You want to reduce the number of heat sinks per laucher? what?

[Ian Skippy]

Sidey(s) did make it to Beagle Point tho ...

But what comes to SCB/heat-sink/HRP-meta ... I just chuckle, using a "build" I made before we even had SCBs or HRPs.

*cough*sarcasm*cough*

I think that dude (plus the other one who basically just left dec 16th 2014 and was never seen again) kinda shows show the absurdity of those explorers claiming you need a million heat sinks to get anywhere. My Explonda has one heat sink launcher, and I think I've used it once.

 

[Artie]

Again, how not pvp bulid will be afected that badly by having one sink less per launcher?

It may, especially with SCB, it may reduce SCB usability in combat with just one HSL (even now single HSL is not able to cover all the heat of all SCB charges and this ammo reduction will make it just worse). Count also a fact there will be Point defence more needed with the upcoming missiles buff, which is additional slot extra. So in worst case, you will need to fill two slots with Point defence and with additional HSL after the update and remove another stuff you had there.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

The problem with the 'marking' or 'heat' weapons is you HAVE TO HAVE that weapon to counter stealth builds, which only requires basic components to run. The Engineers modules require a massive grind and potentially a ton of slot machine pulls to get your hands on.

Not an issue. Make them worth using and people will use them just like anything else. As long as FD doesn't cripple their use outside of this niche situation which I admit is very unlikely given their track record, then accessibility won't be any more of an issue for heat-oriented weapons than any other specialized weapon.

However, I'd like to see ALL weapons generate a certain amount of heat in the target. Tweak overall heat generation by using weapons down slightly, and make all weapons generate heat on the target to greater or lesser degrees depending on balance, and you've solved a lot of problems.

People who use silent running effectively aren't unduly punished. People who fight against silent running builds get a buff and an incentive for fighting well, regardless of what their loadout is, and you make overheating your opponent a more viable combat mechanic that can be utilized in a number of ways while still allowing heat-oriented weapons to remain in their niche.

 

[babelfisch]

Weapon fire heat isn't enough, obviously, because rails are some of the hottest weapons yet combine well with silent running, when they should be each others' antithesis.

That's exactly what they want to change.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

That's exactly what they want to change.

And I'm saying there's a better way to do that than change heatsinks, which are a third factor that is only indirectly related.

 

[Elpapo]

It may, especially with SCB, it may reduce SCB usability in combat with just one HSL (even now single HSL is not able to cover all the heat of all SCB charges and this ammo reduction will make it just worse).

Did you read my first post in this thread????

"Having too much SCB will be useless in 2.1..." if ppls failed to see why, well... they will learn soon enough after 2.1 why.

Dual HSL's over one will do a job for anything small that wanna run SCB's. No more stacking of SCB. Finnaly.

I call it "balance" for those who might wanna have SCB's in thier ships. This will make them to not have too much of them.

 

[bitstorm]

Explorers.... they really will be doomed? Just because they need to fit one or two more HSL's than before? Again if said explorer needs 12+ for travels, he doing something wrong again. L2P issue.

Pretty sure it's the PvP SCB crowd complaining "on behalf of" Explorers.

I mean +1 heatsink will cost an explorer 0.1LY jump range and zero extra power.

And if that really is an issue to some highly strung explorer (does such a thing exist!) then well, I'd say it will be *more than* made up by FSD and other module engineer mods you moaning sod.

 

[babelfisch]

And I'm saying there's a better way to do that then change heatsinks, which are a third factor that is only indirectly related.

I think you misunderstood. They don't just lower the amount of heatsinks, they increase the heat generated by weapons when you are in silent running, basically just what you are suggesting:

Question:

Why not make combat during silent running more dangerous rather than changing a module that has game-wide gameplay functionality?

The change in heatsinks is just on top of that.

 

[Marcus Tullius]

The point is non PvP builds are getting nerfed because of a PvP issue. This is a bad thing.

.
Nope, there is nothing about PvP – it could be an excuse but not a cause. Nerfing the HS is just another aspect of *pay to win* strategy, which was announced with 2.1. There will be an engineer who will compensate the nerf. If you want to be competitive in PvP or you want to have more HS for your exploration trip, buy Horizons – FD don’t care about balance or gameplay but about money.

 

[Zeta Legion]

Not an issue. Make them worth using and people will use them just like anything else. As long as FD doesn't cripple their use outside of this niche situation which I admit is very unlikely given their track record, then accessibility won't be any more of an issue for heat-oriented weapons than any other specialized weapon.

However, I'd like to see ALL weapons generate a certain amount of heat in the target. Tweak overall heat generation by using weapons down slightly, and make all weapons generate heat on the target to greater or lesser degrees depending on balance, and you've solved a lot of problems.

People who use silent running effectively aren't unduly punished. People who fight against silent running builds get a buff and an incentive for fighting well, regardless of what their loadout is, and you make overheating your opponent a more viable combat mechanic that can be utilized in a number of ways while still allowing heat-oriented weapons to remain in their niche.

It's not about making them 'worth using', it's rather the opposite; they are far too important to ignore if you want to combat stealth builds without using a stealth build yourself. By making something too valuable (or mandatory) it effectively makes choosing to run that item or not a non-choice. So basically, grind out rep and play the slots until you get one of these tracer modules or high-wake every time a rail-de-lance decides he wants to go seal clubbing and picks you as a target.

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

Again, how not pvp bulid will be afected that badly by having one sink less per launcher?

Smugging can be done without using more than 2 or 3 sinks, If someone needs a Lots of them than this, then he or she doing something very wrong. L2P issue.

Explorers.... they really will be doomed? Just because they need to fit one or two more HSL's than before? Again if said explorer needs 12+ for travels, he doing something wrong again. L2P issue.

It negatively effects them, and needlessly so. Spending months out in the black means heat sinks will probably be needed. Ever jump in between 2 stars?

 

[Ian Skippy]

By the way, didnt all the SCB-guys say that SCBs were dead because of the railgun mod? And now its dying again because of heatsink changes? What are these SCB, the Jesus of modules or something?

 

[Artie]

Did you read my first post in this thread????

"Having too much SCB will be useless in 2.1..." if ppls failed to see why, well... they will learn soon enough after 2.1 why.

Dual HSL's over one will do a job for anything small that wanna run SCB's.

I call it "balance" for those who might wanna have SCB's in thier ships.

I am sorry, I missed your first post here, but it doesn't change my point. Even with single-slot SCB you cannot fully cover it with single HSL in the current version. With HSL ammo decrease it will make it just worse for people that run just one HSL with the risk that some of the SCB charges will be "uncovered". HSL ammo reducing will force them to utilize another slot for additional HSL or increase the risk. And it has nothing to do with silent running, if it is the primary developers' intention...

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

It's not about making them 'worth using', it's rather the opposite; they are far too important to ignore if you want to combat stealth builds without using a stealth build yourself. By making something too valuable (or mandatory) it effectively makes choosing to run that item or not a non-choice. So basically, grind out rep and play the slots until you get one of these tracer modules or high-wake every time a rail-de-lance decides he wants to go seal clubbing and picks you as a target.

And if you give all weapons the ability to introduce heat, they become less vitally important for countering that one situation while still remaining equally effective at countering their intended target.

You see how that works?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I think you misunderstood. They don't just lower the amount of heatsinks, they increase the heat generated by weapons when you are in silent running, basically just what you are suggesting:



The change in heatsinks is just on top of that.

Actually that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying make the silent runner take on heat every time they take damage by giving all weapons heat-injection properties to a lesser degree than the specialized weapons.

On all targets, silent running or not.

Which honestly should have been a part of the combat mechanics from the very beginning. It only makes sense.

Edit: Specifically, if you take hull damage. That's direct kinetic contact which would by all laws of physics generate heat. Meanwhile, shield users don't notice a change until they lose their shields, which is generally the "erhmahgawd things are happening I'm gonna die" point in the conflict for them anyways.

 

[Zeta Legion]

And if you give all weapons the ability to introduce heat, they become less vitally important for countering that one situation while still remaining equally effective at countering their intended target.

You see how that works?

Except that isn't how things work. You're using a fantasy to try and refute the fact that a specific variant of a difficult to obtain module is mandatory for combating stealth.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I am sorry, I missed your first post here, but it doesn't change my point. Even with single-slot SCB you cannot fully cover it with single HSL in the current version. With HSL ammo decrease it will make it just worse for people that run just one HSL with the risk that some of the SCB charges will be "uncovered". HSL ammo reducing will force them to utilize another slot for additional HSL or increase the risk. And it has nothing to do with silent running, if it is the primary developers' intention...

According to the devs SCB should be a last-resort emergency device. If you get into 24 emergency situations every fight you might need to re-think your approach. All the 'cheesy cookie-cutter' builds are apparantly being targeted, and we'll be forced to think a bit harder about loadouts rather than pick a) shields, or b) hull and max whichever we chose to the limit.

Bad news for people who like following 5-step online guides, good news for people who like complexity.

 

[Arithon]

I am a little disappointed by the concentration on weapons and combat for 2.1. There are billion things Engineers could do besides buff guns.

We already had this with powerplay and I'd hoped then to see "cargo doublers" or "FSD capacitors" or other such non-combat modules added.

Imagine for a second that there is no combat. What are we then getting in 2.1 for exploration, interaction, trade etc. It's a legitimate question. We're getting ice mining. Anything else?

It just feels from here, that player combat is getting too much love. Like football on TV, 50% of all TV revenue is spent on something only 11% of people watch. PvP absolutely falls in this category. It's a valid aspect of the game, but we do need to see some focus in other areas.

Ship relocation and component storage were mentioned, and have been high on the forum wish lists since before launch, but are still in the "later" box.

Can we put combat and guns to one side after 2.1 please, and start adding things to stimulate other aspects of the game.

For example

• Hull repair limpets, that you can only apply to another ship. This would create a whole new META (repair rats?) and give explorers reason to travel in pairs to repair each other. But because these would only function when shields were down, they would give not effect combat.
• With 2.2 don't just add fighters; add shuttles, so that traders can take big ships to outposts and deliver cargo in 10T increments via shuttle.
• Cargo compression modules - squeeze in 15% more cargo per Class slot (2T becomes 2.3T, 16T becomes 18.4T) but they draw power to achieve this.
• Have engineers product non-combat modules. What's wrong with an "FSD capacitor" for longer charge and bigger jump. It would use more fuel, so longer jumps would mean fewer jumps, but explorers with a 45Ly Asp could reach stars currently inaccessible.
• If you really want to mix things up, make the utility slots Class based.

Also, I was hoping that decals and paints would get some attention for 1.6/2.1 as there are very few paints for the majority of ships and decals are massively underused. With the XBOX now having access to skins, there's double the reason to do this.

 

[Artie]

According to the devs SCB should be a last-resort emergency device. If you get into 24 emergency situations every fight you might need to re-think your approach. All the 'cheesy cookie-cutter' builds are apparantly being targeted, and we'll be forced to think a bit harder about loadouts rather than pick a) shields, or b) hull and max whichever we chose to the limit.

Bad news for people who like following 5-step online guides, good news for people who like complexity.

That's absolutely OK and I agree that SCB should be the emergency device and not a commonly used thing, all the time. But in my opinion it doesn't matter if you want to use SCB "just because you want" or "it's emergency! boost the shields!", the HSL ammo count, SCB charges count and heat produced is all the same on both cases.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Except that isn't how things work. You're using a fantasy to try and refute the fact that a specific variant of a difficult to obtain module is mandatory for combating stealth.

No, you're just completely missing the point. This entire discussion is fantasy right now since the change hasn't been implemented, so you shouldn't have any problem grasping the concept of one flight of fancy if you have no issue in comprehending the topic as a whole.

So let's try that again. What makes my fantasy a less viable solution than FDev's fantasy?

 

[Han Brannigan]

I just heard in the live stream they want to reduce the number of heat sinks per launcher to nerf silent running builds? seriously? It's 4 now, how low do you want to go?

3 - like it used to be. How bout that?