I have investigated the creation and subsequent salvage of the wreck in question and can see that the wreck still contained the plastic wrapped packages when it was destroyed after the salvage cycles were successful, due to their size relative to the container. Unfortunately this meant that the plastic wraps, and all they contained, were destroyed along with the wreck.

this is a fckin outrage

When i destroy something with extreme prejudice, i too expect the contents of the fiery explosion to remain intact

When i destroy something with extreme prejudice, i too expect the contents of the fiery explosion to remain intact

this is indeed an outrage




Istyn, i do hope this is what you meant when you asked me to intervene in the thread,

did i do good?

Taking 90 percent of the fun out of shooting a pos in a WH is a very bad business model for CCP <_<

I completely forgot this thread existed.

An update for you -

One of our guys had a chat with CCP Masterplan and some other devs at Fanfest about the bug who recognised it as a major issue - the bug report was filtered the same day and attached to a new defect.

So, it is being worked on now.

I hope you don't take it being attached to a defect meaning that they're working on it. I've bugs attached to defects for years and still haven't been fixed. Don't think it's likely that corporation transactions (buy or sell, all wallets) is that hard to fix that they actually need 3 years to fix it.

But if CCP devs have said that it's a major issue, maybe they'll get around to fixing it faster than that...

That said, it's very very sad that you need to talk to developers directly to get your bug report processed. Isn't that what BH/QA should be doing....

I've opened a petition for this one, I got a ragemail from the guy saying the contents were 'unreplaceable'

Are we SOL or will a petition grant what should have dropped? I shot it, I should get it.

So, as a group, the WH community gives a not a toss about this?

Beyond multiple bug reports/petitions - and this thread - I see no outcry at all. Is there something I missed?

I am surprised. And peeved. And not only because my alt has spent several weeks scoping shiny things in someone else's hole.

This say's everything you need to know about the mentality of Worm Hole Gankers! lol

You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.

Let me get this straight. CCP have changed a specific mechanism that means its not as tastey to gank someones P.O.S?

The changes mean its not possible to loot lets say a Rokh if you destroy a hanger in a W.H? well logically you shouldnt be able to loot any ship if you blow up the building it is within!

Fix this s**t please.

BUT IT WONT STOP ME TO BUMP THIS THREAD WITH MY BARE HANDS

I would agree, CCP needs to "fix" this issue. We lost out on several billions worth of ships recently.

Its not the fact the bug exists that bothers me. Bugs happen, its a fact of life. What really bothers me is how CCP is handling this. Its simply appalling to me support is quite literally saying "Working as intended, no reimbursement for you".

I think I can clarify a few things.

When it changed to its current behavior that change was made intentionally for performance reasons. Therefore it is not a "bug", but that doesn't mean it will always stay the way it is now either.
When something is considered "working as intended" that doesn't mean we're happy with every aspect of the design, but it does mean that there is a reason for the status quo.

We are aware of the significant downsides to the current mechanic and we're not married to the current design for SMA destruction but we can't promise anything specific about it at this time.

The GMs were not mistaken in their communication on this issue.

I think I can clarify a few things.

When it changed to its current behavior that change was made intentionally for performance reasons. Therefore it is not a "bug", but that doesn't mean it will always stay the way it is now either.
When something is considered "working as intended" that doesn't mean we're happy with every aspect of the design, but it does mean that there is a reason for the status quo.

We are aware of the significant downsides to the current mechanic and we're not married to the current design for SMA destruction but we can't promise anything specific about it at this time.

The GMs were not mistaken in their communication on this issue.

Does this also apply to it affecting the behaviour of wrecks when salvaged and destroying any single item over the size of 27,500m3, and all plastic wraps no matter their size?

Yes, both that and the SMA behavior are caused by the same change.

so you are telling me if I blow up an industrial ship carrying something in a plastic wrap I cannot get it no matter what?

I think I can clarify a few things.

When it changed to its current behavior that change was made intentionally for performance reasons. Therefore it is not a "bug", but that doesn't mean it will always stay the way it is now either.
When something is considered "working as intended" that doesn't mean we're happy with every aspect of the design, but it does mean that there is a reason for the status quo.

