These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Warp Drive Active - Warp Acceleration Changes With EVE Online: Rubicon

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight
Red-Frog
#81 - 2013-11-16 19:36:34 UTC
Mashie Saldana wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:




When you can instantly see the price of every trade hub in the game (by using EvE Central or one of many websites), you are instantly informed about the current price over there. A delay of 45 minutes to bring stock there vs former 30 minutes is not going to change anything.

Your objection would hold if ships had to pay fuel (the cost would affect stock), gate fees and whatever that in RL really plays a role on prices.

Technically it may be more expensive per jump as I can't imagine Red Frog will keep their prices if the trips takes 50-100% longer.

.


I can indeed confirm that you can expect a raise up to 50% coming with Rubicon. It will be discussed within the directors soon.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#82 - 2013-11-16 19:59:21 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
I understand all the mixed reactions, especially when your favorite ships are getting a bit slower, but I think that this adds a lot more realism and is probably long overdue...


Please tell me how's realistic to:

- Today get to next gate on inty / cov ops so fast I get a timer and have to wait some seconds at the gate, vulnerable and all.

- Tomorrow get to next gate faster, have to wait longer due to the same timer and so waste the same time and be more vulnerable and stuff.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Kazu'ul
OMG PWNAGE
#83 - 2013-11-16 20:31:02 UTC
xttz wrote:



Also have you considered giving Warp Core Stabilisers a small bonus to warp speed? Between 1-4% depending on meta level would be reasonable.



This makes an amazing amount of sense. Can anyone find broken in it?
Stridsflygplan
Deliverance.
Arrival.
#84 - 2013-11-16 20:55:23 UTC
I looked at the new warp speed and also looked at the rigs that improves warp speed. (Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I and II)
The calibration cost of these rigs need to be increased from 50 to 125 on T1 and from 75 to 150 on T2 so that Tech 1 ships cant have a higher warp speed then there T2 counterparts. Right now its not really Revenant and since T2 are getting a warp nerf also, HACs for example 3.75 to 3.3 this become noticeable. Since T1 have 3 rigs slots a cruiser with triple Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I will go faster (3x1.2x1.2x1,2 = 5,18AU/s) then a HAC with dual Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II (3.3x1.25x1.25 = 5,16AU/s) and with dual Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I (3.3x1.2x1.2 = 4,75AU/s). With the calibration fix T1 ships will only be able to fit 2 of these rigs like just like T2 ships. Have CCP Fossie and CCP Masterplan taking this into account otherwise I hope you read this Big smile Or do we want T1 ships like Cynabal to warp faster then HACs?
Habanera L'amour
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2013-11-17 20:21:11 UTC
Quote:
Those are base numbers for each ship class. If you need to go even faster, then you have a few options:

Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer rigs will increase a ship's warp speed, at the expense of CPU output
Use a Strategic Cruiser - some of the subsystem options provide a boost to warp speed
Plug in an implant - the new Ghost sites coming in Rubicon might have something interesting for you...


I quess since the Freigters will be damn slow after the patch, you will make them able to fit these new rigs?
thowlimer
Roprocor Ltd
#86 - 2013-11-17 20:53:37 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
When are we going to see some new freighter class? (a faster version, and a stronger version would be nice)

There are TII freighters already which are both faster and more durable.


Actually T2 freighter have the same(0.75 AU/s) max warp speed as T1 freighters, they do have more durability and better
agility and they are faster if you need to slowboat them to a gate if you for some reason didnt land within range, but
the actual warp is the same for t1 and t2.
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#87 - 2013-11-17 21:24:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Diomedes Calypso
EDIT

nvm BR means blockade runner.

(confused me with the "fast industrial" title and the lack of BR in the "before chart" ... got it now . )

.
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#88 - 2013-11-17 21:31:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Diomedes Calypso
Delete AAAAH BR means Blockade Runner ! lol

.
Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#89 - 2013-11-17 21:52:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Diomedes Calypso
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
The overall idea is to spread out the warp speed spectrum so that small ships warp significantly faster than big ships. I don't see anyone disagreeing with this general idea. Unfortunately due to physics constraints the spectrum can't be entirely shifted downwards. Therefore large ships have to warp slower than now. EVE isn't built on the fact that it takes X minutes to get a freighter from Jita to Amarr. So what if it takes X*1.5 now?

If anything, the freighter change specifically encourages outsourcing hauling to 3rd party companies, which promotes player interaction.

I fly freighters, JFs and caps frequently and I am fine with losing a little for a change that will benefit the whole game.


You losing a little when freighting may take twice as long? Do you even know someone who's got a life beyond playing EVE? Roll

These changes mean that hisec second class players will be forced to pay for the privilege to not waste their precious leisure time just moving stuff from A to B. Hauling yourself is a non-option if you used to spend a whole gameplay session hauling and fancy to not spend two days doing what you used to do in one day.

Taking a terrible feature and making it worst is not good game design. But then, this is CCP.



There are two ideas at play :

ArrowThe Big ships vs small ships makes sense relative to "acceleration" and "deceleration" to the extent we want Realism (as others have said. the game is an abstraction with its own arbitrary rules designed for fun game play so take Realism with a grain of salt)

ArrowHigh tech, expensive ships can pay for the best "warp drive engines" ... which dictate the speed while in warp .. which is not related to the aligning and the size/weight (or in this world of made-up physics, it does not need to be)


Given the huge expense in building a freighter, I'd think they could include special warp drives that had them warping the speed of a standard industrial/cruiser yet still have the acceleration and deceleration factors of Cap ships. That would split the difference somewhat and at least make the long jumps significantly shorter to keep you from washing your car in 3 minute fragments running back and forth between jumps.


QuestionArrow Realism again : What? If you needed an "excuse" of why expensive freighters went quicker than expensive Cap ships or BS when in full warp.. you could surmise that the Anti-matter propulsion systems of the freighters made guns and launchers and repair systems malfunction. Freighters lack of Fittings does make them a unique ship that could mean the abilty to use a unique propulsion system.

.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#90 - 2013-11-17 22:46:50 UTC
Diomedes Calypso wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
The overall idea is to spread out the warp speed spectrum so that small ships warp significantly faster than big ships. I don't see anyone disagreeing with this general idea. Unfortunately due to physics constraints the spectrum can't be entirely shifted downwards. Therefore large ships have to warp slower than now. EVE isn't built on the fact that it takes X minutes to get a freighter from Jita to Amarr. So what if it takes X*1.5 now?

If anything, the freighter change specifically encourages outsourcing hauling to 3rd party companies, which promotes player interaction.

I fly freighters, JFs and caps frequently and I am fine with losing a little for a change that will benefit the whole game.


You losing a little when freighting may take twice as long? Do you even know someone who's got a life beyond playing EVE? Roll

These changes mean that hisec second class players will be forced to pay for the privilege to not waste their precious leisure time just moving stuff from A to B. Hauling yourself is a non-option if you used to spend a whole gameplay session hauling and fancy to not spend two days doing what you used to do in one day.

Taking a terrible feature and making it worst is not good game design. But then, this is CCP.



There are two ideas at play :

ArrowThe Big ships vs small ships makes sense relative to "acceleration" and "deceleration" to the extent we want Realism (as others have said. the game is an abstraction with its own arbitrary rules designed for fun game play so take Realism with a grain of salt)

ArrowHigh tech, expensive ships can pay for the best "warp drive engines" ... which dictate the speed while in warp .. which is not related to the aligning and the size/weight (or in this world of made-up physics, it does not need to be)


Given the huge expense in building a freighter, I'd think they could include special warp drives that had them warping the speed of a standard industrial/cruiser yet still have the acceleration and deceleration factors of Cap ships. That would split the difference somewhat and at least make the long jumps significantly shorter to keep you from washing your car in 3 minute fragments running back and forth between jumps.


QuestionArrow Realism again : What? If you needed an "excuse" of why expensive freighters went quicker than expensive Cap ships or BS when in full warp.. you could surmise that the Anti-matter propulsion systems of the freighters made guns and launchers and repair systems malfunction. Freighters lack of Fittings does make them a unique ship that could mean the abilty to use a unique propulsion system.


If I had to fly the spaceship equivalent of a pregnant whale, I would use vectorizable(?) engines and warp drive. Align the warp drive, spin the engines in the right direction and accelerate while you slowly and painfully align the hull itself -doesn't matters wether you jump sideways or backwards as long as the warp dirve it's aligned and the engines move the hull in the right direction.

Actually I would just make round (circular) freighter hulls so they didn't had a "front" or an "aft" and could be dragged in whatever direction was needed.

But then, that would break EVE art's premise the "shape is the function" and worst of all, it would make sense, which is forbidden in a company that takes a PITA feature and makes it even worst because of aesthetics.

I mean, CCP's attitude is to never let a potential issue make them change direction: once they've decided to make painfully slow ships even more painfully slower, the issue is to convince themselves that it is a good idea, rather than re-evaluate and ask the players what do they think about doubling the travel time of their freighters for a mere design whim.

Give it up? Never! Question it? Never! Change course? Never!

And so another piece of terrible design is introduced. But don't worry: by 2017 CCP Masterplan will no longer work at CCP, the new guys will agree that post-Rubicon warp speeds were stupid and will give you back the current speeds.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Myrkala
Royal Robot Ponies
#91 - 2013-11-18 00:36:24 UTC
Good changes... I am however a little worried that the differences in time needed for the shorter warps in the classes cruisers and smaller might be a bit too much, a 13 second difference between a Cruiser and Frigate for a 10 AU warp...

Before there was no difference between a Cruiser and a Frigate for a 10 AU warp and a 20 AU warp only meant a 3 second difference. With the changes it will be a 13 second difference for 10 AU and 15 second difference for 20 AU.

I feel that the differences in time needed for travel over shorter differences is too large, and the differences over longer distances is probably still a bit too large but are probably close to being reasonable.
Tauren Tom
Order of the Silver Dragons
Silver Dragonz
#92 - 2013-11-18 00:52:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauren Tom
Well... I will no longer be offering domestic freight support :\

Anyone want to buy a Gallente freighter with a local history in Molden Heath?

Oh and some points
1) smaller ship? Why does it have better warp capability than a larger ship with a larger driver section?
2) larger ship? Why do you have a really ghetto warp core?
3) LARGEST SHIPS? You aren't even remotely affected... NERF SUPERS and cynos!
In the grand scheme of things... You're all pubbies. So HTFU.   "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses." - Elwood Blues
Alpharius Astartes
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2013-11-18 04:37:16 UTC
This is great! A suggestion if I may: would it be possible to incorporate '30AU warp travel time' into the EFT?
chaos666wraith
Cyber Chaos Crew
#94 - 2013-11-18 16:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: chaos666wraith
:WARNING MEATBAGS:

MALFUNCTIONING PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT DETECTED

It is written in this devblog that "ships in EVE don't follow the physical acceleration models that we might be familiar with in the real world". This is correct. They don't.

But neither does a ship when "travelling" with an hypothetical warp drive. Acceleration, deceleration and speed are measurements that will always have a value of "0" (zero) when observed on a ship or any other object placed inside the contracting and expanding spacetime-displacing region created by such device.

The mass of the object is not in any way related to the acceleration or speed of the spacetime warp created by the warp device.

Accelerating an object to a speed of even 1 AU/s is impossible, nothing can be accelerated to the speed of light which is only 0,002 AU/s.

What an hypothetical warp drive constructed with exotic matter/anti-matter would do is not accelerate an object according to Newton's physics laws, but rather warp or bend the spacetime around it according to the principles in Einstein's field equations.

