EVE Search - the how to correctly seed supers/officer mods thread

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

the how to correctly seed supers/officer mods thread

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 17:30:00 - [1] - Quote This is a continuation of the thread hijacking that occurred in https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=354638 so that we don't keep hijacking it and be able to stay on topic in the correct threads. This thread will be focusing on how to make the testing of supers and officer mods balanced and dealing with any issues that might come up due to seeding them. 1. Blobbing on the gates/stations (of any form at all) from the test server rules at https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6353&find=unread Quote: 2. Combat by consent only, except in the designated combat systems (6-CZ49, PVH8-0). Combat system (6-CZ49, PVH8-0) specific additional rules 1. No fighting or other aggressive actions at the station and gates (no targeted or AoE warp inhibiting modules). 2. No capitals in PVH8-0 Since the rules very clearly say that fighting on the station/gates isn't allowed I don't want to see a single post of someone complaining that someone will blob them on the station/gate. When you as a player sees it happen file a petition. When you as a CCP employee sees it happen or reviews a petition about it enforce the rule and ban the offender per your rules. 2. unbalanced fighting due to 1 person having meta/t2 and the other having officer mods. With the use of acceleration gates and adding the system of EZA-FM (which is right beside both 6-CZ49 and PVH8-0) to the mix we can segregate those using meta/t2 fits and those using officer fits. EZA-FM can be the meta/t2 fights system and PVH8-0 can be the officer fights system. In both systems capitals will not be allowed to enter. At the combat areas in EZA-FM there can be accessed via acceleration gates that deny access to anyone with anything fitted to their ship (or in their cargohold due to possible mobile depot usage) that is a meta 6 or above, using something along the lines of the below code. This example will be done via a simple if then statement as is used by spreadsheets. IF(ModMetaValue="meta0",pass,IF(ModMetaValue="meta1",pass,IF(ModMetaValue="meta2",pass,IF(ModMetaValue="meta3",pass,IF(ModMetaValue="meta4",pass,IF(ModMetaValue="meta5",pass,fail)))))) substitute the values of ModMetaValue and meta0, etc for the correct ones ingame do a simple list of all the mods fitted to/inside the ship attempting to use the acceleration gate (use the code already in place for restricting ships types at acceleration gates or the code already in place for running a ship/cargo scanner module to make this list if you really have to) then pull the meta value from the database for each mod in that list then run the above code on each item in that list. If any of the mods get a fail then that ship is not allowed to use the acceleration gate. If i missed anything that would cause any kind of errors please let me know and i will fix the code for it. The rules for the combat areas will need to be rewritten to include acceleration gates so there is no excuse from the masses. Quote: 1. No fighting or other aggressive actions at the station, gates, nor prior to entering the acceleration gates (no targeted or AoE warp inhibiting modules). is a possible good rewrite.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 17:32:00 - [2] - Quote Adriana Mal'Valeran wrote: Accel gates are also basically a warptozero situation, aka it'll get camped and then you'll be crying about people blobbing in another thread. stuff like this just complicates things, it doesn't solve the basic problem. see point 1 in the first post...also I havent cried about a darn thing so take your attitude elsewhere.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 17:37:00 - [3] - Quote CCP Goliath wrote: I'm no coder but here's how I would pseudocode the ensuing action, should we implement this solution. IF SubcapShipOnGate WHEN WarpImmunity=False THEN goto GateBumpAndMassiveSuperBlobAttack you forgot the next line which reads IF PlayerBreaksRules THEN BanPlayerFromSisi also if you are not a coder it would behove you not to tell people how difficult it is or isn't to code in my suggestion on how to block officer mods from combat areas.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 18:02:00 - [4] - Quote Instead of using acceleration gates (since they have the drawback of not being able to warp in at range) you could have the filter in place for anyone using the system gates (star gates?) to enter EZA-FM. To prevent someone from using a capital to bring officer mods into EZA-FM you could cyno block the system using code similiar to the pos module or code similar to the cyno blocking for incursions. This would automatically prevent any capital usage in those systems as well thus eliminating the need to police the no caps in those systems rule. For fighting on stations/gates you could make the station/gate guns act like concord and instakill anyone doing any aggressive action on those grids.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 18:22:00 - [5] - Quote AFAIK concord is still enabled in Sisi highsec so live EFT as you put it is already in the game. Go to any highsec system, fit ship you wish to test, undock, fire 1 volley at the station (attacking the station does trigger concord right?...maybe i should go test that haha!), watch concord blap you, get live EFT results from the loss mail. To anyone following the rules the measures I suggested are already "in place" since those people would not even attempt to light a cyno in PVH8-0 nor attempt to attack anyone on the stations/gates. These measures simply provide actual unbreakable rules to the rules you already said no one should break but they totally can and apparently aren't receiving any punishment for doing so. I don't understand how that is in any way making any part of Sisi something other than a test environment since those following the rules would not be doing anything different. Also we did just go over how since you are not a coder you have no idea how much coding it would take to do that (thou I will admit the station/gate gun thing might get measy since IDK how yall wrote the aggression mechanic code...but since you aren't a coder neither do you know how measy or not measy it would be to do so)
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 18:58:00 - [6] - Quote Well that's the only thing I could think of that he could mean by "live EFT" and someone getting instakilled by a uber station/gate gun because they broke the rule of no aggression on the stattion/gates.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 19:12:00 - [7] - Quote hellswindstaff wrote: as i said last time there was seeded/reedem system supers.....no bugs got reported no testing got done and local was this every 5 minutes "X UP FOR CAP FLEET" Then you ended up with 35 godtank supers on beacon at 0 popping cruisers If reading is too hard for you then please do us all a favor and go somewhere else as that issue has been addressed already in this thread.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 19:28:00 - [8] - Quote hellswindstaff wrote: It has and no one is coding anything special in to accomodate supers and deadspace mods. Can we get a lock on this. here I'll requote this just for you and your bias against supers Quote: 2. Combat by consent only, except in the designated combat systems (6-CZ49, PVH8-0). Combat system (6-CZ49, PVH8-0) specific additional rules 1. No fighting or other aggressive actions at the station and gates (no targeted or AoE warp inhibiting modules). 2. No capitals in PVH8-0 The above is a direct quote from the current test server rules, is that simple enough for you to understand that preventing super blobs against sub caps is already in place and no coding or any other whining from you needed.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 20:00:00 - [9] - Quote Kora Ethereal wrote: Coming from the "Coder" That's trying to tell CCP how do do their job in a thread... Also IF(ModMetaValue="meta0",pass,IF(ModMetaValue="meta1",pass,IF(ModMetaValue="meta2",pass,IF(ModMetaValue="meta3",pass,IF(ModMetaValue="meta4",pass,IF(ModMetaValue="meta5",pass,fail)))))) Just needs to be IF(ModMetaValue<=5,pass,IF(ModMetaValue>5,fail,fail)) Learn to Streamline Psuedocode You don't need an IF statement for every single Meta level due to the fact that Meta 5 is T2 and anything Higher is Faction/Deadspace/Officer, It's Either Less or Equal to 5 or Greater Than. I'll give you a D- for your effort and a F for talking about stuff you know nothing about. "meta 0" is as text value not a number value in the show info and since that is likely the case in the database then a <=5 would never work as text values dont have numerical equivalents to run a mathematical equation on...hence why I broke it down the way I did in my formula. Now the coding language of Spreadsheets does have a method of converting a text value into a numerical value, however adding that in the above code would not make a very good example since I nor you know what coding language EVE is written to know (and i highly doubt it's in spreadsheet code) if THAT language also has that function cause if it dont then the example would not make much sense. Oh and you might want to give https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4812310#post4812310 a read as CCP Goliath ain't a coder so yes he needs "someone" (whether that be me or someone who works at CCP and is a coder) to tell him how the code should be written. Not to mention your usage of "IF(ModMetaValue>5,fail,fail)" is entirely unnecessary and could be replaced with just "fail" (hence why I gave you a D- for effort since you didn't get your code written correctly but tried to school me on mine) Quote: OMEGA REDUX wrote: hellswindstaff wrote: It has and no one is coding anything special in to accomodate supers and deadspace mods. Can we get a lock on this. here I'll requote this just for you and your bias against supers Quote: 2. Combat by consent only, except in the designated combat systems (6-CZ49, PVH8-0). Combat system (6-CZ49, PVH8-0) specific additional rules 1. No fighting or other aggressive actions at the station and gates (no targeted or AoE warp inhibiting modules). 2. No capitals in PVH8-0 The above is a direct quote from the current test server rules, is that simple enough for you to understand that preventing super blobs against sub caps is already in place and no coding or any other whining from you needed. Aggression agianst NPCs And/Or Stations isn't considered aggression on a player, You can shoot station all you want. Nobody will drop a coin to report you. Well that's good to know since nothing in that post is talking about shooting npc's or stations so IDK what you are on about.