[Explained] Hull and Armor Damage Mechanics: Hardness, Piercing, Etc.

[Truesilver]

No problem: HRP means 'Hull Reinforcement Package', which can be fitted in the internal module slots of your ship and increase hull hit points.

Military (or mirrored, or reactive) bulkheads increase your original hull hitpoints by 95%. They don't double or in any way affect hitpoints you have added by fitting Hull Reinforcement Packages.

In the case of mirrored or reactive bulkheads the % modifiers then applied to incoming damage change as set out in the table you quoted. For military, the modifiers remain the same as for reinforced or lightweight bulkheads.

 

[Assimilator1]

Ah yea, I've had HRPs myself in the past, don't know why I didn't twig what that meant .
.
What confused me earlier too, was that I didn't know the 'hull tank FDL' you mentioned included HRPs, anyway, understood now, thanks .
So military b/hds do increase base/original hull hit points by 95% & reinforced by 40% , so the reinforced b/hds are still worth having!
My next dilemma , should I bother with point defence or put back the A0 booster I had........

 

[Silverdrake220]

Only have one question how dose the ASP scout have more hull hardness then the ASP explore

 

[Frenotx]

Only have one question how dose the ASP scout have more hull hardness then the ASP explore

Those are calculated approximations. It could either be that there was some minor error in both the ASPX and the ASPS (making one smaller, and the other larger), or it could be that since the asp scout is more combat-focused, frontier saw fit to give it slightly higher-quality armour.

 

[Lunchmunny]

Quick question then, and I know the answer is likely very obvious. For engineer modified HRP's, the dmg resistances added still apply to the entirety of the hull hp total right? Though HRP's do NOT affect hardness in anyway, as this seems to be a base ship value?

So what makes hull tanking useless post engineer updates, is that HRP's dmg resistances do not apply to external modules. In fact, other than modifying with "Sturdy" and "armored" variations of internal/external modules, there is no way to help increase the sturdiness of modules, correct?

Thinking about this, given the cost of armor modifications, the ONE thing I wish they did, is increase the base hardness value.

 

[Truesilver]

Quick question then, and I know the answer is likely very obvious. For engineer modified HRP's, the dmg resistances added still apply to the entirety of the hull hp total right? Though HRP's do NOT affect hardness in anyway, as this seems to be a base ship value?

So what makes hull tanking useless post engineer updates, is that HRP's dmg resistances do not apply to external modules. In fact, other than modifying with "Sturdy" and "armored" variations of internal/external modules, there is no way to help increase the sturdiness of modules, correct?

Thinking about this, given the cost of armor modifications, the ONE thing I wish they did, is increase the base hardness value.

I think I'm right in saying that in Beta 1.5 Sandro introduced stacked module protection according to HRP's, meaning that internal modules do get an increasing degree of protection based on how many HRP's you have - but precisely how much is a hidden value.

So far as external modules are concerned my guess is the same as yours - nothing protects them except the trivial protection of the sturdy etc variants themselves.

 

[Lunchmunny]

I think I'm right in saying that in Beta 1.5 Sandro introduced stacked module protection according to HRP's, meaning that internal modules do get an increasing degree of protection based on how many HRP's you have - but precisely how much is a hidden value.

So far as external modules are concerned my guess is the same as yours - nothing protects them except the trivial protection of the sturdy etc variants themselves.

I only find that slightly disappointing, as I would really love to fly a true "tank," one that doesn't rely on shields so much as on the fly repairs and such. But the way the weapon damages have been inflated, and how easy it is to target specific modules, (not to mention how murderous missiles are on externals) it seems that shield tanking is really the only truly viable way to go beast mode inside a CZ.

With all of that said, I'm currently grinding for a Corvette, and my exclusive plans regarding engineering that beast is to only modify for toughness. I'm talking B class plus "sturdy/armored" modification variant on the drives, armored PP, and sturdy on every weapon. Then stack it with max rolled resistance HRP's, and take it into a haz res while holding cargo. I want a battleship!

 

[Euklides Diophant]

This is very handy information, but I seem to have missed any mention on how resistances from HRP is added when modded, if there is any.

There is also an additive small reduction (Mentioned by sandro here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/200980-Shields-Heat-and-the-FDL ), but I doubt it can be the resistances that we mod onto it, that would be insanely powerful as for example my recently modded orca has 5 hrps each doing about 15% resistance in every category. 75% flat reduction just like that seems, too much to be true.
And the total resistance that the hull has does not get shown at the bulkhead overview.

So, is there anyone who can enlighten me in this perhaps?

 

[Frenotx]

This is very handy information, but I seem to have missed any mention on how resistances from HRP is added when modded, if there is any.

There is also an additive small reduction (Mentioned by sandro here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/200980-Shields-Heat-and-the-FDL ), but I doubt it can be the resistances that we mod onto it, that would be insanely powerful as for example my recently modded orca has 5 hrps each doing about 15% resistance in every category. 75% flat reduction just like that seems, too much to be true.
And the total resistance that the hull has does not get shown at the bulkhead overview.

So, is there anyone who can enlighten me in this perhaps?

I believe hull resistances use the same formulas. The formula works as follows: First, convert all the resistance values to damage multipliers. -40 becomes 140% (1.4), +20 becomes 80% (.8), etc. In other words, 1 -

[listed value / 100]. You then take the base armour damage multiplier, and multiply it one-by-one with all the HRP multipliers. [Base armour resistance] * [HRP1 multiplier] * [HRP2 multiplier], etc. Once you've done that, you should have you pre-diminishing-returns value. Convert this back to the regular format for readability by doing this: (1 - [prediminishingreturns value]) * 100

If your answer to that is 50 or less, then you're done. If it's over 50, then you need to apply diminishing returns. First, subtract 50 from your total. Next, divide the result by 2. Finally, add the 50 back. Essentially, every point over 50 only counts for half a point. In other words, the 50-100 values are all remapped to 50-75.

Example: Calculating thermal resistance with regular armour (base thermal resistance 0), and three HRPs that have a thermal resistance of 25 (possible G3 thermal resistance mod).

Damage multipliers:
Armour: 1; HRPs: .75

1 * .75 * .75 * .75 = pre-diminishing-returns multiplier= ~ .42

Pre-diminishing-returns value = (1 - .42) * 100 = 58
That's over 50, so we have to apply diminishing returns. Each point over 50 only counts for half a point.

Final value = [(58 - 50) / 2] + 50 = 54

So starting with neither a resistance to, or weakness to, thermal damage, adding three "25 thermal resistance" HRPs bring the armour to 54 thermal resistance (not the 75 you'd get if all things were additive).

 

[Silverdrake220]

I think this is great. I have been trying to piece together how armor and damage mitigation work. I do have a question with ship size and armor. lets say for instance you have a corvette with a 1000 hull armor and a smaller ship like a ASP with a 1000 hull armor. would it not make sense that the armor rating is the same but the penetration would be different? leaning to the smaller ship. I may be overthinking or just have the game mechanic wrong. here it what I am thinking you put the same hull armor on the two ship the Vett is a larger ship so the armor is spread over a larger surface area the ASP is a smaller ship less surface area. so by default, the armor is thicker so there would be less penetration on the ASP because of the compact size. I may be completely off base here but to me it makes sense.

 

[Frenotx]

I think this is great. I have been trying to piece together how armor and damage mitigation work. I do have a question with ship size and armor. lets say for instance you have a corvette with a 1000 hull armor and a smaller ship like a ASP with a 1000 hull armor. would it not make sense that the armor rating is the same but the penetration would be different? leaning to the smaller ship. I may be overthinking or just have the game mechanic wrong. here it what I am thinking you put the same hull armor on the two ship the Vett is a larger ship so the armor is spread over a larger surface area the ASP is a smaller ship less surface area. so by default, the armor is thicker so there would be less penetration on the ASP because of the compact size. I may be completely off base here but to me it makes sense.

Yes and no. The armour rating isn't referring to the total amount of armour, that is then spread over the ship; the rating is referring to how much "damage" the hull can sustain before breaking apart. In order for the much-larger corvette to sustain 1000 "points of damage", realistically its armour would likely need to be thicker, and there'd be a lot more of it overall to cover the larger space. I think that's what the whole "hull hardness" value is supposed to be somewhat representative of.

