I told you so

Originally by: Jason Edwards

---

I'd just like to point out that I can now say.

I told you so

I posted it when they posted about the agility changes.

Obviously now since you are reversing the agility changes. Blaster boats are hurt fairly badly again. So what's changing to unnerf blasterboats?

---

Originally by: Kateryne

---

The change means ships align slower in general, so you have longer to tackle/move in on them, thus the point blank range blaster boats have gotten a few more seconds of lovin!

---

Originally by: Winterreign

---

Perhaps i have my math backwards

But all agility was based upon original agility changes. which *o.7

Does the lower agility = faster align time?
Or
Does the higher agility = Faster align time?

You mentioned reducing agility so i assume that the the lower the agility the more "Agile" a ship is.

As if everything was 0.7

Then Frigates are 30% less agile
Destoyers 15% less agile
and cruisers, BC, and battleshipes 20% less agile.

Correct? Other wise it looks as if u gave all the ships MORE agility.
-W

---

Quote:

---

Are you on crack or something? This change will HELP blaster boats. I mean what do you want exactly?

---

Quote:

---

I just tried the new agility changes on SISI. Totally screws up blaster ships again.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Originally by: Winterreign

---

Perhaps i have my math backwards

But all agility was based upon original agility changes. which *o.7

Does the lower agility = faster align time?
Or
Does the higher agility = Faster align time?

You mentioned reducing agility so i assume that the the lower the agility the more "Agile" a ship is.

As if everything was 0.7

Then Frigates are 30% less agile
Destoyers 15% less agile
and cruisers, BC, and battleshipes 20% less agile.

Correct? Other wise it looks as if u gave all the ships MORE agility.
-W

---

Think of it as an inertia modifier.

Simply put: if the original values were 1, the new inertia is 70% of the original- 30% reduction, meaning the ships can get to a particular speed 30% faster, and the *latest* SISI values are closer to 90% of the original pre-QR values.

All of this inertia modifier stuff is crap however. All that needs to be done is tweak each warp speed threshold to return the time to warp requirement for all ships to something equal or greater than pre-QR warp times.

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps i have my math backwards But all agility was based upon original agility changes. which *o.7 Does the lower agility = faster align time? Or Does the higher agility = Faster align time?

---

Quote:

---

Then Frigates are 30% less agile Destoyers 15% less agile and cruisers, BC, and battleshipes 20% less agile. Correct? Other wise it looks as if u gave all the ships MORE agility.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Nichola Kreed

---

damn it, another change that nerf solo and boost blob.

---

Originally by: Fossil Wolf

---

Am I right in thinking this will effect the top orbit speeds of ships as well as warp speeds?

---

Originally by: Tonto Auri

---

Originally by: Fossil Wolf

---

Am I right in thinking this will effect the top orbit speeds of ships as well as warp speeds?

---

Warp speed are fixed value per ship class. Can only be affected by rigs.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Fossil Wolf

---

Originally by: Tonto Auri

---

Originally by: Fossil Wolf

---

Am I right in thinking this will effect the top orbit speeds of ships as well as warp speeds?

---

Warp speed are fixed value per ship class. Can only be affected by rigs.

---

Sorry, I didn't say that very well at all.. I meant warp align speed

---

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.

---

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..

---

Originally by: Mecinia Lua

---

What about Transports, Industrials, Mining Barges, Exhumers?

---

Originally by: Mecinia Lua

---

What about Transports, Industrials, Mining Barges, Exhumers?

---

Originally by: Nichola Kreed

---

damn it, another change that nerf solo and boost blob.

---

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

---

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/

---

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/

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Originally by: Fossil Wolf

---

So no more fleet stabbers with 0.9 align time?

---

Originally by: Lefevre

---

Yet another nail in the solo coffin.

pro-blob ftw

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Originally by: Trox Aeze

---

Does this also apply to the yo-yo titans?
With Nomad Implants and some agility mods, they are very quick to warp out.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

---

I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.

---

Originally by: isdisco3

---

Edited by: isdisco3 on 02/04/2009 12:22:41

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Actually, the agility was helping solo pvp because the agility allowed small hit-and-run gangs to have a chance of bailing when the inevitable blob showed up in response to gankings. Now they're going to get caught by the blobs, further hurting solo / small-gang pvp.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Originally by: Jasper Dark

---

I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

It positively ruined *my* solo PVP.

