Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Attention To Detail

Sometimes work gets in the way of important things, like internet spaceships.  This past weekend I spent a lot of time working and tried to do a little research on Singularity at the same time.  Needless to say, I missed a few things.  The biggest thing I missed was the warp speed of the Prowler.  When I began testing I dutifully wrote down the warp speed of the Prowler without hyperspatial rigs (8 AU) and with two hyperspatial rigs and a +10% hardwiring (12.67 AU).

At this point people are shouting, "Hey dummy, the base warp speed of blockade runners is only 6 AU!"  Yes it is.  I don't even have the excuse of the developers hiding the change.  In his dev blog on the warp acceleration changes, CCP Masterplan provided a nice chart laying out the effects of the changes both before and after the release of Rubicon.


Then Rhavas in his excellent Rubicon preview post displayed the same chart.  If I had studied the chart in either post I would have noticed the change.  But I was in a hurry and didn't really pay attention.

I finished doing the testing and included my findings in Monday's post.  Thankfully I acted like a true Chicago-area native and wrote my findings in time and not speed.  But with an 8 AU base speed stuck in my head, imagine my surprise when I opened up the info page on my Prowler and saw a base speed of 6 AU.  Yikes!

I freaked out a bit and started testing on both Tranquility and Singularity to make sure fitting two warp speed rigs made sense and was able to recreate my times during testing.  My final warp speed with 2 Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I rigs and an Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Warp Drive Speed WS-610 skill hardwire is 9.5 AU, which is just under what an interceptor can do with 1 warp speed rig fitted.  So I won't need to make another cargo optimization rig, although the idea is tempting.  Perhaps I'm too much of a risk-adverse carebear, but given I still plan to fly in the same area as those determined Aussies for awhile I think I'll choose survivability over cargo capacity for now.

That is how I spent my first day of the winter expansion; testing the fit on my Prowler.  In the grand scheme of things, testing the changes once they go live on Tranquility is probably a good idea anyway.  But if I had paid a little more attention to detail (and charts!) I could have done something different with my time.

4 comments:

  1. I prefer 1 hyperspatial velocity optimizer and one polycarbon rig. With Vs in Evasivive Maneuvering and Spaceship Command that keeps alignment time under 4 seconds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm at a disadvantage when fit with one expanded cargohold II because the lowest I can get my agility down to is 4.07, which rounds up to 5 seconds. But with two nanofiber internal structure IIs I'm comfortably under 4.

      With Rubicon I envision ships, especially interceptors, trying to get ahead of me. I want to be fast enough to try to outrun the pursuit as well as agile enough to slip by a gate camp.

      Delete
    2. Do you really need that cargo expander?

      I use one nano and a DC-II in the lows. With a velocity optimizer and a polycarbon in the rigs and Vs in both agility skills that gives me a 3.99 sec align time.

      Delete
  2. Arrrgh. It's Risk-AVERSE (no d). As in an aversion to risk. To be adverse to risk is to seek out and destroy risk. Which is what people who are risk-averse do, by not doing risky things.

    ReplyDelete