These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[April] Battlecruiser Warp Speed and Warp Rig Tweaks

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyr Dolorem
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#321 - 2015-04-26 00:59:07 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sissy Fuzz wrote:
Are we back to a situation where it is possible to set up a non-escapable camp?


No, Interceptors are immune to bubbles now and can get their align speed high enough that they align before the server registers that a player has a target lock.

As before a euro player just needs good enough scan res roundtrip latency and reflexes. If all three are less than 2 seconds total he gets the lock. uncatchable align is a myth.


Nope, it's not, as someone else pointed out, the server operates in ticks and the lock mechanics are where this shows up. So one tick to lock, a second tick to confirm a lock, and at the start of the third tick the point goes active. So if you align and warp in less than 2 seconds you're uncatchable unless something bumps you or otherwise slows down your warp.



Tell that to my malediction https://zkillboard.com/kill/42850481/
Cade Windstalker
#322 - 2015-04-26 02:24:52 UTC
Danyrd wrote:
They "Exceeded" "meaningful change", it removed so many ships from being suitable for roaming.

This pseudo buff to BC's is not going to make them any more suitable than they are now. It does not do anything to remedy the lack of "that something" that makes players want to fly a ship. BC's need to have a WOW (as in"that's great i want one") factor, they used to with T3 BC's but it has been lost with the cruiser buffs.
CCP did a great job buffing T1 cruisers - So good in fact they left BC's as the 2nd least viable option for gate to gate roaming, ahead only of Dreadnoughts.

Go roaming in a T1 cruiser gang, you can have all you need travelling together. Go roaming with a BC gang and logi, ewar etc all need to wait for the DPS to catch up. It is not only warp speed that creates the "wait" you need to add in align and warp acceleration as well, by the time those 2 kick in, support ships are holding on each gate for 15 to 20 seconds waiting for the main part of the fleet to catch up.
Fit the BC's so they can align and warp faster, you may as well just fly cruisers because any benefit you had with the BC is lost to fitting trade offs.
This change may reduce the "wait" to 10 12 to seconds, which when said quickly sounds ok but multiply that by 20 or 30 jumps and cruisers are still the way to go.

The duel drawback being introduced on warp rigs (sig radius + reduced tank) is especially harsh on shield doctrines, which are often preferred for roaming over longer distances. So they still won't get used.


There's no reduced tank on these rigs. High sig radius only translates to increased damage if you're trying to speed tank, which was already barely noticeable with a Shield Tanked BC.

Second you don't need to wait for anyone to catch up as long as you fleet warp everyone together, they just move at the speed of the slowest ship.

You also only need one rig or module to get a BC up to the warp speed of a Cruiser. That's a small sacrifice at best when you look at the DPS and tank of a BC compared to a Cruiser. That indicates that the problem with BCs is hardly in the warp speed of the ships.

Danyrd wrote:
Your right, this patch alone should not fix BC's, problem is, this patch has no meaning without knowing what comes next. It alone does not make BC's any better or worse to use than they are now.
I preferred the old way of updates and patching. At least with it, Devs posted information about what was coming and it was understandable because it tied into game change. Major changes to game play need to be put into the game together or at least communicated as a whole so players can make valid decisions
This method of rolling individual "patches" and the way CCP is now (not) communicating what is going on, leaves a lot to be desired.

For many years I tried to train characters and adjust game play in preparation for coming changes.. Yes they were major changes and often riddled with problems but at least you had plenty of warning about what was coming and could prepare.
Now, there is no point to planning skills and training based on what is happening in the next patch. There is a big chance, what you decide to train for when XXX update is released will become irrelevant in YYY patch.

Players old and new have made a commitment to the game, often a long term one and need to know what is happening in the game to be able to decide what to train, where to live, who to make enemies of and who you want for friends.
I'm not keeping subs active when I don't know from one month to the next whether it is worth it or not. I've invested a lot of time money and energy into my game and after 7 years, have no idea what to do next.

Right now it is hard to decide whether Eve is still worth playing as I have no idea what direction the game is taking.
People say, "wait and see" but how long do I keep "waiting", playing and paying for a game that has no direction, nothing I can base goals on?


It's never been a safe long-term bet that something OP would remain OP forever, or that something not worth using would stay that way. This faster release cadence means those things get fixed faster.

CCP can't tell us what comes after a fix if they don't know it. They may have something in mind but they need to look at the change and what it did and then figure out what to do next. At best they could give us their current thoughts, and those may not even stay accurate. Historically the player-base hasn't reacted well to being given too much speculative information.

The overall direction though should be pretty clear with the upcoming Sov and Structure changes. Have you looked at the keynote from Fanfest? That's generally a good outline of the next year.
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#323 - 2015-04-26 02:33:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakaari Inkuran
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sissy Fuzz wrote:
Are we back to a situation where it is possible to set up a non-escapable camp?


No, Interceptors are immune to bubbles now and can get their align speed high enough that they align before the server registers that a player has a target lock.

As before a euro player just needs good enough scan res roundtrip latency and reflexes. If all three are less than 2 seconds total he gets the lock. uncatchable align is a myth.


Nope, it's not, as someone else pointed out, the server operates in ticks and the lock mechanics are where this shows up. So one tick to lock, a second tick to confirm a lock, and at the start of the third tick the point goes active. So if you align and warp in less than 2 seconds you're uncatchable unless something bumps you or otherwise slows down your warp.

Buddy youve been misled. The 2 second rule is a soft rule not a hard one. If round trip latency plus reflexes plus lock time is less than 2 seconds ie euro players on an instalock gatecamp. They get the lock

Discussion: https://namamai.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/the-server-tick-or-wtf-why-didnt-my-point-turn-on/

Euros have it better :^)
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#324 - 2015-04-27 01:25:34 UTC
Tyr Dolorem wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sissy Fuzz wrote:
Are we back to a situation where it is possible to set up a non-escapable camp?


No, Interceptors are immune to bubbles now and can get their align speed high enough that they align before the server registers that a player has a target lock.

As before a euro player just needs good enough scan res roundtrip latency and reflexes. If all three are less than 2 seconds total he gets the lock. uncatchable align is a myth.


Nope, it's not, as someone else pointed out, the server operates in ticks and the lock mechanics are where this shows up. So one tick to lock, a second tick to confirm a lock, and at the start of the third tick the point goes active. So if you align and warp in less than 2 seconds you're uncatchable unless something bumps you or otherwise slows down your warp.



Tell that to my malediction https://zkillboard.com/kill/42850481/


It happens when the server lags, it's VERY rare.

Also if someone has a insta locker and you are sub 2 second to get to warp, but your warp destination is 180 degree's from where your ship face (ie you want to warp behind you), i have seen ships get lock.

Still... i have done it, under heavy gates, and still made it out perfectly fine... lol

Been around since the beginning.
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia
#325 - 2015-04-27 14:49:31 UTC
Why would you gimp your combat ability to add warp speed rigs? So you would have the choice between a well fit Cruiser or a gimped BC? With the cruiser still having better warp speed without gimping its combat ability.

Plus, the change to warp speed is so small it doesn't even make a difference. BC still isn't a viable ship to take on a small gang roam if you are going to have 20+ jumps.
Mario Putzo
#326 - 2015-04-27 16:10:49 UTC
Styphon the Black wrote:
Why would you gimp your combat ability to add warp speed rigs? So you would have the choice between a well fit Cruiser or a gimped BC? With the cruiser still having better warp speed without gimping its combat ability.

Plus, the change to warp speed is so small it doesn't even make a difference. BC still isn't a viable ship to take on a small gang roam if you are going to have 20+ jumps.


You don't have to?

The BCs are getting a warp speed increase upfront. The rig changes are secondary. Im not sure why CCP chose to announce them in the same thread but they really are not linked in any fashion. 2 completely different changes.
abrasive soap
Gape Deep Core Mining
#327 - 2015-04-27 20:25:32 UTC
Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#328 - 2015-04-27 21:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Mario Putzo wrote:
Styphon the Black wrote:
Why would you gimp your combat ability to add warp speed rigs? So you would have the choice between a well fit Cruiser or a gimped BC? With the cruiser still having better warp speed without gimping its combat ability.

Plus, the change to warp speed is so small it doesn't even make a difference. BC still isn't a viable ship to take on a small gang roam if you are going to have 20+ jumps.


You don't have to?

The BCs are getting a warp speed increase upfront. The rig changes are secondary. Im not sure why CCP chose to announce them in the same thread but they really are not linked in any fashion. 2 completely different changes.


Really? You can't see why CCP nerf would announce them together?

He knows the pseudo buff to BC's is pointless, so used the (also pointless) change to warp rigs in an attempt to make both look like they may be valid change.

Fozzie Logic - Put warp rigs on your BC's and they are good to roam with.. Thruth is; There not really, the new drawback to warp rigs is likely to see them used on nothing more than ceptors who don't have a tank to worry about but then the extra sig on a ceptor makes it easier to hit so they may not be all that useful there either..


Fozzie has done his usual with warp rigs; Nerfed something and attempted to make it look like a buff.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Mario Putzo
#329 - 2015-04-28 15:07:32 UTC
abrasive soap wrote:
Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable?


Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#330 - 2015-04-29 12:49:07 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
abrasive soap wrote:
Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable?


Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that.


Cruiser DPS is just flat out too damned high across the board.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#331 - 2015-05-01 03:51:00 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:


Also if someone has a insta locker and you are sub 2 second to get to warp, but your warp destination is 180 degree's from where your ship face (ie you want to warp behind you), i have seen ships get lock.

Still... i have done it, under heavy gates, and still made it out perfectly fine... lol
From a stationary position (i.e. coming out of a gate jump), the direction of your warp destination doesn't have any bearing on the time it takes for you to enter warp. In EVE, ships are modelled as vectors, and the actual orientation of the engines has no relevance to the direction in which thrust is applied. Therefore the time to warp from a stationary position pointing in one direction is the same as if the ship were pointing in the opposite direction and stationary.
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#332 - 2015-05-01 21:23:25 UTC
abrasive soap wrote:
Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable?

You get cruiser warp speed by dropping one rig on the warp speed. Do you actually believe that 'dropping' one rig makes the BC flat out worse than a cruiser, to the point where you have to keep whining about it? I don't even know what you want, exactly.
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#333 - 2015-05-01 21:25:06 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
abrasive soap wrote:
Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable?


Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that.

When comparing T1 to T1 the 'buck' is basically negligible. T1 is pretty much free. The issue might be in comparing T2 ships or when comparing T2 to T1. Yeah?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#334 - 2015-05-01 21:28:57 UTC
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
abrasive soap wrote:
Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable?


Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that.

When comparing T1 to T1 the 'buck' is basically negligible. T1 is pretty much free. The issue might be in comparing T2 ships or when comparing T2 to T1. Yeah?

Finite amount of minerals. Importing stuff is harder and harder for doctrines. More efficient use of isk or m3 is becoming more important.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Mario Putzo
#335 - 2015-05-02 04:30:12 UTC
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
abrasive soap wrote:
Does anyone actually believe that this marginal increase in BC warp speed will make them viable?


Oh BCs have always been viable. Its just cruisers offer better bang for the buck, and no this change will not impact that.

When comparing T1 to T1 the 'buck' is basically negligible. T1 is pretty much free. The issue might be in comparing T2 ships or when comparing T2 to T1. Yeah?


Its a common theme regardless of Tech level. Cruisers are just off more bang for the buck. Period. They have no real predators, other than other cruisers. The fact BC are so **** in comparison is one of the primary reasons we rarely see BS (in addition to other things like Bombers) since BS are just not practical to use against Cruisers (outside a couple of drone boats but drones are a whole different gripe for a different thread).

Cruisers have no real hard counter, so why would you really ever use anything but them. All you have to do is plan to counter other cruisers, since you can dunk on Dessies, and Frigs. If you see BC, you can just run away, they can't keep up, they can't hit out to range effectively, if you see BS, dunk on them too.