These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rubicon] Warp Speed and Acceleration

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
BloodMia
The Scope
#321 - 2013-10-09 17:49:32 UTC  |  Edited by: BloodMia
Matthias Thullmann wrote:
I don't see why the slope needs to be linear.... why not exponential? That way battleships+ lose maybe 1-2% of warp acceleration while frigates gain 50-75% faster acceleration.

CCP summon your math wizards!


This

Kahega Amielden wrote:

Why is the current proposal bad?


Because if you need to create a bigger delta than now, you don't need to make heavy thing MUCH slower when you're already making lighter ship MUCH faster!

It seems that the initial goal was to widen the gap between fast/slow boats, to make warpspeed meaningful again, not to "stealth" nerf already slow boats into slower boats. There is a big difference between "hey, those inty don't warp fast enough to catch battleship" and "hey freighter pilot really have a fun day piloting those, lets make them feel the pain"
Vrenth
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2013-10-09 19:23:53 UTC
BloodMia wrote:
Matthias Thullmann wrote:
I don't see why the slope needs to be linear.... why not exponential? That way battleships+ lose maybe 1-2% of warp acceleration while frigates gain 50-75% faster acceleration.

CCP summon your math wizards!


This

Kahega Amielden wrote:

Why is the current proposal bad?


Because if you need to create a bigger delta than now, you don't need to make heavy thing MUCH slower when you're already making lighter ship MUCH faster!

It seems that the initial goal was to widen the gap between fast/slow boats, to make warpspeed meaningful again, not to "stealth" nerf already slow boats into slower boats. There is a big difference between "hey, those inty don't warp fast enough to catch battleship" and "hey freighter pilot really have a fun day piloting those, lets make them feel the pain"


Freighter part of your complaint is invalid. Freighters travel time is now faster in most cases if you look at their charts.
Spartan dax
0utbreak
#323 - 2013-10-09 19:34:47 UTC
So will we be seeing a differentiation between Fleet bs's and the more skirmish oriented ones in regards to warpspeeds?

Or maybe that just makes perfect sense to me.
BloodMia
The Scope
#324 - 2013-10-09 22:20:34 UTC
Vrenth wrote:
BloodMia wrote:
Matthias Thullmann wrote:
I don't see why the slope needs to be linear.... why not exponential? That way battleships+ lose maybe 1-2% of warp acceleration while frigates gain 50-75% faster acceleration.

CCP summon your math wizards!


This

Kahega Amielden wrote:

Why is the current proposal bad?


Because if you need to create a bigger delta than now, you don't need to make heavy thing MUCH slower when you're already making lighter ship MUCH faster!

It seems that the initial goal was to widen the gap between fast/slow boats, to make warpspeed meaningful again, not to "stealth" nerf already slow boats into slower boats. There is a big difference between "hey, those inty don't warp fast enough to catch battleship" and "hey freighter pilot really have a fun day piloting those, lets make them feel the pain"


Freighter part of your complaint is invalid. Freighters travel time is now faster in most cases if you look at their charts.


If by most, you're referring to > 80AU warp, you're rignt! Beside that, it was more an ironical illustration than anything else.

The fun fact here is that mostly every ship, including fighter/titan, had their warp speed buffed. But do to change in the acceleration/deceleration formula, their total warp time get bigger/shorter. In other words, it's not the warp time elapsed at full speed who will be determinative, but transitions states time in-between, again!
WilliamMays
Stuffs Inc.
#325 - 2013-10-09 23:50:13 UTC
Falkor1984 wrote:
.....There is nothing balanced about LONGER travel times for freighters, thats not hard to understand. It IS back braking since it doesnt add anything in gameplay. Why would you want to make it slower to make the game better?.....


big things moving slower is balanced

players have continuously complained about jita becoming more and more the only trade hub that matters; fewer traders hauling stuff just to buy n sell will decrease this and increase regional market diversity. that is an increase in gameplay

with that said, I do believe freighters need a closer look. They should have SOME options in EHP v agility

the intel tool we deserve, the intel tool we need
Adacia Calla
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#326 - 2013-10-10 01:04:20 UTC
Just finished playing around on Sisi, Warp rigs/nanofiber inty can go gate to gate in less than 5 seconds from pressing Warp.

It's *kinda* silly, but warranted.

