The Logic of Internals

[CMDR Corlas]

If you restrict the number of HRPs, imho, you should also restrict the number of cargo bays. If you do either, it makes the ship useless for what it's intended to do... therefore I say keep them as they are.

A short while ago, HRP's offered less armor than they do now. The end result was a hull-tanked Cobra would offer less armor than a Cobra now with a single HRP.

Yet combat-Cobras were not "useless" because of it. Reality disproves your claim.

Lowering a theoretical maximum doesn't magically make a ship "useless", because the only point in the high theoretical maximum in the first place is because everyone else has a high max too.

 

[Zeta Legion]

I agree, there is lots of difference, but they are for completely different purposes. One is a trader, with very limited potential for fighting; the other is an out and out stealth killing machine, impossible to trade in it... horses for courses. Both builds are equally valid for what they are intended for, imho, and both will do a pretty good job too.

If you restrict the number of HRPs, imho, you should also restrict the number of cargo bays. If you do either, it makes the ship useless for what it's intended to do... therefore I say keep them as they are. Both increase the weight of the ship, in different ways (the cargo bays are increased when they are used), so I fail to see the problem.

Limiting the Cobra from having enormous amounts of armour or limiting the cargo capacity in some way won't make it useless. It will remain the fastest ship in the game regardless which conveys plenty of advantages already for both trading (smuggling specifically) and combat.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Okay, I see where you're coming from, but...

Say I don't WANT to run a fuel scoop? I've just got this internal slot I can't do anything useful with. You win, because you get what YOU want. I lose, because I don't.


Aaaand, with your last comment about 'ganking traders', you just put yourself back in the "I don't like the way you play, so I'm gonna ask for it to be nerfed" box.

How do you lose out? You don't want a fuel scoop, don't run one! You're at exactly the same level of advantage (we both still have the same HP), only now I'm not inconvenienced in getting around. Hell, if anything you're better off cos your rebuy's lower than mine

Module stacking is bad for everyone, including gankers. More interesting and closer fights would benefit all

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Okay, I see where you're coming from, but...

Say I don't WANT to run a fuel scoop? I've just got this internal slot I can't do anything useful with. You win, because you get what YOU want. I lose, because I don't.

The solution here is pretty simple: Make things like cargo racks, fuel scoops, and AFMU's have some weight to them. You don't want a scoop? Cool, don't put one in, and you're a bit more agile and a bit faster.

You want a combat advantage, I want you to be able to have an advantage. What I don't want is for you to be able to have an overwhelming advantage, because realistically all that means is that if we fight, I am going to be in a ship specced for the exact same overwhelming advantage. That is not what I want, negates the spec-advantage you want, and results in less diversity and choice.

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

Basically, I'm saying "I want to fight you, but because I also want to do these other things, I want you to have a slight advantage" and you're saying "I want to fight you, but I want us both to be exactly the same, so you're not allowed to do those other things if we fight".

 

[SCTrojanbulldog]

I don't know if I'm on point or tangent....

I'm a trader and have NEVER combat fitted a ship outside of an Imperial Eagle. But I NEVER piloted a t-x. I always equipped my vessels to be able to survive a moderate scrape; be it Cmdr or NPC. I've been interdicted by both on several occasions, never killed and never gave up my cargo when choosing to flee.

Combat builds don't high wake well. So, I high wake outside of my guess range of that interceptor.

I've been killed when choosing to fight, but never when I decided to run.

I don't expect my general build cutter which is rather capable to win a one on one with a good cmdr battle Conda. But I can avoid those fights. I can avoid those fights in an asp, clipper, and cobra. Now, that may not be always the case with pro murderer in an alpha strike set-up... But that's life.

But, that's my experience and I would be comfortable assuming that I run a lot better than most cmdrs.... Because I've done it a lot and know how Not to flee "straight line boost tactics".

 

[Bacalao]

It does! What benefit is there to having PvP fit ships being completely unassailable by anyone else?All it does is further relegate PvP to being a pointless side game to the main game that no one wants to take part in outside of tournaments.Sure, combat fit ships should have an edge, but not an edge of 10x the eHP: what's the point of that?

If you're in a combat fit anaconda pulling over mining fit anacondas (pretty obvious from the modules tab) you're not interested in "PvP" you're interested in ganking. The problem doesn't lie in the fitting or relative "eHP" but in the player.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

If you're in a combat fit anaconda pulling over mining fit anacondas (pretty obvious from the modules tab) you're not interested in "PvP" you're interested in ganking. The problem doesn't lie in the fitting or relative "eHP" but in the player.

If that's your standpoint, I honestly wonder why it matters what the max "eHP" is anyway? As long as combat fits exist at the same level, relative to each other, why does it matter if a non-combat fit is closer to them?

The only "downside" I see is that it might encourage more non-combat-optimized people to stay and fight, and trust their skill to make up for the smaller itemization gap, instead of run. Isn't that a good thing for the game?

I don't see a downside here.

 

[Bacalao]

If that's your standpoint, I honestly wonder why it matters what the max "eHP" is anyway? As long as combat fits exist at the same level, relative to each other, why does it matter if a non-combat fit is closer to them?

The only "downside" I see is that it might encourage more non-combat-optimized people to stay and fight, and trust their skill to make up for the smaller itemization gap, instead of run. Isn't that a good thing for the game?

I don't see a downside here.

Thte downside is really boring outfitting. One of everything only means everyone will only run one of everything. No quirky builds, no different styles, not really even preferences, just homogenous boring. Balancing an open world game to encourage pvp is like herding cats, but worse.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Thte downside is really boring outfitting. One of everything only means everyone will only run one of everything. No quirky builds, no different styles, not really even preferences, just homogenous boring. Balancing an open world game to encourage pvp is like herding cats, but worse.

I agree with that, but I don't think that has to be the case. I think it could be done that each ship has a different number of "mil-specced" internal slots, so it's not just "one of everything", it's simply a maximum of defense stacking, and a maximum that could vary per ship type. Players could still choose to stack all HRP in them, or shield and SCB, or a mix. All it would be is FD limiting the extend to which you could min-max defense, the same as they do with offence by only letting us put weapons in weapon slots.

 

[Zeta Legion]

Thte downside is really boring outfitting. One of everything only means everyone will only run one of everything. No quirky builds, no different styles, not really even preferences, just homogenous boring. Balancing an open world game to encourage pvp is like herding cats, but worse.

Outfitting already IS homogenous to the point of parody; fill every slot with HRPs, go silent running, railgun the hell out of defenseless peasants.

There's only one thing worth equipping for PvP and that's HRPs. Not only is it boring, but it leads to extremely boring engagements that you could only possibly die in by intentionally remaining in combat long past the point of defeat. This makes PvP an utterly pointless exercise for all but the bored and wealthy or the unscrupulous looking to pick on inexperienced CMDR's.

 

[Crusina Luachra]

I'm with the OP on this one. I know players are very fond of maximizing their setups, and I can understand the need for that in PvE, but on the other hand, as the OP mentioned, the differences between a combat outfitted ship and any other ship are so large that the outcome of the battle between the two is predetermined. Trader ships for example already suffer from reduced maneuverability, worse weapons and so on. Having defensive mechanics which can be stacked only by attacking ships makes the matter worse.

I'd dare go as far to say that this may be the reason we see so much controversy around PvP in Open. Players who know they are on the losing side will always attempt to run instead of putting up a fight, which will lead to attackers being unsatisfied with their player interaction, which will make them more vicious. Even out the playing field a little, and you may see more fun on both sides and less drama.

I just like being this big ship with big guns taking and dishing out lots of damage. I like HRP as they are right now.

People NEVER used them until they were buffed. Now people want them nerfed because they can't deal with it.

It's not like they don't take damage, you bring them to zero and you win. It's not like the SCB meta.

Maybe they do need adjustments but if those adjustments ruin my battleship feel with my Vette I will be unhappy.

 

[Zeta Legion]

I just like being this big ship with big guns taking and dishing out lots of damage. I like HRP as they are right now.

People NEVER used them until they were buffed. Now people want them nerfed because they can't deal with it.

People didn't use them because of the way armour worked. Module sniping being the order of the day, the only defense worth considering was shields and SCBs which carried virtually no penalty for use. The changes to SCBs and armour were enough to make HRPs not useless, the massive buff they received was very much overkill.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I think the buff was great, personally. It's the stackability that should be controlled a bit or penalized more.

 

[Crusina Luachra]

People didn't use them because of the way armour worked. Module sniping being the order of the day, the only defense worth considering was shields and SCBs which carried virtually no penalty for use. The changes to SCBs and armour were enough to make HRPs not useless, the massive buff they received was very much overkill.

...I did just say something like "people never used them before" right? So obviously I know WHY people did not use them before.

And I disagree that it's overkill. As I said before, it's not like they aren't taking hull damage no matter how much they stack. It's not like SCB's where as long as they are up you can't die.

As it is, people like you say it's this horrible thing and yet I really have not heard good suggestions to make them balanced. Oh sure, I've read suggestions but none of them work for both parties.

 

[Weps]

There's a pretty cool suggestion right in this thread about having military grade equipment slots.

Another suggestion I could come up with would be to increase the mass of HRPs to the point where stacking them makes the ship move like a brick and jump like a rhino. Players can still stack them, but with the disadvantage of the increased mass. You want a battleship feel in a Corvette? Battleships take ages to get deployed around the known world, and don't turn on a dime.

 

[askavir]

It does! What benefit is there to having PvP fit ships being completely unassailable by anyone else?

All it does is further relegate PvP to being a pointless side game to the main game that no one wants to take part in outside of tournaments.

Sure, combat fit ships should have an edge, but not an edge of 10x the eHP: what's the point of that?

And that is exactly what happened. PvP is now (always been, actually) a pointless side-game in ED. Much because you can either have a ship to play the game, or have a ship for PvP.

As the vast majority of players its not willing to forfeit playing the game so they can be able to engage in random PvP absent of purpose, PvP became a guetto for a few players with ridiculously overbuffed ships. And it will always stay that way while "PvP builds" can make ships 10x stronger or more.

 

[Soopyyy]

News just in, Ocean tankers don't stand a chance against Destroyers. Who'd have thought...

 

[Weps]

News just in, Ocean tankers don't stand a chance against Destroyers. Who'd have thought...

The thing is, a lot of players have certain expectations from the game which are simply in conflict with one another. They want the game to feel like the age of sail, and space to be the high seas. Pirates vs. Traders. I can go anywhere and attack any ship I want, and then slip away in a different system without much consequence. On the other hand, they expect ship roles to correspond to those of our times. Liners and freighters? surely they don't stand a change against a fighter aircraft!

These two aspects are simply not compatible with one another. If we were to expect 20th century vessel roles, then we should also expect starting Galactic War X the moment you fly a Cutter into Sol space.

But that's besides the point of this thread. The point being made was that, even when ships are identical, being able to stack defenses leads to a predetermined and extremely biased outcome. I'd argue that this is bad for the game.

 

[DocPossible]

There's a pretty cool suggestion right in this thread about having military grade equipment slots.

Another suggestion I could come up with would be to increase the mass of HRPs to the point where stacking them makes the ship move like a brick and jump like a rhino. Players can still stack them, but with the disadvantage of the increased mass. You want a battleship feel in a Corvette? Battleships take ages to get deployed around the known world, and don't turn on a dime.

This is a great idea.

HRPs are odd things anyway. Filling my old Nissan Micra's boot with armour playing somehow turns it into a Chieftain tank and hardly affects its handling? A combat fitted ship should always have the advantage over a trader, but some viable variety in PvP builds is needed and the gap between a combat fitted Cobra and a general purpose fitted Cobra shouldn't be so wide that a skilful pilot in a 'worse' ship can't take on a less skilled one in a better ship. Nobody likes Pay2Win and Equip2Win isn't much better imo.

 

[Yodafone]

Internals definitely need to be limited. If nothing else having to forgo cargo space, fuel scoop, scanners, vehicle bays or other equipment to be able to PvP is annoying as heck, as well as heightening the PvE/PvP imbalance.

My favoured solution would be to make it so that to fit a combat module such as shields, SCBs, HRPs or interdictors, your internal must be millitary rated. Not all internals would have this

So for example, the FAS's internals would be rated

5M
5
4
3M
2M
2

(M for millitary rated)

This would take a PvP FAS's max hull down from 2610 to 1700, and would mean that you could fill your remaining internals with fun/quality of life internals such as cargo racks, fuel scoops, fuel tanks, vehicle bays or hatch breakers

This would also mean that trade/multipurpose ships would not have to be kept as horrible so they don't become OP due to huge numbers of internals (see cobra IV, Keelback) and new combat ships would not require lots of internals to be viable (see Corvette)

I'm a bit late in on the discussion but I like this idea, would make a considered difference to the mentioned gap in PvE to PvP builds (which is indeed annoying, to go proper PvP'ing you need to build a specific type craft and can't do much else, or visa-versa have issue against someone with this type of build when you haven't yourself and instead have the necessary modules for scanning/scooping etc etc)