Heat Mechanic as an Elegant Solution to 3 Core Problems

This is a silly infographic but it illustrates my point. I don't want to do this to SE2, no matter how cool it is. I'm not saying this is outright too hard. I'm just looking at new player feel and making sure they get comfy right away. If there's an easy implementation that makes sense, I'm game.

No.

This potential mechanic is mostly focused on the solutions it brings to stuff like gunspam, stealth, and design limitations by acting as a limiting “dimension” that the player would have to keep track of how much heat they generate, store, and dissipate. It doesn’t act as a combat system on its own but it helps promote a more tactical approach to combat. As for concerns about technical complexity. I agree with your statement that a system like this if not properly managed would lead to confusion and a turn-off if not implemented properly.

In my mind I would imagine that each block generates a certain amount heat of enacted on the entire grid. If that block “overheats” (is used too much or if grid temperature is too high it causes a meltdown or explosion around it) to facilitate better cooling perhaps using the conveyor network (or potentially a cooling system using the 25cm grid) that takes the excess heat generated specifically by that block and directly transfers it into radiator blocks/surfaces that increase the heat that is dissipated from the ship. These radiators could work off of a clearance system with potential combination with wing like designs that SE uses with a crude surface area calculation to radiate from. This heat dissipated could then be detected by different levels of sensors in different environments so if you want to decrease your radar presence you could for example go into a low power mode running off of a few batteries in order to ambush someone.

I would definitely be open towards a different implementation if testing shows that this kind of system is in some way flawed

Mechanically I would imagine that heat capacity wouldn't scale as much with size. Perhaps while each system/block absorbs the same amount of heat it would be your ability to dissipate enough of that heat which would act as the limiting factor. IE your guns could each overload individually but it would be up to the entire grid to dissipate the heat from those guns. There definitely would need a easy and clear to understand way to showcase heat to the player. Something like an easy to see graph from both a grid's interface or a "lcd script" or something along that nature within SE2. It would have to show the amount of heat your grid can dissipate at that moment with possible integration with SE2's event controller equivalent to shut down systems as your limit gets tighter.

If all blocks on the ship share heat, then volume will typically increase faster than surface area and it would cause capacity to increase faster than dissipation, but if it isn't shared and everything has its own heat capacity instead (assuming I understand you properly)... that would encourage a bit more spacing between guns depending on how its all set, though I suspect people would quickly figure out the neutral-point and simply set their 50 artys that far apart...

Oof, SE1's event controllers are a buggy issue all on their own X)

I get your idea there though.

Yep yep, not a new idea but this expands it to a combat system integration

I am the other guy, or at least one of them. Thermal mechanics should be a thing, although partially. I do not like the radiator idea, nor the management of it. Ships will end up looking like strange deep sea lifeforms, one missile, a broken fin and an ensuing feeding frenzy. As for management games...lets not talk about that, games like Homeworld2, great 3d, lots of pew pew, spent all of my time in tactical overlay mode. Fantasy RPG, spent more time rejigging gear for the best outcomes than engaging in combat or exploring. All things need the right balance, competing forces working in opposition creating a good challenge. No there should not be limits to gun spam, and equally no limits to gun jam.

Poor Timmy, would not the joy of his decimation wear thinly game after game, great games work when there are similar odds on both sides and resolution does not take too long doing the same thing thing over and over. If the ship were Texas, what part would Austin be?

(@Captainbladej52 you are a great force of opposition, I ask you, what is it that you would like to see in SE2 that is not in SE1?)

There are a few problems with heat and temperature as a concept, but it is a useful model to simplify an energy system. So keeping things as simple models in a game should be OK, even necessary. Energy can be dissipated by anything and everything over time, what matters is how fast you put more energy in.

Getting the relationship between energy in and energy out, would determine if the system was game breaking or not.

I like the thermal imaging mechanic.

In terms of computation, the water mechanic will have many similar aspects to the requirements for heat transfer. Others would be depressurization force, and collision damage.

Side Note :

Heat from atmospheric re-entry, some ask for, this some oppose.

What is missing from the thinking, is around 27,000Km/h of forward velocity. If you are not moving through the atmosphere at such speeds, then the generated heat is much lower. 300m/s approximates to 1/26th of re-entry speed from orbit.(no burn up)

@semtex - would be better at validating the numbers here than I.

I suppose I wasn't entirely clear with the reasoning behind balancing out weapon spam in the first place. I don't play a lot of vanilla PvP and insinuating that this type of feedback is a veiled tantrum over getting deleted is in bad faith. The reason why I used that particular hook is that getting incinerated by a ship that's able to take you out with 1-2 volleys regardless of how armored and how agile you make your vessel doesn't allow for much time to react or strategize within combat engagements. Ships that fit within the current META don't necessarily require a lot of technical or engineered thinking to design. Fact of the matter is that SE1's combat system is just not all that fun or engaging. "Gun Spam" isn't an arbitrary count of how much guns is considered "fair" but rather a symptom of a combat system that doesn't have any mechanical balancing force for so much weaponry that strategy is more or less completely overlooked. You get into a fight, joust around for 5-30* minutes with no time to properly take an understanding of the battle's situation which would allow a more strategically minded player to take an advantage. What's the point of being able to design expansive fleets with specialized roles if you are just going to be completely outmatched by a single pilot going 0-100 in seconds vaporizing entire ships in single volleys. Sure they could have just "designed better ships" but that's not fun and engaging in a game where personal expression and creative problem solving is and should be core mechanics.

@Deon Beauchamp: To answer your question I look at 5 major criteria for features or blocks generally, technically 6 if you want to count one of them. I'm also looking at suggestions from the lens of a player but also from my over 20 years of creating content for other games, with some stuff made for SE even (no i'm not a keen dev).

First I don't consider adding stats/mechanics you have to manage purely to have something to manage to be fun. In other words I don't consider complexity purely for complexity sake to be fun. As an example of this, I wouldn't mind seeing a food system in SE2 (or even SE1) so long as it's not purely the classic "eat/drink this or die". I don't find that to be fun at all because it's can only negatively effect my character and never benefit me. I would much rather see a minecraft type of food system that has the survival element of requiring food/drink BUT also provides benefits for interacting with the system such as temporary buffs for example. Doesn't have to be extreme, just something minor. So long as it's not required too often that it becomes Farming Simulator: SE Edition and there's actual benefits to interacting with the system then I don't mind seeing it. Aerodynamics is another one so long as it's the Lift/drag variant and drag isn't too extreme at it's highest effect. Allows for zeppelins and other craft to be built. Then I wouldn't mind seeing energy shields of course.

To determine if I'm going to support a feature or not I look at 5 major criteria.

1: will it tank performance or potentially tank it? If the answer is yes then the benefits need to outweigh the performance hits.

2: can I turn it off or change it if I don't like the defaults? If the answer is yes, then generally I'm not going to be bothered by alot of things so long as I can mod it, change it, or just turn it off. Prime example, I hate ammo racking so that would be an automatic turn off for me as it's an unfun/unskilled way to win/lose a fight. This doesn't mean I won't still voice support/opposition to something either and explain why I think it's a good/bad idea. If we were to get the "eat/drink or die" food system I would likely just turn it off, or at least mod it to make it largely unnoticeable to me.

3: Is it going to force people to rebuild completely? If yes, then needs to be taking with extreme caution and the benefits and gameplay value need to outweigh the annoyance of having to rebuild. If the feature provides more value than is lost, then I'm more likely than not to support it.

4: Can it hurt anyone purely by existing? If the answer is yes, then it's going to be a tough sell to convince me if I can be convinced. Essentially it comes close to being an "I win" button or outright is an "I win" button. This is why I mention aerodynamic drag would need to not be too extreme and re-entry stresses I just straight hate. They have the potential to harm build freedom purely by existing. Even most weapons do not fall into this category.

5: Can it be used to grief people easily, or is it's sole purpose to grief? If the answer is yes, then it's an automatic no and I will never support it. Doesn't matter if it can be turned off, if there's a counter, modded, or so on. Prime example of a block that meets this criteria, Jump Inhibitors.

My major list for SE2 and SE1 (assuming it's possible in the older one) are Energy Shields, minecraft style food system, aerodynamics (lift/drag variant), more door variety, more NPCs and stuff to make the world more lively, and projectors actually remembering all blocks. After that it's gravy.

For this heat stuff. My issue as to why I say this is a bad idea is because in this instance the OP basically admitting they want to use it to limit what other people can do and there being no other value to the system. Then other people don't think them out as far as they need to or should. This is why I ask some of the questions I do. Because in games you have to give people a reason to want to play your game, go to your map, use your item, and so on. If you as the developer of that thing can't give them a good enough reason, you can't expect them to come up with one either. Nor can one hold a proverbial weapon to someone and say "go to this map, use this item, play this way or else" because what's going to happen is players are going to find ways around it, or just not play your stuff. You have to make them want to do it.

So for heat systems, what's the draw to them? For example lets say it effected reactors. The higher the output the hotter the reactor and less efficient they become over time if they're never allowed to cool, which I would expect. Now on the opposite side of that coin if I have enough cooling to keep the reactors in a cooler range even pumping out higher levels of power, would I potentially see an efficiency increase to them instead of a decrease? Same thing can be asked about thrusters. In other words, why would I want to use this system? Folks need to sell their suggestion like they're convincing someone to invest money with them, though the "money" is time and support in this instance. Point being I oppose this particular incarnation of a heat system because there are no benefits to it and it's admitted the OP wants to limit people at the base game level when solutions to his problem already exist. Such as making agreements with people on his server/world not to do certain things.

@Curateor: splitting my response to you into its own thing because there are several bits to break down here.

"I don't play a lot of vanilla PvP and insinuating that this type of feedback is a veiled tantrum over getting deleted is in bad faith."

When you openly say you want to add something to limit everyone in the game as a whole because they build a particular way you don't like, or play a way you don't like, yeah I'm going to call it out. Especially when you already have solutions to your problem you can implement right now without have to demand everyone else be limited and the build freedom of the game as a whole be harmed because you don't like people playing a certain way. Arguing that people should be limited because YOU don't like that they make a "gun brick" think that they "gun spam" just stinks of getting rolled constantly and demanding they be nerfed so you can win, or just not liking that other people can play differently than you. That and another instance of a PVPer wanting everyone else to sacrifice for their gameplay but not being willing to do the same. Sorry if that offends you but that's how that stuff comes off to me regardless of whether it's you or anyone else that says it. If you don't like gun bricks or gun spam, make agreements with people not to do those things on your server/world. Otherwise they're valid builds and part of the game whether you like it or not. You're not required to like it, as you clearly don't. But you disliking it and "but pvp balance" on its own are not valid reasons for why it should be done. When you propose something that would negatively impact a core aspect of the game like the build freedom we've had since 2013, then yeah you should expect some pushback.

"The reason why I used that particular hook is that getting incinerated by a ship that's able to take you out with 1-2 volleys regardless of how armored and how agile you make your vessel doesn't allow for much time to react or strategize within combat engagements."

If you're always getting stomped super quick over and over again, this tells me one if not several things are happening. First is that your build is potentially inferior to your opponent's build. Second, your tactics do not work like you expect and you need to change them. Third, your opponent is more skilled than you are. Certain tactics and builds are simply not as viable against others. Like if I know a ship has 50+ point defense weapons that can shred fighters the moment they get close enough, I'm probably not going to take a fighter to that battle. Instead I'm going to stay at a farther distance and attack from range. Unless you're using a mod that's just an instant "I win" button or something similar, someone beating a build several times over doesn't mean they've done anything wrong. It means you need to change your build, and or tactics. Or as much as you might not want to hear it, sometimes being told "get good" is a valid response. Outside of an egregious imbalance due to a mod or something similar, sometimes your opponent is just better and that's no crime. There is no such thing as an unbeatable build in SE. You just have to learn and adapt. You may not win on the first few tries, but eventually you will win. Also to quote something Captain Picard once said to Data "it's possible to make no mistakes yet still lose."

"Ships that fit within the current META don't necessarily require a lot of technical or engineered thinking to design. Fact of the matter is that SE1's combat system is just not all that fun or engaging."

Since we're both adults here I'm going to be "that guy" and ask the question. If those ships don't require alot of technical knowledge or engineering and are just lesser ship, why are you having such a hard time with them? Consider the ship of your foe to be like a beehive will a bunch of delicious honey/cargo inside you want to grab cause pirate. If the bees/guns are swarming you when you get close, why would you not keep your distance and pick off some of the bees first? I would agree with you that there are certainly some improvements to be made, but I simply don't see the issue here that you do. Since you're already open to mods, if you don't like the meta you currently have, why not use a limiter mod to change it? Or why not make deals with the players on your server not to build certain ways? Point being you have options you can use right now.

"'Gun Spam' isn't an arbitrary count of how much guns is considered "fair" but rather a symptom of a combat system that doesn't have any mechanical balancing force for so much weaponry that strategy is more or less completely overlooked."

And here's where more of your argument falls apart. If you're not even able to define for me a very basic example of what constitutes "gun spam" when you're the one making the argument, it's a baseless argument that should be ignored because I'm not a mind reader. You clearly had a standard in mind when you made that argument so why not just tell us what it is so we have a quantified point to debate from. Maybe I will agree, maybe I won't. And even if I don't agree, maybe I can suggest other ways to combat your issue.

Otherwise who gets to define what is "gun spam" and what is "balanced" in this instance? You forget that this game is largely an arms race of who can bring what to the table and how much of said what. Can I bring enough firepower to overwhelm you and use it effectively enough. Likewise the defender wants to bring enough to survive and slap back. You can't balance around anything other than singular block vs singular block and then shipping it off to players. Such as 1 gatling vs 1 armor cube, then shipping it off to players to decide how many of each thing they want to bring. Otherwise you would have to account for a literal near infinite number of combinations and no dev, not Keen, not me, not anyone on this planet can do that. And Clang help you on code size even if you could. I would like to see some improvements to the combat system myself, but I simply do not see the issue here that you do. I see it as being something you find annoying, but is otherwise a valid style of play.

"You get into a fight, joust around for 5-30* minutes with no time to properly take an understanding of the battle's situation which would allow a more strategically minded player to take an advantage."

If you're just going in there blasting and not taking even a tiny measure of a second to assess and try to strategize, that's a you problem, not a game problem. If you keep going in and just trying to blast your way through and get rolled every time because you refuse to change tactics, you deserve to get smoked. You don't have to be aware of every tiny little detail down to the last one or zero, but if you're not even looking at the greater chess board and planning accordingly that's a you problem. If I think I can finish my foe then I'll press an attack. If I think I'm in trouble I may try to fall back to a better position. If I flat out can't win I may try to retreat or take him with me into oblivion. I can see a 5 minute fight not being as thought out to an extent as a longer fight. But what in Clang are you doing in 30 minutes that you're not at least aware of your basic surroundings and adjusting accordingly?

"What's the point of being able to design expansive fleets with specialized roles if you are just going to be completely outmatched by a single pilot going 0-100 in seconds vaporizing entire ships in single volleys."

"Sure they could have just "designed better ships" but that's not fun and engaging in a game where personal expression and creative problem solving is and should be core mechanics."

And this is where your argument falls apart completely and you admit far more than you think you did. First off, you're admitting that the other person is outmatching you meaning your expansive fleet is not as good as you think it is. Second, you're admitting you don't want to design better ships because that's "not fun and engaging" even though engineering solutions to your problems is the entire point of the game. The bit in bold tells me what I need to see here. You're mad that your expansive fleet is getting rolled and instead of using core mechanics of the game and designing better, you want the ships of your foes forcibly made worse so you can win. You can think I'm a jerk or engaging in bad faith all you want, but when you make admissions like that, what else am I supposed to think?

Now I will grant one thing. You're certainly free to express yourself and build whatever you please in game. Simultaneously so is everyone else. You're free to design ships, stations, rovers, and whatever else all day long. But just know that if you decide to take your creations against those of another person, there will be people you can soundly defeat, but there will also be people that can soundly defeat you. If you want to keep sticking with what you have and refusing to adapt and change, you will continue to get the same results that frustrate you. But if you stubbornly choose to stick with what you have and never change, that's on you and not a valid reason everyone else should be nerfed.

So sorry but your suggestion above is a no from me because you've admitted you want to limit other people because you don't want to build better stuff.

I've never shied away from the fact that this is a limiting mechanic, and I'm not going shy away from the fact that yes I'm not the best within vanilla SE's PvP. But I've never argued for this feedback from the stance of "my ships that I designed deserve to win over everybody else!" I will have to design and use better ships than my opponents to win whether I want to or not, that's the nature of SE's combat in any scenario. You break down my points from the perspective that I simply don't want to get better within the current system, but what you are missing is my actual point on implementing a mechanic that encourages deeper thought into the design and layout of combat vessel(s).

I see your point of the current system having a similar level of "meta engagement." Where the challenge of creating a more effective combat craft exists even with no limit on weaponry. However, I think that with a system like heat that limits the amount of weaponry you can effectively wield would in turn allow for further creative expression as the space you would have needed to save for more thrusters or weaponry could be used for more aesthetic or similarly practical elements. Finding where exactly the point where too much restriction becomes a problem would require playtesting, but having no mechanical limit plays into a system that has a very high intersection where bringing more weaponry to the same craft leads to a less effective vessel. I find that to be a problem because it leads to crafts having so much damage potential that the only counter would be to have a ship that is able to dodge that damage while dealing a similar or more amount. That kind of META is what I am trying to alleviate with this heat mechanic. By limiting the damage potential a single craft can wield you lead to vessels that are able to put more into their armor or maneuverability thus freeing up the options players have to designing a "better" ship. That is why I say that this mechanic plays into further expression and creativity.

All of this however is mute if you don't agree that the META we have is a problem. Which I do respect, but there is a reason why so many combat tournaments and servers do impose some form of weapon limit. Its a concern that I and many others share, and I believe that if some form of heat limit was implemented into SE2 even preferably as a customizable option it would be a positive addition. On a final note I do admit my personal anecdotes are terrible examples and I do see how you continued to view it as a veiled tantrum, but I hope that with our dialogue we at least provided some more insight for onlookers.

@Cruateor: "You break down my points from the perspective that I simply don't want to get better within the current system, but what you are missing is my actual point on implementing a mechanic that encourages deeper thought into the design and layout of combat vessel(s)."

I break it down that way because that's how it reads to me. We can debate the state of pvp and what should/shouldn't change, and there are some areas we may actually agree if we were to do a deep dive. However that's a whole can of worms in and of itself. There are 3 major comments of yours as to why I said what I said.

-"Sure they could have just "designed better ships" but that's not fun and engaging in a game where personal expression and creative problem solving is and should be core mechanics."

-"What's the point of being able to design expansive fleets with specialized roles if you are just going to be completely outmatched by a single pilot going 0-100 in seconds vaporizing entire ships in single volleys."

-"Ships that fit within the current META don't necessarily require a lot of technical or engineered thinking to design. Fact of the matter is that SE1's combat system is just not all that fun or engaging."

When I see those things together like that what else am I supposed to think? Because that's literally what you're arguing. And if that's not what you mean then respectfully, don't say it that way because words have meaning and I'm not a mind reader and neither is anyone else here. When I see stuff like that together, both as a player and someone with dev experience, that screams "I don't like that he builds different and keeps beating me with an unfair build, he needs to be nerfed." To which as I said prior, if those types of builds don't require alot of technical or engineered thinking, why are you having such a hard time beating those particular builds? You get credit for sticking to your guns and being willing to acknowledge it as asking for a limitation. I will also give you some benefit of doubt as unlike some others on here, I don't think you're asking purely of malice for a system like, but from a perceived frustration with the game. I can work with the second one, but there are others on this forum and in game that think everything should revolve around them. If you truly believe there are issues with the so called meta, there are easier ways to achieve the results you're looking for without having to impact everyone else in the game, including those who have no desire to play like you. I will elaborate further.

"I see your point of the current system having a similar level of "meta engagement." Where the challenge of creating a more effective combat craft exists even with no limit on weaponry. However, I think that with a system like heat that limits the amount of weaponry you can effectively wield would in turn allow for further creative expression as the space you would have needed to save for more thrusters or weaponry could be used for more aesthetic or similarly practical elements."

So first off, there is a literal near infinite number of possible builds one can bring to the table as you're only limited by your time, imagination, hardware, and potential mods you use. Trying to say "you can only use x amount of weapons, y amount of thrusters, z amount of decoys" or so on does not expand options, but limits them. Now for what you're wanting to do for your own worlds and such, maybe that will get you what you want, however it screws everyone else over in the process which is an automatic no go. The creative build freedom of SE1 is one of its core features and you're essentially arguing to harm that. You are also the designer of your ship and if it doesn't have enough weapons, enough thrust, or so on, that's because you didn't give it enough of those things. If your ship struggles in a particular area that's up to you to address it.

"Finding where exactly the point where too much restriction becomes a problem would require playtesting, but having no mechanical limit plays into a system that has a very high intersection where bringing more weaponry to the same craft leads to a less effective vessel. I find that to be a problem because it leads to crafts having so much damage potential that the only counter would be to have a ship that is able to dodge that damage while dealing a similar or more amount. That kind of META is what I am trying to alleviate with this heat mechanic. By limiting the damage potential a single craft can wield you lead to vessels that are able to put more into their armor or maneuverability thus freeing up the options players have to designing a "better" ship. That is why I say that this mechanic plays into further expression and creativity."

Okay a few things to break down with this. Now you're starting to see why I said this game is an arms race and why you can't balance around anything but single block vs single block and then ship it off to players to determine how many of what thing they want to use. Whatever is effective is whatever lets you win the fight and come back alive. Now we can argue efficiency, but again that's another can of worms.

