Is pure armour tanking dead?

[Snarfbuckle]

Sure, but the 4pips in engine provide way less effective hp's than 4 pips in shields... also, without shields, external hardpoints are rather
easy to disable with a missile barrage. Then there is the fact that HRP's weight a lot and only come up to C5 (while SCB's can use the C6/7/8 internal slots much more effectively).

From my POV, the deck is stacked against hull tanking.

yea, it is. I honestly think it was a mistake to allow for SCB's at all in the game.

Instead it should have been more about balanced fitting.

I would instead have liked modifications where we can increase recharge rate at the cost of maximum shield.

- remove scb's
- choice between SB or SR (shield rechargers) as utility to avoid stacking.

 

[Aashenfox]

Use an SCB when fighting against me and see what happens. You'll only do it once. :lol:

The problem you are trying to solve is diminishing returns. The diminishing returns on stacking SCBs and boosters was already out of whack (and the same for HRP stacking), then engineering came along and compounded it by a factor of 10.

 

[GunnerBill]

hull tanking works, question would be for what?

if you want to earn money, an expensive ship as hull tank reduces your income due to the repair bill.

but for other purposes (fun, material gain, etc.) hull tanking works. you can definitely survive some encounters with it.

As above.

I last tried this in 2.3 with a FAS and as well as the huge repair bills I found that weapons could start glitching very soon after only minor hull damage. Fair enough of course but it still spoils the fun and makes the pure hull tank non-viable as inevitably to counter this you plonk in a bi-weave shield.

All in PvE.

 

[StiTch]

As above.

I last tried this in 2.3 with a FAS and as well as the huge repair bills I found that weapons could start glitching very soon after only minor hull damage.

Assuming you mean they started malfunctioning, you just need to manage module damage. On a pure hull tank a PD or two is recommended, at least one MRP, and either at least a second MRP or an AFMU.

PvP it's a real problem...PvE, not so much so. NPCs cannot target subsystems, so all module damage is just coincidental, based on how you position your ship to them.

 

[wenkman]

After watching The Expanse I would prefer if there were no shields in the game at all. Just armor, evasive manouvering, emp and point defense. But, goes against lore.

after the expanse i started playing ED again. even tho the lore does not match.

but, darn, i would like space legs and a martian power armor.

 

[Aashenfox]

Assuming you mean they started malfunctioning, you just need to manage module damage. On a pure hull tank a PD or two is recommended, at least one MRP, and either at least a second MRP or an AFMU.

PvP it's a real problem...PvE, not so much so. NPCs cannot target subsystems, so all module damage is just coincidental, based on how you position your ship to them.

QFT

 

[Muetdhiver]

yea, it is. I honestly think it was a mistake to allow for SCB's at all in the game.

Instead it should have been more about balanced fitting.

I would instead have liked modifications where we can increase recharge rate at the cost of maximum shield.

- remove scb's
- choice between SB or SR (shield rechargers) as utility to avoid stacking.

I think the game would be much better off if it had the Independance War 2 shield system :

Shields are only able to cover a small arc and track attackers (one attacker tracked per shield).
Too much attackers and you start eating hull damage. Also, those shields where rather weak but
very fast charging, so sitting and shield tanking was not an option, you had to evade a bit to have
them recharge.

Bigger ships had a larger number of shields (and ability to stack two of them in front of a target IIRC), instead of strictly better shields,
so a bit of tanking was possible, but not for very long.

And then you had cool stuff like ramming shields that where immensely powerfull, but only sustainable
for a few seconds, i.e. manualy trigger it just before impact.

It worked really well, and in ED it would have potentially provided extra gameplay for multicrew.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

I think the game would be much better off if it had the Independance War 2 shield system :

Shields are only able to cover a small arc and track attackers (one attacker tracked per shield).
Too much attackers and you start eating hull damage. Also, those shields where rather weak but
very fast charging, so sitting and shield tanking was not an option, you had to evade a bit to have
them recharge.

Bigger ships had a larger number of shields (and ability to stack two of them in front of a target IIRC), instead of strictly better shields,
so a bit of tanking was possible, but not for very long.

And then you had cool stuff like ramming shields that where immensely powerfull, but only sustainable
for a few seconds, i.e. manualy trigger it just before impact.

It worked really well, and in ED it would have potentially provided extra gameplay for multicrew.

Would be a bit like Star Wars shield system with 2 facings front/back and you could either go 100% front, 50/50 or 100% rear.

I would prefer that.

 

[Aashenfox]

Best shield management is in star trek online. PvP in that game used to be great, don't know what it's like these days of course, these games get rebalanced every year.

 

[wenkman]

well, i'm not satisfied with the ED shield system, but i can't think of a better way... not too easy, not too complex (pip-management, heat, distributor, SCB, build-up time when down, recharge rates...)

instead i would like a more complex hull-mechanic: npc-crew, but not chilling in the cockpit. i want to be forced to hire 12 nameless grease monkeys for an anaconda who runs around the ship and are required to run the ship. in case of hull or module damage i don't need an AFM but must have "repair-commodies" on stock and they fix stuff for me.
even in combat. grease-crew can degrade in combat (die) which reduces efficiency.

size of crew would depend on ship size. not needed for the small ships.

heck, if i go exploring in my conda i don't want to feel alone.[cry]

 

[Nalessa]

I don't PvP, but I have a bi weave shielded FAS with a bunch of armor reinforcements and whatnots, and I seem to do pretty decent in PvE fights, but I do tend to go for ships that are about the same size as mine,

Took some getting used to though, normally hearing "Shields offline" gets me really nervous, but the FAS is really damn tanky for its size without a shield

 

[ROSS-128]

I'd say the main problem with hull tanking in PvE is that silent running doesn't seem to do anything to an NPC that is already aggro'd on you. This isn't surprising of course, stealth vs NPCs tends to be an all or nothing affair because the nuances of it are really hard to code. And partial stealth like silent running (you're still visible to the old eyeball after all) tends to lean towards "nothing".

I think it probably does still stop their gimbals/turrets from tracking you, but of course the NPCs are notoriously accurate with fixed weapons.

So it still means a hull tank ship in PvE is giving up a major part of its toolbox, since you can't use silent running to make yourself hard to track/hit. The NPCs just won't care.

As far as expense goes, an AFMU is key. You can repair a FAS hull from nearly dead for under 30k. It's thruster damage that will break the bank. Always repair the thrusters with the AFMU when returning to dock, it's way cheaper than station repairs. Then repair everything else until the AFMU runs out of ammo, starting with the most expensive.

 

[Aashenfox]

I'd say the main problem with hull tanking in PvE is that silent running doesn't seem to do anything to an NPC that is already aggro'd on you. This isn't surprising of course, stealth vs NPCs tends to be an all or nothing affair because the nuances of it are really hard to code. And partial stealth like silent running (you're still visible to the old eyeball after all) tends to lean towards "nothing".

I think it probably does still stop their gimbals/turrets from tracking you, but of course the NPCs are notoriously accurate with fixed weapons.

So it still means a hull tank ship in PvE is giving up a major part of its toolbox, since you can't use silent running to make yourself hard to track/hit. The NPCs just won't care.

As far as expense goes, an AFMU is key. You can repair a FAS hull from nearly dead for under 30k. It's thruster damage that will break the bank. Always repair the thrusters with the AFMU when returning to dock, it's way cheaper than station repairs. Then repair everything else until the AFMU runs out of ammo, starting with the most expensive.

Or just replace the AFMU with a MRP? I'm just being facetious, but really I would never put an AFMU on a combat ship.

 

[ROSS-128]

Or just replace the AFMU with a MRP? I'm just being facetious, but really I would never put an AFMU on a combat ship.

Your build should include MRPs if you want to have any resemblance of longevity of course, but an MRP doesn't slash your repair bill the way an AFMU does. Especially since you're likely to have some level of module damage where you look at it and say "time to leave", an MRP just means you take longer to get there.

So basically you want both. An MRP keeps you kicking during a fight, an AFMU helps you patch up when you're done without breaking the bank. 5kCr of AFMU ammo can save you over 1MCr of module repairs.

 

[Cmdr Tel]

It's certainly viable in fact it's a joy, no pip management. I find the biweaves go down too fast and when fighting wings just don't come back so I run pure hull tank with twin MRPs and an AFMU in the three slot and replace it with a fuel scoop when traveling.
I can stay in the fight a long time especially with mats for synthesis. If I could resist ramming Anacondas I could probably stay longer but I just simply can't resist.
I also run A rated life support with mats for synthesis since the canopy pops pretty easy and now I simply don't worry about it anymore.
It's great ship and a joy to fly/dogfight in.

 

[Arguendo]

If you want balanced resistances in the FAS, you need reactive with a thermal mod and a lucky explosive bonus roll. Then you want to keep rolling the HD HRPs until you have resistances (don't worry too much about absolute armor values, it's the resistances that count).

Why do you use your Armour for the thermal resistance? The way I understand it, resistances are resistances, whereever they come from. So using a #2 HRP with Thermal, should give you just as good resistances as Armour with Thermal. You do however lose a lot of HP when doing it on the Armour, as that would be better off being Heavy Duty.

Or am I missing something here?

 

[BigBANGtheory [VR]]

hull tanking works, question would be for what?

Thargoids [alien]