It certainly seems dumb to you. It does not sound dumb, however, to a great many science fiction writers, artists and game makers who actually are able to conceive of ships with armor that is so durable that busting through it is an epic feat. If you want one example of this, think of the one Star Trek episode where the Enterprise had to find a way to stop an incredibly destructive alien ship that had a hull forged from Neutronium. A bit of an extreme example, I admit, but a valid one none the less. As for the advantages, you people keep touting the fact that hull tanks require less power. In this current game environment where power can be had quite easily through a bit of engineering, I don't think that is quite as much of an advantage as you might think. All I am asking for is a more interesting combat environment where both kinds of defense are equally likely to be found. One in which you have to make serious trade offs so that you simply can't employ both forms to full effect at the same time. The weapons need to match so that you can be really good at dealing with one form of defense but not both. Or, with a mixed loadout, you can be decent at both.
Any Improvements on Engineering / Combat Balance?
- Thread starter Frenotx
- Start date
Of course it is. Without having to power a shield generator I could save dozens of tons by downclassing my power plant. I'll jump further, turn harder, and even run cooler. Saying that's not a "big deal" is stretch imo. My little 6C Bi-Weave right now is hogging up a whole 3.10 MW!
That's 40 tons and 3.10 MW for the generator. Then of course there are boosters, a Heavy Duty booster is another 14 tons and 1.50 MW each! Guardian Shield boosters? 8 tons each and 1.05 MW.
And all of these have a distributor draw as well, which hull tanking completely bypasses.
Tons and tons of weight on my ship and a whole lot of power is dedicated to shield defenses. How can this ever be made fair compared to hull tanking? Making hull mods require lots of power maybe? I don't know, but don't say it's irrelevant.
You appear to be quite good at putting words in other people's mouths. I never said it was "irrelevant". YOU said that and then tried to ascribe it to me. I said "I don't think that is quite as much of an advantage as you might think". If you want to be taken seriously, please try to avoid this sort of thing in future discussions. Now, as to your concerns about power usage, do you encounter this issue often? If so, with what ships. May I assume that you are fully engineering your ships to get as much power as you can? I am curious because with the ships that I use, the Anaconda, my Cobra Mk III, and my Type 10, I don't have any problems whatsoever with regards to running any kind of loadout I might want. Things might get a little toasty when I run all lasers but then heatsinks seem to help with that setup.
You have been told that this isn't true a number of time. All you need is grade 1-2 upgrades to be competitive against top NPCs. And those upgrades are extremely easy to get.
I'd stepped out of this one but I think it's worth noting that the choice between hull or shields was pretty good.
Before engineers.
I remember quite clearly the FAS hull tank was a good option and I don't remember it necessarily knocking the FDL off its perch enough to be the only option.
Perhaps it wasn't perfect but it was pretty solid. I'm not a fan of the idea that hull tanking must be an option by the way. I'd be happy if shields were required but obviously less extreme as they can be.
Any reason for why you feel that way about hull tanking, Ydiss? I am actually quite curious and it would be nice to get opinions from folks on the other side of the aisle. I admit I might carry a bit of a bias about this but I can't help but wonder that if there was more than one main form of defense, that combat might get a bit spicier as one would never know for sure if the ship they were taking into a fight, would be optimal for what they are about to encounter.
They are only extremely easy to get once you jumped through all the hoops unlocking them. Don't compare the amount of time it takes you and take that for granted for someone who hasn't done all that.
Sorry if you thought I was doing that, not my intention. However the point still stands, it's not that I'm having power problems currently. Far from it. But why are you obfuscating the point? My issue with hull tanking is that it necessarily REMOVES the higher investment in power plant and distributors that shield tanking currently does. You would have a lighter, faster, cheaper,more maneuverable, longe jumping and cooler running ship while losing NO combat effectiveness.
Is that not a valid point??
Last edited:
What changed was when they made the modules vulnerable so they could add the engineer recipes for module reinforcements. After that hull tanking was dead, because exposed modules like thrusters are essential for combat and shields are just way better at doing the job protecting them. Same with weapons.
Well, it would be a valid point IF there weren't already far more hardcounters to hull tanking than there are for shield tanking and IF what I was proposing was something that didn't have any tradeoffs to it as shield tanking has with regards to the energy requirements. I don't want hull tanking to be completely passive without cost. That would eliminate the need to make hard choices when deciding whether to hull tank (let's be honest here, I am talking about ARMOR tanking) or shield tank and then you'd be right back at square one with ships running both types of tanks at the same time. I realize that this means there has to be some kind of redesign of what is currently in place, but if it were to result in a much more unpredictable kind of combat system in which it was possible that the weapons you bring might work on "Bad Guy A" but not so well on "Bad Guy B", then I think that would make combat much more interesting. By the way, engineering your power plant and distributor to handle the energy requirements of the systems you want to put into your ship, is really not that much of a big deal. I will agree with you, however, that pips management is a big deal and IS something that provides a challenge that does not exist with hull tanking.
Best type of quote
Can't get in an argument with yourself (well, you could, I suppose...)
Just a quick note here. It has been said that one of the advantages of hull tanking is that the ship can be lighter. Well, not really. Military grade armor boosted with engineering comes at a hefty cost in terms of weight. Maybe it should be even more so. Having huge slabs of armor bolted on to your ship should definitely make your ship a lot heavier and more ungainly.
Been reading this thread for some time now. Many interesting arguments here, and in agreement with certain number of posters, I too feel like it is virtually impossible to make hull and shield tanks equally viable. Outside of what already been posted, the system just doesn't support it. Current implementation of shields is way too convenient, and to fix this, it would take one big re-wire of whole system to be much less beneficial and introduce more micro management.
As perfect example of hull to shield balance interaction would be a small game named Starsector. When you have shield on, which can be configured into front/omni or full, it generates flux (or heat, translating to Elite). Depending on flux profile of the ship and ammunition type used against it. Constant pressure can build flux up fast, which renders ship inoperable in certain terms, much like fully drained distributor in Elite. And unless you find a way to naturally dissipate or vent flux, you will have limited capabilities for offense and defense both.
Regarding hull, it is possible to create multi-layered setup. You have to crack armor first before you get to hull itself, which can be quite tough and all modules disabled from damage (which can also cause flameouts) get auto-repaired, or rather re-booted back in combat state, which depends on specific mods installed in the ship and how badly vessel is damaged overall (along with Combat Readiness stat, which is different story). But with a twist, that hardpoints don't really use set "health pool", so its not as easy as in Elite to destroy this systems. There are few other details, but long story short, with that system, shieldless ships are fully viable and are on similar footing as shielded ones, where certain frames can do either better.
It is unrealistic to assume system Elite is built upon will be completely scrapped and replaced, so guess we're stuck with what we have now. Drastic changes to it might actually be harmful, even...
As perfect example of hull to shield balance interaction would be a small game named Starsector. When you have shield on, which can be configured into front/omni or full, it generates flux (or heat, translating to Elite). Depending on flux profile of the ship and ammunition type used against it. Constant pressure can build flux up fast, which renders ship inoperable in certain terms, much like fully drained distributor in Elite. And unless you find a way to naturally dissipate or vent flux, you will have limited capabilities for offense and defense both.
Regarding hull, it is possible to create multi-layered setup. You have to crack armor first before you get to hull itself, which can be quite tough and all modules disabled from damage (which can also cause flameouts) get auto-repaired, or rather re-booted back in combat state, which depends on specific mods installed in the ship and how badly vessel is damaged overall (along with Combat Readiness stat, which is different story). But with a twist, that hardpoints don't really use set "health pool", so its not as easy as in Elite to destroy this systems. There are few other details, but long story short, with that system, shieldless ships are fully viable and are on similar footing as shielded ones, where certain frames can do either better.
It is unrealistic to assume system Elite is built upon will be completely scrapped and replaced, so guess we're stuck with what we have now. Drastic changes to it might actually be harmful, even...
What do you mean? I do that all the time! You would not BELIEVE the fury of the arguments I have with myself when out in the Black sometimes. Of course, I'm entirely wrong about everything... No I'm not... Are too!!! Oh go do one!...
If I may post my little opinion, I think hull tanking is just dead because of certain engineering effects and vulnerability of external modules. Super penetrator rails will just steadily shutdown one of your important modules regardless of your angling, and even with fully tanked module (like armored double braced PP) it will be gone long before your hull reaches zero. Then we have packhounds which don't have arming time, give no about point defences and can be launched point blank negating ECM usage. Or corrosive mod which will whittle down your hull quite a bit faster... Your canopy will certainly be gone long before hull reaches 0, even with module reinforcements (they do protect canopy too, right?...). Not to mention that thrusters are always engineered for dirty G5, which leaves them very exposed with little integrity to boot.
I really doubt hull tanking will ever make it's return. It's now just a gimmick which happens occasionally when you lose shields but have good chances to finish the opponent so you stick to the fight with your hull as main damage sponge. Idk, but I'm fine with that. Though I wonder how viable hybrid builds are - where you use Bi-weave with fast recharge and low mj and highly tanked hull.
I really doubt hull tanking will ever make it's return. It's now just a gimmick which happens occasionally when you lose shields but have good chances to finish the opponent so you stick to the fight with your hull as main damage sponge. Idk, but I'm fine with that. Though I wonder how viable hybrid builds are - where you use Bi-weave with fast recharge and low mj and highly tanked hull.
Unlocking them can be good fun if planned well. Most of them are very easy to unlock though, and the ones that are a bit boring like mining are not really needed, there are other alternatives.
I don't question that. It just can't be easy when it's impossible to do because of a roadblock in the way.