---

Originally by: Aylara

---

Humm, then the agility buff was not the reason for me seeing more people venturing into low-sec and even 0.0 NPC space, in small/medium ships. Strange, i thought that this was the thing that made carebears venture out of hi-sec and even try some PVP. But since you have all the statistics, I guess you know what you're talking about

---

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

---

I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.

---

Originally by: RedSplat

---

Following the latest patch there has been a significant increase in week old frigates, presumably 'boxxies' if you like that term. They seem to be after BS rats.

---

Originally by: RedSplat

---

All the agility changes did was make it easier for cruisers and BC's to avoid fights. Significantly easier.

---

Originally by: RedSplat

---

Did this result in more Empire dwellers in Lowsec? Not really, the reason they live in highsec is so they dont have to take risks and the rewards to Lowsec arent significant enough to appeal to the legendary greed of highsec bears.

---

Originally by: RedSplat

---

The 'Highsec' players in lowsec i'm seeing are all new players that dont know any better. Hell, last week i had someone that thought i was a rat.

---

Originally by: Caldari Citizen4714

---

What about pods and shuttles?

I was solocamping the highsec side of a dead end gate from lowsec into highsec (trying to catch red flashies going into empire) in an interceptor with over 3k scan res (.8s lock on a pod) and never caught a single a frigate, shuttle, or pod before it was in warp. A couple of times I control+clicked ten or 15 times before they went invulnerable due to warp and still never got a lock.

---

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.

---

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

---

Originally by: 5pinDizzy

---

Changes seem decent but...

Is it me, or does cloak stay on for too long?

It should be coming off as soon as you click to move but it seems to be around a good 3-4 seconds after which is a lifetime when concerning warping of small ships.

I was trying it with a maller, spun right around accelerated to about 90% speed before it started to graphically decloak.

That's a generous amount of 'target invulnerable' time for a mechanic that's only supposed to protect someone if they're lagging and their client has updated the session change properly yet.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

Actually, the agility was preventing solo pvp as targets were able to warp out before getting scrambled.

---

Originally by: Kagura Nikon

---

Originally by: 5pinDizzy

---

Changes seem decent but...

Is it me, or does cloak stay on for too long?

It should be coming off as soon as you click to move but it seems to be around a good 3-4 seconds after which is a lifetime when concerning warping of small ships.

I was trying it with a maller, spun right around accelerated to about 90% speed before it started to graphically decloak.

That's a generous amount of 'target invulnerable' time for a mechanic that's only supposed to protect someone if they're lagging and their client has updated the session change properly yet.

---

Think a good ammount of that is pure latency. You click warp.. 1 secodn later (considerign a heavy situation) the server gets the command, compute the needed stufff, decides who wil receive the info on the new ship appearing. Somethign on the milliseccond range. Then sends to each of the observers. Those receive it 1 second later. Now you see him. You click lock... 1 secodn later the server receives that.. and discover that the target has already warped....

---

Originally by: Polinus

---

The boost to agility had a HUGE bennefit. They allowed fleets to warp of when titans were seen in field more easily.

Now you reduce them again. And that just move the whole game again to the EVERYONE warp out always in 10 seconds regardless of speed because of the MWD cycle trick.



Not a good change CCP. This just makes agility irrelevant again.

---

Quote:

---

It's only gotten this bad in the last year or so. That decloaking delay (and invulernability after warp in) are far in excess of what they were 1 year ago.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Originally by: Polinus

---

The boost to agility had a HUGE bennefit. They allowed fleets to warp of when titans were seen in field more easily.

Now you reduce them again. And that just move the whole game again to the EVERYONE warp out always in 10 seconds regardless of speed because of the MWD cycle trick.



Not a good change CCP. This just makes agility irrelevant again.

---

Why are you complaining about lost ability to warp out quickly, when you yourself pointed out the MWD trick? you are concerned that the extra effort of activating MWD and deactivating it makes the game too hard?

I don't see a problem aside from pure lack of skill or laziness. And game balance shouldn't be centered around those

The whole Great Speed Nerf was a horrible mistake, now the devs finally undo some of the damage done. How can that be a bad change? This is good.

---

Originally by: Davor

---

Just make all ships lock a little faster then, why is this such a difficult concept?

---

Originally by: Polinus

---

Because the normal warp out involve 1 command. MWD trick warpout involves 3 commands.That means lag and module activation failure have 3 tiems more chance to Frack you.


Also the MWD makes all BS equal nad makes the minmatar agility advatnage WORTHLESS

---

Originally by: Gneeznow

---

Glad to see this, it will help soloing a great deal, for the last few months it was very frustrating watching ships the same class as myself get away because of lock time, even flying a sensor boosted ishtar cruisers were warping out before I could get a point, its a shame that its taken CCP this long to fix this tbh

---

Originally by: Amantus

---

Real men don't need to get into blaster range.

---

Originally by: BlackHorizon

---

I would suggest you listen to one of the previous posters and simply increase the warp time on ships independent of mass and agility, or wait until such a mechanic can be implemented/coded. If you don't have the resources to do this, please come up with a formula based on ship attributes such as sig radius instead of puling out of a hat class agility modifiers like "0.95".

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Originally by: Gekkoh

---

I HATE gate camping. It's one of the worst aspects of Eve, in my opinion. It sucks if you're just trying to get somewhere, and it sucks for those who are forced to sit at a gate in order to find some PvP. I won't even go into the fact that HICs are vastly overpowered to come across while traveling.

Instead of forcing more of it on us, can't you think of a better design concept than enforcing "chokepoints in space" on us?

Also, I have to echo the comments about the new agility making the game seem faster. It was more fun to fly an agile ship, period. And now you're taking that away to appease gate campers and pirates who aren't able to achieve the element of surprise.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually have a coherent vision of where you want to take Eve, or an idea of what most of your subscribers actually do from day to day, because some of these changes appear to be randomly pulled out of a hat and/or directed to make a small minority happy.

---

Originally by: Galdornae

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

WRONG
Most ships are going to have no problem burning back to the gate when caught by a solo ship with fast enough lock time to catch them.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Originally by: SecHaul

---

Until CCP fix the MWD / Cloak / warp trick, which makes even battleships invulnerable to landing points, I don't see the point of tweaking align times. Let's be honest, those that want to avoid getting pointed still can.

Including several above that brag about solo kills and how this will assist them in catching targets. Fix both elements please.

---

Originally by: Rawr Cristina

---

Good changes on the whole. I'm hearing a lot of people whining about how it's death to solo pvp but I've no idea where that comes from. At the moment it's virtually impossible for a Cruiser to point another Cruiser before it enters warp which makes solo impossible. You need a dedicated tackler to catch things.

HACs will still easily be able to burn back to gates 99% of the time.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

And frankly, this issue has nothing to do with current tweaks in agility. If you want to discuss it, start your own thread

---

Originally by: SecHaul

---

If you fix agility, all that will happen is 'solo' battleships fit a cloak and completely bypass the rebalancing anyway.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Originally by: Shinma Apollo

---

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

---

Hey Mitnal, did I give the best excuse ever for a z0r chain when you gave me my last ban?

---

Let's not go near moderation discussion.

However, if t

Originally by: Shinma Apollo

---

I'm in agreement with the initial purpose of the changes, and have voiced the need, but I think in some cases it should really be scrutinized before it goes live. cruiser v cruiser combat being possible? hell yes. But one of the problems is it does hinder solo play because players don't have the ability to disengage as easily given how much faster frigs' base speed is compared to cruisers. Maybe one way would be to nudge up the base speed of cruisers a slight bit.

---

Originally by: Noisrevbus

---

Did it really?

Personally, i don't experience the ease of warping out..

---

Originally by: Noisrevbus

---

I'd like to see more of a discussion on that issue, rather than just tweaking and discussion of numbers.

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.

---

Originally by: 5pinDizzy

---

Half my brain wants to make a forum signature dedicated to you and the other half is saying ARRRGH SHUTTUP.

P.S I read all your posts.

---

Originally by: Cpt Cosmic

---

1. welcome back MWD cycle trick, makes agility on heavy plated/big ships nonrelevant

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Originally by: McDaddy Pimp

---

I don't really see whats all the whining about.. isn't CCP Nozh changing the agility back to pre-QR? Didn't heard ppl whining about their agility before that..

---

Originally by: prefectro

---

They did go a little too far with the speed nerf. If the agility reduction was coupled with an equal increase in speed then I think that would solve a lot of issues. You can still target ships warping from a gate, but give ships that little extra speed to get away from blobs and burn back to the gate.

---

Originally by: Yakov Draken

---

In the past a sensor boosted BC could lock a Cruiser in time, a SB'd BS could lock a BC in time and each class could lock its' own class fast enough without a SB. Can we please go back to this.

---

Originally by: SecHaul

---

Let's be honest, those that want to avoid getting pointed still can.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

Original Agility Change:

All ships * 0.7

---

Originally by: ShadowMaiden

---

So by that logic, the game should be changed so that no-one can avoid being pointed?

---

• 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

• Cruisers - General - 15% Boost


• Cruisers - HAC - 20% Boost


• Cruisers - Force Recon - 10% Boost


• Battleship - Black Ops - 10% Boost

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.

---

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..

---

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..

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Mohenna

---

Edited by: Mohenna on 03/04/2009 16:45:00
Nozh, please consider the added boredom factor of less agility for everybody. This would make Eve a bit worse imho.

I just had an idea, what about making warp faster as a whole to counteract the boredom effect of having to wait more for warping? Or better yet would be to make acceleration and deceleration during warp almost instantaneous, one can't be scrambled anyway at that point.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Originally by: Raimo

---

Originally by: Mohenna

---

Edited by: Mohenna on 03/04/2009 16:45:00
Nozh, please consider the added boredom factor of less agility for everybody. This would make Eve a bit worse imho.

I just had an idea, what about making warp faster as a whole to counteract the boredom effect of having to wait more for warping? Or better yet would be to make acceleration and deceleration during warp almost instantaneous, one can't be scrambled anyway at that point.

---

That could be addressed by undoing the Great Speed Nerf

Uh, travel times will still be totally fine after the changes, it's the overall speed of combat and combat maneuvres that many people are worried about...

---

Originally by: spinarax

---

Edited by: spinarax on 03/04/2009 17:28:34

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

THIS.

post QR, everybody is dieing less and, both the hunter and the prey. with these changes, ppl have to commit to their fights, more exploding ships on both side which is [borat]very nice![/borat]

---

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

---

I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Edited by: Ephemeron on 03/04/2009 18:30:24

Originally by: Raimo

---

Uh, travel times will still be totally fine after the changes, it's the overall speed of combat and combat maneuvres that many people are worried about...

---

That could be addressed by undoing the Great Speed Nerf

---

Originally by: Raimo

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Edited by: Ephemeron on 03/04/2009 18:30:24

Originally by: Raimo

---

Uh, travel times will still be totally fine after the changes, it's the overall speed of combat and combat maneuvres that many people are worried about...

---

That could be addressed by undoing the Great Speed Nerf

---

I couldn't agree more! But that is most likely out of the question, tbh I'd just like to see overall speeds (acceleration) not go down even more...

---

Originally by: SecHaul

---

Edited by: SecHaul on 03/04/2009 13:22:02

Originally by: ShadowMaiden

---

So by that logic, the game should be changed so that no-one can avoid being pointed?

---

It's quite easy to partly quote an answer and write a response that completely misses the point of the entire post you quoted. Since you appear to be struggling to understand the point of the thread:

1. The point of this thread, and this rebalancing, is to address the situation that ships of approximately the same size cannot target one another before the other ship cold warps off.

2. Since the post-QR issue was mostly focused upon frigate to cruiser sized hulls, CCP is rebalancing the agility numbers of those ships (with limited tweaks to larger ships)

3. The purpose of this change is to head back towards EVE being a non-consensual PvP game, i.e. if you jump blind into a system and there is an interceptor on the other side, your cruiser shouldn't be able to warp off because of the combination of game lag and quick align times.

4. Align / MWD / Cloak / insta-warp completely negates the above 3 points, since a battleship can safely enter warp before being targetted due to the same factors as above.

For everyone that is saying "yes, please fix the agility to I can solo PvP in my dominix, but please don't fix the align / MWD / cloak trick so that I can still avoid getting tackled myself" is clearly wanting to change one mechanic for their abuse, while continuing to abuse another.

And as for the comment of cloaking ruining a solo battleships lock time, try fly a Dominix and drop drones, see if you even require that lock. Or try flying around 0.0 and pop a few ratters, have a look at what every single one is fitting - fitting a cloak does not provide sufficient penalties to warrant complete immunity to everything but a bubble.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

I don't see why people keep bringing this up. The entire game design system was built up around a particular envelope of speed: gun tracking, missile velocity, explosion velocity, ranges, lock times, ship mass, etc. etc. etc.. The devs never intended for cruisers to be flying 10km/sec+. It was game breaking and they fixed it.

Why can't you people (everyone who keeps asking for it back) see that? Did you simply not play Eve before the nano fad existed? Was that the only Eve you knew until it was changed? If so then I can see why you don't understand. If not, then you have no excuse.

---

Originally by: Goatface Man

---

With the current system, I can use a stiletto to lock and tackle a light drone in under a second and a half with a single sig amp and a scripted signal booster, and my interceptor skill are pretty weak. If you can show me a viable ship build that can align and warp out in under 1.5 seconds, I would be interested in seeing it.

---

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

---

I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.

---

Originally by: RedSplat

---

Originally by: Goatface Man

---

With the current system, I can use a stiletto to lock and tackle a light drone in under a second and a half with a single sig amp and a scripted signal booster, and my interceptor skill are pretty weak. If you can show me a viable ship build that can align and warp out in under 1.5 seconds, I would be interested in seeing it.

---

Try this on a gate in lowsec.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Then there's the argument of excessive speed being "game breaking". I seen Crows fly at 15 km/s, Vagabonds do 10 km/s, and the game didn't crash, server didn't crash. The movement of those ships on my screen remained smooth, frame rate not dropping under 15 fps. All my modules could still activate. There wasn't a single instance of where those speeds have caused anything "game breaking" - that I am aware of.

---

Quote:

---

crows doing under 27km/s = slow back then

---

Originally by: Spurty

---

actually goatface, many cruisers can after jumping into your system.

they appear on your overview and are lockable for less than a second before they warp at the moment. Thats today, on TQ

---

Originally by: Goatface Man

---

Originally by: Spurty

---

actually goatface, many cruisers can after jumping into your system.

they appear on your overview and are lockable for less than a second before they warp at the moment. Thats today, on TQ

---

Now, I hate to tell you this, but not every fight in the game is ganking someone after they jump into the system.

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

Originally by: Beardponderer

---

What a load of

█▀█ █▀▀ █▌█ ▀█▀ █▀▀
█▀▀ █▀▀ █▐█ █ ▀▀█
▀. ▀▀▀ ▀ ▀ ▀▀▀ ▀▀▀

Looks good

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Quote:

---

crows doing under 27km/s = slow back then

---

Come on, even you wouldn't seriously believe in that.

I practically lived in 0.0 for last 5 years. I have seen Crows doing 15km a couple times. I have heard of 25km crows, but haven't seen.

There's more chance of getting Draclira of Chelm officer spawn than seeing one of those in battle. (I had 6 of those)

Do I think 25+ km/s frig is excessive? yes
Do I think we need massive sweeping nerfs to all the speed modules in game? no

There had to be a better solution. Even 100km/s Crow can't be used to justify the horrible nerfs that followed

---

Quote:

---

Alas, I'm correct :-/ It was as silly as it reads and real. T2 polys and faction everything = speed. Certainly not much to fear in a fight with that speed other than lag :)

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Quote:

---

Alas, I'm correct :-/ It was as silly as it reads and real. T2 polys and faction everything = speed. Certainly not much to fear in a fight with that speed other than lag :)

---

Not much fear flying a paper thin ship that costs 1 billion to lose, 3 billion with pod?

have you ever tried it?

And how many pvpers do you know that fly 3+ billion isk ships on regular basis? less than 1% for sure

That 1% is used to justify the nerfs felt by 100% of the players, you think that's fair?

---

Quote:

---

Absolutely. Super fast ships (any cruiser over 4-5km/sec, any inty over 6-7km/sec are just horrible. You can't kill them, you can't make them engage if they don't want to fight. It's almost impossible to catch them if the pilot knows what he's doing.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Quote:

---

Absolutely. Super fast ships (any cruiser over 4-5km/sec, any inty over 6-7km/sec are just horrible. You can't kill them, you can't make them engage if they don't want to fight. It's almost impossible to catch them if the pilot knows what he's doing.

---

That's a cop out viewpoint

You can kill anyone in EVE if they expose themselves even a little. And the people flying those ships in 0.0 expose themselves a lot.

I personally flew several Machariels that I fit to have 7000-8000 m/s speeds. And while I killed a lot of things with them, in the end they all died. Just out of curiousity, I calculated the isk losses of all the ships I killed with each one and compared it to the cost of the mach, I barely broke even.

Does that make me a crappy fighter? check my stats on public killboards.

Nearly all the people who actually use their ships in pvp end up dying. Even titans. There is nothing invulnerable.

And your type of arguement can be applied to any ship - even a cloaked Raven farmer in 0.0. You can use same logic to argue how invulnerable they are.

Bottom line is, there were plenty of ways of killing those ships. Many of them require trickery, something a little less strait forward than lock, F1, F2, F3

You think it's too difficult, you give up, you justify your failure with excuses. I don't care about that, but when your excuses lead to CCP changing the entire game, removing the challenging parts, reducing the skill requirement for those of us that don't give up easy, you make my game more boring.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Quote:

---

Absolutely. Super fast ships (any cruiser over 4-5km/sec, any inty over 6-7km/sec are just horrible. You can't kill them, you can't make them engage if they don't want to fight. It's almost impossible to catch them if the pilot knows what he's doing.

---

That's a cop out viewpoint

You can kill anyone in EVE if they expose themselves even a little. And the people flying those ships in 0.0 expose themselves a lot.

I personally flew several Machariels that I fit to have 7000-8000 m/s speeds. And while I killed a lot of things with them, in the end they all died. Just out of curiousity, I calculated the isk losses of all the ships I killed with each one and compared it to the cost of the mach, I barely broke even.

Does that make me a crappy fighter? check my stats on public killboards.

Nearly all the people who actually use their ships in pvp end up dying. Even titans. There is nothing invulnerable.

And your type of arguement can be applied to any ship - even a cloaked Raven farmer in 0.0. You can use same logic to argue how invulnerable they are.

Bottom line is, there were plenty of ways of killing those ships. Many of them require trickery, something a little less strait forward than lock, F1, F2, F3

You think it's too difficult, you give up, you justify your failure with excuses. I don't care about that, but when your excuses lead to CCP changing the entire game, removing the challenging parts, reducing the skill requirement for those of us that don't give up easy, you make my game more boring.

---

Oh well. People like yourself have been making my game more boring for years. Bummer for you. I can't be bothered to explain why grossly disproportionate speed is bad for the game as a whole. You'll never change you're mind. And quite frankly, I could give a f#ck what you think anyway. There's no point in trying to get you to see it differently.

I'm not 'justifying my failure with excuses'. There is no failure on my part.

---

Originally by: Miyamoto Isoruku

---

What's the plan for ceptors, same as regular frigs?

---

Originally by: PeHD0M

---

Instead of creating some new pvp mechanic (for ex.: boosting dictor spheres, allowing them to be placed in lowsec, create a tool for calculating warp lines), you are going to boost that one.. You boosting the mass piracy, while nerfing: solo exploring, region trading, low sec agentrunning, FW. Nice

---

Originally by: Jasper Dark

---

I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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..

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

Update - Should be on Singularity now:
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..

---

Originally by: TheLibrarian

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

I agree whole heatedly. The agility currently on TQ allows most fights to only happen when both sides are looking for a fight. This isn't good at all. People should be forced to fight. This is one of the best post I have read in a long time. I am glad you are going towards this! Because no matter what agility we have now, if we end up with an agility causing more fights. It is good for EVE as a whole.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

Quote:

---

I don't see why people keep bringing this up. The entire game design system was built up around a particular envelope of speed: gun tracking, missile velocity, explosion velocity, ranges, lock times, ship mass, etc. etc. etc.. The devs never intended for cruisers to be flying 10km/sec+. It was game breaking and they fixed it.

Why can't you people (everyone who keeps asking for it back) see that? Did you simply not play Eve before the nano fad existed? Was that the only Eve you knew until it was changed? If so then I can see why you don't understand. If not, then you have no excuse.

---

First, you should also keep in mind that entire game design was build on catching your target. It's a very important part of the game. It's never enough to simply lock and fire. You need to do something people refer to as "tackle" - the primary tools for that are webs and scramblers.

if you don't ignore that important part of the game, then all the nanoships, even the super extreme ones that reach 10km/s are actually easy to kill once they are tackled. The main difficulty was getting that tackle, it wasn't about weapons missing and not doing enough damage to kill them.

The people who argue against nanoships like to bring up these 4+ billion isk ships that reach 10+km/s speeds as the basis on which they build their arguments. And it may have been valid if their solutions addressed only those particular ships. Less than 1% of ships in PvP actually fell into the 10km/s speed category. Yet the final solution involved changing 100% of the pvp ships, even the ones that never broke 3 km/s

Then there's the argument of excessive speed being "game breaking". I seen Crows fly at 15 km/s, Vagabonds do 10 km/s, and the game didn't crash, server didn't crash. The movement of those ships on my screen remained smooth, frame rate not dropping under 15 fps. All my modules could still activate. There wasn't a single instance of where those speeds have caused anything "game breaking" - that I am aware of.

All of this has been discussed and mentioned already. Yet people continuously refuse to even remember those arguments. Of course we won't get anywhere if people have to explain the same thing over and over again, to those who are blind to see.

Reason lost, personal likes/dislikes won.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

ok, I'll make just 1 last point of the nano-ships:

I used them sometimes, but not often. Most of the time, I was fighting against them. It was challenging, but not to a point of frustration. I always managed to kill a few per day, when I was actively hunting.

Obviously, if I could get my kills as usual, including the nanoship kills, while other people couldn't kill them, then they must have been doing something wrong. Maybe my ships were better fitted - I tend to spend a lot on my ships, tho it doesn't mean I fly faction all the time. Maybe my tactics were just better. But if I could do it, that means the game mechanics weren't "broken", that the ships weren't invulnerable.

Of course I would have very, very difficult time being convinced that the nanoships were invulnerable if I personally killed them on regular basis. I guess the only way to convince others would be to force them to fly with me, and see for themselves how it is done.

---

Originally by: TEK9

---

Originally by: TheLibrarian

---

Originally by: CCP Nozh

---

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.

---

I agree whole heatedly. The agility currently on TQ allows most fights to only happen when both sides are looking for a fight. This isn't good at all. People should be forced to fight. This is one of the best post I have read in a long time. I am glad you are going towards this! Because no matter what agility we have now, if we end up with an agility causing more fights. It is good for EVE as a whole.

---

/signed

However, it is clear from this thread (and previous ones on the same subject)that this is a bigger problem for those of us engaged in high-sec/low-sec PvP than it is for those in null-sec for the simple reason that we can't use bubbles.

The combination of increased agility, chronic gate lag, bigger gates and weaker webs has effectively meant that PvP is now generaly either consensual or consists of sitting outside Jita 4-4 ganking players who black screen.

I am therefore 100% supportive of the need to make some changes unless the intention is to move all meaningful non-consensual PvP to null-sec and leave Empire to the CareBears.

That said, I don't know what the best solution is because players do still need to be able to navigate through 0.0 without dying at every gate camp and blaster boats do need to be able to get into range and kill ships.

I am just very grateful that this issue is being reviewed.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

You're confusing 'can kill' with 'works within the designed framework'.

Example of working within the established game design: a battleship, or a battlecruiser, traditionally fit. All weapons work well against them, and their weapons work well when fit to them, in a traditional sense.

Traditionally fit cruisers are the same way. Traditional weapons work just fine.

When you have to build exotic fits and use extreme tactics to solve one specific problem due to a game design flaw (massive speed due to knock on effects of various modules) then it's a game design flaw.

