Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TheExtruder
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 22:20:23 -
[1] - Quote
or at least a new rig that cools down the overheated stuff, a fail safe mechanic of some kind |
Ama Scelesta
111
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 22:22:39 -
[2] - Quote
Wouldn't that take out all the skill, knowledge and risk from using overheating? |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
6575
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 22:30:59 -
[3] - Quote
So you want to add a "safety" after you have clearly turned off the "safeties." An override to stop an override. Limit things when you are clearly trying to go past your limits in the first place.
Part of the idea behind overheat is that you are disabling the "safe" operation of modules for better performance... at the risk that they might burn out and leave you more helpless than if you did not.
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?"
|
TheExtruder
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 22:42:38 -
[4] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:So you want to add a "safety" after you have clearly turned off the "safeties." An override to stop an override. Limit things when you are clearly trying to go past your limits in the first place.
Part of the idea behind overheat is that you are disabling the "safe" operation of modules for better performance... at the risk that they might burn out and leave you more helpless than if you did not.
dont understand why we are still stuck with the idea that there is nothing you can do about cooling down systems when they are overheated. like not being able to put water over a flame, doesnt add up in that respect.
in real life cooling is a big deal, it would be illogical if ccp didnt continue building on and evolving the overheat mechanic. because if overheat exists then cooling needs to exist too, there is simply no logi and no depth to a mechanic which has now become so commonly used |
Goochan derp
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 22:46:20 -
[5] - Quote
its a game mechanic, not a real life scenario. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
217
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 22:46:43 -
[6] - Quote
TheExtruder wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:So you want to add a "safety" after you have clearly turned off the "safeties." An override to stop an override. Limit things when you are clearly trying to go past your limits in the first place.
Part of the idea behind overheat is that you are disabling the "safe" operation of modules for better performance... at the risk that they might burn out and leave you more helpless than if you did not. dont understand why we are still stuck with the idea that there is nothing you can do about cooling down systems when they are overheated. like not being able to put water over a flame, doesnt add up in real life cooling is a big deal, it would be illogical if ccp didnt continue building on and evolving the overheat mechanic. because if overheat exists then cooling needs to exist too, there is simply no logic and no depth to a mechanic which has now become so commonly used
You are able to cool them down by disabling the overload and letting the rack cool however damage already done by the heat cant just go away by adding water. and considering we are in space the rate at which the rack cools is extremely fast so there is some pretty high level tech involved |
TheExtruder
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
20
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 22:51:25 -
[7] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:TheExtruder wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:So you want to add a "safety" after you have clearly turned off the "safeties." An override to stop an override. Limit things when you are clearly trying to go past your limits in the first place.
Part of the idea behind overheat is that you are disabling the "safe" operation of modules for better performance... at the risk that they might burn out and leave you more helpless than if you did not. dont understand why we are still stuck with the idea that there is nothing you can do about cooling down systems when they are overheated. like not being able to put water over a flame, doesnt add up in real life cooling is a big deal, it would be illogical if ccp didnt continue building on and evolving the overheat mechanic. because if overheat exists then cooling needs to exist too, there is simply no logic and no depth to a mechanic which has now become so commonly used You are able to cool them down by disabling the overload and letting the rack cool however damage already done by the heat cant just go away by adding water. and considering we are in space the rate at which the rack cools is extremely fast so there is some pretty high level tech involved
makes sense yeah, but what about stopping at 99% and why isnt it an option if there is high level tech involved? at least the option to put a rig would be a start |
Sugar Kyle
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
778
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 23:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
Considering the variable rate of overheating it seems not turning it off at 99% is pilot error. The whole reason you overheat is to push the weapon past all of its inherent safeties as it destroys itself. If you could juset set it to turn itself off at 99% and send you back to 'regular' mode, what is the point? A module might as well have an OP button at that point. At least overheating lets you, the pilot, error and burn out your module leaving you high and dry and often dead.
Member of CSM9
CSM9 Weekly Updates
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
539
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 23:40:23 -
[9] - Quote
TheExtruder wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:So you want to add a "safety" after you have clearly turned off the "safeties." An override to stop an override. Limit things when you are clearly trying to go past your limits in the first place.
Part of the idea behind overheat is that you are disabling the "safe" operation of modules for better performance... at the risk that they might burn out and leave you more helpless than if you did not. dont understand why we are still stuck with the idea that there is nothing you can do about cooling down systems when they are overheated. like not being able to put water over a flame, doesnt add up in real life cooling is a big deal, it would be illogical if ccp didnt continue building on and evolving the overheat mechanic. because if overheat exists then cooling needs to exist too, there is simply no logic and no depth to a mechanic which has now become so commonly used
Cooking mods an area in eve that reinforces actual player skill. Why do you want to lose that? Its actually something that isn't press a button....I win.
2 players same skills same ship same fit same actual flying skills roughly (ie, knows how to work traversal, manual flight control, etc)
One player knows when to say when and stops the overheat Other player doesn't, blows up mods, and is now at the mercy of the other guy. Moral of that story, better discipline in overheat won a close fight. As it should be.
Also you do know in real life you too can bypass overheat controls or they do fail. Used to be heavy into hobbyist photography. I have external flashes that do have thermal cutoffs. And if that last few pops is variable enough in heat....that thermal cutoff comes too little too late if that overzealous.
Now some gear addresses this issue. You won't like how they do it. They make the thermal cutoff way more conservative. As in it trips way too low. This would be why I keep an "old faithful" flash over a later model. The newer model shuts off way too soon while my old faithful I know gets a few more bursts off.
|
Doddy
Esoteric Operations
905
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 23:42:48 -
[10] - Quote
In all the ways people ask for the game to be dumbed down this is one of the lamest.
|
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
864
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 00:04:50 -
[11] - Quote
^^ Slight mitigating factor IMO in that overheating and syncing up with the server seems to be somewhat unreliable at times*, it would remove a huge player dependant skill aspect from the game however.
* Lost count of the times I've been unable to stop a module overheating for several cycles or stopped it (all) overheating several cycles short of stuff being destroyed but still had the ping and modules destroyed 20-30 seconds later, etc. and I'm on a 80Mbit connection with a 10ms ping to eve so its not like I've a bad connection. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
458
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 00:10:04 -
[12] - Quote
Yes!
signature
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25241
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 01:09:07 -
[13] - Quote
something tells me it would result in an extra heat cycle, a lot like unnecessary missile volleys whose target disappears before they land. imo one extra heat cycle isn't so important compared to the best argument, which is the danger of overuse.
removing the 100% failure condition isn't suddenly OP, though. it is what it is, basically a temporary officer mod.
what would be fair is a lower heat damage, lower bonus mode that does feature a failsafe.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Eldwinn
SomeWhat SophiSticateD Shadow Cartel
87
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 01:29:07 -
[14] - Quote
TheExtruder wrote:or at least a new rig that cools down the overheated stuff, a fail safe mechanic of some kind
When then. 0/10 sir. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
183
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 02:29:12 -
[15] - Quote
Module burnout is a perfectly fine balancing penalty to the power that overheating gives you, so I don't support a safety that turns off overheat when it reaches a certain threshold. That said, I do think that an expansion of the overheating mechanic in some way could be interesting, and I rather hope that it happens some day. |
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2344
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 03:52:01 -
[16] - Quote
Overheating your mods in an attempt to burn that guy down before you burn out your mods is a quintessential part of EVE |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3089
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 04:17:18 -
[17] - Quote
TheExtruder wrote:Would the world end if modules automatically stopped overheating at 99% damage?
Yes.
Additionally, I fixed your scrub-tier title for you. |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25241
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 05:21:08 -
[18] - Quote
lots of naysayers, no alternatives. this is so productive.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3090
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 05:33:50 -
[19] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:lots of naysayers, no alternatives. this is so productive.
The lack of an alternative is because we don't see any need for a change in the first place. Why propose an alternative change when you don't want a change at all? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25241
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 05:56:00 -
[20] - Quote
that's a likely story. but I'll humor you. why is because it's a features and ideas discussion on a topic.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1418
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 06:16:55 -
[21] - Quote
Honestly, I would be agreeing with the people saying that the point of overheating is to have to be careful not to break your module... BUT, right now, the overheating UI and mecanic is too lame and too unintuitive for that.
Think about it, even though we have the code in place to show precisely how much heat is repaired with nanites in-flight, when you exit repair mode, you still only see a damage indicated divided in 6... and that's all. No precision at all. The module could be damaged at 99 or 86%, it doesn't tell you. You need to mouseover to see it... That's stupid.
Dangerous game mecanics should be dangerous because of a player's mistake, not because you have to fight the UI. So yeah, if I break my guns, part of the problem will be me... But a larger part will be because the UI required me to mouseover constantly over the weapons icon, to see the heat damage with a 1% precision.
Also, seeing the heat damage increase over time, each second during the module cycle, would greatly help. Right now, you see the heat damage when the next circle is already started. There is basically zero player decision involved, because the second you have the information to make that decision, the game already forced your hand in making the next-one (overheating or not for the next cycle).
So yeah... again, in theory I'd be opposed to a safety. But current UI design and game mecanics really aren't good enough for that.
Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25241
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 06:44:10 -
[22] - Quote
how about a guaranteed burnout, massive bonus, one-shot alpha strike option. there's places to go with heat.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
540
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 07:13:16 -
[23] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:how about a guaranteed burnout, massive bonus, one-shot alpha strike option. there's places to go with heat.
carrier/depot refit on the spot a source of potential abuse. Burn em out and swap them. Camp/fleet and target(s) they are trying to pop depending you could see some bad things happening. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
980
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 07:27:21 -
[24] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:that's a likely story. but I'll humor you. why is because it's a features and ideas discussion on a topic.
Very well then: What is your alternative to have the 99% damage switch and still keep the pilot error possibility in place?
--
@Altrue
You can estimate the next cycle's probable heat damage to your module by considering the damage steps of the previous cycles into account. If you are at 95% damage and the previous cycles added damage between 3-5% to your gun, it's very likely that the next cycle destroys them, hence you turn overheat off. |
Luwc
Confederation of Independent Contractors Swamphole
308
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 07:56:14 -
[25] - Quote
Nah
Not a big fan easymodes.
http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
|
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame
4482
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 07:59:00 -
[26] - Quote
TheExtruder wrote:a fail safe mechanic of some kind there is one, it's called "awareness".
I'm a Snaper - imgur.com/8EHPPWU
mad? ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Hengle Teron > v(t) = dp / dt
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25241
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 08:02:11 -
[27] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Rain6637 wrote:how about a guaranteed burnout, massive bonus, one-shot alpha strike option. there's places to go with heat. carrier/depot refit on the spot a source of potential abuse. Burn em out and swap them. Camp/fleet and target(s) they are trying to pop depending you could see some bad things happening. refitting and spare mods is already a thing.
Rivr Luzade wrote:Rain6637 wrote:that's a likely story. but I'll humor you. why is because it's a features and ideas discussion on a topic. Very well then: What is your alternative to have the 99% damage switch and still keep the pilot error possibility in place? I've posted two. I've never heard of a case of illiteracy where the person can type but can't read.
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
980
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 08:15:49 -
[28] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Rain6637 wrote:that's a likely story. but I'll humor you. why is because it's a features and ideas discussion on a topic. Very well then: What is your alternative to have the 99% damage switch and still keep the pilot error possibility in place? I've posted two. I've never heard of a case of illiteracy where the person can type but can't read.
1 as far as I can tell. Your first suggestion, the reduced overheat for a failsafe, which would make the overheat mechanic even more complicated as you would have 1 overheat without failsafe and 1 overheat with failsafe, which in turn brings us back to Altrue's brought up problem of "battling the UI". That problem of an UI cluttered with even more choice and chance to click the wrong option without realizing or in the wrong setting at the wrong time might qualify as "failsafe switch while retaining chance for pilot error", though I have my doubts that making the UI worse is a good approach to achieve that.
Your second suggestion has no failsafe and no risk, as it destroys the weapon regardless. Next? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25242
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 08:36:16 -
[29] - Quote
bro. I've never seen a worse case of grr goons. either that or you're always confrontational. or you're just special.
the reduced heat mode is meant for exactly the way you describe, where normal heat for one more cycle would burn out the module. the same thing is already happening on the first heat cycle, where using heat just one time will not add damage.
the alpha strike burnout option is valid too. in fact, current heat and my two suggestions can work together, like:
normal heat cycle normal heat cycle normal heat cycle normal heat cycle normal heat cycle normal heat cycle reduced heat cycle reduced heat cycle reduced heat cycle reduced heat cycle alpha strike
one way the reduced heat cycle should behave is a steady heat level that neither increases or demishes
now it's your turn to think of something creative regarding heat
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
980
|
Posted - 2014.11.20 08:55:12 -
[30] - Quote
I don't need to come up with something "creative regarding heat" as I am with the folks who don't see a need for change. There is no need for different modes, as overheat works as intended already: You have the bonus damage by damaging your guns. How far you can damage your guns is easily visible on the module and the tool tip of the module, and by watching your modules during fight and overheat you can see how far you can overheat and when to stop. That little bit of taking various effects of overheating into account is called "learning" (by experience or from others), something that has seen a short straw in recent EVE history. If you overheat, you have to pay attention to it and the details to overheating, which requires watching your modules as well as the fight around you. Overheating is not an Easy-Mode On-Switch, where you just get more damage and can continue watching movies, it's an advanced feature of combat requiring skill and knowledge. If you don't have that, you would do better acquiring it first before you use overheat and fail at using it.
Now, as for your "creative something regarding heat": How do you turn on the reduced heat cycle? How do you turn it off? How can I tell my weapons not to go into reduced OH at all if I don't need that? What point has an alpha strike on weapons which don't have alpha damage capabilities, such as short range pulse lasers, missile launchers or autocannons? Where is the risk of pilot error if every heatcycle follows your described pattern? I take it that the safety switch turns on when the heat reaches a certain damage level and continues the heat with reduced damage and bonus, then bursts in an alpha strike and turns heat off automatically? Or destroys the gun, making the safety switch pointless? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |