Notice Canopy Integrity

DeletedUser191218

D
Grisnir said:
after losing my canopy, the modul tab showed always 0% not 50%
Click to expand...

Hence why I assume it was a recent addition. Typically, FDev have released a totally unclear, garbled message causing nothing but confusion and have proven incapable of offering clarity. It's genuinely embarrassing now. I don't get tge impression Will understands the situation either.
 

Grisnir

G
Rambojambo said:
Hence why I assume it was a recent addition. Typically, FDev have released a totally unclear, garbled message causing nothing but confusion and have proven incapable of offering clarity. It's genuinely embarrassing now. I don't get tge impression Will understands the situation either.
Click to expand...

i found an old video that shows the 0%
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Morbad

Morbad
Grisnir said:
after losing my canopy, the modul tab showed always 0% not 50%
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean it broke at 0% or wouldn't have broken at 50%.

The evidence needed to convincingly contradict Frontier's statements would be video or screens of a canopy that is both still intact and below 50% integrity.
 

Grisnir

G
Morbad said:
That doesn't mean it broke at 0% or wouldn't have broken at 50%.

The evidence needed to convincingly contradict Frontier's statements would be video or screens of a canopy that is both still intact and below 50% integrity.
Click to expand...

true, I'm still looking for video/screenshot that's show the canopy below 50%

edit: and i found one!

Source: https://youtu.be/KdYB3la4374?t=725
Timestamp: 12:05
 
Last edited:

sgurr

S
I have no proof but I think FD are wrong about how the canopy worked before.
I fought thargoid interceptors a lot when they first arrived and again after gauss cannon were first introduced and canopy breaches meant an instant withdrawal from the fight for me. I'm certain that I repaired canopies from less than 50% many times, and that there was at least one (possibly 2) pre failure crack that could appear.
Speculation alert: I wonder if the cracks would first appear at 50% rather than it being a total failure at that point, and possibly once the cracks appeared it could rng fail.

I haven't contributed before now because no one had proof disputing FD's version of how it used to work. I don't feel like I'm imagining things now that I've seen Grisnir's vid, nice one for finding it.
 
Last edited:

Audaxxx

Audaxxx
Morbad said:
That test simply shows that a canopy is treated as an internal for breach chances. A weapon that doesn't breach does all it's damage to the hull. Against a ship with full hull the breach chance of a rail is 40%. If that breach is successful you see that ( ) 'internal damage' status icon and the module being hit takes ~95% of the rails damage (they have extremely high portion of breach damage, which sometimes confuses people because a hit to a module often means it does virtually no apparent hull damage).

Any successful hit to a 15 integrity canopy that has no MRP mitigating damage with a C2 railgun will pop it because a C2 railgun does more than 40 damage a shot and even if you've got ~60% thermic and kinetic resists, that still enough to destroy it outright.
Click to expand...

So your saying one rail gun shot can be enough to break the canopy and that's how fdev intended it? I know that's without MRP but still seems a touch too weak to me. It would be nice if it could at least survive say, 4 shots from a C2 rail and then with MRP it becomes stronger from there. I think it needs more than just returning the integrity to 30. It could do with double that or some engineering recipes or something just to bring it in line with other ships modules.
 

Morbad

Morbad
Sgurr said:
I'm certain that I repaired canopies from less than 50% many times, and that there was at least one (possibly 2) pre failure crack that could appear.
I wonder if the cracks would first appear at 50% rather than it being a total failure at that point, and possibly once the cracks appeared it could rng fail.
Click to expand...

Cracks definitely appeared before 50% before and there could be at least two stages of cracking before failure.

I also think I saw canopy integrity below 50% before, but prior to seeing proof of it, I was willing to put that down to the vagaries of memory. Now it seems like there is good cause for further investigation.

Audaxxx said:
So your saying one rail gun shot can be enough to break the canopy and that's how fdev intended it?
Click to expand...

Yes. Had it happen plenty of times, long before the current change. With more standard hull resistances, a medium rail gun is perfectly capable of doing more than 30 damage to a module in one shot.
 
Last edited:

Audaxxx

Audaxxx
Morbad said:
Yes. Had it happen plenty of times, long before the current change. With more standard hull resistances, a medium rail gun is perfectly capable of doing more than 30 damage to a module in one shot.
Click to expand...

I mean I've had the canopy breach at the beginning of a fight whilst I've still had 90% hull plenty of times and that explains why. I'm a bit befuddled that fdev designed it that way or maybe there wasn't much design involved at all and it just ended up like that.
 

Northpin

Northpin
Morbad said:
Cracks definitely appeared before 50% before and there could be at least two stages of cracking before failure.
Click to expand...

On my cutter with 2 mrp there were at least 3-4 stages of increasingly cracked canopy before breach, but I was running afmu and repair limpets in cz and didn't really payed much attention. Still, I think it was the cutter when I witnessed the 7% canopy
In my Anaconda, with no mrp, while bounty hunting for Explorer's Anchorage CG I remember taking 2 canopy hits before deciding to make my escape for repairs. IIRC, that time the canopy was somewhere 30-ish %
Also, I never had the canopy breached in one hit, always there were several stages of cracks.

PVE only, of course.
 

GonzTheMalificent

GonzTheMalificent
This explains why my Clipper, whose achilles heel has always been the canopy blowing out, now seems to keep it for longer or even lets me get back to the Station with crazy paving all over. Thanks FDev!!
 

Bloodsign

Bloodsign
ebbrell said:
I think they described the problem wrong, using percentages to describe issue hasn't helped.
If it broke once it went down by 15 points to 15, and never went any lower........ then.... changing to 15 to get to 0 makes sense.

But explaining it in percentage terms makes the math not work.

Are we experiencing quick canopy breakage since change?
Click to expand...
Interesting point, not to mention that percentage changes as mentioned don't really tell us much, example maybe it was like:

Before: 1000 Canopy hit points, canopy breaks at 50%, effectively 500 canopy hit points.

After: 250 Canopy hit points, canopy breaks at 0%, effectively 250 canopy hit points, overall canopies nerfed by 50% from prior.

Notice the percentages are all fixed now, but we still end up with weaker canopies.

Straight up yes or no question, FDev: Do canopies now have fewer effective hit points than they used to?
 

Iskariot

Iskariot
Will Flanagan said:
Hello everyone,

We just wanted to bring awareness to a post that was made on this thread here regarding the integrity of the canopy following the launch of the April Update.

Prior to the April Update, the canopy used to break when it was at 50% integrity, however, we have fixed this so it correctly breaks at 0% integrity bringing it in line with all the other modules. Therefore, to maintain the canopy’s current functionality, we halved its integrity. This means that the canopy should be reacting in the same way as before the April Update.

We’ve tested internally and found this to be the case, however, if there are any instances where you are seeing an issue, please let us know.
Click to expand...

So in the end it was much to do about nothing on these forums. :)
 

foxoplasma

foxoplasma
Hi, thank you for the clarification, it seems like the confusing systems behind this though leaves people not very convinced...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom