These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Why Can't I Underheat?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Oberlyn Oahl
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-04-09 22:21:54 UTC
Tech 3 modules... Variable output levels.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#22 - 2012-04-09 22:27:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
I think the best way to look at this idea is it would be part of the "War on clicks". Right now if I want my repper to rep at 80% and use 80% as much cap I can click it off each cycle, wait a second or so, and click it back on.

Every cycle.

Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click

Better would be to have a dial I can set that sets the amount of underheat (or overheat) I want. Then I can spend my time making decisions on how to run my ship rather than madly clicking.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Lost Greybeard
Drunken Yordles
#23 - 2012-04-09 22:38:13 UTC
So long as it also damages your modules in the same way overheat does, and roughly the same rate, I would have no problem with this (or diverting power). Damage to the modules would limit its application in a PvP context to burst.


And yes, before "but underheating shouldn't do damage, logically", note that running an engine on insufficient gas or in a low gear to save gas risks or outright guarantees your engine will cut out, and undervolting a processor will cause it to fail. So the analogies to real tech indicate that this should be fairly catastrophic as regards system integrity, really.
Oberlyn Oahl
Doomheim
#24 - 2012-04-09 22:49:36 UTC
Lost Greybeard wrote:
So long as it also damages your modules in the same way overheat does, and roughly the same rate, I would have no problem with this (or diverting power). Damage to the modules would limit its application in a PvP context to burst.


And yes, before "but underheating shouldn't do damage, logically", note that running an engine on insufficient gas or in a low gear to save gas risks or outright guarantees your engine will cut out, and undervolting a processor will cause it to fail. So the analogies to real tech indicate that this should be fairly catastrophic as regards system integrity, really.

Unless the equipment is actually designed to vary its output... Tech 3 modules... extra skills required, maybe you have to set up a limited number of presets before undocking.
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#25 - 2012-04-09 22:53:29 UTC
Troll or not the idea is actually kind of interesting and would add a bit more to PvP that wouldnt account for just the fits and go beyond overheating of the mods. That of course would be dependent on the way you can lose power from one to give another. Though the balancing nightmare itd be would make me lol at the CCP guy that got the job and pat him on the back, poor sod hed be.Lol

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.
Arzaiuc
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-04-09 23:21:45 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
I think the best way to look at this idea is it would be part of the "War on clicks". Right now if I want my repper to rep at 80% and use 80% as much cap I can click it off each cycle, wait a second or so, and click it back on.

Every cycle.

Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click Click

Better would be to have a dial I can set that sets the amount of underheat (or overheat) I want. Then I can spend my time making decisions on how to run my ship rather than madly clicking.


As a shield user (primarily-- both skills are trained up), I am annoyed with how shields/boosters work.

Wait until your cap is at peak recharge (25%) then pop a booster before it goes over the curve. Pop pop pop pop pop. Wish I could have it automated, since I'm not going to let myself go cap dry anyways.
Taedrin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-04-09 23:50:47 UTC
Lost Greybeard wrote:
So long as it also damages your modules in the same way overheat does, and roughly the same rate, I would have no problem with this (or diverting power). Damage to the modules would limit its application in a PvP context to burst.


And yes, before "but underheating shouldn't do damage, logically", note that running an engine on insufficient gas or in a low gear to save gas risks or outright guarantees your engine will cut out, and undervolting a processor will cause it to fail. So the analogies to real tech indicate that this should be fairly catastrophic as regards system integrity, really.


Undervolting a processor causes it to fail because the voltage signal becomes "ambiguous" when it is too close to the "threshold voltage" - the voltage when a semiconductor starts to conduct electricity. It does not cause any (physical) damage.

The car engine analogy is also bad - running the car in low gear at high speeds is not "underheating". In fact you are liable to OVERheat your engine should you attempt this because your engine will be operating at RPMs far higher than it is designed for. A proper analogy for "underheating" an engine would be to drive at lower speeds - thus consuming less fuel (at the cost of less speed).


I would prefer it if you could underheat a module so that you generate less heat when overheating OTHER modules. E.g. underheat your afterburner so you can overheat your shield booster or vice-versa. Of course, the problem with this is that it doesn't make sense with the current way things work: why would a module absorb heat when active and underheated, but not when it is inactive - or even offline? Alas, EVE Online may vary well never see "sub-system targetting" and diverting power from defensive systems to offensive systems and the like.
Hayaishi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-04-10 00:18:09 UTC
I'd love to run my MWD at 50% so I fly at AB speed, but have 50% less sig rad.
Serene Repose
#29 - 2012-04-10 02:16:32 UTC
You have to pee on everything! The crew will understand!

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Sam Flynn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-04-10 04:02:35 UTC
Arzaiuc wrote:
Potamus Jenkins wrote:
all i want to do is be able to reverse the polarity


Reversing polarity is a sci-fi STAPLE and I fully and unironically support it.

Example:

Reverse polarity on webs to make target go faster
Reverse polarity on warp disruptor to increase warp stability on target
Reverse polarity on shield boosters to convert shields to capacitor

Shut up and take my money.


sounds like something an opposing faction can do to turn a battle into their favor. As for the Underheating idea, I see you mean like conservation of capacitor energy. Transfering capacitor energy or shield output to where its needed would be difficult and would not result in a very simple UI, but is still a great idea nontheless.
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#31 - 2012-04-10 04:49:06 UTC
If you could reroute power, dreadnoughts' siege modules would be redundant.

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt
Culmen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-04-10 04:54:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Culmen
Tarn Kugisa wrote:
If you could reroute power, dreadnoughts' siege modules would be redundant.


Now imagine if you could reverse polarity on a siege module!

Consumes stront, prevents you from firing or repping, but you can jump immediately.

I WANT THIS!

Also to balance the idea for rerouting power, put some limits on it.
Say you can only take away 50% power on a system
Siege Allows you to take 100% away

There is a fine line between a post and a signature.
Previous page12