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 21:24:00 - [10] - Quote @ kora http://i.imgur.com/fx7ipsS.png?1 is the ingame show info and it very clearly has "level 2" in the value column for the meta level attribute. "level 2" =/= "2" not matter how much you incorrectly claim it to. and "level 2" is quite obviously NOT a numerical but rather a text value (string is another correct term if you wish but it's still not a numerical one) sooooo who is it that does or does not know what they are talking about again? oh yeah thats right I'm the one who does know. Infact the only way they COULD be a numerical value is if CCP intentionally made repetitive additions of "level " to the show info since the left hand column attribute name of "meta level" clearly says it's a "level " sooooo you were also wrong about CCP coding in repetitiveness. Quote: CCP Goliath is Minmatar, Hi'll probably just throw Booze at someone to code it for him... or you know... be a QA Director :\| so you agree that a QA Director needs someone to tell him how to code then? which means you agree that I'm correct in telling a CCP guy how to code right? remember you are the one who tried to say something to me about telling a CCP guy how to write code and you are the one who didn't take the time to figure out I'm quite right to tell this particular CCP guy how to write code, not my fault you can't get your facts straight.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 21:28:00 - [11] - Quote cheekybot Rotineque wrote: Quote: go "test" when 45 nyxes are chasing cruisers around 6-c then come back and post. you didnt read my post did you, there's thousands of systems to test in, use them, 6-C is nothing more than a derp fest, dont like it go to another system, CCP doesnt cater to whiners on tranq, why should they do it on SISI, seed the supers and all mods, people who wanna actually test have ways at there disposal if they choose to use them ignore that guy, he hasnt read a single post anyone has made in any thread yet. he's just trolling cause he's afraid someone will get better at flying supers and him end up losing his super...assuming he has one to begin with The better question is where an ISD to delete his trolls when you need one?
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 21:38:00 - [12] - Quote cheekybot Rotineque wrote: OMEGA REDUX wrote: cheekybot Rotineque wrote: Quote: go "test" when 45 nyxes are chasing cruisers around 6-c then come back and post. you didnt read my post did you, there's thousands of systems to test in, use them, 6-C is nothing more than a derp fest, dont like it go to another system, CCP doesnt cater to whiners on tranq, why should they do it on SISI, seed the supers and all mods, people who wanna actually test have ways at there disposal if they choose to use them ignore that guy, he hasnt read a single post anyone has made in any thread yet. he's just trolling cause he's afraid someone will get better at flying supers and him end up losing his super...assuming he has one to begin with The better question is where an ISD to delete his trolls when you need one? im not trolling anyone, and ive spent the last hour reading post's, im just making a realistic point, i dont have a super nor do i ever want one on tranq, i can fly them and have, but that doesnt mean i dont have an opinion on the matter i was telling you to ignore hellswindstaff...not for people to ignore you
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.17 22:16:00 - [13] - Quote Kusum Fawn wrote: How long does it take to build a super? How long between mirrors in this new development cycle? how long does it take to upgrade sov from 0 to build a super in the first place? If i dont have the correct roles in my alliance to build supercaps, but still want to test supers that i can fly, i have to get someone else to give me roles every two months, to build a cap on sisi? CCP is talking about trying to do a mirror once every 2-3 weeks which makes super building impossible as the total build time is too long to either get the builds done or it would finish hours before a new mirror. They are also thinking about making an implant to speed up manu time for sisi but just seeding these things would be a much better solution.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 3	Posted - 2014.07.18 16:17:00 - [14] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: How is OP not banned from the forums? There are specific rules about how to address devs and he broke ... basically all of them but one. please link said rules anyone of you going to post anything actually constructive or just hate on those more space rich than you and can actually afford a few faction/deadspace/officer mods/supers on TQ and simply wish to test them BEFORE buying them.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 4	Posted - 2014.07.22 09:32:00 - [15] - Quote 1. how exactly is that any different than the current seeding for everything below supers? are you saying no one tests manufacturing ANYTHING sub-super? cause im pretty sure manufacturing as a whole got tested ALOT and im willing to bet that super manufacturing wasnt even remotely near the top of what most people tried to test. also those that don't care about flying supers don't care about testing them. However alot of people do and want the ability to do so without a bunch of unnecessary hoops to jump thru. your flawed reasoning could be applied to ANY ship in the game as an excuse to not seed that ship. 2. once again just because you can fit that way doesn't mean everyone will when it comes to testing. Especially if there really and truly are THAT many people who want to test non faction mods and are THAT scared of people flying with faction/deadspace/officer mods. As is, it is almost impossible for me to test if a golem fitted for soloing c4/5 sites that i made using evehq is actually workable as that fit REQUIRES faction mods and we all know how short those stay on the market after a mirror. Testing on mods that already exist in the game and are relatively cheap has been done for the past 10 years on the live server and bugs have been found so no reason to test them for the purpose of finding bugs on Sisi. The only people who fit those mods to test with are those who want to test how good they are at pvp (or other non pvp purpose) NOT testing to find bugs in mods that have been around longer than 99% of the eve population. 3. When at first you don't succeed you try again, not give up and claim "it can never be done". Learn from the mistakes and fix the issues (hello this is a test server after all finding and fixing issues is the main focus ain't it???)...not cower under some rock crying "don't let the evil super/>meta5 mod get me!" cause that's literally all I've seen posted from those who don't want these items able to be tested thoroughly.
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 4	Posted - 2014.07.22 10:43:00 - [16] - Quote CCP Goliath wrote: I undeleted your post because I don't believe you were trying to be malicious, but please do ensure that you write in as friendly a tone as possible as other mods might not be so willing to interpret your text i will simply leave taking my money elsewhere before i make sure every sentence i say doesn't step on someone's precious little toes. God didn't put me on the earth to beat around any bushes and I ain't about to start now. Sometimes the truth hurts, a person can take it and grow from it or they don't, the choice is up to them. Also I believe the quote "HTFU" might be a little bit appropriate (and more in the spirit of EVE). Quote: Live EFT is fine, it's just not the primary use case of Sisi, and the prime directive (testing features, not fits) cannot be violated! Ok i think by Live EFT you are refering to the current major use of the combat areas which is to test different fits for pvp/whatever. The test server is going to see that simply because it exists. My question to you however is if the shall we say "unnamed" method of doing the latest drone bug was more readily accessible to test in Sisi don't you think that just maybe that bug would have been found and corrected possibly years ago?(since from my understanding of it it may very well have been around for a very long time) What if there is some bug with the "vepa's modified torpedo launcher" that allowed it to use t2 missiles or what it there was some bug that had the avatar giving a tracking speed buff to those in it's fleet command. I realize these are highly unlikely but since it's extremely difficult to test such items then there really could be bugs that you simply haven't found and that is after all the kind of thing we are supposed to be doing on Sisi, testing all the things not just everything but the OP things (and let's be honest faction mods aren't all THAT OP as is shown daily when some noob gets his multi billion isk ship blown up by a suicide gank in highsec). On a side note the out of game fitting tools have ALWAYS been better at designing a fit than the ingame fitting tool and ingame fit testing is literally just used to make sure the paper numbers/ability matches up in game (aka reality check) not as some uber Live EFT thing. Quote: To your other suggestions. Making a system cynojammed is something we can do, for instance. We are also currently considering attaching the "QA ECM Burst" effect to stations and gates, to make these less of a preferred combat hotspot. If people chose to use smartbombs or an equivalent untargeted system, they would be few in number and easy to ban. that's a good idea and works on the same level as my instablap one does (removing the aggression from taking place in the wrong spots)
OMEGA REDUX Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 4	Posted - 2014.07.22 10:49:00 - [17] - Quote Sentient Blade wrote: CCP Goliath wrote: Live EFT is fine, it's just not the primary use case of Sisi, and the prime directive (testing features, not fits) cannot be violated! Depends if it helps you meet your goals really. If having more people use it for live-eft gets you more people using it for feature testing too, it's probably worth it. Another thing to mention here is that where as there is the ability to "Live EFT" it has always been at the understanding that it's isn't something officially supported/major reason for Sisi being around. That stil doesn't mean that it should be restricted by some arbitrary rule of "because supers/>meta5 mods"

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.