We are aware of the significant downsides to the current mechanic and we're not married to the current design for SMA destruction but we can't promise anything specific about it at this time.

The GMs were not mistaken in their communication on this issue.

This issue only affects cargo containers, not wrecks. So if you loot before you salvage you're fine. it also only affects plastic wraps with a volume larger than 27k m3.

Obviously far from ideal but not as bad as not being able to get them no matter what.

The unfortunate thing is that in high sec there is obviously no reasonable way to stop people from salvaging, as it (correctly) doesn't cause any sort of flag. This makes it far more of a problem than it would be if the worry was only your own fleet salvaging by accident, or in low where you can just shoot people that try.

That said, if by any chance you haven't quite abandoned the thread just yet, thank you for providing updates and more information.

Edit: Just noticed the plastic wrap mention, we have actually had plastic wraps destroyed upon salvage when their size was only 500m3, as we specifically tested it.

Why do you think not being flagged for stealing salvage is OK?

This issue only affects cargo containers, not wrecks. So if you loot before you salvage you're fine. it also only affects plastic wraps with a volume larger than 27k m3.

Obviously far from ideal but not as bad as not being able to get them no matter what.

So really what CCP is saying is in an attempt to fix one thing, they break something else. Because that makes sense.

I wish I could go to my job with half my work done and tell my boss I'll worry about it later.

Oh man try working as an enterprise level developer. It's an unavoidable consequence of maintaining large enterprise applications especially when those applications (or parts of ) are legacy or old as I'm sure some of eve's code base is.

Even though I (along with everyone else obv) hate the current mechanic, I understand the implications of having open exploits. Performance issues require lots of thought and when dealing with what might be ye old knapsack problem there is a huge amount of algorithmic analysis needed..maybe one approximation is deemed worthwhile..then you have to implement and test EVERYTHING cuz who know what breakage might have occurred as a result of the implementation fix. Then you go through test cycles and hopefully in the end everything LOOKS like it's working (which it won't obviously because enterprise level software maintenance is like trying to re-organize trees in a jungle).

I feel for you CCP...we don't have a forums where users can inundated us with their wrath!

So really what CCP is saying is in an attempt to fix one thing, they break something else. Because that makes sense.

I wish I could go to my job with half my work done and tell my boss I'll worry about it later.

Please understand, Fozzie, we the wormholers are just the Tea Party of Eve Online

Couple things to make clear:

Firstly: The change that caused this was an exploit prevention change, which we generally never go into details about in patch notes. It wasn't a casual change made on a whim. It was a significant "We have the choice of this problem or that problem, and need to decide the lesser of two evils" kind of change. We definitely should have found a way to express the other effects of the change in the patch notes though, that was a mistake on our part.

Secondly: Me not promising anything on an issue is not the same as me saying that it's not a priority or that we're not working on it. I'll only promise things when they are essentially done, because in game development it's really hard to predict anything with certainty.

nononono sry fozzie but we dont give a **** you need to fix this now come up with a solution this is a joke

While you're out fixing the "oops we can't drop big things in the game anymore" issue would it be too much to ask to improve T2 interceptor lock ranges so that they're greater than their point ranges? That'd be just great.

nononono sry fozzie but we dont give a **** you need to fix this now come up with a solution this is a joke

Dude, seriously?

I've probably lost around 20-30bil or more of loot to this bug, doesn't mean you get to act like a petulant child. Getting information about issues can be hard enough without people driving devs out of threads.

Being rude to people doesn't encourage them to help you.

Firstly: The change that caused this was an exploit prevention change, which we generally never go into details about in patch notes.

Since the exploit seems to be fixed for now, would you mind going into a little bit more detail?

I'm having a hard time coming up with an exploit that could abuse the fact that very specific object movement operations (salvage/destruction of SMA) are allowed to ignore container max volume.

Finally this is on the radar. GJ WH CSMers.

Confirming this is an important conflict driver in W-space. We have no Ice (intended as 'oil in space', no?) and e-honour/forcing fights remains the only reason to force your poor corpies into a structure bash in Anoikis.

We scoped a mark, left an alt in their hole for weeks gathering intel and gathered allies to ensure we had the numbers to take the POS and the shinies inside.

...Then we learned of the SMA feature... "Let'scallthewholethingoff".

Since the exploit seems to be fixed for now, would you mind going into a little bit more detail?

I'm having a hard time coming up with an exploit that could abuse the fact that very specific object movement operations (salvage/destruction of SMA) are allowed to ignore container max volume.

Apology accepted.

Why not have wrecks for SMAs instead of cans?

To be fair, when this issue was first posted (I think in a different thread), I brought it up with CCP. I was told that it was exploit related, and that they were aware it wasn't a good long term fix. I expected it to be fixed in Odyssey at the latest though, not to continue to fester for this long.

You are literally the most unprofessional member of the CCP staff I have ever seen. How is it you can get away with acting like you are just another member of the community while representing their business? Disgusting.

I'd like to thank you all for the understanding and patience you've demonstrated on this important but complicated issue.

Hint hint.

In the Reddit thread it was mentioned that it has been like this since februari 2nd...

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/1h1ft1/not_many_people_know_about_this_so_i_want_to/

It's been at least affecting wrecks with 27,500+ m3 items since December 2012/January this year. Plastic wraps started having strange behaviour in wrecks around the time Suddenly Ninjas last went on a heavy wreck baiting binge and were stealth nerfed, maybe mid 2012?

I'd like to thank you all for the understanding and patience you've demonstrated on this important but complicated issue.

Hint hint.

An issue like this is worth putting effort into for an expansion. Not a terrible jump animation or a new scanner.

I have removed some rule breaking posts and those that quoted them.
Please people, keep the discussion on topic and above all civil!

The rules:

2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.


22. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.

The new scanner has had a marked affect on several aspects of the game from mining and exploration to PvP. As a member of SSC I'd assume that you would appreciate the ease of dropping on w-space miners not to mention the occasional moron clearing ladars in a carrier.
!

I'd like to thank you all for the understanding and patience you've demonstrated on this important but complicated issue.

Hint hint.

Recent patch changes has made it so that any loot not inside a wreck will always be parsed into separate jetcans if their total mass exceeds a single can's 27500 m3 capacity. It seems this has led to the unfortunate consequence that any object exceeding this size, such as packaged battleships and all unpackaged ships larger than frigates, can no longer drop as loot since they will not fit inside a jetcan. If a freighter wreck is salvaged, all such large objects disappear. Worse, since Ship Maintenance Arrays do not leave a wreck and no longer eject ships into space, this means they now never drop anything larger than frigates when destroyed.

Our corp's admittedly limited testing on the test server suggests it's even worse, that SMAs are not dropping anything when destroyed. This might be due to ships no longer being ejectable from cargo or unpackaged ones not being valid objects inside cans, but whatever the case, it seems to explain the recent spat of empty wormhole SMAs and the disappearance of the famed loot pinata. I'd appreciate others to independently verify our results, and if need be, raise CCP's awareness of the issue as soon as possible.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that others have reported cans and courier packages disappearing from salvaged wrecks as well, regardless of size. This might be due to cans not being valid objects inside other cans.

I agree that this is a severe issue and should have been fixed well before now... not just getting lip service, but the two things you mentioned deserved the work involved.

The jump animation is just that... animation, art assets, etc. The faster node transitions these animations accompany are certainly welcome.

The new scanner has had a marked affect on several aspects of the game from mining and exploration to PvP. As a member of SSC I'd assume that you would appreciate the ease of dropping on w-space miners not to mention the occasional moron clearing ladars in a carrier.
Also, the new scanner and hacking/analyzing mechanics also improve the prospects that they can be used for additional types of exploration in the future.

CCP... thanks for finally publicly acknowledging that you're aware of this, but the delay is borderline insulting, particularly to the w-space community. Better to start talking about WIS again than take away our pew. We miss our unicorns!

After watching this video and not seeing any of the ships fall out of the SMA's, I want to be sick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOwMEIvPQSU

This is a pretty important issue to a lot of us, so it's frustrating that a fix isn't currently being worked on.

the "fix" to salvaging freighter cans (you lost stuff over a cans capacity) which did bode well for this was to no longer let you salvage freighters that had over that amount in.

IIRC, SMA wrecks are being added with Rubicon.

If this is true...
YES!!!