These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
seth Hendar
I love you miners
#621 - 2013-11-22 13:14:06 UTC
Spc One wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:

Because obviously how bored you are moving around in a battleship is more important than the general balance of the game.

Because nerfing battleships warp speed to 50% less is a balance in the game.
And warp speeds were fine for how much years now ?

And if i use new implant set my battleship goes faster then before rubicon, how is that not a "balance" breaking ?


warpspeed was not fine, it has been tested proven many times, under a 50 AU warp, there was no difference, a shuttle and a stilleto both aligned to the same gate, would land at exaclty the same time.

this was broken since a shuttle is supposed to do 6AU/s while a stiletto was 13.5, so stilletto would have needed less than half the time the shuttle need to complete the warp, yet it was not the reality
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#622 - 2013-11-22 13:50:09 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
How to roam in a BS and not die of old age before arriving at destination.

Fit cyno captor. Burn to destination or hostile gang, drop cyno 1 jump out, titan bridge BS.

Engage.


Yup, ingredients required:
3 acounts
1 battleship
1 interceptor (disposable)
1 Titan (sov required)
24 months of training.

Definitely the easy way to roam!

CCP should fix BS warp acceleration. Should be marginally longer than a cruiser/BC. Warp speed should be the same.

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".

Therendal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#623 - 2013-11-22 15:46:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Therendal
I have flown every size class of ship other than capitals since this patch. I do believe that the hammer was taken to battleships in particular with these changes. A 200-AU warp, which is not a rare thing for someone like me who runs incursions for example, now takes 4 minutes. I am not arguing that they shouldn't be a slower class of ship...the very slowest subcap...and that interceptors and the like shouldn't have significant agility advantages. However, as it stands right now there is a serious quality of life issue if you are sitting in a battleship.

There is a meta-changing element to this as well. This change greatly favors defensive posturing during system chases. If you are in a battleship, the "hero tackle" has to hold your targets anywhere from 1 to 4 minutes before you can land on grid. Since a battleship can no longer get there fast enough, those tacklers have to realize they are very likely to die before the big guns can arrive. Any roaming gang that flies battleships is just asking to be split at all times.

Other than combat concerns, the tedious warp speed makes flying a battleship barely better than a freighter. It now shares its warp speed class with the Orca, a ship that has 2.5x the mass. It only has a 50% higher speed than freighters, while coming in at 1/9 of the weight. The math doesn't even add up on this.

Battleship speed should be bumped to 3.0 AU/sec as a starter. Give Destroyers 4.5, cruisers 4, and BCs 3.5. Leave interceptors fast as hell and awesome at landing and catching stragglers, as befits their role.

Barring this, can we please have a module for warp speed, in addition to the new implants? That way we can make the decision to reduce low slot survivability to be faster on the fly. Perhaps make it so that fitting such a module makes it impossible to use warp core stabilizers due to the increased engine output, so that people can't just make untackleable fast travel fits.

Signed,
A Guy On A 35-Jump Route In A Battleship Who has Time To Write a Novel
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#624 - 2013-11-22 15:57:07 UTC
Yeah, something like that could definitely work.

• T2 Destroyer/DST = 4.0
• Cruiser/Indy = 3.5
• Command Ship = 3.3
• Battlecruiser = 3.0
• T2 Battleship = 2.75
• Battleship = 2.5
• Freighters/Jump Freighters = 2
• Capitals = 1.5
• Titans/Supercarriers = 1.36

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

Therendal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#625 - 2013-11-22 16:15:43 UTC
seth Hendar wrote:
Spc One wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:

Because obviously how bored you are moving around in a battleship is more important than the general balance of the game.

Because nerfing battleships warp speed to 50% less is a balance in the game.
And warp speeds were fine for how much years now ?

And if i use new implant set my battleship goes faster then before rubicon, how is that not a "balance" breaking ?


warpspeed was not fine, it has been tested proven many times, under a 50 AU warp, there was no difference, a shuttle and a stilleto both aligned to the same gate, would land at exaclty the same time.

this was broken since a shuttle is supposed to do 6AU/s while a stiletto was 13.5, so stilletto would have needed less than half the time the shuttle need to complete the warp, yet it was not the reality


I don't think anyone disagrees that the accel/decel changes are reasonable and right. Maybe some people who just want game balance to work in their favor.

The main issue is that in true CCP fashion they decided to alter multiple variables in the equation at once. Fixing accel/decel, with a minor tweak to ship warp speeds to make it "feel right", would have gotten us most of the way to where we needed to be. Instead, they fixed accel/decel but made battleships so ponderous that they are going to be effectively useless in everything but gatecamps. And we can all agree that what EVE needs is more gatecamps, right? :)
Icarius
The Wings of Maak
#626 - 2013-11-22 19:12:27 UTC
[quote=Therendal

I don't think anyone disagrees that the accel/decel changes are reasonable and right. Maybe some people who just want game balance to work in their favor.

[/quote]

I disagree

new warp speed for bs suck

when you exit from warp, the part of the decceleration when you are visible on the grid is so long + the time you need to lock ...
everyone as warped out ... congratulation
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#627 - 2013-11-22 19:24:10 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Yeah, something like that could definitely work.

• T2 Destroyer/DST = 4.0
• Cruiser/Indy = 3.5
• Command Ship = 3.3
• Battlecruiser = 3.0
• T2 Battleship = 2.75
• Battleship = 2.5
• Freighters/Jump Freighters = 2
• Capitals = 1.5
• Titans/Supercarriers = 1.36


Please explain why a battleship should move more slowly through space than a battlecruiser. This is not the case for maritime shipping, nor is it the case that contemporary space ships move more slowly when they are bigger.

Since this is a *warp* (i.e. warping space-time) the mass of the ship is largely irrelevant.

Sure it may take more energy to get up to speed, but the final speed should be no different.

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".

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#628 - 2013-11-22 20:57:00 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Please explain why a battleship should move more slowly through space than a battlecruiser. This is not the case for maritime shipping, nor is it the case that contemporary space ships move more slowly when they are bigger.

Since this is a *warp* (i.e. warping space-time) the mass of the ship is largely irrelevant.
Sure it may take more energy to get up to speed, but the final speed should be no different.

More mass? And note that it's marginally (<10%) slower. In the case of maritime shipping, it's about being the most cost effective - not necessarily the fastest.

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

Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#629 - 2013-11-22 21:44:57 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Please explain why a battleship should move more slowly through space than a battlecruiser. This is not the case for maritime shipping, nor is it the case that contemporary space ships move more slowly when they are bigger.

Since this is a *warp* (i.e. warping space-time) the mass of the ship is largely irrelevant.
Sure it may take more energy to get up to speed, but the final speed should be no different.

More mass? And note that it's marginally (<10%) slower. In the case of maritime shipping, it's about being the most cost effective - not necessarily the fastest.


The relationship between mass and power required to accelerate is linear (at least until you get close to the speed of light)

F = MA (force = mass x acceleration)
Work = F x S (distance moved)
Power = Work / Time

Taking this as a proxy for (as yet undiscovered) warp physics, it follows that the power generation system only needs grow linearly in power output as the ships mass increases.

Battleships have bigger capacitors (and presumably power generation systems) so why should they not accelerate just as quickly?

I can understand the case for civilian ships needing to be efficient, but military vessels would be built for effectiveness in combat, not eco-friendliness.

Notwithstanding pseudo-technical arguments, as things stand battleships have become ineffective in any kind of mobile combat. This is a very large nerf to an already-compromised ship class. Gangs will avoid battleship docrtines all over Eve unless they are hot-dropping.

This is undesirable.

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".

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#630 - 2013-11-22 22:45:28 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
This is undesirable.

I'm actually in complete agreement. I think especially with the Ascendancy implants the differences are now too extreme (and it's at best at token benefit for battleships, so entirely not worth it).

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

sabastyian
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#631 - 2013-11-23 06:25:09 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
This is undesirable.

I'm actually in complete agreement. I think especially with the Ascendancy implants the differences are now too extreme (and it's at best at token benefit for battleships, so entirely not worth it).

I have no intention of dropping my slave clone for the new implants, or a crystal clone or my snake clone or even my +5'/6% clone....... the warp speed is a huge gimp for battleships, but alot of players ( my self included ) aren't going to give up 40% or so extra tank or speed.....
Habris
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#632 - 2013-11-23 07:28:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Habris
.
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#633 - 2013-11-23 08:17:28 UTC
sabastyian wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
This is undesirable.

I'm actually in complete agreement. I think especially with the Ascendancy implants the differences are now too extreme (and it's at best at token benefit for battleships, so entirely not worth it).

I have no intention of dropping my slave clone for the new implants, or a crystal clone or my snake clone or even my +5'/6% clone....... the warp speed is a huge gimp for battleships, but alot of players ( my self included ) aren't going to give up 40% or so extra tank or speed.....


Do you mean for PVE or PVP?

In PVE I can see that the slow warp makes little difference. In PVP it's a bit of a show-stopper for anyone needing to warp to an engagement.

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".

Icarius
The Wings of Maak
#634 - 2013-11-23 10:52:05 UTC
one more example of stupid warp decelleration

I am at 200km from a gate, aligned to the gate, full speed , in a phobos with 3 sb
I am waiting for an iteron V

the guy jump, uncloack
i warp to gate
the time to warp + the time to lock = the guy is gone
My warp speed is 3.5 against 3 for him

Something is wrong from a pvp point of vue if the time to enter warp is inferior to the visible deccelaration on grid time

What do you have in mind ccp? you play your game?
That is really what you want?
Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#635 - 2013-11-23 11:12:26 UTC
I like the new warp acceleration system, even if physics rules, it is not so relevant, it seems quite logic. In matter of gameplay it is awesome..
The Freighters thoug should be revamp quickly. They are sooooo slooooooow. And they are so weak....
If I did not have tree accounts, it is clear that I would never transport anything.
It is a game, even if Eve is based on frustrations, there are limits...

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.

Dessertious
Red Phoenix Rising
#636 - 2013-11-23 13:38:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Dessertious
Maybe

1) have the acceleration based on function of class/speed/mass of the ship.
2) Have the warp top speed as stated.
3) Have deceleration based on mass/warp-speed and/or class

This would allow adjustments per class of vessel, smaller class is faster to accelerate than a larger class, combat class beats logistics classes and it would all depend on how heavy/full ships actually were for all classes. Heavier combat ships would still beat logistics such as freighter, but not blockade runners.

Obviously you can tweak any class/ship for individual ship specialties

Regards
Dess
sabastyian
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#637 - 2013-11-23 19:10:10 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
sabastyian wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
This is undesirable.

I'm actually in complete agreement. I think especially with the Ascendancy implants the differences are now too extreme (and it's at best at token benefit for battleships, so entirely not worth it).

I have no intention of dropping my slave clone for the new implants, or a crystal clone or my snake clone or even my +5'/6% clone....... the warp speed is a huge gimp for battleships, but alot of players ( my self included ) aren't going to give up 40% or so extra tank or speed.....


Do you mean for PVE or PVP?

In PVE I can see that the slow warp makes little difference. In PVP it's a bit of a show-stopper for anyone needing to warp to an engagement.

When was the last time you used snakes or slaves in a mission? I haven't done a high-sec mission in a couple years, no im talking pvp. When it comes down to "oh look, i can warp faster then my battleship fleet now...woohoo" or "I have 70,000 armor in my battleship and 25,000 in my cruiser.... i'll just tank these guys for days." It's kind of obvious which youre going to go for. Slaves ( and snakes ) work for pretty much any sort of pvp in eve at the moment ( bar active shield tank ) where as the warp speed implants can actually get you killed in smaller class ships, as you arrive miles ahead of everyone else.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#638 - 2013-11-23 19:16:13 UTC
Cracked it.

I have a mega hull which will warp as fast as an assault ship.
Icarius
The Wings of Maak
#639 - 2013-11-24 11:21:14 UTC
I have the feeling ccp does not care ... who want my stuff?
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
#640 - 2013-11-24 11:53:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Cracked it.

I have a mega hull which will warp as fast as an assault ship.


Hope there's a carrier at the other end of the warp so you can refit for combat...

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".