These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Linking Overheating and Structure Damage
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tex Raynor
Guardians of Asceticism
#1 - 2015-02-02 08:17:54 UTC
Here's the idea:

Make turning overheat on/off irrelevant from module cycle time but structure damage may cause modules to take additional damage.

The on/off would follow the normal 1-second server ticks, allowing micro-managing heat damage to the very limit easier.

Assuming no overheating, suffering 95% (or almost 100% without exploding) of structure damage would result in all mods suffering 50% damage on average, including passive mods.

Maybe then make hull reps also slowly regenerate all overheat damage while active?

inb4 stealth nerf "solo" pvp, amirite?

Would really bring back Hull-Tanking Real Men.
Juan Mileghere
The Corporate Raiders
Safety.
#2 - 2015-02-02 15:26:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Juan Mileghere
Tex Raynor wrote:
Here's the idea:

Make turning overheat on/off irrelevant from module cycle time but structure damage may cause modules to take additional damage.

The on/off would follow the normal 1-second server ticks, allowing micro-managing heat damage to the very limit easier.

Assuming no overheating, suffering 95% (or almost 100% without exploding) of structure damage would result in all mods suffering 50% damage on average, including passive mods.

Maybe then make hull reps also slowly regenerate all overheat damage while active?

inb4 stealth nerf "solo" pvp, amirite?

Would really bring back Hull-Tanking Real Men.


Can you explain how this would in anyway be fun or help balance the game? Specific examples preferred to opinions or feels.

Blobbing Explained
Tex Raynor
Guardians of Asceticism
#3 - 2015-02-02 17:32:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tex Raynor
Juan Mileghere wrote:

Can you explain how this would in anyway be fun or help balance the game? Specific examples preferred to opinions or feels.


- For one, it makes accidental module breaks less likely provided you are keeping an eye on your mods. It should not change much for most of them from the current system but would be easier to time overheating MWDs for example.

- Coming back to MWDs and also ABs (any mod able to overheat with longer cycles really), it removes a perhaps "unnecessary" delay between OH activation.

As for structure damage affecting actual mods, it is a suggestion that could add a bit more choice during a fight with a wider variety of possible outcomes. For instance, you usually have no reason not to overheat your guns during a fight up to 80-90% provided your damage application is good.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#4 - 2015-02-02 17:42:55 UTC
Can you explain why ships that have large sections of their EHP in hull such as the Taranis deserve to have such a heavy nerf?

As to your "Hull tanking" quip, this would be a direct nerf to hull tankers, since ships that were already overheating before taking hull damage would be likely to burn out important mods and be unable to recover.

-1, no demonstrated need or reason it would make the game better.
Van Beyus
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2015-02-02 19:11:39 UTC
I think that rather than avoiding module damage the game should have more ways of damaging modules. It feels really silly that while a ship is being bashed to destruction all their modules stay intact...

I'm not online most of the time, but I won't change this signature when I do just to make your life easier.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#6 - 2015-02-02 19:22:35 UTC
Van Beyus wrote:
I think that rather than avoiding module damage the game should have more ways of damaging modules. It feels really silly that while a ship is being bashed to destruction all their modules stay intact...

The number of times that the suggestion/want for destructible ship modules is very, very high.

I'm right behind you
Van Beyus
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2015-02-02 19:24:32 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Van Beyus wrote:
I think that rather than avoiding module damage the game should have more ways of damaging modules. It feels really silly that while a ship is being bashed to destruction all their modules stay intact...

The number of times that the suggestion/want for destructible ship modules is very, very high.
Yeah, I know. I'm not the OP though. Use the search function, you fool!

I'm not online most of the time, but I won't change this signature when I do just to make your life easier.
Tex Raynor
Guardians of Asceticism
#8 - 2015-02-02 20:48:51 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Can you explain why ships that have large sections of their EHP in hull such as the Taranis deserve to have such a heavy nerf?

As to your "Hull tanking" quip, this would be a direct nerf to hull tankers, since ships that were already overheating before taking hull damage would be likely to burn out important mods and be unable to recover.

-1, no demonstrated need or reason it would make the game better.


Agreed, I thought about hull tanked setups and actually use some of them for very specific roles. The overall nerf on those would be roughly 50% less OH buffer on modules.

Considering hull tanking was never meant to be a viable tactic in the first place (at least accroding to all the hints), I think it's debatable if we should really care about collateral damage done specifically to them by this change.

That being said, assuming there is a real need/want to preserve hull tanking as it is today, then you can simply not go through with structure damage affecting modules. In that case, would allowing OH on/off regardeless of module cycle time be a good change on its own?