I'm going to give you some insight into the development process with games and why a heat mechanic like this isn't the way to get what you want. First up, something you need to understand when creating stuff for games, be it the small time modder level, or AAA studio game, you can't make players do something they don't want to do. Because they'll either find a way around it, or just straight up not play your content. For example, when I wanted to draw players out of their bases for my Timesplitters Future Perfect pvp maps, I would sometimes create an area in the middle of the map with some bits of cover, but left it mostly exposed. Then I would stick an extra weapon or 2 in there, maybe even an armor and health spawn depending on size of the map. Thus they motivation to come out and fight, which was that center area with cover along with weapon, armor, and ammo spawns. If it was a capture the flag type of map where there was one flag, I would put the flag on a raised platform with some goodies nearby to get people to come after it. If I was making a pve map sometimes I would give people 2 routes to take to the next objective, an easy one and a hard one. The easy one didn't have as many foes but took longer to get through. The hard one was distance wise the quickest, but would have goodies to draw players down that path. Some took the easy path, some took the hard. Point being I couldn't just beat them with a stick until they did what I wanted, I had to give them reasons to want to go to those points, want to come out of their base, want to go a certain route or so on.

Now another thing, a Meta in video game terms is simply what is good, considered most efficient, strongest damage or so on. There will always be a mathematical "best" even if it's just by a few negligible points. You don't get rid of undesired Metas purely by nerfing things into the ground punishing people for the crime of having a good build and being good with said build. Because all you do then is create an even more toxic meta than the one you had before that teaches people to complain and wait for nerfs to their opponent if they can't win. This is something plenty of MMOs struggle with today in their pvp scene. Little Timmy doesn't like that Johnny 2x4 across the street keeps smoking his wizard with a barbarian. So instead of Timmy getting better with his wizard and using a different strategy, he whines and cries that Johnny is OP and demand Johnny's barb be nerfed. Then when that happens and Timmy's wizard becomes the meta, he goes against little Suzie who gets rolled on her necromancer and she complains that Timmy's wizard is OP, then Timmy gets nerfed and it creates a cycle of "but I'm not op nerf him." Things that are considered meta in pvp are considered meta for a reason. You don't get rid of bad metas by nerfing, you get rid of them by buffing the stuff that's underperforming to be comparable or maybe even given a slight edge to the current stuff. While not a perfect example, you can see a good one with a game like Yugioh where if a certain deck type is underperforming, they'll print new support cards for it to bring it to par.

"All of this however is mute if you don't agree that the META we have is a problem. Which I do respect, but there is a reason why so many combat tournaments and servers do impose some form of weapon limit. Its a concern that I and many others share, and I believe that if some form of heat limit was implemented into SE2 even preferably as a customizable option it would be a positive addition. On a final note I do admit my personal anecdotes are terrible examples and I do see how you continued to view it as a veiled tantrum, but I hope that with our dialogue we at least provided some more insight for onlookers."

I don't believe it's as big of an issue as it's being made out to be, because in my book if they can engineer it and get it off the ground, they deserve to be allowed to use it. From there it's a battle of whose build is better, who the better pilot is, and whose tactics are better. I accept that you see an issue for how you want to play on your worlds and with your folks. My issue isn't you suggesting a heat feature. My issue is it being suggested in a way that would force it on the entirety of the game whether that was your intent or not.

Something to consider that alot of people don't. Every change you make to your server settings and every mod you choose to use can and will effect what is meta for your server and world. For example, on my world I play with my era mod that's set in the year 2125 which is around 50 years into the future timeline of the game. So alot of my blocks are more potent than the vanilla ones, such as stronger weapons, higher output reactors, stronger armor, having a sensor array that's a giant sensor that can alert me to foes or neutral players within 30km of any of my grids. My strongest armor is 11x the strength of vanilla heavy armor, and my weapons from handguns to railguns are all 10%-33% more damaging than vanilla stuff depending on the weapon. I also have a welder with a 9 large block weld range in front of its tips that I use for shipyard type stuff. Now I say all that to get to this, all of those things drastically alter the meta for my world/server. If someone were to bring a standard vanilla pvp meta ship to my server/world, they're going to get slaughtered. If they're given time to rebuild using the tech of my mod, then it would be much more even. Then there are those who may choose to use something less robust than my full era mod and just use my tools, since I made a standalone variant of them. While that will alter how fast stuff can be repaired, it won't have as drastic of an effect. If someone drops PCU limit to say 20k vs 40k, they've limited options. If they raise it to 1m per person, they've altered the meta of the server.

In other words there is no one size fits all meta as different servers will have different rules and playstyles, just like a game like Magic the Gathering has different formats with different rules for said format. Different people are able to play to their liking. For example I typically play Commander format where as others may prefer Standard format. Both are valid playstyles and both are valid format types. Standard has its own banlist and as does Commander. Neither one ever effects the other. I have no issues with you asking for a heat mechanic even though I think it's a bad idea. My issue isn't you asking for a heat mechanic, my issue is you asking for it in a way that would limit me and others as well who have no desire to play like you. Akin to a Standard format player demanding no one ever be allowed to use a specific card, even in other formats like Commander. In other words it's demanding that my format be limited because of another format and that's not how that works.

idk if it's out yet or how robust it will be, but there is a feature or supposed to be a feature coming for server owners in the near future that will allow you to limit certain types of blocks on your servers/worlds. If you don't want people using more than say 20 gatlings, you can limit gatlings per grid. If you don't want them spamming thrusters you could limit those. Heck you could even try talking them into having a PCU system but applying it only to weapons. Leave the rest of the ships to be as big/little as one wants but have a weapons PCU budget they have to work with. World/server options are a far better approach to what you're wanting than purely a heat mechanic. Because the world/server options would give you what you want without negatively impacting others such as myself or other people. So point being I recognize you see an issue for how you want to play and want ways to address it. Your heat mechanic won't address it and would just piss off the greater playerbase. You'll get a far better result with the world/server options I mentioned that let you a more targeted approach for your own stuff and make your own format without negatively impacting my format simultaneously.

I can agree with captainbladej52 on the need for things like creative freedom and options, but if our past interactions are anything to go by then we'll probably still be disagreeing and arguing about balance and meta stuff after the actual universe has come to an end.

SE1 has a mass-meta and it annoys me, but the more I think on it the more I find myself concluding that heat is unlikely to balance it. Heat works as a balance-mechanic in other games because other limits exist, they limit just how much stuff you can have in total in a craft and so you need to figure out how much space to devote to heat-sinks to keep everything else that needs that same space from melting, but in SE those limits often don't exist. You can add heat, but without significant block-limits or a low pcu-cap people will just build bigger so they can slap those 50 artys on something big enough to dissipate that heat.

I can get behind heat as a way to make the game more interesting, something that creates a minor but constant engineering-challenge for players to work around and overcome, or something that alters detection-ranges a bit to create a limited degree of stealth-play (not to let people get grinder-griefer-close, but perhaps rocket-close in a cold small-grid provided turrets still light you up if you start shooting), but I don't think it will work as a balance mechanic.

@captainbladej52

I'm glad you have engaged with my feedback. My initial thoughts have been poorly communicated and you have taught me to be more mindful in the future to ensure that any anecdotes don't bleed into a message that is easy to write off as plain complaints.

As for some responses. I stated in my latest comment that I would prefer this mechanic to be a customizable option. If particular servers or worlds do not like having this type of limitation, or if they deem it to be more or less restrictive I would prefer this mechanic to be tweakable. The reason why I propose it as a feature for SE2 instead of just waiting for a mod to implement this is that it would open up far more options for players to choose how they want to play within vanilla SE.

This proposed heat mechanic is a deliberate nerf so design choices leading to ships prioritizing a playstyle around being able to tank through enough shots so that you are able to destroy your opponent first, or having a small nimble hard to hit fighters to be competitive strategies. It’s not like these other strategies can't be powerful in their own right, but by adding a limit to weapons allows space for them in the META competition. I believe that is a good choice because then in the pursuit of creating a combat vessel that is better than your opponents you wouldn’t be restricted into a single particular style. This combined with the choices I believe should be available would mean that particular servers or players would have an easier time determining what kind of combat system they want to engage in.

Finally, why in particular a heat mechanic rather than strict weapon limits? Because, I agree that those kinds of limits are arbitrary and ineffective. Strict limits don’t encourage technical thought as people will just put on the max amount of weapons they can carry anyway. There isn’t a choice players are presented with for how they want to balance out their design to be more effective. Like you explained in your risk/reward/choice example. Players aren't going to like playing how a dev wants to play, but by giving choices on what the players think will be more effective leads to greater engagement. With something like heat players are given a choice of balancing heat dissipation leading to vulnerability to weapon count leading to less damage. I believe that kind of choice is a similar engaging risk/reward that is up to the player to decide upon.

@Cruateor: What I'm trying to tell you is that there are better options on the way that will give you far greater control of stuff like this for your server/world than a heat mechanic forced on everyone. Even without said options coming there are far better ways of going about this.

You're missing a key thing here. The heat mechanic and strict weapon limits are both arbitrary as to what is best for each individual server/world as nearly every server/world would have different values. There's no difference between them save the form they take and how they're presented to the player. Both are limits to the amount of weapons one can have. Heat hides the limitation behind a pretty mechanic and visuals that give the illusion of infinite choice, where as just specifying "you can only have X of (block type here)" gives it to people straight and doesn't hide what it's doing. Either way you're limiting people, so you may as well just rip the band-aid off and put it to people straight. Because if the goal is some kind of pvp balance and people already enforce specific types of rules anyways as you've mentioned previous, why not just cut out the middle man and make said rules "official" through server side settings. Because they've been talking about giving server owners various settings to limit the amount of specific block types on grids. As one example, if/when they were to ever add energy shields to the game, to prevent potential stacking (assuming you could in the first place) a server own can limit grids to one shield generator. Likewise this can be applied to weapons since they're the crux of your complaint. Can you do a heat mechanic and make it function? Sure you could, but for all the work you could put into one and especially for the kind of way you're wanting to do it, you could just as easily put those resources into greater server controls.

An easy one I can think of is a PCU pool dedicated purely to weapons. If a server has a PCU limit of 50k (number purely for illustrative purposes), you can set it so no more than say 10k of that PCU can be weapons. This is but one way they can implement it. You could also go further and limit the specific types of weapons if you wished. Every server already has to decide what settings they want to use or not use, so figuring out what works best for them is already part of the process. This would be just one more step of said process. And if they're already agreeing to limitation rules to start with, this just allows it to be enforced at the server level where it forcibly keeps everyone honest.

Because I'm going to be real here for a moment, and this is not directed at you specifically but my speaking in generalities. This is not a pvp primary game as much as people may wish it was. This is a game where both pve and pvp are possible. Both are valid gameplay choices, but simultaneously the majority of players in this game do not actively participate in pvp and seek it out to the degree someone such as yourself might. Limiting features like this which would invariably effect everyone could be perceived as the pvp folks wanting to force their play on everyone else. While that may not be what you're trying to do, that's how alot would perceive certain stuff.

Overall what I'm getting at is why go with a system that is purely downsides with little to no upsides and only gives around two points towards solving the issues, when you be given better options to control stuff and have more pointed solutions towards each of your issues in the form of server controls.

That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It will severely handicap structures made up of a supporting frame and suspended from it functional blocks. In doing so, such a structure should be cooled better than an enclosed structure, because the functional blocks can directly radiate heat into the space...

@Semtex Yes and no. In an atmosphere a tool on a stick may have a great deal of surface area relative to its volume to help it lose heat, but the vacuum of space is a spectacular thermal insulator, that same tool on a stick in space may as well be sealed in a hundred-mile thick ball of insulating foam. On the other hand that same tool attached to a bulky ship can at least dump its heat in to the ship, and while it would still eventually overheat, it would take longer because the ship would be able to absorb that much more heat.

@Tael - The heating, heat transfer, and cooling processes would have to be simulated properly.

Exposed blocks would be cooled by radiant heat (radiant). The radiative process is very strongly dependent on the absolute temperature of the block (increasing with the fourth power of the temperature). As a result - at 0°C (273K) a square meter of block surface will radiate 315watts, at 100°C (373K) already ~1100watts, at 200°C (473K) ~2840watts per square meter of exposed surface.

Blocks in between other blocks will be cooled by conduction heat. The conduction is controlled by the absolute temperature difference and the length of the conduction. Then from the 1x1x1m iron block at 100°C (373K) through the second 1x1x1m iron block to the third block at 0°C (273K), 8000watts per second will be transferred through the (second) 1m thick block (assuming the first block is permanently heated to 100°C and the third block is permanently cooled to 0°C).

Of course, conduction or flow cooling is usually more efficient than radiative cooling, but on a spaceship you only get rid of heat by radiating. Or by venting hot steam... Which is a lossy process.

The "ground base" is different - if there's a body of water (river, lake...) nearby, the base has a virtually infinite supply of cooling water and can't overheat with approximately the right design.

Hopefully the translator can handle this clearly enough...

And hopefully I'm calculating correctly (thermodynamic calculations I honestly "don't like")

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

@Semtex Excellent, it seems you have an understanding of the real-world science.

I'm sure if they add heat then the math and thermal-transfer mechanics will be oversimplified, but I doubt they'd add it without also including things like radiators, thermal capacitors, or other devices that could easily be attached to a tool-scaffold structure to keep it cool.