Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You know, if you implemented the previously suggested Don't show in local until you break your gatecloak amendment alongside this, you'll have gone a long way towards fixing the 'Local as intel tool' argument since the window of opportunity for potential targets to spot a hostile scout in local and get to safety before they land on grid will be greatly diminished.

Just thought I'd drop that thought in here.

Any chance we could get freighter rigs to help compensate for the slowdown since most star systems aren't beneficially huge?

Or a couple low power slots would be nice. Let freighter pilots decide between bulkheads/DCUs, cargo space, or agility. Maybe lower base capacity to balance it out.

Question:

In Rubicon, the "WarpSpeedMultiplier" will now affect warp speed acceleration. Why was this parameter chosen, instead of making SHIP MASS affect acceleration?

I like the change in the warp mechanic, but I am less convinced about the warp speeds assigned to each ship type. The mechanics change is quite drastic. The adjustments made to the warp speeds seem insufficient to remove all the rough edges and it feels somewhat makes-shift.
Flying from one end of the universe to the other in a travel fit interceptor will now be almost as fast as when you use a cyno chain with a capital. Travel will be more about loading grid than it will be about flying your spaceship in space. An interceptor doesn't require this much speed to overtake its target.
On the other end of the spectrum the design is causing problems as well. Freighter speeds must be adjusted to avoid people not being able to make a warp between downtimes. But people complain about battleships as well. Just wait for the threadnoughts when this goes live. People will have plenty of time to post on the forums during warps.
I also noticed that in the new design the steps between each ship type are not all the same. Especially the gap between tech II cruisers and destroyers is large while their roles were reversed before.
I played around with it in a spreadsheet and came up with an alternative list which keeps Freighters at roughly the same average warp times as now, softens the nerf to the larger subcaps and made the faster ships less amazing, but still kept the interceptor twice as fast as a battleship on short warps and 3x as fast on long warps. This is more than enough to fullfil its role.
I used a base value of 2 for Freighters and increased this with 10% in each step. The warp speeds I calculated this way are shown below with between () the current and guestimated alternative warp times for a 50 AU warp:
Freighter/Titan 2 (95/62 → 69)
JF/Other Caps 2,2 (95/62 → 63)
Bs 2,4 (47 → 58)
Bs II 2,7 (47 → 52)
BC 2,9 (47 → 48)
BC II 3,2 (47 → 44)
Cr 3,5 (47 → 40)
Cr II/DST 3,9 (44/47 → 37)
De 4,3 (47 → 34)
Fr 4,7 (39 → 31)
Fr II 5,2 (39 → 28)
De II/BR 5,7 (47/37 → 25)
Int 6,3 (37/36 → 23)

For the love of god, don't make the freighters even slower than they already are...

It's already a huge pain in the ass to do logistics and I don't see why you should hurt the people who do so much for all the other players even more...

I also don't see why a freighter should be the slowest ship to warp as there are other ships which are significantly bigger and have more mass (titans, supercaps, dreads and carriers)

Maybe you should introduce another skill bonus on freighters which makes their acceleration faster.


In total I think overall the changes make sense as the less mass you have the faster you should accelerate but I really hoped that freighters weren't going to be so much slower...

Because those are COMBAT ships. Same way that a Nimitz carrier can move WAY faster than a cargo ship.. .even being heavier.

a thousand times this.

Vdr and i joinly run indy for our corp, and, besides our miners themselves flat out refusing to mine in nullsec anymore due to the sheer dangers, i'm not comfortable sending them out anymore in the first place.

CCP, i seriously question if you're paying attention to the changes made even in oddessy. i cannot stress this enough - no miner with a scrap of sense will be found in nullsec after these changes. period.

it takes sixteen seconds for a hulk to align. a ceptor gang can be on top of you, in a 40 AU system, in about 14. ASSUMING perfect reactions by the miners. keeping a scout in another system is possible - if the scout is able to stare at the screen for hours on end.

i love the idea of nullified ceptors. but you've stripped the last defense from any sort of exhumer in null, and frankly they have ltitle enough going for them as stands.

and for those pvpers who want to claim "just put a scout next door" - you're telling me that a pvper can get in a single ship, by himself, and go, by himself, about his business and actually have fun, but a miner needs to run six accounts to even be bothered undocking? (one boost, one hauler, at least one scout, three exhumers.) this is unacceptable, especially when we're talking about something that you need to do for many hours on end to be profitable, and that is extraordinarily boring.

i once read a quote from miss seagull - "Enablers are the people who make the logistics for these large-scale things actually work. ... And we kind of have a history of treating these people like…****. We put these people through a lot of painful, unnecessary work."

it's the goddamn truth, and i have yet to see any sort of design decision changing that fact.

ahh, but inb4 mods claiming "this isnt the right thread for this."

i'll put a more constructive post up when it's not 6AM and i've slept, but the tl:dr of it will be - put grav sites back in sigs, or dont be surprised when nullsec mining (i.e. your source for all highend minerals - zydrine, megacyte, morphite) comes to a screeching halt.

A miner who is ATK is aligned. You can let the inty get on grid before warping to safety.

This does hurt botting adn isBotter operations, you are correct. More profits for the rest.

Oh come on. Fit nanos, use a more agile miner or put a scout next door. You don't need to stare at a screen, all you need is to be able to hear a gateflash, and then have your miners warp to a few hundred km tactical so they don't waste time panic-warping 20 AU to POS/station every time a friendly jumps in but forgets to announce it in intel.

Anyway, if you're right and null mining and supply of high-ends do crash, what do you think will happen to the prices of those high-ends? You should be looking at this as an opportunity to outcompete inferior alliances' miners. Mine intelligently and reap the rewards, or just carry on acting like a generic nullbear.

I think the covert ops is too fast both current and intended.

Interceptor should be fastest.

covert ops and combat inti to 9au, keep the tackle inti at 10au for differentiation.