Test signature....forum not applying settings :(
Vdr
Dirty Vagrants
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#327 - 2013-10-10 06:53:19 UTC
WilliamMays wrote:
Falkor1984 wrote:
.....There is nothing balanced about LONGER travel times for freighters, thats not hard to understand. It IS back braking since it doesnt add anything in gameplay. Why would you want to make it slower to make the game better?.....


big things moving slower is balanced

players have continuously complained about jita becoming more and more the only trade hub that matters; fewer traders hauling stuff just to buy n sell will decrease this and increase regional market diversity. that is an increase in gameplay

with that said, I do believe freighters need a closer look. They should have SOME options in EHP v agility


i have always wanted a JF to have t3 like subsystems that allow you to modify the cargo type to dedicated bays, trade cargo for jump range or jump range for cargo. adding a bit of flex to that would make it much more usefull.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#328 - 2013-10-10 11:32:41 UTC
After testing on sisi, I wanted to say I love this change. Frigs are sooo fast, and battleships soooo slow Lol

I was wondering, since you're fiddling with warp related stuff, if you'd consider reducing the shake effect at the beginning and end of the warp sequence. I turn camera shake off because it's so bloody annoying, but if it was to be reduced to 25% of its current intensity, it'd make it extremely bearable. Cool

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Angelina Duvolle
Homeworld Technologies
#329 - 2013-10-10 13:21:01 UTC
WilliamMays wrote:


players have continuously complained about jita becoming more and more the only trade hub that matters; fewer traders hauling stuff just to buy n sell will decrease this and increase regional market diversity. that is an increase in gameplay




This will have no effect on adding market diversity. Everyone is still going to truck their crap to Jita to sell it, they will just be afk for longer periods, tabbed out to other things or other characters.

ccp have had years to fix the "jita issue" They have no interest nor inclination to do so, and have in fact gone the other direction, designing hardware packages around supporting an extreme amount of players in Jita that would crush other systems. If they wanted to lessen the Jita issue they would link the 4 regional trade hubs together and be done with it, and again, they have had 10 years to do that, going back to when Yulai was the problem not Jita. They aren't going to do that, as it is far easier to go for the low hanging fruit and balance ships for the 100th time, then it is to tackle meaningful issues. (Market, POS's, corp mgmt tools, etc)


Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
#330 - 2013-10-10 14:00:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Syri Taneka
Awesome! An interceptor can now cover 100AU in the time it takes a freighter to bounce to an insta-undock.

*gasps* I won't be able to go to the bathroom while warping across OJOS-T in an AF anymore!
bloodknight2
Revenu.Quebec
#331 - 2013-10-10 15:49:19 UTC
Flying a BS/caps is already a pain in the ass, but after the change, they will be much worse?

Good job CCP. No, i mean really Roll
Matthias Thullmann
Dynatron Inc.
#332 - 2013-10-10 16:57:18 UTC
WilliamMays wrote:
big things moving slower is balanced


Big things already move slow, there's no problem there that needed fixing.

The problem was slow warping frigates which weren't fast enough to intercept things like cruisers and battlecruisers. This problem can be fixed without causing another problem in the process.

Kahega Amielden wrote:
Why is the current proposal bad?


Adds so much flight time to battleship+ ships that the game becomes annoying to play. It's like adding a function that increases undock time to a minute, there's no point.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#333 - 2013-10-10 21:10:23 UTC
Matthias Thullmann wrote:
WilliamMays wrote:
big things moving slower is balanced


Big things already move slow, there's no problem there that needed fixing.

The problem was slow warping frigates which weren't fast enough to intercept things like cruisers and battlecruisers. This problem can be fixed without causing another problem in the process.

Kahega Amielden wrote:
Why is the current proposal bad?


Adds so much flight time to battleship+ ships that the game becomes annoying to play. It's like adding a function that increases undock time to a minute, there's no point.


Yup, just took 28 minutes to manually warp an unplated Paladin 16 jumps.
Way to go CCP. You won't **** off too many people with that one.
SOL Ranger
Imperial Armed Forces
#334 - 2013-10-10 23:08:17 UTC  |  Edited by: SOL Ranger
Problem: Ease and speed of long range travel especially with small craft.

I don't contest the idea of Interceptors or quick craft being able to be highly agile within a system, I contest the idea of Interceptors and small craft in general being the uncontested means of long range travel it currently is and with these changes will become.

