These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Extended Micro Jump Drive (T2)

Author
SueEvil Ballbuster
Doomheim
#1 - 2015-02-07 06:15:43 UTC
Developed primarily for industrial haulers and next generation T1 freighters (not Jump Freighters) the Extended Micro Jump Drive lacks the destination precision of warp drive and the calibration and instruments for out of system jumps. This advanced technology (T2) version of the more common MJD is Intended to shorten warp distance and time in certain special travel situations within a single system. The EMJD is sometimes referred to as the "in-system jump drive" and often considered a stepping stone to Jump Freighters as certain Jump skills can improve its energy consumption and spin up times.

Restricted distances and activation costs are major limits on use of the EJMD for in-system travel and normally mean warp drive is necessary to complete travel.

Basically the Extended Micro Jump Drive allows Line of Sight (alignment direction) jumps in quantum limited distance bands from 100km to 500km for activation cost similar to MJD, the band of 1AU to 10AU for 50% higher activation energy, and the 25AU-150AU band for a total of 300% increased activation cost. A script is used to select distance bands and the keep range settings normally interpreted as -100km instead set the percentage of variable distance within a range band prior to EMJD activation.

(A fueled cap booster "kick start" arrangement might substitue for using scripts to select distance band and regular cap might then be used to sustain jump past minimum distance within that range. The keep range control would still still be the most convenient way currently available to meter what percentage of the difference between minimum and maximum travel within a distance band.)

(If someone thinks of a better way to control distances while retaining a certain awkwardness in arriving at all desirable destinations -- please suggest it. Cannot be totally supplanting warp drive as essential to in-system long distance travel.)


Jump fatigue is normally not a factor with EMJD. However rumors from test pilots using early prototypes suggest that tiny fractions of fatigue do build up to small but measurable levels with many repeated EMJD activations especially for longer distance bands.


Supposedly there is a rig that allows use of an EMJD or MJD on ordinary standard technology ( T1) haulers and perhaps other medium non-capital hulls. But combined drawbacks and tradeoffs in rig caliabration etc are expected to limit EMJD use to niche applications.
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
#2 - 2015-02-07 06:28:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Colette Kassia
So... a safespot machine.

[EDIT: Added stuff]
I suppose this might be useful for bypassing suspected interdiction sphere camps in nulsec systems you haven't been through before (and can't be bothered to bounce off a planet). And it could be used by haulers and freighters to escape the clutches of gates camps (what I suspect is you primary interest). I certainly wouldn’t mind having something like that. But I know a lot of people on here are going to scream, "OP!!! What, you want there to be less indy and freighter ganking?!"

I think a more elegant way of controlling how far your EMJD sends you would be the percentage of your ships speed at which you are moving. It could map 0% to 75% of your ship's top speed to MIN and MAX of the devices range envelope, interpolating in between (at greater than 75% speed would might as well just warp normally).

Not a bad idea, but I think there is slim chance the CCP would implement it. It's too much of a get-out-of-gatecamp-free-card.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#3 - 2015-02-07 12:17:58 UTC
no you were right at first just a deap safe spot generator
Arla Sarain
#4 - 2015-02-07 12:29:37 UTC
Maybe if pursuing enemies didn't stop with them warping off grid, and the only other option to find them be limited to the use of combat probes, hence deep safes would never be permanent.
Iain Cariaba
#5 - 2015-02-07 16:38:42 UTC
No.

You want a hauler with a MJD, get a DST.
You want to avoid your freighter getting bumped, use one of the many other methods to avoid it.
You want a deep safe, tough ****. CCP removed the ability to make them, and removed a bunch of them from people's bookmarks, for a reason.
Lastly, no to freighters getting a medium power slot.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#6 - 2015-02-07 17:00:07 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:

Lastly, no to freighters getting a medium power slot.


only part i don't agree with
Iain Cariaba
#7 - 2015-02-07 17:24:22 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

Lastly, no to freighters getting a medium power slot.


only part i don't agree with

Why would a freighter need a medium power slot? When flown properly, it's in almost zero danger and doesn't need mid slots. When not flown properly, no mid slot module is really going to help.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#8 - 2015-02-07 17:27:38 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

Lastly, no to freighters getting a medium power slot.


only part i don't agree with

Why would a freighter need a medium power slot? When flown properly, it's in almost zero danger and doesn't need mid slots. When not flown properly, no mid slot module is really going to help.


because more choice is always better and since the addition of low slots the charon and fenrir don't have near as many fitting options as the other two


now i'm not saying they need mids just that i'm not against them having mids