Hardpoints-Pointless?

Flash_Baggins

Flash_Baggins
One thing I don't understand about Elite is the Hardpoints of ships- You see films like Starwars (See the picture below) and they just have the guns mounted on the wings or something along those lines- With weapons built into the frames of ships there is less internal space used up meaning more cargo/ shield cell banks etc etc. So, what do hardpoints actually give ships apart from being able to change your weapons more easily? And dont tell me its for aerodynamics, as at the moment there is no way to land on planets with atmospheres and also it would be pretty easy to make the weapons fairly aerodynamic.

EDIT: This is not a complaint about the game, just a question I was actually wondering about the answer to
latest
 
Last edited:

Crimson Kaim

Crimson Kaim
Well you can easily switch weapons I guess? :D

But also for the FSD I guess. To compress such huge amount of mass you need to have a specific construction wchich apparently requiers these kind of hardpoints.
Another reason: Why do have cars their doors at their sides? I want a door at the top so I can have a full glass frame on the side. It is just design in terms of style. Also, we want to pretect our guns from incoming space scrap or meteorids (tiny ones) that may damage our non-retractable weapons. :)
 

bassman

B
Flash_Baggins said:
One thing I don't understand about Elite is the Hardpoints of ships- You see films like Starwars (See the picture below) and they just have the guns mounted on the wings or something along those lines- With weapons built into the frames of ships there is less internal space used up meaning more cargo/ shield cell banks etc etc. So, what do hardpoints actually give ships apart from being able to change your weapons more easily? And dont tell me its for aerodynamics, as at the moment there is no way to land on planets with atmospheres and also it would be pretty easy to make the weapons fairly aerodynamic.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net...er_AotC.png/revision/latest?cb=20130919151903
Click to expand...

Its a gameplay consideration most likely, in order to shoot something you have to announce to the universe that you have gone "weapons hot" by deploying hard points. Also its a zero sum game - if every ship had extra offensive capability due to permanent external weapon fixtures then noone gets any net benefit.
 
Last edited:

Flash_Baggins

Flash_Baggins
bassman said:
Its a gameplay consideration most likely - in order to shoot something you have to announce to the universe that you have gone "weapons hot" by deploying hard points.
Click to expand...
Very true- I do like hearing my hardpoints deploy- it sounds very menacing and makes me want to say to the universe: "Hasta la vista, baby" :D
 

sasani

S
I guess, if the weapons have some kick they need to be mounted on something that can take it, the wing exterior itself may be a bit flimsy..

Also weapons have a load of moving parts, with space dust and debris etc... you might not want them getting messed/clogged up as they may fail you when you most need them.

Finally I guess space stations etc may not be happy letting ships in that have exposed weapons, they may prefer only admitting ships that have to deploy their weapons giving the space stations defences time to act.
 

Zephyriel

Zephyriel
I like games that allow me to holster/pull out my weapons whenever I want, and the same applied to spaceshipq. It also allows for qome coon animations.

In ED specifically, it allows for some subtelties, like having to retract your hardpoints to enable frameshift, or the fact that it's forbidden to deploy your weapons near stations. Finally, it's interesring gameplay for pirates, who can warn their victims not to deploy their weapons, giving pirates an advantage by having the victim announce their intentions if they ready their guns, also giving them some time to strike first.
 

Vandaahl

Vandaahl
Flash_Baggins said:
And dont tell me its for aerodynamics, as at the moment there is no way to land on planets with atmospheres and also it would be pretty easy to make the weapons fairly aerodynamic.
Click to expand...

Well, like it or not, but in there lies the answer to your question. Weapons would simply damage or even burn up when entering an atmosphere, no matter how you would streamline them. From an engineering point of view, I find it the only logical thing to do.

Fighters however, like the condor, is a different story. Just bolt the weapons to the outside and be done with it.
 

Ydiss

Ydiss
bassman said:
Its a gameplay consideration most likely, in order to shoot something you have to announce to the universe that you have gone "weapons hot" by deploying hard points.
Click to expand...
This is the main game play reason.

Also, Elite isn't a combat game only. The ships can be used for anything. If every ship constantly had weapons on display then it wouldn't make sense.

It would also be very difficult to model the ships so that all weapons would look right. Having hard points set into the hull that can accommodate all weapons of that size is the most sensible solution.

There's no way you could do the same on that ship in the image on the op. Look at the weapons in it. Where would the plasma accelerator or turret multi cannons go?

At any rate, internally set hard points don't reduce internal capacity at all. These ships are gigantic. Excluding weapons, the modules are all theoretical in size, they don't actually take up internal volume. The weapons will, but the remaining volume is way enough to contain theoretical modules of no actual size.
 
Last edited:

Spanksh

Spanksh
I personally think there are 3 major "lore" reasons (apart from obvious gameplay related stuff) - as in I made it up, but it's the most logical answer imo:

A) Makes weapons easily interchangeable
B) Protects them from debris in space, since they get covered by armor (remember, there is stuff flying around at several 100km/s, even more so due to all the ships we regularly trash in every system :p)
C) Stations, authorities and other CMDRs have a 100% clear indication of whether you are able to engage or not. If it wasn't a game, deploying your hardpoints within the no fire zone would probably give you one warning and then instant destruction. Deploying them inside a station would likely be interpreted as attack and directly cause a lethal response. It only makes sense not to do this in the actual game, since it can easily happen to accidentally deploy hardpoints.

The last point is actually something that made me wonder. It would be funny to see pirates with outside mounted, additional weapons. These ships would only be able to land at (pirate) outposts, since stations would instantly respond in a lethal way due to illegal form of weapon usage. That would be quite cool, since it would show some pirate factions actually investing into modifying their ships, especially since they don't have any reason to follow legal regulations in regards to ship building/modifying.
 
Last edited:

Badben

Badben
no way, hardpoints are necessary, first of all for aerodynamics, (just because we can't land on planets with atmospheres yet, doesn't mean it can't be taken in consideration, we will be able to land on planets with atmospheres eventually) Secondly it has to do with hyperspace and supercruise, you can't just have these parts hanging off the ship at those speeds. These are my reasons, I'm not sure what the official reason is, but I don't think David Braben is the type of guy to just frivolously throw throw in useless game mechanics just because it "feels cool", I bet if asked, he would have a really good explanation.
 

Deleted member 38366

D
I also see a few distinct reasons :

- forces to make a decision : fight & stay or retract and run. FSD won't work otherwise, so no fighting while FSD spooling up.
- provides a means of escalation/deescalation : becoming a Triangle on the Scanner allows to transmit your stance, you're combat ready. Retracting to keeping them retracted allows to displays the intention not to fire or ceasefire

- compatibility and interchangeability...
The Standardization means you only have to look for i.e. the universal Class 3 Gimbal Beam laser.
Not looking for the left top Anaconda Class 3 Gimbal Beam Laser... yes... oh, no, that's the wrong Panel, it won't fit there. This one? Ah crap, that one is for a Corvette center mount... nevermind, I'll look elsewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

igor37

I
I think it just is more practical in terms of maintenance and repairs. Weapons are for combat, and combat means damage. Being able to replace weapons and other parts faster by making them modular is a huge advantage. And then of course there's the extra protection - if you scratch your ship along an asteroid etc. you don't want to lose half of your weapons, if they are retracted they aren't affected by such collisions or other damages at all.

Badben said:
Secondly it has to do with hyperspace and supercruise, you can't just have these parts hanging off the ship at those speeds.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you. There's absolutely no reason to retract hardpoints for supercruise or hyperspace. None. It's just gameplay, nothing else. Speed alone never broke anything.
 

Spanksh

Spanksh
Badben said:
Secondly it has to do with hyperspace and supercruise, you can't just have these parts hanging off the ship at those speeds.
Click to expand...

igor37 said:
I don't believe you. There's absolutely no reason to retract hardpoints for supercruise or hyperspace. None. It's just gameplay, nothing else. Speed alone never broke anything.
Click to expand...

I agree with igor, however for different reasons. There genuinely is barely any reason to retract them for SC (except for maybe decreasing the ships footprint, which barely is the case for any of them). While extreme acceleration would harm free hanging weapons, engaging SC or Hyperspace does not accelerate you. As a matter of fact you (if at all) only move at your normal maximal speed in relation to space. It is the little patch of space around you, which is moving through space, not you moving through space.
 
Last edited:

Ydiss

Ydiss
igor37 said:
I think it just is more practical in terms of maintenance and repairs. Weapons are for combat, and combat means damage. Being able to replace weapons and other parts faster by making them modular is a huge advantage. And then of course there's the extra protection - if you scratch your ship along an asteroid etc. you don't want to lose half of your weapons, if they are retracted they aren't affected by such collisions or other damages at all.



I don't believe you. There's absolutely no reason to retract hardpoints for supercruise or hyperspace. None. It's just gameplay, nothing else. Speed alone never broke anything.
Click to expand...

You can deploy in super cruise any way. It's definitely just a combat mechanic.
 

Flash_Baggins

Flash_Baggins
I really like all these points actually, and its nice that my first thread hasnt turned into some warzone :p

Thanks for all the comments :D

Also, I was talking purely from a realistic point of view, and not a gameplay point of view, (I understand all the gameplay reasons)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom