Features & Ideas Discussion

 
^ Back to top
 

[Rubicon] Warp Speed and Acceleration

Jump to first DEV post
Author
The Unthinkables
#481 Posted: 2013.10.30 09:30
With the update (nerf) to the proposed interdictor warp speed, there is also room to adjust the warp speed of other fast ships. E.g. cov ops could drop to 8 and still be faster than interdictors, Interceptors could drop to 9 (and still be overpowered).
Sicarius Draconis
#482 Posted: 2013.10.30 11:11
Any chance that the warp bump* ( speed dropping to 0 on warp entry ) can be fixed ?

It very noticable on slower ships now and a bit immersion breaking imo.

It would be nice if the new warp equations started with warp entrance speed rather than 0.
for fleet warps entrance speed of slowest ship in fleet.


Also any chance we can have the speed indicator turn orange ( warp mode ) with max now set to max warp speed so we can see how fast we are warping at a glance rather than mouse over.

Thanks.
#483 Posted: 2013.10.30 11:20
Now I do not know if it was already noted in here or not. If yes, point me in the right direction please.

I was just thinking if it's not a good time to put ore sites (at least in WH's) back to signatures instead of anomalies. With those warp speeds even spamming the DS won't help any miner to get off to safety... They deserve at least a little heads up which obviously it's not gonna happen with all those ship insta landing on your grid.

just my 2 cents for what those are worth...
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -  Arthur C. Clarke
#484 Posted: 2013.10.30 13:55
Tinukeda'ya Naskingar wrote:
Now I do not know if it was already noted in here or not. If yes, point me in the right direction please.

I was just thinking if it's not a good time to put ore sites (at least in WH's) back to signatures instead of anomalies. With those warp speeds even spamming the DS won't help any miner to get off to safety... They deserve at least a little heads up which obviously it's not gonna happen with all those ship insta landing on your grid.

just my 2 cents for what those are worth...


Guess you didn't get the memo.
In CCP's null sec dev world, only gameplay worth discussing or designing for is sov null sec.
All other forms of gameplay must be eliminated.

Funny thing...when you hire all your dev's with the same background, over time, their biases ruin all other gameplay.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning.
The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook.
Caldari State
#485 Posted: 2013.11.01 05:36  |  Edited by: Davy 'Jones' Ijonen
While this update is nice, as many people have brought up, interceptors can travel very far in no time at all. When I first started playing years ago (different account), I thought that having fuel for everything would be cool. Now I thought how it could help hear.

The way fuel should be implemented is that fuel is required to initiate warp(still needing cap power to do so). By having this there is a logistical challenge, science every ship would have different range.

Interceptors: 30 jumps
Interdictors: 70 jumps
Bomber: 70 jumps
Covert ops: 100 jumps
Other t2 frigs: 50 jumps
T1 frigs: 75 jumps
Destroyers: 100 jumps
Fast Indy: 250 jumps
T1 cruisers: 125 jumps
T2 cruisers: 100 jumps
T3 cruisers: 150 jumps
Standard Indy: 400 jumps
BC/CS: 200 jumps
BS/T2BS: 300 jumps
Caps/super caps: 200
Freighters: 500
Jump freighters: 300

In general, t2 ships get less fuel due to their specialization, and larger ships have more endurance. Intercepters have limited range, since they have all the speed, and since speed comes at a cost, they have less range and would have to break off an engagement to avoid being stranded if the target keeps jumping.
Edit(forgot stuff): ships can only be refilled at stations, or posses, or by specially fitted indies to carry this fuel. However, when being filled by said indie, it takes time, a few minutes, where as it is instant when docked or at pos. This fuel is a fuel you have to get yourself, yet will be cheep(1>isk per fuel unit) but is found everywhere, since it is a byproduct from asteroid refining, and more so from ice asteroids.
Just my two cents in.
#486 Posted: 2013.11.01 17:30  |  Edited by: ThirdVice
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.


So doubling travel times isn't "back breaking"? Maybe you're a glutton for punishment, but not I, sir.
As already stated by some astute players, look again at the average warp distance. Reassess what the impact is going to be on travel. This is a slap for active players that actually pilot their ships. My specific concerns are for distances under 50AU, which seem to be the majority of jumps. Some one can data dump and prove me right or wrong.
Let's make indy harder, more boring, more time consuming (didn't realize it was possible). Lets punish the active bros. Nice.

And all this, so interceptors can be super duper shiny? 0/10 would not patch again.
Point Blank Alliance
#487 Posted: 2013.11.01 18:27
El 1974 wrote:
With the update (nerf) to the proposed interdictor warp speed, there is also room to adjust the warp speed of other fast ships. E.g. cov ops could drop to 8 and still be faster than interdictors, Interceptors could drop to 9 (and still be overpowered).


I'm going to go ahead and agree that interceptors do not need absolutely ridiculous warp speed off the bat. Inties should have better than average warp speed by default, but 66% more warp speed than other frigates out of the box is too much. Warp speed should be one of those things you fit for - you can get absolutely silly warp speed that will let you get on top of **** incredibly fast, but you have to fit the requisite rigs and such rather than the current state which is going from fast to silly when you fit the requisite rigs/mods.
Goonswarm Federation
#488 Posted: 2013.11.02 20:19
Ok so on paper taking into account all of the changes I think I can get away with this and keep the mega in most fleets. Frig fleets will be a challenge but I think it is possible to keep up.
Nulli Secunda
#489 Posted: 2013.11.03 20:52
Tinukeda'ya Naskingar wrote:
Now I do not know if it was already noted in here or not. If yes, point me in the right direction please.

I was just thinking if it's not a good time to put ore sites (at least in WH's) back to signatures instead of anomalies. With those warp speeds even spamming the DS won't help any miner to get off to safety... They deserve at least a little heads up which obviously it's not gonna happen with all those ship insta landing on your grid.

just my 2 cents for what those are worth...


ore sites and anomalies (for ratting) should still anomalies (alowing direct warp without scaning) for the players in the ally who holds the sov, and apear as signatures ( needs scanning) for players who arent from the ally who holds the sov (enimies, neuts). Seems to me reallistic.
With the new warp speeds for interceptors, even a BS aligned will be catchable before warp, some BSs needs more than 6 seconds to enter warp, i can land in a anomalie in less than those 6 seconds in some systems.
And i want to be very reallistic here; CCP really wants players who make isk ratting to be clicking D-scan every 3 seconds? Because thats not > to play, thats > to pain.

Unfortunately i didnt saw any oficial word about that situation/question.

Ratting need to have a risk/reward, sure, but also needs to be enjoyable, not anoying...
#490 Posted: 2013.11.04 02:42
Any chance we can get this on TQ sooner than Nov 19? Intys on TQ seem so sloooooooow now.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
#491 Posted: 2013.11.04 05:28
BORG QUEEN Assimilator wrote:
Tinukeda'ya Naskingar wrote:
Now I do not know if it was already noted in here or not. If yes, point me in the right direction please.

I was just thinking if it's not a good time to put ore sites (at least in WH's) back to signatures instead of anomalies. With those warp speeds even spamming the DS won't help any miner to get off to safety... They deserve at least a little heads up which obviously it's not gonna happen with all those ship insta landing on your grid.

just my 2 cents for what those are worth...


ore sites and anomalies (for ratting) should still anomalies (alowing direct warp without scaning) for the players in the ally who holds the sov, and apear as signatures ( needs scanning) for players who arent from the ally who holds the sov (enimies, neuts). Seems to me reallistic.
With the new warp speeds for interceptors, even a BS aligned will be catchable before warp, some BSs needs more than 6 seconds to enter warp, i can land in a anomalie in less than those 6 seconds in some systems.
And i want to be very reallistic here; CCP really wants players who make isk ratting to be clicking D-scan every 3 seconds? Because thats not > to play, thats > to pain.

Unfortunately i didnt saw any oficial word about that situation/question.

Ratting need to have a risk/reward, sure, but also needs to be enjoyable, not anoying...


Just look at the background of the people responsible for this proposed idiocy.
When do you think was the last time either of them did any grinding in a PvE site?
They have zero empathy or understanding of that part of the game.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning.
The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook.
Goonswarm Federation
#492 Posted: 2013.11.04 08:41
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


Just look at the background of the people responsible for this proposed idiocy.
When do you think was the last time either of them did any grinding in a PvE site?
They have zero empathy or understanding of that part of the game.


Intel channels.
The Pursuit of Happiness
#493 Posted: 2013.11.04 08:56
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
BORG QUEEN Assimilator wrote:
Tinukeda'ya Naskingar wrote:
Now I do not know if it was already noted in here or not. If yes, point me in the right direction please.

I was just thinking if it's not a good time to put ore sites (at least in WH's) back to signatures instead of anomalies. With those warp speeds even spamming the DS won't help any miner to get off to safety... They deserve at least a little heads up which obviously it's not gonna happen with all those ship insta landing on your grid.

just my 2 cents for what those are worth...


ore sites and anomalies (for ratting) should still anomalies (alowing direct warp without scaning) for the players in the ally who holds the sov, and apear as signatures ( needs scanning) for players who arent from the ally who holds the sov (enimies, neuts). Seems to me reallistic.
With the new warp speeds for interceptors, even a BS aligned will be catchable before warp, some BSs needs more than 6 seconds to enter warp, i can land in a anomalie in less than those 6 seconds in some systems.
And i want to be very reallistic here; CCP really wants players who make isk ratting to be clicking D-scan every 3 seconds? Because thats not > to play, thats > to pain.

Unfortunately i didnt saw any oficial word about that situation/question.

