Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 00:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi!
Within the next weeks we (CCP QA) will have a closer look again at the rules of Singularity and which support we are offering for players on Singularity.
It is clear that there are some problems around - both for players and for us in CCP. We might make some drastic changes - but nothing is decided yet. A possible outcome could also be that the current rules are fine and we only need to adjust some minor details.
It would be great, if you could give us your ideas about this topic in this thread. If you make any suggestion, please also include WHY this would be a good idea. It is OK to comment on other suggestions - but please keep it constructive and don't stick to one specific topic for too long. CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
DTson Gauur
Underground-Operators
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 07:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bring back dedicated capital combat beacons and enforce the rule of no capitals on subcapital beacons (with nasty long bans from SISI if needed) and you solve _most_ problems in one go.
Otherwise I don't see nothing wrong with the current SISI ruleset. You'll always have rulebreakers shooting on stations etc. That can't be fixed unless you're willing to make the necessary code changes so that the GRID station is on, no offensive module works, AT ALL.
|
J3ssica Biel
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 08:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Here we go |
HERFBLERFDERF
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 08:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Re-do Super capital build speeding up for a starters, And Have a capitals only arena thing again and i think everyone will be happy by that The main reason why people complained about Super Builds being sped up is after the rule change the supers could roam every FFA instead of just the capital beacon |
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 09:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Altho I dislike getting shot at my capitals, they are also very intresting in fleets. And if you bring in a capital beacon, its just gonna be camped by 3 titans killing every capital the moment they come in, wouldn't really work IMHO. Honestly, the rules aren't much wrong with, altho I do dislike them supercapitals graping my subcaps and my capitals and think they need to be done something about, normal capitals aren't really the problem since they can be easily countered or run away from.
Altho i would like a rule on when mirrors happen, like every 1.5 months or so(and when really needed for something important)? I know it will bring somewhat more work in but it will stop people asking for mirrors(or atleast, hopefully) and will make it possible for people to waste all their faction mods etc. they harvested in the last 5 days for example. |
Vin Ott
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 11:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Same happends in tq, only change that could change that is getting supercap seeding back to the game so others can go into supers as well so less crying. |
bassie12bf1
Militaris Industries Cascade Imminent
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 11:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
I suppose invincible concord that kills people in the wrong ships at wrong beacons is out of the question. |
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 11:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
Vin Ott wrote:Same happends in tq, only change that could change that is getting supercap seeding back to the game so others can go into supers as well so less crying.
LMAO your SO funny....ccp has already stated ALOT of times, they will NOT seed these ships. because that will only result in supercap games, and no one flying anything but supers. also big alliances will spam sisi than cuz they can just fck around in supers |
Chris baileyy
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 12:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Missile War wrote:Vin Ott wrote:Same happends in tq, only change that could change that is getting supercap seeding back to the game so others can go into supers as well so less crying. LMAO your SO funny.... This is serious business get out
|
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 12:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
For starters:
1. You should seed every ship in the game, barring capitals and / or super capitals. We are currently lacking stuff like serpentis ships, etc.
2. Bring back class specific beacons, or somehow alter the ability to acess beacons. Currently, supercaps are everywhere, and we basically cannot actually test anything under a cap size, since capitals will just come along and affect the results.
3. Figure out a way to erase/delete all drones that are left over after a day. At first there's only 10 or 20 left over, but after a while, there's more than 100 drone ships (fighters included) at every beacon. |
|
Bruce Vendetta
Final-Vendetta
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 14:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
Block the IP of anyone with less than 100 submitted (filtered) bug reports 2 months from now. Only open Singularity to them when you need more players to help with actual testing, i.e. Mass Tests.
Or, sign up some ******* ISD Captain (Newmind) and allow him/her to actually ban people from Singularity.
Or, ignore us and do whatever you want. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3608
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 16:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
Beacons? Why not acceleration gates?
|
|
CCP Habakuk
C C P C C P Alliance
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 17:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Whatever we are changing: It should not require us (CCP QA and ISD) to do more work than we are were doing earlier. For example it will not be possible for us to enforce any additional rules - for example it takes quite a bit to ban a player from Singularity - time which could be used for finding bugs.
Super-capitals: We will have a closer look at them for sure, but I have no idea yet if and what we are changing.
Regarding acceleration gates: Do you have any good ideas about how to avoid camping the acceleration gate itself? It would be nearly useless, if we would have a acceleration to an area without capitals, when the capitals are camping the acceleration gate itself.
CCP Habakuk | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Gridlock Writing bug reports | Mass tests
|
|
Just Alter
Perkone Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 18:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
Put 8 acceleration gates just 160km below the station.
