These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Disable overload near star
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
#1 - 2017-04-14 15:14:54 UTC
Stars generate lots of heat. In EVE you can warp near star and ship can handle this for some technobabble reason.

I propose additional tactical element to EVE. Near star you cannot use overload option for modules.

Comments are welcome for my idea.

Mikhem

Link library to EVE music songs.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2017-04-14 15:44:55 UTC
Why?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#3 - 2017-04-14 16:47:05 UTC
This is unnecessary complexity.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Cade Windstalker
#4 - 2017-04-14 17:07:01 UTC
The only thing this serves to do is disincentivize duels at the star which is a pointless thing to disincentivize.

Also a star puts out less energy per meter than a weapons grade laser, and your shield's block lasers just fine so there isn't even a lore reason for this.

No from me.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2017-04-14 18:46:55 UTC
I don't even see why this makes any kind of sense. So for *technobabble* reasons my ship can withstand being close to a star...why should this mean that heat damage from my modules is no longer a factor? I am pushing the modules past the "manufactured suggested limits"... why should this not damage them because my shields or whatever is protecting my ship from the sun?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
ColdCutz
Frigonometry
#6 - 2017-04-16 02:27:51 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?

Because realistically it should be ny impossible to sit next to a giant ball of fusion.
Cade Windstalker
#7 - 2017-04-16 04:24:27 UTC
ColdCutz wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?

Because realistically it should be ny impossible to sit next to a giant ball of fusion.


"Realistically" half the things in this game shouldn't work. A ship that can survive being bombarded by antimatter plasma could pretty easily go swimming in the outer surface of a star.

This is a game and gameplay concerns trump "realism".
Fek Mercer
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2017-04-16 04:58:36 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
ColdCutz wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?

Because realistically it should be ny impossible to sit next to a giant ball of fusion.


"Realistically" half the things in this game shouldn't work. A ship that can survive being bombarded by antimatter plasma could pretty easily go swimming in the outer surface of a star.

This is a game and gameplay concerns trump "realism".



I'd just like to point out that you can, in fact, do this
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#9 - 2017-04-16 07:31:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Linus Gorp
ColdCutz wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?

Because realistically it should be ny impossible to sit next to a giant ball of fusion.

And here we see again the limits of human intelligence.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
ColdCutz
Frigonometry
#10 - 2017-04-16 12:57:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ColdCutz
Linus Gorp wrote:
ColdCutz wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?

Because realistically it should be ny impossible to sit next to a giant ball of fusion.

And here we see again the limits of human intelligence.

Care to elaborate?
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#11 - 2017-04-16 15:11:34 UTC
ColdCutz wrote:
Linus Gorp wrote:
ColdCutz wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?

Because realistically it should be ny impossible to sit next to a giant ball of fusion.

And here we see again the limits of human intelligence.

Care to elaborate?


It is impossible to transmit speech electrically. The 'telephone' is as mythical as the unicorn.
Professor Johann Christian Poggendorrf, German physicist and chemist, 1860

Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.
Arthur Schopenhauer

It's not directed at you in particular. Almost every human is like that. So limited in their way of thinking.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
Cade Windstalker
#12 - 2017-04-16 17:43:40 UTC
Or to put this in more scientific terms, the surface of the sun is only about 3000K, if you can already deal with the gravity well (Eve ships most certainly can) and survive the Photosphere (again, we apparently can) then going swimming in a Star isn't that hard.

Eve Shields and Armor routinely survive quite large nuclear explosions, antimatter reactions, and focused coherent light beams in the Petawatt or Exawatt range.

Surviving near or even *in* a star is comparatively easy.
ColdCutz
Frigonometry
#13 - 2017-04-17 06:40:42 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Or to put this in more scientific terms, the surface of the sun is only about 3000K, if you can already deal with the gravity well (Eve ships most certainly can) and survive the Photosphere (again, we apparently can) then going swimming in a Star isn't that hard.

Eve Shields and Armor routinely survive quite large nuclear explosions, antimatter reactions, and focused coherent light beams in the Petawatt or Exawatt range.

Surviving near or even *in* a star is comparatively easy.

The problem is that they don't 'survive' those effects, they are damaged by them. So if you're going to be consistent, then the star should deal environmental damage.

I would be fine with the residual heat gauges on the hud rising near the sun while still allowing overheating. That could in practice give a tactical advantage to slower ships or newer players who don't have thermodynamics trained. It wouldn't really disincentivize duels if it evens the playing field in that respect.
Cade Windstalker
#14 - 2017-04-17 14:48:14 UTC
ColdCutz wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Or to put this in more scientific terms, the surface of the sun is only about 3000K, if you can already deal with the gravity well (Eve ships most certainly can) and survive the Photosphere (again, we apparently can) then going swimming in a Star isn't that hard.

Eve Shields and Armor routinely survive quite large nuclear explosions, antimatter reactions, and focused coherent light beams in the Petawatt or Exawatt range.

Surviving near or even *in* a star is comparatively easy.

The problem is that they don't 'survive' those effects, they are damaged by them. So if you're going to be consistent, then the star should deal environmental damage.

I would be fine with the residual heat gauges on the hud rising near the sun while still allowing overheating. That could in practice give a tactical advantage to slower ships or newer players who don't have thermodynamics trained. It wouldn't really disincentivize duels if it evens the playing field in that respect.


Sure, arguably it should, but that doesn't serve any useful gameplay purpose or add anything to the game. It just adds load to the servers and creates situations where people lose their ship to trolling or a stupid error, possibly one in the game rather than a pilot error.

And yes, that would still disincentivize fighting at the sun. It negatively impacts the capabilities of your ship or fleet in a negative way, and not one that you can guarontee to be to your advantage. No one with an ounce of sense is going to bet on a tiny change like that helping them more than it hurts them.