| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tom Gerard
   |
Posted - 2010.10.11 01:58:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Tom Gerard on 11/10/2010 02:00:02
Edited by: Tom Gerard on 11/10/2010 01:59:38
Proof of Concept Video
The video is proof of concept, the creation of the bookmarks is simple, head directly out from the gate, align yourself so with the Tactical overview your comming straight out, if you have the gate highlighted the line should follow your distance numbers perfectly. Adjust your height, and MWD 500Km off the gate.
Next time you jump through warp to your bookmark.
Enjoy getting off the gate a little bit faster =)
Point of Caution: You can make a bookmark backwards, I did this a few times, you always want to go in the direction of the Billboard at the gate, as that is the direction you will be facing. Do it wrong and you'll have to do a 180 to get to your bookmark.
|
Aiwha
Caldari
101st Space Marine Force
Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 02:24:00 -
[2]
This has been a standard bookmark tactic for years. And you dont even need to do that. when you jump through a gate, you are always pointing in the same general direction relative to the gate, just in a big sphere around it. Jump a gate, wait for your ship to finish settling after the jump. Hit the MWD. Bookmark.
Highsec, lowsec, nullsec. Only bubble stop me. In a Tengu, not even that.
I like me
Senior Recruiter |
Paknac Queltel
Swords Horses and Heavy Metal
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 06:52:00 -
[3]
Odd... This goes against the physics as they are currently known. A ship that's just jumped through should have no specific alignment.
How many times did you test this? Was it always exactly 6.1%? How did you measure the time?
-
Paknac Queltel
|
Lothris Andastar
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 06:55:00 -
[4]
You know that Gates are special in that no matter WHAT you warp too, you always take the same amount of time to align (so long as you don't manually move or decloak first)...
Right?
|
Dario Wall
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 07:02:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Lothris Andastar
You know that Gates are special in that no matter WHAT you warp too, you always take the same amount of time to align (so long as you don't manually move or decloak first)...
Right?
I would love if more people would actually learn that. Starting from 0m/sec will get you the same alignment time no matter which direction you are facing, because EVE checked your directional velocity and not the direction of the model. I've lost track of how many times I have had my ship enter warp sideways because it was aligned faster than the model could rotate.
Also, the OP really needs to not cross post this in every forum section.
|
cyndrogen
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 07:05:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Lothris Andastar
You know that Gates are special in that no matter WHAT you warp too, you always take the same amount of time to align (so long as you don't manually move or decloak first)...
Right?
There is a little trick to warp away faster if you're not in a SB or covert ship. With my hauler I fit an AB and a cloak. When you JUMP through a gate begin to align to your next point and right away hit the cloak and activate the ab.
When your AB reaches 75% of cycle turn it off and turn off your cloak, very quickly hit the warp button. As the AB runs out it will give you a "KICK" to your warp speed and you should warp much faster.
|
Nareg Maxence
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 07:25:00 -
[7]
"This new learning amazes me!"
|
Paknac Queltel
Swords Horses and Heavy Metal
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 07:27:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Dario Wall
Originally by: Lothris Andastar
You know that Gates are special in that no matter WHAT you warp too, you always take the same amount of time to align (so long as you don't manually move or decloak first)...
Right?
I would love if more people would actually learn that. Starting from 0m/sec will get you the same alignment time no matter which direction you are facing, because EVE checked your directional velocity and not the direction of the model. I've lost track of how many times I have had my ship enter warp sideways because it was aligned faster than the model could rotate.
Also, the OP really needs to not cross post this in every forum section.
All very well for us to know this, but perhaps CCP broke it.
Though the 2 tests in the Youtube clip (that may or may not be hand-picked) are not enough to convince me that there isn't just some lag there, or measurement error.
-
Paknac Queltel
|
Enkill Eridos
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 07:40:00 -
[9]
Your speed and agility is what effects your align time not gates. Bookmarking is easier because it is just a right click away. 6.1% seems to be right. If you factor in bubbles, assuming the reader doesn't have any experience in low or null, for someone coming out of high sec to low/null it is a good technique to learn and master.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 08:02:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Lothris Andastar
You know that Gates are special in that no matter WHAT you warp too, you always take the same amount of time to align (so long as you don't manually move or decloak first)...
Right?
Gates arent special, it is always true if you arent moving that the direction your ship is pointing at is irrelevant. Technically you might only be not moving at all when jumping through gate, cyno, etc, due to exponential decrease in speed (ie you never reach exactly zero by slowing down), but it comes close enough.
|
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 08:32:00 -
[11]
You need to repeat that test another 100û1000 times.
As others have stated, turn-around time is not a factor when warping from 0m/s if the game physics are working the way they should. You're suggesting that they aren't, but a single test isn't enough to say anything on the matter.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tom Gerard
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 15:11:00 -
[12]
What wasn't in the video?
- I ran both ships 15 times each test
- Thats 2 ships x 2 tests each x 15, That was 60 warp trips, not to mention the 60 warp trips required to return to the original gate.
- 120 warp cycles is about as much as I can stand to test this theory
Fittings:
- Condor had tackle/standards missiles/warp disruptor/beta overdrive/mwd
- Badger had 3x 400mm rei steel plates to reduce align times, this was consistant through all tests
I didn't figure anyone would want to sit through a hour long youtube marathon of ship warping. I suppose I underestimated my audience.
Watch it Again
Finally, if something is wrong with thte game mechanics, its not my fault, if it bothers you make a post in the bug reporting forum.
|
Barakkus
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 15:40:00 -
[13]
Pointing your ship in one direction doesn't do crap for getting to warp faster, you will take the exact same amount of time to enter warp when you are not moving whether or not your ship is pointing in the direction of the warp.
I had this arguement in the EVE radio channel a few months back during hulkageddon, I couldn't believe how many "veteran" players were convinced that you warp faster if your ship was pointing at the destination but at a full stop. Everyone seemed to think that "being aligned" meant simply pointing your ship at your destination.
The only thing that will make you enter warp slower is if you are not at a full stop then try to align to something, you will have to wait to decellerate then accelerate towards your destination.
The reason instas work at undocks is because you're already traveling at full speed when you leave the station, so there's no waiting to get up to 75% speed to enter warp.
The only reason I can think of as to why you see a 1 second difference in warp time with that hauler is latency, or just hitting your stop watch a fraction of a second slower :P
Originally by: captain foivos
Who would recruit someone named Barakkus?
Wait a minute...
|
ROXGenghis
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 15:58:00 -
[14]
This is a classic case of science being used to test conventional wisdom. "Everybody knows" (including me) that if you're not moving then you'll align equally fast in all directions.
Now here comes evidence, using repeated trials, that indicates the conventional wisdom is not true.
The question for each of us is: what will you do next? Dismiss the evidence because it clashes with our conventional wisdom? Try it out ourselves to see if it is true? Ignore the whole thing because ignorance is bliss?
|
Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 16:41:00 -
[15]
1) Get two identical ships with low agility (plated battleships). Make sure the ship fitting and pilot skills are really identical.
2) Position both in an Interdictor (or HIC) bubble placed directly in line between two celestials.
3) Align each ship to one of the celestials and have them go to full stop. Make sure they are still in the bubble.
4) Have someone else (could be the dictor pilot) target both ships.
5) Both pilots start spamming "warp to" to the same celestial. This means one will be trying to warp "forwards" and one "backwards".
6) The interdictor drops the bubble, making both ships start to warp at the same time.
7) The observer watches if he loses lock on one of the ships significantly sooner than the other as they warp out.
___________
EVE is dying! Now for real! |
Aerilis
Gallente
Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 17:02:00 -
[16]
As others have stated, the long standing assumption is that your position in Eve is a vector. That is, a direction and speed. Without speed, you don't have a direction, and thus you are facing all directions and no directions at once, regardless of which direction your ship is actually facing.
Now, if extensive, reproducible testing shows otherwise, I'd be willing to change my opinion, but a youtube video of two hastily done tests does not convince me.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 17:42:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Tippia on 11/10/2010 17:44:00
Originally by: ROXGenghis
The question for each of us is: what will you do next?
Simple: improve the method to see if the measurement can be repeatedly and predictably pushed well beyond the margin of error.
First step would be to use a ship that has a >40s align time from stand-still.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Barakkus
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 21:30:00 -
[18]
Originally by: ROXGenghis
This is a classic case of science being used to test conventional wisdom. "Everybody knows" (including me) that if you're not moving then you'll align equally fast in all directions.
Now here comes evidence, using repeated trials, that indicates the conventional wisdom is not true.
The question for each of us is: what will you do next? Dismiss the evidence because it clashes with our conventional wisdom? Try it out ourselves to see if it is true? Ignore the whole thing because ignorance is bliss?
You know there's a dev post around here explaining align mechanics, and he stated you will take the same amount of time to align and enter warp regardless what direction your ship is facing from a dead stop.
If the search function was actually useful I'd attempt to look it up.
Originally by: captain foivos
Who would recruit someone named Barakkus?
Wait a minute...
|
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 21:38:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Barakkus
Originally by: ROXGenghis
You know there's a dev post around here explaining align mechanics, and he stated you will take the same amount of time to align and enter warp regardless what direction your ship is facing from a dead stop.
If the search function was actually useful I'd attempt to look it up.
To be fair you have to factor in that CCP often has no idea wtf they're talking about, even when it comes to their own game. Most egregious example I can think of being the statement that sensor strength does not affect jamming chance from NPCs, when this has been proven via extensive testing to be false. |
ROXGenghis
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 21:44:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Barakkus
Originally by: ROXGenghis
This is a classic case of science being used to test conventional wisdom. "Everybody knows" (including me) that if you're not moving then you'll align equally fast in all directions.
Now here comes evidence, using repeated trials, that indicates the conventional wisdom is not true.
The question for each of us is: what will you do next? Dismiss the evidence because it clashes with our conventional wisdom? Try it out ourselves to see if it is true? Ignore the whole thing because ignorance is bliss?
You know there's a dev post around here explaining align mechanics, and he stated you will take the same amount of time to align and enter warp regardless what direction your ship is facing from a dead stop.
If the search function was actually useful I'd attempt to look it up.
Yes, I know. Conventional wisdom is what the dev post says. The question you're now faced with is how do you react to evidence that the dev post may be wrong?
Of my three choices, you appear to have selected #1 (specifically, "appeal to authority"). This indicates that you believe that devs are infallible, or that the universe does not change.
|
|
|
Azimota
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 00:48:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Abdiel Kavash
1) Get two identical ships with low agility (plated battleships). Make sure the ship fitting and pilot skills are really identical.
2) Position both in an Interdictor (or HIC) bubble placed directly in line between two celestials.
3) Align each ship to one of the celestials and have them go to full stop. Make sure they are still in the bubble.
4) Have someone else (could be the dictor pilot) target both ships.
5) Both pilots start spamming "warp to" to the same celestial. This means one will be trying to warp "forwards" and one "backwards".
6) The interdictor drops the bubble, making both ships start to warp at the same time.
7) The observer watches if he loses lock on one of the ships significantly sooner than the other as they warp out.
... or you could just have someone fleet warp them instead.
|
Tom Gerard
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 01:28:00 -
[22]
Proof of Concept Video 2
I don't have a ship that takes 40seconds to align, the closest I could get to was a drake that aligns at 39.95s according to EVEhq.
I accomplished this by fitting:
- 1x 100mn afterburner i
- 2x 800mm rei steel plate
- 1x 200mm rei steel plate
- 1x 100mm rei steel plate
The use of the afterburner will certainly affect the results and cannot be compared to the original test. However, I provided them for reference.
I suppose I shall need to train a battleship to resolve this 'Mystery of New Eden'
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 02:04:00 -
[23]
you do realize, that you couldve just cut it down to 14ish seconds (depending on afterburner skill) by just turning OFF the afterburner?
Doesnt that save you a good deal more time than messing around with bookmarks?
|
Azimota
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 02:26:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Lance Fighter
you do realize, that you couldve just cut it down to 14ish seconds (depending on afterburner skill) by just turning OFF the afterburner?
Doesnt that save you a good deal more time than messing around with bookmarks?
you do realize that he was trying to determine whether or not the direction he was facing had any effect on alignment/warp time?
Doesn't reading before you post save you a good deal more making yourself look like an idiot?
|
Lanais Suleia
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 03:33:00 -
[25]
Use a freighter to test.
Originally by: Cambarus
To be fair you have to factor in that CCP often has no idea wtf they're talking about, even when it comes to their own game. Most egregious example I can think of being the statement that sensor strength does not affect jamming chance from NPCs, when this has been proven via extensive testing to be false.
Not arguing with your assertion that CCP are often wrong about their own game, but where's this jamming strength test? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 05:30:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Tippia on 12/10/2010 05:31:34
Originally by: Tom Gerard
Proof of Concept Video 2
So even with that, it's still well within the margin of error ù in fact, it's more in line with the mathematical model than ever before, rather than the 2+ seconds we would have expected from your bookmark hypothesis.
Hmmà
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Paknac Queltel
Swords Horses and Heavy Metal
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 05:53:00 -
[27]
I'll have my Orca alt run some tests after work, just in case the afterburner did somehow influence the results. Which I doubt, but it would hardly be scientific to dismiss it out of hand.
I'd say that the timings so far do indeed seem to be within the margin of error.
-
Paknac Queltel
|
Tom Gerard
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 06:52:00 -
[28]
Proof of Concept Video 3
The Concept
Start Anywhere, Bookmark A
Warp Anywhere, Mid-warp Bookmark B
Upon Arrival, Bookmark C
C to A Warp Perfect 180 misalignment
A to B (Misaligned Test)
B to C (Perfect Align)
-- HermanGamer
|
Paknac Queltel
Swords Horses and Heavy Metal
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 08:22:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tom Gerard
Proof of Concept Video 3
The Concept
Start Anywhere, Bookmark A
Warp Anywhere, Mid-warp Bookmark B
Upon Arrival, Bookmark C
C to A Warp Perfect 180 misalignment
A to B (Misaligned Test)
B to C (Perfect Align)
-- HermanGamer
210 milliseconds difference is well within margin of error.
-
Paknac Queltel
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 09:10:00 -
[30]
àalso, how do you measure the time?
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |