Alternative Hull Reinforcement implementation

[Cliffson]

There's been a lot of discussions recently around HRP, particularly the stacking of them and the high hull values some ships can achieve.

A couple of ideas stuck out at me inparticular:

1)Hull reinforcements should provide a % bonus to armour rather than a flat boost on every ship, so that the armour stat has some meaning.
2)Max stacking should be less effective so that alternative builds are not at such a huge disadvantage to stack as many as possible builds.
3)Bulkheads seem overpriced compared to HRP.
4)Ships with more small slots were better off than ships with fewer bigger slots (due to scaling of 1-5 HRP and the fact 6-8 didn't exist)

Based on these I had a think and came up with the following idea:

1)Hull reinforcements provide a % boost to armour based on a logarithmic function, thus giving diminishing returns with stacking.

2)The function is based on the ratio of (total weight of hull reinforcement packages)/(Maximum Cargohold space). Conceptually I like this as it makes it so that the bigger the ship is, the more hull reinforcement is needed to achieve the same overall benefit.

So the function is ln( A * HRP/CARGO)/B Where A and B are constants chosen to establish the rate of diminishing returns and overall scaling.

3) Bulkheads apply as a multiplier to the armour value AFTER the HRP adjustment. So bulkheads are more important than they are currently.

4) As it goes on Weight, Category E provide more benefit than D, so the maximum of the funcion HRP/CARGO is 2, but this would lead to a very heavy ship. IT also makes category E vs D more of a choice, as currently there is no reason to not go D unless you are very poor or have a bad outfitting screen. (swap letters and adjust cost appropriately)

5) This idea ideally needs the introduction of class 6-8 HRP also.

Here are some examples with different A,B values (please note these are just arbitrarily chosen and not necessarily what I'd suggest, and all numbers include military bulkheads multiplier):

Low spread (High A)

Spoiler

					Idea			Current
	Armour	Mil Bulk	Cargo		25% HRP	50%HRP	100% HRP		200% HRP		50% HRP	Full HRP
Eagle	72	140.4	16		238	270	303		335		400	810
iCourier	144	280.8	30		475	540	605		960		960	1480
Viper3	126	245.7	22		416	473	530		586		695	1065
Viper4	270	526.5	50		891	1013	1135		1256		1235	1935
Cobra3	216	421.2	60		713	810	908		1005		1320	1980
AspS	324	631.8	52		1070	1216	1362		1508		1410	2000
AspE	378	737.1	128		1248	1418	1589		1759		2285	2675
Vulture	288	561.6	56		951	1081	1210		1340		1300	1690
FDS	540	1053	164		1783	2026	2269		2513		2480	3260
FGS	630	1228.5	168		2080	2364	2648		2932		2385	2775
FAS	540	1053	96		1783	2026	2269		2513		2020	2800
FDL	405	789.75	70		1337	1520	1702		1885		1748	2138
iClipper	486	947.7	248		1605	1824	2043		2261		2115	3285
Python	468	912.6	292		1545	1756	1967		2178		2730	3900
Anaconda	945	1842.75	468		3120	3546	3972		4397		4188	5748
iCutter	720	1404	792		2377	2702	3026		3146		3160	4720
F.Corvette	666	1298.7	616		2199	2499	2799		3019		3385	4945

Wider Spread (Low A)

Spoiler

Idea Current Armour Mil Bulk Cargo 25% HRP 50%HRP 100% HRP 200% HRP 50% HRP Full HRP Eagle 72 140.4 16 190 240 290 340 400 810 iCourier 144 280.8 30 380 480 580 960 960 1480 Viper3 126 245.7 22 333 420 507 594 695 1065 Viper4 270 526.5 50 713 900 1087 1274 1235 1935 Cobra3 216 421.2 60 571 720 869 1019 1320 1980 AspS 324 631.8 52 856 1080 1304 1528 1410 2000 AspE 378 737.1 128 999 1260 1522 1783 2285 2675 Vulture 288 561.6 56 761 960 1159 1358 1300 1690 FDS 540 1053 164 1427 1800 2174 2547 2480 3260 FGS 630 1228.5 168 1664 2100 2536 2972 2385 2775 FAS 540 1053 96 1427 1800 2174 2547 2020 2800 FDL 405 789.75 70 1070 1350 1630 1910 1748 2138 iClipper 486 947.7 248 1284 1620 1956 2292 2115 3285 Python 468 912.6 292 1236 1560 1884 2208 2730 3900 Anaconda 945 1842.75 468 2496 3150 3804 4457 4188 5748 iCutter 720 1404 792 1902 2400 2898 3083 3160 4720 F.Corvette 666 1298.7 616 1759 2220 2681 3019 3385 4945

Altering B in the above would increase/decrease the multiplier

As to whether it is better or not I'm not sure I certainly think it addresses the four issues given in the introduction which is a plus in my book though it is more difficult to explain conceptually and in the outfitting screen, it also impacts certain ships more than others and there'd probably need to be a tweak of some armour values (Annaconda I'm looking at you).

I'm not sure what the 'wider issues' with the HRP meta are and if this address any but I'm sure people will enlighten me.

 

[geoffrey.hdt]

1) I agree.


2) Not sure. Bigger ships with a lot of internal should get an advantage dedicating them to HRPs. Now, as already suggested, there could be a limitation, specific to each ship, regarding what slots may or not equip an HRP.


3) Yes. Especially mirrored or reactive which are already not very attractive.


4) Yes, I still don't get why class 6/7/8 HRPs do not exist, and whythe current HP values are so much favorizing the smaller classes.




1) Not a bad idea actually.


2) Wow...this starts to get complicated. If in the end smaller ships are more tanky than bigger ships, then no. And if I have misundertsood you (end of the day at work, am tired) then disregard


3) Yes! Oh yes!


4) I would prefer to see:
- rank E provides less hull points, more weight but cost less
- rank D provides more hull points, less weight but cost more
- rank C provides even more hull points, more weight but cost even more
(with a nerf of the current rank E and D for instance)

Currently, using rank E makes little sense, except if you want to maximize your weight for some ramming reasons...


5) Sorry, TLDR...I really need to go home

 

[Cliffson]

2) Wow...this starts to get complicated. If in the end smaller ships are more tanky than bigger ships, then no. And if I have misundertsood you (end of the day at work, am tired) then disregard

Basically The variables can be set to give a desired % bonus to hull at a certain ratio with a level of spread. for instance:

60% bonus at 50% cargo given to HRP
80% bonus at 100%
100% bonus at 200%

So under this system small ships are less tanky, high armour combat ships (F*S, iClipper, fdl) are about the same/better and big ships end up less tanky (except Condas due to 945 base armour).

As I said there'd probably need to be some tuning of base armour values on top.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I'm not sure about the specifics here (it's been too long a day at work to parse that math, but seriously, well done either way), but anything that discourages single-item stacking is a good thing in my book.

Tweaks to sheild cells do a good job at discouraging their stacking, and were well done. More aggressive NPC AI already does (and will more, I hope) discourage pure cargo rack stacking, now it's HRP's turn.

HRP's were very underpowered, and received a much needed-buff which I appreciate. But for anything game-wise, along with the carrot to encourage use there needs to be a sufficiently weighty stick to discourage over-use.

 

[Julio Montega]

Can't we just have the HeRPes removed from the game along with the SCBs to get a dynamic game again?
Combat just is tedious with them on.

 

[Cliffson]

Can't we just have the HeRPes removed from the game along with the SCBs to get a dynamic game again?
Combat just is tedious with them on.

Well I am not sure why they added them to be honest when we already have bulkheads. I do think time to kill would be a bit low with just base health shields however but a bit of a buff across the board could have solved that.

I forgot to put SCBs on my ship last night and had a moment of panic getting shot up by a (npc) wing before my wing jumped in, which was certainly exciting. It would certainly make it harder to solo all content and encourage wings which would be good.

 

[Tall_Toot]

If you are talking about any rehash of hull reinforcement and bulkheads, the whole system is flawed from an engineering/ physical standpoint.

How can an 8T HRP mounted inside an internal compartment (for 70k CR) provide twice the structural intergity improvement as fitting a set of 7.5M CR, 30T Reinforced Alloy Bulkheads to my Clipper?

Just nonsense I'm afraid.

 

[Cliffson]

If you are talking about any rehash of hull reinforcement and bulkheads, the whole system is flawed from an engineering/ physical standpoint.

How can an 8T HRP mounted inside an internal compartment (for 70k CR) provide twice the structural intergity improvement as fitting a set of 7.5M CR, 30T Reinforced Alloy Bulkheads to my Clipper?

Just nonsense I'm afraid.

Yes, yes I am, did you not read the post?

I'm suggesting making it so that HRP have a multiplier effect on armour based on the proportion of total internal space given over to them. which makes more sense.

So a 2t package on an eagle has a decent impact but does nothing on a massive cutter which will need ~100t to get the same % boost.

 

[Muetdhiver]

I quite like the idea of the HRP's boosting armor %Wise instead of a flat bonus,
as I really find silly the amount of armor you can put on say a cobra Mk4.

Some ideas to give more HRP options :

• E should be cheap, not very good and standard weight
• D should be expensive, good and low weight
• C could be expensive, very good and standard weight.
• HRP's could give a bonus to internal modules HP's
• It could be interesting to have a single fittable PowerPlant Armor package, increasing PP HP a lot.
• It could be interesting to have a single fittable Drive Armor package, increasing Thrusters HP a lot.

 

[Tall_Toot]

Yes, yes I am, did you not read the post?

I'm suggesting making it so that HRP have a multiplier effect on armour based on the proportion of total internal space given over to them. which makes more sense.

So a 2t package on an eagle has a decent impact but does nothing on a massive cutter which will need ~100t to get the same % boost.

Don't think I was clear; How can bracing out an internal compartment inside of the hull prevent holes being blown in the outer hull more effectively than reinforcing the hull and structure itself. My analogy would be fitting a roll cage inside a car or a steel box in the boot wouldn't mitigate having holes shot in it, but armour plating the body would. It might make the ship more stable during manouvering/ emergency dropouts i.e. high stress situations, or minimise the damage to the compartment itself, perhaps stop rounds passing straight through the structure if it's in the way, but that's it.

 

[digitalscream]

Tweaks to sheild cells do a good job at discouraging their stacking, and were well done.

The problem is that the tweaks did their job on the big ships, but on smaller ships they're basically useless now. That's not necessarily an issue for the really small ships, but when you're talking about the Viper, Vulture and Courier...it's pretty terrible. These are ships which can easily manage 450-600MJ shields, but the best shield cell you can fit in them barely even refills one ring with a single cell now, while damaging all your internal components. It essentially took those ships from having a decent chance of surviving a fight with a CMDR FDL to having almost no chance.

The one saving grace was that HRPs redressed that balance a bit; if Frontier do a nerfing-pass on those too, those ships become cannon fodder.

Their approach to these things seems really weird. On the one hand, they keep focusing on adding small ships (EDIT: and insisting that they're incredibly useful). On the other, they making changes like the SCB nerf which make it almost impossible to survive in them.

 

[goemon]

i like it. looks amazingly complicated, and is therefore fitting into FDevs way of treating ships stats ;-)

no, really, going through the exampels, it adresses the problem in the right way (for exampel: i don't fit bulkheads on my pve-DBS anymore, because i gain more "HP" with hull-reenforcement for less weight.)

 

[Cliffson]

Don't think I was clear; How can bracing out an internal compartment inside of the hull prevent holes being blown in the outer hull more effectively than reinforcing the hull and structure itself. My analogy would be fitting a roll cage inside a car or a steel box in the boot wouldn't mitigate having holes shot in it, but armour plating the body would. It might make the ship more stable during manouvering/ emergency dropouts i.e. high stress situations, or minimise the damage to the compartment itself, perhaps stop rounds passing straight through the structure if it's in the way, but that's it.

Ah i see your point. Sorry.

If i had to cone up with an explanation i guess its a matter of what hull represents. I always thought of it as structual integrity, si the loint at which the ship ends up falling apart from the forces put on it from accelerating, pressure differentials etc. So reinforcing inside helps it stay together.

So without hrp the external hull holds the ship together and if compromisrd it falls apart, but with hrp the ship retains stability even with holes in the hull.?

Its really a problem of the game having to simplfy it to a numver rather than a full damage model

 

[CYB34]

Can't we just have the HeRPes removed from the game along with the SCBs to get a dynamic game again?
Combat just is tedious with them on.

It will be much more dynamic when a torpedo volley is sent at your Lightweight, unarmored ship, while you're trying to make some credits.
So dynamic your screen instantly changes.

 

[Julio Montega]

It will be much more dynamic when a torpedo volley is sent at your Lightweight, unarmored ship, while you're trying to make some credits.
So dynamic your screen instantly changes.

... so dynamic i already adapted and got countermeasures...

 

[Derath]

I do think Julio has a point, which is being able to use internal modules for combat purposes overrides many aspects of the game. The game play and balance in pvp at least would be completely difference if SCB's / HRPS never existed, the system would probably be easier to balance too. As good an idea as they are being able to use all your internals to stack something will cause issues.

Imagine if you could put an internal in that made additional wep capacity for example, and suddenly you can run 5x beams constantly on every ship, that would have a massive impact on ship balance too and is much the same problem.

But they should add depth, so I'd rather have them and them be balanced properly than just not have them at all they just have to do it properly.

 

[Julio Montega]

I do think Julio has a point, which is being able to use internal modules for combat purposes overrides many aspects of the game. The game play and balance in pvp at least would be completely difference if SCB's / HRPS never existed, the system would probably be easier to balance too. As good an idea as they are being able to use all your internals to stack something will cause issues.

Imagine if you could put an internal in that made additional wep capacity for example, and suddenly you can run 5x beams constantly on every ship, that would have a massive impact on ship balance too and is much the same problem.

But they should add depth, so I'd rather have them and them be balanced properly than just not have them at all they just have to do it properly.

What i really don't like about the introduction of HeRPes and SCBs is the trend of major MMOification,
the next step is to force into roles of tank,dd,healer when choosing ships.
I just don't want that to happen.

While i can understand the logic behind reinforcing your structural integrity,
i'd rather stick to basic choices of lightweight/reinforce/military and specialized bulkheads.
Why? Simple, the addition of the ability to immensely stack hitpoints does make combat elongated and tedious,
if i want that i can go to other games.
My loadout changed drastically when SCBs first where introduced,
since speed and maneuverability was no longer a suitable means
to keep up with the increased hitpoints.

The firepower simply is not compensating increased hitpoints,
unless you play mindnumbing single weapon builds a.k.a stealth-a-rail.
Now you could argue to improve firepower, make it moddable,
but sorry i don't see it this way.

PB was fine combat and balance wise,
you could engage anacondas in small ships and had the chance of winning
when you were a good pilot.
Remove the steaming pile of HeRPes and SCB attrition to the game
and it will become more interesting, also it will alleviate all the
whining for NPCs to become better/be in wings more often,
due to the removal of lol-easy-mode tanking.

Anti-Wing weapons like the cluster missiles would be a choice then for larger ships,
in order to protect themselves from small craft.
Sadly it seems people want to have this game continue in the same trends they already know.
Ships need to progress, weapons need to be the super-bestest-damage dealers,
hitpoints are not a topic to talk about, because you have them, alot....
Mind numbing gaming without the need of thinking how to approach a certain situation
is just tarnishing the potential and dynamic this game had before release.