|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 85 post(s) |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 21:46:39 -
[1] - Quote
Found a pretty critical bug on duality - can I pm someone?
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 22:22:16 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:Found a pretty critical bug on duality - can I pm someone?
(assuming I can't use normal petition route as it is Duality...) You can send me a mail if you wish, but the best strategy would be to report the bug in client (F12 -> Report Bug), or failing that, through our website: https://community.eveonline.com/support/bug-reports/ I've submitted it through the client, didn't realise it logs automatically - neat feature.
Quite an amusing 'bug' (if it is one - might just be me, will try logging in tomorrow); would cause all sorts of fun and mayhem on TQ....
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 20:07:50 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Habakuk wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:Found a pretty critical bug on duality - can I pm someone?
(assuming I can't use normal petition route as it is Duality...) You can send me a mail if you wish, but the best strategy would be to report the bug in client (F12 -> Report Bug), or failing that, through our website: https://community.eveonline.com/support/bug-reports/ I've submitted it through the client, didn't realise it logs automatically - neat feature. Quite an amusing 'bug' (if it is one - might just be me, will try logging in tomorrow); would cause all sorts of fun and mayhem on TQ.... Thank you for your report. It seems like you managed to find a very rare edge-case with ships containing drones, which are several years old. I assume that this would also be reproducible on Singularity. Heh, well, I guess if you're going to break something, have a proper crack at it...
Thanks for the hint, I can confirm removing all the drone-containing ships resolved the problem \o/
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 13:00:11 -
[4] - Quote
Sat on a number of command nodes now, and, while I do see the benefits of this system over TQ sov.... I can't help but think, would things have been better if we were now testing the "free-form" model for sov - build anything, anywhere; blow up anything, anywhere....
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 16:00:25 -
[5] - Quote
Is it possible for something to cause station vulnerability windows to change? we've (apparently randomly) now got one of ours out of sync with the other (i.e. TCU/IHub) vulnerability windows...
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 19:59:31 -
[6] - Quote
Just for info; when you pop the nodes associated with the IHub, it (the IHub) just disappears - no big badda boom :/
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 20:45:16 -
[7] - Quote
Q: I drop an Ihub, it appears as 'Concord' = I have to Entosis my own Ihub??
So, we got rid of a [J4LP] Ihub, dropped our own in place, then had a massive scrap with [Brave], but .. should it not have dropped as ours off the bat?
We pinned their Jump freighter to prevent them dropping their own Ihub, but the 'Concord' thing screwed us in the end....
(they said same happened to them the other day)
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 21:16:42 -
[8] - Quote
kiu Nakamura wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:Q: I drop an Ihub, it appears as 'Concord' = I have to Entosis my own Ihub?? In the current system you need to anchor and then online stuff. In the new system you throw it in space and entosis it. Not that different? I guess so, just was unexpected at the time.
Edit: Terrible grid-fu at the time too; was sat on the Ihub and couldn't lock it, nor see what was happening, we only figured out too late.
Ah well, if this is the design intent - noted.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 20:09:30 -
[9] - Quote
Liking the clearer UI (in terms of vulnerability) from the patch.
I know it's only Monday. but any word on the Ihub thing (upgrades?)
P.s I've playing since Feb 2004, and this is the first time I've actually started to "get into" sov, apart from one minor incident on TQ, in Tenerifis....
(i.e. that's a +1 on what you're doing, from a crusty old fart... )
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 20:15:19 -
[10] - Quote
This may be a stupid question (apologies if so...) - can you remove one of your own TCU's? (i.e. to be able to drop another)
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 22:38:10 -
[11] - Quote
Quote:Kaphrah > =localsvc:service=publicQaToolsClient&method=MoveMeTo&destination=amarr>http://s7.directupload.net/images/140719/72o3mnuz.jpg rekt This sort of behaviour is douche baggery on the test server to say the least..... we're all here to test the new system and find bugs, not have some nobba doing this.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 22:48:25 -
[12] - Quote
IHub's still seem to be bugged for installing upgrades.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:41:43 -
[13] - Quote
BlitZ Kotare wrote:The entosis module also has a 'cool down' cycle much like going red on a cyno, triage or siege module. So while the node may be won in ~8 minutes faster than a subcap could have done it using a T2 entosis link, the capital ship is stuck there for up to another 10min after that waiting for the module to cycle off completely. In practice, due to server ticks, this means it takes a capital ship ~30 minutes to do what a T2 entosis link subcap can do in 12, because the "cooldown" doesn't start until the node captures, and the node captures at EXACTLY 10 minutes, assuming it was only a 10min node. Of course, this would be even longer if you're attacking something.
To be honest I feel like the 10 minute cycle time on a T2 entosis link is fine, it's 5 minutes longer than a normal triage cycle and puts an unsupported capital ship, which can't receive any friendly support at all, in ongoing mortal danger. Despite how OP this might look on Duality, anyone who uses unsupported triage carriers as entosis ships on TQ is going to get their **** stomped on.
Also please keep in mind we're not talking about one node here, or two, but 5 or more at at time, per sov object that has come out of reinforced. We've seen systems with 50+ nodes in them at once, and that's just on Duality. That's a lot of triage carriers even for PL to field at once, let alone Podunk Alliance. And you have to find some way to defend all of them, spread out around a constellation at the same time. If you attack one and they respond by jumping stuff in? Move on to the next one, there's plenty of multi-billion isk triage carriers to kill (in our fictional scenario where someone tries to capture all the nodes with triage carriers). I think as well, the fact we're all basically having a knife fight in a phone box, makes things appear 'worse' than it would be in reality on TQ - no one has had to really worry about jump ranges/fatigue so far in this test.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 07:08:06 -
[14] - Quote
^ That's a really good idea; it's odd that, after all the design effort that's gone into dispersing the fighting, the final battle allows for, for example, your good selves, to drop a Superball onto the location and ninja it
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
258
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 21:29:23 -
[15] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:Lucas Quaan wrote:And while we're at it, taking sov is still ultimately tied to a single location event when you defend/contest a freshly dropped IHub/TCU. I'm not saying that waiting for that contest is a good strategy for a defender, you do after all lose your current structure and all its benefits, but it is most definitely viable for an opportunist third party attacker that just so happens to be in the area. Why go through all the grinding if you can simply drop the hammer for 20 min at the end?
You do have to work for the station, though. i agree, it hink it'd be better if tcu/ihub followed same mechanics as station. after new tcu/ihub is launched - it should start spawning nodes in the constellation, just like the freeported station. if more than one entity is contesting sov - they should fight for those nodes, rather than trying to put a large blob on the structure itself. ^^
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
258
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 14:48:08 -
[16] - Quote
Tappits wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:Warmeister wrote:Lucas Quaan wrote:And while we're at it, taking sov is still ultimately tied to a single location event when you defend/contest a freshly dropped IHub/TCU. I'm not saying that waiting for that contest is a good strategy for a defender, you do after all lose your current structure and all its benefits, but it is most definitely viable for an opportunist third party attacker that just so happens to be in the area. Why go through all the grinding if you can simply drop the hammer for 20 min at the end?
You do have to work for the station, though. i agree, it hink it'd be better if tcu/ihub followed same mechanics as station. after new tcu/ihub is launched - it should start spawning nodes in the constellation, just like the freeported station. if more than one entity is contesting sov - they should fight for those nodes, rather than trying to put a large blob on the structure itself. ^^ You mad bro? maybe you could of spent all day grinding thru 80 station nodes with 40-60mins entosis timers on them all day because concord stations are still bugged and have indexes applied to them still. Its not that bad of a system you just have to protect one area for 12 mins ... were as in TQ sov you have to protect TCU's for 6h. You failed to protect the tcu and decided to put all your forces in bubbles on the in-gate in a non cyno jammed system. Don't be obtuse - you can't cyno jam someone else's system.... (the TCU grid had multiple cyno inhibs, as you were aware).
No, not mad - I think we did all we could in yesterday's fight (pushed the Archon you had, back through the gate when you first tried, killed the Marauders you pushed through, until you finally managed to burn interceptors through the bubble and away from the inhibs to get the initial cyno up...). It just gets immensely frustrating when it appears someone can sit back, with no eyes in system, and know when it's time to drop the Supers and clean up.
Given that this is the feedback thread - feedback provided.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
258
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 12:02:32 -
[17] - Quote
Just a minor thing (sure you'll be doing it anyway); on the attributes tab, there's still the legacy 'anchoring'/'unanchoring' e.t.c delay times mentioned - obviously we all know that those aren't relevant, but could still cause some confusion when it hits TQ.
(also the description on the TCU)
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
258
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 12:25:11 -
[18] - Quote
So, just seen a TCU with a 57 hour RF timer, is that kosher?
(9-F0B2)
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
258
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 13:12:43 -
[19] - Quote
Edit: nvm - understood, guessing it just happened to pick a random time towards the back-end of the vulnerability window, hence the +9 hours.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
258
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 20:08:09 -
[20] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Neddy Fox wrote:And Stella Nova ? Stella Nova's starting constellation was taken by No Not Believing That was the longest period I've remained logged into Eve in 11 years...
#Nerds4Life
Edit:
Bridged a Freighter out to setup 'Siege' tower around 10:00 ish, logged for a bit, back on around 14:00, crawled into bed sometime after 00:00... I think.
Entosis'ing node times, best of times.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
|
|
|
|