Last one to that stargate buys the first round!

Does the Orca fall under the CAPS baseline then? I don't see it specifically listed.

Wow, freighters were already quite slow...

I understand the need for this change, but adding an average of 25 seconds per warp for them is quite huge...

When are we going to see some new freighter class? (a faster version, and a stronger version would be nice)

When are we going to see some new freighter class? (a faster version, and a stronger version would be nice)

There are TII freighters already which are both faster and more durable.

if im reading that big colorful diagram rightly, freighters will actually be faster over midrange to long warps, but slower on short, thats not too bad i guess, but anoying if you operate in small 30au or less systems

t1 BS and bc's have been slowed down across the board, long systems are going to be awesome fun for incursion ppl now, afk bio's every warp lol.

though i kinda want to train to fly an interceptor now, just to lol at the instawarp across entire systems

Something for you graph people to analyse. Enjoy!

[...] have you considered giving Warp Core Stabilisers a small bonus to warp speed? Between 1-4% depending on meta level would be reasonable.

The deceleration on sisi still feels pretty slow, and takes a good chunk of short warps. Can the cap be raised slightly, to 3 or 3.5?

There are TII freighters already which are both faster and more durable.

But those don't have the same large capacity! Wehhhh Q_Q /Sarcasm

OMG! MATH! GRAPHS! SPREADSHEETS!

CCP Masterplan's masterpiece!

Now if CCP Masterplan and CCP Punkturis co-authored a dev blog for added elements:
* Usage of pink.
* Watermark.
* Hand-drawn art.
That would be the best dev blog ever!

Regardless, thanks CCP Masterplan for a peek behind the curtain.

graphs are ok but all the cool devs use gifs now.

perhaps we can get gif graphs?

Be very careful what you ask for:
http://i.imgur.com/R8OmU6g.gif

lmao it's beautiful!

Be very careful what you ask for:
http://i.imgur.com/R8OmU6g.gif

Be very careful what you ask for:
http://i.imgur.com/R8OmU6g.gif

graphs are ok but all the cool devs use gifs now.

perhaps we can get gif graphs?

Be very careful what you ask for:
http://i.imgur.com/R8OmU6g.gif

Can we get the complete warp algorithm so we can create our own pretty graphs?

Be very careful what you ask for:
http://i.imgur.com/R8OmU6g.gif

Sorry for the late reply, but this might be the best dev post ever in my 10ish years of playing eve.

Nice changes, though if you were to ask someone who never played eve what they expect warp to be. I imagine the response would be, "Deceleration = to acceleration...not slower than." Could you imagine how much faster warp would be for all ships if the deceleration curve was the same rate as acceleration? lol

The deceleration on sisi still feels pretty slow, and takes a good chunk of short warps. Can the cap be raised slightly, to 3 or 3.5?

which required 6b and a whole lot of other skill useless to high-sec traveling.

JF are not faster in warp than freighter, they only align faster.

Gotta go fast! Check out all the details behind the warp speed changes coming in EVE Online: Rubicon on November 19th here.

If I understand correctly, the freighters will double the time spent on warp under 50AU which is an important part of the warps they are doing in empire.
So the round trip of 35 jumps will not take 3 hours but 6 hours, in manual control, approximately.

So, if I have read correctly:

Today:

1) My fast and rigged ships warp so fast that I get a timer preventing me from jumping in the next system until said timer is over.

2) My freigthers are boring and slow like molasses.


After Rubicon:

1) My fast and rigged ships will warp faster so I'll have to wait longer at the next gate before the timer clears them to warp.

2) My freighters will become even more boring to fly.


Is this change basically only aimed at who uses interceptors in deep null sec, in those 200 AU long systems?

Slow freighters can only be good for the regional markets. Now everything is Jita + 5%.

That's not due to freighters speed but to information propagation speed.

When you can instantly see the price of every trade hub in the game (by using EvE Central or one of many websites), you are instantly informed about the current price over there. A delay of 45 minutes to bring stock there vs former 30 minutes is not going to change anything.

Your objection would hold if ships had to pay fuel (the cost would affect stock), gate fees and whatever that in RL really plays a role on prices.

Technically it may be more expensive per jump as I can't imagine Red Frog will keep their prices if the trips takes 50-100% longer.

Now I would love to see import/export fees being charged by the empires at their borders (and it would give us a proper smuggling profession at the same time).

The overall idea is to spread out the warp speed spectrum so that small ships warp significantly faster than big ships. I don't see anyone disagreeing with this general idea. Unfortunately due to physics constraints the spectrum can't be entirely shifted downwards. Therefore large ships have to warp slower than now. EVE isn't built on the fact that it takes X minutes to get a freighter from Jita to Amarr. So what if it takes X*1.5 now?

If anything, the freighter change specifically encourages outsourcing hauling to 3rd party companies, which promotes player interaction.

I fly freighters, JFs and caps frequently and I am fine with losing a little for a change that will benefit the whole game.

(...)

Please change freighter and JF to be usable as a freighter in the time available for people to play.
(...)

I understand all the mixed reactions, especially when your favorite ships are getting a bit slower, but I think that this adds a lot more realism and is probably long overdue...

They are faster. If my memory does not fail a freigther goes at 0.7 and a JF at 0.75 or so.

Technically it may be more expensive per jump as I can't imagine Red Frog will keep their prices if the trips takes 50-100% longer.

.

I understand all the mixed reactions, especially when your favorite ships are getting a bit slower, but I think that this adds a lot more realism and is probably long overdue...

