Hull Reinforcement Packages - a drawback suitable?
- Thread starter Julio Montega
- Start date
Could you point me towards that post? I'd like to read it in full.
Not now I can't - it wasn't big enough to bookmark and I am currently at work *cough* not hiding anything from anyone *cough* I am doing work guys, honest
I remember what the thread was about and I'll trawl for it later - I'll PM it to you if this thread becomes any more complicated.
So a switch from direct increase in hitpoints to damage resistance is something i'd want to be tested out,
but i don't know if that changes something, rather then just switching the equation go from one to two.
What i expect to see as an outcome from this swap is:
Generally less alpha, due to damage resistance
a proportional increase in "effective HP" as damage resistance is more useful, the bigger your hp-pool is
ships with more internals still gain more of this mechanic
Canopy breach, so what?
Still got 25 minutes of fight in you, as most people use A rated lfs anyway.
I can agree on that a homogenous build in a regulated situation is an equalizer,
letting people easier test out and rate their skill.
What you don't calculate in however is the open galaxy, where there is a multitude of situations and environments affecting the combat.
Some people favor different approaches aswell, having those eradicated from being effective, simply makes the game stale.
The defensive modules currently benefit those ships most, who can simply put more in,
thus prolonging the fights.
Now what isn't really changed is weapon damage,
small ships are hardly used, due to the lack of firepower,
unless it is a specialist build (torpedo bomber).
Do we really want the game to continue down this road?
What we had in Premium Beta were really interesting combat situations,
because having high alpha was not a necessity!
What we now have, is changing the "fast paced" combat from days before
to MMO style number smashing.
Now i don't need to see big numbers to be satisfied with my playstyle,
I'd rather see combat again that relies on cleverness and piloting skill.
If you fought a ship with lasers as example previously,
you just laugh off your rear now, as he does not fit rails, etc.
That is very concerning.
I think the current meta even removes part of the skill required for combat.
Energy management has lost a lot of importance,
it seems to me, that skill nowadays is just aiming-skill,
not ship-operation skill anymore.
Last edited:
Love it or lump it, gamers are always looking for "the edge". No matter what you do, someone is going to optimize. Generalized explorers do it to maximize jump range, Combateers do it for combat success, etc.
No matter what you suggest, someone is going to come along and make "the best thing". You can only influence what that thing is, but you CANNOT stop gamers from optimizing.
All of that said, I think there are a couple of... not flaws, but unconsidered elements in your argument.
First, Hull reinforment is, almost by definition, an internal compartment function. Elite doesn't do proper ship construction, but think of it as adding additional bulkheads, airtight spaces to contain the damage, buffering and materials, etc. Placing into Utility slots removes one of the few limitations already inherent in the design while reducing the believability of the concept.
Second, your initial analysis leaves out all of the other uses for the module, such as traders that add it in for interdiction survivability or people that just have a free slot and nothing else they want to add. These functions must play into your overall analysis, or you invite reduction of use in those other venues.
I'm in fundamental disagreement with the OP. The ONLY reason to stealth build with HRPs is to:
Player Bounty Hunt
Player Murder
I have NO problem with either but in one of those two involves intentionally blowing up Cmdr's piloting ships optimized for purposes other than combat. So, why would a stealth build need any more advantage.
Stealth builds don't gain advantage in PVE as bots aren't limited to the handicaps us humans must endure.
Player Bounty Hunt
Player Murder
I have NO problem with either but in one of those two involves intentionally blowing up Cmdr's piloting ships optimized for purposes other than combat. So, why would a stealth build need any more advantage.
Stealth builds don't gain advantage in PVE as bots aren't limited to the handicaps us humans must endure.
^ exactly what this man said. What I said above, but without being passive/aggressive (sorry folks, I'm a little direct for point making
)
Last edited:
Fair enough, to clarify i considered them as utility to restrict the amount of them being equipped,
which would also work for traders, if not even more for traders than for combat pilots.
The general way of HRP is internal, yep i imagine them the same way you do,
yet we have sensor upgrades on external hps, too....
