Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Hyperion] Wormhole updates now on Singularity

First post
Author
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2014-08-14 15:12:41 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Habakuk
Greetings intrepid pilots,

As CCP Fozzie discussed in this dev blog, Team Five 0 have a slew of wormhole changes in the works for Hyperion.

In case you missed it, here are the basics


These changes are now all on Singularity for you to get to grips with and try and break Big smile. Please report any bugs found in this thread, which I will update with any known bugs as time goes on.

Currently Known Bugs
  • Mass affecting active modules do not affect spawn distance when jumping through a wormhole.

If you have any questions regarding expected functionality they are also welcome, but for comments and opinions on the features, please use the appropriate thread for the feature (See above), so that we have all the feedback in one place!

Many thanks and happy testing!

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

Reckoning Star Alliance
#2 - 2014-08-14 15:33:18 UTC
Not that I can't go check later, but were there any changes to the new statics added to C4s since last week when they went onto Singularity?

EDIT: First! :)
C C P Alliance
#3 - 2014-08-14 15:37:07 UTC
The C4 statics should be exactly the same as when they first hit Singularity. Smile

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

#4 - 2014-08-14 19:33:52 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
The C4 statics should be exactly the same as when they first hit Singularity. Smile

I just moved to a wh about 2 weeks ago so it's impossible for me to tell what my second static is going to be given that the mirror on Sisi is a couple months old. So, I wanted to ask if we will be getting a mirror update before Hyperion or can i request to be transferred to a specific wh?
C C P Alliance
#5 - 2014-08-15 14:09:37 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Masterplan
For those that didn't understand my cryptic tweet earlier, there is one more related change on Singularity as of a few hours ago:

When scanning down sites, the scan ID (ABC-123) should now be consistent across server downtimes. Ships should continue to have consistent scan IDs as before.
Aussie wormholers can have a beer to celebrate not having to rescan everything over downtimes :)

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Greater D.U.S.K. Coalition
#6 - 2014-08-15 14:25:14 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
For those that didn't understand my cryptic tweet earlier, there is one more related change on Singularity as of a few hours ago:

When scanning down sites, the scan ID (ABC-123) should now be consistent across server downtimes. Ships should continue to have consistent scan IDs as before.
Aussie wormholes can have a beer to celebrate not having to rescan everything over downtimes :)

I thought this had been tried before but had to be rolled back will this change stick this time?

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Caldari State
#7 - 2014-08-15 14:30:30 UTC
That's awesome, very well done Masterplan! I know a lot of Aussies that are going to love this.
#8 - 2014-08-15 16:03:42 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
For those that didn't understand my cryptic tweet earlier, there is one more related change on Singularity as of a few hours ago:

When scanning down sites, the scan ID (ABC-123) should now be consistent across server downtimes. Ships should continue to have consistent scan IDs as before.
Aussie wormholers can have a beer to celebrate not having to rescan everything over downtimes :)

As a non-Aussie (but friends with a few), thank you.

I'm right behind you

Gallente Federation
#9 - 2014-08-15 16:08:38 UTC
As a USTZ player, I'm going to come out against this change! I suppose the net benefit for wormholers outweighs my drawback, but I'm going to bring it up anyway:

When I fly around probing for sigs to run in sov space, I very frequently use the scan ID to determine whether the site is worth probing down. Since I probe late in the eve-day, and Deklein (for example) is pretty frequently probed, I can check the scan ID, compare it with the worthless anoms that nobody runs, and if the Scan ID is close enough, I know that the site is not worth wasting my time probing out, since it's been up since downtime, yet nobody has run it (or it's a wormhole). Now, I won't be able to use this as a clue.
C C P Alliance
#10 - 2014-08-15 16:16:06 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Masterplan
That's a fair point to bring up, but this is very much unintended behaviour! The fact that two different sites might have very similar IDs based on the time they were spawned isn't something that really fits with the system. The point is that each site is unique and independent of others in the same solar system, so breaking the fourth wall and exposing meta info about how the site exists in the DB is something we're not keen on.

We're also trying to eliminate cases like this where gameplay differs based on how long since DT your play sessions are.

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#11 - 2014-08-15 16:30:04 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
For those that didn't understand my cryptic tweet earlier, there is one more related change on Singularity as of a few hours ago:

When scanning down sites, the scan ID (ABC-123) should now be consistent across server downtimes. Ships should continue to have consistent scan IDs as before.
Aussie wormholers can have a beer to celebrate not having to rescan everything over downtimes :)


The Knights of Nii wholeheartedly approve. Now bring us shrubberies.

I remember the party line being that down times would be removed totally, rendering the need for this change a non-issue. Can't say I'm thrilled about all the changes to w-space, but there has to be both swings and roundabouts I guess. Thanks!
Caldari State
#12 - 2014-08-15 16:33:36 UTC
Masterplan, Best plan :)
Chao3 Alliance
#13 - 2014-08-15 21:01:41 UTC
Another great change! CCP, you guys are on a roll Big smile

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

#14 - 2014-08-19 17:29:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
I'd prefer they attempted to move the maximum of 10 rather than disallowing the move altogether.

oop. headed to the thread.

o7
Solyaris Chtonium
#15 - 2014-08-19 17:34:00 UTC
Behavior of bookmarks in cargo bay is not consistent.

I can drag 1-2 to chat and they're clickable. Dragging 10 not so much.

I still can't drag from people & places tho.

Would be nice if drag from P&P just took 1st 10 or hightlighted 10 instead of printing warning and failing.

C C P Alliance
#16 - 2014-08-19 17:41:14 UTC
Thanks for the feedback! I'll look into the issues mentioned here and pass on the suggestions to the relevant people.

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

#17 - 2014-08-19 17:49:44 UTC
Moving Bookmarks from P&P to Cargohold works but only if you not Cloaked



Yumata
VYDRA RELOLDED
#18 - 2014-08-26 06:49:33 UTC
Uhm...

I think I accidentally C2 with 3 statics. J162042 has B274, Z647 and D382.

Doctor, will I live?
Forum Jump