You can ignore ATR in certain large ship builds too (at least for a while, thanks to MRPs). In previous betas I would build a hulltank Anaconda with two MRPs and a sacrificial bi weave (which was good enough for low end NPCs)- most people flip out because they run shield heavy ships but if you build in the assumption its going to be lost ATR revert to ultra tanky NPCs.
Stacking HRPs/SRPs is a Problem
- Thread starter ozrix84
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hrp hull tank meme builds srp
One possible fix is to adjust the mass penalty on HRP/SRPs from a flat tonnage to a stacking hull mass multiplier. For example, say each one increases your mass 10% by applying a 1.1x multiplier. After equipping 3 of such modules, you would be looking at a 33.1% increase to your ship mass. This way you can still equip them and get the same protective benefits, but overdoing it would quickly reduce your ship to an unmaneuverable slug that struggles to catch up to your prey and struggle to get away from responding police forces. Jump range would be sharply curtailed too. Testing would be needed to get the correct percentage for balance.
The biggest downside to this fix is that it would severely upset every single AX meta player. This can be alleviated by making the Meta Alloy HRPs immune to the mass multiplier penalty (while remaining unable to be engineered so it is not abused for PVP), and simultaneously buffing their caustic resistance.
The biggest downside to this fix is that it would severely upset every single AX meta player. This can be alleviated by making the Meta Alloy HRPs immune to the mass multiplier penalty (while remaining unable to be engineered so it is not abused for PVP), and simultaneously buffing their caustic resistance.
You really want to mess with people... make Shield Reinforcement engineering introduce jitter XD
Like... defence up all you want, but don't expect to hit something
But AX is now a distant memory with all the Titans dead Engage chonkening!
Engage chonkening!Shhhhh don't tell that to AXI. I don't wanna harsh their mellow. If Rambo taught me anything, it's that angry vets don't take the "war is over" message wellBut AX is now a distant memory with all the Titans dead
Last edited:
If you've got a genuine multirole (as in "perfectly capable at PvE combat"), then high-waking is certainly possible in that situation. It's boring but unless you have an extremely specific need to be in that system it gets the job done.
If you don't have a ship which can evade and/or tank 20-30 seconds of fire and then high-wake, then your problem is not stacked HRPs and SRPs.
Here's my Powerplay multirole build: https://s.orbis.zone/qMzZ (some of the engineering might be slightly off, but close enough)
- not a single hull reinforcement or module reinforcement; in return, the internals are full of things which allow it to do every Powerplay action in the game except mining
- it does have a few shield boosters but it's still only a biweave Krait with minimal hull
- if you're flying a slow and poorly defended ship [1] none of that matters because you won't be affecting even my lightweight defences, and I still have exactly the same firepower as a PvP murderboat because bringing that doesn't compromise my non-combat build in the slightest.
[1] In a Powerplay context where it's actually worth me opening fire, let's assume. That's by the far the most unlikely bit of this hypothetical.
Exactly. This is what drives me nuts. Every time someone suggests fixing this broken health pool meta, some PvE player screeches 'but muh NPC survival!' completely ignoring how it enables gankers to farm people at stations with zero risk.
The irony is that real PvP players WANT balance. They WANT a system where skill matters, where a fight isn’t just 'who can tank the most damage for 10 minutes before high waking.' But the casual PvE crowd has been so conditioned to expect easy mode that they refuse to acknowledge how their selfish resistance to balance changes actively fuels the griefer problem.
If anything, the current system caters MORE to griefers, because bloated health pools let them tank station fire, kill someone, and wake out like it’s nothing. But sure, let’s keep pretending that people asking for fairer fights just 'want easier ganks.' Total clown world logic.
Cool, you can punish SCB spam. And? How does that change the fact that stacking HRPs/SRPs completely breaks both PvP and PvE?
The issue isn’t just SCBs - it’s the fact that reinforcement stacking makes ships so tanky that normal builds can’t function. If you’re not running a meme tank, you’re food. If you are, fights drag on forever in the dumbest, most uninteractive way possible.
Oh, cool. So instead of fixing a long-standing balance issue that has completely warped both PvE and PvP, we should just roll over and say 'welp, too late now!'?
Yeah, because no other game in history has ever adjusted mechanics after realizing they were broken, right?
The idea that 'the toothpaste is out of the tube' is pure nonsense. This is a live-service game. Engineering and reinforcement stacking can absolutely be reworked. It just requires Frontier to actually care enough to do it - and players to actually demand it instead of rolling over and accepting the status quo.
Cool, so let’s just never fix anything ever again, right? That’s like saying “Well, people complained when we tried fixing the plumbing, so I guess we’ll just let the house flood forever.”
Yes, no kidding - which is why it needs a rework, not passive acceptance.
So they already changed balance in the past, yet we’re supposed to believe it’s impossible to change it again? Pick a lane.
YES, EXACTLY. It’s not just a PvP issue. NPCs are trivially easy because you can stack defenses and ignore them.
Why the frick not? Other games rebalance their combat mechanics all the time. Frontier is just too lazy to do it, and attitudes like this let them get away with it.
As if the entire problem magically disappears if you don’t engage.
Yeah, sure, I could build my ship purely to GTFO at all times - but that doesn’t change the fact that combat is completely broken because of stacked HRPs and SRPs. The fact that avoiding fights is often the best strategy tells you all you need to know about how bad the balance is.
A properly balanced system would let players build for both combat and utility without being forced into either a 10,000-hitpoint tank or an escape pod. But nope, the current state of the game forces you into extremes, because anything in between just gets erased.
Your Powerplay build might be great for running away, but it’s not a counter-argument to the fact that Elite Dangerous combat is fundamentally borked.
Now THIS is the kind of balance discussion we need.
A scaling mass penalty would be a brilliant fix because it forces actual trade-offs - stacking defenses too much would turn you into a flying brick, making high-maneuverability combat ships actually viable again.
Right now, combat builds don’t have to sacrifice anything. They get to have their cake and eat it too - maximum defenses, high firepower, and still enough mobility to chase down prey. A system like this would finally introduce consequences for stacking internals with nothing but reinforcement modules.
As for AX balance, the Meta Alloy HRP exclusion is a smart move - this way anti-xeno players don’t get screwed over, while PvP tank builds finally get the nerf they’ve needed for years.
Frontier could fix this if they actually wanted to. This would be a great place to start.
I was you, over six years ago. All the PvP guys were saying the same things, over six years ago. Its taken me eight years to get Powerplay fixed.
There are no lanes, because each small choice in the past has led here.
You must be new to ED young lion.
"So there I was, flying a modest multirole ship, and then I made the mistake of running into a "PvPer"."
I play solo so I never have this problem. You could have too.
However, there have been numerous previous posts to the effect that you should not be in open unless you have a ship and skills to last long enough to escape the interaction, or accept the consequences.
I hate non consensual PvP.
I play solo so I never have this problem. You could have too.
However, there have been numerous previous posts to the effect that you should not be in open unless you have a ship and skills to last long enough to escape the interaction, or accept the consequences.
I hate non consensual PvP.
"PvP ships aren’t unkillable, just use reverb cascade, phasing, or power plant sniping."
Oh wow, so the only way to counter a tank ship is to bring a completely dedicated PvP build with very specific weapons? That’s literally the problem. If you don’t bring those exact tools, you lose. That’s not balance - that’s a forced meta. Also, power plant sniping? Really? You think that’s a legitimate counter when power plants in PvP are already engineered to survive long past hull death? Try harder.
"Even with diminishing returns, a pure PvP ship will still have more tank than you."
That’s fine. The goal isn’t to make PvP ships as weak as multiroles—it’s to stop them from being invincible. Right now, the gap between tank builds and everything else is way too high. You can literally stack 30,000 effective hitpoints while still dealing full damage. Diminishing returns would force real trade-offs instead of just stacking defenses endlessly with no consequences.
"People would just build around the limit. That’s how PvP works."
That's the weakest argument possible. Yeah, no kidding - that’s the entire point of balance changes. It’s about forcing trade-offs and stopping one strategy from being the only viable option. Right now, the only way to be competitive in PvP is to stack tank like a lunatic. If diminishing returns force more variety in builds, that’s a GOOD thing.
"Works perfectly fine in many games." (regarding ECM and asymmetric defenses)
Cool. Name one game that has the exact same mechanics as Elite and implemented this successfully. I'll wait. This isn’t EVE Online. It’s not MechWarrior. It’s Elite Dangerous, where the game is already built around three fundamental attributes: damage, agility, and tank. Adding in some new asymmetric ECM system doesn’t fix the broken tank-stacking problem - it just complicates things while ignoring the actual issue. Also, saying "works in other games" is meaningless when ED has its own unique mechanics, which are already built around a different balance structure.
"And how will 'tank vs damage vs speed' save your multirole ship?"
Simple: If tank stacking actually had trade-offs, then combat ships wouldn’t be forced into one extreme meta. Right now, tank stacking has no real downside, so there’s no reason not to do it. With proper balance, multirole ships would at least stand a chance in certain situations, instead of being forced into GTFO mode the second a PvP build shows up.
"You're not here to PvP, you're here to evade it."
Ah, the final cope. This completely ignores the fact that some players actually want to fight back instead of just running away. "Just evade" is not a solution. That’s a surrender. You’re saying that PvP is so busted that players who aren’t running full meta combat builds should just run away? That’s literally an admission that PvP is broken.
Your entire argument boils down to: "PvP is broken, but that’s just how it is, so deal with it." That’s the exact kind of defeatist garbage that has kept this game in a state of balance hell for years. The bottom line? You’re not arguing for balance. You’re arguing to keep the meta exactly as it is - because you’re too afraid of change.
Amazing how quickly people go from demanding change to resigning themselves to apathy, and then trying to condescend to anyone who still has a spine.
"I was you, over six years ago."
And? That’s supposed to mean something? Just because you gave up doesn’t mean we should.
"It’s taken me eight years to get Powerplay fixed."
Oh cool, so change is possible. Which directly contradicts your entire argument. Pick a lane.
"There are no lanes, because each small choice in the past has led here."
What an absolutely meaningless statement. There are always lanes. Balance is a constant, iterative process. Saying "we made some bad choices, so now we can never change anything again" is the exact kind of defeatist attitude that keeps this game in the dumpster.
"You must be new to ED, young lion."
Cute. But I was here on Day 1 of the Kickstarter. I’ve seen every broken system, every excuse, every garbage half-measure Frontier has pulled since launch.
The difference between us?
- I still care.
- I still push for balance.
- I’m not going to sit around pretending to be a wise old man while Frontier continues to neglect its game.
If anything, you’re the one who should be embarrassed. You fought for change once, and when Frontier ignored you, you bent the knee and now try to gaslight others into accepting the same fate.
The classic "just play solo" cope. Because clearly the solution to a broken PvP meta is to never engage with it at all.
"I play solo so I never have this problem." Cool. That’s like saying "I never experience bugs because I don’t play the game." Just because you choose to hide from the issue doesn’t mean the issue doesn’t exist.
"You should not be in Open unless you have a ship and skills to escape."
So let me get this straight—your solution isn’t to fix the broken, brain-dead meta, but to tell people to just avoid playing the game properly? What kind of mindset is that?
"I hate non-consensual PvP."
You know what? That’s totally fine. But here’s the thing:
- This thread isn’t about whether PvP should exist, it’s about the fact that it’s fundamentally broken.
- The current meta makes PvP a mindless tank-stacking joke. That affects everyone, even those who want to engage in PvP voluntarily.
- your argument does nothing to address the issue, it’s just an excuse to ignore it.
You can play solo all you want - that’s your choice. But don’t come in here acting like PvP balance isn’t a real issue just because you choose to opt out.
See, this is the kind of common-sense balancing that should’ve been implemented years ago.
- We already have diminishing returns for resistances, so applying the same logic to HRPs and GSBs just makes sense.
- It forces real trade-offs instead of brain-dead stacking. Right now, there’s no reason NOT to cram your entire internal space full of HRPs. This change would make players actually think about their builds.
- It’s a simple fix that doesn’t break PvE. The biggest whiners about PvP balance changes are usually PvE players terrified that their tanky builds will become useless. But this still lets them stack durability - it just prevents extreme abuse.
- It maintains ship roles instead of turning everything into an unkillable brick.
The real actual fix is to delete the global resistance options in engineering because it's the ability to stack both resistance and base value that makes ships so tough (and makes SCBs so potent when they can't be disrupted), or to introduce resistance shredding effects to weapon engineering.
The latter would cause less riots than "we deleted all your engineered modules have fun grinding new ones" (the reason that they will not "fix" the stacking).
If there were weapon effects that shredded resistances by a significant value (80%+ taking a 50-60% resistant target down to -30%), however, that would reduce TTKs against resistance vastly.
Yes, because I talk and suggest a lot of things for ED. For example, go to suggestions and filter my forum name. I have eight full pages of suggestions (and this is from the 'new' forum, not counting the old one), not to mention tens of thousands of posts debating balance. Have I given up? No. But wholesale change is not going to happen on the scale you want because its not just one thing thats wrong. Many, many disparate aspects of ED simply don't fit together and cross contaminate the game.
Yes, and it shows how slowly (if at all) FD do things, and only do things when the stars align. The issue is that the problems you highlight don't impede FDs cash flow, and would trigger a lot of people (as what happened with the Shield / hull re-balance).
You are seeing one part of the problem and think its going to solve everything, all the time insulting people and calling them defeatist quitters.
To use your own words:
"And? That’s supposed to mean something?" Funnily enough, I was a KS backer as well....
How do you know I don't care?
Sorry, have been a bit busy being Mr Powerplay for the last nine or so years. Where have you been?
Oh my...
The problem is, you want to be able to win against a specialist build in a multirole build. That's just not how it works.
Diminishing returns is one thing, losing against a combat build in something else is logical.
Otherwise FD can just can all the different ships and let us use only one type, the Cobra III or so.
Winning against a PvP meme build is surviving it. I flew an iCourier yesterday in the CG system and rammed a meme Plasma FdL head-on,
survived with 88% hull and was out of range before he could blow me up. I don't have to blow him up to win.
By the way, outflying means you have to hit constantly with SRB plasma against a 530+ m/s evasive FdL. That takes a lot of skill.
Or mouse-point-and-click, but that's just my excuse as Hotas guy
So to answer your initial points:
1) there are some counters, and you have to git gud. Also you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
2) yep, fights take ages, thats a problem. Everything that mitigates that makes the survivability of "the solo player" even less.
3) if the solo player would reduce a bit of muh credits per hour to build a survivable build, point 2 would make sure he can highwake out effortlessly
4) you sound like your "cool skill based build" requires more skill than flying FA off with a SRB plasma FdL. I assure you it does not. And that's still the Meta I think.
5) again, you propably ran into a reverski rail build or something like that, which is easily countered (by denying combat). A Meta FdL Plasma loadout is only cowardly in the sense of being behind 3k absolute shields. You can crack that nut by being better, so it's very much skill based.
The problem is, you want to be able to win against a specialist build in a multirole build. That's just not how it works.
Diminishing returns is one thing, losing against a combat build in something else is logical.
Otherwise FD can just can all the different ships and let us use only one type, the Cobra III or so.
Winning against a PvP meme build is surviving it. I flew an iCourier yesterday in the CG system and rammed a meme Plasma FdL head-on,
survived with 88% hull and was out of range before he could blow me up. I don't have to blow him up to win.
By the way, outflying means you have to hit constantly with SRB plasma against a 530+ m/s evasive FdL. That takes a lot of skill.
Or mouse-point-and-click, but that's just my excuse as Hotas guy
So to answer your initial points:
1) there are some counters, and you have to git gud. Also you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
2) yep, fights take ages, thats a problem. Everything that mitigates that makes the survivability of "the solo player" even less.
3) if the solo player would reduce a bit of muh credits per hour to build a survivable build, point 2 would make sure he can highwake out effortlessly
4) you sound like your "cool skill based build" requires more skill than flying FA off with a SRB plasma FdL. I assure you it does not. And that's still the Meta I think.
5) again, you propably ran into a reverski rail build or something like that, which is easily countered (by denying combat). A Meta FdL Plasma loadout is only cowardly in the sense of being behind 3k absolute shields. You can crack that nut by being better, so it's very much skill based.