Non-consensual political structure bashing on SiSi

It would be super helpful if CCP could clarify whether attacking obviously in-use but unmanned structures on Singularity is considered consensual PvP.

With the previous SiSi mirror the 1DQ 1st Imperial Palace was killed (presumably by FRT given all of the containers were owned by FRT). Yesterday I logged in with the fresh mirror and a pilot was in a dread shooting the 1DQ 1st Imperial Palace and it was at half shields. I undocked and scared him off, but he would not accept my conversation asking why he was engaging in non-consensual PvP. [Dread pilot was (XXXXX redacted in this forum for initial post) from “I Could Do Better”.]

Given that Singularity is meant to be a test server, it’s incredibly frustrating when an entire coalition’s assets are removed and sent to lowsec. It makes testing anything far more difficult.

If you could please (publicly) clarify whether or not it is acceptable to destroy obviously in-use structures on SiSi, it would be most appreciated. If it is not allowed, what’s the best way to report/revert when it happens, and have the rules enforced? The other concern is that enforcement is reactive and new mirrors are not frequent. On SiSi no one may even notice that a structure has gone through multiple ref cycles until it’s been dead for days and then even if a single player is removed from the test server for bad behavior tens of thousands of pilots are hampered in testing for months.

[Note: This was originally written up as a GM ticket, and I have migrated to this forum. The GM confirmed that this behavior would be against the test server rules for violating rules #2 and #8.]

1 Like

Last mirror the t5z keep was also destroyed: after it went abandoned, this is a clear abuse of SiSi mechanics which gives free intel to anyone who bothers to go through those cans.

The day after the previous mirror I logged on and did the asset safety on like 11 pilots to the 1st Imperial Palace and other 1dq structures. About a week later I remembered what I wanted to test, I logged in and discovered that the 1st Imperial palace is destroyed and now I’m screwed unless I put in a bunch of extra effort.

It is annoying and seems like a stupid thing to allow on a test server.

1 Like

It happened again, just now. Character in a Moros was shooting the 1DQ1-A 1st Imperial Palace on Singularity. I DDed him to end the non-consensual aggression. Screenshot of conversation at:

Submit a bug report

The bug report tool in-game on SiSi says “use this to report a bug in the game”, not player bad behavior.

The broader topic here is the asymmetric impact of tomfoolery on SiSi, and whether CCP can/should take a stronger stance against people being vandals or bringing TQ politics to SiSi. One player can impact tens of thousands before anyone happens to notice, and then it takes months to “correct”.

It should also be noted that on the previous mirror that the 1DQ1-A ihub was also hacked and sov switched to FRT. All of this (structures, sov, ihubs, etc) is already covered in the test server rules. I guess overall I’m wondering what can be done to ensure that people aren’t griefing, against the rules, before it’s too late on a given mirror.

SISI rule violations should be reported via the ingame “report a bug”. @ISD_Sakimura

Doesnt work anymore. This got fixed a long time ago. They can only kill the structure for bragging rights, which does not matter at all :smiley:

@Hink_Yaken Why did thousands of can’s drop from the t5z keep then?

Structures are supposed to have all of their contents moved into asset safety during the mirror process, so a player would have to move their stuff back to the structure to have loot available for drops.

Emphasis on supposed to. It’s specifically intended to thwart abandoned state intel when structures go abandoned on Sisi following a mirror.

If someone then puts a bunch of stuff in the structure again, and it later goes abandoned and gets popped, well, it will drop its contents, but that won’t necessarily be the stuff in the structure on TQ.

Thousands of cans dropped from the 1DQ keep, as well, on the last mirror.

The core point here should be that this is a test server, and these shenanigans get in the way of testing and are just vandalism and harassment. The “free intel” piece is valid, as well.

The frustrating thing is that it seems that rules exist to “prevent” this behavior, but they’re reactive and asymmetrical. One person impacts tens of thousands before anyone reacts, and by then the damage is done.

1 Like

As i said above, you can always submit a bug report on SiSi detailing the rule breaking.

1 Like

I suppose running indu jobs and corp hangars? Not super sure about the mechanics there.
But that should not be important intel.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but my overall point here is that reactively flagging bad behavior happens after the damage is already done. On the last mirror when the 1DQ and T5Z keepstars were destroyed, I strongly suspect it happened “without anyone noticing until it was done”, and banning those handful of people who were vandals is a good thing…but too little, too late. Given that in the current nullsec war “both sides” have tens of thousands of pilots, reactively banning a person here and a person there is unlikely to staunch the stupidity.

I’m not trying to be argumentative…I appreciate the suggestion to open a bug report (and I did), but the question I’m really asking here is “should the players and/or CCP take a stronger proactive stance on rulebreaking on SiSi?”. Should CCP reiterate the rules and/or increase the penalty? Should major bloc leaders on TQ remind their folks in a ping that SiSi is apolitical and meant for testing…eg, “don’t shoot anything you don’t own”?

I don’t have a balanced solution, which is why I’m inviting the discussion and hoping that CCP will respond in this thread with their thoughts, as well. [At the moment I’m still in the table-flipping-angry mode, so most of my suggestions would probably be seen as an overreaction.]

1 Like

Good luck with that.

CCP doesn’t care what people do on Sisi outside of formal mass tests - and an invitation to poke at newly released code isn’t a mass test. Regardless of how ‘officially’ they present their stance, CCP’s history of (not) handling rule breaking far more severe than a structure bash makes that very clear.


Bump. Hoping for a CCP response. Thanks!

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.