Now i must thank you for making me remember to think of different career choices too,
as noted above, i think they do actually profit more or even start to profit from the ability
to equip HRP as utility. From what i read on the Forums and see in the game, exploration and trading are
just as maximizing the efficiency as are PvP builds.
With the availability of utility HRP you can harden your maximized cargo-cap trader, which with the current implementation
is an impact on profits. For exploration, any ton added is a crime, so they won't really need that stuff as much, yet they would have the option to equip them
and have as internals either more hangars, cargo or fueltanks instead.
What advantages? Is becoming slower and less agile an advantage as i originally suggested?
I think you misread the post.
Last edited:
Optimization isn't the problem raised, it's a matter of the degree of optimization permitted, and how much that effects everything else.
Personally, I think HRP's are in a good place overall. There are some problems around them, but the problem isn't the HRP, they just illustrate the issue very well. The problem has to do with ship mass and how thrusters work. Thrusters on a given ship offer a maximum speed and agility when you ship mass is at or under 50% of the "optimal" mass of a given A-rated thruster. On most small ships, it's impossible to get down to or under this number, so every single loadout choice has a small impact on overall speed and agility. This is a really good and interesting design.
The problem comes in when you have large ships, with large engines. In their basic loadouts, they are often well under the 50% mass mark with an A-rated thruster, so many of the loadout choices you make have literally zero impact on agility or speed. This results in being being able to heavily stack HRP's and mil-spec hulls and only see negligible performance decrease: they are able to already kit up quite a bit before seeing any change at all.
If this were changed, basically by going through all ships (and possibly thrusters) and rebalancing masses, you could help alleviate the issue. You could still stack HRPs, but you would see more of a performance penalty. You could go with a less specialized and less mass-intensive loadout, and still see the same performance as you see today. And as a perk, it would also open the opportunity for large ships to have ultra-light stripped down loadouts, giving you increased speed and agility (like you can currently do on small ships).
Personally, I think HRP's are in a good place overall. There are some problems around them, but the problem isn't the HRP, they just illustrate the issue very well. The problem has to do with ship mass and how thrusters work. Thrusters on a given ship offer a maximum speed and agility when you ship mass is at or under 50% of the "optimal" mass of a given A-rated thruster. On most small ships, it's impossible to get down to or under this number, so every single loadout choice has a small impact on overall speed and agility. This is a really good and interesting design.
The problem comes in when you have large ships, with large engines. In their basic loadouts, they are often well under the 50% mass mark with an A-rated thruster, so many of the loadout choices you make have literally zero impact on agility or speed. This results in being being able to heavily stack HRP's and mil-spec hulls and only see negligible performance decrease: they are able to already kit up quite a bit before seeing any change at all.
If this were changed, basically by going through all ships (and possibly thrusters) and rebalancing masses, you could help alleviate the issue. You could still stack HRPs, but you would see more of a performance penalty. You could go with a less specialized and less mass-intensive loadout, and still see the same performance as you see today. And as a perk, it would also open the opportunity for large ships to have ultra-light stripped down loadouts, giving you increased speed and agility (like you can currently do on small ships).
HRPs as well as SCBs make it unfair against any builds not optimized for fighting (traders, miners, and even real pirates!).
Because of that, the latter has simply no chance / interest in even trying to fight back.
Remove the SCBs / HRPs and all you need to fight on equal terms is a big shield and weapons.
To me, the implementation of SCBs and HRPs have broken the balance of the game.
Anyway, it is what it is and I doubt FD will remove them.
Now, I just want to say whether you stack HRPs or SCBs, both are overpowered and come with drawbacks. i have as much difficulties to fight a skilled commander flying a silent running FdL than a shielded FdL.
You are overpowered with SCBs as long as you manage to keep your shield up, keep 4 pips to SYS, pop/swap cells on time. You are overpowered with HRPs as long as you manage to silent run, fire at the right moment and dodge fire to avoid modules/hull non regenerative damage.
Whatever loadouts you chose to fly/fight against need different approach.