6 have restrictions. 1 is ffa subcaps. 1 is ffa.
Also plex and faction mods. |
Chris baileyy
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 18:04:00 -
[15] - Quote
Just Alter wrote:Put 8 acceleration gates just 160km below the station.
6 have restrictions. 1 is ffa subcaps. 1 is ffa.
Also plex and faction mods. ^That But put it off station or something and have the moveme bot in a Polaris thing GM ECM bursting? |
Daneel Trevize
The Scope Gallente Federation
91
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 18:49:00 -
[16] - Quote
The solution to supercaps is simple: none are mirrored, none are seeded. A CCP POS + cyno-jammer is put in a system. That is the subcaps system. No one may attack the POS or be using a cap or supercap in said system. Deem another system where cap combat is allowed but not supers, and a 3rd for supers/all caps. Done.
As for designated beacons, they were great, something similar needs to return. Both for those wanting to test and those wanting to pew for free. The problem with gates is it's a grid. Bombs and smarbombs won't be stopped by uber ECM bursting GM tricks.
1 previous suggestion was designate a (cynojammed) system per ship class/old beacon rule, anyone on a mail/evidence of using the wrong ship, warning/ban. You still only need 1 hub system where things are seeded and no pew's allowed, I'm sure there's somewhere with plenty of systems within a jump or 2. If not, just seed the multiple adjacent systems. Then the only problem becomes people camping people moving between. Those who want FFA fights can coordinate using local, constellation and singularity chat channels. Perhaps to be clear, name a FFA system where kills are allowed, everywhere else remains a no pew zone.
People should be allowed to test mechanics around stations and gates, just obviously not a central hub system's station & gates.
And fix the bloody seeding scripts so we have all navy and pirate faction ships, stop all this Angels and Sansha only crap. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
655
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 19:01:00 -
[17] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote:Whatever we are changing: It should not require us (CCP QA and ISD) to do more work than we are were doing earlier. For example it will not be possible for us to enforce any additional rules - for example it takes quite a bit to ban a player from Singularity - time which could be used for finding bugs.
Super-capitals: We will have a closer look at them for sure, but I have no idea yet if and what we are changing.
Regarding acceleration gates: Do you have any good ideas about how to avoid camping the acceleration gate itself? It would be nearly useless, if we would have a acceleration to an area without capitals, when the capitals are camping the acceleration gate itself.
can't you just place a scripted ship at the gate which locks and destryes every unwanted ship in this area? a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Green Cobra
Aliastra Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 19:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
Hi all
CCP Habakuk, can you give us some information so we can come up with the best ideas to handle rules and restrictions in the testing environment? I know releasing sensitive information can't be done but these things listed bellow should not be a risk for CCP to disclose.
Client event structure: 1) How does the client handle event handling. Are the events handled in the client or are DB triggers used to handle the events? 2) How does the client handle system messages at logon and ingame from CCP. Are these added to a que table in the DB or pushed directly to the clients?
DB structure: 1) How are the space possitions of a pilot and space objects stored in the DB (X,Y, & Z)? 2) Are there a event que in the DB for user initiated events in the client and are there one que or are there several for different types of events?
What type of DB are CCP using (MS SQL Server, Oracle...)?
I have some ideas the do cut the effort of CCP regarding following up rules to 0% and still have any rules CCP se fit active with no changes to the client code. But to make a good suggestion in more detail it really would help with a bit information. This idea does however require a bit of initial effort from CCP but considering the time currently spent on banning for rule violations, fighting on station and gates would not bee needed at all with this idea it might balance out over a few months time (might be considerably less).
Having rules on SISI is unfortunately a must as the player base on SISI and TQ is vastly different and most are in 1 system. Testing should be possible both in event testing and by players them selves in a way that most testers are happy (can never make all happy).
Best regards Green Cobra |
David Laurentson
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
9
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 22:50:00 -
[19] - Quote
If you want to keep capitals out of specific sites, maybe putting them in a cyno-jammed system would help? Obviously there are ways around that, but it's worth thinking about. |
Comodore John
Wooly Ltd. Chained Reactions
17
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 04:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
Reserving
Will edit opinion in in the morning |
|
fab24
Tax Fraud Corporation
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 08:38:00 -
[21] - Quote
Don't want to enforce the rules? Give someone the ability of doing it. And I was actually talking about me. |
Headerman
Quovis CORE Alliance
871
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 11:18:00 -
[22] - Quote
I know it is an unusual request, but there are some people out there looking to buy some NeX clothes in different colours, we have the ones seeded on Sisi, can anything be done to mod up TQ to allow colour variations on purchasing?
That, and maybe a script to fix drones if at all possible? maybe remove all drones and wrecks around each beacon one every hour on the hour?
Otherwise.. all good :D The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why? |
|
CCP Konflikt
CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance
147
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 13:18:00 -
[23] - Quote
There is very little reasoning in the previous responses, you should make yourselves familiar with why the rules changed to what they are now and make suggestions in line with the goals of this post, because ultimately we want an efficient system which requires very little maintenance.
If your solution involves making something that doesn't exist on TQ it's likely to not be considered.
Also think outside the box eg. Should there be a testing constellation instead of a testing system? CCP Konflikt Technical QA Tester Team Synergy |
|
Green Cobra
Aliastra Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 13:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
CCP Konflikt wrote:There is very little reasoning in the previous responses, you should make yourselves familiar with why the rules changed to what they are now and make suggestions in line with the goals of this post, because ultimately we want an efficient system which requires very little maintenance. If your solution involves making something that doesn't exist on TQ it's likely to not be considered. Also think outside the box eg. Should there be a testing constellation instead of a testing system?
Any form of rules where CCP rely on players choosing to obey them will result in work from CCP as there will be default always be those who choose to disregard the testing of others. So I can't see a way to keep within the TQ framework to make it good.
Best regards Green Cobra |
Wallyx
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 13:50:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote:[...]
Regarding acceleration gates: Do you have any good ideas about how to avoid camping the acceleration gate itself? It would be nearly useless, if we would have a acceleration to an area without capitals, when the capitals are camping the acceleration gate itself.
Why not adding some Concord Turrets at Acceleration Gates? Agression? BOOMB!!!
I think is not much work |
DonHel
Aliastra Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 14:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
Hi there ccp, Not sure on how easy it would be.. but is it possible that there could be 2 systems instead of one that are set as main zones. One able to block super caps from entering? this way ccp doesnt have to hear, theres a dude on beacon with super ever.. Keep it still a ffa all over, to much hassle trying to maintain whats going on in the individual sites. Just make the supers have to play in another zone if someone wants to play .. and if they want to try and organize a super cap defense test.. they can be the ones having to hunt down people to help test that, as there is alot more people without supers being told they have to go somewhere else and pretty much do the same if they want to test.. This should clear up the whole crying of it, and at the same time you can make it to where supers are able to be accessed much easier because the damage they can do to other testers will be limited.
Thanks |
Kein Echerie
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 15:36:00 -
[27] - Quote
Seed Super cap but put them at 500 billion isk or higher Supercarrier: 260 bill isk Titans:550 bill isk PPL need to test supers other then TFIXT and shiva.......
like New titans players if thay want to test them. just let them it's kind of unfair that supers are not seeded
|
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 17:02:00 -
[28] - Quote
Comodore John wrote:Problems with fixes suggested: 1. Acceleration gates - this doesn't stop people, simply camp the acceleration gate with your "oversized" ship. Like already mentioned, it does if you put them on the station grid. The problem would perhaps be with the warp-in point in the dead-space behind the gate, where people could now camp the spot where you will land, but at least they will be of the same size as you. |
Fird
SH Brotherhood
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 18:49:00 -
[29] - Quote
Solution: Remove super-caps from eve.
Reimburse SP, lose some bitter-vet players, gain new people after friends tell them how much better the game is.
|
Ghazbaran
Gravity Core
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 21:51:00 -
[30] - Quote
Hello
The best way to fix the rules in singularity is not having to enforce them
1) Make acceleration gates for the FFA's or the now called CA's. ( this is done for missions, no reason why it cannot be done in SISI )
a) Frigate b) Cruiser and below c) BC and below d) BS and below e) capital and below f) No Acceleration gate to a "supercap" and below area
2) Make an effect on station grid that does not permit the use of any turret, launcher, smart-bomb, scram, disruptor, etc, and make the same effect on the acceleration gate grids.
The above will eliminate most tester rage and eliminate the need to have someone monitoring forums to figure out who they have to ban.
* This permits the testing of different ship types along with their changes * To be tested efficiently all modules, ships etc, should be put through controlled ( in a sense ) and sporadic combat
* EXAMPLE: The recent change to Assault Frigates cannot be completely tested in small fleets because larger ships keep interfering. As well as not having the option to test efficiency up to a specific ship size to battle against. These new changes cannot be completely understood and given feedback about if we are not able to test them properly. ( in a controlled environment ) -- People who say EVE online is not a controlled environment; I understand you but, in testing, nothing should be done without a control.
P.S. The Supercaps and Caps, that interfere with the CA's are not emulating "TRUE" eve behavior because these will rarely be seen alone in battle on TQ |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |