| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2009.01.08 02:48:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Goumindong on 08/01/2009 02:50:00
Eve is a game that goes through many balancing changes for many different reasons. Recently there was a large change in the mechanics of speed. In order to balance out this change the agility of ships across the entire spectrum was increased significantly.
This change has had some unintended consequences. Not since the original implementation of signature radius and scan resolution has there been a such a shakeup in the ability of ships to target and force another ship into combat. The nature of the shakeup is that it is now much more difficult to force targets into combat because they enter warp much faster than they did previously. Especially if they are smaller than your ship.
This ability is at the heart of what makes Eve a PvP game. Without it low-sec and empire presence is unable to seriously hamper enemy movements. Empire and low-sec gate camps lose their strategic and tactical purpose. And belt production becomes even easier than it was before.
This can be shown by some numbers produced by James Lyrus relating to the new warp times against current lock times.
 Originally by: James Lyrus
Here, have some numbers as fuel for this discussion:
Crow - locks an Crow in 2s, warps in 1.8s
Kestrel - locks a kestrel in 3.3s, warps in 3s.
Thrasher - locks in 2.3s, warps in 3.5s.
Caracal - locks a in 4.7s, warps in 3.7s
Drake - locks in 4.1s warps in 7.5s (brutix is similar)
Raven - locks in 8.3s, warps in 10.5s
With the exception of battlecruisers, a ship is marginal on locking a mirror of itself before it can warp. When doing things like locking, especially if you're in pursuit of someone, 'loading lag' is what controls whether you can do this or not. I don't know about you, but I'd rather that wasn't the case.
The supporters of this issue are not asking for a massive change or revert of any particular change, but simply that one thing happens. That the ability to lock a target before it leaves the grid be restored to its previous values.
As i see it this can happen in one of two ways without impacting the recent speed or agility changes: Either, lock times can be reduced to correspond to the agility changes. Or the speed at which a ship is required to be traveling before entering warp can be increased such that general "in space" maneuverability is unchanged, but the time it takes to warp out is increased to previous levels. Changing lock times is imperfect because we're already hitting a ceiling in terms of agility on smaller ships where locking a target can become entirely dependent on latency. Changing warp speed requirements is imperfect because some ships did not have their agility increased. However, whatever is chosen, something ought to be done.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this as important enough to raise to the developers.
edit reason: Spelling
|
FunzzeR
Counter Errorist Unit
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 03:18:00 -
[2]
supported |
Ignition SemperFi
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 03:58:00 -
[3]
as long as the times we are talking about are base stats with no mods.
I support this
----
People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Quote:
They already did introduce a counter to missiles, it's called Quantum Rise
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 06:25:00 -
[4]
Pre QR, you would be able to catch a cruiser in a cruiser, a BC in a BC and a BS in a BS. With the new QR agility changes, ships have been given almost 2 free inertial stabilizer modules. Now tanked ships can escape from ships of equal size.
What does this mean? This means I must being a HIC/inty or both to just be able to tackle a ship. In addition to the web and regional gate changes I must bring tackle for the other side of the gate as well. To properly camp a gate I am looking at almost 5 people just to CATCH someone. I am forced to blob under QR mechanics.
Old days didn't have tons of solo gate camps and tons of solo fights, but they were at least possible. One of the most boring parts is the on/off mechanics of EVE. In QRs EVE a gate camp is on/off in either you will get completely destroyed or lol warp off. |
Raimo
Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 06:34:00 -
[5]
Supported.
This is very much of a concern to active PVPers, especially in low- and hisec. |
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 07:48:00 -
[6]
Supported.
|
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 09:03:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Ignition SemperFi
as long as the times we are talking about are base stats with no mods.
I support this
The numbers are base stats with no mods. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 09:49:00 -
[8]
something needs to be done here ... |
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 10:18:00 -
[9]
I support anything that repairs the damage caused by QR speed nerfing
|
Naomi Knight
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 10:50:00 -
[10]
Nice try bringing up caldari ships which align the fastest and lock the slowest :) |
|
|
GuerrillA'lt
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 11:55:00 -
[11]
Awesome Idea. smaller craft need a particularly large boost (say 25-30%). Even with max skills and a sensor booster, it's hard to most frigs/cruisers |
Naomi Knight
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 12:19:00 -
[12]
You should not be able to point frigs/destroyers before they can warp away. Or cruisers if they are fitted for align but you are not fitted with sensor boosters.
Current stats work fine. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 12:26:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Naomi Knight
Nice try bringing up caldari ships which align the fastest and lock the slowest :)
Okay
Sac pre QR (spaceship V, evasive V, no armor plates/rigs/speed mods):
aligns in 7.5s, locks in 3.9s
Post QR:
aligns in 5.2s, locks in 3.9s
Stabber pre QR (spaceship V, evasive V, no armor plates/rigs/speed mods):
aligns in 5.3s, locks in 4.2s
POS QR:
aligns in 3.7s, locks in 4.2s
Etc, etc, etc. You can see that you don't really need to nano a stabber, it aligns so quickly that it is like a frigate pre-QR (pre-QR rifter aligns in 3.3s, with 200m rt plate aligns in 3.7s)
Originally by: Naomi Knight
You should not be able to point frigs/destroyers before they can warp away. Or cruisers if they are fitted for align but you are not fitted with sensor boosters.
Current stats work fine.
Where does it state that you shouldn't be able to tackle frigates and destroyers? They should be IMMUNE to pvp? What kind of dumb logic is that. This is EVE, where non-consensual combat is part of the game. No reason that small ships should have blatant immunity (which they don't in 0.0 at least, in low sec no one really cares about frigs)
Lock time lag makes it so you simply cannot lock and disrupt fast moving ships. No one really cares about frigates running around low sec, but heavy ships like HACs and HICs and tanked cruisers flying around with near-immunity in low sec is just not right.
I feel this is a major oversight by CCP. Agility in terms of speeding up for MWD and such is fine. But no one tests gate mechanics on Sisi because everyone messes around in FD-, so it is easy to assume that CCP doesn't know about this terrible side effect of the agility boost. |
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 12:49:00 -
[14]
|
MSC Darklord
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 13:24:00 -
[15]
This needs to get fixed.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 15:03:00 -
[16]
Well said. |
Captain Thunk
Vale Tudo.
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 16:24:00 -
[17]
Supporting the reintroduction of "risk" in Eve-Online. |
Rivqua
Omega Wing
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 16:43:00 -
[18]
This topic needs to be confirmed, or there needs to be a statement from the devs explaining the reasoning for changing tackle mechanics.
|
sir gankalot
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 17:02:00 -
[19]
Being a carebear I have no choice but to support this, I want to have valid excuses not to venture into low sec you see :) |
van Uber
SAE Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 17:46:00 -
[20]
I'm convinced that this is an unintended consequence. It should be looked into or commented by CCP.
|
|
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 17:52:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Naomi Knight
You should not be able to point frigs/destroyers before they can warp away. Or cruisers if they are fitted for align but you are not fitted with sensor boosters.
Current stats work fine.
wow someone with working braincells that is not crying for easy kills 
things have not changed, before speed changes you could be fast and run with sub warp speeds, now you can run with align time. everything stays the same except you can hit those with fast align times if they choose to fight, thus the patch did what it was supposed to do. everything works fine.
if you wanna put something on the scales you need something on both sides to balance it out, but if you wanna destroy the last option to travel around in small gangs (or even alone) and turn the game even more into mindless stupid blobbing and make low sec empty go ahead (well atleast the game will match all your whiners brain capabilities then  )
in short, adapt or die 
|
Jones 1st
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 17:57:00 -
[22]
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 18:03:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Jones 1st
wow someone got a valid point, oh wait there is none like in the rest of this thread
|
Naomi Knight
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 18:35:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
Originally by: Naomi Knight
You should not be able to point frigs/destroyers before they can warp away. Or cruisers if they are fitted for align but you are not fitted with sensor boosters.
Current stats work fine.
wow someone with working braincells that is not crying for easy kills
things have not changed, before speed changes you could be fast and run with sub warp speeds, now you can run with align time. everything stays the same except you can hit those with fast align times if they choose to fight, thus the patch did what it was supposed to do. everything works fine.
if you wanna put something on the scales you need something on both sides to balance it out, but if you wanna destroy the last option to travel around in small gangs (or even alone) and turn the game even more into mindless stupid blobbing and make low sec empty go ahead (well atleast the game will match all your whiners brain capabilities then )
in short, adapt or die
Exactly.
If someone comes with a bs/bc you should be able to point him before he can warp away, because he should have scouted first. So what ships are for scouting?
Yeah you can say that recons and covert ops but thats a lot of skill for a new player ,so give them ability to scout and skip gate camps with frigs and destroyers. He wont be able to do anything other than warp off anyway or you could just point and kill him easily.
Just imagine a new player who would like to visit low-sec , with your idea he couldnt do much other than die to your boring blob gate camps, until he cant fly a covert ops ship. Because most of the gates would be camped 23/7.
And that would realy help moving players into low sec as it is already empty except some systems and faction war territories.
|
Elgan
Repeat.
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 20:00:00 -
[25]
|
Crusari
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 20:02:00 -
[26]
I support this, there's already too many ways of getting away from a fight that it's starting to get stupid. |
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 20:51:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Crusari
I support this, there's already too many ways of getting away from a fight that it's starting to get stupid.
well tell us all those ways, enlighten us plz
if you setup your gang to catch stuff there is none face it and stop lieing |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 21:17:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Captain Thunk
Supporting the reintroduction of "risk" in Eve-Online.
|
dojocan81
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 22:16:00 -
[29]
/signed
|
Brain Day
Space Boats
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 23:13:00 -
[30]
/Signed
It's really great that a LOT of people are finally waking up to this horrendous problem.
|
|
|
Tusko Hopkins
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 23:28:00 -
[31]
Supported.
Do you happen to have to have figures from pre-QR as well? We could use some more data on this... It is obvious that a cruiser should be able to tackle a cruiser before it warps off however if I recall correctly, small ships, especially interceptors and frigs never had a chance to scram their own shipclass without a sensor booster.
|
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 02:32:00 -
[32]
while i dont trust the #s presented... I thought the boost to agility in QR was crazy. Didn't make sense. You can no doubt find my post in gamedev on it.
They should have decreased agility of battleships and such. Not increase.
Such that they have harder time to get away.
Raven 50km from 0km warp in of belt. The interceptor pre-qr would tackle in say 10 seconds. Post QR the interceptor would take say 12-15 seconds. Thusly agility has to be adjusted to increase warp away 2-5 seconds. or whatever #s are right.
Post #10. I made this very point months ago. |
Del Boy
Vale Tudo.
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 03:57:00 -
[33]
Signed. |
Sedious Bloke
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 05:40:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Sedious Bloke on 09/01/2009 05:41:01
Signed <3
Save Eve
 |
ZaknafeinX
Vale Tudo.
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 06:44:00 -
[35]
Supported |
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 07:10:00 -
[36]
Supported. Doesn't need massive changes, but I would like to see the results return to near pre-QR values.
Not sure how to do this, changing lock times causes other issues, changing agility breaks blasterboats, *shrug*
|
Jebba IV
Vale Tudo.
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:26:00 -
[37]
Thanks for this Goumindong, =-]
/signed
|
olzi
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:42:00 -
[38]
Supported.
Today we had 2 dedicated tacklers on a gate, one sensor boosted crow with 1800 scan resolution and one sensor boosted merlin with 1200 scan resolution. Both with clear tackling overview's of course.
A rupture fitted with one 800mm armor plate and no propulsion upgrades jumped in, and made it through our tacklers. The combination of inertia changes in the QR patch and the inherent in-game lag and the activation delay of modules after a succesful lock enables this.
|
Yarik Mendel
Privateers
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:26:00 -
[39]
yea or give us a special war-dec bubble for empire |
Jezala
Repo Industries
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:55:00 -
[40]
It's sad to see that we've come to this point. Hopefully this will be the first step towards putting us back onto the proper path of what made pvp in Eve so damn glorious.
|
|
|
Dawts
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 22:35:00 -
[41]
supported.
|
thesonarnet
Gallente
0ccam's Razor
UNLeashed Legion
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 08:13:00 -
[42]
against it.
A couple of activated Sensor Boosters + a properly set Overview + a scram pre activated and blinking = instant lock
|
Captain Thunk
Vale Tudo.
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 09:06:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Captain Thunk on 10/01/2009 09:07:48
Originally by: olzi
Supported.
Today we had 2 dedicated tacklers on a gate, one sensor boosted crow with 1800 scan resolution and one sensor boosted merlin with 1200 scan resolution. Both with clear tackling overview's of course.
A rupture fitted with one 800mm armor plate and no propulsion upgrades jumped in, and made it through our tacklers. The combination of inertia changes in the QR patch and the inherent in-game lag and the activation delay of modules after a succesful lock enables this.
Originally by: thesonarnet
against it.
A couple of activated Sensor Boosters + a properly set Overview + a scram pre activated and blinking = instant lock
With respect thesonarnet, I don't see why people should gimp their mid slots for a rack of sensor boosters (even harder for Amarr) just to tackle somebody - though as Olzi points out, in some situations it doesn't matter what your scan resolution is, they are in warp and safe before your client has registered they have decloaked because of inherent background lag. We're not asking for tackling to be made easier, we just want it the same as it was before QR. At no time did CCP state "we're going to make tackling much harder and make it much easier to travel around while you're at war or in low sec", so it would seem the QR changes had these unintended consequences which is what we want looked at.
Captain Thunk |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 09:40:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Tusko Hopkins
Supported.
Do you happen to have to have figures from pre-QR as well? We could use some more data on this... It is obvious that a cruiser should be able to tackle a cruiser before it warps off however if I recall correctly, small ships, especially interceptors and frigs never had a chance to scram their own shipclass without a sensor booster.
Lock times didn't change. And you can find align times by looking at an old version of EFT.
For the most part, ships cruiser sized and above had significant decreases in their align times.
E.G. align time for a raven was something like 15.3 seconds without an MWD pre QR. Now its 10.5 seconds(15.8 with an MWD activated!)
fake edit: I went and got an old copy of EFT(EFT 2.8.1 taken from Gripens Eve files index) and these are the align times. This is using top tier Amarr(slowest align usually) and lowest tier Caldari(fastest align usually) with the exception of interceptors where Caldari and Minmatar are used. Everything else is going to be in between the two numbers. I can do entire sets of ships, it just takes more time and isn't much worth it.
None of the ships are set with plates, agility modifiers, or mass modifiers(Pre-QR only). The numbers below are "align times" which means that its how long it takes the ship to get into warp from a dead stop(75% of its velocity).
:Battleships:
QR Pre-QR MWD-QR MWD-Pre
Scorpion: 10 14.9 14.8 21.4
Abaddon: 11.9 17.5 17.7 25
:Battlecruisers:
QR Pre-QR MWD-QR MWD-Pre
Ferox: 7.4 10.6 10.1 14.4
Harbinger: 8 11.4 10.9 15.7
:Cruisers:
QR Pre-QR MWD-QR MWD-Pre
Caracal: 3.7 5.3 5.1 7.2
Maller: 4.7 6.7 6.8 9.4
:Frigates:
QR Pre-QR MWD-QR MWD-Pre
Condor: 2.1 3 3 4.3
Punisher: 3 4.2 4.4 5.7
:Interceptor:
QR Pre-QR MWD-QR MWD-Pre
Crow: 2.1 3 3.1 4.5
Claw: 2.3 3.4 3.4 4.8
As you can see, pretty much everything has received a massive increase in agility, so far that some ships are more agile with an MWD on after the changes than they were without an MWD on before.
Pretty much everything is getting into warp 30% or more faster than they were before.
As was said earlier, the actual agility of the ships doesn't need to change, just how long it takes them to get into warp.
Looking at those numbers it seems pretty clear to me that the solution is to increase the speed necessary to get into warp to compensate for the agility changes.
|
TEK9
Vale Tudo.
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 11:01:00 -
[45]
Edited by: TEK9 on 10/01/2009 11:02:48
Supported - plz CCP deal with this, it is ruining the game.
Oh and thanks to Goumindong for doing the math.
|
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 13:39:00 -
[46]
Originally by: thesonarnet
against it.
A couple of activated Sensor Boosters + a properly set Overview + a scram pre activated and blinking = instant lock
One can have an insta-lock but it does not help when overview update interval is 1 second and module lag 2-3 seconds.
|
Grunanca
Mean Corp
Mean Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 14:24:00 -
[47]
What I find disturbing is that I need 2 lock time scripted sensor boosters in order to catch a cruiser with my broadsword. Thats just too much! Before 1 was enough, meaning you still sacrificed almost 150 dps tank, now its just plain silly. |
Bellum Eternus
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 23:47:00 -
[48]
Supported. Hmm, me supporting a Goumindong thread. Is that hell freezing over that I hear? o.0 |
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 01:01:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Supported. Hmm, me supporting a Goumindong thread. Is that hell freezing over that I hear? o.0
Goumindong was one of the crazier voices calling for big speed nerf patch. But CCP managed to out-do even him in the crazy idea department. Now he is the voice of reason in comparison
it's funny and sad at same time |
Petty Thief
Three Pony
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 12:33:00 -
[50]
NOO do not slow align times, jesus what the hell? Its called fit a sb
|
|
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 13:26:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Petty Thief
NOO do not slow align times, jesus what the hell? Its called fit a sb
Alright, lets give all ships extra mid slot and 10 CPU.. are you sure that's better? |
BlackMail
FW Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 22:13:00 -
[52]
I support this Measure Fix it please for Faction War it would be a big help
---------------------------------------
Blackmail
Eve Defence Force
All Around Good Guy
|
DragonOfTheArmory
FW Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 22:23:00 -
[53]
I support this as well. |
evilphoenix
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 22:50:00 -
[54]
|
Seth Ruin
Ominous Corp
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 23:22:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Goumindong
Lock times didn't change. And you can find align times by looking at an old version of EFT.
I'm not exactly sure how accurate EFT's align time calculator is, or even how it's calculated. I do, however, agree that the align time should always be slightly longer than lock time of the same ship, due (as stated earlier) to "lag time" and reaction time factoring in, making it even more difficult to catch a target trying to escape. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 23:24:00 -
[56]
/supported |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 12:05:00 -
[57]
It seems that some ships did not receive an agility boost to go along with QR
Originally by: abbagabba
I believe the following is a complete list:
Rookie ships, industrials, transports, freighters, mining barges, exhumers, capitals
However, if we are increasing the speed(and therefore time) it takes to get into warp, we can easily make these ships more agile to compensate without any negative effects(since their combat maneuverability is more or less inconsequential)
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 12:23:00 -
[58]
Surreal but true.
Supporting a Goumindong topic
ISSUE - Bring back live events |
abbagabba
Monster Raving Loonies
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 13:35:00 -
[59]
Supported, this massive change in combat mechanics has recieved no justification or comment from CCP. |
Rex Mundus
LOG Research
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 11:10:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Rex Mundus on 14/01/2009 11:11:06
Supported. This needs to be addressed, align times are crazy.
Edit: to tick the support box |
|
|
The Djego
merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 20:21:00 -
[61]
Supported.
With the little common background lag and modul lag it is fare to common to only see the other ship warping off before you can applay tackle. 
|
ArtemisXEntreri
Cake Factory
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 07:55:00 -
[62]
Supported |
Pesadel0
Rytiri Lva
R.U.R.
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 09:07:00 -
[63]
Very good ideia :D |
Mr John22ta
Underworld Protection Agency
The Crimson Federation
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 13:44:00 -
[64]
/Signed
This is something that really needs to be looked at
|
LoveDogg
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 20:03:00 -
[65]
Supported |
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 21:04:00 -
[66]
Changing the formula for time to warp so that the new agility of ships results in pre-patch warp times makes the most sense to me.
Currently pvp is much too consensual.
|
Opus Dai
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 12:45:00 -
[67]
supported
|
burek
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 13:49:00 -
[68]
Supported |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 15:04:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 16/01/2009 15:03:54
Supporting this issue despite the fact that the data I have does not corroborate. Examples follow, all unfitted setups.
Crow vs Crow
Skilled: 2.1s alignment, 2s lock time
Unskilled: 3s alignment, 2.5s lock time
Zealot vs Zealot
Skilled: 5.2s alignment, 4.1s lock time
Unskilled: 7.7s alignment, 5.1s lock time
Astarte vs Astarte
Skilled: 7.8s alignment, 3.9s lock time
Unskilled: 11.6s alignment, 4.9s lock time
Typhoon vs Typhoon
Skilled: 10s alignment, 6.7s lock time
Unskilled: 14.8s alignment, 8.3s lock time
The main reason I'm supporting this is that the issue of latency means that lock times of under 2 seconds are wasteful, as mod activation won't realistically take place at this level. This means that the fastest unfitted setup should really be aligning at around 3 seconds, and that sensor resolutions should probably be boosted marginally to allow easier locking.
It's a very, very fine line though. Overdo it and it'll be dreadful.
Edit: to check the supported box!
|
Captain Thunk
Vale Tudo.
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 16:16:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 16/01/2009 15:03:54
Supporting this issue despite the fact that the data I have does not corroborate. Examples follow, all unfitted setups.
Crow vs Crow
Skilled: 2.1s alignment, 2s lock time
Unskilled: 3s alignment, 2.5s lock time
Zealot vs Zealot
Skilled: 5.2s alignment, 4.1s lock time
Unskilled: 7.7s alignment, 5.1s lock time
Astarte vs Astarte
Skilled: 7.8s alignment, 3.9s lock time
Unskilled: 11.6s alignment, 4.9s lock time
Typhoon vs Typhoon
Skilled: 10s alignment, 6.7s lock time
Unskilled: 14.8s alignment, 8.3s lock time
The main reason I'm supporting this is that the issue of latency means that lock times of under 2 seconds are wasteful, as mod activation won't realistically take place at this level. This means that the fastest unfitted setup should really be aligning at around 3 seconds, and that sensor resolutions should probably be boosted marginally to allow easier locking.
It's a very, very fine line though. Overdo it and it'll be dreadful.
Edit: to check the supported box!
Indeed, latency is best seen when running two accounts at the same gate. A ship can decloak on one client yet still remain invisible on the other. (Yes, I know having two accounts on the same gate would do nothing to improve latency, but it illustrates easily that it is there and to what degree).
This inconjuction with the overview polling once a second, the latency involved in activating a module like a warp disruptor after locking (I'm sure most people are familiar with target up on screen, scram flashing waiting for it to hook then the target warps away) means that a typhoon vs typhoon with a 3.3second window of opportunity has a good chance of getting away (unless he's a newer player, in which case improved agility isn't helping him - just making him more likely to lose a ship)
I do hope this issue is taken seriously by the CSM, especially by those who aren't heavy PvPers themselves but appreciate the necessity for unconsensual PvP in the game.
Captain Thunk |
|
|
Vrikshaka
0ff-Peak Esoteric Cutthroats
|
Posted - 2009.01.17 09:18:00 -
[71]
This needs to be a top priority fix.
There was no good reason for making it harder to lock someone before they're able to get away. The balance was good as it was, and noone was calling for this change.
The new lock time/time to enter warp balance is particularly painful with frig vs. frig situations, where latency now very often is the deciding factor. This was already a problem before the change, but a small enough problem to be acceptable. Now, it no longer is.
Being unable to lock someone in time due to lag - and we're not talking fleet battle lag here, but simply the normal "background lag" of any, even almost empty, systems - is incredibly frustrating, and undermines the whole PVP experience.
Like someone said above, the balance we're talking about is very delicate and a re-balancing measure could easily be overdone. I'm not asking for any drastic changes, or a party favor done to me as a pirate so I can OMG KILL MOAR BEARZ!!1!, but simply, like the OP says, that this balance be restored to it's previous values.
V |
KillJoy Tseng
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.01.17 19:49:00 -
[72]
Supported; it seems to be getting to where sensor boosted interceptors are mandatory to have along to *reliably* catch standard, plate-tanked cruisers flown by competent people. Catching frigates of any sort, much less interceptors? Forget it. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.01.17 20:06:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Goumindong
It seems that some ships did not receive an agility boost to go along with QR
Originally by: abbagabba
I believe the following is a complete list:
Rookie ships, industrials, transports, freighters, mining barges, exhumers, capitals
If you have the old stat, check the mixed race faction ship. Those on Caldari hulls (the moa for example) were left out when the Caldari ship got the agility boost. No idea if this time they were boosted.