Also have you considered giving Warp Core Stabilisers a small bonus to warp speed? Between 1-4% depending on meta level would be reasonable.

Those are base numbers for each ship class. If you need to go even faster, then you have a few options:

Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer rigs will increase a ship's warp speed, at the expense of CPU output
Use a Strategic Cruiser - some of the subsystem options provide a boost to warp speed
Plug in an implant - the new Ghost sites coming in Rubicon might have something interesting for you...

There are TII freighters already which are both faster and more durable.

You losing a little when freighting may take twice as long? Do you even know someone who's got a life beyond playing EVE?

These changes mean that hisec second class players will be forced to pay for the privilege to not waste their precious leisure time just moving stuff from A to B. Hauling yourself is a non-option if you used to spend a whole gameplay session hauling and fancy to not spend two days doing what you used to do in one day.

Taking a terrible feature and making it worst is not good game design. But then, this is CCP.

There are two ideas at play :

The Big ships vs small ships makes sense relative to "acceleration" and "deceleration" to the extent we want Realism (as others have said. the game is an abstraction with its own arbitrary rules designed for fun game play so take Realism with a grain of salt)

High tech, expensive ships can pay for the best "warp drive engines" ... which dictate the speed while in warp .. which is not related to the aligning and the size/weight (or in this world of made-up physics, it does not need to be)


Given the huge expense in building a freighter, I'd think they could include special warp drives that had them warping the speed of a standard industrial/cruiser yet still have the acceleration and deceleration factors of Cap ships. That would split the difference somewhat and at least make the long jumps significantly shorter to keep you from washing your car in 3 minute fragments running back and forth between jumps.


Realism again : If you needed an "excuse" of why expensive freighters went quicker than expensive Cap ships or BS when in full warp.. you could surmise that the Anti-matter propulsion systems of the freighters made guns and launchers and repair systems malfunction. Freighters lack of Fittings does make them a unique ship that could mean the abilty to use a unique propulsion system.

So....Freighters

Its blatantly obvious that the Devs who came up with this idea have never flown a Freighter. They may have tried it for 10 minutes on SISI or something, but NEVER actually flown one in any meaningful way.

To make one of the slowest ships in the game, even slower over the most common used warp distances is so moronic it is beyond belief.


To quote Fozzie from the other thread where these concerns were ignored:

GÇ£Obviously there's a fine line to walk here, but I think we found a strong compromise with the amount that we raised the freighter and JF warp speeds. It is definitely an increase in their average warp times, which is intentional. But it's not back breaking and I believe that it's quite well balanced in relation to their massive cargoholds. For trips where faster warp speeds are needed, people always have the choice of taking smaller volumes in something like an industrial or DST. GÇ£


There is no compromise. You have slowed freighters down for 90% of their warps, with no benefits. You must have a different definition of compromise to the rest of the universe.

It is back breaking and not well balanced at all, you seriously do not have to use the word GÇ£balancedGÇ¥ in every post. Like I asked in the other thread, have YOU ever flown a Freighter in game for any length of time, not just on SISI for 10 minutes ?

Your comment about taking an industrial instead is so far out of touch with what the problem is here it is unreal. No surprises there.

I can indeed confirm that you can expect a raise up to 50% coming with Rubicon. It will be discussed within the directors soon.

Would it be possible to get this warp chart with more sig figs? Just one decimal place would really really help make sure i've got my formula right, especially for the small ships.

Also: I'm finding that my computed warp times are off by a constant factor (ie the error isn't affected by warp distance). It seems to be related somewhat to the fact that ships don't seem to come out of warp at 1/ms as the formula would imply. It seems like almost all of the error goes away if I account for all ships exiting warp at 100 m/s. Am I on the right track, is there some part of the formula that wasn't mentioned in the dev blog, or do I need to recheck my formulas?

For reference i'm the guy who made this http://eve-utils.net/maps/shortest_path/, and I'm currently updating the formulas

^^^ That's a reasonable suggestion. Noted down!


You're mostly correct, yes. The exact time depends on the max (sub-warp) speed of the ship. Obviously this varies a lot even within a single ship class, and even more so depending on fittings. Ships will exit warp mode when their warping speed drops below 50% of sub-warp max speed, or 100m/s, whichever is the lower.
My chart is written assuming a simplified fixed exit at 100m/s, so it sounds like your math is good :)

Warping with any capital now feels like being in TIDI. The worst part is that it's not even clear when the warp will end... you see the remaining distance counting down, and just as you think it will end, it drops even smaller:

15km...
10km...
6km...
3000m...
2100m...
1400m..
850m...

Acceleration isn't so big a deal, but when you're landing on grid it can easily take 15-20 seconds before the ship is controllable again, longer than most other ships now spend in warp.

Unless you plan to add a better visual indication of when a warp will end, I think the best solution is a lower cap on deceleration. We currently have a maximum value of 2, I think it would be fairer if instead the minimum value was 1 and the maximum upped slightly to 2.5 or even 3. This would preserve the difference between ship classes without appearing on grid too fast or too slowly.

^^^ That's a reasonable suggestion. Noted down!


You're mostly correct, yes. The exact time depends on the max (sub-warp) speed of the ship. Obviously this varies a lot even within a single ship class, and even more so depending on fittings. Ships will exit warp mode when their warping speed drops below 50% of sub-warp max speed, or 100m/s, whichever is the lower.
My chart is written assuming a simplified fixed exit at 100m/s, so it sounds like your math is good :)