Page 1 of 43 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 641

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: ***UPDATED*** Heat Meta Experiment

  1. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #1
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee

    ***UPDATED*** Heat Meta Experiment

    *** UPDATE ***

    Hello Commanders!


    First, I just wanted to thank everyone for their feedback. It's been extremely useful and we're very grateful.

    So, it looks like we're going to give this experiment a run, see where it takes us.

    Additionally, after more internal discussion, we're going to lower weaponised heat diminishing returns so that they kick in at 65% and lock at 95%. What this means is that basically, heat weapons will not be able to cause module damage by themselves. All other tweaks will be as discussed in the original post.

    The general consensus from feedback leans towards this so we'll give it a punt.

    As usual, we reserve the right to further change or revert these numbers (Sandy "No" Sammarco rules for the win).

    Hopefully, this experiment should start with the next build deployment (keep an eye on heat tweaks in the changelog). Your feedback will be, as usual, be greatly appreciated!

    *** UPDATE ENDS ***


    Hello Commanders!

    We've been having a good old chew over the heat meta, and we want to float an idea past those of you who are interested (in fairness, the concept of this idea has been thrown around and discussed in various forums - we're just formalising a version of it).

    We want heat to be a useful combat resource to manage, based on builds and tactics. We don't want it to be a path of least resistance, and we don't want it to be irrelevant.

    Currently, there is an argument that heat is a path of least resistance when ships stack heat delivery weapons. The target can be pushed into a high heat level and kept there, causing significant damage to modules and even hull in extreme cases, with little defence against it.

    We've been making various adjustments to limit these excesses, by improving heat resistance of cold running, improving heat sinks, lowering weaponized heat maximums etc.

    We think we're making decent progress.

    However.

    We've also been considering a more fundamental change to weaponised heat. The concept is to make the use of a smaller number of heat delivery weapons more viable as a way of causing damage, whilst removing the benefits of stacking lots of them together.

    The changes we’re proposing are:


    - Thermal diminishing returns cut in later but much harder, previously they would start at 60% and prevent you going over 190%, whereas they will now start at 80% and prevent you going over 120%.

    - The heat effects of Thermal Shock are doubled.

    - The heat effects of Thermal Cascade are 25% more than they are on live (the previous beta heat nerf is being reversed, and then a small buff), combined with a slight nerf to PackHounds to stop them being so superior to other missiles.

    The effects that this should have are slightly different depending on how many thermal weapons you use compared to the size of your target ship.

    For Thermal Shock:

    - If you use one or two smaller weapons, they’ve gone from minimal effect to being able to cause some heat damage if the defender uses hot equipment.

    - If you use 2-4 appropriate sized weapons for the ship, you should be able to hold them between 100-110% heat, taking steady slow module damage.

    - If you stack a full heat loadout, you can hold them near the 120% cap doing slightly more heat damage.

    How the defender acts will obviously affect this. Activating hot equipment will increase the damage they take, but it should never become game-endingly high and the benefits of stacking more than a handful of these weapons are probably lower than the direct damage you lose.

    Missiles with Thermal Cascade behave a little differently, it’s relatively easy to spike someone up to 120% heat briefly with a volley, but a full alpha strike won’t do anything more, you’ll generally get better results from a steady stream of fire (which is also more able to beat the newly improved ECM defences).


    As you can see, this would represent a pretty big change to heat meta.

    Take some time to think it over. We're still discussing it in the office, and debating it's pros and cons, and whether we should go for a test run as an experiment, with the explicit caveat that we might completely revert the changes if we didn't see a marked improvement.

    Your initial thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

    I'll keep you updated if we decide to move further with this.

  2. #2
    This could be an interesting experiment indeed.

    Obviously wing fights will need to be taken into account as the stacking effects in the first beta were still incredibly powerful.

  3. #3
    You guys never listen....

  4. #4
    Good to hear, so basicaly Heat weapons will make you lose modules but slower, but if you try to run (active FSD, or fight back... you will have increased heat damage , hence both thing heats up ship anyways....)

    Sandro One question should be asked... If a ship is keeping damage at 120% , how long to its loses it's drives? and it's FSD... I mean... If you Still loses your drives , you're a sitting duck, If you lose your FSD you're locked there anyway...

    WQould you be considering changing how much damage head does to this modules? IF it still very fast to lose?

    Also i think damage should start on the power plant, since this s the main focus of power on the ship... so losing your Power plant means your ship is crippled to 50%... I think this is a more desired outcome than losing your drives to heat...
    Greedy Raider Channel , Piracy , PvP , Tutorials, Tests , Stupid stuff and more!
    "These days any man who can sew a black flag and get ten fools to follow him can take a prize.
    They can take it because of the fear that I and men like me have instilled in their prey.
    But they can't do what I can do. They're not built for it. And sooner or later, they'll be exposed." Capt'n Flint

  5. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #5
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander BreakfastMelon!

    Well, and to be fair, the jury's still out on this, the concept here would effectively neutralise stacking of heat weapons, regardless of whether they were all mounted on one ship or spread across four vessels. On the other hand, potentially, any of those four ships with a moderately decent heat weapon or two should be able to cause heat damage.

  6. #6
    will the diminishing returns from 60-190 window apply in the 80-120 window? or do they have the same diminishing returns just with a lower cap?

    From your wording, "smaller weapons"... "appropriate sized weapons" this appears that size of the weapon will have a play in heat input?

    Has packhound damage received a nerf? or just the heat input regarding packhound? it seems like the damage is directly proportionate to heat input ( size of weapon and whatnot)

    Also, in a scenario, if i have 5 heat weapons on me, will the heat sink purge ignore the heat input and continue with purge? because currently (live) if the heat input is enough it can overcome a heat purge.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commander BreakfastMelon!

    Well, and to be fair, the jury's still out on this, the concept here would effectively neutralise stacking of heat weapons, regardless of whether they were all mounted on one ship or spread across four vessels. On the other hand, potentially, any of those four ships with a moderately decent heat weapon or two should be able to cause heat damage.

    Why not just cap heat weapons at 75% remove the diminishing returns, any extra heat the victim creates is added to the 75%, there mechanic fixed... you now have a suppression weapon usable by both wings AND traders, buff heat weapon damage from -20% to -10%.

  8. #8
    Tell you what Sandro, why don't we setup a beta event to test this and YOU and the devs get involved in the wing fights, then you'll actually be playing the game everyone else is and then you'll see first hand what we're all getting at.

    I have a feeling Thermal Cascade has been SERIOUSLY overlooked

    He who talks smack, Gets smacked hardest.

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by BreakfastMelon View Post (Source)
    This could be an interesting experiment indeed.

    Obviously wing fights will need to be taken into account as the stacking effects in the first beta were still incredibly powerful.
    This! This is what we are looking for.

    The new heat sinks will make managing heat much better for people and the changes to the way a ships core running temperature interacts with thermal builds should be much more profound. Coupled with the above changes I can see this being where it should be. If a hard cap of incoming heat damage be set at 120/125% where it doesn't matter how much incoming fire you have heading your way, if you don't do anything that will produce more heat, you won't go over this threshold.


    Elite: Dangerous Xbox One - Uncensored

    "Remember to bring your big boy pants!"

  10. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #10
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander besieger!

    In fairness, it's pretty hard to listen when, after specifically asking for feedback, the response is that we never listen.

    Hello Commander CMDR GTR2014!

    Well, since heat damage scales based on heat, capping out the heat threshold from weaponised heat to 120% slows down the damage to modules quite a lot. Of course, you can still get malfunctions, but overall, it *should in theory* be a fairly significant reduction to the levels of damage that can currently be dealt.

  11. #11
    PVE, this would make building for heat worthless because 120% is such a slow burn that it'd take twice as long to do any meaningful damage than it would to just kill them outright.

    PVP, I wonder if the same is true...you can run at 120% or even a bit above that for a goodly while without anything worse than your flight computer fussing you and some sparks flying.

    I think the solution is the opposite of what's being proposed - instead of making it a fast-acting but limited effect, make it a potentially more powerful but slower-building effect. And make the effects drop off faster the more you have built up on you. That way its only used effectively if its being constantly maintained, and if you break that maintenance, you lose your "progress" on the target. And it creates a skill-based counter to the meta: instead of just having to gear for anti-heat, you can try to break their lock on you and then shed what heat they managed to build up on you, forcing them to "start over" once they bring their guns back to bear.

  12. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #12
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander nathdixon92!

    Of course, it's worth remembering that *most* combat activities *do* produce heat, which will take you over the 120% threshold.

    But on the bright side, the 120% threshold is a relatively easy number to tweak up or down.

  13. #13
    Another question.. is this a HARD CAP... or you Power Plant beeing modified to cooler or hotter will have an effect on how much it would be the max value? I mean a Grade 5 Coller engine could make the cap go to less than a 100%? and a overcharged one goes up to 150?
    Greedy Raider Channel , Piracy , PvP , Tutorials, Tests , Stupid stuff and more!
    "These days any man who can sew a black flag and get ten fools to follow him can take a prize.
    They can take it because of the fear that I and men like me have instilled in their prey.
    But they can't do what I can do. They're not built for it. And sooner or later, they'll be exposed." Capt'n Flint

  14. #14
    I think it's an interesting idea that I'd love to see tried.

    IMO heat weapons should restrict and debuff the target, not cripple them. Capping their stackability seems like a good way to do this.
    CMDR Tannik Seldon - The "Million-to-One Chance"
    [Youtube]

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by CMDR GTR2014 View Post (Source)
    Another question.. is this a HARD CAP... or you Power Plant beeing modified to cooler or hotter will have an effect on how much it would be the max value? I mean a Grade 5 Coller engine could make the cap go to less than a 100%? and a overcharged one goes up to 150?
    this is a hard cap for heat weapons, player input will be able to go over this

Page 1 of 43 1234511 ... LastLast