Ratting need to have a risk/reward, sure, but also needs to be enjoyable, not anoying...


Just look at the background of the people responsible for this proposed idiocy.
When do you think was the last time either of them did any grinding in a PvE site?
They have zero empathy or understanding of that part of the game.


They do have. And htat is the exact purpose of thse changes! So that a large empire cannot simply rent their territory to peopel that cannot even defend themselves against small roaming gagns. They want peopel to be ACTIVE to get profit, and that include peopel patrolling your territories to detect enemies early.


You shoudl not warp when enemy appears in local, you shoudl already be docked by then!! You shoudl have warped when your patrols detected them 4 jumps away!!
"If brute force does not solve your problem.....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
#494 Posted: 2013.11.04 14:17
Re freighters as this is going to make supplying for pvp even more a pitfa

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=292820&find=unread
#495 Posted: 2013.11.04 22:45  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
- Posting like a noob! -
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#496 Posted: 2013.11.04 22:50
CCP Fozzie wrote:
[...]
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.

thats old newsP
Gentlemen's Agreement
#497 Posted: 2013.11.05 10:17
One of - if not the - longest celestial-to-celestial warps in the game is in 9-266Q in the Venal region. From the H-PA29 gate to the BV-1JG gate is 283.34 AU. I flew a Freighter, an interceptor and a rigged/implanted interceptor just to see the comparison for myself.

Apologies if someone has already done this but based on the warp values in this thread/currently on Sisi, the numbers I came back with were too interesting to ignore:

A freighter (1.333 AU/s) takes approximately 4 minutes and 38 seconds to cross 283.34 AU.
An interceptor (10 AU/s) without mods/implants takes approximately 37 seconds.
An interceptor with T2 Hyperspatial mods and a full Ascendancy implant set (26.03 AU/s) takes only 14 seconds.

With a fully kitted out inty/clone, I suppose you could perform the log-in trap and appear on-grid in literally a second with an unsuspecting ratter/anomer before they even have a chance to defecate themselves.
Goonswarm Federation
#498 Posted: 2013.11.05 11:01
Quinn Oron wrote:
One of - if not the - longest celestial-to-celestial warps in the game is in 9-266Q in the Venal region. From the H-PA29 gate to the BV-1JG gate is 283.34 AU. I flew a Freighter, an interceptor and a rigged/implanted interceptor just to see the comparison for myself.

Apologies if someone has already done this but based on the warp values in this thread/currently on Sisi, the numbers I came back with were too interesting to ignore:

A freighter (1.333 AU/s) takes approximately 4 minutes and 38 seconds to cross 283.34 AU.
An interceptor (10 AU/s) without mods/implants takes approximately 37 seconds.
An interceptor with T2 Hyperspatial mods and a full Ascendancy implant set (26.03 AU/s) takes only 14 seconds.

With a fully kitted out inty/clone, I suppose you could perform the log-in trap and appear on-grid in literally a second with an unsuspecting ratter/anomer before they even have a chance to defecate themselves.


I lived here for four yearsStraight
C C P Alliance
#499 Posted: 2013.11.05 15:06  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
I've got a few updates to bring to you all today.

We've been making some tweaks to the numbers, moderating the changes to the far ends of the spectrum and adjusting the stats of the warp speed rigs and the warp speed T3 subsystems.

Firstly, we have done another pass on the warp speeds by class. The default advantage for T2 ships is being reduced slightly from 12.5% to 10%. We're also increasing the speeds of a few of the slower classes (freighters, titans, battlecruisers and command ships) a tad and reducing the speed advantage of the faster ships a bit as well (bringing the top end to 8au/s instead of the previous 10au/s). It's important to note that even with this extra reduction, all interceptors will see gigantic improvements to their warp speeds for virtually all warp distances after Rubicon.

Finally, we are also putting a cap on the deceleration speed that can be obtained for now. This cap is currently set to 2au/s (the declaration speed that a 6au/s warper hits by default, and twice the current hardcoded deceleration speed). This means that as ships start to travel faster than 6au/s they will start to hit diminishing returns.

This cap is being put in place for a few reasons, mainly related to the appearance of ships as they arrive. Having ships appear to blink into place as they exit warp is not ideal as it breaks immersion and prevents players on the destination grid from seeing where the new ship came from. It also significantly reduces the benefits of skilled play (alignment, vigilance) and severely weakens one of the planned natural counters to the new interceptors (smartbombing tactics). At the max deceleration ships will still appear very quickly on grid, but it will always be visible which direction they came from and there will always be one second between their arrival on grid and the completion of the warp.

The new post-Rubicon warp chart can be seen here, including the base warp speed changes and the deceleration cap.

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.

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.

Thanks for the feedback and testing so far everyone!
Pandemic Legion
#500 Posted: 2013.11.05 15:11
Thanks for listening to test server feedback.
Forum Jump