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.

Just had an idea about this one, perhaps there could be an invulnerable period when spooling up for the accelleration gate? SImilar to what happens on a station undock, but happens as soon as you hit warp when you are within 2500 meters.

Wouldn't stop bubbles, but not many people would get thrills out of bubbling gates when caps are around

Reduce the timers when logging off etc (so you disappear quickly). I've lost a number of supercaps to "probers" just because they feel it's enjoyable to kill someone after they log out - regardless if they were in the consensual combat or not.

/c

I don't doubt this is a problem, but isnt that how it functions on TQ?

It is, I was under the impression how to update the SiSi rules though - and while this isn't a rule change and CCP saying that they want more time spent on bugs rather than investigating people breaking the rules, a thing like this could make more time for bugspending since less risk of people breaking rules by non-consensual combat.

/c

Also think outside the box eg. Should there be a testing constellation instead of a testing system?

i still keep with my suggestion of having a mirror every 1.5 months or near that. since i hate long mirrors because im stuck to the same ship for a LONG time. and can't test any other ships :3

Hi again!

We had a meeting today to talk about this topic and we are now exploring several options to improve things (mostly through new tools). We won't change any rules right now, but we'll announce changes to rules and support as soon as we have anything ready.

We are mostly looking into splitting the combat system into two systems - but this is not fully decided yet, as we will need additional support (cyno jammer and similar). Several other changes were also discussed (like changes to the mirror script and station seeding), but this will need more work.

Thank you all for helping out in this thread! I'll keep you updated, as soon as we have anything ready.

It is, I was under the impression how to update the SiSi rules though - and while this isn't a rule change and CCP saying that they want more time spent on bugs rather than investigating people breaking the rules, a thing like this could make more time for bugspending since less risk of people breaking rules by non-consensual combat.

/c

My biggest issue is the podding being allowed. I understand the accidental smartbombs. but outright podding can be a massive inconvience, especially if your traveling from a great distance to test ship fits and potency of modules. people do forget to change locations for the medical clone and have to travel that distance back.

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.

Obviously my vote's for combat constellation. Perhaps it should be lowsec to reduce the gate & station camping, via gateguns? Also to remove the issue of bubbles except for systems where interdictors and HICs are permitted?

How easily could you remove the station guns from a specific lowsec station? And the sec hit of killing people in such a system? Or make a nullsec system act like low/high sec w.r.t. bubbles, supers?

Hi again!

We had a meeting today to talk about this topic and we are now exploring several options to improve things (mostly through new tools). We won't change any rules right now, but we'll announce changes to rules and support as soon as we have anything ready.

We are mostly looking into splitting the combat system into two systems - but this is not fully decided yet, as we will need additional support (cyno jammer and similar). Several other changes were also discussed (like changes to the mirror script and station seeding), but this will need more work.

Thank you all for helping out in this thread! I'll keep you updated, as soon as we have anything ready.

...several systems will not work, i'll tell you now. if you split capitals and subcaps from each other, you will make capitals almost completly useless since i can't think of a subcap that would willingly fight an army of capitals...

A single sub-capital wouldn't want to fight an army of capitals, but sub-capitals don't want to see a single capital ship killing everything in the FFA combat areas.

If they implement the split systems, sub-capitals could easily form a fleet to wage combat against the capitals. Or the capitals can ask for a duel from sub-capital fleets.

At the very least, the use of super-capitals needs to be limited. They cannot be seeded, as that would be pure chaos, but it is unfair to sub-capital and regular capital pilots for super-capital owners to have the only "I WIN!" button on SiSi. Fleets can be formed to combat them, but it is rare to see that happen.

Personally, I've stopped going to the FFA arenas. If I've needed to test something, I've asked for a duel, or dueled with my alts.

several systems will not work, i'll tell you now. if you split capitals and subcaps from each other, you will make capitals almost completly useless since i can't think of a subcap that would willingly fight an army of capitals...

Which is the entire point people are trying to make. Subcaps don't want to fight the capitals.

o yeah, i agree, supers must be gotten rid of. but not normal capitals, they are fine. normal capitals can't **** a CA on their own, carriers don't do enough dps usually. and dreads can't track, can't point(usually), and can't lock fast enough in most cases if the subcap has some mind....

I'll probably get booed for saying this, but how about only allowing player access to Sisi on a limited number of days and for specific reasons? As it stands, it seems like some people dedicate themselves to playing their space ship games on Sisi instead of TQ, and to me, that's bad. Let people try things out and fail with consequences, not with the safety blanket that Sisi provides.

I've noticed that a particular group of test server warriors enjoy ECM bursting supercapitals logging off at the station in order to gank them at their logoff spot.

Stronger Monitoring on the rules relating from TQ to Sisi purchases, it is well known that certain players on Singularity are paying on TQ to use somebody's supercapital on Sisi as well as other services/items.

Shame ECM burst doesn't work on super capitals anymore

capitals aren't the problem supercapitals are. normal capitals are easily avoided while supercaps aren't.

and i Quote myself:


last post i'll make about supers/capitals since we are sticking on it too much

it still aggresses them