The gila current inertia modifier is 0.46 againt 0.38 for a moa. The moa has an higher mass, but when it is a single race ship (Caracal vs Caracal Navy) the ship get a mass and inertia modifier boost. |
Zenethalos
Infinity Killers
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 04:15:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Zenethalos on 18/01/2009 04:15:57
Originally by: thesonarnet
against it.
A couple of activated Sensor Boosters + a properly set Overview + a scram pre activated and blinking = instant lock
Still doesnt allways work because of the initial lag. The other night I had a badger "locked" while my mod kept blinking (yes he was in range). Then all of a sudden it goes back to 3 seconds then at about 1.5 seconds he is gone. A mechanic needs to change for the lock timing and the lag factor because too many things get a way if you dont have a hic/dic around or a few ceptor's.
Edit: Forgot to click support topic. |
thoraxius demioses
Gallente
Privateers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:30:00 -
[75]
it gets my vote  |
Abernathy Wallace
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:39:00 -
[76]
|
Xe na
Privateers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:40:00 -
[77]
|
Neesa Corrinne
Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 15:47:00 -
[78]
How someone who's capable of intelligent, coherent thoughts can hang out with the rest of those slobbering fools is beyond me, but I totally support this proposal.
---------------------------------
|
Thessu Madshaii
Method of Destruction
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 16:10:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Thessu Madshaii on 18/01/2009 16:11:16
supported...
its a shame how they cripple empire pvp
|
Slave 775
Privateers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 17:10:00 -
[80]
supported
Centuries ago, the Bible warned of dangers posed by evil men described as ômaster[s] at evil ideasö and ôscheming to do bad.ö
(Proverbs 24:8)
PRIVATEERS
Officialy nerfed by CCP 05/07 |
|
|
The PitBoss
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 17:12:00 -
[81]
I endorse this thread
Thank-You,
The Pitboss (Space between The & Pitboss)
Signatures by: Kalen Vox |
Grumber1
Caldari
Bambooule
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 17:23:00 -
[82]
signed
|
Cougem
Defile.
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 19:48:00 -
[83]
Supported
|
sgt spike
Sicarri Covenant
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 21:29:00 -
[84]
i endorse this product
can you put a price on peace? |
Khanoonian Singh
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 22:06:00 -
[85]
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 15:08:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Seth Ruin
Originally by: Goumindong
Lock times didn't change. And you can find align times by looking at an old version of EFT.
I'm not exactly sure how accurate EFT's align time calculator is, or even how it's calculated. I do, however, agree that the align time should always be slightly longer than lock time of the same ship, due (as stated earlier) to "lag time" and reaction time factoring in, making it even more difficult to catch a target trying to escape.
I was one of the people who first set about working out the acceleration time formula, and I know that it isn't very accurate in certain cases - in particular, with larger ships and mass addition from multiple plates. |
InAkTiV
Mentally Unstable Enterprises
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 15:34:00 -
[87]
Supported |
Kanya Nague
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 21:38:00 -
[88]
|
Lee Dalton
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 12:17:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Lee Dalton on 20/01/2009 12:17:15
Signed. |
ZMasterz
Pothouse Cartel
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 12:34:00 -
[90]
This badly needs a "fix" .. or change
Supported.
|
|
|
Terios Corvalis
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 16:23:00 -
[91]
/signed
|
Temitten
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 00:46:00 -
[92]
Good point
|
SexDogg
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 17:10:00 -
[93]
Can one of the CSM please confirm that they will take this issue forward to CCP?
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 17:26:00 -
[94]
Originally by: SexDogg
Can one of the CSM please confirm that they will take this issue forward to CCP?
Does LoveDogg = SexDogg? 'Didn't take long for the alts to start pushing in their votes. I hope CCP pays attention on who's putting in the votes  . |
Captain Thunk
Vale Tudo.
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 18:53:00 -
[95]
More likely to be your alt Matrix Skye |
Lancer Maelstorm
Endemic Aggression
Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 01:40:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Lancer Maelstorm on 22/01/2009 01:44:36
Originally by: thesonarnet
against it.
A couple of activated Sensor Boosters + a properly set Overview + a scram pre activated and blinking = instant lock
I wish it were true m8.
I fit my Phobos with 3x Sensor booster II's scan res scripts. That gives me 919.1mm Scan res. If I am in fleet (About half the time) It boosts it up to 1011mm Scan res. That being said, there has still been quite a few cruisers that warped off either while I'm locking it, or while I wait the 1-3 second module delay (With only my point primed ready to go)
So how bout you go undock and try out stuff before you post alright?
Edit: Support =)
|
Suitonia
interimo
End of The Line.
|
Posted - 2009.01.22 03:20:00 -
[97]
/signed
|
Artemis Dragmire
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 11:15:00 -
[98]
Supported. |
Kaya Divine
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 11:34:00 -
[99]
Not supported. HIC are here with reason, learn to use them. |
Great Artista
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 13:09:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Kaya Divine
Not supported. HIC are here with reason, learn to use them.
Bringing more people shouldn't be the answer for everything.
Supporting op. |
|
|
van Uber
SAE Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 14:46:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Kaya Divine
Not supported. HIC are here with reason, learn to use them.
You do know they have to lock their opponent, just like any other ship, outside of 0.0 space? |
sicieler
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 16:17:00 -
[102]
Would very much like to be able to lock stuff before it runs away |
Solasta Kovacs
Total Mayhem.
Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 16:19:00 -
[103]
/signed
A cruiser should be able to catch a cruiser etc. |
Zaran Darkstar
Divine Slaves
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 17:52:00 -
[104]
|
Pliskkenn
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 18:11:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Great Artista
Originally by: Kaya Divine
Not supported. HIC are here with reason, learn to use them.
Bringing more people shouldn't be the answer for everything.
Supporting op.
I agree with this. |
Shirley Serious
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 18:53:00 -
[106]
I Support this topic as one that needs CCP input.
There are things that need considering.
Scout frigates (Executioner, Atron, etc. ), tech1 fitted to align and accelerate quickly, piloted by someone with moderate navigation skills, need to be able to escape almost all of the time, to fulfil their scouting role. Otherwise, it promotes alt accounts rather than co-operation with other players, especially newer players.
|
Ryas Nia
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 19:09:00 -
[107]
This has killed off all but remote sensor boosting gate camps for low sec piracy :( gone are the days of roaming HAC/Recon gangs, now unless you have an RSB Hic in gang your not going to catch anything :( |
Kaileen Starsong
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 19:44:00 -
[108]
Yeah, too much reliance on numbers is not really good 
|
Fraction Turrent
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 19:47:00 -
[109]
/signed
|
Ridley Tree
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 23:48:00 -
[110]
Has my full support |
|
|
Demetri Slavic
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 12:11:00 -
[111]
Something needs to be done
|
Gabriel Darkefyre
Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 15:31:00 -
[112]
Supported. It's crazy that a ship set up specifically to lock fast and tackle struggles to achieve a lock against a Ship of a Larger Class than itself before the target can get into warp.
This isn't the point that a Cruiser should be able to lock a Cruiser before it can warp off.
This is the fact that a properly set up Frigate can't lock the same Cruiser before it can warp off. |
Johnny Malloy
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.25 23:31:00 -
[113]
supported |
Ekil Ix
Omega Wing
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 10:32:00 -
[114]
Signed
|
Banni Vinda
|
Posted - 2009.01.26 21:52:00 -
[115]
This should be dealt with |
TEK9
Caldari
Vale Tudo.
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.01 14:54:00 -
[116]
Any CSM going to take this forward?
|
1072
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 14:28:00 -
[117]
%100 percent support here.
|
Foolish Bob
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 15:13:00 -
[118]
Supported. Cruisers getting away from interceptors w/ >2000 scan res (I've been both the cruiser and the inty) in lowsec is broken mechanic |
Takeshi Yamato
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:19:00 -
[119]
Ships that decloak after jumping into system can not be locked for a few moments. The targeting attempt will fail even when the ship is clearly on the overview and there is no sign of elevated lag.
I found that with a Interceptor specifically built to catch things at gates (sensor booster + 2 signal amps) it is still impossible to catch a good number of ships for this reason. Impossible is not an overstatement, most frigs are in warp before I'm even allowed to start targeting them. Some cruisers/hacs are also fast enough for this.
|
Thann Starlinbow
Slacker Industries
The Boat Violencing Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:33:00 -
[120]
Supporting da OP. |
|
|
Baji Core
Hell's Satans
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 00:47:00 -
[121]
It would certainly make a lot of sense to have those numbers near equal!
|
Lilith Wolf
Temporary Stasis
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 10:24:00 -
[122]
It sends shivers down my spine to agree with a Goon.
But he is right.
|
Zenethalos
Minmatar
Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 07:19:00 -
[123]
Edited by: Zenethalos on 10/02/2009 07:19:13
Back to the top until it gets some CSM support. Lost more kills because of this issue. 
Edit: Tired, grammer mistake
|
Shinma Apollo
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 08:49:00 -
[124]
I agree, it pretty much is a massive dis-incentive insofar as you almost must fit a a scan res mod on to stand a chance, and are even therefor gimped in combat. nanoships like vagas should be close, but double sensor boosting shouldn't be a necessity to initiate pvp in low or highsec.
|
Kiriana Kockroach
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 07:21:00 -
[125]
bump.
|
Yaay
Reikoku
KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 07:49:00 -
[126]
Edited by: Yaay on 23/02/2009 07:49:39
In theory, I agree with everything you say. But with dictors being Dictors, I don't know how you make the trade off better unless that ship get's changed too. Over night, BS speeds dropped by 2-400m/s, so it's only fair they got a boost to agility along with every other ship out there.
Agility is fubar right now, but then again, so are interdictors 1 stop wonders and bountifulness.
I still long for the days before dictor spheres when support actually tackled stuff n stuff.
It's the Economy Stupid |
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 20:21:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Yaay
Edited by: Yaay on 23/02/2009 07:49:39
In theory, I agree with everything you say. But with dictors being Dictors, I don't know how you make the trade off better unless that ship get's changed too. Over night, BS speeds dropped by 2-400m/s, so it's only fair they got a boost to agility along with every other ship out there.
Agility is fubar right now, but then again, so are interdictors 1 stop wonders and bountifulness.
I still long for the days before dictor spheres when support actually tackled stuff n stuff.
Nothing wrong with dictors, they work great within EVE - even without the messed up agility of all ships. And we absolutely cannot afford to mess with dictors while the locking/agility issue remains. And it will remain for years, as CCP would not go back to fix something they broke on purpose. Not until people forget it
To help deal with CCP ego, we could attack this problem in a different way:
Lets focus on optimizing EVE client to reduce the lag in this areas:
1) Overview lag: when ship decloaks and starts to warp off, there's a small delay to the time it appears in your overview
2) Module activation lag: once a successful lock on target is achieved, there's still a small delay in time your modules take effect on target, even if they are "primed" - blinking.
With successful optimization of those areas, we can possibly improve lock speeds by 1 second - which would have significant positive impact on tacking of smaller ships - frigs and cruisers.
|
Yaay
Reikoku
KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 00:01:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Originally by: Yaay
Edited by: Yaay on 23/02/2009 07:49:39
In theory, I agree with everything you say. But with dictors being Dictors, I don't know how you make the trade off better unless that ship get's changed too. Over night, BS speeds dropped by 2-400m/s, so it's only fair they got a boost to agility along with every other ship out there.
Agility is fubar right now, but then again, so are interdictors 1 stop wonders and bountifulness.
I still long for the days before dictor spheres when support actually tackled stuff n stuff.
Nothing wrong with dictors, they work great within EVE - even without the messed up agility of all ships. And we absolutely cannot afford to mess with dictors while the locking/agility issue remains. And it will remain for years, as CCP would not go back to fix something they broke on purpose. Not until people forget it
To help deal with CCP ego, we could attack this problem in a different way:
Lets focus on optimizing EVE client to reduce the lag in this areas:
1) Overview lag: when ship decloaks and starts to warp off, there's a small delay to the time it appears in your overview
2) Module activation lag: once a successful lock on target is achieved, there's still a small delay in time your modules take effect on target, even if they are "primed" - blinking.
With successful optimization of those areas, we can possibly improve lock speeds by 1 second - which would have significant positive impact on tacking of smaller ships - frigs and cruisers.
Dictors are crap by game mechanics. Bubbles linger after a ship dies, so it essentially becomes a 20 mil suicide ship. Most alliances offer them free, or they should if they don't. Pilots get back onto the field in the blink of an eye with bridging. And it's one ship that benefits from lag/lock times especially with the poor client response to guns as of late.
The last issue really isn't with the ship.
None the less, The ship needs changing. I'm all for more speed on this particular ship or a huge bonus to sig reduction built in for some sort of defense. But the trade off needs to be more pilot skill to stay alive rather than suicidal.
You are right about client performance, it alone would do more for the lock time issue than anything mentioned thus far. Dictors are my own personal battle to see the game restored to tacking support rather than dictor spams.
It's the Economy Stupid |
Gil Warden
Gallente
Intergalactic Trade and Transport Corporation
The Fifth Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 00:10:00 -
[129]
Not supported.
Pirates have it too easy as it is, so what if they can no longer gank anyone they want to at will?
Cry babies the lot of them.
|
Elektrea
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 01:22:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Gil Warden
Not supported.
Pirates have it too easy as it is, so what if they can no longer gank anyone they want to at will?
Cry babies the lot of them.
lololololol.
----------
|
|
|
Hyjinx McStagger
Gallente
Elko Bail Bonds
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:20:00 -
[131]
Not supported - if someone doesn't want to fight, they should have a chance to get away. If the new lock times bother you that much - fit your ship accordinly to improve them.
It's a game, not a job! |
K1RTH G3RS3N
Haunted House
BROTHERS GRIM.
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 20:55:00 -
[132]
supported un-nerf nano
Pledge your support |
Elektrea
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 22:42:00 -
[133]
Originally by: K1RTH G3RS3N
supported un-nerf nano
Did you even read the thread?
This has nothing to do with undoing the nano-nerf. He stated to fix the lock times, or the warp times.
The nerf was the one of the better things to happen to this game.
----------
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 23:03:00 -
[134]
Not supported. Locking times are fine as they are. When are we getting "thumbs down" option?
|
thesonarnet
The friendly Killers
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 11:54:00 -
[135]
changed my mind :-)
signed |
TimMc
Extradition
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 12:12:00 -
[136]
/signed.
Shouldn't need a sensor booster to lock someone of the same class before they warp.
|
Cataracts
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 08:53:00 -
[137]
Needs a fix.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |