These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#561 - 2014-01-08 17:58:10 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
According to some people that tested, it does not inhibit it. Same way it doe snot inhibit cyno ships using it.


So, raise a bug report.



Why should I take this as a BUG and not as an intended feature? Everything answered to us up to know supports this is INTENTIONAL!

This does not look like a bug at all! Seems people are just unable to see how dangerous these deployed units will be.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#562 - 2014-01-08 18:13:02 UTC
Priestess Lin wrote:
Alundil wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:

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?



Well said.


Not really. He somehow thinks he is entitled to blow up someone who takes precautions and doesn't make any mistakes. This is hilarious hearing from pirates about what is "not fun" that other people can do to defend themselves against them. ******* classic.Lol


If they get caught then they quite obviously made a mistake.


I'm honestly curious as to what advantages you feel the "aggressor" has. Because from where I am looking they don't have any.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#563 - 2014-01-08 18:24:05 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Same way it doe snot inhibit cyno ships using it.

I tested it a couple days ago, and ships with cynos active cannot use it. I can't use a Marauder or Heavy Interdictor though, so I couldn't test those.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

Priestess Lin
Darkfall Corp
#564 - 2014-01-08 18:35:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Priestess Lin
seth Hendar wrote:

dude, it is already impossible to catch even a BS if it is within a deadspace pocket provided the pilot has more iq than an oister, thx local + dscan.



Good, it should be impossible to catch people who are paying attention and don't make any mistakes. What I'm loving about these modules is their usefulness to me as a solo wormhole PVEr, which is currently much more risk than it is worth. Having to mash that d-scan every second as my only defense is pretty lame, especially when, heaven forbid, you might have to take a **** or answer the door. These new tools will encourage more people to take risks outside high sec, no longer feeling so easily exposed as a juicy target that won't fight back.

What is currently imbalanced is the power the mere presence of a pirate has on a system and the fact that they can know exactly what is going on in that system so easily via D-scan. Everyone is forced to stop their activities and wait for the pirate to get bored, as getting into any ships to fight causes the pirate to flee, only for his game to ensue where he comes back once everyone is back into PVE ships and this goes on for however long the pirate likes. As soon as the pirate detects any combat ships they flee and it currently requires a very disproportionate amount of effort to deal with these pests who usually pay very little costs upon failure.

With the MSI and MMJU, PVErs have some excellent tools to more easily lay traps for aggressors who took no real risks before, in addition to providing some defense against having PVErs current activities known and locations compromised the moment a pirate enters the system and presses d-scan. Why should pirates have it so easy? Finally, pirates will be required to use their brains and perhaps do some preparation themselves if they want to be successful.

With excellent balancing tools like these and crimewatch, EVE is slowly shaking that reputation as a griefers paradise.

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

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#565 - 2014-01-08 18:37:29 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Hey everyone. Thanks to everyone who has provided useful feedback so far. We're busy squashing bugs that have been reported so far as well as incorporating your valuable balance input into some significant design changes.

As many of you have noticed, these structures arrived on SISI in a relatively untested state due to our opening up of the test server immediately after the Christmas holidays. We decided that the earliest possible testing was the way to go, and I think this was the correct call. We're knocking the bugs down at a very rapid rate and the structures are already in a much improved state in our internal builds in part thanks to your testing help.

We're also implementing a set of significant balance changes that incorporate your feedback. I just put these changes in front of the CSM today so I'll probably give them a chance to look it over before going public, but we believe the changes we have in the works are a strong improvement that will address a lot of the community's concerns. 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.

I'll quickly go over a few of the bugs that we've either squashed internally or are very close to being squashed, since I know there is quite a bit of confusion:

  • 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.
  • The fact that you can eject or board a ship while the MJU is spooling is a bug and will be fixed in an upcoming update.
  • The fact that you can use the MJU while in Bastion mode is a bug and will be fixed in an upcoming update.
  • The fact that the MJU has no graphical model is a bug and will be fixed in an upcoming update.

  • The fact that the Scan Inhibitor prevents scanning of Cosmic Signatures is a bug that will be fixed in an upcoming update.
  • Although Cosmic Anomalies are always visible and warpable in both the discovery scanner and the scan window even when covered by a Inhib, the fact that it prevented probes themselves from getting Anom results (a consistency issue) is a bug and will be fixed in an upcoming update.
  • Although they are always visible on system-wide overviews and (in the case of celestials on right click menus), the fact that the Inhib prevented beacons and celestials from showing up on directional scans is a bug that will be fixed in an upcoming update.

  • The fact that neither structure have proper descriptions on SISI is a bug and will be fixed in an upcoming update.
  • The fact that neither of the structures are in default overview settings is something that we just hadn't had time to do yet as of the most recent SISI update but will be fixed in an upcoming update. (Custom overviews will need to decide if they want to add the structures)

  • None of our tests have ever shown the MJU to allow someone to jump with an active Cyno. The MJU should not allow someone to jump with an active Cyno. It appears likely that the rumor that the MJU jumps people with active cynos is in fact false, but if you have experienced otherwise please submit a bug report.


That is not the entire extent of the changes we currently have in the works to these deployables, it does not cover the extensive balance changes we have in the pipeline. I will be giving the CSM a few hours to comment on the changes first and then bring that plan to you asap.

I'll remind people that hyperbole, personal attacks and rumor mongering are not effective forms of feedback. If you want to argue for a change the most effective way to do so it to provide reasoning for your assessments. Feedback doesn't need to be positive to be constructive, but constructive reasoned feedback is vastly more useful for influencing actual changes.

Big thanks to everyone who has contributed in a constructive manner to this discussion so far. 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.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

David Magnus
#566 - 2014-01-08 18:42:51 UTC
Ahh, thanks for the update!
That clears a lot up, though I think most reasonable people would have assumed a lot of this wouldn't be final

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/fight-us-maybe

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/winterupdate

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/supercaps

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/pandemiclegion

Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#567 - 2014-01-08 18:48:16 UTC
Priestess Lin wrote:
seth Hendar wrote:

dude, it is already impossible to catch even a BS if it is within a deadspace pocket provided the pilot has more iq than an oister, thx local + dscan.



Good, it should be impossible to catch people who are paying attention and don't many any mistakes. What I'm loving about these modules is their usefulness to me as a solo wormhole PVEr, which is currently much more risk than it is worth.


It IS already impossible to catch people who are paying attention and do everything right.

And wormholes are really not intended for solo PvE, not on any kind of scale. They are harsh places.

You're so fond of saying "adapt or die", but apparently you think it's too much to expect someone to change ships to fight, to call for friends or to simply move somewhere else in the case of a semi-AFK cloaker.


As to Fozzie's post - it's good to hear that some of the problems are bugs that are being addressed, and I look forward to hearing what the balancing changes are. I have been trying my best to provide constructive criticism with examples to support what I'm saying, but some people are making that difficult with continued repetitive attacks against playstyles other than their own.
Xaarous
Happy Endings.
Good Sax
#568 - 2014-01-08 18:50:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Xaarous
Quote:

You mean the scram taht cannot be applied over a marauder in bastion mode..t he same marauder that can use that thing while in bastion mode?


[EDIT] Based on Fozzie's update, MJD'ing in Bastion mode is a bug, so this is moot.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#569 - 2014-01-08 19:13:39 UTC
Thank you for the feedback, CCP Fozzie. I will be eagerly awaiting the balance changes. With significant changes (as you indicated), both of these modules can have great futures, so I'm hopeful that this thread was informative to what the problems were with the original proposal, and some perspective on what players would think fair and reasonable for the mechanics.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#570 - 2014-01-08 19:14:21 UTC
David Magnus wrote:
Ahh, thanks for the update!
That clears a lot up, though I think most reasonable people would have assumed a lot of this wouldn't be final

Nobody did. Giving feedback isn't predicated on that assumption.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Penny Ibramovic
Wormhole Engineers
#571 - 2014-01-08 19:18:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'll remind people that hyperbole, personal attacks and rumor mongering are not effective forms of feedback.


I'm sorry for suggesting that you hate w-space.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#572 - 2014-01-08 19:19:57 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
David Magnus wrote:
Ahh, thanks for the update!
That clears a lot up, though I think most reasonable people would have assumed a lot of this wouldn't be final

Nobody did. Giving feedback isn't predicated on that assumption.

Indeed based on past occurrences and not :words:, it's a toss-up on whether Sisi feedback would actually be considered before changes get pushed to TQ. Glad to see feedback being integrated here.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
The Gurlstas Associates
#573 - 2014-01-08 19:21:03 UTC
Any way that when the update comes, the modules could have there own threads?
While not necessary they are completely different from each other.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

commander aze
#574 - 2014-01-08 19:32:31 UTC
If deployed in an anomaly will it mask the anom?

Commander Aze For CSM XII

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=506400

Support the Community #Broadcast4Reps

Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#575 - 2014-01-08 19:33:06 UTC
commander aze wrote:
If deployed in an anomaly will it mask the anom?


No. Currently on sisi it does mask sigs, but that's apparently a bug/being fixed.
Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
#576 - 2014-01-08 19:35:46 UTC
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to kind of enjoy having both these things around.

First, at least one of the jump units is going in my hold at all times. If I get into trouble with a kiting fit (the bane of my existence) I'm going to gtfo. 5 mil unit is cheaper than my fit ship. I'll take that any day.

As for the scan inhibitor? I already pretty well jump blindly into 2-3 ships anyhow. Pvp fit frigate is relatively disposable and on occasion you can just plough your way through the trap. Unless it is a bunch of kitey ships. See the above paragraph on how to fix that problem.

And that's just the 'what would I do with this on a daily basis' and not the 'how would I use this stuff to really mess with folks' ideas ruminating in the back of my head. Along with all kinds of interesting behaviors that I can come up by combining grid-fu, scan inhibitors and jump units. It would require some time involvement in setup.

The only request? Is that the scan inhibitor be able to be scanned down via core probes. Given the 'powerful' effect they must be having in local space time, they can probably count as an 'anomaly'. (Or heck, have them show up in the default system scan given how strong an effect they must be having in order to hide everything within 30km)

That'll probably neatly solve a bunch of the balance issues with respect to small gang/solo operators. Since medium to large gangs will probably have at least one expanded probe launcher around to help with the eventual proliferation of these units.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon

gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#577 - 2014-01-08 19:36:11 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

words


.


whatever changes you are planing to make, that won't change the fact that this structures are not really nedded at this point in the game;

what the game need?

Quote:
......................................
Nullsec space needs to be fixed. Factional warfare needs to be fixed. The game needs new ships. We need to do a better job of nurturing our new players and making EVE the intriguing, boundless universe it has the potential to be.
........................................


does anyone at CCP even remember this statement from the CEO of the company?
it was made in... 2011. yea in 2011...
we are now in 2014! 3 years later, null sec space is still broken and you guys are giving us "walking on mmjds"? really?


Escobar Slim III
YOLOSWAGHASHTAGDOLLARBILLZSWIMMINGPOOLICECREAMS
#578 - 2014-01-08 19:58:56 UTC
What I want to know is what does the awarmingcoat say?
Nyjil Lizaru
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#579 - 2014-01-08 20:00:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyjil Lizaru
I kind of agree with this guy:
gascanu wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

words


.


whatever changes you are planing to make, that won't change the fact that this structures are not really nedded at this point in the game;

what the game need?

Quote:
......................................
Nullsec space needs to be fixed. Factional warfare needs to be fixed. The game needs new ships. We need to do a better job of nurturing our new players and making EVE the intriguing, boundless universe it has the potential to be.
........................................


does anyone at CCP even remember this statement from the CEO of the company?
it was made in... 2011. yea in 2011...
we are now in 2014! 3 years later, null sec space is still broken and you guys are giving us "walking on mmjds"? really?




Are these structures just more complexity for the sake of complexity? Should there be some corollary to Malcanis' Law about the effect of 'lots of extra piddly ****' making the learning curve even steeper?

Nyjil's corollary to Malcanis' Law:   "Any attempt by CCP to smooth the learning curve of EVE Online will be carried out via the addition of extra factors and 'features' such that there is a net increase in complexity."

Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#580 - 2014-01-08 20:09:37 UTC
anyone else think it's silly that the scan inhibitor shown up on d-scan? This thing should only be detectable via probes.