Balancing combat internals with the Orca

[Alexander the Grape]

TL;DR: Only certain internals should be "Combat Rated", and capable of taking SCBs/HRPs/Shields/etc

The Problem​

It's clear to pretty much everyone that the power of ships whose every internal slot is given over to combat modules such as SCBs (shield cell banks) or HRPs (hull reinforcement packages) far exceeds that of a ship who has any space given over to quality of life or money-making modules such as Fuel Scoops, discovery scanners, cargo racks or vehicle hangars. Lets compare two Asps, one outfitted for a bit of everything, capable of completing missions, travelling, light combat and hauling cargo, and another purely outfitted for combat

The former has a total HP of 291 shields + 735 hull, for a total of 1026 HP

The latter has a total HP of 234 shields + 2095 hull, for a total of 2329 HP, more than double that of the other ship!

You can do similar comparisons for other ships, and the outcome is the same. A pure combat outfit vastly exceeds the combat-capable multipurpose ship by a vast margin.

So what?​

Now you might be thinking, what's wrong with this? Surely a combat-focused vessel should have an edge over those who diversify?

And I would agree: BUT the issue is a matter of scale. Getting an edge in combat is one thing, but having a 2x or more HP advantage over even combat-leaning multipurpose ships simply makes the combat fit ship practically impossible to defeat.

Add into the mix that the combat fit ship is likely to use specialised PvP weapons such as Railguns and may be in a wing, and the overall effect is that fighting back is impossible: your only option is to run away

Here is a list of the negative impacts:

• Speccing your multipurpose ship to be better in combat is pointless. What's the use in fitting of fitting weapons or armoured bulkheads when you don't have a shot at winning anyway?

• It drives people who might enjoy Open into Solo. Since you have no chance of winning a PvP encounter, Open simply looks more and more like a deathtrap where gankers prey on the helpless with no chance of fighting back. Solo, while less "interesting", feels safer and "fairer" because NPCs don't stack combat internals

• It inconveniences PvP players. If you want to fight other CMDRs, you can't run, say, a decent size fuel scoop and expect to win, because it cuts so deeply into your eHP. So every time you want to move a ship, you must re-outfit for travel, jump to your location, find a decent outfitting station and re-outfit for combat. It makes getting around even more of a chore.

• It leads to less interesting, meaningful fights and emergent content. Since attacking a non-PvP ship is so one sided, it relegates interesting fights to pre-arranged duels between PvP ships, not vibrant emergent gameplay where fighting is random, desperate, close and brutal

• It limits future ship balancing. FDev now have to make every Multipurpose or trade ship have awful base stats: otherwise their ability to stack combat internals would make them severely OP (See cobra IV, Keelback, Viper IV). Conversely, all new Combat ships have to have lots of internals to be competitive in combat, and thus must be given awful jump ranges to avoid them being OP at trading (see Corvette)

• It devalues base stats and makes certain ship's downsides irrelevant. The Gunship may have a great base hull, but that's pointless when your base hull is but a fraction of your total HP. Meanwhile ships like the FAS can overcome their awful shield capacity and mediocre hull strength simply by stacking HRPs, making it an agile, tanky all-rounder with zero weaknesses

What's the solution? And how does the Orca come into this?​

Now, I know what you're thinking. We've had conversations like this before, and a solution hasn't come up. Changing SCBs and buffing HRPs only lead to the current unsatisfactory situation. (As an aside, many people are keen to lay the state of the "Silent Running" PvP meta at my feet due to my vocal criticism of SCBs: but I was never in favour of a HRP buff to the extent that we saw, and the SCB "nerf" did not match my preferred solution)

The solution is not simply to nerf Combat internals such as SCBs or HRPs. All that would serve to do is either not enough to fix the problems or make them utterly irrelevant.

The problem with Combat Internals is not their power but their stackability.

The fundamental issue is that every single internal slot on every single ship can take them, which is what needs changing.

This can be fixed by drawing inspiration from the Orca. The Orca has 2 internal slots which can only take Cargo racks or HRPs, supposedly to represent the areas of the ship that could not fit complicated electronic modules. Why not take this system and apply it to other ships in a slightly different way?

The Solution: Combat Rated vs Utility Rated internals

​

Every ship is different, and as such it would make sense that some ships internals are better suited to combat modules than others.
A Class 6 slot on the cheap, hulking Type 7 should not always have the same capabilities as a class 6 slot on the Federal Corvette!

Similarly, certain internal slots on the same ship should not be equal in capacity. There would be no utility or sense in stuffing every inch of a Python with solid metal, but strategically located reinforced points would benefit from an increase in armour beyond bulkheads, or would have the necessary electronics and capabilities for fitting a shield generator or SCB.

This should be represented by having 2 different designations of internal:

C for Combat rated (can fit combat-focused internals such as SCBs, shields, HRPs or interdictors in addition to standard internals)

U for Utility rated (Cannot fit combat-focused internals such as SCBs, shields, HRPs or interdictors, but can still fit Fuel Scoops, Fuel tanks, Refineries, Cargo racks, etc etc.)

How would this work in practice?

​

Let' go back to the example of the Asp. The Asp currently has internals of 6/5/3/3/3/2/2, each of which can fit any module. Under the rated internals systems, they would be given a rating based on their capability, becoming 6U/5C/3C/3U/3U/2C/2U

For our Multipurpose Asp, this changes nothing. They still are able to keep their current build, and have the option to swap out an internal here and there for added defensive capability.

Our PvP Asp now finds that no longer can they simply fill every slot with combat modules, and now have some choices to make. They could put a class 6 fuel scoop to get around easier, add some cargo and hatch breakers to try a spot of piracy now and then, add a discovery scanner or a vehicle hangar to take planetary missions now and then, and overall have a ship that's better at having fun in, while maintaining a significant edge over non-combat focused ships (it still has 30% more armour!).

Of course, this is just an example, and ships might have a higher or lower proportion of combat rated versus utility rated internals: but the beauty of this system is it allows Frontier an easy way of balancing on a ship-by-ship basis rather than, as we've seen previously, having "winners" and "losers" from broad buffs or nerfs to every internal.

Overall, this system would:

• Lead to more interesting choices for Combat pilots beyond combat: Do I fit a fuel scoop to get around faster, or a cargo rack to take smuggling missions every now and then?

• Encourage close, interesting and spontaneous PvP: With the gulf between combat and non-combat fit ships slighter, combat can become less seal-clubby

• Conveniences and makes for more varied gameplay for min-maxers. No longer will you have to pass up that juicy mission or floating cargo because you're waiting for the enemy wing to instance with you. Nor will you have to reoutfit and shuttle about 4 times every time you head to a CG. If you sometimes fancy a relaxing drive on planets in between wing fights, you don't have to worry about fitting a vehicle bay

• Allows dynamic, smart and precise ship balancing: Gunship underwhelming in combat? Advances in internal wiring systems allows for more combat rated internals. FAS OP? Part shortage means that the class 3 slot is longer capable of supporting combat internals

• Makes lesser-used modules more viable: Want to try an AFMU, or hatch-breakers as a targetting aid, or deploying biowaste as a distraction in combat? Now you don't have to sacrifice 20% of your eHP compared to the enemy

• Makes NPCs/police more of a credible threat for experienced min-maxing pilots: No longer will you be able to watch netflix while fighting Elite Anacondas. Now you'll have to rely on skill rather than simply having 10x the health of them.

Overall I feel like this suggestion would be incredibly healthy for combat, PvP, and the game in general. What do you think?

 

[Conch]

I think its logic that a fighter build is way stronger than a trade build.

traders shouldnt rely on armor but on a good crime system.. what we dont have atm.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

This all seems vaguely familiar somehow...

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Sorry - don't agree with you. I already find the concept of module sizes to be quite restrictive anyway and you want to restrict them even further ? Should be suggesting the other way - give hull sizes and let people configure them how they want.

I get why you want to do this but that's a no from me.

 

[Jypson]

As much as I appreciate your write-up and thought process behind the suggestions, I still feel that this energy would be better directed at Arena. If PvP balancing is important to you, put all of that creative energy into making Arena the PvP haven you crave.

At the end of the day Elite: Dangerous is not a PVP-centric game. Balancing all of the ships for fair PvP combat will hinder the diversity of choice for the rest of the game. Arena on the other hand is only PvP and I'm sure FDev would love inputs like this to make Arena a truly fair and competitive arena combat game.

For the record I have absolutely nothing against PvP or people playing Elite the way they want to play, I'm simply against trying to force Elite into something that it's not.

Now in the future if FDev decides Elite Dangerous is going to become PvP-centric, then I'll zip my lips and you won't hear another peep from me.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

TL;DR: Only certain internals should be "Combat Rated", and capable of taking SCBs/HRPs/Shields/etc

The Problem​

It's clear to pretty much everyone that the power of ships whose every internal slot is given over to combat modules such as SCBs (shield cell banks) or HRPs (hull reinforcement packages) far exceeds that of a ship who has any space given over to quality of life or money-making modules such as Fuel Scoops, discovery scanners, cargo racks or vehicle hangars. Lets compare two Asps, one outfitted for a bit of everything, capable of completing missions, travelling, light combat and hauling cargo, and another purely outfitted for combat

The former has a total HP of 291 shields + 735 hull, for a total of 1026 HP

The latter has a total HP of 234 shields + 2095 hull, for a total of 2329 HP, more than double that of the other ship!

You can do similar comparisons for other ships, and the outcome is the same. A pure combat outfit vastly exceeds the combat-capable multipurpose ship by a vast margin.

So what?​

Now you might be thinking, what's wrong with this? Surely a combat-focused vessel should have an edge over those who diversify?

And I would agree: BUT the issue is a matter of scale. Getting an edge in combat is one thing, but having a 2x or more HP advantage over even combat-leaning multipurpose ships simply makes the combat fit ship practically impossible to defeat.

Add into the mix that the combat fit ship is likely to use specialised PvP weapons such as Railguns and may be in a wing, and the overall effect is that fighting back is impossible: your only option is to run away

Here is a list of the negative impacts:

• Speccing your multipurpose ship to be better in combat is pointless. What's the use in fitting of fitting weapons or armoured bulkheads when you don't have a shot at winning anyway?

• It drives people who might enjoy Open into Solo. Since you have no chance of winning a PvP encounter, Open simply looks more and more like a deathtrap where gankers prey on the helpless with no chance of fighting back. Solo, while less "interesting", feels safer and "fairer" because NPCs don't stack combat internals

• It inconveniences PvP players. If you want to fight other CMDRs, you can't run, say, a decent size fuel scoop and expect to win, because it cuts so deeply into your eHP. So every time you want to move a ship, you must re-outfit for travel, jump to your location, find a decent outfitting station and re-outfit for combat. It makes getting around even more of a chore.

• It leads to less interesting, meaningful fights and emergent content. Since attacking a non-PvP ship is so one sided, it relegates interesting fights to pre-arranged duels between PvP ships, not vibrant emergent gameplay where fighting is random, desperate, close and brutal

• It limits future ship balancing. FDev now have to make every Multipurpose or trade ship have awful base stats: otherwise their ability to stack combat internals would make them severely OP (See cobra IV, Keelback, Viper IV). Conversely, all new Combat ships have to have lots of internals to be competitive in combat, and thus must be given awful jump ranges to avoid them being OP at trading (see Corvette)

• It devalues base stats and makes certain ship's downsides irrelevant. The Gunship may have a great base hull, but that's pointless when your base hull is but a fraction of your total HP. Meanwhile ships like the FAS can overcome their awful shield capacity and mediocre hull strength simply by stacking HRPs, making it an agile, tanky all-rounder with zero weaknesses

What's the solution? And how does the Orca come into this?​

Now, I know what you're thinking. We've had conversations like this before, and a solution hasn't come up. Changing SCBs and buffing HRPs only lead to the current unsatisfactory situation. (As an aside, many people are keen to lay the state of the "Silent Running" PvP meta at my feet due to my vocal criticism of SCBs: but I was never in favour of a HRP buff to the extent that we saw, and the SCB "nerf" did not match my preferred solution)

The solution is not simply to nerf Combat internals such as SCBs or HRPs. All that would serve to do is either not enough to fix the problems or make them utterly irrelevant.

The problem with Combat Internals is not their power but their stackability.

The fundamental issue is that every single internal slot on every single ship can take them, which is what needs changing.

This can be fixed by drawing inspiration from the Orca. The Orca has 2 internal slots which can only take Cargo racks or HRPs, supposedly to represent the areas of the ship that could not fit complicated electronic modules. Why not take this system and apply it to other ships in a slightly different way?

The Solution: Combat Rated vs Utility Rated internals

​

Every ship is different, and as such it would make sense that some ships internals are better suited to combat modules than others.
A Class 6 slot on the cheap, hulking Type 7 should not always have the same capabilities as a class 6 slot on the Federal Corvette!

Similarly, certain internal slots on the same ship should not be equal in capacity. There would be no utility or sense in stuffing every inch of a Python with solid metal, but strategically located reinforced points would benefit from an increase in armour beyond bulkheads, or would have the necessary electronics and capabilities for fitting a shield generator or SCB.

This should be represented by having 2 different designations of internal:

C for Combat rated (can fit combat-focused internals such as SCBs, shields, HRPs or interdictors in addition to standard internals)

U for Utility rated (Cannot fit combat-focused internals such as SCBs, shields, HRPs or interdictors, but can still fit Fuel Scoops, Fuel tanks, Refineries, Cargo racks, etc etc.)

How would this work in practice?

​

Let' go back to the example of the Asp. The Asp currently has internals of 6/5/3/3/3/2/2, each of which can fit any module. Under the rated internals systems, they would be given a rating based on their capability, becoming 6U/5C/3C/3U/3U/2C/2U

For our Multipurpose Asp, this changes nothing. They still are able to keep their current build, and have the option to swap out an internal here and there for added defensive capability.

Our PvP Asp now finds that no longer can they simply fill every slot with combat modules, and now have some choices to make. They could put a class 6 fuel scoop to get around easier, add some cargo and hatch breakers to try a spot of piracy now and then, add a discovery scanner or a vehicle hangar to take planetary missions now and then, and overall have a ship that's better at having fun in, while maintaining a significant edge over non-combat focused ships (it still has 30% more armour!).

Of course, this is just an example, and ships might have a higher or lower proportion of combat rated versus utility rated internals: but the beauty of this system is it allows Frontier an easy way of balancing on a ship-by-ship basis rather than, as we've seen previously, having "winners" and "losers" from broad buffs or nerfs to every internal.

Overall, this system would:

• Lead to more interesting choices for Combat pilots beyond combat: Do I fit a fuel scoop to get around faster, or a cargo rack to take smuggling missions every now and then?

• Encourage close, interesting and spontaneous PvP: With the gulf between combat and non-combat fit ships slighter, combat can become less seal-clubby

• Conveniences and makes for more varied gameplay for min-maxers. No longer will you have to pass up that juicy mission or floating cargo because you're waiting for the enemy wing to instance with you. Nor will you have to reoutfit and shuttle about 4 times every time you head to a CG. If you sometimes fancy a relaxing drive on planets in between wing fights, you don't have to worry about fitting a vehicle bay

• Allows dynamic, smart and precise ship balancing: Gunship underwhelming in combat? Advances in internal wiring systems allows for more combat rated internals. FAS OP? Part shortage means that the class 3 slot is longer capable of supporting combat internals

• Makes lesser-used modules more viable: Want to try an AFMU, or hatch-breakers as a targetting aid, or deploying biowaste as a distraction in combat? Now you don't have to sacrifice 20% of your eHP compared to the enemy

• Makes NPCs/police more of a credible threat for experienced min-maxing pilots: No longer will you be able to watch netflix while fighting Elite Anacondas. Now you'll have to rely on skill rather than simply having 10x the health of them.

Overall I feel like this suggestion would be incredibly healthy for combat, PvP, and the game in general. What do you think?

On the whole, I agree. I came up with a similar idea, but your I think yours would be easier to implement.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

As much as I appreciate your write-up and thought process behind the suggestions, I still feel that this energy would be better directed at Arena. If PvP balancing is important to you, put all of that creative energy into making Arena the PvP haven you crave.

At the end of the day Elite: Dangerous is not a PVP-centric game. Balancing all of the ships for fair PvP combat will hinder the diversity of choice for the rest of the game. Arena on the other hand is only PvP and I'm sure FDev would love inputs like this to make Arena a truly fair and competitive arena combat game.

For the record I have absolutely nothing against PvP or people playing Elite the way they want to play, I'm simply against trying to force Elite into something that it's not.

Now in the future if FDev decides Elite Dangerous is going to become PvP-centric, then I'll zip my lips and you won't hear another peep from me.

The devs have gone on the record that Elite is a game which is also about PvP. Both PvE and PvP balance are integral.

You seem to be rejecting this on the basis that it would make PvP better. That I do not understand. I feel like it would make both PvP and PvE better, by allowing more meaningful choices and making NPCs less underpowered compared to players.

If you have an argument as to why this would be negative for PvE, I might understand

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

If you have an argument as to why this would be negative for PvE, I might understand

I do.

a) NPCs don't follow the rules. They have infinite ammo and don't suffer from the same issues (heat) like we do.
b) I personally find AI to be tricky and your change would mean weaker combat ships. Great for PvP-Combat; not so great for PvE-Combat.

PvP and PvE are incompatible - anything you do to 1 affects the other.

Also , restricting freedom in an already bland game would make it even more .. erm .. bland. Modules offer no variety (Each module is identical to another - no RNG) so restricting what you can put where means even less variety .. less "freedom"

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

As much as I appreciate your write-up and thought process behind the suggestions, I still feel that this energy would be better directed at Arena. If PvP balancing is important to you, put all of that creative energy into making Arena the PvP haven you crave.

At the end of the day Elite: Dangerous is not a PVP-centric game. Balancing all of the ships for fair PvP combat will hinder the diversity of choice for the rest of the game. Arena on the other hand is only PvP and I'm sure FDev would love inputs like this to make Arena a truly fair and competitive arena combat game.

For the record I have absolutely nothing against PvP or people playing Elite the way they want to play, I'm simply against trying to force Elite into something that it's not.

Now in the future if FDev decides Elite Dangerous is going to become PvP-centric, then I'll zip my lips and you won't hear another peep from me.

Arena has nothing to with this. This is all about meaningful PvP within the main game, and added spice to PvE ecounters. I like the idea myself and I don't partake in PvP unless forced on and hardly play Arena. It gives you something to think about when fitting your ship instead of the meta of today which is HRP which are far too powerful at the moment.

 

[Jypson]

The devs have gone on the record that Elite is a game which is also about PvP. Both PvE and PvP balance are integral.

You seem to be rejecting this on the basis that it would make PvP better. That I do not understand. I feel like it would make both PvP and PvE better, by allowing more meaningful choices and making NPCs less underpowered compared to players.

If you have an argument as to why this would be negative for PvE, I might understand

Like I said before, this balancing idea of making specific slot types stifles the diversity of choice that we have now, thus hurting PvE.

Trying to balance all the ships and modules for PvP would be the same mistake as trying to balance everything for mining. Sure Elite Dangerous is about mining too, but it's not mining-centric. Apologies to the dedicated miners.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I do.

a) NPCs don't follow the rules. They have infinite ammo and don't suffer from the same issues (heat) like we do.
b) I personally find AI to be tricky and your change would mean weaker combat ships. Great for PvP-Combat; not so great for PvE-Combat.

PvP and PvE are incompatible - anything you do to 1 affects the other.

Strange. I have no HRPs or SCB's on my vulture and still find combat with AI an absalute breeze. If I decided to add them it would be even easier.

 

[Jypson]

Arena has nothing to with this. This is all about meaningful PvP within the main game, and added spice to PvE ecounters. I like the idea myself and I don't partake in PvP unless forced on and hardly play Arena. It gives you something to think about when fitting your ship instead of the meta of today which is HRP which are far too powerful at the moment.

Arena has very much to do with this! Arena is just that, a combat arena game. It's PvP only and should be balanced for fair, balanced, and competitive PvP gameplay.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Like I said before, this balancing idea of making specific slot types stifles the diversity of choice that we have now, thus hurting PvE.

Trying to balance all the ships and modules for PvP would be the same mistake as trying to balance everything for mining. Sure Elite Dangerous is about mining too, but it's not mining-centric. Apologies to the dedicated miners.

A choice with one clear obvious answer (IE if you're doing combat, all combat internals) is no choice at all! The aim is to increase the number of meaningful choices, not by having a raw maximum number of possible combinations

 

[Cmdr Wullfen]

Your example of my asp not being able to use a size 6 shield (because I want to, that is my choice) creates a resounding

NO.

from me.

Also can this be merged into the other, near identical thread?

 

[CMDR Corlas]

As much as I appreciate your write-up and thought process behind the suggestions, I still feel that this energy would be better directed at Arena. If PvP balancing is important to you, put all of that creative energy into making Arena the PvP haven you crave.

At the end of the day Elite: Dangerous is not a PVP-centric game. Balancing all of the ships for fair PvP combat will hinder the diversity of choice for the rest of the game. Arena on the other hand is only PvP and I'm sure FDev would love inputs like this to make Arena a truly fair and competitive arena combat game.

For the record I have absolutely nothing against PvP or people playing Elite the way they want to play, I'm simply against trying to force Elite into something that it's not.

Now in the future if FDev decides Elite Dangerous is going to become PvP-centric, then I'll zip my lips and you won't hear another peep from me.

I'm not understanding how you think this would effect the PvE side of the game. I mean, you're not hull-tanking your PvE ships, right? All this would so it make it spontaneous PvP, for all players in open, more of a viable thing. It's a quality-of-life improvement for both PvP and PvE.

Basically the only people who are negatively affected are those who feel like they need to have a huge equipment advantage to be viable in a fight.

 

[Jypson]

A choice with one clear obvious answer (IE if you're doing combat, all combat internals) is no choice at all! The aim is to increase the number of meaningful choices, not by having a raw maximum number of possible combinations

I enjoy combat in Elite very much, and I don't stack SCB's and HRP's. All of my builds are pretty well balanced to achieve different goals. I don't want or need more restrictions to "increase the number of meaningful choices".

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Your example of my asp not being able to use a size 6 shield (because I want to, that is my choice) creates a resounding

NO.

from me.

Well I want a class 8 distributor and Huge beam lasers on my Sidewinder, (because I want to, that is my choice) doesn't mean it's good for the game

That was also just an example. I think it would be unwise to restrict the largest slot for people who want a big shield, the real offenders are the myriad class 2-5 slots on many ships that can be stacked with HRPs.

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

I enjoy combat in Elite very much, and I don't stack SCB's and HRP's. All of my builds are pretty well balanced to achieve different goals. I don't want or need more restrictions to "increase the number of meaningful choices".

It sounds like this wouldn't affect you at all then. What then is your issue?

 

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

I disagree. Just make HRPs add a % increase from base armor.

 

[Jypson]

I'm not understanding how you think this would effect the PvE side of the game. I mean, you're not hull-tanking your PvE ships, right? All this would so it make it spontaneous PvP, for all players in open, more of a viable thing. It's a quality-of-life improvement for both PvP and PvE.

Basically the only people who are negatively affected are those who feel like they need to have a huge equipment advantage to be viable in a fight.

> I disagree, for the reasons I've stated already.

Taking away choices is never a good thing.

 

[SushiCW]

I'd rather start with just making the cost of stacking internals higher, so it's still possible but less and less optimal the more extreme you make it. Imagine if a full HRP build cut your top speed by 100 m/s, for example.

There should also probably be better scaling so the cost/benefit of fitting "tankiness" modules isn't massively lopsided for certain sizes of ship.