These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Medium Micro Jump Drives

First post First post First post
Author
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#301 - 2014-05-18 16:38:56 UTC
Ok, I'm now caught up with this thread. Thanks for the feedback so far.

I'll be taking the good points brought up in this thread and discussing them with the CSM and the other designers here at the office.

One thing I wanted to make clear is that Micro Jump Drives were never intended to be a battleship only module. When CCP Soniclover introduced them he intended to see how they went and then add more in the future.

I'm seeing two major arguments revolving around the use of MJDs as a disengagement tool.
The fleet level argument I am honestly not swayed by at this time. Providing inexpensive fleet options that don't automatically get wiped when they find themselves in a bad situation is something we consider very valuable. It creates good options for newer FCs to learn with and in particular MMJDs are a very valuable counterbalance to bombs for battlecruisers at the fleet level.
The argument focused on small gang and solo is more persuasive in this case, although the idea that this module will somehow kill all kiting gameplay is fairly silly. There are definitely situations where Attack Battlecruisers in particular could become a problem with this module, and we will definitely be considering the option of leaving ABCs off the list for the initial release.

In general, having a wide variety of possible outcomes for any fight beyond the extreme "We kill them all with minimal losses" and "We lose everyone with minimal kills" is very healthy for EVE's combat environment at all scales.

Like I said, we'll be taking all this feedback into account. Thanks to all the good posters who can manage to discuss their opinions in a reasonable and coherent manner.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#302 - 2014-05-18 16:44:00 UTC
Thanks for reading the feedback in all these threads, especially on a weekend.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#303 - 2014-05-18 16:44:28 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok, I'm now caught up with this thread. Thanks for the feedback so far.

I'll be taking the good points brought up in this thread and discussing them with the CSM and the other designers here at the office.

One thing I wanted to make clear is that Micro Jump Drives were never intended to be a battleship only module. When CCP Soniclover introduced them he intended to see how they went and then add more in the future.

I'm seeing two major arguments revolving around the use of MJDs as a disengagement tool.
The fleet level argument I am honestly not swayed by at this time. Providing inexpensive fleet options that don't automatically get wiped when they find themselves in a bad situation is something we consider very valuable. It creates good options for newer FCs to learn with and in particular MMJDs are a very valuable counterbalance to bombs for battlecruisers at the fleet level.
.



The thing is, these arent limited to cheap disposable fleets either. You can mount them on fleets of CS.

Also, its ok that inexpensive fleets get wiped - that why the junior FC is flying around in vexors instead of ishtars to begin with. They are cheap and disposable.
Aralieus
Shadowbane Syndicate
#304 - 2014-05-18 16:44:34 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Aralieus wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Aralieus wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Did on grid probing get nerfed when I wasn't looking?

And an inty pilot paying attention in the spool up time can be over half way to their landing point.


This so much...

Its not that hard to combat an MJD. You dont even need an inty, a cruiser with a long point and a MWD can reach a MJD BC that has just used it with enough situational awareness and dedication. Everybody is freaking out and I dont think most have stopped and considered how easily BC's will still be able to be caught and destroyed. Its just another tool in the toolbelt of the brawler to use in case things go **** up and like any good tool it is situational. Stop crying cause now the slow BC has an option to GTFO just like a kitey ship does.

Fozzie I think you're doing great, dont listen to all the nay-sayers


You cant reach a ship that has used its mjd. It is already aligned and can warp instantly. You either get in its scram range or it is warping out. A remote seboed interceptor waiting at the mjd landing point cannot point the ship using mjd unless the ship using mjd screws up completely.



Than bump him....I mean wtf, its like people are trying to say anything to make this mod look like the end of the world. Bump him hard and burn towards his potential landing spot with a OH MWD and OH your long point. If your not alone then its that much easier.


Im not sure you understand what "he can warp instantly" means.

Or if you are suggesting bumping him before his mjd cycles, im not sure you understand what 100km is.


Michael with a combat record like yours I know you are not this daft to creating favourable tactics on the fly. You're playing coy for the sake of argument but I know you know better.

Oderint Dum Metuant

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#305 - 2014-05-18 16:45:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

In general, having a wide variety of possible outcomes for any fight beyond the extreme "We kill them all with minimal losses" and "We lose everyone with minimal kills" is very healthy for EVE's combat environment at all scales.


logistics nerf when? and yeah, just leave them off ABCs (please consider nerfing ABCs) and it'll be fine.
NinjaStyle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#306 - 2014-05-18 16:49:38 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Battlecruisers have been a little overshadowed by battleships and cruisers in recent months and having the option to use MJDs combined with their dps and low cost should create some interesting chances for clever players to show off their abilities.


No actually its because you've nerfed them into uselessness and yeah its Great that cruisers are usefull now but the fact you had to make another class of ships allmost completely useless to do it is really dumb Ugh

I really wish it was not like that but its the sad truth of it since even attack battlecruisers no longer have any part to play with too many frigate size ships around to be used in any smart way and the normal BCs are just painfully pointless when Cruisers can out match them.

just add this module to Cruiser size allready so we can actually get some use out of it. Thoe of course you'd be right in 'that would be too powerfull for such a small ship' and you'd be right about it. A module WILL NOT SAVE Battlecruisers when they offer allmost no benefits over cruisers.


tl;dr : redo battlecruiser balance they suck, a module wont change it.

Yes we probably will see Command ship fleets using these thoe atleast there is that!
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#307 - 2014-05-18 16:55:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
mm... im not enamored by the idea of ABC's being able too jump 100km and snipe things that was just about too catch them up and kill them.. ...it makes countering them a little too hard..
also have you thought about reducing the range a little ... say 75km ... smaller sized mods should be less powerful surely?
i kind of fear for logi's and e-war range ships that like hovering around 60km off the main fight .. just getting jumped on by a heavy tackle brutix that would just rip that ship too shreds in no time...

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

MukkBarovian
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#308 - 2014-05-18 16:58:53 UTC  |  Edited by: MukkBarovian
A module might help a bit. Right now almost all T1 CBC and CS are hampered by terribly low effective ranges. It doesn't help that heavy missiles now suck. The MMJD forces enemies to go into scram range against the CBCs where the CBCs can at least do some fighting instead of dying from 80KM.

On the other hand ABCs are doing fine. I'd be more worried about ABCs continuing to overshadow CBCs exceprt that ABCs have really tight fitting already. It will require a lot of compromises to fit a MMJD to an ABC.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#309 - 2014-05-18 16:59:12 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
i kind of fear for logi's and e-war range ships that like hovering around 60km off the main fight .. just getting jumped on by a heavy tackle brutix that would just rip that ship too shreds in no time...

I'm ok with this. Twisted
Gorski Car
#310 - 2014-05-18 17:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Gorski Car
Good fozzie dont listen to the tears of people doing "elite pvp" that cant even function without links and expect every fight to be a fight where they do cowardly kiting never actually commiting and expecting to get kills. I am very happy for you and I hope you get promoted and get a job at riot soon.

Collect this post

gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#311 - 2014-05-18 17:21:39 UTC  |  Edited by: gascanu
so basically fit a scrambler on your roaming ship or don't bother.... "choices, choices" ...

welcome to the blasters world!
Chessur
Fweddit
Free Range Chikuns
#312 - 2014-05-18 17:27:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Chessur
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok, I'm now caught up with this thread. Thanks for the feedback so far.

I'll be taking the good points brought up in this thread and discussing them with the CSM and the other designers here at the office.

One thing I wanted to make clear is that Micro Jump Drives were never intended to be a battleship only module. When CCP Soniclover introduced them he intended to see how they went and then add more in the future.

I'm seeing two major arguments revolving around the use of MJDs as a disengagement tool.
The fleet level argument I am honestly not swayed by at this time. Providing inexpensive fleet options that don't automatically get wiped when they find themselves in a bad situation is something we consider very valuable. It creates good options for newer FCs to learn with and in particular MMJDs are a very valuable counterbalance to bombs for battlecruisers at the fleet level.
The argument focused on small gang and solo is more persuasive in this case, although the idea that this module will somehow kill all kiting gameplay is fairly silly. There are definitely situations where Attack Battlecruisers in particular could become a problem with this module, and we will definitely be considering the option of leaving ABCs off the list for the initial release.

In general, having a wide variety of possible outcomes for any fight beyond the extreme "We kill them all with minimal losses" and "We lose everyone with minimal kills" is very healthy for EVE's combat environment at all scales.

Like I said, we'll be taking all this feedback into account. Thanks to all the good posters who can manage to discuss their opinions in a reasonable and coherent manner.



Fozzie,

If this would go through then hypothetically you are looking at:

All BS, Maruaders, BLOPS
All ABC
All BC, CS, Navy BS

so 48 unique ships in total that long points will not have the ability to work on.

Kiting ships, and kiting setups depend on the use of a long point to help engage superior numbered gangs, and help catch targets. Finding fights in eve is already difficult. Making 48 ships now have a get out of jail free card, and entire comps of ships become immune to nano is not good for the game, and is detrimental to groups of players wanting to solo / small gang. Solo / Small gang creates content, and helps drive large battles. Making more and more ships immune to this type of play style will make less content because of the now increased difficulty of holding ships down, and forcing fights.

A game with more content, more fights, is more interesting and brings a more diverse playing experience. These proposed changes limits choices, and provides no coutner play. It means that one must always fly with a long scram ship (Keres), or have a scram themselves and get in to brawl. The worst option of course, is to fit a long point and have ships simply leave during combat, or just do not engage 40+ unique ships you come across.
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#313 - 2014-05-18 17:30:27 UTC
I kinda expected it to spread from battleships to other classes, but it seems as if you're making Micro Jump Drives the all-in one fix for mobility problems. Or am I wrong?
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#314 - 2014-05-18 17:33:15 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There are definitely situations where Attack Battlecruisers in particular could become a problem with this module, and we will definitely be considering the option of leaving ABCs off the list for the initial release.

I think that would be a shame, but understandable that you would want to take an incremental approach. I've mentioned this twice before in the thread, so apologies for sounding like a broken record, but I think a 75km MMJD range would be sufficient and in fact probably better in some cases for BCs and ABCs.

It would have a dual purpose of firstly providing a nerfing effect making a MMJDing ABC easier to catch by a skilled interceptor pilot, and in some way a buffing effect by not putting the BC way outside of it's gun and lock range.

Also it would provide some separation between BCs and BS's. I'd love to see BS's given a 125km range for even further separation.

Is this something which you might look at?
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#315 - 2014-05-18 17:37:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There are definitely situations where Attack Battlecruisers in particular could become a problem with this module, and we will definitely be considering the option of leaving ABCs off the list for the initial release.


I don't think placing arbitrary restrictions on ships is the answer. Especially a class of ships that has become less popular since the warp mechanic change.

What we need is new technology or changes to the MMJD to counter many of the problems some people have with the game. For example, you could make disrupters stop MMJD or you could add scrambling interdiction bubbles/scripts, which would also counter the ridiculous proliferation of interceptors.

To be honest, the MMJD isn't really needed. A module that increases the warp speed of a BC would be much better.
Pubbie Spy
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#316 - 2014-05-18 17:43:41 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

I'm seeing two major arguments revolving around the use of MJDs as a disengagement tool.
The fleet level argument I am honestly not swayed by at this time. Providing inexpensive fleet options that don't automatically get wiped when they find themselves in a bad situation is something we consider very valuable. It creates good options for newer FCs to learn with and in particular MMJDs are a very valuable counterbalance to bombs for battlecruisers at the fleet level.
The argument focused on small gang and solo is more persuasive in this case, although the idea that this module will somehow kill all kiting gameplay is fairly silly. There are definitely situations where Attack Battlecruisers in particular could become a problem with this module, and we will definitely be considering the option of leaving ABCs off the list for the initial release.


Please give Attack BCs the MJD, it might finally might sniping viable again.
Bishop Xsi
Hotel Culiacan
#317 - 2014-05-18 17:51:09 UTC
I mostly agree with what NinjaStyle said here. The main reason to use CBC's right now is that they're cheaper than battleships. But if money is an issue, then you're better off going with a cruiser comp anyway. If money isn't an issue, there aren't many roles that CBC's fill where another ship type isn't a superior choice.

MMJD's are a step in the right direction, but I'm guessing the fitting compromises that come with the module are going to relegate it to novelty doctrines (probably composed of Feroxes). If you want to control range within the engagement envelope of medium guns, you need a standard prop mod. In most cases, fitting a MMDJ means dual-propping your fat, slow CBC, with all that entails. The lack of mobility and large-ish signature radius already substantially offsets the damage and tank advantages of CBC's against both battleships and cruisers. Fitting a MMJD is just going to force you to either severely gimp your mobility between micro jumps, or give up one of the two things (tank and damage) that differentiate CBC's from cruisers.

In short, CBC's are in kind of a bad place right now. As a mid-point between cruisers and battleships, they don't have much of a role. I doubt the MMJD is going to fix that.
Flyinghotpocket
Doomheim
#318 - 2014-05-18 18:07:09 UTC
if your dead set on going through with this. give the absolution another mid and some extra fittings. srsly. i want a scram but i also want a cap injector.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

Gorski Car
#319 - 2014-05-18 18:09:58 UTC
I am actually going to make a serious post for once since everyone seems to be crying about mjds not being counterable by piloting and killing solo/small gang pvp.

How about you put the ship speed at 0 after landing with a micro jump. This would prevent the align + mjd + warp insta gtfo and make mjds counterable by good piloting. Press look at, see mjd eftect then burn towards their align so you can catch them after jumping.

Collect this post

Firebolt145
The Hatchery
#320 - 2014-05-18 18:21:49 UTC
Gorski Car wrote:
I am actually going to make a serious post for once since everyone seems to be crying about mjds not being counterable by piloting and killing solo/small gang pvp.

How about you put the ship speed at 0 after landing with a micro jump. This would prevent the align + mjd + warp insta gtfo and make mjds counterable by good piloting. Press look at, see mjd eftect then burn towards their align so you can catch them after jumping.

Never knew you had a 'serious post' in you.