Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 18 post(s) |
Alkyria Decile
Delstar Corp
7
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 07:57:00 -
[121] - Quote
Altrue wrote:First, thanks for finally changing this mechanic ! You rock !
Now about the changes themselves, they are pretty good... EXCEPT !
1- Attack BC should warp faster than other BCs imo.
2- Where is the orca on your chart ? Capital ship ? (If yes, this is a very bad idea imo :D)
3- You killed my rigged 20Au/sec travel rapooooor :-( (because his base warp speed will now be 10 au /sec if I read the chart correctly)
A 10 au/sec ship in rubicon will smoke a 20 Au/sec ship currently in any warp under 50 Au if my estimates based on the charts are correct. In fact i bet rigged out it would probably beat any ship under the current system at almost any feasible warp distance. Look at the big picture
Edit- And 50% longer warp times for battleships? Its already pretty boring to move them around more than a system or 2, please consider a smaller reduction in warp speeds for large ships. It already takes substantially longer just to get into warp for the larger ships, they don't need to warp for ages as well 8/ |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2392
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 08:38:00 -
[122] - Quote
You know, if you implemented the previously suggested Don't show in local until you break your gatecloak amendment alongside this, you'll have gone a long way towards fixing the 'Local as intel tool' argument since the window of opportunity for potential targets to spot a hostile scout in local and get to safety before they land on grid will be greatly diminished.
Just thought I'd drop that thought in here. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Darling Hassasin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 08:45:00 -
[123] - Quote
This change will bring a lot of nailbiting...
I mean you are an inty pilot and as you land at the gate you see a BS warping of towards two gates near each other (or celectials or wahtever).
Assuming a 50au warp, once you land you will have to wait lol almost a minute to know if you guessed right... fun times :D |
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1234
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 09:02:00 -
[124] - Quote
Any chance we could get freighter rigs to help compensate for the slowdown since most star systems aren't beneficially huge?
Or a couple low power slots would be nice. Let freighter pilots decide between bulkheads/DCUs, cargo space, or agility. Maybe lower base capacity to balance it out. |
Goran Konjich
Imperial Collective
67
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 09:03:00 -
[125] - Quote
Ok thats sorted, now please drones and stuff. I'm a diplomat. Sometimes i throw 425mm wide briefcases at enemy. Such is EVE. |
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
20
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 09:07:00 -
[126] - Quote
Question:
In Rubicon, the "WarpSpeedMultiplier" will now affect warp speed acceleration. Why was this parameter chosen, instead of making SHIP MASS affect acceleration? |
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1234
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 09:11:00 -
[127] - Quote
Marian Devers wrote:Question:
In Rubicon, the "WarpSpeedMultiplier" will now affect warp speed acceleration. Why was this parameter chosen, instead of making SHIP MASS affect acceleration?
I would like to see this too since it makes sense, but I'm guessing it is because they use mass as a balancing factor rather often and they probably feel like tying something else onto it will make it hard to adjust the stat without unintended side effects. |
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy The Unthinkables
96
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 09:43:00 -
[128] - 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) |
Vdr
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
5
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 09:52:00 -
[129] - Quote
While i like the new changes unless CCP`s intent is to almost kill off nullsec mining Grav sites will have to go back into scanned sigs. There is no way that a hulk can warp out before a interceptor lands on grid even in an ideal situation.
how will this be countered?
|
Natasha Love
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 09:56:00 -
[130] - Quote
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)
Maybe you should introduce another skill bonus on freighters which makes their acceleration faster.
In total I think overall the changes make sense as the less mass you have the faster you should accelerate but I really hoped that freighters weren't going to be so much slower... |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
535
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:00:00 -
[131] - Quote
Vdr wrote:While i like the new changes unless CCP`s intent is to almost kill off nullsec mining Grav sites will have to go back into scanned sigs. There is no way that a hulk can warp out before a interceptor lands on grid even in an ideal situation.
how will this be countered?
By payign attention in intel channels and having people patrolling to detect hostiles? You know its BAD mechanics that alliances can keep huge empires while having people awake only in 3-4 systems.
This is one of the best things of this expansion. Want to have 0.0 economical activities safe from interceptors and pos siphon? THen SPREAD YOUR POPULATION .. and have a daily basis organiation effort, not only answer to the blob call every 6 months. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
535
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:01:00 -
[132] - 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)
Maybe you should introduce another skill bonus on freighters which makes their acceleration faster.
In total I think overall the changes make sense as the less mass you have the faster you should accelerate but I really hoped that freighters weren't going to be so much slower...
Because those are COMBAT ships. Same way that a Nimitz carrier can move WAY faster than a cargo ship.. .even being heavier. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
60
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:03:00 -
[133] - Quote
Awesome changes. My uber travel fit inti will be greased lightning.
Gotta say though the freighter stats need looking at.
Given that warp distances across systems tend very largelly to be in the 10 - 30 au range you have effectivelly double the warp transit times for these vessels.
It would be nicer I think to see a warp speed modifier the same as bs on these ships.
How about a table showing estimated travel times before and after for ships on a standard run lets say between Jita and Oursulaert assuming no modification to align time or warp speed.
|
Retmas
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:08:00 -
[134] - Quote
Vdr wrote:While i like the new changes unless CCP`s intent is to almost kill off nullsec mining Grav sites will have to go back into scanned sigs. There is no way that a hulk can warp out before a interceptor lands on grid even in an ideal situation.
how will this be countered?
a thousand times this.
Vdr and i joinly run indy for our corp, and, besides our miners themselves flat out refusing to mine in nullsec anymore due to the sheer dangers, i'm not comfortable sending them out anymore in the first place.
CCP, i seriously question if you're paying attention to the changes made even in oddessy. i cannot stress this enough - no miner with a scrap of sense will be found in nullsec after these changes. period.
it takes sixteen seconds for a hulk to align. a ceptor gang can be on top of you, in a 40 AU system, in about 14. ASSUMING perfect reactions by the miners. keeping a scout in another system is possible - if the scout is able to stare at the screen for hours on end.
i love the idea of nullified ceptors. but you've stripped the last defense from any sort of exhumer in null, and frankly they have ltitle enough going for them as stands.
and for those pvpers who want to claim "just put a scout next door" - you're telling me that a pvper can get in a single ship, by himself, and go, by himself, about his business and actually have fun, but a miner needs to run six accounts to even be bothered undocking? (one boost, one hauler, at least one scout, three exhumers.) this is unacceptable, especially when we're talking about something that you need to do for many hours on end to be profitable, and that is extraordinarily boring.
i once read a quote from miss seagull - "Enablers are the people who make the logistics for these large-scale things actually work. ... And we kind of have a history of treating these people likeGǪ****. We put these people through a lot of painful, unnecessary work."
it's the goddamn truth, and i have yet to see any sort of design decision changing that fact.
ahh, but inb4 mods claiming "this isnt the right thread for this."
i'll put a more constructive post up when it's not 6AM and i've slept, but the tl:dr of it will be - put grav sites back in sigs, or dont be surprised when nullsec mining (i.e. your source for all highend minerals - zydrine, megacyte, morphite) comes to a screeching halt. |
Lifelongnoob
The Motley Crew Reborn End of Life
13
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:19:00 -
[135] - Quote
hi Fozzie
while you are tweaking warp speeds can u please increase the warp speed of freighters/jump freighters.
0.75au/s is just too slow.. even a warp speed of 1.5au/s would make life a bit easier for freighter pilots. then we freighter pilots can offer next day delivery services :P
if supers can warp at higher speeds then there should be no reason why freighters / jump freighters cant |
Roime
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
3541
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:27:00 -
[136] - Quote
Retmas wrote:Vdr wrote:While i like the new changes unless CCP`s intent is to almost kill off nullsec mining Grav sites will have to go back into scanned sigs. There is no way that a hulk can warp out before a interceptor lands on grid even in an ideal situation.
how will this be countered?
a thousand times this. Vdr and i joinly run indy for our corp, and, besides our miners themselves flat out refusing to mine in nullsec anymore due to the sheer dangers, i'm not comfortable sending them out anymore in the first place. CCP, i seriously question if you're paying attention to the changes made even in oddessy. i cannot stress this enough - no miner with a scrap of sense will be found in nullsec after these changes. period. it takes sixteen seconds for a hulk to align. a ceptor gang can be on top of you, in a 40 AU system, in about 14. ASSUMING perfect reactions by the miners. keeping a scout in another system is possible - if the scout is able to stare at the screen for hours on end. i love the idea of nullified ceptors. but you've stripped the last defense from any sort of exhumer in null, and frankly they have ltitle enough going for them as stands. and for those pvpers who want to claim "just put a scout next door" - you're telling me that a pvper can get in a single ship, by himself, and go, by himself, about his business and actually have fun, but a miner needs to run six accounts to even be bothered undocking? (one boost, one hauler, at least one scout, three exhumers.) this is unacceptable, especially when we're talking about something that you need to do for many hours on end to be profitable, and that is extraordinarily boring. i once read a quote from miss seagull - "Enablers are the people who make the logistics for these large-scale things actually work. ... And we kind of have a history of treating these people likeGǪ****. We put these people through a lot of painful, unnecessary work." it's the goddamn truth, and i have yet to see any sort of design decision changing that fact. ahh, but inb4 mods claiming "this isnt the right thread for this." i'll put a more constructive post up when it's not 6AM and i've slept, but the tl:dr of it will be - put grav sites back in sigs, or dont be surprised when nullsec mining (i.e. your source for all highend minerals - zydrine, megacyte, morphite) comes to a screeching halt.
