These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#561 - 2013-11-07 21:57:54 UTC
Will these changes to warp speed affect CONCORD arrival times in cases when they are already spawned in system?

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#562 - 2013-11-08 03:52:01 UTC
Keep moving the dial of awesomeness back to reality CCP. Warp times for larger ships (BS/BC) don't need to take a hit in order to provide positive change to the game.


A minute plus to warp a BS 25au is redonkulous.
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#563 - 2013-11-08 10:23:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Dav Varan
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We are also tweaking the warp speed rigs (Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizers) to give them a penalty to ship CPU output (same penalty as drone rigs) instead of their current penalty to armor amount, to even the playing field for different types of tanking.



Leaving aside Tech and Size variations there are

8 electronic superiority rigs that affect shield amount

There were

8 astonautic rigs that affect armor amount.


The playing field for different types of tanking was balanced.
It won't be anymore.

In PvP warp speed and lock time are both going to help get ships tackled.

Shield had an advantage when rigging for warp speed
Armor had an advantage when rigging for lock time

You have moved the tackling balance in favour of armor.
Please revoke this change.
Frozen Chief
Doomheim
#564 - 2013-11-08 14:37:36 UTC
Mioelnir wrote:
I'd like to vote for agility and warp speed improvements on the Fenrir for the freighter rebalancing, so my Minmatar rocket shopping cart can properly outrun those Charons.

Yes.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#565 - 2013-11-08 14:46:11 UTC
i would suggest all rigs need looking at bonuses on some are pretty poor and penalties make no sense on some types of rigs

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Rammix
TheMurk
#566 - 2013-11-09 02:46:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Rammix
Couple of days ago tested an inty on SiSi. Very much liked the travel speed with rigs and full set of implants.
If you over-nerf that, I won't like your posts anymore. Evil

OpenSUSE Leap 42.1, wine >1.9

Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#567 - 2013-11-10 00:44:09 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We are also tweaking the warp speed rigs (Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizers) to give them a penalty to ship CPU output (same penalty as drone rigs) instead of their current penalty to armor amount, to even the playing field for different types of tanking.


Shield tanks are more reliant on CPU than Armor
You havn't leveled the playing field you have favoured armor over shield instead of shield over armour. …

Maybe don't bother with a penaly or maybe penalise scan res a bit.

Better catching power overall ( warp speed + lock time ).
But worse at camping gates pure lock time.


That's what I'd do, move the penalty to something that compromises all ships equally, rather than PG or CPU which compromise armour/shield unequally.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#568 - 2013-11-10 01:35:38 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
And finally we are making a slight adjustment to the Gravitational Capacitor subsystems on the Tengu and Proteus. We are reducing their bonus to ship warp speed from 15% to 12.5%. This places a fully skilled Gravitation Capacitor T3 at 4.875au/s, or between the new warp speeds of Destroyers and Frigates. This may prove to be a bit too powerful, so we'll be watching it carefully after release and re-evaluating.


People actually use those things?


Not yet. But that has the potential to change for reasons that should be obvious considering the thread we're posting in. Smile


and because you're going to nerf all the other t3 subs right?


Nerf??
Try totally ruin the entire ship class.

We can't have an income stream (T3 ship building) that the null sec cartels cannot control.
That would not be good for the game.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#569 - 2013-11-11 06:49:07 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Nerf??
Try totally ruin the entire ship class.

We can't have an income stream (T3 ship building) that the null sec cartels cannot control.
That would not be good for the game.

Implying "null sec cartels" don't have WH presence.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#570 - 2013-11-11 06:56:52 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We are also tweaking the warp speed rigs (Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizers) to give them a penalty to ship CPU output (same penalty as drone rigs) instead of their current penalty to armor amount, to even the playing field for different types of tanking.


Shield tanks are more reliant on CPU than Armor
You havn't leveled the playing field you have favoured armor over shield instead of shield over armour. …

Maybe don't bother with a penaly or maybe penalise scan res a bit.

Better catching power overall ( warp speed + lock time ).
But worse at camping gates pure lock time.


That's what I'd do, move the penalty to something that compromises all ships equally, rather than PG or CPU which compromise armour/shield unequally.


It's fine as-is. Consider it another potential reason to fit an armor tank instead of shoehorning a max-gank shield fit onto every ship ever.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#571 - 2013-11-11 10:50:53 UTC
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
What do numbers in accel/decel row mean? Are these numbers simply au/s^2, or some special coefficients? Would be glad to get some explanation.


It's not in au/s^2, it's a dimensionless variable that plugs into the warp formula. I just chatted with CCP Masterplan about the question and he's going to write up some more details to go into an upcoming dev blog.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Romar Thel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#572 - 2013-11-11 19:58:28 UTC
wow... large ships will warp EVEN slower.

I don't see any point in changing the existing situation.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#573 - 2013-11-12 08:29:19 UTC
Romar Thel wrote:
wow... large ships will warp EVEN slower.

I don't see any point in changing the existing situation.

Welcome to the wonderful world of missing the point entirely! You will find there is a lot to do here.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Lady Zarrina
New Eden Browncoats
#574 - 2013-11-13 00:56:41 UTC
This is a joke right?

You are making it take longer for a freighter to make an average jump? Cause it was like way too fast before..... Everyone I know complains how fast freighters are....


I have erased this sentence 6 times now and replaced it with this drivel as it was probably pushing the forum boundaries.

Is this just to make the new implants useful???? bad, bad, ******* horrid *&^&*^%&$*^(*(%%^$$^ design if so.


EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#575 - 2013-11-13 12:46:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Rommiee
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Tubrug1 wrote:
Why are Freighters becoming faster?


They're getting faster for long warps, slower for short warps. We didn't want to have speeds too low with the new system, as it would have been easy for the slowest ships to become prohibitive.



In effect they are getting slower. The majority of warps are less than 80k ish, which is the point at which they get faster.

They are bad enough to fly now, making them on average slower is so retatrded it is beyond belief.


CCP Fozzie wrote:
Obviously there's a fine line to walk here, but I think we found a strong compromise with the amount that we raised the freighter and JF warp speeds. It is definitely an increase in their average warp times, which is intentional. But it's not back breaking and I believe that it's quite well balanced in relation to their massive cargoholds.


Have you EVER flown a freighter ? Seriously....
Lady Zarrina
New Eden Browncoats
#576 - 2013-11-13 15:12:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Zarrina
CCP Fozzie wrote:
And now a quick note on freighters. We knew that we wanted to expand the spread between the slowest warping ships and the fastest, and we didn't want to take the tempting but potentially damaging route of just buffing everything and making the galaxy smaller for every ship.

Obviously there's a fine line to walk here, but I think we found a strong compromise with the amount that we raised the freighter and JF warp speeds. It is definitely an increase in their average warp times, which is intentional. But it's not back breaking and I believe that it's quite well balanced in relation to their massive cargoholds. For trips where faster warp speeds are needed, people always have the choice of taking smaller volumes in something like an industrial or DST.

Options like adding rigs to freighters could very well happen someday, as we're fairly open that that idea and have been giving it some thought. However we're not going to commit to anything along those lines at this time.



So let me get this right, you believe it to be a good thing to make freighters take longer to warp on average. Have you ever used a freighter, and I don't mean one time every year or two. I would bet you haven't. I know you will now say you have but I can honestly call bullsh1t if you do.

If you do these changes, you better look into adding modules/rigs to freighters ASAP, as I can honestly say this is among the worst changes you can make regarding freighters. No one has ever said a freighter is too fast, sure wish they would nerf a freighters average warp time. Seriously, I would rethink this.

EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#577 - 2013-11-13 17:01:20 UTC
Lady Zarrina wrote:
So let me get this right, you believe it to be a good thing to make freighters take longer to warp on average. Have you ever used a freighter, and I don't mean one time every year or two. I would bet you haven't. I know you will now say you have but I can honestly call bullsh1t if you do.


I use freighters quite often, and I think it's a good idea. It's too fast and too easy to move large amounts of materiel.
Lady Zarrina
New Eden Browncoats
#578 - 2013-11-13 18:23:44 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Lady Zarrina wrote:
So let me get this right, you believe it to be a good thing to make freighters take longer to warp on average. Have you ever used a freighter, and I don't mean one time every year or two. I would bet you haven't. I know you will now say you have but I can honestly call bullsh1t if you do.


I use freighters quite often, and I think it's a good idea. It's too fast and too easy to move large amounts of materiel.

Sure you do ....

EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
ZenThunder
State War Academy
Caldari State
#579 - 2013-11-13 18:32:31 UTC  |  Edited by: ZenThunder
This is a huge change folks, with the potential to drastically change game play for anyone not in high-sec. You may very well find yourself unable to play solo anywhere after this. EDIT - sorry not just the warp speed but the inty 'can't bubble me' thingy.. Thats HUGE along with it. We will see.
Romar Thel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#580 - 2013-11-13 21:02:58 UTC
but for some reason there are these people that get excited with whatever change CCP does...

Updated list of ships that you cannot tackle (unless they stay to fight!):

1) Strategic cruisers
2) Any bs with MJD
3) new entry: interceptors