---

Originally by: prefectro

---

So the big issue is we do not want this to be Consensual Eve Online. For low sec this makes sense to nerf the agility, but we have no problem with non-consensual pvp in nullsec where you got interdictors, heavy interdictors, bubbles, and fast locking inties. An agility nerf will make it that much harder for a small roaming gang to survive in nullsec. If we did do an agility nerf I would like to see it offset with a buff to speed. Personally, I feel the last speed nerf went way too far. Ships were drastically slowed down so even a 10% buff in speed would still be a lot slower then before the speed nerf.

---

Originally by: Space Pinata

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

You're confusing 'can kill' with 'works within the designed framework'.

Example of working within the established game design: a battleship, or a battlecruiser, traditionally fit. All weapons work well against them, and their weapons work well when fit to them, in a traditional sense.

Traditionally fit cruisers are the same way. Traditional weapons work just fine.

When you have to build exotic fits and use extreme tactics to solve one specific problem due to a game design flaw (massive speed due to knock on effects of various modules) then it's a game design flaw.

---

So your idea of "traditional" and "working game mechanics" are...

"If DPS > Tank then Ship Dies"?

Weapons aren't supposed to always work. It's why we have transversal, signature radius, EWar, etc...

I'll agree that the speed nerf was needed. (Mostly due to lack of variety rather than power. Every gang was a nano gang. Now we see frigate gangs, battleship gangs, and HAC gangs like before.) I think it was a bit excessive in some cases, though..

And the last thing we need are more nerfs.

Still, making someones weapons not work and trying to put yourself in a position where your own weapons do work.. that's the skill and challenge of pvp. Otherwise it's just focusing fire and seeing who has the tougher ships.

---

Originally by: Elene Shuiko

---

Please don't forget (or be hating) Interceptors. Those ships really need that agility and are supposed to be the fastest frigates out there.

---

Originally by: Raimo

---

Originally by: prefectro

---

So the big issue is we do not want this to be Consensual Eve Online. For low sec this makes sense to nerf the agility, but we have no problem with non-consensual pvp in nullsec where you got interdictors, heavy interdictors, bubbles, and fast locking inties. An agility nerf will make it that much harder for a small roaming gang to survive in nullsec. If we did do an agility nerf I would like to see it offset with a buff to speed. Personally, I feel the last speed nerf went way too far. Ships were drastically slowed down so even a 10% buff in speed would still be a lot slower then before the speed nerf.

---

Yet again, /signed.

---

Originally by: 5pinDizzy

---

"Only noobs and gankers camp gates in lowsec to kill stuff, yeees, welcome to gatecamp online, if they were real pvper's like us nullsec'ers they'd go to zero and put a bubble up somewhere and camp that instead."

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

stuff

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

Again, someone who is either too stupid to understand, or just being dense on purpose to ignore the points and continue on with their frivolous argument.

What I said in no way equates to "If DPS > Tank then Ship Dies". Transversal, sig radius, EW, all work within the confines of the intended game design. No game mechanic is broken or ignored. When a cruiser can do 14km/sec it breaks and therefor ignores various game mechanics there by making it completely invulnerable to things such as missiles, guns, drones, etc. Stop pretending it doesn't.

I can get in a frig and exploit the sig radius and tracking limitations of BS sized guns and use the game mechanics to my advantage. This is totally acceptable. I am not however completely invulnerable to all forms of attack because I'm operating outside of the intended design envelope.

Additionally, quite a few people seem to think that this change is going to affect their ship agility by 50% or something and their speed is going to be halved and all of a sudden they're going to die horrible deaths after the patch, where currently they're not. This is not the case.

---

Originally by: Space Pinata

---

The way I see it, unless interceptors are excluded, they'll still warp too fast to get locked.. but lose their combat efficiency. Same for most frigates. And then we'll be back to pre-QR where the only frigate pilots simply lack SP for tech2 cruisers..yay, variety.

---

Originally by: Space Pinata

---

Quoting someone who was either a noob pre-QR, didn't play at all, or didn't PVP at all. Your knowledge of nanoships clearly comes from what you read on the forums..

---

Originally by: Space Pinata

---

Because you're describing a multibillion ISK ship, fully faction fit and rigged, with all level five skills, a set of snake implants, overheating, with a maxed out claymore in the system as "every cruiser".

---