An asp and a corvette that both have an armour rating of 1000 would be able to sustain the same amount of damage from weapons that are powerful enough to handle the vette's thicker armour, but in the case of smaller weapons being used (that can handle the asp's thinner armour, but not the vette's thicker armour), the corvette will be able to hold together a good bit longer than the asp.

 

[I Nux I]

So, if I understand this correctly, say I have a stock class 2 fixed beam laser. In game the armour piercing value is 35. And let's say I'm shooting at an FAS with a lightweight alloy hull, which has an armour rating of 60 and 0% resistance to thermal damage. That means my beam is only doing 58% of its stated 16 damage, so actually doing 9.25 damage.

Now say I engineers it with a grade 4 sturdy mount that gives me +31% armour piercing. So now my armour piercing on the beam is 45.85, compared to the FAS armour rating of 60. Now I'm doing 76% of my total 16 damage, which is 12.16 damage. Which is a 31% damage increase against that ship (12.16/9.25=1.3145~).

Right?

 

[Dbrn47]

Aren't all these values represented in ED Shipyard and take all the guesswork out?

 

[taleden]

So, if I understand this correctly, say I have a stock class 2 fixed beam laser. In game the armour piercing value is 35. And let's say I'm shooting at an FAS with a lightweight alloy hull, which has an armour rating of 60 and 0% resistance to thermal damage. That means my beam is only doing 58% of its stated 16 damage, so actually doing 9.25 damage.

Now say I engineers it with a grade 4 sturdy mount that gives me +31% armour piercing. So now my armour piercing on the beam is 45.85, compared to the FAS armour rating of 60. Now I'm doing 76% of my total 16 damage, which is 12.16 damage. Which is a 31% damage increase against that ship (12.16/9.25=1.3145~).

Right?

Yes. You can also experiment with that on edshipyard, for example: http://edshipyard.com/#/L=8020,4yGG1OuzS,2307207207205U05U05U06k0,05U005U07Ro002M0mpT2Uc0

In the lower right Damage section, set the target to Standard Armour and Federal Assault Ship and you'll see the 12.2 burst DPS (until capacitor drain); then click the beam's modification button and toggle the pierce modifier off to see the change to 9.3 burst DPS.

 

[Frenotx]

Aren't all these values represented in ED Shipyard and take all the guesswork out?

Unfortunately, frontier has not included the armour hardness value of ships anywhere in-game, yet- only the armour piercing stat of weapons.

 

[taleden]

Unfortunately, frontier has not included the armour hardness value of ships anywhere in-game, yet- only the armour piercing stat of weapons.

Luckily it is possible to derive the armor hardness by comparing the weapon's known "raw" damage and pierce value to the observed damage; this has been done for almost every ship and is incorporated into edshipyard (the Keelback and Type 7 are still missing because they were changed in 2.2 and I haven't had a chance to re-test them yet).

 

[Truesilver]

Unfortunately, frontier has not included the armour hardness value of ships anywhere in-game, yet- only the armour piercing stat of weapons.

This thread represents a fine example of player-driven testing but now that FDev have released so much data post 2.1, I hope that hull hardness will soon be added to the in-game Shipyard stats.

 

[jgm]

This thread represents a fine example of player-driven testing but now that FDev have released so much data post 2.1, I hope that hull hardness will soon be added to the in-game Shipyard stats.

And so it has been. You can see the details at http://beta.coriolis.edcd.io/ (of course, subject to change as this is beta).

 

[Truesilver]

This thread represents a fine example of player-driven testing but now that FDev have released so much data post 2.1, I hope that hull hardness will soon be added to the in-game Shipyard stats.

And so it has been. You can see the details at http://beta.coriolis.edcd.io/ (of course, subject to change as this is beta).

Eh? Do you mean that you've added in the fruits of Frenotx's labours, or that official hull hardness stats are actually now in Beta??

 

[jgm]

Eh? Do you mean that you've added in the fruits of Frenotx's labours, or that official hull hardness stats are actually now in Beta??

the latter.