EVE Search - Agility Changes on Singularity

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Agility Changes on Singularity

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 12 post(s)

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.02 09:02:00 - [1] In our recent changes to speed we made some agility changes, the changes that were meant to make acceleration and maneuverability feel better had an unwanted side effect. It became too hard to target lock ships before they aligned and warped off. We've done some tweaks to agility, reverting smaller ships back to their original form and reducing the agility boost on larger ships. We're going to have these changes running on Singularity and see how things turn out. The changes are authored directly onto Singularity and therefore easy to revert at any time. Original Agility Change: All ships * 0.7 Changes running on Singularity now (based of values pre-boost): Frigates * 1.0 Destroyers * 0.85 Cruisers * 0.9 Battle Cruisers * 0.9 Battle Ships * 0.9 Feedback on these changes would be greatly appreciated, like I mentioned before the changes are made directly onto Singularity and therefore very easy to modify.


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.02 11:16:00 - [2] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I just tried the new agility changes on SISI. Totally screws up blaster ships again. Just change the warp speed threshold to 85% of max speed instead of the current 75%. That will increase the time to warp without changing any other balance. Super simple and elegant solution to the problem. Any other change in any other direction will only screw up on particular performance metric or another. Messing with agility and lock speeds and so on has too many knock on effects during normal PVP. The warp speed threshold affects a single thing: time to warp, and that's it. Now that this problem is solved, let's move on to more important things. Unfortunately it's not that simple. The acceleration formula is based on mass and the agility modifier. Changing the warp speed threshold changes the balance between the classes drastically. I'm going to try some new values later on today: The main problem after the initial speed changes were cruiser/frigate sized ships, battleships don't need that much of a change. New values: (not yet applied to Singularity) Frigates: 1.0 Destroyers: 0.85 Cruisers: 0.9 Battlecruisers: 0.85 Battleships: 0.8 Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.02 11:31:00 - [3] Originally by: Alex Medvedov Originally by: CCP Nozh The main problem after the initial speed changes were cruiser/frigate sized ships, battleships don't need that much of a change. Dont take me wrong but arent Frigates supposed to be hard to catch? Whats the point of flying Frigates if they get their agility close to cruiser sized ships. I mean one of the most positive QR feature was in my opinion great agility buff to Assault Ships which improved their align times be in line with other frigs (not with Cruisers as it used to be) and i certainly dont think that the pre QR situation was better.. Assault ships / Frigates will still have the same agility ratio. The changes to assault ships were done prior to the original agility changes. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.02 11:33:00 - [4] Originally by: Mecinia Lua What about Transports, Industrials, Mining Barges, Exhumers? Original changes were only done to combat ships. We didn't touch the agility of these ships in our agility changes. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.02 11:35:00 - [5] Originally by: Nichola Kreed damn it, another change that nerf solo and boost blob. Actually, the agility was preventing solo pvp as targets were able to warp out before getting scrambled. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.02 11:50:00 - [6] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: CCP Nozh Unfortunately it's not that simple. The acceleration formula is based on mass and the agility modifier. Changing the warp speed threshold changes the balance between the classes drastically. I'm going to try some new values later on today: The main problem after the initial speed changes were cruiser/frigate sized ships, battleships don't need that much of a change. New values: (not yet applied to Singularity) Frigates: 1.0 Destroyers: 0.85 Cruisers: 0.9 Battlecruisers: 0.85 Battleships: 0.8 Well, a couple things- 1) I know it's not simple, I was just trying to cut to the chase and oversimplify a bit in my OP. Due to the nonlinear acceleration curves and the way mass and the agility modifier affect top speed and acceleration, you'd have to fine tune the warp threshold for each class to a particular value, and then take a look at how this base value is affected when positive or negative modifiers like plates or istabs are fit, to ensure that the new threshold numbers don't do strange things like scale wildly when istabs are fit, or make the thing take ten minutes to warp if a plate is added. Besides the obvious stuff above, what are the other downsides to changing the warp speed threshold? I'm not trying to be contrary here. I'm extremely happy that you're addressing this issue. I really am. Could we please look at the ratios between warp times and lock times per class of ship, and then each class of ship with a single sensor booster II with scan res script vs. the warp time of a ship one class smaller? Like a BS w/ SBII vs. a BC? What are our other options here? What about adding an additional 5m/sec to all blaster BS hulls? And 10m/sec to BCs and smaller? What about making exceptions for blaster ship hull agility? What other exotic non traditional options are possible that people have just dismissed out of hand because at first pass it might be construed as treating them as a special case? (which they are) Again, thanks for the attention to this huge issue! \o/ Having different warp thresholds on different classes of ships would just become confusing. My spreadsheet currently takes into account lock time vs. align time. (How long a ship takes to lock itself, and how long it takes to align and warp out). Class by class, sub-class by sub-class. About special casing blasterboats, that's not going to happen at this time. We'll have to look at the problem (if there is a problem) separately, I'll be posting another thread today where you can voice your concerns for blaster ships. But lets focus at the problem at hand for now. There will be a reboot at 14:00 which will apply the new changes. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.02 11:56:00 - [7] Also I want to point out that I was going to post this yesterday, but I thought no one would take me seriously. Damn April 1. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.02 15:47:00 - [8] Originally by: Roemy Schneider Edited by: Roemy Schneider on 02/04/2009 15:07:59 Originally by: CCP Nozh Unfortunately it's not that simple. The acceleration formula is based on mass and the agility modifier. Changing the warp speed threshold changes the balance between the classes drastically. quoting misinformation: only 1/3 sentences is correct http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Acceleration time is linear to mass, time is linear to agility the balance between classes? shifts linear with it if you want to bring in the arctanhyp of the locking time equation, i'm prepared for it now raise the threshold E:url'ed You're actually correct. Didn't know about that page... I'm using -ln(0.25)* mass * agility / 10^6 However simply changing the warp speed threshold doesn't allow me to balance the warp time between classes, like I'm doing by using different agility modifiers. Some more tweaks: Stealthbombers: 0.7 (now not using the same as frigates) Assault Frigates: 0.8 (giving them a bit more agility) Battlecruisers: 0.8 Battleships: 0.75 Cruisers: 0.95 Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.03 14:32:00 - [9] Update - Should be on Singularity now: Agility: Frigates - General - 1.0 Frigates - Stealthbombers - 0.7 (They were aligning as fast as Battlecruisers) Frigates - Assault Ships - 0.8 (This brings them down to around a 4 - 4.5 second align time) Destroyer - General - 0.85 (Briging them a bit closer to frigates) Cruiser - General - 1.0 Cruiser - HAC - 0.9 Cruiser - HIC - 0.9 Cruiser - Logistics - 1.0 Cruiser - Combat Recon - 0.95 Cruiser - Force Recon - 1.0 Battlecruisers - 0.8 Battleships - 0.8 Scan Resolution: Cruisers - General - 15% Boost Cruisers - HAC - 20% Boost Cruisers - Force Recon - 10% Boost Battleship - Black Ops - 10% Boost Please check out these new values on Singularity and leave some feedback... Might be a bit inactive on the forums next week, weekend / Easter holiday. But I'll try to drop by as often as possible.. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.03 15:06:00 - [10] Originally by: Zamolxiss Looks interesting.. What about this Nozh? Quote: I'll be posting another thread today where you can voice your concerns for blaster ships. But lets focus at the problem at hand for now. That shouldn't be delayed, a thread regarding Blasters and AC's and to some extent Artys.. I won't be doing a blaster thread per se, but rather a general balancing thread where players can voice their concerns on various matters. But since I'm focusing on these changes now, and a short Easter holiday is coming up I don't want to post it quite yet, as I intend to be quite active in the thread. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.03 15:29:00 - [11] Originally by: isdisco3 Edited by: isdisco3 on 03/04/2009 15:13:18 again, the agility helped solo and small-gang pvp because it allowed flexibility for them to escape when the big blob showed up. oh, and the creation of arbitrary modifiers ("hey, let's make this one .9. oh, and this one be .8. and this should totally be .95!") strikes me as ... arbitrary. Arbitrary would be me pulling the modifiers out of my *, but they're based on calculated scanSpeed and align time for each class. As for this effecting small-gang PVP, sure it does, but in more ways than just "not being able to run away as fast". I think it's important that players are actually able to catch other players also and that PVP does not become completely consensual. Think of it this way, sure you'll get into tight spots more often, but on the other hand you'll also be able to catch more targets yourself. Nozh** Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.04.17 09:09:00 - [12] Next patch! Had some internal problems getting it out in 1.1. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.