work to do. :CCP:


See, Fab knows.

Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
Posted - 2011.08.09 11:49:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 09/08/2011 11:50:19
Originally by: fab24
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 09/08/2011 00:27:21
See how simple that is?
And how awesome and ingenious I am?



You're not.
What if I want to test a tachy apoc? I have no other choice than warping at 0 and shooting gleam on the gang camping gate drop? The gate system would give more work to do. :CCP:



Oh yee of such little imagination...



Why can't there also be "suggested beacons" and warp gates?
There is no reason why there cannot be both...



So keep on arguing on the side of stupidity if you wish, the solution is simple for all parties involved.

Pharos Pharos
Posted - 2011.08.09 15:23:00 - [14]
 

No.

As mentioned, I don't want any Dev time being wasted on improving the 'arcade' aspects of Sisi when it could be spent on developing content for tranquility instead.

You want meaningless PvP with size restrictions, support the Arenas that almost got introduced, but for gods sake don't waste Dev time on a sisi specific solution.

Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
Posted - 2011.08.09 22:38:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 09/08/2011 22:38:01
Originally by: Pharos Pharos
No.

As mentioned, I don't want any Dev time being wasted on improving the 'arcade' aspects of Sisi when it could be spent on developing content for tranquility instead.

You want meaningless PvP with size restrictions, support the Arenas that almost got introduced, but for gods sake don't waste Dev time on a sisi specific solution.


They changed the hub system, and it makes sense for there to be one station with a market and a repair facility inside instead of dividing that up between two.

They changed the rules, and it makes sense because it was taking to much of their time to enforce them...



And now, SISI is in a state where supercapitals and carriers are everywhere to the point where it is broken. ATM asking for an additional and very minor alteration is not an unreasonable request. Anyone with common sense can realize that infinite cheap Vagabonds is one thing, where as infinite cheap triage Archons is another matter entirely. Singularity is at present over run with peoples stupidity, how are we supposed to get anything done? ugh


LightMeUpJohnny
Posted - 2011.08.10 00:40:00 - [16]
 

ITT: Trixi and their alts shoot down valid ideas because they feel special and because they can't handle pvp that doesn't involve doomsdays and fighter-bombers, and hence, the lack of Tranquility kills for most of their "pilots". Laughing

pygonis
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.10 06:07:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: LightMeUpJohnny
ITT: Trixi and their alts shoot down valid ideas because they feel special and because they can't handle pvp that doesn't involve doomsdays and fighter-bombers, and hence, the lack of Tranquility kills for most of their "pilots". Laughing

nice alt post bro

CCP Konflikt

Posted - 2011.08.10 10:15:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: CCP Konflikt on 10/08/2011 10:15:19
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian

They changed the rules, and it makes sense because it was taking to much of their time to enforce them...



Pretty much this and the Quality of Eve for it's regular ~45000+ Daily Users on TQ has increased because we're not dealing with sisi "arcade mode" blunders.

The concept of making a dungeon to solve all your problems is flawed most simply as I've already said, I never see a point in which we commit time to making content solely for sisi.

Beyond that people can bubble gates, putting the them outside station just means there would be more expectation to police the server instead of find and get bugs fixed.

The rules are your issue, not a lack of test specific content, I'm all ears if you guys have valid rule suggestions but those rules can't involve making something new just for SiSi, need to be very low maintainance and realistic. An army of volunteers to ban people is not realistic before it's suggested.

Spookyjay
Caldari
Animosity.
Posted - 2011.08.10 15:36:00 - [19]
 

The issue is the ******ed rules and ways things are done on sisi.
Remove the faction ships from market.
remove supers from any 1 who does not have it from mirror and don't help with new ones.

Sis has become a greifers playground the change in rules and sisi layout was to help ccp micro it less. Well do your selfs another favour and turn it back to a test server
and not a consequence less pvp server

Flying Apocalypse
Amarr
Fracture.
Posted - 2011.08.10 16:20:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Spookyjay
The issue is the ******ed rules and ways things are done on sisi.
Remove the faction ships from market.
remove supers from any 1 who does not have it from mirror and don't help with new ones.

Sis has become a greifers playground the change in rules and sisi layout was to help ccp micro it less. Well do your selfs another favour and turn it back to a test server
and not a consequence less pvp server



you lost your super? that's why you so mad?

anyway, i like the way it is now, you can do alot of stuff and if you get killed by a super, so what? ships are 100 isk... prefit 15 of them and unless you fail horribly, you won't lose all of them in 1 week...and otherwise just fleet up with some ppl, and pwn others

Spookyjay
Caldari
Animosity.
Posted - 2011.08.10 17:41:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Spookyjay on 10/08/2011 17:41:43
O no i can't even fly a carrier. its just stupid there are people who do almost nothing but play sisi. I don't think its right is all, they can mess around there at expense of people who wana test fits and **** for tq use.

Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
Posted - 2011.08.10 19:05:00 - [22]
 

Flying Apocalypse @ U seem mad bra


Having trouble griefing on Tranq is it?

Flying Apocalypse
Amarr
Fracture.
Posted - 2011.08.10 19:13:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Spookyjay
Edited by: Spookyjay on 10/08/2011 17:41:43
O no i can't even fly a carrier. its just stupid there are people who do almost nothing but play sisi. I don't think its right is all, they can mess around there at expense of people who wana test fits and **** for tq use.


this server is not made for testing fits, its made for finding bugs ;)

Spookyjay
Caldari
Animosity.
Posted - 2011.08.10 19:43:00 - [24]
 

facts are facts. people without super have em on sisi.
gank gangs roam for lols
entire server is consequence less pvp a idea against EVE core design.

And now it's being abused by many who never leave the server and gank the hounest few who want to do testing of fits/bugs.

Think it's time entire server was shut down except for sanctioned times and players.



Marcus Sin
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2011.08.10 23:16:00 - [25]
 

Rules/Policy Suggestions--

Easy, "Must Haves"

1) Ban all Supercaps from non-Capital FFAs.

There's not many people using them, and they won't want to lose their precious risk-free PvP environment. I'd wager 2 or 3 bans will set the precedent, which obviously won't require much work on behalf of a Dev/CCP official.

Note that this should really apply to Capitals in general, but starting with the Supercaps would be a good way to gauge how much effort this rule would take to enforce. Who knows-- it may trickle all the way down and you can change back all FFA's to the old rules, once word spreads. (Probably not, because people are 'tards.)

2) Put faction *ammo* back on the market.

It's used in PvP galaxy wide. While one could fly around and collect some at normal prices, the fixed amount after the mirror won't last forever and it's a PITA. Not sure why it was removed in the first place? It's NOT a discouragement to "arcade Eve", and it actively takes away from a "TQ-like environment".

3) Pull AT ships, if you're going to pull anything.

Again, not sure why some hulls were pulled from the market, but they are vastly more common on TQ than Adrastias, Mimirs, etc. I'd say put the Navy stuff back up and yank these suckers-- or perhaps limit their availability? It WOULD BE a discouragement to "arcade Eve", and its loss would not take away from a "TQ-like environment".

4) Extend penalties/locks/bans to TQ for rule violations.

It's a violation of the EULA, right-- going against CCP rules? I'm sure I could make a valid argument for why it would be... Laughing

This one takes minimal time and effort, as once the penalty is assessed for SiSi, it's just a matter of applying it on TQ as well.

Note that you may want to cut some slack to people who don't/can't/refuse to read the rules. I wouldn't, but hey-- it's not my server or my dollar. That said, it could easily be accomplished by checking usage logs. If someone spends a lot of time on SiSi and violates a rule, down falleth the ban hammer.

Just opening up the possibility of a penalty on TQ would act as a deterrent, at the very least. You may not ever have to make it happen, or just make one or two examples, for it to be effective. Needless to say, it would probably be better used for flagrant violations or repeated infractions. But don't come out and say that-- people love to push the boundaries, and by defining them, you just make it easier.

"You could be banned from TQ for violating rules on Singularity" is just ambiguous enough to scare the crap out of these goofballs.

Xynthiar
Gallente
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.08.11 02:52:00 - [26]
 

On the topic of changing rules... I recall the devblog back from february stating that bans would be permanent, what happened to that? Sounded like a great idea to me.

CCP Konflikt

Posted - 2011.08.11 10:48:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Marcus Sin
Rules/Policy Suggestions....



1) People being in the right place leads to the over head of distinguishing that they are there intentionally and also that it's too easy to do. This was a major contributor to the rules changing last time, we don't have time to enforce a rule like this.

2) Not sure about this.

3) I will look into this.

4) All the activity these people do, if they were to do on TQ (in nearly every case) wouldn't even raise the eyebrow of a GM. I don't think someone being irritating on a test server should effect their status as a paying customer, that's one step too far. I always prefer the carrot to the stick.

Demolishar
Posted - 2011.08.11 12:35:00 - [28]
 

Can't you just code some sort of super turret that only shoots at certain ship classes and put one in each FFA?

Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
Posted - 2011.08.11 12:36:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Demolishar
Can't you just code some sort of super turret that only shoots at certain ship classes and put one in each FFA?


What part of "We don't want to make more arcade level content for a test server" don't you comprende Demolishar?

Demolishar
Posted - 2011.08.11 12:41:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
Originally by: Demolishar
Can't you just code some sort of super turret that only shoots at certain ship classes and put one in each FFA?


What part of "We don't want to make more arcade level content for a test server" don't you comprende Demolishar?


It might be as simple as changing some AI weightings.

But I'm sure you wouldn't like to see your precious supercap shot down, or to lose your unkillable sniper mach.


Pages: [1] 2

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