Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Djego
merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 20:21:00 -
[61]
Supported.
With the little common background lag and modul lag it is fare to common to only see the other ship warping off before you can applay tackle.
|
ArtemisXEntreri
Cake Factory
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 07:55:00 -
[62]
Supported |
Pesadel0
Rytiri Lva R.U.R.
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 09:07:00 -
[63]
Very good ideia :D |
Mr John22ta
Underworld Protection Agency The Crimson Federation
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 13:44:00 -
[64]
/Signed
This is something that really needs to be looked at
|
LoveDogg
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 20:03:00 -
[65]
Supported |
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 21:04:00 -
[66]
Changing the formula for time to warp so that the new agility of ships results in pre-patch warp times makes the most sense to me.
Currently pvp is much too consensual.
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 12:45:00 -
[67]
supported
|
burek
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 13:49:00 -
[68]
Supported |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 15:04:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 16/01/2009 15:03:54 Supporting this issue despite the fact that the data I have does not corroborate. Examples follow, all unfitted setups.
Crow vs Crow Skilled: 2.1s alignment, 2s lock time Unskilled: 3s alignment, 2.5s lock time
Zealot vs Zealot Skilled: 5.2s alignment, 4.1s lock time Unskilled: 7.7s alignment, 5.1s lock time
Astarte vs Astarte Skilled: 7.8s alignment, 3.9s lock time Unskilled: 11.6s alignment, 4.9s lock time
Typhoon vs Typhoon Skilled: 10s alignment, 6.7s lock time Unskilled: 14.8s alignment, 8.3s lock time
The main reason I'm supporting this is that the issue of latency means that lock times of under 2 seconds are wasteful, as mod activation won't realistically take place at this level. This means that the fastest unfitted setup should really be aligning at around 3 seconds, and that sensor resolutions should probably be boosted marginally to allow easier locking.
It's a very, very fine line though. Overdo it and it'll be dreadful.
Edit: to check the supported box!
|
Captain Thunk
Vale Tudo.
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 16:16:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 16/01/2009 15:03:54 Supporting this issue despite the fact that the data I have does not corroborate. Examples follow, all unfitted setups.
Crow vs Crow Skilled: 2.1s alignment, 2s lock time Unskilled: 3s alignment, 2.5s lock time
Zealot vs Zealot Skilled: 5.2s alignment, 4.1s lock time Unskilled: 7.7s alignment, 5.1s lock time
Astarte vs Astarte Skilled: 7.8s alignment, 3.9s lock time Unskilled: 11.6s alignment, 4.9s lock time
Typhoon vs Typhoon Skilled: 10s alignment, 6.7s lock time Unskilled: 14.8s alignment, 8.3s lock time
The main reason I'm supporting this is that the issue of latency means that lock times of under 2 seconds are wasteful, as mod activation won't realistically take place at this level. This means that the fastest unfitted setup should really be aligning at around 3 seconds, and that sensor resolutions should probably be boosted marginally to allow easier locking.
It's a very, very fine line though. Overdo it and it'll be dreadful.
Edit: to check the supported box!
Indeed, latency is best seen when running two accounts at the same gate. A ship can decloak on one client yet still remain invisible on the other. (Yes, I know having two accounts on the same gate would do nothing to improve latency, but it illustrates easily that it is there and to what degree).
This inconjuction with the overview polling once a second, the latency involved in activating a module like a warp disruptor after locking (I'm sure most people are familiar with target up on screen, scram flashing waiting for it to hook then the target warps away) means that a typhoon vs typhoon with a 3.3second window of opportunity has a good chance of getting away (unless he's a newer player, in which case improved agility isn't helping him - just making him more likely to lose a ship)
I do hope this issue is taken seriously by the CSM, especially by those who aren't heavy PvPers themselves but appreciate the necessity for unconsensual PvP in the game.
Captain Thunk |
|
Vrikshaka
0ff-Peak Esoteric Cutthroats
|
Posted - 2009.01.17 09:18:00 -
[71]
This needs to be a top priority fix.
There was no good reason for making it harder to lock someone before they're able to get away. The balance was good as it was, and noone was calling for this change.
The new lock time/time to enter warp balance is particularly painful with frig vs. frig situations, where latency now very often is the deciding factor. This was already a problem before the change, but a small enough problem to be acceptable. Now, it no longer is.
Being unable to lock someone in time due to lag - and we're not talking fleet battle lag here, but simply the normal "background lag" of any, even almost empty, systems - is incredibly frustrating, and undermines the whole PVP experience.
Like someone said above, the balance we're talking about is very delicate and a re-balancing measure could easily be overdone. I'm not asking for any drastic changes, or a party favor done to me as a pirate so I can OMG KILL MOAR BEARZ!!1!, but simply, like the OP says, that this balance be restored to it's previous values.
V |
KillJoy Tseng
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.01.17 19:49:00 -
[72]
Supported; it seems to be getting to where sensor boosted interceptors are mandatory to have along to *reliably* catch standard, plate-tanked cruisers flown by competent people. Catching frigates of any sort, much less interceptors? Forget it. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.01.17 20:06:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Goumindong It seems that some ships did not receive an agility boost to go along with QR
Originally by: abbagabba
I believe the following is a complete list:
Rookie ships, industrials, transports, freighters, mining barges, exhumers, capitals
If you have the old stat, check the mixed race faction ship. Those on Caldari hulls (the moa for example) were left out when the Caldari ship got the agility boost. No idea if this time they were boosted.
The gila current inertia modifier is 0.46 againt 0.38 for a moa. The moa has an higher mass, but when it is a single race ship (Caracal vs Caracal Navy) the ship get a mass and inertia modifier boost. |
Zenethalos
Infinity Killers
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 04:15:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Zenethalos on 18/01/2009 04:15:57
Originally by: thesonarnet against it.
A couple of activated Sensor Boosters + a properly set Overview + a scram pre activated and blinking = instant lock
Still doesnt allways work because of the initial lag. The other night I had a badger "locked" while my mod kept blinking (yes he was in range). Then all of a sudden it goes back to 3 seconds then at about 1.5 seconds he is gone. A mechanic needs to change for the lock timing and the lag factor because too many things get a way if you dont have a hic/dic around or a few ceptor's.
Edit: Forgot to click support topic. |
thoraxius demioses
Gallente Privateers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:30:00 -
[75]
it gets my vote |
Abernathy Wallace
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:39:00 -
[76]
|
Xe na
Privateers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:40:00 -
[77]
|
Neesa Corrinne
Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:47:00 -
[78]
How someone who's capable of intelligent, coherent thoughts can hang out with the rest of those slobbering fools is beyond me, but I totally support this proposal.
---------------------------------
|
Thessu Madshaii
Method of Destruction Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 16:10:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Thessu Madshaii on 18/01/2009 16:11:16 supported... its a shame how they cripple empire pvp
|
Slave 775
Privateers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 17:10:00 -
[80]
supported
Centuries ago, the Bible warned of dangers posed by evil men described as ômaster[s] at evil ideasö and ôscheming to do bad.ö (Proverbs 24:8) PRIVATEERS Officialy nerfed by CCP 05/07 |
|
The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 17:12:00 -
[81]
I endorse this thread
Thank-You,
The Pitboss (Space between The & Pitboss)
Signatures by: Kalen Vox |
Grumber1
Caldari Bambooule Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 17:23:00 -
[82]
signed
|
Cougem
Defile.
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 19:48:00 -
[83]
Supported
|
sgt spike
Sicarri Covenant Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 21:29:00 -
[84]
i endorse this product
can you put a price on peace? |
Khanoonian Singh
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 22:06:00 -
[85]
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 15:08:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Seth Ruin
Originally by: Goumindong Lock times didn't change. And you can find align times by looking at an old version of EFT.
I'm not exactly sure how accurate EFT's align time calculator is, or even how it's calculated. I do, however, agree that the align time should always be slightly longer than lock time of the same ship, due (as stated earlier) to "lag time" and reaction time factoring in, making it even more difficult to catch a target trying to escape.
I was one of the people who first set about working out the acceleration time formula, and I know that it isn't very accurate in certain cases - in particular, with larger ships and mass addition from multiple plates. |
InAkTiV
Mentally Unstable Enterprises Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 15:34:00 -
[87]
Supported |
Kanya Nague
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 21:38:00 -
[88]
|
Lee Dalton
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 12:17:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Lee Dalton on 20/01/2009 12:17:15 Signed. |
ZMasterz
Pothouse Cartel IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 12:34:00 -
[90]
This badly needs a "fix" .. or change
Supported.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |