| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 18 post(s) |
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy
The Unthinkables
96
   |
Posted - 2013.10.03 09:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
I like the change in the warp mechanic, but I am less convinced about the warp speeds assigned to each ship type. I have a feeling that the change is somewhat over the top. Flying from one end of the universe to the other in a travel fit interceptor will now be almost as fast as when you use a cyno chain with a capital. Travel will be more about loading grid than it will be about flying your spaceship in space. An interceptor doesn't require this much speed to overtake its target.
On the other end of the spectrum the proposal is causing problems as well. Freighter speeds must be adjusted to avoid people not being able to make a warp between downtimes. But people complain about battleships as well. Just wait for the threadnoughts when this goes live. People will have plenty of time to post on the forums during warps.
I also noticed that in the new design the steps between each ship type are not all the same. Especially the gap between tech II cruisers and destroyers is large while the roles were reversed before.
I played around with it in a spreadsheet and came up with an alternative list which keeps Freighters at roughly the same average warp times as now, softens the nerf to the larger subcaps and made the faster ships less amazing, but still kept the interceptor twice as fast as a battleship on short warps and 3x as fast on long warps. This is more than enough to fullfil its role.
I used a base value of 2 for Freighters and increased this with 10% in each step. The warp speeds I calculated this way are shown below with between () the current and guestimated alternative warp times for a 50 AU warp:
Freighter/Titan 2 (95/62 GåÆ 69)
JF/Other Caps 2,2 (95/62 GåÆ 63)
Bs 2,4 (47 GåÆ 58)
Bs II 2,7 (47 GåÆ 52)
BC 2,9 (47 GåÆ 48)
BC II 3,2 (47 GåÆ 44)
Cr 3,5 (47 GåÆ 40)
Cr II/DST 3,9 (44/47 GåÆ 37)
De 4,3 (47 GåÆ 34)
Fr 4,7 (39 GåÆ 31)
Fr II 5,2 (39 GåÆ 28)
De II/BR 5,7 (47/37 GåÆ 25)
Int 6,3 (37/36 GåÆ 23) |
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy
The Unthinkables
96
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Natasha Love wrote:For the love of god, don't make the freighters even slower than they already are...
It's already a huge pain in the ass to do logistics and I don't see why you should hurt the people who do so much for all the other players even more...
I also don't see why a freighter should be the slowest ship to warp as there are other ships which are significantly bigger and have more mass (titans, supercaps, dreads and carriers)
I'm somewhat surprised people haven't complained yet about Orca's which seems to go from 2.7 AU to 1.5. "Ok, guys bonusses will be down for a few minutes while I warp to that next belt."
|
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy
The Unthinkables
96
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 11:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lifelongnoob wrote:Natasha Love wrote:according to the new table Freighters are going to warp 1.33 AU/s and Jump Freighters 1.5AU/s - so there is a 75-100% increase in warp speed ;) sweet :)
But due to the change in mechanics it will actually take longer to travel the average warp even with double the warp speed. |
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy
The Unthinkables
96
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 11:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ow and mining barges and exhumers... Currently 6 AU/s, I wonder if that will remain the same? If so, can we please get tackle bonus on the Skiff and Procurer instead of mining bonusses as it'll be a great heavy interceptor. |
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy
The Unthinkables
96
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 15:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
BloodMia wrote:...
The bigger the ship is the greater the align time will affect the difference. That's why I think it would be wise to adjust the re-balance curve more toward the already fast ship and let heaviers practically untouched! By including align time in the process, you can still keep a big enough delta between, let's say, inty and bs, while not letting already slowspacetruck become more boring!
Ultimately, why is there any "warp acceleration/deceleration", align times on their own must be enough to make the difference. Why not just having an mechanism which allows to instant top the warp speed as soon you enter in warp(pretty much like when you jump with a cap through the jump tunnel - strartrek like "blink" away).
I've the feeling that you want to accentuate a behavior (fast ship travel faster) that is already implemented (align time / warp speed) but miss-compensated by the weird "warp acceleration issue"!
The key is the total travel time:
Now: align time (well balanced) + warp accel. (issue) + warp time (ballanced) + deceleration (issue)
After: align time (ignored in the calculation) + warp accel. / warp time / decel. (some sort of jiggering)
Ideal: align time (the "acceleration phase" - 75-80% speed needed to enter warp) + warp speed (balanced)
No need to add a second acceleration phase in an already "too long" process in a capsuleer life, namely "the travel time"
I've been looking at that part as well. When a ship alligns, he alligns to at least 75% of his maximum velocity. The moment he enters warp his speed is reset to 0 and the warp calculation starts with an accelleration from 0. It would already make a significant difference if ships started their warp accelleration from their pre-warp speed. That way fast ships accellerate from a higher starting point than slower ships (capitals) and the 'some sort of jiggering' doesn't need to be this extreme. Ofcourse we could have a much better discussion about the 'jiggering' if CCP told us how it worked. |
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy
The Unthinkables
96
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 23:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Quote:Most T2 ships will be slightly faster than their T1 versions (more if their role demands it) to reflect their more advanced construction.
I think this is wrong. T2 ships should be designed to be better suited for specific roles and not be better in a miriad of ways to the point that they make T1 ships absolete. The recently rebalanced HACs are making other ships obsolete in a combat role (battlecruisers and battleships). This change will increase that. HACs need a stronger and more suitable role-specific bonus (reduced mass addition when fitting AB/MWD?) and at the same time be nerfed in their general capabilities. It may be argued that faster warp speeds makes many T2 cruisers more suitable for their roles, but I don't see this for the T2 battleships. Also bombers for instance should be able to outrun battleships and don't really need much more than that. As they fit overseized weapons it would make sense if they were relatively slow for a frigate which then makes other small ships more suitable as a counter. I wouldn't mind seeing T1 interceptors warp at the same speed as AFs or even Interdictors. |
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy
The Unthinkables
100
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 09:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
With the update (nerf) to the proposed interdictor warp speed, there is also room to adjust the warp speed of other fast ships. E.g. cov ops could drop to 8 and still be faster than interdictors, Interceptors could drop to 9 (and still be overpowered). |
| |
|