These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#601 - 2014-01-08 22:48:25 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Candente wrote:
Giving people more ways to defend themselves from ganking is not necessarily a bad thing, if it's about fairness. The same thing can be said not to allow a warp bubble be set up within the effect of a MSI. It shouldn't be used behind an acceleration gate for the same principle.

These should be no brainers no matter how much status quo is to be changed. Looking forward to see the balance changes.



I am much more worrie don the fact aht now you need to be able to kill your target within 32 secodns 9that measn blob) or you need to be in a blaster boat :(


It's basically going to kill solo kiting fits, yeah.
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#602 - 2014-01-08 22:49:47 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Like I said, we have a significant set of balance changes currently before the CSM and I'll be sharing those with you very soon as well as going over some of the specific larger scope issues that have been raised.


Very interesting! Can't wait to see those changes.
Tuttomenui II
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#603 - 2014-01-08 23:18:28 UTC
lol, just make it so you can scram the mobile unit itself and have it be the same as scramming the ship trying to use it, but don't document this feature in the description hehehe
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#604 - 2014-01-08 23:47:40 UTC
It's poorly thought out mechanics like this that encourage blobbing... Why send one guy in to try in vein to scan a ship down when you can send ten interceptors to warp to every site?!
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#605 - 2014-01-08 23:57:02 UTC
idea how to make the MSI more interesting:
the more mass it hides the easier it is to scan it down. Imagine it would focus signature of everything in range at one point for sensors, creating a larger signature.

if there is too much around it it could even appear on the overview. Would also add another attribute for future, improved versions. (T2 etc)

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
SPIDERS FOR BREAKFAST
Doomheim
#606 - 2014-01-09 00:06:38 UTC
This jumping about unit is a great tool to stop them faction warfarers who live in and around sisdeedie and use those annoying faction hoobkills to snag enemy and keep them tackled while flying around the arena at god awful fasty speeds and they stop you from locking too. a slew and horrible way to loss a ship but with this jumping unti and when you drop it you just fly off like you jump off the ride at fair. how cool will this tool be? how mad will those faction warferers be? lol.
Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#607 - 2014-01-09 00:08:55 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
idea how to make the MSI more interesting:
the more mass it hides the easier it is to scan it down. Imagine it would focus signature of everything in range at one point for sensors, creating a larger signature.

if there is too much around it it could even appear on the overview. Would also add another attribute for future, improved versions. (T2 etc)


Interesting. That way you know the decoys, you won't get strong hits on them. could be viable, I suppose.
Bakkhai
Talking In Stations Corporation
#608 - 2014-01-09 00:12:57 UTC
hope this hasn't been asked -

Can you drop an MSI in the middle of a hive of NPC pirates - as a trap?
Super Space Fighter
Screaming Hayabusa
#609 - 2014-01-09 00:14:06 UTC
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.





Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#610 - 2014-01-09 00:20:25 UTC
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'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#611 - 2014-01-09 00:26:40 UTC
Beside the severe issues already pointed out in this thread by everyone there's a bad basic concept behind their design: they override EVE skillsets, advancement and fitting requirements.

I mean: any character, no matter the ship, no matter the trained skill, can spam any of this toys and produce overpowered effect, with a massive multiplier from numbers, far beyond what a specializzed character with a proper ship can do in the same area.

This can be accettable for personal utility tools, like the mobile depots and the tractor unit but becomes gamebreaking when it comes to toys able to heavly mess combat and such. This toys ca be used in the same way and with the same identical consequences by any character able to undock and and any ship witha a cargo; no skill training is required, no ships or fitting, no constraints, no player skill.

Not even a cost in terms of ISK (please don't tell me that 5 mil ISK is a balancement factor).

They will never be "good" or balanced. The only hope is to get them nerfed to the point to be usless.
Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#612 - 2014-01-09 00:39:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Erasmus Phoenix
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Beside the severe issues already pointed out in this thread by everyone there's a bad basic concept behind their design: they override EVE skillsets, advancement and fitting requirements.

I mean: any character, no matter the ship, no matter the trained skill, can spam any of this toys and produce overpowered effect, with a massive multiplier from numbers, far beyond what a specializzed character with a proper ship can do in the same area.

This can be accettable for personal utility tools, like the mobile depots and the tractor unit but becomes gamebreaking when it comes to toys able to heavly mess combat and such. This toys ca be used in the same way and with the same identical consequences by any character able to undock and and any ship witha a cargo; no skill training is required, no ships or fitting, no constraints, no player skill.

Not even a cost in terms of ISK (please don't tell me that 5 mil ISK is a balancement factor).

They will never be "good" or balanced. The only hope is to get them nerfed to the point to be usless.


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.

I also agree with the above comments that change for change's sake is not a good idea. Too much shaking up without a clear goal will just shake things to pieces.

Or should I perhaps say that if you shake the sandbox too much, all the sand will come out...
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#613 - 2014-01-09 01:55:37 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
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.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#614 - 2014-01-09 02:09:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Erasmus Phoenix
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 one of the areas of value provided by good changes in a sandbox game is the opportunity 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.


Looking forwards to reading them. I'm all for additional tools that bring new options with good balance, but the deployables as originally suggested are far too close to new weapons given specifically to one type of player to be used against another.
Roosterio
Tactical Knightmare
#615 - 2014-01-09 02:20:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Roosterio
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.

    Are you still intending to allow cloaked ships and HICs with their bubbles up to use them?
    Arthur Aihaken
    CODE.d
    #616 - 2014-01-09 02:28:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    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.

    The CSM does not necessarily represent the majority of the player base, nor all the varying types of gameplay. You proceed with any endorsement that runs contrary to the feedback of your player base at your own peril. The CSM largely endorsed the unannounced changes to the rapid light missile launchers and look how well that's gone over. I'm not necessarily expecting a reply, because both you and Rise have largely chosen to simply comment on feedback that fits your criteria and casually disregard some of the more contentious aspects.

    There are fundamental aspects of EVE that are simply broken, and these more than anything else are inhibiting this game. I would rather see CCP take a six month break from new features and address the current backlog of broken of game mechanics that plague EVE. It's a short list, but simply deferring it again and again without making it a priority is costing more players than these new features hope to attract. Continually referencing the challenge as issues with "legacy code" is fast becoming tiresome, and if that's truly the case maybe CCP should track down some of the original programmers to help them deal with it.

    I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
    Priestess Lin
    Darkfall Corp
    #617 - 2014-01-09 02:38:16 UTC
    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.

    When discussing weaknesses of heavy drones vs fast frigates: baltec1- " A thanatos with a flight of geckos killed a bomber gang while AFK. So yea, they track frigates just fine." https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4678049#post4678049
    Stalence
    Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
    Templis CALSF
    #618 - 2014-01-09 02:40:38 UTC
    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.

    Member of #tweetfleet @stalence // Templis CALSF // YouTube Channel
    Erasmus Phoenix
    Avalanche.
    #619 - 2014-01-09 02:52:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Erasmus Phoenix
    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.


    Except most players aren't going to take unknown odds. There are already far too many things done in FW to avoid fights. MSIs will just result in either the person inside running when they see what's outside, or nobody being willing to warp in without a blob, because of what might be inside.
    Sura Sadiva
    Entropic Tactical Crew
    #620 - 2014-01-09 02:53:29 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.


    9 out of 10 people do not engage against unknow odds. The lack of any easonable clue about the enemy numbers a ship type is a major discouraging factor in a game based on open world PvP, severe death penalities and full loot like EVE.

    If people suspèect a bait, or simply think you have a back up in the next system will not engage. Go figure is there's an obvious bait deployed in the system.

    And go figure the players not wanting or not provided with scouts and all, they can just quit and go to do something else.