|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
abbagabba
Gallente Monster Raving Loonies
|
Posted - 2008.12.02 11:20:00 -
[1]
An unmodded cruiser now has a sub 4s align time, way out of whack when anything much under 3s in pretty much unlockable even with remote sensor boosted interceptors. A drake with a few istabs has a 4.1s align time. These figures need a serious revamp considering this was fairly well balanced before.
|
abbagabba
Gallente Monster Raving Loonies
|
Posted - 2008.12.07 10:23:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Ecky X Just wanted to chip in. Earlier today I jumped an Iteron V (with 2 nanofibers) blindly into a lowsec system, with the purposes of testing this. There were 2 HICs on the gate, and a 'geddon, and I warped away before they locked. No cloak trick, just warped.
I then proceeded to taunt them in local, but I felt kinda bad.
Haulers are one of the few ship classes that have the same agility as before. You were quite lucky!
|
abbagabba
Gallente Monster Raving Loonies
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 21:09:00 -
[3]
It would be nice to get some feedback from CCP on whether the effect the agility changes have on the ability to lock targets were intentional or not. Considering there has been a reduction in align times for virtually all combat ships of about 30% (needless to say a massive change, especially given the lag issue dicsused at length in this thread) it is very noticeable that the two relevant bits of info released by CCP:
Quantum Rise Patch Notes
and
Speed Rebalanced Blog
make absolutely no reference to the agility and time to warp buff. This is particularly apparant in the speed rebalanced blog where great pains are taken to try to explain the need for such drastic changes to so many ships and modules.
Due to this you can only assume that CCP didn't think the agility changes were very relevant whereas anyone who has gate camped or tried to spring targets in belts/missions will know that the time to warp is an absolutely critical factor and one that was pretty well balanced before. Given that neither of the above links makes any reference to time-to-warp we can only assume this has been an oversight and something that should be looked at again.
One variable that could be easily changed without messing with the rest of the speed patch is the maximum speed before warp is initiated (currently 75%). Changing this to 87.5% would revert align times from stationary to their previous values, a change in the minimum alignment angle would have the same effect for time to warp when moving. However this would require changes to the classes of ships which have not had their agility increased (rookie ships, indies, barges, freighters etc.).
|
abbagabba
Gallente Monster Raving Loonies
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 22:06:00 -
[4]
Nice proposal Goumindong. A few extra points I mentioned earlier.
1) Not all ships have had their agility changed so any increase in the speed required to warp can't be applied across the board which will probably make coding trickier. 87.5% of max speed rather than 75% would bring alignment times back to roughly where they were for the ships that were changed (this is the best solution imo due the the lag factor for small ships)
2) An equivalent change in 'alignment angle' will have to be made if the time to warp from stationary and the time to warp from a certain angle are to be kept in the same relationship.
|
abbagabba
Gallente Monster Raving Loonies
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 15:05:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: abbagabba
1) Not all ships have had their agility changed
Can you tell me what ships these were? I don't really want to have to dig through everything and all the ships that I looked at (new info on page 2 of the Assembly Hall thread) did have a significant reduction in align times
I believe the following is a complete list:
Rookie ships, industrials, transports, freighters, mining barges, exhumers, capitals |
|
|
|