hmmm, Schnitten mit Aufstrich?
I’m about to go to the shop to get something decent to eat. Only had some protein bar which was lying around on the table.
Thinking about Champignons at a rahm sauce with swäbische spätzle and hühnchen.
2 Likes
Nono … Schnitten. Like Manner, but not from Manner. And bigger.
Champions … heh. Champignons. : - ) Sounds great!
Lol, that auto-correct. It’s like it knows nothing about good cuisine.
I am super tired, and so pray forgive the horrible spelling and/or bad grammar, but…
Regarding the below italicized text:
The value displayed for a ship in the align time window is not a hard coded value. It is a calculated value based on that ship’s other attributes, much like the DPS value displayed in the fitting tool is not a guarantee and makes the assumption you can bring your weapons into optimal ranges against optimal targets. Align time, as displayed in the fitting tool, is derived from assumptions about the ship. Namely, that the ship in question has a vector of 0 and nothing acts on it to change its vector during the alignment process.
If the value was hard coded and had to be observed, MWDs wouldn’t shave so many seconds off a Bowhead’s align time and webs would not work to slingshot Freighters into warp. Switching the system to use a hard coded value would invalidate both of these tactics.
Hard coding align time would further require adding another value to the ship that could be affected by modules such as inertial stablizers, if we still wanted those modules to retain their use in shaving some travel time since the align time would no longer be derived from the statistics they presently modify.
It would be no simple thing to convert alignment from a derived statistic to a hard coded value.
1 Like
So what do you propose
#galaxywasrightallalong
The only thing that would impact that vector, is a bump/collision.
Afaik, those apply to the calculation of 75% of nominal max speed, not to bumps as a change of vector.
It would involve decoupling ship orientation, as relevant in what is currently coded as a small cone towards the warp destination. The cone is currently 5-10 degrees I gather. Thus all that is needed, is to increase that value to 360 degrees.
After that, a ship will only have to achvieve 75% of max speed, and complete align time.
What he is saying is, the mwd ATM allows you to warp in 10-ish seconds, while with the requirement of hardset timer means this trick would be useless.
What I also add is, this is an issue with a ship running in the opposed direction with mwd off : he should take like 4 times the align-from-0 time ( from -400% to +400% ). With your proposal he will take one time.
1 Like
MWD trick would be unaffected, as it is concerned only with reaching 75% of max speed, under that condition.
PS: MWD trick is quite a crap mechanic as is, for whats thats worth.
Correct.
It wont matter what direction the ship is moving in, as long as it reaches sufficient speed and completes the align time, under those conditions.
I see how that is a problem in terms of practical time to warp, in non-bump situations.
Alternative is to increase the cone of acceptable orientation towards the warp destination, say to 45-90degrees, so bumps would be unlikely to shift the ships orientation in that direction, speed remaining as is towards 75%', sufficiently to impair warping.
Such that the game checks if the ship is pointing in a 45-90degree arc (Ie within the correct 1/8, 1/4 quadrant of a sphere in 3d space) towards destination, completes align time, and is it moving at 75% speed on its own propulsion, regardless of vector.
Yeah I dunno dude. Bumping seems totally fine.
I’m not so sure.
I think its crapping on use of points/bubbles.
It obsoletes the need for using those modules, when you can just collide with a ship, with your own ship, to “bump-tackle” it, as Ima coined it.
There is still extreme value in using a point or scram when you’re able to. With the exception of native warp core strength, warp core stabilizers, and EWar… activating a point or scram is always preferred. There are also margins of error associated with “bump-tackling” where you can easily mess up if you are inexperienced or don’t know what you’re doing.
So arguing that bumping needs to be changed because it devalues tackle modules isn’t a strong argument in my opinion… because it actually doesn’t. You don’t see people opting to go with “bump-tackle” instead of activating a point or scram on it to achieve the same goal. Why? Because it’s not as easy as pressing a hot key to activate the module, because there’s a heightened chance of personal error, and because well keeping certain ships can be very difficult.
1 Like
This states there are 4 requirement, which ALL must be fulfilled in order for the warp to be performed.
If some of the requirement are optional you need to rephrase your expression.
eg :
- current warp strength > cumulated strength of disruptors/scrams (which is the actual present condition)
- one of the two :
- have current speed vector distant for max speed toward target by less than 25% (eg like now with cone and nominal speed)
- have started the warp for long enough (I think 4* base align time which is the worst case I think with mwd towards opposite direction)
Because you can bump-tackle firgates and even pods right?
So why is anyone using a point? Please explain
^this^
CCP defined ‘approach’ as ‘ram it’. This is a result of them living in a permanently frozen world. In their part of the world trucks,cars,humanoids and cyclists can only use “bump” for approach. Stop signs actually say “slide” over there.
I actually don’t think there’s collision for pods. I haven’t payed close enough attention lately, but last time I actually tried it resulted in my bump Mach just ignoring the model and flying through it (pod was stationary sitting on the wreck of his beloved freighter)
There is collision.
I rammed into a serpentis titan in an anom after it wrecked my ship. could “enter” it but was still moved along by it.
I think the model is to tiny that he goes through the bubbles that make the item in the engine.
1 Like
You are aware that manual piloting is almost always the preferred method for bumping, right?
The reason is that when you “approach” an object your ship will actually reduce its speed when it gets within a certain distance of it.
1 Like
Yeah, I was not serious 
We do, though.
And if we dont, then there is no impediment to removing it.
(five characters)