Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The counter to an interceptor gang is to make sure that anything that an interceptor gang can catch is able to break tackle before the cavalry comes, or be scary enough to make the enemy believe that you aren't worth tackling because it will result in lost ships. This is done by either fitting a plethora of drones/neuts, or having a few brawler frigates/cruisers nearby to protect you.

This is a very welcome shift in that it completely changes the way the game is played, where survival is difficult and not always guaranteed unless you take measures to defend yourself against players and are vigilant. It's also a great quality of life change in that jumping through gates takes much less time if you're in the right ship.

The only thing I'm worried about is that the prey might become overfished.

Love the changes on the smaller ships.

Don't like them on the high end.

There is no reason why a freighter needs to take any longer than it does now to warp short distances, other than for formula purity. Battleships are also not very much fun to warp around either. I did the Amarr Epic Arc a few months ago and enjoyed it, but it was already annoying enough as it was warping such long distances in a battleship. This just makes it worse.

My suggestion?

Give up on formula purity (and trust me, I understand how satisfying it is to have one formula that works elegantly) and compress the slowdown above BC level. All it does is add tedium to the game.

Cruisers are the same as now. It's only BC+ that have been slowed down. I think it's perfectly reasonable that small ships should get around faster than big ships.

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 ^^

I'd like to see the active tanked skirmish command ships which are used in gangs a little bit faster 3.0 instead of 2.7.
This would make them still viable for cruiser gangs.

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"

They are a lot quicker than Freighters already. Did you ever get outrun by a freighter you were trying to catch? I mean, they warp at 0.7 AU and you warp at at least 3.0 AU, you are at least 4-5 times quicker already.

I did some testing with a rorq on sisi. With T2 Hyper spatial rigs and 3x intertia stabs, its somewhat okay, maybe even faster then a cargo rigged rorq on tranqulity atm.

But in doing this I obviously lose some cargo space, the cargobay goes from 137k m3 to 40k m3, so i lose about 97k m3. Okay fine its not such a big deal i still have the 250k m3 ore hold. But for some reason everytime i press "Loot all", the ore that i want to go to the ore hold, ends up in the cargo hold, so i have to move it from cargo bay to ore hold. Atm i will put 5 cans into the cargo bay then move the 130k m3 or so ore into the ore hold twice, fill up the cargo hold again and warp off. I could do this whole manouver in just a few clicks. But since my cargo bay will only be able to fit one can, I could possibly split a second can and then move it, but i am not sure if this will be effective, easiest will probably be to just drag every ore manually into the ore hold.

I suppose I could anchor a giant freight container, and just move the ore straight from the freight container into my ore hold, however they don't fit in a rorqual, so i will need a freighter to anchor it. No matter how I go about this I have to spend more money and do more work and nothing that anyone have said will change the fact that my rorqual will either warp slower or i have to shed cargobay for speed, either way it will move less m3 per hour which yes is an issue. If our hulks output 2 000 000 m3 per hour and i can only move 1 500 000 m3 after this patch then clearly we have a problem.

It might not be back breaking, but its extra inconvinence and it adds up . Like having to go through this ritual of dragging ore into the ore bay and reducing the amount of ore i can haul in a set amount of time. Its extra work for me to do, I am already micromanaging a lot and heres more for me to micro manage.

If the rorqual and orca would be compensated with a bigger ore bay for the speed they lose, i wouldn't have an issue with this warp change at all.

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?

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.

Why is the current proposal bad?