A miner who is ATK is aligned. You can let the inty get on grid before warping to safety.
This does hurt botting adn isBotter operations, you are correct. More profits for the rest.
Notify-á-á You cannot do that while warping. |
Jasmine Assasin
State War Academy Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:34:00 -
[137] - Quote
Retmas wrote:
a thousand times this.
Vdr and i joinly run indy for our corp, and, besides our miners themselves flat out refusing to mine in nullsec anymore due to the sheer dangers, i'm not comfortable sending them out anymore in the first place.
snipped for brevity
Get a skiff, put a cyno on it. When someone "intercepts" you in the site/belt/etc, pop the cyno...watch said interceptor bug out faster than you can type "LOL" in local.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
878
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:35:00 -
[138] - Quote
Retmas wrote:it takes sixteen seconds for a hulk to align. a ceptor gang can be on top of you, in a 40 AU system, in about 14. ASSUMING perfect reactions by the miners. keeping a scout in another system is possible - if the scout is able to stare at the screen for hours on end.
Oh come on. Fit nanos, use a more agile miner or put a scout next door. You don't need to stare at a screen, all you need is to be able to hear a gateflash, and then have your miners warp to a few hundred km tactical so they don't waste time panic-warping 20 AU to POS/station every time a friendly jumps in but forgets to announce it in intel.
Anyway, if you're right and null mining and supply of high-ends do crash, what do you think will happen to the prices of those high-ends? You should be looking at this as an opportunity to outcompete inferior alliances' miners. |
Natasha Love
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:41:00 -
[139] - Quote
Lifelongnoob wrote:hi Fozzie
while you are tweaking warp speeds can u please increase the warp speed of freighters/jump freighters.
0.75au/s is just too slow.. even a warp speed of 1.5au/s would make life a bit easier for freighter pilots. then we freighter pilots can offer next day delivery services :P
if supers can warp at higher speeds then there should be no reason why freighters / jump freighters cant
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 ;) |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
60
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:42:00 -
[140] - Quote
I think the covert ops is too fast both current and intended.
Interceptor should be fastest.
covert ops and combat inti to 9au, keep the tackle inti at 10au for differentiation.
|
|
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy The Unthinkables
96
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:49:00 -
[141] - 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."
|
Vulfen
Snuff Box
62
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:52:00 -
[142] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Helicity Boson wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Liam Inkuras wrote:So are you saying, that I can actually intercept in my interceptor now? I know, crazy isn't it? :) To rephrase: "So are you saying, that I can actually intercept in my interceptor now?* " *unless you're a lowsec pirate What would be the problem here? Gate guns? If that's the case this won't make things any worse and I think it opens up opportunities, for catching people on celestials and such.
For low sec think more along the lines of Cov ops setup to warp quickly, you spot a gang, warping off gate ur guys are sitting on a titan or in their blops BS, you see where they are going and go after them, you land first, jump before they land, light cyno, catch everything possible as it jumps in unsuspectingly because the scout has moved to next system |
Lifelongnoob
The Motley Crew Reborn End of Life
13
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:58:00 -
[143] - Quote
Natasha Love wrote:Lifelongnoob wrote:hi Fozzie
while you are tweaking warp speeds can u please increase the warp speed of freighters/jump freighters.
0.75au/s is just too slow.. even a warp speed of 1.5au/s would make life a bit easier for freighter pilots. then we freighter pilots can offer next day delivery services :P
if supers can warp at higher speeds then there should be no reason why freighters / jump freighters cant 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 :) |
Zappity
Kurved Space
486
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 11:03:00 -
[144] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: The average time it takes me to warp from gate to your anomaly just got lowered from 30s to 11s. Now, if we could only get a 5-10s delay to "load grid" when entering a system before seeing & showing up in local, I'll never complain about local being used as an intel system again!
Oh yes please! Just a 10 second delay would be great. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy The Unthinkables
96
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 11:08:00 -
[145] - 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. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Easily Offended
111
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 11:52:00 -
[146] - Quote
Lifelongnoob wrote:Natasha Love wrote:Lifelongnoob wrote:hi Fozzie
while you are tweaking warp speeds can u please increase the warp speed of freighters/jump freighters.
0.75au/s is just too slow.. even a warp speed of 1.5au/s would make life a bit easier for freighter pilots. then we freighter pilots can offer next day delivery services :P
if supers can warp at higher speeds then there should be no reason why freighters / jump freighters cant 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 :) Which helps very little. The break even for a warp to take the same time before and after the changes is around 80au. Everything below that will have a longer time in warp.
I've posted some numbers for my usual freighter route a few pages earlier, and I'll see around 18% more time in warp - but that is because the route has two >100au warps in it. If I take those two out, the majority of what I'm left with is basically the Rens-Jita route. And without those two accelerated warps, it is an additional 8 minutes or roughly a 28% increase in time spent in warp.
The >80au warps have been accelerated to not make them prohibitive, when the <80au warps will actually be what makes them prohibitive, as those are 97% of the usecase. A friend who had a data dump ready found 22 empire systems with a diameter of more than 100au yesterday. Having seen neither his math nor his queries, that number can be true or false and should be taken with a few grains of salt. But the number feels like it is in the correct ballpark.
Sadly, there are no alternatives to freighters for bulk hauling, freighter Pilots can not switch to a new meta. So the numbers won't reflect a bad change since usage won't change and the change will be considered a success for freighters as well. When in reality it's a case of Quote:the opposite of "good" is "meant well". I've seen a lot of complaints about freighters over the years on these forums; I can't remember them being to fast being one of them.
Also to the people talking about the grav sites, this does not change how fast your Hulk enters warp. You will just be in warp longer. |
El 1974
Freedom For Fantasy The Unthinkables
96
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 11:55:00 -
[147] - 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. |
BloodMia
Pulsar Inc. Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 12:31:00 -
[148] - Quote
Tragedy wrote:Caldari 5 wrote:Am I reading this correctly a Freighter will take 22seconds to warp 150Km? My Interceptor does about 5.3Km/s, which means that it can do 150Km in 28.3seconds, I'm sure that there are some Interceptors that can do better, but this Freighter speed is only just faster than an Interceptors SubWarp Speed :P Because of the accel and deceleration times. Just think of a loaded semi truck vs a formula 1 car. That example is basically pure accel and decel, yeah the inty/formula 1 car is gonna smoke it, it wont be so bad for a freighter travelling several AU.
The way bigger align time on his own make a difference on start to stop travel from a point A to a point B. All this tables are purely showing the effective warp time, but we need to keep in mind the total travel time, including align time. Big ship are already heavily penalized with their mass/align time link.
Based on that observation, I think the changes are too pronounced. The extreme become too affected because of the already big align time difference.
Align Time (all V / no implant) Inty: = ~3s Freighter: ~36s => 12x slower
Travel Time Before: Inty: 33+3 = 36s Freighter: 55+36 = 91s => 2.75x slower (1.8x slower w/o align time)
After: Inty: 12+3 = 15s Freighter: 80+36 = 116s => 7.7x slower (6.6x slower w/o align time)
They are already 12x slower to align, and already ~3x slower in warp After, freighter will become 6.6x slower in warp than inty!
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 (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 add a behavior (fast ship travel faster) that is already implemented (align time / warp speed) but miss-compensated by the weird "warp acceleration issue"!
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" - 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" |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
907
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 12:48:00 -
[149] - Quote
can we get a low slot module that increases warp speed? like a nano. Maybe add this as an effect to the overdrive module. It makes sense that a module that increases warp speed will reduce your cargohold. Also, almost 100% of the time a nano is better than the overdrive injector. Making it affect warp speed as well would give an interesting choice between align time and slower max speed with very fast max speed, longer align time, but faster warps.
The reason I ask this is because it basically prohibits armor ships from increasing their warp speed through the hyperspatial velocity optimizer rigs, since those reduce your max armor.
(Can we take off the penalties on electronics rigs for shield or and navigation rigs for armor? It makes it so those rigs are impossible to use for certain ships, which is bad design. By using navigation rigs on an armor ship you are already not getting the armor bonus of trimarks, that's enough of a negative effect. By using electronics rigs on a shield ship you are already not getting shield extender or resistance bonuses. Once again, enough negative effects, doesn't need to reduce tank even more.) |
Andy Koraka
PonyWaffe Insidious Empire
14
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 12:52:00 -
[150] - Quote
The main issue I have with the changes is the huge quality of life Nerf battleships arr receiving. When you add in 10% TiDi (read: any relevant nullsec warfare) the 20au warp time on a battleship jumps from an excruciating 6 minutes all the way up to 9 minutes. When I can enter warp, walk to the store and buy a 6 pack, and still be in warp when I return it's too long.
Combined with the mobile cyno jammers this kills off capital escalations. Fleet 1 drops their caps, onlines jammers, then the enemy has to jump in off grid and waste up to 15 minutes aligning and warping to the engagement grid. By that time fleet 1 has killed the dictor bubbles and extracted, fight over. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |