These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#881 - 2014-01-10 18:37:26 UTC
Jori McKie wrote:


I'm not sure i get it?
Did you read this https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4092615#post4092615 ?

There are many scenarios for small and medscale fights in which the MMJU still can be used but not abused aka 100% get out of jail free card. Do not forget that every time MMJUs are dropped it is additional EHP the other gang has to kill or deal with the enemy gtfo or deal with tanky ships got in too close.


MMJUs are stationary. Three nano cruisers sporting 300 dps apiece will kill it in six seconds. Their drones can probably kill it before it finishes winding up. Meanwhile, the brawling gang can't move very far from the MMJU if they intend to remain in range to use it once it is done anchoring, if by some miracle it survives.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#882 - 2014-01-10 20:05:45 UTC
Milton Middleson wrote:
Jori McKie wrote:


I'm not sure i get it?
Did you read this https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4092615#post4092615 ?

There are many scenarios for small and medscale fights in which the MMJU still can be used but not abused aka 100% get out of jail free card. Do not forget that every time MMJUs are dropped it is additional EHP the other gang has to kill or deal with the enemy gtfo or deal with tanky ships got in too close.


MMJUs are stationary. Three nano cruisers sporting 300 dps apiece will kill it in six seconds. Their drones can probably kill it before it finishes winding up. Meanwhile, the brawling gang can't move very far from the MMJU if they intend to remain in range to use it once it is done anchoring, if by some miracle it survives.


Good. The more irrelevant and useless these two deployables, the better.
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#883 - 2014-01-10 20:54:12 UTC
Hey Fozzie... and about the POS revamp? is that the big project that you guys are working with?

NDA?

Ok...
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#884 - 2014-01-10 23:39:52 UTC
Alx Warlord wrote:
Hey Fozzie... and about the POS revamp? is that the big project that you guys are working with?

NDA?

Ok...


Is this, the POS revamp
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#885 - 2014-01-11 01:46:04 UTC
Cost and volume on the Mobile Scan Inhibitor still needs to come down.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#886 - 2014-01-11 01:56:14 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
You guys aren't making any sense but tbh, i don't care anymore. The Jump unit will hardly ever be used in PVP but if you disagree, then please describe a scenario in which you could deploy these things in battle without them being instantly reinforced.


Dude, they're overpowered. Even with only 1 hp they'd be still overpowered.

They scale exponentially with the number of players (and the number of players on a node is theorically unlimioted). Each player (ANY player, no requirement) can deploy several jump unit and each jump unit can be used by an ublimited number of players. In EVE hisory this kind of items acting as multiplier always been abused.

And this had to be enough to never bring this **** on the design table.

We don't need to define specific tactics now to understand this (btw I think they'll be more a tool to close in more than to disengage); people will build MJU grids, jump chains and so on, till the point to override the "traditional" range control in EVE combat.

Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#887 - 2014-01-11 10:37:03 UTC
This changes are not enough, increase the cost, the volume and nerf them more.

The Tears Must Flow

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#888 - 2014-01-11 11:04:33 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Feel free to take your time and come up with a better example as to how these will be used in PVP. I'll wait...

Maybe they won't get used. Hopefully they won't. Good riddance.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#889 - 2014-01-11 11:28:54 UTC
Come to think about it, we need mobile afterburners, deployable guns, portable gyrostabs and I'm pretty sure that mobile ECCM arrays are coming soon.

In coherence with this line of thinking, supercaps could use deployable battleships.
Chigurh Friendo
Fight The Blob
Kingless.
#890 - 2014-01-11 13:35:34 UTC
I like these two mobile deployables. They seem functionally suitable for the limited applications that they are designed for while still allowing people to be creative with their actual use.

Mobile Micro Jump Unit:

For example, the Mobile Micro Jump Unit is useful for escaping from an inattentive or indecisive skirmish tackler (or gang), but it is sufficiently vulnerable that focused enemy aggression can destroy it before it becomes operational (i.e. it can easily be destroyed during the 60s activation timer), thereby preventing conceivable get-out-of-jail-free overtanking+MJU abuses.

One can also imagine that the Mobile Micro Jump Unit still can be set up on a grid like an FW grid to establish favourable positioning for activities like sniping or *shudders* long ranged ECM. Similarly, super-long range ships become somewhat more theoretically interesting in a FW context than before, given what might be possible with suitable preparation.

Although somewhat less useful on normal grids, the Mobile Micro Jump Unit could also nonetheless serve some purpose when used in conjunction with larger slower ships by enabling them to establish sufficient range for performing an on-grid relocation via a post-MJU tactical warp... without, in such case, relying excessively upon alts, fleet members, or warpback bookmarks.

Mobile Scan Inhibitor:

Regarding the Mobile Scan Inhibitor, I am pleased with the balance parameters for cost and duration of use relative to its power level.

As others have noted, the Mobile Scan Inhibitor can allow a fleet to conceal its composition in nullsec or in FW against aggressors. While I dislike this concept as a small gang or solo pilot, I think that the 15M cost and 1h duration are meaningful balancing points that will deter the average user from simply spamming this deployable. In other words, there would have to be sufficient incentive for a collective of players to deploy the Mobile Scan Inhibitor, and in this capacity it affords an advantage for those who prepare accordingly.

Similarly, one can imagine numerous traps that the Mobile Scan Inhibitor makes possible, which I think is a fun concept given the cost and preparation required, relative to the limited duration.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#891 - 2014-01-11 14:41:52 UTC
Chigurh Friendo wrote:

As others have noted, the Mobile Scan Inhibitor can allow a fleet to conceal its composition in nullsec or in FW against aggressors.


A problem I see with these deployables is just this, they're geared toward the defender. "Defender" in a general sense can be the ones already inside the plex, the ones camping a gate, the missioners, the ratters and so on. In general is the one already in a place managing their own business decide if, where and when set up this.

I think this is bad because if "defending" is the more convenient option everyone will prefer to defend, and if everyone defends nothing happens. It promotes static gameplay.

On the countrary I think in the current state EVE need to stimulate active/aggression gameplay.

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#892 - 2014-01-11 15:27:01 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Chigurh Friendo wrote:

As others have noted, the Mobile Scan Inhibitor can allow a fleet to conceal its composition in nullsec or in FW against aggressors.


A problem I see with these deployables is just this, they're geared toward the defender. "Defender" in a general sense can be the ones already inside the plex, the ones camping a gate, the missioners, the ratters and so on. In general is the one already in a place managing their own business decide if, where and when set up this.

I think this is bad because if "defending" is the more convenient option everyone will prefer to defend, and if everyone defends nothing happens. It promotes static gameplay.

On the countrary I think in the current state EVE need to stimulate active/aggression gameplay.



yeah, things are already stacked ridiculously in favour of whoever it is that isn't roaming, at all levels of everything in eve.
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#893 - 2014-01-11 15:53:52 UTC
Make the MMJU destroy itself if its targeted.
Also unavailable to ships who are not pods.
Spoole up time 120 seconds.
THX.
THIS THING IS COMPLETELE PROKEN
And add "completely useless" to the description while your at it-

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE

NexusWatcher
Perkone
Caldari State
#894 - 2014-01-11 19:11:06 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Of course the CSM isn't the only source for feedback but they are an important one. Our election system does a very good job of accurately representing the subset of the playerbase that cares enough to click a few buttons and in my experience they have provided a very useful pool of players who work very hard to help us improve the game.

We never limit ourselves just to one group's feedback, but for me to ignore the CSM or disrespect the valuable effort they put in would be to do the community and the game a disservice.


We need to both add new things and fix older ones. I tend to fall into the camp that prizes revamping and converting older systems highly but to focus on just one or the other would leave us with missed opportunities to improve the game as a whole.

For every player that provides us the "Stop adding things and just fix stuff" feedback, there's another player that asks us to "Stop fixing stuff and just add things". Neither perspective is entirely wrong, but neither is entirely correct either.


This is probably the wrong place for it but I pretty frustrated by these statements.

I don't believe that. Example: Macintosh forum. Small but avid player group, but we don't get crap for responses. The biggest issue still is the freezing of the mac client which has been around awhile but still no official word about anything for the issue. You can't verify the local client issues even if you send you the logging files and sometimes the logging system is what also helps crash the client itself. I lost a nice ship due to this issue and guess what? All the GM's pretty much said was "clear your cache and cookies, no reimbursement for you!"

CSM/Windows users > Mac users? And I know that's generally how you all feel anyway.

How about you actually fix the mac client as this is breaking EVE just by itself. I'd love to hear back from you but I won't hold my hopes up high as CCP is getting really bad about feedback. (Rapid heavy missile launcher anyone?)

*Snip* Please refrain from posting GM correspondence. ISD Ezwal.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#895 - 2014-01-11 22:55:55 UTC
When the Mobile Micro Jump Unit goes "boom", can we have it explode with bomb damage in a 15km radius? Twisted

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

pichan
Pulling The Plug
Didn't want that Sov anyway.
#896 - 2014-01-11 23:14:57 UTC
I am very much against this mods.... please fix wormhole space first and alliance bookmarks b4 wasting anymore time on this...
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#897 - 2014-01-12 12:42:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok everyone, here is our first round of changes since the beginning of public feedback. These are some quite large changes but we think the end result is a much stronger design.

Mobile Micro Jump Unit

We're cutting the EHP of the structure by 80%, to 5000hp.
We're increasing the time that the MJU takes to activate to 1 minute.
We're increasing the range at which the MJU can be used to 5000m.
We're increasing the minimum range from other MJU structures to 10km.
We're disabling the ability to jump while cloaked.


Is it still possible to activate the MMJU with a HIC that has its bubble up?

No sig.

Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#898 - 2014-01-12 16:29:29 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Chigurh Friendo wrote:

As others have noted, the Mobile Scan Inhibitor can allow a fleet to conceal its composition in nullsec or in FW against aggressors.


A problem I see with these deployables is just this, they're geared toward the defender. "Defender" in a general sense can be the ones already inside the plex, the ones camping a gate, the missioners, the ratters and so on. In general is the one already in a place managing their own business decide if, where and when set up this.

I think this is bad because if "defending" is the more convenient option everyone will prefer to defend, and if everyone defends nothing happens. It promotes static gameplay.

On the countrary I think in the current state EVE need to stimulate active/aggression gameplay.



You just invaded someone else's wormhole
You deploy your MSI, or deploy several at multiple locations

The defenders know there is an MSI out there
They gain no intel on fleet composition
They will have conflicting intel on your fleet location

It can be a useful tool for aggressors
especially in preparation for engagement conditions
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#899 - 2014-01-12 16:55:42 UTC
With the latest iterations both these things have become ridiculously niche. If that was the intent, job well done.
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#900 - 2014-01-12 19:05:57 UTC
Also before introducing the Mobile Scan Inhibitor can combat probe results be fixed so as not to round to the nearest 64? Because that's really dumb.

No sig.