These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

T2 MTU

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Trusumi
The Cronos Syndicate
#1 - 2014-01-05 14:50:27 UTC
I love the MTU, and would like to see a T2 version or a variation OR a completely separate mobile unit ( not drones ) that would be able to salvage as well.

To keep it balanced, it could work on the same basis as the MTU, where it is no where near comparable to having an actual alt in a ship salvaging. IE 1 wreck at a time, with around the same bonus as salvage drones have, if you can call it a bonus. Roll

Keeping it on par with balance, this would likely mean on a 30 wreck site, once it's cleared, dropping a T2 MTU or Mobile Salvage Unit or what ever you want to name it, it would probably take around 10-15 minutes depending on distance to the bulk of the wrecks to suck most if not all in, and IF it salvages at the same time, an additional 5-10 minutes until all are salvaged, OR... have it tractor until there are NO wrecks left out of the 2.5km loot range, only THEN will it start the salvage process, adding to the initial tractor time of all wrecks of 10-15 mins, another 10-15 mins.

Figuring on the current cost of MTU's and Salvage drones, it wouldn't be difficult to make it an all in one unit for just around 10-15mil/unit, however, due to the out right awesomeness of this structure, it would still be viable if it cost around 20-25mil/unit.
Endovior
PFU Consortium
#2 - 2014-01-05 16:10:45 UTC
I think you're looking for this topic, with all the other mobile structure suggestions.
Trusumi
The Cronos Syndicate
#3 - 2014-01-05 16:14:52 UTC
aye that'll do it, ty
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#4 - 2014-01-05 18:19:34 UTC
Making more meta/faction types and adding T2 types for existing mobile structures is definitely something we have had planned into the system from the beginning. At the moment we're focused on diversifying the range of mobile structures and adding a few more meta types here and there, but T2 is a strong option that we'll probably add some day.

I don't have an ETA to provide though.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Doc Hollidai
V0LTA
OnlyFleets.
#5 - 2014-01-05 19:27:33 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Making more meta/faction types and adding T2 types for existing mobile structures is definitely something we have had planned into the system from the beginning. At the moment we're focused on diversifying the range of mobile structures and adding a few more meta types here and there, but T2 is a strong option that we'll probably add some day.

I don't have an ETA to provide though.



What about fixing the mobile structures you have already added to make them useful? How about making the mobile tractor start with things that are furthest away first? What happened to that idea?
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#6 - 2014-01-05 22:11:25 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Making more meta/faction types and adding T2 types for existing mobile structures is definitely something we have had planned into the system from the beginning. At the moment we're focused on diversifying the range of mobile structures and adding a few more meta types here and there, but T2 is a strong option that we'll probably add some day.

I don't have an ETA to provide though.



I'm interested to see what you do with the tech 2 versions. Hopefully new functionality (perhaps what the OP suggested), not just better stats.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2014-01-06 02:59:22 UTC
Doc Hollidai wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Making more meta/faction types and adding T2 types for existing mobile structures is definitely something we have had planned into the system from the beginning. At the moment we're focused on diversifying the range of mobile structures and adding a few more meta types here and there, but T2 is a strong option that we'll probably add some day.

I don't have an ETA to provide though.



What about fixing the mobile structures you have already added to make them useful? How about making the mobile tractor start with things that are furthest away first? What happened to that idea?

Check SISI, its in there for Rubicon 1.1 I beleive.
Doc Hollidai
V0LTA
OnlyFleets.
#8 - 2014-01-06 03:23:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Doc Hollidai
NEONOVUS wrote:
Doc Hollidai wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Making more meta/faction types and adding T2 types for existing mobile structures is definitely something we have had planned into the system from the beginning. At the moment we're focused on diversifying the range of mobile structures and adding a few more meta types here and there, but T2 is a strong option that we'll probably add some day.

I don't have an ETA to provide though.



What about fixing the mobile structures you have already added to make them useful? How about making the mobile tractor start with things that are furthest away first? What happened to that idea?

Check SISI, its in there for Rubicon 1.1 I beleive.


Hopefully that's true, will check later.

Edit: Nope, no change to operation.
Kristen Andelare
Night's Shadows
#9 - 2014-01-12 05:26:48 UTC
Instead of just changing the order of operation for the MTU to "furthest first" why not give us a settings on the thing after it deploys to allow either "nearest to furthest" or "Furthest to nearest order" that simple change would make them a lot more useful, since players probably like both (under certain circumstances).
Bobby Frutt
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2014-01-12 10:28:21 UTC
Man, you devs are way too obsessed with these deployable structures. I see half a dozen threads on here a day explaining serious game inconsistencies when it comes to UI, controls and basic design structure. I almost never see a dev reply to any of those threads, even years and several dozen thread creations later. Yet the measliest idea about deployables gets a response! Come on guys... pick and choose what's important more effectively please.
Dave Stark
#11 - 2014-01-12 10:50:51 UTC
Bobby Frutt wrote:
Man, you devs are way too obsessed with these deployable structures. I see half a dozen threads on here a day explaining serious game inconsistencies when it comes to UI, controls and basic design structure. I almost never see a dev reply to any of those threads, even years and several dozen thread creations later. Yet the measliest idea about deployables gets a response! Come on guys... pick and choose what's important more effectively please.


but if you throw enough shiny things at players, they might forget that even though you've polished it, it's still a turd!
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#12 - 2014-01-12 13:05:26 UTC
Bobby Frutt wrote:
Man, you devs are way too obsessed with these deployable structures. I see half a dozen threads on here a day explaining serious game inconsistencies when it comes to UI, controls and basic design structure. I almost never see a dev reply to any of those threads, even years and several dozen thread creations later. Yet the measliest idea about deployables gets a response! Come on guys... pick and choose what's important more effectively please.

Mobile deployables, or something similar based on their base code, may one day replace the POS system. With that in mind I say "Dammit Scotty, give me more power!" with regards to their development.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Garth Pollard
Automelian Syndicate
#13 - 2014-01-12 22:01:18 UTC
Bobby Frutt wrote:
Man, you devs are way too obsessed with these deployable structures. I see half a dozen threads on here a day explaining serious game inconsistencies when it comes to UI, controls and basic design structure. I almost never see a dev reply to any of those threads, even years and several dozen thread creations later. Yet the measliest idea about deployables gets a response! Come on guys... pick and choose what's important more effectively please.



This is the indirect way of fixing POSs, which is one of those things that are complained about constantly. Eventually they will have rewritten enough functionality to the new mobile structures that they can replace the old POS system altogether, since apparently the current code structure for them is so tightly wound as to be reasonably unfixable.