| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
McWatt
   |
Posted - 2003.12.06 09:35:00 -
[211]
Edited by: McWatt on 06/12/2003 09:40:11
been there, done that?
i doubt it.
as one of the "most guilty" i ll tell you what the camping risk is: you will either not be able to generate enough lag to stop ppl (which means you ll spend hours watching ships pass by). or you get enough ships together, but then you ll show up as a big red dot on the map, so that only the blind and dumb will jump in.
and no, i don t enjoy JIP camping, and i agree that this kind of risk is a huge pile of ****.
most ppl seem to agree that this change is a good one in principal. what i fear will happen is, that it will make camping even more difficult than it is now.
the way i see it, the game would improve a lot if real blockades were possible.
1. running through a blockade should be a (dedicated) frigates job. no other ship should
be able to do it with any reasonable chances of success.
2. in low sec space concord should end a blockade after a reasonable time. there should be a way to include players into concords breaking attempts and for regional groups to get responsibility for their parts of space (at
certain times).
the only way this can be achieved without lengthening travel times is by a station type anti warp item. (as has been said several times...)
1. by giving it a reasonably long anchoring/unanchoring time and cost, this would benefit pirate hunters, too.
2. regional alliances and their enemies would benefit a lot from this. borders could (and must) be defended.
the normal way to break a blockade should be by force!!!
ps: i ve decided to stop arguing with ppl who think that eve is not a PvP game. just keep mining... 
|
Albar Gray
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 11:26:00 -
[212]
If we are going to have 'proper' blockades then give me fire ships, my clones up for it 
-----------------------------------------------
IÆm not schizophrenic...
ThatÆs my alt
|
LtCol RTButts
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 11:53:00 -
[213]
Edited by: LtCol RTButts on 06/12/2003 12:00:31
time to work and not camping with ur lame tactics at the JIP. there re enough targets out there, the only difference is that they re no save kill with a lame tactic.
will be interesting if the pirat corps re able to do real pirat business in the futur by attacking and risk own ships. JIP camping re no risk, its only lame.
|
PropanElgen
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 12:26:00 -
[214]
 Quote:
Ok new update:
First, I changed warp alignment criterias such that not only do you need to be properly aligned, but you must also be cruising at some suitable fraction of your maximum velocity. This means that instawarping out of standstill is impossible. Players on the move shouldn't notice much difference, as they are already cruising at some velocity. This obviously will affect stopped heavy ships the most.
This is gonna add alot of time to travelling,
and frankly sounds like you're doing whatever
you can to cater to the whining pirates.
Oh well, guess the best thing is to stick to one system now, be sat in station and train skills.
Sounds like fun.
All the angels and the puny men of god looked away...
Frightened to death by the evil that was born on that day!
|
LeKjart
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 13:41:00 -
[215]
Quick update:
In the next patch (due in the next hour or so), the following has changed:
- When emerging out of warp, your ship's power is cut, so if you don't do anything the ship will come to a standstill. On the other hand, if you do something, your warp invulnerability is cleared. For most people, you won't see the difference, and it doesn't affect auto-pilot. Before this, players warping to a gate, could just let their ship sail towards the gate, in full invulnerability.
- I bumped the warp cruise velocity to 3 AU, and also exposed the warp velocity parameter, meaning that now we can let skills and modules affect it.
- Grids have been adjusted, making them less prone to grid exploits. Some of your insta-jump bookmarks might be off due to that.
All in all, we are homing towards an equilibrium where going through gates in low-sec systems will be a calculated risk, but not an arbitrary one. Heavier ship are somewhat disadvantaged in all this, but at the same time they do have better chances to equip themselves against adversity, and should probably travel with an escort anyway.
We have always envisioned that a successful fleet would consist of a right mix of frigates, cruisers and battleships, but not only of battleships. I think these changes, along with the targeting changes go somewhat in that direction
LeKjart
|
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 14:46:00 -
[216]
Quote:
Quick update:
LeKjart
Oh... my... god...
Does this clearing of invulnerability also apply if you, say warp into a belt, see someone, and want to target. Do you no longer have to wait until your invulnerability runs out ("Your ships magnetic field is realigning, please wait a moment.")?
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
LeKjart
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 14:58:00 -
[217]
Well, the rationale to the invulnerability is to counter loss of control due to model loading lag. If you do have enough control to target someone, then you certainly should not have invulnerability.
Right now, I don't think the actual action of targeting actually triggers this, but that might be something worth adding.
|
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 15:18:00 -
[218]
Edited by: Valeria on 06/12/2003 15:23:16
Yes, I think it should. Likewise for ships jumping in, it should clear their invisibility when they target something. Right now the only valid actions are moving your ship or warping, or atleast when I last checked yesterday. It could be a bit inconvenient.
(Clarification: If you try to activate a module or target something it will give you a message "Cannot do this or that while cloaked", rather than disable the cloak and do the action)
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Xailia
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 21:02:00 -
[219]
Quote:
- I bumped the warp cruise velocity to 3 AU, and also exposed the warp velocity parameter, meaning that now we can let skills and modules affect it.
It was under my impression that the cruising speed for FTL travel was a speed barrier (and also the constant speed, like without accelerating or decelerating, you would always go at 2AU/3AU), like the speed of light in normal space. If it is affected by modules and skills, then it would no longer behave as a speed barrier.
Though if you want it like that, the FTL travel part of the intersteller travel article would need some changes, as it implies what I have just said.
"The sky above the port was the color of a television, tuned to a dead channel." |
Bjorn Nilfheim
|
Posted - 2003.12.06 22:38:00 -
[220]
A problem with the new warping is that gang warps are now ragged. Currently on TQ, if a fleet is at a full stop, a gang warp will cause all of the to enter the same warp tunnel, and leave the warp tunnel at the same time. With these changes, even when ships are fully aligned with the destination, a gang warp will cause some ships to enter faster then others, allowing a fleet to get spread out, which is bad. Perhaps allow a way that a gang can enter warp at once.
Admiral of the Forsaken Fleets
Pillar of the Fallen Emperor |
|
|
Paul Dubois
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 01:18:00 -
[221]
Probably doable, but I'd say they would opt for going into warp taking as long as the slowest ship takes i.e. everyone waits till the last person is ready.
Which would make group warp good for going into an engagement, but not something you'd want to use when trying to run from one.
|
LeKjart
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 09:26:00 -
[222]
Quick update:
I put in warp disruptor fields around stations and gates, that will prevent warping within a certain perimeter around them. This goes both ways, so instajump bookmarks will not work.
This was done because warp alignment time versus targeting time was a pain to tune together without having to slow all ships, which is kind of lame from a playability point of view.
The disruptor fields provide a clean way to tune most of the parameters we need, as well as being credible from a rp point of view. The idea is that there is a minimum warp-in distance (e.g. 20 km), an intermediate jump-in distance (e.g. 12 km) and finally a jump-out distance (e.g. 3 km).
These form 3 concentric circles around a gate:
- A ship that jumps in can either choose to warp away or jump back, but both options mean an exposed travel distance of about 8 km.
- A ship that warps to the minimum distance has a travel distance of about 17 km.
Obviously, by varying the radii of the circles, we can tune this up to a certain risk level. Furthermore, the magnitude of the jump-in radius controls the area where a ship can appear after a jump, which is again related to the amount of coverage needed for a complete blockade.
This change has yet to find its way to Chaos, but it might be there late tonight or early Monday.
|
Xailia
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 11:08:00 -
[223]
The warp disrupter fields sound excellent. 
"The sky above the port was the color of a television, tuned to a dead channel." |
KIAHicks
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 14:18:00 -
[224]
Quote:
A problem with the new warping is that gang warps are now ragged. [SNIP] Perhaps allow a way that a gang can enter warp at once.
True, it would require an option for all ships to gang warp at the speed of the slowest ship.
That is assuming ships could vary their warp speed (I mean in RP theory as opposed to programming wise)
If there is no RP game reason for ships been able to vary their warp speeds, then allowing options for fleets to gang warp at the slowest ships speed would solve the problem.
It would also allow gangs to form with the faster ships in the first gang, the slower in the second. The slower set off first then the faster, making even gang warping a little more tactical.
Keenon: "After sitting in the system for FIVE hours without even a (go away)"...
|
KIAHicks
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 14:22:00 -
[225]
Chandra: Excellent decision.. Aside from increasing the possibility of pvp, it will also increase travel time, which will hopefully affect market prices and maybe even make people willing to pay for currior missions.....
I think having travel take a long time (as in long in REAL time) it makes the decisions to deploy forces a lot more tactical. It means if your manufacturing and have to take items a long way you'll prob charge more for them than you would at your home location.
Sure it will increase travel time and annoy some people, but imo travels too quick atm.
Keenon: "After sitting in the system for FIVE hours without even a (go away)"...
|
LeKjart
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 14:46:00 -
[226]
Regarding travel time I actually haven't made any statistical analysis on this as there are many factors that have changed:
- Average distance between gates has changed due to gate-to-gate
- Warp disruption calls for more travel
- Selectable warp range might lead to more travel, depending on average player behavior
- Possible changes to MWD
- Change of alignment criterias
- Change of warp cruise speed
All of these shave off or add a few seconds to the average, so it might actually be similar to what it was. In any case, I can easily use the warp cruise speed to tune the average and bring it to an acceptable value.
LeKjart
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 15:24:00 -
[227]
Chandra there are 2 changes which will work against coordinated fleet movements.
- Minimum velocity to enter warp
- Ability to increase warp speed through skills
If there are 6 different ships in a gang and the leader sends the gang warp command, it's almost guaranteed that all 6 ships will arrive at different times.
Suggest using the gang object to control both (if it's an object).
So when the gang leader sends the gang warp command, all ships begin aligning themselves to warp. But no ship enters warp until all ships have reported okay. And the speed travelled during gang warp is the speed of the slowest ship in the gang.
Done right, it might have the interesting side effect that only happens accidently atm:
You actually warp with other ships nearby and revert at the same time.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Lola
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 20:58:00 -
[228]
Bjorn Nilfheim said: Quote:
A problem with the new warping is that gang warps are now ragged. Currently on TQ, if a fleet is at a full stop, a gang warp will cause all of the to enter the same warp tunnel, and leave the warp tunnel at the same time. With these changes, even when ships are fully aligned with the destination, a gang warp will cause some ships to enter faster then others, allowing a fleet to get spread out, which is bad. Perhaps allow a way that a gang can enter warp at once.
Yes this is true and some testing I did with a friend proves it. A Moa and Maller on full stop were able to enter a gang warp together even when they weren't lined up together. All the other combinations we tried with Rifter, Punisher, Moa, Maller and Scorpion were not able to gang warp together. The Rifter always left first.
Some discussion was had and we came up with 2 scenarios where you want to gang warp: going in to battle and fleeing from battle. When warping in to battle you want all the ships to warp together. Unless you are doing some sort of multi-staged warp in which case you still want control of which ships are warping when. Warping in to battle is when gang warp should wait for the slowest ship before initiating. On the flip side to this is fleeing a battle. When fleeing a battle it is likely that you want everyone out of there the moment the commander sends the gang warp command.
The current system works fine for the "everybody flee to this moon ASAP" style gang warp but it fails in the situation I'm assuming gang warp was originally conceptualized for. That is, to actually warp a gang together. I'd suggest either making all ships wait for the slowest ship or give the choice to the gang leader to have gang warp and gang flee.
-----------------------------------------
Sig rented by Drethen Nerevitas. |
Babar
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 21:17:00 -
[229]
Quote:
Bjorn Nilfheim said: Quote:
A problem with the new warping is that gang warps are now ragged. Currently on TQ, if a fleet is at a full stop, a gang warp will cause all of the to enter the same warp tunnel, and leave the warp tunnel at the same time. With these changes, even when ships are fully aligned with the destination, a gang warp will cause some ships to enter faster then others, allowing a fleet to get spread out, which is bad. Perhaps allow a way that a gang can enter warp at once.
Yes this is true and some testing I did with a friend proves it.
*snip*
I'd suggest either making all ships wait for the slowest ship or give the choice to the gang leader to have gang warp and gang flee.
Or they could just let us choose a warp-in distance which is high enough that it isn't important.
With a 50k warp-in, you practically end up on top of the defenders...
If it was 200k+, OTOH.. ;p
|
LeKjart
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 22:20:00 -
[230]
Quick update: Warp disruptors are on up on chaos.
Known issue: auto-pilot is temporarily broken due to this, but will be fixed tomorrow.
LeKjart
|
|
|
Bjorn Nilfheim
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 22:26:00 -
[231]
would it be possible to have the "warp disruption field" active only when another ship is already at the stargate? Completely wiping out instajump bookmarks will make hauling alot worse. same with having to have an indy fly out of the warp bubble even if there is no one there. This would still allow campers to have an opportunity to kill people, and would not cause major travel time increases.
Admiral of the Forsaken Fleets
Pillar of the Fallen Emperor |
Hallinskide
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 22:55:00 -
[232]
While I appreciate all changes that bring more PVP to the game I think if everything mentioned here is really implemented we will in fact loose some aspects of the game which were also fun and hopefully we will not loose too many players due to that ... after all PVP was afaik not the only thing you should be able to do in EVE.
As it looks now there will be no chance at all to run a blockade anymore which will kill all trading in below 0.5 space completly.
And please don't argue with 'get someone to protect you' or 'learn to read the map'. I can make about 1-2 mio profit with one trade run which makes it not worthwhile to hire 3 BS to escort me and with the map still showing completely unreliable information a lot of times there is no way that I will risk 20+ mio in my cargohold.
So please CCP: either you make the map 100% reliable (and updated more frequently) or leave some option to travel 0.0 is something else than a fully armed BS.
|
Kingpin
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 22:58:00 -
[233]
Just been on Chaos and tried to autopilot travel through a few systems.
At most of the jumps I arrived whithin the 20km disruption field of the gate to the system I have just jumped from obviosly my ship cannot warp and the Autopilot just switches off.
Now I realise you said that the auto pilot is currently broken. So I assume thats why it just switched off.
My question is when the Autopilot is fixed will it auto travel away from the gate until it can warp?
Assuming it does, will it choose the shortest distance to the edge of the disruption field or will it just move toward the next autopilot target until its out of the field?
|
LeKjart
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 23:20:00 -
[234]
The autopilot will choose the shortest distance out of the warp disruption.
|
IG72
|
Posted - 2003.12.07 23:39:00 -
[235]
Yes Hallinskide I agree.
With the current situation with warp gates on Chaos if the gate has a blockade set up on it
YOU WILL BE SHOT THERE IS NO AVOIDING IT!
you have 3 choices.
1. fly towards the gate hoping to jump. As soon as you move the enemy start to target you, being a hauler you will probably not move the 8km required before a battleship locks and destroys you with 1 volley. If they have Frigates or cruisers even less chance as you will almost certainly get hit with as many webifiers as they can equip. Lose your ship, loose you cargo.
2. fly away from the gate hoping to warp. As soon as you move the enemy start to target you, being a hauler you will probably not move the 8km required before a battleship locks warp scrambles and destroys you with 1 volley. If they have Frigates or cruisers even less chance as you will be webified and warp scrambled even quicker.
3. Sit still and wait for your inevitable death when you de-cloak.
So any 0.0 space trade route is effectively impossible to do anymore, and possibly any trade route that goes below 0.5 as battleships out of turret range may also get you.
|
Uuldahan
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 00:52:00 -
[236]
First of all sorry for my english 
I have to do more tests but actually 8km seems to be too much to run away. Frigates make 30s or better to go out so they can sometimes escape, but indies simply can't.
Also, since this system requires some fast manipulations with Jump and Warp , I would suggest two things to make this system more effective when the autopilot is not active (half of the time for me)
-to warp fast: it would be great to have the autopilot voice to alert us about entering and exciting the warp disruptor field. That would allow to improve the timing.
-to jump fast: it would be also great to have a jump button on the UI that'd flicker when we're at the good distance from the stargate. A simple push on it would make the ship jump.
Go on Chandra, this system has a great potential
|
LeKjart
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 01:08:00 -
[237]
I don't expect a normal industrial to be able to get through without some help. They are not designed for that.
LeKjart
|
Helison
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 01:15:00 -
[238]
LeKjart and TomB, this new system will ruin trading to 0.0 completly! It will also reduce extremly the amount of mined Bistot.
Do you really want this?
You will have nearly no possibility to pass a camped gate with an industrial! This has to be changed!!!
|
Uuldahan
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 01:52:00 -
[239]
Edited by: Uuldahan on 08/12/2003 02:12:13
Edited by: Uuldahan on 08/12/2003 02:07:03
As he just said the design of Eve would force people to always make groups. Why not. Space will be more dangerous, from a noob who find space not enough "alive" I find this is a cool news...and I'm not a pirate 
|
Hallinskide
|
Posted - 2003.12.08 02:04:00 -
[240]
So CCP is now officially discouraging people from soloing ... well, if that's how it is then say goodbye to everyone who prefers not working within any big corp unless he is willing to spend the rest of his EVE-life in 0.5 and higher (which is rather boring) :-(
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |