EVE Search - Overloading: Heat sinks not working

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Overloading: Heat sinks not working

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.08 17:47:00 - [1] Edited by: oniplE on 08/06/2009 17:47:49 Heat sinks are offlined modules that are supposed to divert heat from overloaded modules, making them last longer. The original dev blog by Oveur stating this, can be read here , it can also be read in the evelopedia here But, if you check EFT you will see that it makes no difference whether you have an offlined module or an empty slot. Modules will not last longer. Ofcourse we cant trust EFT completely so i decided to test it on the test server. And it turns out heat sinks really do nothing at all. I set up a Deimos and overloaded TWO heavy neutron blasters, with offlined medium nos modules around them. Setup used: [Deimos, Heat Test] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] And obviously one setup with the offlined nos's removed. Thermodynamics: level 4 Heat levels were always down to 0/0/0 when testing. Results: With heatsinks: Average burn out time 177.8 seconds No heatsinks: Average burn out time 180.5 seconds (consistent with EFT numbers) So there really is no difference at all between having heat sinks and not having them. Is this a bug? Or are Evelopedia and Oveur (2007) wrong and was this feature never implemented?
Quixis	Posted - 2009.06.08 18:00:00 - [2] I'm not sure about your figures, but wouldn't you get better heat distribution with it as follows? Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.08 18:12:00 - [3] Edited by: oniplE on 08/06/2009 18:12:34 Yep. But for this test the lay out doesnt matter. I'm looking for a change in heat distribution when using heat sinks, there doesnt appear to be any. x
weazlor	Posted - 2009.06.08 18:19:00 - [4] {HEATSINK}{HEATSINK}{BLASTER}{BLASTER}{HEATSINK}{HEATSINK} Methinks the overheating blaster alongside is negating the heatsink. Quote: You can thereby create buffers by slapping your favorite named/faction module between two Tech 1s Have you tried just one heatsink on either side?
Terry Dyne	Posted - 2009.06.08 18:20:00 - [5] Originally by: oniplE Edited by: oniplE on 08/06/2009 18:12:34 Yep. But for this test the lay out doesnt matter. I'm looking for a change in heat distribution when using heat sinks, there doesnt appear to be any. Quote: heat damage spreads "sideways" from the overloaded module, not randomly in the rack.
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.08 18:21:00 - [6] Originally by: weazlor {HEATSINK}{HEATSINK}{BLASTER}{BLASTER}{HEATSINK}{HEATSINK} Methinks the overheating blaster alongside is negating the heatsink. Quote: You can thereby create buffers by slapping your favorite named/faction module between two Tech 1s Have you tried just one heatsink on either side? I doubt it will matter, my results are consistent with EFT numbers. EFT says there will be no difference. BUT, will go test it right now to be sure :) x
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.08 18:23:00 - [7] Originally by: Terry Dyne Originally by: oniplE Edited by: oniplE on 08/06/2009 18:12:34 Yep. But for this test the lay out doesnt matter. I'm looking for a change in heat distribution when using heat sinks, there doesnt appear to be any. Quote: heat damage spreads "sideways" from the overloaded module, not randomly in the rack. It doesnt matter. The point is there is no difference between having heat sinks and NOT having them. There should be a difference even if the lay out isnt optimal, they should do something. x
weazlor	Posted - 2009.06.08 18:28:00 - [8] were the blasters spread out in the non-heatsink test?
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.08 18:44:00 - [9] Edited by: oniplE on 08/06/2009 18:43:45 Originally by: weazlor were the blasters spread out in the non-heatsink test? No. Exact same layout, except with 4 empty slots around them. x
Artassaut Minmatar Oblivion Amalgamated	Posted - 2009.06.08 20:06:00 - [10] Edited by: Artassaut on 08/06/2009 20:09:11 Control-click the "Module active" mark, being either an X or a checkmark, in order to set it to be an offline heatsink. You're welcome. Might as well add: this is why people don't like EFT warriors.

oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.08 20:17:00 - [11] Originally by: Artassaut Edited by: Artassaut on 08/06/2009 20:09:11 Control-click the "Module active" mark, being either an X or a checkmark, in order to set it to be an offline heatsink. You're welcome. Might as well add: this is why people don't like EFT warriors. Dont look like a fool and read the thread before you post something about EFT warriors.
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.08 20:23:00 - [12] Re-tested ingame, now with electrons and a better heat distribution lay out. New setup: [Deimos, Heat test] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Electron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Electron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] Again, the other setup has the Nos's removed. Results With heatsinks: Average burn out time 197.9 seconds No heatsinks: Average burn out time 194 seconds The results are pretty much the same. There is a small difference, but since heat damage is chance based and the difference is very small, there is NO significant difference between the two. This 2nd test underlines the first conclusion, heat sinks dont work as described. x
Pvt Public7 Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.06.09 02:54:00 - [13] CCP... lied? ohnoes

CCP Fallout	Posted - 2009.06.09 09:59:00 - [14] Moved to Ships and Modules. Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us

SFX Bladerunner Minmatar Black Serpent Technologies	Posted - 2009.06.09 10:03:00 - [15] Originally by: CCP Fallout Moved to Ships and Modules. That's very nice and all.. but seeing as you were reading this anyway it wouldn't have hurt to comment on it concidering this seems to be quite a problem __________________________________________________ History is much like an endless waltz, the three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever..
Cpt Gobla The Dark Space Initiative	Posted - 2009.06.09 10:11:00 - [16] Originally by: oniplE <snip> The results are pretty much the same. There is a small difference, but since heat damage is chance based and the difference is very small, there is NO significant difference between the two. This 2nd test underlines the first conclusion, heat sinks dont work as described. How many tests did you run? IE on how many samples are your averages based. If it's below 10 then you've statistically proven nothing at all save that heat damage is random.
Kendon Riddick	Posted - 2009.06.09 10:15:00 - [17] so what your saying is empty slots are almost as good as one with a heatsink offline module. test this: blaster - nothing - blaster - nothing and then again with blaster - heatsink - blaster - heatsink and then again with blaster - blaster (not overheated but online) - blaster - blaster (not overheated but online) Would be good to get some better idea of exactly where modules are placed, with active and offline modules as heatsinks.
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.09 10:21:00 - [18] Edited by: oniplE on 09/06/2009 10:24:48 Originally by: Cpt Gobla Originally by: oniplE <snip> The results are pretty much the same. There is a small difference, but since heat damage is chance based and the difference is very small, there is NO significant difference between the two. This 2nd test underlines the first conclusion, heat sinks dont work as described. How many tests did you run? IE on how many samples are your averages based. If it's below 10 then you've statistically proven nothing at all save that heat damage is random. 18 tests, i have tested this before but never posted results. Results were similar. I can probably come up with a statistics test that can determine if there's a significant difference. Originally by: CCP Fallout Moved to Ships and Modules. I'm not sure how it belongs here, this is about a test on the test server. "Feedback and comments about testing on Singularity.", says the description of the test server forum, but ok.. might get some more exposure here :P
Kar Anshral	Posted - 2009.06.09 10:51:00 - [19] y'know that when heat got introduced Tux did a presentation at fanfest about where he said that offline modules are the same as an empty slot for the heat calculation. Why people have been using offline mods all the time, while they don't make a difference, idk.
01shining01	Posted - 2009.06.09 10:59:00 - [20] Edited by: 01shining01 on 09/06/2009 11:00:59 Originally by: oniplE Re-tested ingame, now with electrons and a better heat distribution lay out. New setup: [Deimos, Heat test] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Electron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Electron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] Again, the other setup has the Nos's removed. Results With heatsinks: Average burn out time 197.9 seconds No heatsinks: Average burn out time 194 seconds The results are pretty much the same. There is a small difference, but since heat damage is chance based and the difference is very small, there is NO significant difference between the two. This 2nd test underlines the first conclusion, heat sinks dont work as described. first the heat sinks is only for the lazer - the magnetic is for the railgun and blaster - the gyrostab for the projectile. why you put 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II ? the first Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you 10 % dps 2 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 5% bonus is penalized 3 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 2,5 % bonus is penalized and 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you nothing because the penalization is maxed. is better if you put 2 magnetic II and 2 hardener for more resist.

Pearre Dash	Posted - 2009.06.09 11:04:00 - [21] Edited by: Pearre Dash on 09/06/2009 11:05:52 Because it will make the guns cycle faster, which is what we want when testing to see how heat damage is distributed, you imbecile. And that's totally not how stacking penalties go.
Omarvelous Destry's Lounge Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2009.06.09 11:08:00 - [22] Originally by: CCP Fallout Moved to Ships and Modules. The least you could have done is explain this topic a little more in depth. Important Internet Spaceship League Wants You
Shinnen Caldari Northern Intelligence	Posted - 2009.06.09 11:08:00 - [23] Originally by: 01shining01 Edited by: 01shining01 on 09/06/2009 11:00:59 Originally by: oniplE Re-tested ingame, now with electrons and a better heat distribution lay out. New setup: [Deimos, Heat test] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Electron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE Heavy Electron Blaster II, Antimatter Charge M Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I /OFFLINE [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] Again, the other setup has the Nos's removed. Results With heatsinks: Average burn out time 197.9 seconds No heatsinks: Average burn out time 194 seconds The results are pretty much the same. There is a small difference, but since heat damage is chance based and the difference is very small, there is NO significant difference between the two. This 2nd test underlines the first conclusion, heat sinks dont work as described. first the heat sinks is only for the lazer - the magnetic is for the railgun and blaster - the gyrostab for the projectile. why you put 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II ? the first Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you 10 % dps 2 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 5% bonus is penalized 3 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 2,5 % bonus is penalized and 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you nothing because the penalization is maxed. is better if you put 2 magnetic II and 2 hardener for more resist. 12/10 ! Well done xD
01shining01	Posted - 2009.06.09 11:10:00 - [24] Originally by: Pearre Dash Edited by: Pearre Dash on 09/06/2009 11:05:52 you imbecile. aheum...you learned courtesy ?
Steely Dhan Perkone	Posted - 2009.06.09 12:32:00 - [25] Originally by: 01shining01 Originally by: Pearre Dash Edited by: Pearre Dash on 09/06/2009 11:05:52 you imbecile. aheum...you learned courtesy ? When he say's "heatsink" he is talking about modules used to absorb heat from overheating modules (guns in this case), not damage mod for lasers.
Thistle Hurte	Posted - 2009.06.09 12:40:00 - [26] Originally by: 01shining01 first the heat sinks is only for the lazer - the magnetic is for the railgun and blaster - the gyrostab for the projectile. Reading Comprehension FTL
Gartel Reiman Civis Romanus Sum Pax Romana Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.09 12:56:00 - [27] Originally by: 01shining01 why you put 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II ? the first Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you 10 % dps 2 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 5% bonus is penalized 3 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 2,5 % bonus is penalized and 4 Magnetic Field Stabilizer II give you nothing because the penalization is maxed. That's not how the stacking penalty works or the base DPS bonus you get from a T2 MFS (1.1 / 0.895 => 22.9% increase).
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.09 15:41:00 - [28] Originally by: Kar Anshral y'know that when heat got introduced Tux did a presentation at fanfest about where he said that offline modules are the same as an empty slot for the heat calculation. Why people have been using offline mods all the time, while they don't make a difference, idk. This was probably before the Dev blog by Oveur which announced Heat improvements. So the options are a) It was never implemented and heat sinks are a myth b) It was implemented but it doesn't work. It would be nice to have a Dev reply to this thread, i'm going to bug report this with a link to this thread to perhaps increase the chances of that happening. x
uzumoreru	Posted - 2009.06.09 15:45:00 - [29] Can you also test with a full rack of electron blasters with only the middle 2 overloaded, with the rest of the modules firing/not firing, and see what that does to the time till burnout?
Droog 1 Black Rise Inbreds	Posted - 2009.06.09 16:00:00 - [30] Edited by: Droog 1 on 09/06/2009 16:00:51 I'll be testing this later.

Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.06.09 19:31:00 - [31] Originally by: CCP Fallout Moved to Ships and Modules. oh "working as intended" then, is it? we probably should have another look at tuxford's creations altogether
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.06.09 20:01:00 - [32] I came to pretty much the same conclusions when overloading MWD on my dictors..would be nice to have some clarification from CCP.

CCP Tuxford	Posted - 2009.06.09 23:32:00 - [33] Ok I'm gonna try to clear some things up. Overloaded module has a chance to do damage to each module in the rack at the end of the cycle The chance of a module taking damage from an overloaded module is reduced by the distance from the module The chance of a module taking damage is also reduced by the number of empty/offline modules Heat sinks despite it's name have nothing to do with heat. The are damage mods same as gyrostabilizers and magnetic field stabilizers. This is how it's supposed to work, if it is not then you should file a bug report. Note: This is still chance based so there is a chance that a module farther away from the overloaded module would take more damage than a one closer but it shouldn't be the norm. _______________


CCP Tuxford	Posted - 2009.06.09 23:38:00 - [34] Originally by: oniplE Is this a bug? Or are Evelopedia and Oveur (2007) wrong and was this feature never implemented? Technically there is nothing wrong with Oveur's statement or Evelopedia. Offline modules do function as heat sinks but so does empty slot. I'll try to contact someone at Evelopedia to be a bit more clear about this statement though. _______________


CCP Tuxford	Posted - 2009.06.09 23:40:00 - [35] Edited by: CCP Tuxford on 09/06/2009 23:40:29 failpost _______________

Car Wars Pigs In Space United Proletariat Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.10 00:13:00 - [36] Edited by: Car Wars on 10/06/2009 00:15:14 Originally by: CCP Tuxford Ok I'm gonna try to clear some things up. Heat sinks despite it's name have nothing to do with heat. Originally by: CCP Tuxford Offline modules do function as heat sinks but so does empty slot. ROFL
Davinel Lulinvega	Posted - 2009.06.10 00:23:00 - [37] Originally by: CCP Tuxford Originally by: CCP Tuxford Originally by: CCP Tuxford T-T-T-TRIPLE POST
Atsuko Ratu Caldari Interstellar eXodus	Posted - 2009.06.10 00:27:00 - [38] Originally by: CCP Tuxford The chance of a module taking damage is also reduced by the number of empty/offline modules /thread
Forge Lag	Posted - 2009.06.10 00:35:00 - [39] Thank you very much for this thread and for a great dev response. I finally understand heat. Also kudos to OP.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2009.06.10 00:44:00 - [40] Some people have mentioned actual dedicated overheating radiators, designed to be online and reduce heat dmg more than an offline module. Also with what Tux sed, how come offline modules take dmg? might as well have a useable mod in the high thats simply not overheated with the rest of the rack! or OH every other gun...

Tildes own Aliastra	Posted - 2009.06.10 02:51:00 - [41] I'd be interested to know whether empty slots or offlined modules have any difference in heat absorbance
Sir Substance Minmatar The Empire Nation Dead Mans Hand	Posted - 2009.06.10 03:05:00 - [42] on this topic: linky
Misanth RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE	Posted - 2009.06.10 04:54:00 - [43] Nice clarification Tux. Also, interesting to see that you still work at CCP, havn't seen you post in ages. Good stuff you bring at least. - I'd tell you why but then I'll have to kill you. And to kill you I'd have to log in. And to log in I'd have to stop browsing these forums. Both you and me knows that'll never happen.
Colonel Cornbread Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.06.10 05:21:00 - [44] Do grouped modules = Modules in said rack? I'd like to see some clarification on grouped modules.
SFX Bladerunner Minmatar Black Serpent Technologies	Posted - 2009.06.10 06:55:00 - [45] With regards to this thread I have made a new thread in the features & ideas discussion regarding heatsinks. linky: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1094345 Please show your support!

CCP Tuxford	Posted - 2009.06.10 09:12:00 - [46] Originally by: Misanth Nice clarification Tux. Also, interesting to see that you still work at CCP, havn't seen you post in ages. Good stuff you bring at least. I do still work for ccp what has become an uninterrupted tenure of 4 years this summer. I did however move over from game design to programming which explains my rather lax forum presence. It wasn't a triple post, it was two posts, one of which was a double post _______________


CCP Tuxford	Posted - 2009.06.10 09:24:00 - [47] fixed the evelopedia. Now the op looks like a weirdo that can't read kekekeke! _______________

Kendon Riddick	Posted - 2009.06.10 09:39:00 - [48] Originally by: CCP Tuxford fixed the evelopedia. Now the op looks like a weirdo that can't read kekekeke! Oh Tuxy, your as wicked as you are sexy!
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.10 09:55:00 - [49] Originally by: CCP Tuxford fixed the evelopedia. Now the op looks like a weirdo that can't read kekekeke! got owned by Tux :(
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.06.10 13:33:00 - [50] Originally by: Colonel Cornbread Do grouped modules = Modules in said rack? I'd like to see some clarification on grouped modules. Heat damage is spread evenly across grouped modules so they will all show identical damage % and also shut down at the same time.

Kar Anshral	Posted - 2009.06.10 16:01:00 - [51] Vindicated, haha ♥ Tux
Davinel Lulinvega	Posted - 2009.06.10 16:10:00 - [52] Evelopedia already says that. Can't you read? Originally by: CCP Tuxford Now the op looks like a weirdo that can't read kekekeke! inb4 stealth edit
Lindsay Logan	Posted - 2009.06.10 18:37:00 - [53] Originally by: Car Wars Edited by: Car Wars on 10/06/2009 00:15:14 Originally by: CCP Tuxford Ok I'm gonna try to clear some things up. Heat sinks despite it's name have nothing to do with heat. Originally by: CCP Tuxford Offline modules do function as heat sinks but so does empty slot. ROFL Oh! Oh! You quoted a dev saying something kind of wierd, that certanily deserves its own post with a smily!!!! you are so my Hero!!! Serriously, quit trolling. Overheating is working fine for me, tho I have not done any testing in a long long time with offline modules contra empty highs.
Franga NQX Innovations	Posted - 2009.06.17 05:54:00 - [54] Hmm, Tuxfordy goodness. _____________________________ Please resize sig to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
Evthron Macyntire	Posted - 2009.06.17 06:00:00 - [55] I think you can negate the heatsinks by slapping another gun on there. Then you wouldn't have to overheat anything.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.06.23 14:09:00 - [56] Edited by: Raimo on 23/06/2009 14:11:07 Originally by: CCP Tuxford Ok I'm gonna try to clear some things up. Overloaded module has a chance to do damage to each module in the rack at the end of the cycle The chance of a module taking damage from an overloaded module is reduced by the distance from the module The chance of a module taking damage is also reduced by the number of empty/offline modules Heat sinks despite it's name have nothing to do with heat. The are damage mods same as gyrostabilizers and magnetic field stabilizers. This is how it's supposed to work, if it is not then you should file a bug report. Note: This is still chance based so there is a chance that a module farther away from the overloaded module would take more damage than a one closer but it shouldn't be the norm. Now I'm confused. Does a module getting heat damage reduce the chance of another module getting damage? If so, as offline modules also take damage that can/ needs to be repaired this would still mean that using offline heatsinks is worthwhile instead of empty slots... And FYI Tuxford, "Heat Sink" is a term widely used in the player base to represent a (usually high utility slot) module that is offlined to make overheating more efficient, as this is how it's widely believed to work as per that devblog etc... They sometimes get confused with the low slot damage mod of the same name. :P --- WOLFY is recruiting!
Afk anyway	Posted - 2009.06.23 15:49:00 - [57] Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: Colonel Cornbread Do grouped modules = Modules in said rack? I'd like to see some clarification on grouped modules. Heat damage is spread evenly across grouped modules so they will all show identical damage % and also shut down at the same time. Imho false, because if the stack is burned and you clear it, there are sometimes a few guns burned while others are still ready to fire(but with a lot damage already).
CHED Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.06.23 16:20:00 - [58] lol at me and my corp and most of eve using off lined mods as heat sinks since heat came out, when its actually a load of ****.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2009.06.23 16:25:00 - [59] Originally by: CHED lol at me and my corp and most of eve using off lined mods as heat sinks since heat came out, when its actually a load of ****. sort of. I think it works like this. You have an empty slot and a offline module, being used to slow heat buildup, but the offline module has a chance of taking the heat dmg from that cycle where an empty slot would not.
kyrv	Posted - 2009.06.23 16:31:00 - [60] You never actually thought it was true? did you?

Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.06.23 16:38:00 - [61] Originally by: Dr Fighter Originally by: CHED lol at me and my corp and most of eve using off lined mods as heat sinks since heat came out, when its actually a load of **. sort of. I think** it works like this. You have an empty slot and a offline module, being used to slow heat buildup, but the offline module has a chance of taking the heat dmg from that cycle where an empty slot would not. Bolded the problem. And hence my earlier post, I'd like to know facts...
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.23 16:49:00 - [62] Edited by: oniplE on 23/06/2009 16:52:37 Originally by: Raimo Originally by: Dr Fighter Originally by: CHED lol at me and my corp and most of eve using off lined mods as heat sinks since heat came out, when its actually a load of **. sort of. I think** it works like this. You have an empty slot and a offline module, being used to slow heat buildup, but the offline module has a chance of taking the heat dmg from that cycle where an empty slot would not. Bolded the problem. And hence my earlier post, I'd like to know facts... According to my initial test results and the dev reply: an offlined module performs just as well as an empty slot. So there's no point in fitting an offlined mod for heat purposes, you're better off with an empty slot because you wont have to repair it afterwards. Personally, i'd love to see offlined modules perform BETTER than empty slots. Repairing heat damage will cost more and you risk losing an extra module in pvp. In return you can overload your mods longer.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.06.23 19:39:00 - [63] Originally by: oniplE Edited by: oniplE on 23/06/2009 16:52:37 Originally by: Raimo Originally by: Dr Fighter Originally by: CHED lol at me and my corp and most of eve using off lined mods as heat sinks since heat came out, when its actually a load of **. sort of. I think** it works like this. You have an empty slot and a offline module, being used to slow heat buildup, but the offline module has a chance of taking the heat dmg from that cycle where an empty slot would not. Bolded the problem. And hence my earlier post, I'd like to know facts... According to my initial test results and the dev reply: an offlined module performs just as well as an empty slot. So there's no point in fitting an offlined mod for heat purposes, you're better off with an empty slot because you wont have to repair it afterwards. Personally, i'd love to see offlined modules perform BETTER than empty slots. Repairing heat damage will cost more and you risk losing an extra module in pvp. In return you can overload your mods longer. I'd still like more dev explanation. Why the talk about offline modules at all?
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.06.23 19:42:00 - [64] Both an offline mod and an empty slot do exactly the same. Which part of that can be unclear?
Thercon Jair Minmatar Nex Exercitus Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.06.23 20:50:00 - [65] Edited by: Thercon Jair on 23/06/2009 20:50:41 From what I understand: If you have an online mod in the middle of guns it doesn't act as a heatsink, whereas if you don't have an empty slot there or an offline mod it acts as a heatsink. A small remote armor repairer offline can act as a heatsink and for repairs after battle. Since it does the same as an empty slot, it's preferrable. Also, what I think: if there is no mod the probability of the other modules taking damage will be higher than if there is an offline module. It's nowhere in the explanation, but it would make sense. Why else would a heatsink make a difference? If a dev could clarify that? EFT doesn't seem to take this into account. It could either be because it is like that, or because simply EFT doesn't take that into account.
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.06.23 21:22:00 - [66] Originally by: Furb Killer Both an offline mod and an empty slot do exactly the same. Which part of that can be unclear?
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2009.06.23 21:38:00 - [67] Originally by: Furb Killer Both an offline mod and an empty slot do exactly the same. Which part of that can be unclear? the bit where the offline slot only slows the little heat arrow going up, whereas a module will have a chance to take some of the heat dmg instead of the modules aswell, whereas an empty slot does not get damaged.
oniplE Point of No Return	Posted - 2009.06.23 22:38:00 - [68] Edited by: oniplE on 23/06/2009 22:38:12 It really is as simple as quoted above, an empty slot does EXACTLY the same as an offlined module. There is no difference in heat build up or damage distribution.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.06.24 04:46:00 - [69] Originally by: Furb Killer Both an offline mod and an empty slot do exactly the same. Which part of that can be unclear? Originally by: EVElopedia Offline modules and empty module slots function as heat sinks, reducing the damage taken over time. While it is usually better to fit an active module, if no CPU or power grid is available, these heat-sink modules can be used to great effect. Which part of this can be clear? Why mention offline modules at all if they have the same effect as empty slots? Why have a module there that you need to repair versus having no module and thus no need for repairs... --- WOLFY is recruiting!
Atsuko Ratu Caldari Interstellar eXodus	Posted - 2009.06.24 05:37:00 - [70] Originally by: Raimo Which part of this can be clear? Why mention offline modules at all if they have the same effect as empty slots? Why have a module there that you need to repair versus having no module and thus no need for repairs... Anyone ever tell you how dense you are? Why not mention offline modules? Should they be unclear and only mention empty slots, leaving the question "how do offline modules effect heat?". The empty and offline module absorb heat in the same way. Yes, you need to repair the offline module; but you also get the option of onlining it on the fly, such as a RR or salvager. In your mind, you're wondering why the offline module takes damage at all, and you seem to think that justifies it being better than an empty slot. If only you were a Dev.

Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.06.24 06:00:00 - [71] Edited by: Raimo on 24/06/2009 06:04:14 Originally by: Atsuko Ratu Originally by: Raimo Which part of this can be clear? Why mention offline modules at all if they have the same effect as empty slots? Why have a module there that you need to repair versus having no module and thus no need for repairs... Anyone ever tell you how dense you are? Why not mention offline modules? Should they be unclear and only mention empty slots, leaving the question "how do offline modules effect heat?". Ah, they are plenty unclear as it stands... Am I the only one that thinks that this issue that is perpetrated with myths and assumptions would need a bit more clarification? If most of EVE has been fitting offline modules (usually with no desire to online them and no realistic offlining option to do that, what, offline your MWD in hostile space?) with the assumption that it is better than leaving the slot empty, you think it's ok to leave the issue with a passing unclear and contradictory dev post(and EVElopedia edit) and the findings of one player? You don't think some more dev clarification would be ok, preferably from the ground up as there is so much myth and misinformation around the issue? Anyone tell how dense you are? Or how about editing the EVElopedia article a bit more to be clear that there is no advantage to fitting offline mods as far as heat goes if that is the case? (Also many believe that the larger the mod per fitting requirements the better which ofc would be false as well)
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.06.24 07:38:00 - [72] Sorry but i was serious, which part of it can be unclear? They act exactly the same. Why would you then use an offline smartbomb there? You wouldnt, it is useless. Why would you use an offline repper/salvager? So afterwards if needed you can online it and use it.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.06.24 09:12:00 - [73] Originally by: Furb Killer Sorry but i was serious, which part of it can be unclear? They act exactly the same. Why would you then use an offline smartbomb there? You wouldnt, it is useless. Why would you use an offline repper/salvager? So afterwards if needed you can online it and use it. Read my last post again. This is a pretty big issue of misinformation that has gone on for a long time. It's not an issue of me wanting to fit an offline large smartbomb thinking it's better than a salvager or an empty slot, it's that thousands of players still think this is the case because the misinformation has been going on for so long... I'd like for some more dev clarifications, not because of the unclearness of the info in here and in the EVElopedia(even though they still are a tad vague for my liking and I'd like the Devs to NOT mess up with the low slot damage mod semantics when they're trying to "clear something up", thx) but because the misinformation is so widespread and has been going for so long. And I'd like the EVElopedia edited again to not imply that there would be any other benefit to fitting offline mods than being able to online them for use if that is indeed the case. --- WOLFY is recruiting!
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.06.24 09:16:00 - [74] especially this bit makes EVElopedia very unclear on the matter: Quote: Offline modules and empty module slots function as heat sinks, reducing the damage taken over time. While it is usually better to fit an active module, if no CPU or power grid is available, these heat-sink modules can be used to great effect. "These heat-sink modules" implies that a module(offline heatsink) is more effective than no module(empty slot). Also, they talk about a "heat sink" thus Tuxford mentioning that heat sinks are actually damage mods in this thread doesn't help to clear things up... --- WOLFY is recruiting!
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.06.24 09:18:00 - [75] Okay lets create a new dev blog: Offline modules and empty slots act the same for overheating purposes. So that was a long dev blog.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.06.24 10:53:00 - [76] Originally by: Furb Killer Okay lets create a new dev blog: Offline modules and empty slots act the same for overheating purposes. So that was a long dev blog. Uh, how about fixing the evelopedia 1st? How about a Dev post clearly indicating what previous dev talk has been fact and what has been not?
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.06.25 10:58:00 - [77] I'm bumping this! :P


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.