Engineers Make Heat Sinks Standard Issue?

[DragoonKnight]

I would hate to see SCBs become easier to use. I'm for almost anything that makes them less convenient.

Yes, lets go with your idea of making SCB difficult to use and apply the same logic to other active defenses.
Lets make point defense require multicannon ammo. Dont have a multicannon on your ship? Too bad
Lets make chaff cause 100% heat, because chaff particles are supposed to be super hot in order to confuse the thermal sensors of the enemy guns.
Let make ECM inflict damage to your own system.

 

[piercehead]

The more things you add as "standard" the less choice is involved in outfitting your ship. This is why pretty much the only things that come as standard are things that are absolutely required.

 

[Colonel Kenney]

So SCB's are the ONLY reason people are AFRAID of more heat sinks. Understood.

 

[piercehead]

So SCB's are the ONLY reason people are AFRAID of more heat sinks. Understood.

I count one person mentioning that but yeah, it's the ONLY reason...

 

[Ca$hback]

Yes, lets go with your idea of making SCB difficult to use and apply the same logic to other active defenses.

Why would you apply the same logic to a different system? That makes no sense. The energy draw of shields and shield systems is an order of magnitude higher than any other system besides the drive and perhaps thermal weapon systems. You like SCBs. I don't. You'll have to do better than this to make an argument.

Lets make point defense require multicannon ammo. Dont have a multicannon on your ship? Too bad

Good luck cramming a .50 into a .22. Makes no sense.

Lets make chaff cause 100% heat, because chaff particles are supposed to be super hot in order to confuse the thermal sensors of the enemy guns.

Show me where it says that. By that logic matches would be too hot to keep in your pocket.

Let make ECM inflict damage to your own system.

I think they have a dense shield as part of the direction mechanism. Maybe they don't but it makes sense to me. The armor on a missile would be expected to be a lot weaker than on a spaceship, methinks.
Try again.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Why would you apply the same logic to a different system? That makes no sense. The energy draw of shields and shield systems is an order of magnitude higher than any other system besides the drive and perhaps thermal weapon systems. You like SCBs. I don't. You'll have to do better than this to make an argument.
Good luck cramming a .50 into a .22. Makes no sense.
Show me where it says that. By that logic matches would be too hot to keep in your pocket.
I think they have a dense shield as part of the direction mechanism. Maybe they don't but it makes sense to me. The armor on a missile would be expected to be a lot weaker than on a spaceship, methinks.
Try again.

Its not supposed to make sense. These forums are powered by absurd analogies, if we dont add one every two pages at a minimum I dont think we can keep the forums running for more than a month.

"I dont think that having free heatsinks is a good thing"
"Oh yeah? How about your ship explodes when you deploy landing gear? NOT SO MUCH FUN NOW, EH!?"

[uhh]

By the way, if you want to Win the Debate you need to be the first to bring up a car analogy, or a boat analogy. If you can make an analogy about a car on a boat, you win every discussion the next 24 hours.

 

[Ca$hback]

[video=youtube;Xf4bnAhoiGs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf4bnAhoiGs[/video]Not as good as the other one but

 

[Ca$hback]

So you voted no - because other people are able to defeat you in combat because of heat sinks?

I voted no because I hope people will use them (SCBs) less by making heat management (in regards to SCBs) more difficult. I don't like SCBs. I'm fine with heat sinks the way they are.
I win some and I lose some. When someone pops an SCB, it's usually because I'm beating on them. So I roll my eyes and say to myself, "Here we go again", and continue to strip their new shields. I think it's tedious and lame.
When my shields go down I switch tactics to preserve myself without using SCBs. Needless to say I get beat up a lot but I find it preferable to feeling cheap. (How you feel about using SCBs is your own business and I didn't call anyone else cheap)

 

[DragoonKnight]

I voted no because I hope people will use them (SCBs) less by making heat management (in regards to SCBs) more difficult. I don't like SCBs. I'm fine with heat sinks the way they are.
I win some and I lose some. When someone pops an SCB, it's usually because I'm beating on them. So I roll my eyes and say to myself, "Here we go again", and continue to strip their new shields. I think it's tedious and lame.
When my shields go down I switch tactics to preserve myself without using SCBs. Needless to say I get beat up a lot but I find it preferable to feeling cheap. (How you feel about using SCBs is your own business and I didn't call anyone else cheap)

That is all fine and well when you are flying a small ship. Once you make the move to the bigger ships that have tons of internals there is really nothing worth filling them with except SCB and HRP. If you dont want people to rely on SCB then the solution is not to handicap SCB, but to provide alternatives to SCB and HRP that would be useful in medium and large combat ships.

 

[DragoonKnight]

Why would you apply the same logic to a different system? That makes no sense. The energy draw of shields and shield systems is an order of magnitude higher than any other system besides the drive and perhaps thermal weapon systems. You like SCBs. I don't. You'll have to do better than this to make an argument.

SCB is an active defense system. Since you want to handicap one active defense system, then I am simply doing the same to all the others.

Good luck cramming a .50 into a .22. Makes no sense.

Makes about as much sense as requiring players to equip heat sinks in order to use SCB. No module should implicitly require that another module be present in order for the 1st module to work properly.

Show me where it says that. By that logic matches would be too hot to keep in your pocket.

The sensors on the ships in the Elite universe are thermal. What do you think is required to confuse them? Something that is much hotter than your ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_countermeasure

P.S. Have fun keeping lit matches in your pocket.

I think they have a dense shield as part of the direction mechanism. Maybe they don't but it makes sense to me. The armor on a missile would be expected to be a lot weaker than on a spaceship, methinks.
Try again.

Show me where it says they have a shield. And ECM is omnidirectional.

 

[foebits]

I would hate to see SCBs become easier to use. I'm for almost anything that makes them less convenient.

Why? They produce an abundance of heat and take forever (in combat time) to actually start boosting a shield; that and they can be rendered pointless by weapon mods anyway, why nerf them further?

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

I voted no because I hope people will use them (SCBs) less by making heat management (in regards to SCBs) more difficult. I don't like SCBs. I'm fine with heat sinks the way they are.
I win some and I lose some. When someone pops an SCB, it's usually because I'm beating on them. So I roll my eyes and say to myself, "Here we go again", and continue to strip their new shields. I think it's tedious and lame.
When my shields go down I switch tactics to preserve myself without using SCBs. Needless to say I get beat up a lot but I find it preferable to feeling cheap. (How you feel about using SCBs is your own business and I didn't call anyone else cheap)

So basically you want SCBs nerfed even more just because you want to be able to kill your targets as fast as possible and not have to deal with different fits or strategies. Might as well remove all ship modules then.
If using a different tactic makes you feel "cheap" then that's your problem, not ours or the game's.

 

[Ca$hback]

SCB is an active defense system. Since you want to handicap one active defense system, then I am simply doing the same to all the others.

Arbitrarily ignoring the different ways that they function?

Makes about as much sense as requiring players to equip heat sinks in order to use SCB. No module should implicitly require that another module be present in order for the 1st module to work properly.

Price you pay for using a module that requires vast amounts of power. A heat sink mitigates it but it costs you space. You sacrifice functionality of one thing to allow for another. I don't see why you have to have heatsinks to use an SCB. You can use an SCB without them, you just pay for it in heat. If you don't want the heat either, you pay for it with a utility slot. It might not seem like it because of the panic inducing alarms but a ship can handle a fair amount of heat before losing functionality. It doesn't require them, they just help a lot.

The sensors on the ships in the Elite universe are thermal. What do you think is required to confuse them? Something that is much hotter than your ship.

They aren't hot while in the ship hence:

P.S. Have fun keeping lit matches in your pocket.

Exactly my point regarding your logic about chaff being hot. Not while in the ship. So how would chaff cause heat damage unless they were lit matches in the pocket, so to speak? Ergo your example is bass ackwards.

Show me where it says they have a shield.

I think. Think. I already covered that part. Never said it was for sure. Otherwise I might have posted something. My bad about the shield. I meant a thick plate of space lead behind the EM projector, not energy shields. Ya got me for being sloppy. Gotta give ya that one.

And ECM is omnidirectional

Okay. After reading the elite dangerous article on ECM, it's implied it's omnidirectional while not explicitly stated. I can dig, though I visualized it as a tracking phased array (similar to point defense but using directed ecm, say, in a rotatable 90 degree arc). Still doesn't address the weaker armor of missiles when compared to ships, which was my main defense of my opinion and still unadressed.

 

[Ca$hback]

That is all fine and well when you are flying a small ship. Once you make the move to the bigger ships that have tons of internals there is really nothing worth filling them with except SCB and HRP. If you dont want people to rely on SCB then the solution is not to handicap SCB, but to provide alternatives to SCB and HRP that would be useful in medium and large combat ships.

SCB and heat sinks are two different systems. I don't fill my ships with SCBs and HRPs. I like having a little cargo space and sometimes a vehicle bay. I'm not a min/maxer. I still do okay in my Vulture and FDL without an "ideal" build for the task.

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

Why? They produce an abundance of heat and take forever (in combat time) to actually start boosting a shield; that and they can be rendered pointless by weapon mods anyway, why nerf them further?

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



So basically you want SCBs nerfed even more just because you want to be able to kill your targets as fast as possible and not have to deal with different fits or strategies. Might as well remove all ship modules then.
If using a different tactic makes you feel "cheap" then that's your problem, not ours or the game's.

I can't convince you of anything. You've already assumed too much about what I'm saying. I'm not the one trying to have one kind of "ideal" ship for one purpose. I know it's my problem. What the hell is the point of trying to explain anything carefully to you? Did you not see what I wrote in brackets? I didn't call anyone else cheap. I shouldn't have to write IMO before everything I say as if you assume I think I'm some kind of god.

I'm done. I concede out of annoyance.

 

[foebits]

I can't convince you of anything. You've already assumed too much about what I'm saying. I'm not the one trying to have one kind of "ideal" ship for one purpose. I know it's my problem. What the hell is the point of trying to explain anything carefully to you? Did you not see what I wrote in brackets? I didn't call anyone else cheap. I shouldn't have to write IMO before everything I say as if you assume I think I'm some kind of god.

I'm done. I concede out of annoyance.

You concede because you don't want to bother explaining yourself or you simply can't refute me, not out of annoyance. Though I did love the bit where you accuse me of assumption right after you assumed you couldn't convince me; hypocrisy doesn't always work on others my friend. BTW I never said that you called anyone else cheap.

Now, if you want to TRY to convince us without mindless drivel and drama spawning crap after someone makes a counter to what you've said then go right ahead; but I'm putting a stop to your drama game right here and now.

 

[Ca$hback]

Like I said. I concede. Enjoy!

 

[Colonel Kenney]

Get a room you two Its just a heat sink!

 

[Oguska]

IMO Heat sinks should be an infinite module (no ammo), actively increasing the amount of heat radiated from your ship per second when activated, drains energy from the SYS capacicator while active.

This, make this happen, maybe slap some mods with it too.

 

[Sooden]

No no no!

having to put a heat sink in is a game choice, just like shield booster, shield them selves (i don't use them in Pve combat). The argument of 'star to star, 'everyone has to do it', well lets get an opinion from someone that does that a lot jumps (total hyperspace distance 784,345);

At the start, when learning the limited set of skills of exploring, i used heat sinks a lot. i didn't slow down on entry or didn't wait until i was clear of the star before putting up my FSD charge. Flying into a start and having to exit/jump out men't i needed heat sinks (my own lack of skill).

Now i have some skill, i carry one heat sink , just in case.. when your 20,000 ly out in space, its worth having at least one. in local galactic space, there's little point, as any damage i may get isn't going to cripple me. not seeing heat damage being an issue in the bubble, unless you are relay inexperienced at jumps.

i fly into at least one or more tight start clusters when exploring, the worst case outcome, even for experience explorers, but yet to use a heat sink in that situation. So heat sinks are a tool for the inexperienced when it come to start travel. so my point is, they should not be included on the basis of, 'is absurd they would not be included when start are hot'

To me, this seems like a call for 'more space' from people that are not confident enough to go without a heat sink, but don't like giving up a slot. you don't need a heat sink for star travel, the ship has its own system of heat reduction that is turned off when in silent running. The heat sink is not an integral part of the ship, nor should it be.

Now if we looked at why some people relay want a stranded heat sink, i would guess its so they can happyly add all the other stuff they want, and have a heat sink to get away from unforeseen thermal attack, or coming back to the computer after they whent AFK just before a jump.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Liquid H2 => gas H2 in the cooling circuit => vent the hot H2.

Simple enough. Btw, that is how a fission rocket works.

"Fuel" sounded volatile. Why not vent it through the thrusters as additional boost?

 

[CMDR Mansoul]

I would love to see some of the proposed alternatives, using fuel or SYS energy to control heat. Then the low heat sink ammo wouldn't be so painful, and it really won't much matter if we dedicate an utility slot or have a few heat sinks on every ship. Or have none at all.

The SCB problem should be solved in other ways than heat. Best would be to limit SCBs to one module and optionally to revert the charge buff and heat nerf. Or to break the shield if any damage is taken while recharging. Or to remove them from the game why not.

But I think a limit of 1 (one) SCB module is enough. Just like fuel scoops. Or shield generators.