Add hull upgrades for non-combat related properties

Zoltor

Zoltor
These kinds of additions literally only takes like 20 seconds to code/add to the game, so It's very easy, and it would greatly improve that aspect of the game.

Examples: Different hulls that weigh less
increased resistance to non-weapon based heat sources
Increased non-weapon based physical impacts

You know, stuff like that, It's kind of wasted potential to have hull upgrades only have a effect on weapon fire.
 

InnoV4tion

I
I can see the point of this. But when you exactly need this badly is my question then. First the Devs should make weight of the ship bring impact on ship manuveurbility and vector-thrust power, this would be a nice start to make the lightweight hull at least usefull😂👌
 

Fake Newts

F
Zoltor said:
Examples: Different hulls that weigh less
increased resistance to non-weapon based heat sources
Increased non-weapon based physical impacts
Click to expand...

For the first one, lightweight bulkheads already have no mass, and can be HD modded for no weight gain + free health. Lightweight modifications exist for HRPs, if for some weird reason you thought it'd be useful.* You can't get more lightweight than 0 weight, so I don't really see what you're asking for here.

For the second one, plenty of other modifications can already work to decrease a ship's heat, in theory I can see potential for modules that protect against heat damage - however, heat damage isn't really an issue currently, outside of a combat context, and even within that you have people cooking their ships for 10 minutes straight to benefit from thermal conduit without too many ill effects. There are heat sinks which are explicitly for managing heat.

For the third one, you're talking about rams / crashes I assume, which does a form of absolute damage, so you can protect against that by adding normal HRPs and modding them for heavy duty. Bulkheads and HRPs increase your healthpool, crashes damage your healthpool, what are you imagining would be different?

_

*edit: as an aside, remember how deeply ridiculous lightweight HRP mods are: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/132516877388742656/756495496192852080/unknown.png seeing as you can get less weight and more health out of a smaller HRP with HD. Friendly reminder to beware of the many, many trap mods littered in the engineering system.
 
Last edited:

Northpin

Northpin
Zoltor said:
These kinds of additions literally only takes like 20 seconds to code/add to the game, so It's very easy, and it would greatly improve that aspect of the game.

Examples: Different hulls that weigh less
increased resistance to non-weapon based heat sources
Increased non-weapon based physical impacts

You know, stuff like that, It's kind of wasted potential to have hull upgrades only have a effect on weapon fire.
Click to expand...

Yeap, i can see this working very well:
Each Cargo Rack comes with +15% hull points bonus and +10% all resistances
 

RamirezKurita

R
To be honest, a lot of this could be fixed simply by making lightweight bulkheads actually have mass, so they then benefit from the lightweight modification as well as the heavy-duty mods actually having a drawback on them. Simply take the existing mass progression on the bulkheads, bump it all up a notch and reduce the base mass on the hull to make it so that stock ships are completely unaffected.

For example, an Anaconda currently has a hull mass of 400 tonnes, with the bulkheads clocking in at 0/30/60 tonnes (light, reinforced and military, respectively). Simply change the Anaconda's base hull mass to be 370 tonnes and the bulkheads 30/60/90 tonnes. Dedicated explorers and some traders might be able to pick up a saving of 13.5 tonnes on the overall mass of the ship by going for lightweight modded basic bulkheads, but the heavy-duty options would end up costing them an additional 9 tonnes of mass.

Then again, I feel that massless modules are kind of dumb in their own special kind of way. Not only does it make sense for something to have the same mass as literally nothing, it also means that they can't really interact with most potential gameplay mechanisms which basically locks them out of engineer mods, different grades and powerplay/tech broker versions.

In terms of thermal effects and altering other values, I'd definitely be very much in favour of making them into valid gameplay mechanics by making them more interactive. Not only would it give more options to outfitting, it would also help de-obfuscate some gameplay mechanics as they would then become visible and modifiable statistics.
 

Zoltor

Zoltor
RamirezKurita said:
To be honest, a lot of this could be fixed simply by making lightweight bulkheads actually have mass, so they then benefit from the lightweight modification as well as the heavy-duty mods actually having a drawback on them. Simply take the existing mass progression on the bulkheads, bump it all up a notch and reduce the base mass on the hull to make it so that stock ships are completely unaffected.

For example, an Anaconda currently has a hull mass of 400 tonnes, with the bulkheads clocking in at 0/30/60 tonnes (light, reinforced and military, respectively). Simply change the Anaconda's base hull mass to be 370 tonnes and the bulkheads 30/60/90 tonnes. Dedicated explorers and some traders might be able to pick up a saving of 13.5 tonnes on the overall mass of the ship by going for lightweight modded basic bulkheads, but the heavy-duty options would end up costing them an additional 9 tonnes of mass.

Then again, I feel that massless modules are kind of dumb in their own special kind of way. Not only does it make sense for something to have the same mass as literally nothing, it also means that they can't really interact with most potential gameplay mechanisms which basically locks them out of engineer mods, different grades and powerplay/tech broker versions.

In terms of thermal effects and altering other values, I'd definitely be very much in favour of making them into valid gameplay mechanics by making them more interactive. Not only would it give more options to outfitting, it would also help de-obfuscate some gameplay mechanics as they would then become visible and modifiable statistics.
Click to expand...


Yea, that sounds like it would work great.
 

Fake Newts

F
RamirezKurita said:
For example, an Anaconda currently has a hull mass of 400 tonnes, with the bulkheads clocking in at 0/30/60 tonnes (light, reinforced and military, respectively). Simply change the Anaconda's base hull mass to be 370 tonnes and the bulkheads 30/60/90 tonnes. Dedicated explorers and some traders might be able to pick up a saving of 13.5 tonnes on the overall mass of the ship by going for lightweight modded basic bulkheads, but the heavy-duty options would end up costing them an additional 9 tonnes of mass.
Click to expand...

Ok so the thing is, what you're describing here is simply making the Anaconda lighter. It doesn't need to be lighter, it's already incredibly light for its size, hence the amazing jump range. You also seem to be searching for choices that already exist - let's break this down:

When you buy an Anaconda it is, by default, equipped with the lightest bulkheads. You're then presented with a choice; leave it light for an exploration build or buy heavier bulkheads for more health. This is a choice that exists in game currently.

In your proposal essentially a stock Anaconda would be sold with mid-range bulkheads (reinforced alloys - the ones nobody is ever interested in, for example). Explorers will then choose to remove them in favour of the lightest ones, while combat players will choose to upgrade in favour of the strongest ones. The choice and results remain identical, with added pointlessness.
 

RamirezKurita

R
Fake Newts said:
Ok so the thing is, what you're describing here is simply making the Anaconda lighter. It doesn't need to be lighter, it's already incredibly light for its size, hence the amazing jump range. You also seem to be searching for choices that already exist - let's break this down:

When you buy an Anaconda it is, by default, equipped with the lightest bulkheads. You're then presented with a choice; leave it light for an exploration build or buy heavier bulkheads for more health. This is a choice that exists in game currently.

In your proposal essentially a stock Anaconda would be sold with mid-range bulkheads (reinforced alloys - the ones nobody is ever interested in, for example). Explorers will then choose to remove them in favour of the lightest ones, while combat players will choose to upgrade in favour of the strongest ones. The choice and results remain identical, with added pointlessness.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand my point. It would be a simple shifting of existing hull mass into the bulkheads - without engineering it would literally make zero difference as the ship loses mass in one place but gains equal amounts in another. Also, the Anaconda was just an example, the same change would be applied to all ships; the Federal Brickships, for example, would see 44 tonnes of their hull mass being shifted into their bulkheads, while the Viper would see 5 tonnes of hull being reallocated into the bulkheads.

The point of such a change would be to give choice with regards to engineering. Currently, there's basically only a single mod worth considering for the stock bulkheads - heavy duty. Because they are massless at the moment, they derive less benefit from the lightweight engineering mods (a 55% reduction of zero is a reduction of precisely zero mass) , but they instead gain massive benefits on the heavy duty mod as its only drawback they completely ignore (a 30% increase on zero is still an increase of zero). This is not good for choice, as there is a mod that clearly outshines the others. Everyone who is using default bulkheads, whether they are specced as shield tanks, agile fighters, explorers or even hull tanks (although hull tanks may invest in reactive composites), all of them get to enjoy the maximum defensive boost without a drawback. You want to be as light as possible? Engineering mods make no difference to mass with default bulkheads so might as well go heavy duty. Want maximum durability? Obviously, go heavy-duty and enjoy the zero drawback while you are at it.

Shifting some hull mass into the bulkheads would add choice to players, as suddenly the mass variable will be something to consider. Traders, explorers, high-agility fighters and shield tanks could shave a few tonnes of mass by opting for lightweight mods, but it would involve sacrificing the extra defensive boost of heavy-duty bulkheads. Combat ships could opt for heavy-duty mods, but they would suffer from additional mass when doing so. Crucially, those using default bulkheads would no longer have the option for the best of both as both sides would have their drawbacks.
 

Fake Newts

F
RamirezKurita said:
I think you misunderstand my point. It would be a simple shifting of existing hull mass into the bulkheads - without engineering it would literally make zero difference as the ship loses mass in one place but gains equal amounts in another. Also, the Anaconda was just an example, the same change would be applied to all ships; the Federal Brickships, for example, would see 44 tonnes of their hull mass being shifted into their bulkheads, while the Viper would see 5 tonnes of hull being reallocated into the bulkheads.

The point of such a change would be to give choice with regards to engineering. Currently, there's basically only a single mod worth considering for the stock bulkheads - heavy duty. Because they are massless at the moment, they derive less benefit from the lightweight engineering mods (a 55% reduction of zero is a reduction of precisely zero mass) , but they instead gain massive benefits on the heavy duty mod as its only drawback they completely ignore (a 30% increase on zero is still an increase of zero). This is not good for choice, as there is a mod that clearly outshines the others. Everyone who is using default bulkheads, whether they are specced as shield tanks, agile fighters, explorers or even hull tanks (although hull tanks may invest in reactive composites), all of them get to enjoy the maximum defensive boost without a drawback. You want to be as light as possible? Engineering mods make no difference to mass with default bulkheads so might as well go heavy duty. Want maximum durability? Obviously, go heavy-duty and enjoy the zero drawback while you are at it.

Shifting some hull mass into the bulkheads would add choice to players, as suddenly the mass variable will be something to consider. Traders, explorers, high-agility fighters and shield tanks could shave a few tonnes of mass by opting for lightweight mods, but it would involve sacrificing the extra defensive boost of heavy-duty bulkheads. Combat ships could opt for heavy-duty mods, but they would suffer from additional mass when doing so. Crucially, those using default bulkheads would no longer have the option for the best of both as both sides would have their drawbacks.
Click to expand...

OK, so you're arguing that it'd make more mods worthwhile for one module in a system where, frankly, 80% of all modifications for all modules are objectively bad choices. The problem goes a lot deeper than one good mod for lightweight bulkheads, but I do see that I misconstrued what you were writing.

I guess I agree it's silly that you can mod something that has zero mass using mods that change mass, in principle. In practice I don't think the choice is a particularly interesting one, especially in the current context where pve transport ships are already hilariously weak while minmaxed combat ships are depressingly tanky, so allowing for an even wider spectrum of healthpools seems like a bad idea from a balancing point of view. Perhaps lightweight bulkheads shouldn't be modifiable at all, to a) avoid poor newbies wasting materials on G5 lightweight for them, as I know many do, and b) draw attention to the fact that if you want to survive in your ship you might be expected to make some sacrifices rather than getting free health from a loophole, but the problem runs so deep no single fix will help at this point.

Lightweight modifications are sometimes used on military or reactive hull for faster ships like FDLs and Mambas, so it does have a (niche) application, which is more than you can say for many mods.
 

Fake Newts

F
MightKite said:
yeah it does, but is it significant? i guess not ^^
Click to expand...

Depends on the ship. A lightweight, biweave FDL can be in the 570s while a heavy prismo version can be as low as the 530s with a significantly more sluggish movement profile. Not going to try and pretend there's really that many interesting choices in elite's modding or outfitting system, it's not a great system, but... yes, weight can be very significant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom