Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Ned Black
Driders
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 11:57:00 -
[61] - Quote
Hamatitio wrote:What does this do to wormhole space? Well it slows things down. It gives a potential target more time to find the hole you came from, more time to pos up. More time to hide their valuables, and just adds another hurdle to getting PvP in a wormhole.
Not to mention the fact that if I jump through a crit hole ahead of a guy and then ends up being spit out into the system I jumped from just because that other guy sat on a fast lane to the server and I did not... Now, I don't anger easily... but that would surely **** the living hell out of me. |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:30:00 -
[62] - Quote
Maybe not clearly to the point, but closely conected:
With session-change timer reduction, maybe it is the time to implement the "polarity timer" of 30 seconds to the second jump (that is jump back). Previously it was like: jump-30 seconds session change- jump back - 1.5 min polaity timer.
With session change timers further reduced we can come to the situation, when in the fight like that depicted earlier a capital can jump to and from BEFORE people are able to react and return home before being closed. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
395
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:35:00 -
[63] - Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:Maybe not clearly to the point, but closely conected:
With session-change timer reduction, maybe it is the time to implement the "polarity timer" of 30 seconds to the second jump (that is jump back). Previously it was like: jump-30 seconds session change- jump back - 1.5 min polaity timer.
With session change timers further reduced we can come to the situation, when in the fight like that depicted earlier a capital can jump to and from BEFORE people are able to react and return home before being closed.
Not sure I know what you're talking about. Polarity timer was always 4 minutes or there abouts. We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:40:00 -
[64] - Quote
You are wrong. |
Roime
UNFRL Fleet Operations CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
176
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:44:00 -
[65] - Quote
Mister, Mr Kidd is correct. It's 4 minutes.
|
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:59:00 -
[66] - Quote
hm.... Really it is now. I'm almost sure it was lower for the third jump and 4 minutes for the forth. I see some possible reasons why it may have looked like that, but this is not the point.
Anyway. The ability to jump back immediately (AFAIR CCP intended to get rid of session change timer) can be a bad thing if we ever come there. |
Seleia O'Sinnor
Drop of Honey
169
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 18:51:00 -
[67] - Quote
Finally! WH-Space has gone erratic. No really, I am not sure if this is bad or good, since it makes hole-life a bit more interesting. I'd really appreciate some randomness for holes. Maybe a module which can give you more precise data on the status of a wh? Eve community: An angry mob of bright people hunting witches, more torches, more hay forks, growing and growing. |
FuryX1013
United Space Republic Research ORPHANS OF EVE
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 21:29:00 -
[68] - Quote
Seleia O'Sinnor wrote:Finally! WH-Space has gone erratic. No really, I am not sure if this is bad or good, since it makes hole-life a bit more interesting. I'd really appreciate some randomness for holes. Maybe a module which can give you more precise data on the status of a wh?
While I agree with you Seleia erratic can be a good thing. I must disagree with the module suggestion fits for w/h vessels are already tight enough as it is with most people adding a core launcher.
What i would suggest is first we need the visual cues and timers to work properly second instead of a module to estimate wormhole mass I would add a skill to science call it Wormhole Mechanics and add that functionality to the D scanner.
The higher level you have it trained the more accurate the estimate but it should never be exact there should always still be some unpredictability |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 23:38:00 -
[69] - Quote
FuryX1013 wrote:Seleia O'Sinnor wrote:Finally! WH-Space has gone erratic. No really, I am not sure if this is bad or good, since it makes hole-life a bit more interesting. I'd really appreciate some randomness for holes. Maybe a module which can give you more precise data on the status of a wh? While I agree with you Seleia erratic can be a good thing. I must disagree with the module suggestion fits for w/h vessels are already tight enough as it is with most people adding a core launcher.
This is exactly what I thought as well after reading about the module idea. First, yet another semi-mandatory module for wh shenanigans--how about no, unless it occupies no slots no? okay then. Also, there's the meta element of experience and the various tricks people have devised for dealing with wormholes and mass limits. Experience comes into play, as well as certain degrees of risk when you find that you need to put some ships through the wh to see how it acts in order to tell its mass status.Some degree of variation from what's expected is good, keeps things fun. Random behavior is just bad and obnoxious.
What needs to happen is for wormhole state updates to be correct and each wormhole needs to go through the mass cycle of "not yet significantly disrupted" -> "disrupted but not critically" -> "critically disrupted" based on its total mass allowance attribute. Yesterday I had a 1KKK kg wormhole go from "not been significantly disrupted" to -poof- nonexistent after a single jump through in a Prowler. This is bullshit because, although the nature of wormholes is unpredictable blah blah blah and I expect there to be deviations and some randomness, the deviation in this case would have had to be of about 98% assuming a 10KK kg Prowler (yay for two high slots?). Instead of a 1 billion kg total mass, the wormhole acted like anything between 0.00..001 kg total mass limit, and, say, at most about 22 million kg wormhole assuming also a ~20% deviation between the status of the hole as displayed in show info + its size, and the actual mass it has left over. OR the information about the wormhole in the "show info" was seriously incorrect, not updated properly. Either way, boo. Something is broken when you have occurrences like this pretty frequently, and their incidence "happened" to coincide with a patch.
The players already have the tools they need to make very good guesses regarding wh mass states, and their EOL states as well, and it takes more than two brain cells to use them properly. Experience should have an advantage, and if stuff starts behaving randomly enough that experience stops mattering as much as it did, it points to a broken game mechanic. |
Seleia O'Sinnor
Drop of Honey
169
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 00:03:00 -
[70] - Quote
Oh well, it was just a thought about the module. However, just to be honest, and I live in w-space for quite some time, it's all very predictable: How to close a wh, when it will collapse, how much can pass in a single jump. It's ok, and many, including myself, are fine with the mechanics as they are. However it would be fun if wormholes started to be more random. Hell, w-space is one of the nicest features in Eve :) Eve community: An angry mob of bright people hunting witches, more torches, more hay forks, growing and growing. |
|
Tas Nok
Hedion University Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 20:32:00 -
[71] - Quote
As several other people have suggested... it seems that the mass limits are the same.. but the variance is not... whatever you did messed with it so that median mass wh are almost never happening
we chain closed a couple statics just a couple hours ago.. we only used 2 ships, we pinned them, we know EVERYTHING that went through. (inc the scout to see if it was worth keeping open)
for us on a 2bil mass wh we are getting masses up around 2.23-2.38 EVERY time
Ofc we can't see the exact mass, and don't know if the last ship in tripped it at 100t or 5t but this is definitely changed from a random 10% variance to a 20% variance that seems always maxed (in our recent experience)
As one post earlier stated... someone needs to check your dependencies in the code.. something got changed and forgot to put it in the notes or more likely doesn't know they changed it.
its a hard thing to see in progress... will it close at 2.0, 2.1 or higher or lower? we are pushing ships through meant to collapse with a minimum of time and headaches... knowing it is really odd only happens after its closed
** I would suggest, other posters can feel free to disagree, that nearly any toon in this thread would welcome a random CCP visit in their WH, a short convo to get a hole closed, then kill the next static from scratch... then the GM or dev can SEE what is happening 1st hand... **
we won't mind if it means getting this nailed down and explained
|
dhunpael
Viperfleet Inc. Narwhals Ate My Duck
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 11:41:00 -
[72] - Quote
Tas Nok wrote: ** I would suggest, other posters can feel free to disagree, that nearly any toon in this thread would welcome a random CCP visit in their WH, a short convo to get a hole closed, then kill the next static from scratch... then the GM or dev can SEE what is happening 1st hand... **
we won't mind if it means getting this nailed down and explained
this ^^
just drop by, you'll see it for yourself and might just lean what it is to live in w-space :)
|
Hamatitio
Aperture Harmonics K162
67
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 16:40:00 -
[73] - Quote
If you do bring a cockroach and an enigma please! |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
400
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 05:23:00 -
[74] - Quote
I would guess that they are more than capable of testing this in Jove space where they wouldn't have to expose themselves to the inmates of New Eden. We all know what happened last time.:D We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
Rob Kepie
Global Economy Experts Stellar Economy Experts
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 09:09:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: The exploit we patched in Crucible 1.1 means that information about the latest wormhole state is being propagated a little slower than it used to be. I talked to CCP Atlas just now and he says that the showinfo information was never intended to be robustly real-time, so it's possible that the slower information propagation is causing slightly longer delays in updating the showinfo information. My understanding is that this would be on the order of seconds or at the most minutes (ie, not hours or days), but there may be a change in behavior here.
For those insisting that the variance has changed, doesn't this paragraph explain that the wormhole mass status you are seeing may not be up-to-date? If the show info is showing old info, then you might be tricked into thinking it's still safe to jump when in fact the server has shrunk the wormhole to critical.
So I would suggest that the mass limits and the variances haven't changed. What has perhaps changed is that when wormholes shrink, clients won't find out until a bit later. The way to test this is to take a few minutes break between ship jumps during a collapse operation and see if the show info eventually updates with accurate info. For CCP Greyscale, is the visual feedback that the wormhole has shrunk also delayed, like the show info is? |
Bloemkoolsaus
Viperfleet Inc. Narwhals Ate My Duck
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 13:55:00 -
[76] - Quote
Rob Kepie wrote:For those insisting that the variance has changed, doesn't this paragraph explain that the wormhole mass status you are seeing may not be up-to-date? If the show info is showing old info, then you might be tricked into thinking it's still safe to jump when in fact the server has shrunk the wormhole to critical.
I'm thinking the same thing.
I haven't experienced any of the described cases yet, and I have been collapsing a fair amount of wormholes last week. We put a fixed combination of ships through (ignoring mass changes/messages). Every single time the wh collapsed as expected. |
KrogothZero
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 14:17:00 -
[77] - Quote
Rob Kepie wrote:[quote=CCP Greyscale] So I would suggest that the mass limits and the variances haven't changed. What has perhaps changed is that when wormholes shrink, clients won't find out until a bit later. The way to test this is to take a few minutes break between ship jumps during a collapse operation and see if the show info eventually updates with accurate info. For CCP Greyscale, is the visual feedback that the wormhole has shrunk also delayed, like the show info is?
When I was closing the other day visual feedback also was delayed. |
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 15:02:00 -
[78] - Quote
I have also observed instances where the visual effect does not occur at all, while the Show Info updated correctly. |
|
CCP Greyscale
C C P C C P Alliance
564
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 15:36:00 -
[79] - Quote
Hey everyone,
Just to keep you all up to date, I've asked the new Live Team to read through this thread and have a look at the various issues being raised, as they're better placed to do thorough testing of this sort of live code :)
Thanks for bringing these glitches to our attention! -Greyscale |
|
Eikelhaven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 17:30:00 -
[80] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Hey everyone,
Just to keep you all up to date, I've asked the new Live Team to read through this thread and have a look at the various issues being raised, as they're better placed to do thorough testing of this sort of live code :)
Thanks for bringing these glitches to our attention! -Greyscale
Well hey then, thanks to you and the Live Team! Sounds great if this can get looked at. |
|
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 17:36:00 -
[81] - Quote
Rob Kepie wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: The exploit we patched in Crucible 1.1 means that information about the latest wormhole state is being propagated a little slower than it used to be. I talked to CCP Atlas just now and he says that the showinfo information was never intended to be robustly real-time, so it's possible that the slower information propagation is causing slightly longer delays in updating the showinfo information. My understanding is that this would be on the order of seconds or at the most minutes (ie, not hours or days), but there may be a change in behavior here.
For those insisting that the variance has changed, doesn't this paragraph explain that the wormhole mass status you are seeing may not be up-to-date? If the show info is showing old info, then you might be tricked into thinking it's still safe to jump when in fact the server has shrunk the wormhole to critical. So I would suggest that the mass limits and the variances haven't changed. What has perhaps changed is that when wormholes shrink, clients won't find out until a bit later. The way to test this is to take a few minutes break between ship jumps during a collapse operation and see if the show info eventually updates with accurate info. For CCP Greyscale, is the visual feedback that the wormhole has shrunk also delayed, like the show info is?
This is a reasonable possibility in case of a wormhole that you didn't open, so you don't know if someone already took ten battleships through it and whatnot. However, when you know you opened a brand new static and you know that no one went through because you had someone looking at it starting at about five seconds after it spawned, you know pretty well how many ships of what mass you can take through before it collapses. The latter is the issue that a lot of people are describing. I agree that the apparent lack of properly updated information in show info (or in the wormhole graphic) might very well be something else, though.
Stealth Prowler boost |
Eikelhaven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 19:12:00 -
[82] - Quote
Well damn, I mis-posted here. Wrong topic! |
Goodluvins
Darkstorm Corporation
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 18:33:00 -
[83] - Quote
Please fix the mass limit problem with WHs. Thanks. |
Sarina Rhoda
Viral Target
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 15:11:00 -
[84] - Quote
Has this been looked into further yet ? |
Cipher Jones
301
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 16:58:00 -
[85] - Quote
People are saying they spawned the WH themselves but it still had the wrong mass, so the information delay should have nothing to do with it.
However, pics or it didn't happen IMHO.I know if I had a carrier or orca and it got stuck because of what I thought was a bug, I sure as hell would screen shot it next time I went through.
Anyway I have not encountered the problem myself but I will actively seek it this weekend and try to get screens if I find anything "fishy".
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Boodreau
The Elysian Horde Elysian Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 05:36:00 -
[86] - Quote
So, This topic is interesting.
My WH alliance was invaded by another alliance known to be somewhat neutral or even "friendly" with AHARM a couple days ago. They put our POS's re-inforced mode, with the first coming out earlier today (well, 17:00-ish eve time on 2/17/2012).
We countered with an attack of multiple cap ships (outnumbered them) and succeeded in destroying all their caps and some support ships, then our fleet decided to close the exit WH on them and trap them in while we wipe them out.
