These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon 1.1] Mobile Micro Jump Unit and Mobile Scan Inhibitor

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#621 - 2014-01-09 03:05:40 UTC
Erasmus Phoenix wrote:
Not only that, but the MSIs will replace the skill of a good d-scanner (or even prober) with the requirement to bring along a whole gang if you hope to land tackle on somebody. Removing a requirement for actual player skill is never a good step to take.


Yes, is what I meant. Example:

Range controls and dictation is a major elemnt in EVE combat. It involves player experience, character skills, ship type, fitting and much more. If we add to the game a siongle module that all of sudden delete this allowing overpowered micro jumps this ruin the game. If we make that module not only overpowered but also deployable with no requirements and usable by any number of players and the only requirement is "being able to click it" this overwrite a core game mechanic.

But the real question is: WHY? you don't fix something that is not broken.

I understand it can be hard to master for new players (and also for experienced ones) but is fun, we like it. Is not a console game replacing the core working game mechanics with trivial shortcuts is not the way to go. There're other part of EVE in need of attentions.
Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#622 - 2014-01-09 03:14:00 UTC
It's similar to why drone assist is not a fun doctrine to fly for most of the fleet, regardless of its effectiveness - the most fun is had when it's player skill that makes the difference, be it d-scan or manual piloting or managing multiple reppers or decloaking or getting a good warpin or even just knowing how to pick your fights - and these are items which, unless properly balanced, will make some of those skills less important.
Xaarous
Happy Endings.
Good Sax
#623 - 2014-01-09 03:22:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Xaarous
I think adding 'terrain' to this serious spaceships game is a good idea.

I agree that not having character skills tied to it in some ways (either the deployer, the users, or both) is an unusual choice for a game so focused on character progression.

Having said that, I disagree that there's no player skill involved, especially in gangs (player != character, in case that wasn't clear). Get even 5 pilots to use one of these together and see how well their fleet can control their formation and ranges in a combat situation; further, this coordination scales poorly as fleet size goes up which (IMHO) is A Good Thing.

If anything, I think using the MJU in combat will demand MORE player skill - from everyone, not just the FC - not less.
Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#624 - 2014-01-09 03:33:09 UTC
It depends how you're using it - if you're trying to keep a fleet hidden within one or several, then yes, that requires skill. Placing bubbles for gatecaps arguably would too, if you're trying to catch more than just the gate-to-gate route. But simply layering them around a system as decoys won't, and trying to catch ratters or somebody hiding will go from something requiring skill with d-scan or probes to something that requires luck, repeated warps, or more people.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#625 - 2014-01-09 03:38:30 UTC
Xaarous wrote:
I think adding 'terrain' to this serious spaceships game is a good idea.

I agree that not having character skills tied to it in some ways (either the deployer, the users, or both) is an unusual choice for a game so focused on character progression.

Having said that, I disagree that there's no player skill involved, especially in gangs (player != character, in case that wasn't clear). Get even 5 pilots to use one of these together and see how well their fleet can control their formation and ranges in a combat situation; further, this coordination scales poorly as fleet size goes up which (IMHO) is A Good Thing.

If anything, I think using the MJU in combat will demand MORE player skill - from everyone, not just the FC - not less.


Ok, other example: cloacking.

Actually requires:

- Specific training
- Specific module and fitting
- Specific ship

Have havy limitations:

- cannot use any module
- is decloacked by proximity
- ship fitting is limited
- speed limitations
- poor tank and DPS
- limited engagment opportunities
- targetting delay after decloacking

And more.

MSI not only give cloacking bypassing all the requirements (nothing is required, only having cargo space), not only ignore any penalities... but (as this wasn't already overpowered enough) allow to extend the cloacking to any number of ships around!

it's probably the most overpowered and unbalanced thing ever seen in the MMORPG history.

But, hey, is balanced, it costs 5 milions ISK!
Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#626 - 2014-01-09 03:42:23 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Xaarous wrote:
I think adding 'terrain' to this serious spaceships game is a good idea.

I agree that not having character skills tied to it in some ways (either the deployer, the users, or both) is an unusual choice for a game so focused on character progression.

Having said that, I disagree that there's no player skill involved, especially in gangs (player != character, in case that wasn't clear). Get even 5 pilots to use one of these together and see how well their fleet can control their formation and ranges in a combat situation; further, this coordination scales poorly as fleet size goes up which (IMHO) is A Good Thing.

If anything, I think using the MJU in combat will demand MORE player skill - from everyone, not just the FC - not less.


Ok, other example: cloacking.

Actually requires:

- Specific training
- Specific module and fitting
- Specific ship

Have havy limitations:

- cannot use any module
- is decloacked by proximity
- ship fitting is limited
- speed limitations
- poor tank and DPS
- limited engagment opportunities
- targetting delay after decloacking

And more.

MSI not only give cloacking bypassing all the requirements (nothing is required, only having cargo space), not only ignore any penalities... but (as this wasn't already overpowered enough) allow to extend the cloacking to any number of ships around!

it's probably the most overpowered and unbalanced thing ever seen in the MMORPG history.

But, hey, is balanced, it costs 5 milions ISK!



While I agree with your point in general, the MSI is available on d-scan and can be found and warped to, while a cloaked player at a safe is literally impossible to find so long as they stay logged in.

We have to make sure we're being fair if we're to be taken seriously.
Xaarous
Happy Endings.
Good Sax
#627 - 2014-01-09 04:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Xaarous
I think comparing cloaking to the MSI is like apples & oranges. They're too different to compare so directly.

If you think of MSIs as ammunition - and since they're one-shot, that's what they are - they're one of the most expensive charges in the game (more than Stealth Bomber bombs, for example, one of the few other systems in the game with an AoE effect and the only expendable one that comes to mind off-hand).

I think it'll be great to see people using these - sometimes effectively, often NOT. When I catch someone still asleep at the wheel inside their MSI bubble, the KillMail will be 10-50m more hefty thanks to those spares you carried, thanks!

I think until we see how easy they are to probe down, etc., it's wrong to assume these are un-counterable. I'd much rather have something I can probe down and scout out than a cloaked AFK guy I can literally do nothing about.

And like I said, I *do* think there's room to tie some skills to these modules should it become clear that not doing so is negatively impacting the game.

Just spit-ballin' here...
MJU:
1) Micro jump skill could reduce spin-up time, perhaps half as much as for the fitted module. Since this means it'll be even harder for your fleet to stay together through a jump, it's a mixed blessing.
2) A new skill, or the existing anchoring skill, could improve the activation radius of the MJU - could be the deployer, the activator, or both (AFAIK - maybe there's a tech issue with tying it to the deployer?). Or the spin-up time. Or the jump range. Or the anchor skill could reduce the onlining time. Or... etc. etc.
3) New skill could affect the duration.

MSI:
1) Astrometric Pinpointing skill could affect the scan strength (anchorer's skill reduces it, of course the scanner's skill already effectively increases it)
2) New skill could affect the radius, or duration, etc.
Chad Wylder
Malevelon Roe Industries
Convocation of Empyreans
#628 - 2014-01-09 04:31:08 UTC
Xaarous wrote:
Just spit-ballin' here...
MJU:
1) Micro jump skill could reduce spin-up time, perhaps half as much as for the fitted module. Since this means it'll be even harder for your fleet to stay together through a jump, it's a mixed blessing.
2) A new skill, or the existing anchoring skill, could improve the activation radius of the MJU - could be the deployer, the activator, or both (AFAIK - maybe there's a tech issue with tying it to the deployer?). Or the spin-up time. Or the jump range. Or the anchor skill could reduce the onlining time. Or... etc. etc.
3) New skill could affect the duration.

Eh, think I'd leave the spin-up time the same for everyone, so fleets can coordinate.

Could probably have a capacitor cost to use though. Like, to activate a MJU you need 50% or more cap, and it uses up 25% of your max cap on activation (when you start the spin-up). Then a skill could reduce the cap used up and/or the cap required for activation. Would also set up neuts as a possible counter.

A skill that increases the activation range would be cool though. Should be on the activator's end I'd think.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#629 - 2014-01-09 06:42:21 UTC
Priestess Lin wrote:
Yes, please don't compromise on these excellent new tools to the point of making them ineffectual. The CSMs mostly represent themselves and maintaining the status quo.

No, the CSM represent those who voted for them. If you didn't vote you don't deserve a say.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#630 - 2014-01-09 07:01:59 UTC
Nice idea but bad implementation, just like the first deployables. Again the placement restrictions make the impractical for most players day to day use.

A d-scan inhibitor that shows up on d-scan is pointless and if only one person a time can use the MJ, it's idiotic.
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#631 - 2014-01-09 07:14:16 UTC
Stalence wrote:
I for one would love to deploy the Mobile Scan Inhibitor inside and outside Faction Warfare plexs. Would be interesting to see fleets on both sides of the acceleration gate mask their compositions and numbers before engagements. I anticipate a lot of scouts meeting untimely ends and a potential for more fights in general as players slide into complexes against unknown odds.
But in practice, the MSI only masks the fleet that is already set up.

You can't warp straight to the MSI, only to the accel gate. This prevents sending cloaky (or obvious) scouts to the target area without subjecting them to point-blank fire.

The side beyond the gate can easily deploy cloak scouts outside the gate (either before the attackers arrive or with CovOps afterwards). If this is not available, they can still use D-scan to watch for inbound ships. If the inbound fleet looks too large, they can disengage at any time before the inbounds gain target lock.

In other words, the defender has multiple means of gaining complete intel on the inbound forces and complete freedom on whether to engage or not. The attacker can guess a maximum number of defending pilots from local, but otherwise must fight entirely on the defender's terms. The only option available to the attacker is the one current available - keep ships in another system and tank + tackle the defenders until reinforcements arrive. But now they must do it with zero intel.

Even suppressing D-Scan within the MSI radius doesn't do much to fix the problem, since a single cloak outside the radius will provide full intel.

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?
Colman Dietmar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#632 - 2014-01-09 07:40:18 UTC
I personally would like MSI to hide cosmic signatures.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#633 - 2014-01-09 08:46:39 UTC
Colman Dietmar wrote:
I personally would like MSI to hide cosmic signatures.



You do that and you break all of wormhole-space

Wormholer for life.
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth
#634 - 2014-01-09 09:46:19 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
anyone else think it's silly that the scan inhibitor shown up on d-scan? This thing should only be detectable via probes.


I agree that it is silly to show up on dscan but i also think that it would be totally overpowered otherwise. Basically i would just love to see that whole idea of the scan inhibitor getting discarded asap. They should rather finally do something about the flawed local channel... it is 10 years now...
Gorski Car
#635 - 2014-01-09 09:49:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Gorski Car
Super Space Fighter wrote:
Super Chair wrote:
The FW community is bringing up a good point about the mobile micro jump unit. With it only costing 1 million isk, you can literally use one of these every solo fight to escape nano long point kiters. This unit will completely destroy the play style of using nano long point kiters since anyone and their dog will have these units available to escape once they are long pointed.


Should the MMJU be available for gangs to jump 100km to catch snipers (or vice vera, snipers jumping 100km to escape/get range) and create all sorts of interesting and fun gang fights? Yes.

Should it be a get out of jail free card for solo pilots in the event they run into a nanolong point kiter with practically no investment? No, absolutely not. Increase the cost of the structure to at least 10 million. This way the unit is still cheap enough for it to be justified in gang use yes expensive enough that solo pilots will have to make a choice about using it. The option will still be there for solo pilots to use it, but at a cost.


If this module stays at 1 million isk i'm literally going to put one in every brawler ship I have because its 0 investment to me for a get out of jail free from nano long point kiters. This will destroy an entire play style if it stays this cheap.



Good!

Don't forget this is an entire play style that can 'get out of jail free' whenever it wants too. Not to mention how annoying it is to be pointed for ever while they try and tickle you to dead.

This is good good good all around. It will be a must in the cargohold of afterburner solo frigs.







You know that actually fitting a micro warpdrive and being a good pilot already counters mwd kiters right?

I suggest that the ship is immobilized for x seconds after using the mmjd or at least set the speed to 0.

Collect this post
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth
#636 - 2014-01-09 10:08:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Galmas
Alundil wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Nope, to both of them.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Mobile Micro Jump Unit

This is a bit less egregious than the second one. It is simply not viable due to how alignment mechanics and client lag work.

Are you actually aligned to the guy you want to warp to, or just rubberbanding and actually pointing 60 degrees in another direction? Who knows? Better wait 12 seconds and find out!

While Eve still has no good way to know exactly towards what your ship is pointing, any mechanic that relies on "aiming" your ship is just a bad, bad idea. Bombs are marginally "okay" because they have some give due to their AoE. Something like this has no room for mistakes, especially when propelling you 100 km, where a simple 10 degree deviation throws you 17 km off your mark.


Try this: close your eyes, put a ruler down in an oblique position on your desk, then open just one eye and, without moving your head, accurately pinpoint the most distant object in the room the ruler is pointing at. Hard? Now do it in space, with a non-linearly-shaped ship.

To fix it: Alignment needs to match the actual ship's heading, with some visual indication of what you're actually aligned to. Cool concept, but nightmarishly unusable execution if you want any sort of accuracy with it.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Mobile Scan Inhibitor




Trolling people with cloaking wasn't enough, I see. Now we have space shell-games! Featuring two super-fun perspectives:

1. The safest shell game. Something I'm sure a lot of people have already pointed out is that those doing stationary activities (including ratting, mining, missioning, etc) can completely obscure their locations from any interlopers. Not only that, but it is passive -- they do not even have to stop their activity and cloak or warp when a potential target shows up. In addition, they can see the threat coming, without their aggressor even knowing if he's going for a red herring or not.

Picture this: you are raiding an enemy system, and you jump into a system known to be full of vulnerable targets. You see three asteroid belts and an anomaly on d-scan, all with MSIs in them. So you warp to one. 20 seconds of travel later... there's nothing there except some wrecks. You warp to the next. Nope, same thing. On to the next. Nope. And in the last one? Nothing there but some more wrecks. How can this be? Well, at some point during your warping around, you were on the way to the right place. Your mark, though, if it were ever even there, saw you on 10,000,000 km D-scan, and warped off before you could even land on grid.

What could you have done instead? Why was your practiced fast d-scanning and target-finding trumped risk-free by a skill-less spamming of d-scan and warp? (Which, I should mention, gives botting a big pat on the back)

So you do all you can: you spend the next chunk of valuable time, blowing these up, frustrated that what used to be a good chase and a contest between a hunter's skill at finding prey, and the prey's ability to evade... just turned into structure shooting.

The most dangerous shell game. Meanwhile, the vulnerable people in your alliance have noticed MSIs popping up all around the system. Now and again, a hostile sits in the system for hours, just as the "AFK" cloakers of old.* Now and then he pops up kills (or hotdrops)* someone, and then goes away being as invisible as he was before. So you do what is most reasonable to do: you get in your probing ship and probe down the MSI's. But... oh no! Because the hostile can still use his d-scan, he sees that you're probing him down! And, just like the PvEer before, he can warp off before you even know he was there! How's that for fun? So your PvP turns into structure-grinding once again as you tear down his MSIs.

(* Ignore these if you're in a wormhole. All you know is these MSIs on scan are vaguely threatening to your very existence and if you want to know what's actually going on, you have to... you guessed it, grind structures)

Now, one of three things happens: either he leaves since he knows he can't take you (info you don't even know about him); or he returns to you, confident he can kill you, and ganks you as you are structure-grinding (sort of escapable, since the MSI works for you now); or the most fun: he sets up a mobile small warp disruptor inside of another MSI, and waits for you there.

What fun! Isn't it great how this one structure lets any enemy force you either into a compromising PvP situation, into structure grinding, or into just leaving? It doesn't even matter what you're doing, or what skill you have; without information, you are permanently at a disadvantage. I know I can't wait to be a victim of this.

Lastly any sort of disabling of d-scan is a legitimization of the only other instant intel tool: local channel. I thought CCP agreed that using local as an intel tool is awful and needs to be replaced with something better. Why are you pushing for modules that make it more vital to gameplay?

tl;dr: MSIs hate fun.

How to fix it: Put it in the wastebasket, and go back to the drawing board.

I am usually not this negative, but this idea is absolutely purely awful.


This is a truly excellent write up of the issues and problems that these items will create.

Well said.


I strongly agree here, especially to the last part regarding the relation to local channel. As i posted already earlier, rather do not bring that MSI but instead finally invest some serious effort into removing the intel tool function from local channel at least in low and null sec. A change on that front would go the same direction as the MSI but not break a lot of game play on the path.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#637 - 2014-01-09 10:18:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Sura Sadiva
Xaarous wrote:
I think comparing cloaking to the MSI is like apples & oranges. They're too different to compare so directly.
If you think of MSIs as ammunition - and since they're one-shot, that's what they are - they're one of the most expensive charges in the game (more than Stealth Bomber bombs, for example, one of the few other systems in the game with an AoE effect and the only expendable one that comes to mind off-hand).

I think it'll be great to see people using these - sometimes effectively, often NOT. When I catch someone still asleep at the wheel inside their MSI bubble, the KillMail will be 10-50m more hefty thanks to those spares you carried, thanks!


They do the same: hiding a ship presence to d-scan; they affect the same game dynamics and combat scenarios. Yes, of course they do it in a different way, that's just the point: cloacking is part of EVE framework fo skills, training, ships, fitting, balancements. MSI is not and simply trivially override anything, it's a shortcut.

- To do anything against an MSI you need a dedicated prober (specific training, ship limitations and fitting). To deploy one you need... nothing.

- To hide your ship in space you have to use a cloacking device: this strongly limits your ship, fitting and engagment options, is self-balancing. To hide using an MSI you need nothing.

- Also: to deploy bombs you need to use a SB, again specific training, ship, modules... again: is self-balancing; is not like you only need to have some cargo space and being able to drag and drop a bomb from it.

Of course works differently. But just because they influence the same gameplay (and these mobile toys do it heavly) should be, on the countrary, policied by common mechanics and "rules".

In this thread there was someone staing something like "MMJU is cool so finally I catch those kiting Comets"; the point is just this: catching those kiting comet should be part of player skills, character skills, fitting and so on, is part of the game and of the fun. Replacing it with a shortcut "I win" button is unhealthy for the gameplay and trivial.
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#638 - 2014-01-09 10:22:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Speedkermit Damo
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

That being said, these structures are intentionally provocative so even after this round of adjustments we expect them to be very disruptive to the status quo in a valuable and exciting way.


This is an interesting statement to make. It seems to me that you believe that constantly and dramatically shaking up the game balance of Eve Online with wholly new mechanics is good in its own right; that you don't believe in destructive disruption of the status quo. I can't decide if I think you're shaking it up because you think that the core game design of Eve Online is fundamentally broken, or because you're hoping to use constant chaos to prevent the meta stagnation we saw for so many years. Either way it's pretty obvious that you're heavily betting on the sandbox nature of Eve to cover over the flaws.

I guess the point of this post is to say that I'm deeply concerned by the constant introduction of new mechanics and the whipsaw effect on game balance that comes has come with them. I'm afraid that this kind of cavalier approach to introducing new mechanics just for the sake of shaking things up will lead to a place of exponential chaos and a future outright collapse of the system. I'm also concerned that it may lead to a more mundane demise: a place where the core user base no longer recognizes a future incarnation of Eve as the game they've played for so long.

I don't believe that we need either of these two modules, and I believe they will be disruptive to the game in a way that is destructive.

-Liang


I definitely agree that not all change is good, but I would strongly argue that some of the areas of value provided by good changes in a sandbox game are the opportunities for players to explore new forms of gameplay, discover how changes affect their current gameplay, and compete with each other to be the first to capitalize on those new tricks.

In that regard, disruption itself is one of the values provided by a good change to a game.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that any of these additions risk causing exponential chaos or making EVE unrecognizable. They are new tools with which to interact with the sandbox (specifically to modify your local environment) and insuring that EVE players have access to a diverse and healthy "toolbox" is at the core of our job as caretakers of the sandbox.

As for specific concerns with the details of these structures, we do think that a lot of the points raised in this thread so far (including many of yours) are extremely valid and we think that the next iteration of the design should go a long way to addressing those specific concerns.

I've been chatting with the CSM about the latest iteration of the design since earlier this afternoon, and things are looking positive from that end so far. Current plan is to give the CSM (especially the North Americans that got off work more recently) some more time to look over and comment on the changes and then if all looks satisfactory I'll bring them to you all in the morning Iceland time.

Have a good night everyone.


Regarding the MMJD module. Is it going to be required to have trained the MJD skill to a resonable level (Level 4) to be able to use it?

Because I think it should, don't you?

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#639 - 2014-01-09 10:30:57 UTC
Roosterio wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • The Micro Jump Unit mass restrictions are not working on SISI, this is a bug and once fixed capital ships (anything above 1,000,000,000 mass) will not be able to use the MJU.


    • That mass limit doesn't include freighters or JFs. Why 1 billion and not 800,000,000 or so? Or just do some sort of class restriction instead of random mass limitations.


    If you're going to use a mass "ceiling" to separate capitals from sub-capitals it really needs to start at 200m kg. No battleship goes over 110m kg whereas the orca is 260m kg. Setting the ceiling to 200m kg gives plenty of breathing room for battleships while at the same time preventing any ship that uses capital construction components from using the MJU.
    Theon Severasse
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #640 - 2014-01-09 10:58:05 UTC
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    Priestess Lin wrote:
    Yes, please don't compromise on these excellent new tools to the point of making them ineffectual. The CSMs mostly represent themselves and maintaining the status quo.

    No, the CSM represent those who voted for them. If you didn't vote you don't deserve a say.



    Well to be fair Mynnna has previously said that it doesn't matter if you voted for her, she only represents her own opinions.