These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Kronos] Tweaks to Ascendancy Omegas and Warp Speed Rigs

First post
Author
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#101 - 2014-05-12 08:50:19 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


Adding stacking penalties to cap rigs is reasonable also. It'll give mission runners the opportunity of learning about cap management.

However, if you do this I suggest you'll want to look at increasing the base cap recharge of dreads and carriers.


Nothing says "elitism" more than requesting a certain mechanics to be nerfed and yet in the very next sentence requesting to be buffed, just so to prevent it from applying to your playstyle.

I'd hate to see stacking penalties on cap rechargers/relays/CCC rigs, it would be worst idea in the history of CCP Fozzie, but at the same time I would be amused by all the tears from triage carrier pilots.


It's not that. The fact is that at the moment it's not possible to make a triage carrier or dual-rep siege dread cap stable without a full rack of T2 cap rigs, or officer cap mods.

A triage carrier that's not cap stable is worse than useless.

I'm by no means looking to be elitist. These ships are very tight on cap, and cap rigs are essential if they are to sit still and do their job.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Luscius Uta
#102 - 2014-05-12 10:14:49 UTC
Hence no reason to give stacking penalties to cap mods/rigs.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.

marVLs
#103 - 2014-05-12 10:39:34 UTC
stacking warp speed rigs? = baaaaad idea

I understand doing this for small rigs but for others it's terrible idea, it would just make them not used at all

rethink this or buff warp speed % bonus for large and capital rigs because 20% from 2.0 warp speed is nothing already
Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#104 - 2014-05-12 11:16:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Let us know what you think!
-Fozzie


I think when you first started this tiericide project you forgot (or didn't know) about the changes to warp mechanics, so it didn't factor in to your balancing plans... but i could be wrong.

Whatever the case, i can't remember the last time i have seen anything bigger that a cruiser in a fight. It seems like 90% of people only use interceptors to travel these days, which doesn't make for a diverse eve imo.

Please add a ship module that increases warp speed but requires too much power/CPU for a frigate to use.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#105 - 2014-05-12 12:14:55 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Let us know what you think!
-Fozzie


I think when you first started this tiericide project you forgot (or didn't know) about the changes to warp mechanics, so it didn't factor it in to your balancing plans... but i could be wrong.

Whatever the case, i can't remember the last time i have seen anything bigger that a cruiser in a fight. It seems like 90% of people only use interceptors to travel these days, which doesn't make for a diverse eve imo.

Please add a ship module that increases warp speed but requires too much power/CPU for a frigate to use.


No, just send the battleship designers back to the drawing board with orders to replace the new crappy economy warp drives with the old good ones that gave a 3AU/s warp speed.

Whoever ordered these new parts needs to be executed immediately.

pp Ming The Merciless

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#106 - 2014-05-12 12:21:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Yea and I sure would love to hear the lore reason why a bigger ship with presumably bigger/more advanced engines doesn't have the capacity to warp faster than a tiny frigate. Blink
Nano Sito
#107 - 2014-05-12 22:04:03 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Yea and I sure would love to hear the lore reason why a bigger ship with presumably bigger/more advanced engines doesn't have the capacity to warp faster than a tiny frigate. Blink


Well... generally speaking lighter=faster. Same reason why a neutrino or a photon are faster than more massive particles. Also, the energy needed to change the direction and/or accelerate an object is related to the mass of said object. One would argue that although the engine is bigger, it doesn't put out the required energy to make the ship warp at frigate speed.

IMHO, that's why CCP should buff up the large hyperspacial rigs SUBSTANTIALLY and/or introduce a low-med slot item that would increase warp speed so that you could fit them when travelling long distances.
Onictus
SniggWaffe
Pandemic Horde
#108 - 2014-05-12 22:09:11 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Yea and I sure would love to hear the lore reason why a bigger ship with presumably bigger/more advanced engines doesn't have the capacity to warp faster than a tiny frigate. Blink



Classic case of too much screwing around.

I was all for the acceleration change, the further screwing with the warp speeds is what killed pretty much all of the larger hulls.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
#109 - 2014-05-12 22:25:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Nano Sito wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Yea and I sure would love to hear the lore reason why a bigger ship with presumably bigger/more advanced engines doesn't have the capacity to warp faster than a tiny frigate. Blink


Well... generally speaking lighter=faster. Same reason why a neutrino or a photon are faster than more massive particles. Also, the energy needed to change the direction and/or accelerate an object is related to the mass of said object. One would argue that although the engine is bigger, it doesn't put out the required energy to make the ship warp at frigate speed.

IMHO, that's why CCP should buff up the large hyperspacial rigs SUBSTANTIALLY and/or introduce a low-med slot item that would increase warp speed so that you could fit them when travelling long distances.


The time taken to accelerate a body to a given velocity is a function of mass and force, as we all know. It is also evident from Einstein's work and physical observation that mass increases exponentially to infinity as velocity approaches C.

When a ship is in warp it apparently moves at between 2 and 11 AU per second - between 16 and 80 times the speed of light.

However, warping space does not involve the concept of "velocity" (i.e. distance along a vector over time) at all. If it did, the ship would require all the energy in the universe to reach 0.125AU/s. Before it got to that speed it would be emitting so much radiation that it would evaporate the solar system in which it was moving (not to mention the crew).

There is no reasonable case to correlate apparent spacial distance warped with mass.

There's even less of a case to correlate it with brain implants...

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

CraftyCroc
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#110 - 2014-05-12 22:42:30 UTC
Lol
Nano Sito
#111 - 2014-05-12 23:21:55 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


There is no reasonable case to correlate apparent spacial distance warped with mass.

There's even less of a case to correlate it with brain implants...


Thanks for the clarification. Was any explanation given by ccp about what eve's warp tunnel really is? I would start looking there for inconsistencies.

Dairokuten Maoh
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2014-05-13 01:02:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Dairokuten Maoh
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Nano Sito wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Yea and I sure would love to hear the lore reason why a bigger ship with presumably bigger/more advanced engines doesn't have the capacity to warp faster than a tiny frigate. Blink


Well... generally speaking lighter=faster. Same reason why a neutrino or a photon are faster than more massive particles. Also, the energy needed to change the direction and/or accelerate an object is related to the mass of said object. One would argue that although the engine is bigger, it doesn't put out the required energy to make the ship warp at frigate speed.

IMHO, that's why CCP should buff up the large hyperspacial rigs SUBSTANTIALLY and/or introduce a low-med slot item that would increase warp speed so that you could fit them when travelling long distances.


The time taken to accelerate a body to a given velocity is a function of mass and force, as we all know. It is also evident from Einstein's work and physical observation that mass increases exponentially to infinity as velocity approaches C.

When a ship is in warp it apparently moves at between 2 and 11 AU per second - between 16 and 80 times the speed of light.

However, warping space does not involve the concept of "velocity" (i.e. distance along a vector over time) at all. If it did, the ship would require all the energy in the universe to reach 0.125AU/s. Before it got to that speed it would be emitting so much radiation that it would evaporate the solar system in which it was moving (not to mention the crew).

There is no reasonable case to correlate apparent spacial distance warped with mass.

There's even less of a case to correlate it with brain implants...



Indeed, mass has nothing to do with warp speed. Just like how the dreadnought catches USS Enterprise in warp, because its engine is more advanced and powerful than the smaller Enterprise. Realistic speaking, bigger ship should warp faster than smaller ship, but has lower velocity and align speed when using conventional engines compare to smaller ships because of the mass.

Back to topic. If the logic of "SINCE EVERYTHING ELSE HAS PENALTY, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ADD PENALTY TO THIS MODULE AND WHATEVER ELSE THAT AFFECTS IT REGARDLESS OF ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN INTENT AND DRAWBACK" is what applies here in Fozzie's logic, then we should just add stacking penalty to everything else. Co-Processor, reinforced bulkhead, cargo expander, because somewhere in this tiny eve cluster someone is gonna find a way to make their ship too OP by stacking these things up and make everything else obsolete.

Add stacking penalty to people that fit their ship with multiple disruptor because it's OP and points two people instead of one.
Add stacking penalty to webs because if you put second web on a target it is literally standing still and therefore too OP.
Add stacking penalty to target paint because multiple target paint on one ship allows phoenix to blap my mining barges and therefore too phucking OP.

BTW. NOT ALL ASTRONAUTIC RIG HAS STACKING PENALTY BESIDES WARP SPEED. FOZZIE YOU SHOULD TRY PLAY THE GAME FIRST BEFORE YOU NERF STUFF.

(inb4 Fozzie adds them)

CCP Please, dont you have better things to do? How about that useless auto-targeting missile that nobody ever use? Tweaking things that is perfect the way they are doesn't make you look like you are working hard. Stacking modules makes the environment more diverse as the possibility for fitting ships become endless. Why? Because there is a reason to seek, experiment, and explore the best fit that will overcome your adversaries. Just because everyone's module is equally crappy doesn't make this game diverse.

Granted, if a player would fit different modules on the ship instead of stacking them, it would make the fitting diverse.
IT CERTAINLY LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER, NOT IN REALITY.

The reality is, if your ship doesn't out-stand in certain way when facing stronger opponents ie. blobs, you will have less chance of surviving and don't even think about killing or pvping. And that's why stacking module encourages certain fits although will do terrible at certain aspect, it will do very well in other aspect. And we use the strong point of the fit in hope to counter our adversaries.

And I'm very disappointed at Fozzie for what he said about CCP is really sorry about how our titan is gonna be less effective. It sounded very insincere toward the players coming from a dev. Very unprofessional, and disappointing.

余の前に人は無く、余の後にも人は無し Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.

Capqu
Half Empty
#113 - 2014-05-14 00:00:24 UTC
Dairokuten Maoh wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Nano Sito wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Yea and I sure would love to hear the lore reason why a bigger ship with presumably bigger/more advanced engines doesn't have the capacity to warp faster than a tiny frigate. Blink


Well... generally speaking lighter=faster. Same reason why a neutrino or a photon are faster than more massive particles. Also, the energy needed to change the direction and/or accelerate an object is related to the mass of said object. One would argue that although the engine is bigger, it doesn't put out the required energy to make the ship warp at frigate speed.

IMHO, that's why CCP should buff up the large hyperspacial rigs SUBSTANTIALLY and/or introduce a low-med slot item that would increase warp speed so that you could fit them when travelling long distances.


The time taken to accelerate a body to a given velocity is a function of mass and force, as we all know. It is also evident from Einstein's work and physical observation that mass increases exponentially to infinity as velocity approaches C.

When a ship is in warp it apparently moves at between 2 and 11 AU per second - between 16 and 80 times the speed of light.

However, warping space does not involve the concept of "velocity" (i.e. distance along a vector over time) at all. If it did, the ship would require all the energy in the universe to reach 0.125AU/s. Before it got to that speed it would be emitting so much radiation that it would evaporate the solar system in which it was moving (not to mention the crew).

There is no reasonable case to correlate apparent spacial distance warped with mass.

There's even less of a case to correlate it with brain implants...



Indeed, mass has nothing to do with warp speed. Just like how the dreadnought catches USS Enterprise in warp, because its engine is more advanced and powerful than the smaller Enterprise. Realistic speaking, bigger ship should warp faster than smaller ship, but has lower velocity and align speed when using conventional engines compare to smaller ships because of the mass.

Back to topic. If the logic of "SINCE EVERYTHING ELSE HAS PENALTY, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ADD PENALTY TO THIS MODULE AND WHATEVER ELSE THAT AFFECTS IT REGARDLESS OF ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN INTENT AND DRAWBACK" is what applies here in Fozzie's logic, then we should just add stacking penalty to everything else. Co-Processor, reinforced bulkhead, cargo expander, because somewhere in this tiny eve cluster someone is gonna find a way to make their ship too OP by stacking these things up and make everything else obsolete.

Add stacking penalty to people that fit their ship with multiple disruptor because it's OP and points two people instead of one.
Add stacking penalty to webs because if you put second web on a target it is literally standing still and therefore too OP.
Add stacking penalty to target paint because multiple target paint on one ship allows phoenix to blap my mining barges and therefore too phucking OP.

BTW. NOT ALL ASTRONAUTIC RIG HAS STACKING PENALTY BESIDES WARP SPEED. FOZZIE YOU SHOULD TRY PLAY THE GAME FIRST BEFORE YOU NERF STUFF.

(inb4 Fozzie adds them)

CCP Please, dont you have better things to do? How about that useless auto-targeting missile that nobody ever use? Tweaking things that is perfect the way they are doesn't make you look like you are working hard. Stacking modules makes the environment more diverse as the possibility for fitting ships become endless. Why? Because there is a reason to seek, experiment, and explore the best fit that will overcome your adversaries. Just because everyone's module is equally crappy doesn't make this game diverse.

Granted, if a player would fit different modules on the ship instead of stacking them, it would make the fitting diverse.
IT CERTAINLY LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER, NOT IN REALITY.

The reality is, if your ship doesn't out-stand in certain way when facing stronger opponents ie. blobs, you will have less chance of surviving and don't even think about killing or pvping. And that's why stacking module encourages certain fits although will do terrible at certain aspect, it will do very well in other aspect. And we use the strong point of the fit in hope to counter our adversaries.

And I'm very disappointed at Fozzie for what he said about CCP is really sorry about how our titan is gonna be less effective. It sounded very insincere toward the players coming from a dev. Very unprofessional, and disappointing.


you make a lot of sense and i've been trying to get similar things through, but it appears this is set in stone and there is no point reasoning at this point

they're going to slap a stacking penalty on warp speed rigs in advance of considering doing the same for trimarks and cdfes because he feels like it or something. i don't know, there's no real justification for adding stacking penalties to a niche rig because you want interesting choices but leaving the dominant rigs stacking-incentivized

probably just get berated again for my titan but whatever i don't care, a change is being made for the sake of having a change and its pretty stupid

like i said if you wanna nerf warp speed rigs go ahead and say that but don't try disguise it as giving interesting choices in the 3rd rig slot when trimarks and cdfes exist because thats jsut pathetic
Drew Li
Space Exploitation Inc
#114 - 2014-05-14 00:12:51 UTC
Would it be possible to directly correlate Warp Speed with Jump Range for the Ascendancy implants? So the old rig makes you warp faster, the Ascendancy set makes you warp faster AND jump further? Turn it into a dream implant set for jump freighter pilots and maybe bridging titans?
Dairokuten Maoh
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2014-05-14 02:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Dairokuten Maoh
It's alright.

Things are always fair one way or another. CCP keeping this up and turn this game into a second rate WoT or LoL style pay to win game and more people will lose interest eventually. In the end, those who brought eve to where it is on that day where mass migration to another game happens will also be the one who takes the hit for it.

余の前に人は無く、余の後にも人は無し Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.

Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2014-05-14 02:34:41 UTC
The only reason I can see stacking penalties on warp speed rigs as justified would be to keep T1 freighters from warping faster than T2 freighters.

But then I ran the math and found T1 freighters rigged with three T2 hyperspatial velocity rigs will warp 4.1% faster than a T2 freighter with two of the same rigs even with stacking penalties. Down from a whopping 12.4%. A massive change of 8.3%.

But then I realized T2 freighters have jump drives which keeps them traveling exponentially faster than than T1 freighters no matter what. Making me realize the only justification I could imagine for this change was completely silly from every possible standpoint.

So, considering all the other reasons fozzie has put forth to justify this change have been completely demolished by other people in the thread, I'm seriously at a loss.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.

Dairokuten Maoh
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#117 - 2014-05-14 16:52:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Dairokuten Maoh
....

余の前に人は無く、余の後にも人は無し Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.

Apelacja
Sad Najwyzszy
#118 - 2014-05-16 20:43:09 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Couldn't care less. Does anybody actually use these implants?

yes i use

it`s ls SB hunter base
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#119 - 2014-05-19 14:31:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Dav Varan
Horrible

My 10 au/s ceptor will now do 9.25386423497682973487234702389764023467 au/s

my OCD hates you.

unless thats only 1 rig ?, humm can't remember now!


My OCD reserves the right to hate you if my warp speed after is some horrible number.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#120 - 2014-05-21 15:27:18 UTC
How will this work with respect to the new warp speed enhancement modules in Kronos (0.2, 0.25 and 0.3 AU/s)? Will these be stacking penalized with hyperspacial rigs, with each other, not at all - or some combination thereof? Inquiring minds would like to know...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.