This c6 (we were in a c6, c6 static) was already at half mass when we jumped a carrier through it and then to bring him back through would close it. When he jumped, AHARM had a massive fleet sitting there. Around 40 pilots we figure, with 2 dreds at least and some say also a carrier. When our carrier jumped back, the WH should have closed behind him, and it did, only the entirety of the AHARM fleet, 2 dreds, possibly their own carrier, and all, were in our hole.
Being vastly outnumbered we fell to the attack.
So the question is (and yes its been submitted by some of our members via petition), is this an exploit? This hole that was supposedly less than 50% took basicaly 4 cap jumps and 30+ cruisers within 15-20 seconds. |
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics K162
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 07:19:00 -
[87] - Quote
Boodreau wrote:So, This topic is interesting.
My WH alliance was invaded by another alliance known to be somewhat neutral or even "friendly" with AHARM a couple days ago. They put our POS's re-inforced mode, with the first coming out earlier today (well, 17:00-ish eve time on 2/17/2012).
We countered with an attack of multiple cap ships (outnumbered them) and succeeded in destroying all their caps and some support ships, then our fleet decided to close the exit WH on them and trap them in while we wipe them out.
This c6 (we were in a c6, c6 static) was already at half mass when we jumped a carrier through it and then to bring him back through would close it. When he jumped, AHARM had a massive fleet sitting there. Around 40 pilots we figure, with 2 dreds at least and some say also a carrier. When our carrier jumped back, the WH should have closed behind him, and it did, only the entirety of the AHARM fleet, 2 dreds, possibly their own carrier, and all, were in our hole.
Being vastly outnumbered we fell to the attack.
So the question is (and yes its been submitted by some of our members via petition), is this an exploit? This hole that was supposedly less than 50% took basicaly 4 cap jumps and 30+ cruisers within 15-20 seconds.
Wasn't there personally, but our guys were quite bewildered by it as well. From our AARs, it sounds like we cross-jumped with our fleet + two caps when your archon came through expecting the hole would close behind us, but clearly something funny happened and everything got back in without any trouble. v0v |
Hamatitio
Aperture Harmonics K162
68
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 07:38:00 -
[88] - Quote
Boodreau wrote:So, This topic is interesting.
My WH alliance was invaded by another alliance known to be somewhat neutral or even "friendly" with AHARM a couple days ago. They put our POS's re-inforced mode, with the first coming out earlier today (well, 17:00-ish eve time on 2/17/2012).
We countered with an attack of multiple cap ships (outnumbered them) and succeeded in destroying all their caps and some support ships, then our fleet decided to close the exit WH on them and trap them in while we wipe them out.
This c6 (we were in a c6, c6 static) was already at half mass when we jumped a carrier through it and then to bring him back through would close it. When he jumped, AHARM had a massive fleet sitting there. Around 40 pilots we figure, with 2 dreds at least and some say also a carrier. When our carrier jumped back, the WH should have closed behind him, and it did, only the entirety of the AHARM fleet, 2 dreds, possibly their own carrier, and all, were in our hole.
Being vastly outnumbered we fell to the attack.
So the question is (and yes its been submitted by some of our members via petition), is this an exploit? This hole that was supposedly less than 50% took basicaly 4 cap jumps and 30+ cruisers within 15-20 seconds.
I submitted a bug report with timestamps etc to see if the QA team can look through logs to see what happened. Unfortunately after 8 years, I know about CCP's logs, so I don't expect much to be returned.
My best guess? The system couldn't handle processing the 35 ish jumps at once and lagged up. |
Slaktoid
Aperture Harmonics K162
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 08:34:00 -
[89] - Quote
Actually we used a Wormhole Stabilizer. This mod came out with the Cruicible 1.2 patch. |
Aidamina Omen
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 09:25:00 -
[90] - Quote
Boodreau wrote: So the question is (and yes its been submitted by some of our members via petition), is this an exploit? This hole that was supposedly less than 50% took basicaly 4 cap jumps and 30+ cruisers within 15-20 seconds.
I was there,
Wormhole mass wasn't below 50%, 20 ish cruisers rather then 30+ jumped.
That something odd happened with the wormhole is undeniable, but to cry wolf about an exploit being used is far fetched.
Most wormhole people already know that the wormhole behaviour has significantly changed since crusible 1.1, but this was done to fix an exploit with wormholes (reported by AHARM nonetheless.)
I agree that the current mechanics are flawed and that it needs looking into. As for the four cap jumps through one wormhole, we were as surprised as you were when that happened.
In this occasion it resulted in an extra carrier on the field for you guys, instead of it getting trapped on the wrong side(Our intention) so it should have actually been an advantage for you. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |