These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#421 - 2014-01-07 23:46:08 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Hell, increasing the price from 5m to say 20m isk to deplay will stop people spamming these in anomalies, as it will cut too much into their isk/hr.

I am mostly fine with this solution to it. It would stop them from being spammed in FW complexes, a place much more relevant to my interests than Sansha's Sanctums.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Finally, as a hunter, I can tell you that we get blueballed over and over and over all the time. An aware ratter will warp the moment you enter local, leaving you no chance to catch them.

The MSI lowers the amount of awareness required to cause blueballing by a ton. I am perfectly fine with aware PvEers getting away, but they do not need more help getting away. They need more help doing stuff other than running away, if anything. I have no idea how to accomplish that, though.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Do you have another reason why these break the game somehow?

I wrote a novel on it back on page 9: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4080247#post4080247

Right now I'm just bored and stirring crap around.

Ed: I get why my scenario doesn't sound believable, and I know that it will not be a trap 99.9% of the time. I have some sweet trap ideas for these modules, though, which I will not be sharing here.

My point was that MSIS turn hunting non-AFK people into one of two results: "there's nothing here" and "I'm not even gonna bother". A single cheap anchorable module singlehandedly doing this is completely unacceptable.


I read your post on Page 9 now. A few points:
A 2 hrs lifespan, a not-completely-negligible cost, and taking up 50 m3 of space means these won't be willy-nilly spammed. I honestly don't see that happening, although it is also why I advocate increasing their cost some (thereby making it even less likely). The truth is, whenever you see these on scan, that will certainly mean someone is doing something they want to keep clandestine. That screams explore here for content to me, and is exactly why I think they are a good idea.

It all really comes down to moderation. If you can spam these everywhere, all the time, you can undermine the primary active intel function in the game (dscan), which is a bad thing. But as long as that balance exists, where their use is limited to scenarios where their mere presence has meaning, then they would be a great addition!
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#422 - 2014-01-07 23:46:32 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
By the way, the MSI hides cosmic signatures...sort of. The sig still shows on the scanner. It shows as a red sphere in the solar system map. But scan probes cannot see a sig near a MSI. Drop one on a wormhole and that wormhole cannot be scanned out.

Of course if they have an expanded probe launcher and combat probes they can find the MSI, warp to it and find the wormhole. If they got that equipment and are willing to do it.


This is not a good change.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#423 - 2014-01-07 23:47:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Scan Inhib does not prevent anything from showing up on overviews or the discovery scanner. So beacons such as cynos will still appear.


Since the inhibitor prevents things showing on D-Scan or scan probes, doesn't it just make sense that those things shouldn't show up on the system overlay?

In the last two expansions we've seen magic tractor beams that can pick up spew cans but nothing else and a magic system overlay that can pinpoint signatures that the pilot doesn't even have the equipment to discover much less scan to 100%. That's an awful lot of inconsistent magic happening in this sci-fi game. The very least the MSI could do is be consistent about preventing you discovering things in space.

It's like I'm walking through the library and seeing signs with grocer's apostrophes, "their/there/they're" confusion and TXT-speak.

edit: yes, I am highly biased against the system scanner overlay: it replaced the DSP because Deep Space Probes were apparently too powerful. DSPs allowed explorers to get an inventory of a system but the explorer still had to find the signatures with no hints. The system overlay tells you where signatures are to within a few AU, which is small enough error to find the signatures with one or two scans. They joy of discovery is gone.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#424 - 2014-01-07 23:52:02 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
It all really comes down to moderation. If you can spam these everywhere, all the time, you can undermine the primary active intel function in the game (dscan), which is a bad thing. But as long as that balance exists, where their use is limited to scenarios where their mere presence has meaning, then they would be a great addition!

I agree fundamentally that everything should have a counter, and I suppose d-scan should be no exception. However, as is, the MSI carries too few costs for its enormous usefulness. I'm not sure cost would be a good enough balancing factor, but it might be.

Instead, if it has to be implemented in a manner similar to the current proposal, I would want it to either disable d-scan for anyone made un-scannable. This way it requires effort and preparation on both sides, and actually creates a type of battlefield not seen before, rather than simply giving a huge advantage to people who prefer to sit still, as the proposed MSI currently does.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Samuel Wess
Doomheim
#425 - 2014-01-08 00:11:41 UTC
Eve should be a strategy game. Making decisions based on some input. Cyno mechanic is bad enough allready
and cuts down a lot on pvp. Only times we engage lately is inside combat plexes because of the anti cyno safety that i
am sure it is not intended just a coincidence.
There would be a lot of fun fights with proper intel tools. This d-scan module just cuts more from the intel and more fights
are just not gonna happen because we will not be able to make a decision blindly and will just dock/leave/whatever.

Take for example poker and roulette. Poker is even considered a sport, while roulette is gambling. Eve becomes
a gambling game where random decisions have same value as planned decisions.

Walk into the club like "What up? I got a big cockpit!"
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#426 - 2014-01-08 00:13:46 UTC
Samuel Wess wrote:
Only times we engage lately is inside combat plexes because of the anti cyno safety that i
am sure it is not intended just a coincidence.


The design intent of combat dungeons is to allow players to select the type of PvP they're after. This is why there are ship restrictions on acceleration gates, and why you can't cyno into a deadspace dungeon.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#427 - 2014-01-08 00:24:28 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
It all really comes down to moderation. If you can spam these everywhere, all the time, you can undermine the primary active intel function in the game (dscan), which is a bad thing. But as long as that balance exists, where their use is limited to scenarios where their mere presence has meaning, then they would be a great addition!

I agree fundamentally that everything should have a counter, and I suppose d-scan should be no exception. However, as is, the MSI carries too few costs for its enormous usefulness. I'm not sure cost would be a good enough balancing factor, but it might be.

Instead, if it has to be implemented in a manner similar to the current proposal, I would want it to either disable d-scan for anyone made un-scannable. This way it requires effort and preparation on both sides, and actually creates a type of battlefield not seen before, rather than simply giving a huge advantage to people who prefer to sit still, as the proposed MSI currently does.


I think have the MSI inhibit dscan for all those under its influence to be very interesting and creative. I could definitely go for that.
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#428 - 2014-01-08 00:28:00 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Priestess Lin wrote:
Cameron Freerunner wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
What? I bet you any amount of ISK you would never catch me bearing it up in a system if you were not there already. I will be half way to warp initiation before you even press that directional scan button. That is fact.

You're validating my point: if you don't warp away shortly after I enter the system, I will catch you. And even if you make it off grid, I can cloak up and wait. Then you're done with whatever you were doing until I leave. If you had a couple of MSIs out or you and your buddies each had one while you run separate sites, I have a problem I have to solve before I can catch anyone. If you're clever about MSI use and have the capability (like, say, a mobile fitting unit), you have the option and the time to either hunt me in turn or run sites in a clever manner. If you were using MSIs and just had low SP alts docked in system, I would have to make a lot more decisions about how or whether to engage.

PvE shouldn't be easy, but neither should PvP. It should take more than my presence to lock you out of content in your system.


Well put. My biggest issue with the game is that aggressors can so easily **** with you and hinder you with so little risk to themselves. The MSI is a fantastic tool that will force aggressors to take a risk themselves or force them to scout first at least.

The very core issue, which I have argued for a change a good while now, is the massive difference between income levels of line members doing PvE content across the game and the ship fitting difference between what they must fit compared to a hunters PvP fit.

99% of the time a player doing PvE content will be safe before a hunter can catch them. 99% of the time the hunter will kill them if they are caught. Factor in that if the player shifts their fit to something useful for PvP, their income on the PvE content will suffer dramatically. So much so that it is more profitable for them to open up a second account to PvE in high sec to PLEX one account and generate ISK for the actual main that is in null and low sec.

That right there, is the very core issue when it comes to the hunter and prey dynamic of EVE. All this 'xyz module is going to make killing bears OP and or will make bears too safe' is just noise over the real problem. Until they properly address this we will just all sit here arguing over the 0.1% of things.



You've just said that they are currently safe 99.1% of the time. That means that ratters do not need to have any additional means of escaping gankers, since their survival rate far exceeds that of any gankers, since gankers actually have to get themselves to that system through hostile space to start with.

Your justification for this is that nullsec ratting is currently not worth the risk, but are also admitting that their is virtually no risk anyway. Should nullsec ratting income get a buff? Maybe. But it isn't something that should be used as an argument for safer ratting.

Realistically if you are going to balance risk and reward then doing this should cause nullsec ratting to drop in income, since you are increasing safety.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#429 - 2014-01-08 00:30:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
22 pages and the response thus far has been clearly lackluster or outright negative. Standard CCP dev policy will thus be to leave this for another week without comment, make a minor (read: token) adjustment - all the while indicating that testing and feedback indicate the new mobile structures will perform as intended (and that we can't see the "full" picture). Meanwhile, preparations to essentialy roll these out for Rubicon 1.1 in their present state proceed uninterrupted...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jaz Antollare
UrAnus Probing Squad
#430 - 2014-01-08 00:38:13 UTC
Dis things are awesome! We need more things like that! Like you said, more sand to the sand box!!!
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#431 - 2014-01-08 00:38:40 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
It all really comes down to moderation. If you can spam these everywhere, all the time, you can undermine the primary active intel function in the game (dscan), which is a bad thing. But as long as that balance exists, where their use is limited to scenarios where their mere presence has meaning, then they would be a great addition!

I agree fundamentally that everything should have a counter, and I suppose d-scan should be no exception. However, as is, the MSI carries too few costs for its enormous usefulness. I'm not sure cost would be a good enough balancing factor, but it might be.

Instead, if it has to be implemented in a manner similar to the current proposal, I would want it to either disable d-scan for anyone made un-scannable. This way it requires effort and preparation on both sides, and actually creates a type of battlefield not seen before, rather than simply giving a huge advantage to people who prefer to sit still, as the proposed MSI currently does.


I think have the MSI inhibit dscan for all those under its influence to be very interesting and creative. I could definitely go for that.


In my opinion it wouldn't make a difference. Those inside the bubble can still use a cloaky alt sitting just outside the MSI, but there are still the problems of gaining intel on those inside the bubble, since you still put a bubble inside and have everything bar intys and T3s die to you.

And it still wouldn't fix the problem of FW plexes, since it is impossible to warp into one of those safely without being able to dscan it before going in.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#432 - 2014-01-08 00:40:46 UTC
Theon Severasse wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Priestess Lin wrote:
Cameron Freerunner wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
What? I bet you any amount of ISK you would never catch me bearing it up in a system if you were not there already. I will be half way to warp initiation before you even press that directional scan button. That is fact.

You're validating my point: if you don't warp away shortly after I enter the system, I will catch you. And even if you make it off grid, I can cloak up and wait. Then you're done with whatever you were doing until I leave. If you had a couple of MSIs out or you and your buddies each had one while you run separate sites, I have a problem I have to solve before I can catch anyone. If you're clever about MSI use and have the capability (like, say, a mobile fitting unit), you have the option and the time to either hunt me in turn or run sites in a clever manner. If you were using MSIs and just had low SP alts docked in system, I would have to make a lot more decisions about how or whether to engage.

PvE shouldn't be easy, but neither should PvP. It should take more than my presence to lock you out of content in your system.


Well put. My biggest issue with the game is that aggressors can so easily **** with you and hinder you with so little risk to themselves. The MSI is a fantastic tool that will force aggressors to take a risk themselves or force them to scout first at least.

The very core issue, which I have argued for a change a good while now, is the massive difference between income levels of line members doing PvE content across the game and the ship fitting difference between what they must fit compared to a hunters PvP fit.

99% of the time a player doing PvE content will be safe before a hunter can catch them. 99% of the time the hunter will kill them if they are caught. Factor in that if the player shifts their fit to something useful for PvP, their income on the PvE content will suffer dramatically. So much so that it is more profitable for them to open up a second account to PvE in high sec to PLEX one account and generate ISK for the actual main that is in null and low sec.

That right there, is the very core issue when it comes to the hunter and prey dynamic of EVE. All this 'xyz module is going to make killing bears OP and or will make bears too safe' is just noise over the real problem. Until they properly address this we will just all sit here arguing over the 0.1% of things.



You've just said that they are currently safe 99.1% of the time. That means that ratters do not need to have any additional means of escaping gankers, since their survival rate far exceeds that of any gankers, since gankers actually have to get themselves to that system through hostile space to start with.

Your justification for this is that nullsec ratting is currently not worth the risk, but are also admitting that their is virtually no risk anyway. Should nullsec ratting income get a buff? Maybe. But it isn't something that should be used as an argument for safer ratting.

Realistically if you are going to balance risk and reward then doing this should cause nullsec ratting to drop in income, since you are increasing safety.

My entire point was we only have 0.01% room to balance between the hunter and the prey. So one smidge one way and whatever it is is OP for the hunter. Take it a smidge the other way and it is OP for the prey.

Understand?
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#433 - 2014-01-08 00:47:49 UTC
Ok sure, but I'm still saying that the MSI isn't needed. Those ratters that are sensible enough to be aligned and are looking at dscan deserve to keep their ships. Those that don't do those things don't deserve something to help hold their hands.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#434 - 2014-01-08 01:11:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Theon Severasse wrote:
Ok sure, but I'm still saying that the MSI isn't needed. Those ratters that are sensible enough to be aligned and are looking at dscan deserve to keep their ships. Those that don't do those things don't deserve something to help hold their hands.

I think it has a place in the meta. It does need some work though. Many in this thread have expressed concern about it being used in FW plexes and you and others have brought up the carebear using them to hide while they swim in oceans of ISK. Also is the, most likely a bug, of it making anomalies impossible to scan. Even still reports that you can remote ECCM one to make it incredibly hard to probe down. Most likely another bug. This is what the test server is for.

Once again I have to express how broken the current system of gathering intel is. Far too many fights never happen because everyone has the intel, runs the numbers and ultimately one of the two parties will stand down/run because they know they will most likely lose.

We need to curb the intel gathering and make it require more effort.
Ciba Lexlulu
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#435 - 2014-01-08 01:32:58 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:


The Scan Inhibitor is paradigm shifting, and not in a good way. This thing is going to do nothing but promote even more blob warfare, and make already cautious or risk averse players even moreso. This particular flavor of one-way intel is, frankly, bullshit. The only way that these things could be remotely considered balanced is if the inhibitor effect was applied to any ships inside the AOE, rendering their d-scan useless, and preventing their ability to target when within the module's 'field,' just as when one is inside a POS forcefield.



A cloaked ship can't be dscanned, but can still dscan.
The MSI is a stationary object that you can easily identify and know that forces may be hiding there. This is hardly game breaking. Instead it creates an increased need for intel gatherers, and that's very much for the better.

The sky is not falling with the introduction of this item. Instead, new tactical possibilities are opening up.


My point in previous post is cloaked ship comes with some sort of penalties (sensor calibration and targeting delay) - except for Stealth Bomber which comes with very low EHP. MSI will basically allow players to 'cloak' without any disadvantages of cloaking device. You even free up your high power slot using this mobile structure. The only way you find out what is behind the scan disruptor bubble is by sending a scout which may well die. On the other hand, the pilots inside the bubble can easily decide if they want to engage or disengage. IMHO this is not very balanced - and will lead to less fight in FW plexes.

I am not advocating to completely scrap this structure. However a more balanced approach will promote more choices which is healthy for the game in the long run. A completely un-balanced module/structure will lead to less 'fun' and ultimately less activities.
Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#436 - 2014-01-08 02:22:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Theon Severasse
Marlona Sky wrote:
Theon Severasse wrote:
Ok sure, but I'm still saying that the MSI isn't needed. Those ratters that are sensible enough to be aligned and are looking at dscan deserve to keep their ships. Those that don't do those things don't deserve something to help hold their hands.

I think it has a place in the meta. It does need some work though. Many in this thread have expressed concern about it being used in FW plexes and you and others have brought up the carebear using them to hide while they swim in oceans of ISK. Also is the, most likely a bug, of it making anomalies impossible to scan. Even still reports that you can remote ECCM one to make it incredibly hard to probe down. Most likely another bug. This is what the test server is for.

Once again I have to express how broken the current system of gathering intel is. Far too many fights never happen because everyone has the intel, runs the numbers and ultimately one of the two parties will stand down/run because they know they will most likely lose.

We need to curb the intel gathering and make it require more effort.




I think that intel gathering should require more skill. And by skill I mean player skills, like being able to D-Scan well, rather than character SP, like being able to fly a nullified T3. Adding in mechanics whereby the only real safe way to gather intel is something that requires a relatively large amount of SP (to be able to fly a T3) is detrimental to gameplay.


As an aside, I want ratters to be swimming in isk, the more the better! If they are making more money then they are more likely to be out ratting, and more likely to be careless, which would lead to more targets. But as I have said, it should come with an increased risk if you aren't careful, and not come with extra safety nets.
Priestess Lin
Darkfall Corp
#437 - 2014-01-08 02:58:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Priestess Lin
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
22 pages and the response thus far has been clearly lackluster or outright negative. Standard CCP dev policy will thus be to leave this for another week without comment, make a minor (read: token) adjustment - all the while indicating that testing and feedback indicate the new mobile structures will perform as intended (and that we can't see the "full" picture). Meanwhile, preparations to essentialy roll these out for Rubicon 1.1 in their present state proceed uninterrupted...



It is just a vocal minority spamming the thread with one-sided nonsense. They are absolutely livid and afraid over the thought that EVE might get a little harder for them and that they might actually have to use their brain to get kills. The MSI is an excellent tool that will force aggressors to take risks for a change while simultaneously providing a much needed layer of protection for PVE ops. Adapt or die.

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
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#438 - 2014-01-08 03:01:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Priestess Lin wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
22 pages and the response thus far has been clearly lackluster or outright negative. Standard CCP dev policy will thus be to leave this for another week without comment, make a minor (read: token) adjustment - all the while indicating that testing and feedback indicate the new mobile structures will perform as intended (and that we can't see the "full" picture). Meanwhile, preparations to essentialy roll these out for Rubicon 1.1 in their present state proceed uninterrupted...


They are absolutely livid and afraid over the thought that EVE might get a little harder for them. The MSI is an excellent tool that will force aggressors to take risks for a change while simultaneously providing a much needed layer of protection for PVE ops.

An aggressor takes more risk by simply undocking there ship than any PVE group. PVE does not need to be any safer than it already is.

The MSI only promotes blob style game play and kills off solo play even more.
EDIT:
Priestess Lin wrote:

It is just a vocal minority spamming the thread with one-sided nonsense.

The same cold be said for the proponents.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#439 - 2014-01-08 03:16:46 UTC
I think the MSI could make pvp encounters within wormholes far more 'interesting'
to be fair I believe most of the forum whining comes from the 'leet pvp'ers' .. you know the type, the ones that only shoot at industrial ships.


in any other region of space local will inform a hostile gang exactly who is around, so I don't see any real use for it there unless there are dockable stations where locals can be as well.
Priestess Lin
Darkfall Corp
#440 - 2014-01-08 03:29:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Priestess Lin
Ciba Lexlulu wrote:
The only way you find out what is behind the scan disruptor bubble is by sending a scout which may well die. On the other hand, the pilots inside the bubble can easily decide if they want to engage or disengage.





Exactly, the aggressors will be forced to either take a risk themselves in order to get the jump on people, OR play it safe and send a scout in first, in which case those inside the MSI would have options. The MSI is the very thing that is going to help create balance. This is the best thing to happen to EVE in a long time.

I can't fathom why other than poor game design that aggressors have had all the advantages and had it easy-mode for so long in EVE. And it shouldn't be any surprise that people who are afraid of challenge will be upset with this change rather than try think of ways to benefit from it.

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