  • It is risk averse as everyone uses small craft to travel as to avoid potential losses, in using the proposed Interceptor there is hardly any risk involved at all.
  • Still promotes trade hubs and avoids local markets due to ease of travel.
  • Trivializes importance of locality, avoids consequences of locality.

    • Rules for ships I believe we should follow:

  • Short range(in system) agility should be a trait for smaller ships, especially for a ship such as an Interceptor.
  • Long range(interstellar) travel should always be a unique trait for larger ships in terms of both speed and efficiency.


    • Solution:

    Supporting change:
    Increase capacitor use for warp by a significant amount so that excessive jumping by any craft is hindered, most noticeable on smaller craft.

    Main change:
    Stargate jumps simulate actual warp jumps between star systems and give a massive edge to larger craft, ships made for long range travel. Shuttles would be treated as long range vessels and gain benefits to travel through stargates whereas fighter craft including interceptors would not be ideal for it.

    Bottom line is that larger craft made for crossing interstellar space would be designed to do so efficiently and speedily whereas interceptors simply are not designed for it at all, interception range for a frigate size craft cannot be reasonably extended to a range beyond star systems even if we would like to send them off and catch a couple miners 5 STAR SYSTEMS away, within a single star system unsurpassed agility and speed is reasonable for smaller craft, this within the interstellar scope is not.

    EVE currently skips the part of stargate jumps outright in terms of actual duration and I believe the duration for such trips needs to be brought into the game, interstellar travel should not be an instant wormhole jump through like in the series Stargate, it should take time but be made 'tolerable', tens of seconds like regular warps but heavily favouring larger ships instead.

    The ease of travel just needs to be stopped, it is excessive right now, with the proposed warp changes we will see quite a good start in slowing down larger craft but it will instead create a ridiculous situation for small craft; I know people want their Speedy Gonzales craft but there need to be drawbacks, long range travel should definitely be one drawback especially since this effectively kills of the Shuttle role, as trivial as that may be to some.


    With this change larger craft would be faster in long range travel but all travel would be reduced somewhat, lets assume a general 5ly stargate jump would take:

  • Battleship, 5s
  • Battlecruiser 10s.
  • Cruiser 15s.
  • Shuttle 15s.
  • Destroyer 25s.
  • Assault frigate 27s.
  • Interceptor 30s.

    • I would have suggested something more 'realistic' in terms of the ranges involved but that would require the game mechanics to be reinvented entirely so I decided a makeshift solution was in order but if anyone believes there needs to be a more in depth solution involving warp speeds and mechanics rehashed completely, I agree.

    I think my suggestion won't be very popular(duh), especially in this eagerly awaiting Interceptor crowd, but I really think this or something similar needs to be implemented, small unstoppable ships warping around however they please over the whole galaxy in mere moments making eve even smaller, please no.

    Here goes, flame on.

    The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.
    WilliamMays
    Stuffs Inc.
    #335 - 2013-10-11 01:57:45 UTC
    Falkor1984 wrote:
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:


    There is a gameplay reason for small things being faster to warp than big things.

    Its because the small things are supposed to be good at catching the big things.. Thus its not for formula purity, its so those thirty catalysts have an easier time ganking you ^^


    See, thats the thing. There is no way that you will catch a freighter easier in a small ship with this change of the freighter being in warp longer. The time the freighter is vulnerable at the gate does not change, the freighter just stays in warp longer. People flying small ships will not gain anything by having big ships stay in warp longer. Hence the logic behind making larger ships slower is flawed, and is also not justified in anyway, other than CCP saying they NEED to be slower. If you ask them WHY they need to be slower, they just dont respond.

    I mean, one could argue that there needs to be more risk for freighters. I dont agree, but lets say that one thinks there is a need for that. The correct way to do that would be to increase align time, not warp time. That way freighters become more vulnerable to attack. Increasing warp time just increases waiting time for the freighter pilot. Ill repeat it once more: "there is no gameplay in (longer) warp"


    The added risk to slower warping ships is from the fact that the smaller ships have more time to position themselves in front of the slower ships, particularly while the slower ship is in warp and unable to react to the changing situation. As in, you spread scouts out to neighboring systems, see no hostiles, beging warping to gate, while your warping hostiles have 2-5 minutes to enter system and see your freighter on dscan, then spread out on different gates to catch you. Yes, this is the extreme case, but with the current sisi build, this would be a fairly common occurance on tranquility.

    So yes, this does change gameplay, and not just in a boredom sense. The current sisi mechanics will result in big stuff dying alot more commonly.

    the intel tool we deserve, the intel tool we need
    WilliamMays
    Stuffs Inc.
    #336 - 2013-10-11 02:21:34 UTC
    Falkor1984 wrote:
    Leza MercenaryS wrote:

    You are asuming freighters only warps from a high sec station to a gate, if that was the case i'd agree. But if you use a freighter for picking up cans in space or hauling ore from a grav site or belt, clearly who ever wants to kill the freighter have more time to find the cans the freighter is warping to and wait for the freighter to land.


    Eh what? You are saying that freighters are picking up cans from belts in low/nullsec (with non blues in local)? Can u please tell me where that is, so I can put up my pirate head and come shoot them? Big smile

    Or are you maybe talking about industrials? Anyway by looking at the alignment a hauler has before warping, will pretty much tell you where he is going anyway. Even with current speeds its really easy to catch them after that. So basically I dont get your point.


    ^^ this is the problem ^^

    the hostile interceptor doesn't have to be in the same system, or even the neighboring system, after rubicon. when your freighter enters warp and takes 2+ minutes to land, then another 30-40 seconds to align and warp out, the interceptor has enough time to warp gate to gate to gate to gate, enter system and land in your mining anomaly before you've even landed. All while you have zero control of your ship

    Im the 1st to say that freighter hauling is a bad idea, even before rubicon, but this applies to orcas and rorqs to a lesser extent as well

    the intel tool we deserve, the intel tool we need
    Tyberius Franklin
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #337 - 2013-10-11 02:21:40 UTC
    SOL Ranger wrote:
    Problem: Ease and speed of long range travel especially with small craft.

    I don't contest the idea of Interceptors or quick craft being able to be highly agile within a system, I contest the idea of Interceptors and small craft in general being the uncontested means of long range travel it currently is and with these changes will become.

  • It is risk averse as everyone uses small craft to travel as to avoid potential losses, in using the proposed Interceptor there is hardly any risk involved at all.
  • Still promotes trade hubs and avoids local markets due to ease of travel.
  • Trivializes importance of locality, avoids consequences of locality.

    • Rules for ships I believe we should follow:

  • Short range(in system) agility should be a trait for smaller ships, especially for a ship such as an Interceptor.
  • Long range(interstellar) travel should always be a unique trait for larger ships in terms of both speed and efficiency.


    • Solution:

    Supporting change:
    Increase capacitor use for warp by a significant amount so that excessive jumping by any craft is hindered, most noticeable on smaller craft.

    Main change:
    Stargate jumps simulate actual warp jumps between star systems and give a massive edge to larger craft, ships made for long range travel. Shuttles would be treated as long range vessels and gain benefits to travel through stargates whereas fighter craft including interceptors would not be ideal for it.

    Bottom line is that larger craft made for crossing interstellar space would be designed to do so efficiently and speedily whereas interceptors simply are not designed for it at all, interception range for a frigate size craft cannot be reasonably extended to a range beyond star systems even if we would like to send them off and catch a couple miners 5 STAR SYSTEMS away, within a single star system unsurpassed agility and speed is reasonable for smaller craft, this within the interstellar scope is not.

    EVE currently skips the part of stargate jumps outright in terms of actual duration and I believe the duration for such trips needs to be brought into the game, interstellar travel should not be an instant wormhole jump through like in the series Stargate, it should take time but be made 'tolerable', tens of seconds like regular warps but heavily favouring larger ships instead.

    The ease of travel just needs to be stopped, it is excessive right now, with the proposed warp changes we will see quite a good start in slowing down larger craft but it will instead create a ridiculous situation for small craft; I know people want their Speedy Gonzales craft but there need to be drawbacks, long range travel should definitely be one drawback especially since this effectively kills of the Shuttle role, as trivial as that may be to some.


    With this change larger craft would be faster in long range travel but all travel would be reduced somewhat, lets assume a general 5ly stargate jump would take:

  • Battleship, 5s
  • Battlecruiser 10s.
  • Cruiser 15s.
  • Shuttle 15s.
  • Destroyer 25s.
  • Assault frigate 27s.
  • Interceptor 30s.

    • I would have suggested something more 'realistic' in terms of the ranges involved but that would require the game mechanics to be reinvented entirely so I decided a makeshift solution was in order but if anyone believes there needs to be a more in depth solution involving warp speeds and mechanics rehashed completely, I agree.

    I think my suggestion won't be very popular(duh), especially in this eagerly awaiting Interceptor crowd, but I really think this or something similar needs to be implemented, small unstoppable ships warping around however they please over the whole galaxy in mere moments making eve even smaller, please no.

    Here goes, flame on.

    Why would long range travel favor larger vessels? Especially since travel between gates has no reason to discriminate based on size. IIRC gates don't use the ships power or propulsion so the only thing that matter is ship size. Since it's the largest of ships that can't use gates wouldn't it be the larger ships that should pose more difficulty?
    SOL Ranger
    Imperial Armed Forces
    #338 - 2013-10-11 04:51:41 UTC
    Tyberius Franklin wrote:

    Why would long range travel favor larger vessels? Especially since travel between gates has no reason to discriminate based on size. IIRC gates don't use the ships power or propulsion so the only thing that matter is ship size. Since it's the largest of ships that can't use gates wouldn't it be the larger ships that should pose more difficulty?


    I'm pushing the idea that maybe the gates should just be beacons between positions in those systems used by the ships to navigate but still using their own propulsion.

  • Small craft are really limited range craft, they are not designed for long interstellar trips in general and they should reflect that, more to the point they do not have the sheer capabilities nor the resources to keep a high warp speed nor sustain it or themselves at those ranges.
  • Large ships have the space to permit significant propulsion devices, facilities and fuels to permit longer and faster trips.

    • So a compromise would be to allow small craft massive benefits in the 'immediate' vicinity but the larger ships still beating them in longevity and long range travel through a multitude of systems.

    Somewhat unrelated but relevant:
    A Tie Interceptor outperforming a Super Star Destoyer in terms of long range travel and speed, that would be unheard of.

    starwars.wikia.com wrote:

    With no hyperdrive, the TIE Interceptor was reliant on a capital ship for an operations base.

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/IN_interceptor


    I know the analogy is not an accurate translation to EVE but I think it does make sense on a core level, there needs to exist some kind of drawback on small craft capabilities as long range craft; This has much to do with perception of correctness, many others may disagree with it and that is fine, I just feel it needs to be clearly displayed as an issue in need of correction.

    The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.
    Alvatore DiMarco
    Capricious Endeavours Ltd
    #339 - 2013-10-11 06:00:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
    So you want small craft like covops to have a poor time traveling long distances. You want to screw people for flying small ships just on some magic principle that doesn't make any sense in EVE. You say that this needs to exist. Why?

    Did it ever occur to you that gameplay comes first in a game and, to be quite bluntly honest with you, traveling several jumps just plain sucks? Except now you're saying that you want to make it worse. Oh goody.

    Then to top it off, you thought you could wrap it up in lore and make it stop stinking like the llama dung it is. Nope, sorry.

    Try reading how warp mechanics and jump mechanics work before you propose changes to them based on some stupid Sci-Fi that isn't even EVE.

    Please note that in section 5, "jump drive" stops referring to the device that allows us to use stargates and begins referring to the warp drive.

    We don't have hyperdrives. We have warp drives. Not only that, but our warp drives don't actually provide any propulsion; they generate a warp bubble and the main engines provide the propulsion. Your warp speed (and now acceleration as well) is based on the power-to-mass ratio of your engines.

    0/10, -1.
    Bouh Revetoile
    In Wreck we thrust
    #340 - 2013-10-11 07:35:53 UTC
    SOL Ranger wrote:
    I know the analogy is not an accurate translation to EVE but I think it does make sense on a core level, there needs to exist some kind of drawback on small craft capabilities as long range craft; This has much to do with perception of correctness, many others may disagree with it and that is fine, I just feel it needs to be clearly displayed as an issue in need of correction.

    There's an interesting idea here : the capacitor needed for even long jumps is rather low so maybe we should increase this amount to make warps actually matter on capacitor. That would also have the side effect of buffing amarr ship because of their inate larger capacitor. That would have the same effect you are talking about.