CyberChaosCrewTV

Saying that EVE is just about spaceships, is a bit like saying that phones should only be about making voice phone calls one on one with other people.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2013-11-19 03:52:13 UTC
On the test server, I managed to make an interceptor go 24 AU per second. To test it out, I decided to warp to another station.

Afterwards, I had to change my underwear.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Infinion
Awesome Corp
#96 - 2013-11-19 04:09:27 UTC
What is planned for pods? Will they retain the same k values as cruisers or will they be made to accelerate and decelerate slower than before?
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#97 - 2013-11-19 07:49:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rommiee
So....Freighters

Its blatantly obvious that the Devs who came up with this idea have never flown a Freighter. They may have tried it for 10 minutes on SISI or something, but NEVER actually flown one in any meaningful way.

To make one of the slowest ships in the game, even slower over the most common used warp distances is so moronic it is beyond belief.


To quote Fozzie from the other thread where these concerns were ignored:

“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. “


There is no compromise. You have slowed freighters down for 90% of their warps, with no benefits. You must have a different definition of compromise to the rest of the universe.

It is back breaking and not well balanced at all, you seriously do not have to use the word “balanced” in every post. Like I asked in the other thread, have YOU ever flown a Freighter in game for any length of time, not just on SISI for 10 minutes ?

Your comment about taking an industrial instead is so far out of touch with what the problem is here it is unreal. No surprises there.
Samethos II
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2013-11-19 18:19:52 UTC
Rommiee wrote:
So....Freighters

Its blatantly obvious that the Devs who came up with this idea have never flown a Freighter. They may have tried it for 10 minutes on SISI or something, but NEVER actually flown one in any meaningful way.

To make one of the slowest ships in the game, even slower over the most common used warp distances is so moronic it is beyond belief.


To quote Fozzie from the other thread where these concerns were ignored:

“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. “


There is no compromise. You have slowed freighters down for 90% of their warps, with no benefits. You must have a different definition of compromise to the rest of the universe.

It is back breaking and not well balanced at all, you seriously do not have to use the word “balanced” in every post. Like I asked in the other thread, have YOU ever flown a Freighter in game for any length of time, not just on SISI for 10 minutes ?

Your comment about taking an industrial instead is so far out of touch with what the problem is here it is unreal. No surprises there.



+1 !
nice idea from ccp suggesting to use indus instead of JF/freighters. It's just 30 to 90 forth and back...for only one with your big ship...5h to do a logistic on 3 jumps... come on.
I hope they will realize their big mistake.

Another point that nobody (or nearly) talked about... In pvp, nobody will want to bait anymore. The new bait will die 15 times before its friend could take control of the grid ^^, oh yeah intys will save its ass from15-20 battleships or something according ccp opinion i guess...
The pvp was frozen enough before the patch, but now, battleships and battlecruisers class will completly disappear. Nice job, we are happy to pay suscription for years and skilling and finally have no use of this.
William Arnolles
Doomheim
#99 - 2013-11-19 19:42:13 UTC
Red Frog Rufen wrote:

I can indeed confirm that you can expect a raise up to 50% coming with Rubicon. It will be discussed within the directors soon.


I agree with that.
We could even tax 1.5M per jump, that should do it. And to be honest I see alot of couriers for 1M/Jump in the Hauler's channel so... seems fair to me.
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything.
#100 - 2013-11-20 08:35:15 UTC
Would it be possible to get this warp chart with more sig figs? Just one decimal place would really really help make sure i've got my formula right, especially for the small ships.

Also: I'm finding that my computed warp times are off by a constant factor (ie the error isn't affected by warp distance). It seems to be related somewhat to the fact that ships don't seem to come out of warp at 1/ms as the formula would imply. It seems like almost all of the error goes away if I account for all ships exiting warp at 100 m/s. Am I on the right track, is there some part of the formula that wasn't mentioned in the dev blog, or do I need to recheck my formulas?

For reference i'm the guy who made this http://eve-utils.net/maps/shortest_path/, and I'm currently updating the formulas