The Clipper is an interesting example:
- Class 7 shield + 6B SCB give you 450 MJ of shield + 6x300MJ of cells = 2250 MJ base, equivalent to 5355 MJ with 4 pips to SYS!
- Once the shield is down, you can get up to 2400 hull points.
Yet, I have been testing this for the past 2 days and don't feel as invincible as a FdL packing 1000 MJ shield + SCBs, and way less untouchable as a silent running FAS packed with HRPs only (which has then 2600 hull points but no shield).
Because of that, the latter has simply no chance / interest in even trying to fight back.
Remove the SCBs / HRPs and all you need to fight on equal terms is a big shield and weapons.
To me, the implementation of SCBs and HRPs have broken the balance of the game.
Anyway, it is what it is and I doubt FD will remove them.
Now, I just want to say whether you stack HRPs or SCBs, both are overpowered and come with drawbacks. i have as much difficulties to fight a skilled commander flying a silent running FdL than a shielded FdL.
You are overpowered with SCBs as long as you manage to keep your shield up, keep 4 pips to SYS, pop/swap cells on time. You are overpowered with HRPs as long as you manage to silent run, fire at the right moment and dodge fire to avoid modules/hull non regenerative damage.
Whatever loadouts you chose to fly/fight against need different approach.
The Clipper is an interesting example:
- Class 7 shield + 6B SCB give you 450 MJ of shield + 6x300MJ of cells = 2250 MJ base, equivalent to 5355 MJ with 4 pips to SYS!
- Once the shield is down, you can get up to 2400 hull points.
Yet, I have been testing this for the past 2 days and don't feel as invincible as a FdL packing 1000 MJ shield + SCBs, and way less untouchable as a silent running FAS packed with HRPs only (which has then 2600 hull points but no shield).
A very sensible thought,
and i would like to see thrusters reviewed.
Could the issue we have with combat in general occur due to increased hp?
Before SCBs we had some options to affect the survivability of a ship "hitpoint" wise:
- shield gen class/rating
- bulkhead choice
When SCBs got introduced, they added a means to multiply your hitpoints by having energy stored in a "pool",
boosters and HRPs add directly hitpoints.
So what comes out of this, is that a weapon that before was well rounded now simply does not deal enough damage to be considered,
because you have to break the "tank" combat wise.
Before the introduction of the SCBs and the rest, the weapons performed differently,
but due to less hitpoints you had to eliminate in order to destroy a ship,
the damage output of a weapon was not a primary factor of choice.
Do you agree?
Totally agree, and it is very sad to see them stay.
I see them as MMO-symptoms slowly flowing into the game,
now let us see if engineers gives us the 200k crit lazorz to counter the armor hp.
In PB you had to pick your targets carefully, even if they were just stupid NPCs,
because they had guns, now you simply can go and engage a convoy and conveniently
jump out when they fire gets too thick.
So much for skill of "picking the engagement".
Last edited:
Also, in case people forgot:
- class 5/4/3/2/1 HRPs used to give 320/160/80/40/20 hull points.
- players were complaining about the SCBs meta
- players were complaining about the small ships which had no chance against larger ships.
now we have:
- class 5/4/3/2/1 HRPs give 390/330/260/190/110 hull points.
- SCBs is not the only meta of the game
- little ships take advantage of the HRP buff much more than larger ships, and can now give a good fight against those (though in the end, it is unlikely they can beat them if players skills match)
Hooman beings are never happy, uh?
- class 5/4/3/2/1 HRPs used to give 320/160/80/40/20 hull points.
- players were complaining about the SCBs meta
- players were complaining about the small ships which had no chance against larger ships.
now we have:
- class 5/4/3/2/1 HRPs give 390/330/260/190/110 hull points.
- SCBs is not the only meta of the game
- little ships take advantage of the HRP buff much more than larger ships, and can now give a good fight against those (though in the end, it is unlikely they can beat them if players skills match)
Hooman beings are never happy, uh?
Uhm. Yeah. Agreed. Specialising a ship for combat does make it better at combat, now I think about it...
Next I suppose there's going to be complaints that mining lasers make you too good at mining and bounty hunter FDLs have a problem with that, so the best fix is to remove mining lasers and ships now have to ram asteroids for fragments
Last edited:
I mean, with HRP's you're always taking damage if you rely on it instead of shields. I think that's a fair trade off.
I think that's an aspect that could become problematic, but I've not PvPed enough to have a worthwhile opinion on if it is currently an issue in-game. It definitely could be an issue, if the numbers are allowed to grow beyond a certain point, but from my own PvE perspective, even when I do dumb things like take on an Elite Python in my all-cannon Eagle, damage seems to be in a good place. I don't think I've personally experienced what you have, where I feel I'm not doing enough damage to be considered (again probably because I don't generally PvP).
Random musings follow, in no particular order.
A huge step would be resolving the current PC / AI game mechanic differences so that one ship build can be used effectively against both PC and AI targets.
I know SJA is ramping up the AI for 2.1, but things like NPC's being able to see you in SR makes a pure stealth build a sitting duck to the AI. There should be a minimum distance that you can lock onto an SR ship with better quality sensors increasing that range slightly at each level. Makes high level sensors worth taking and gives smuggling a little depth as well avoiding security. Tank builds without shields would still have merit in SR, but pilot skill and ship maneuverability would count for something.
The heat mechanic introduced to balance SCB's is a good idea to stop spamming, but the amount of heat generated is way over what I think it should be. I'd have no issues limiting SCB's to one unit per ship either.
Hull reinfs should have some minor detrimental effects on maneuverability and top end speed. In Armored Warfare, if you add extra armor to your tank, the speed and acceleration drop. It only makes sense. Then a pilot can decide to take a tank, an agile bird, or something between those two extremes into combat.
A huge step would be resolving the current PC / AI game mechanic differences so that one ship build can be used effectively against both PC and AI targets.
I know SJA is ramping up the AI for 2.1, but things like NPC's being able to see you in SR makes a pure stealth build a sitting duck to the AI. There should be a minimum distance that you can lock onto an SR ship with better quality sensors increasing that range slightly at each level. Makes high level sensors worth taking and gives smuggling a little depth as well avoiding security. Tank builds without shields would still have merit in SR, but pilot skill and ship maneuverability would count for something.
The heat mechanic introduced to balance SCB's is a good idea to stop spamming, but the amount of heat generated is way over what I think it should be. I'd have no issues limiting SCB's to one unit per ship either.
Hull reinfs should have some minor detrimental effects on maneuverability and top end speed. In Armored Warfare, if you add extra armor to your tank, the speed and acceleration drop. It only makes sense. Then a pilot can decide to take a tank, an agile bird, or something between those two extremes into combat.
I'd love to give you video footage...
It is clear why you rarely see lasers in PvP, they need too much time for dealing damage,
if you check youtube for current PvP you see the following used:
Railgun
Fragment cannon
Torpedo
maybe Plasma Acc.
So what are these?
Heavy hitters, apparently you need artillery sized gunz to circumvent the meta-maximum HP/dmg builds.
What do those have as utility? Maximum heatsinks....
That is PvP in short, have big iron-rear and big gunz.
Is that fun?
Not to me.
Lol, I need to remind myself to not post early in the morning. Derp
Feeling sarcastic today, uh?Uhm. Yeah. Agreed. Specialising a ship for combat does make it better at combat, now I think about it...
Next I suppose there's going to be complaints that mining lasers make you too good at mining and bounty hunter FDLs have a problem with that, so the best fix is to remove mining lasers and ships now have to ram asteroids for fragments
This is a game, you know? Gameplay should be more important than trying to mirror real life. We are playing to have fun, no? And in the current state of the game, it is no fun at all to encounter an opponent outfitted for pure combat, which is what people mostly complain about.
Me, in the meantime, i just deal with it and seek/find my own fun.
PS: I am outfited for pure combat, full time.
Last edited:
Only today? I'd be upset if I wasn't 100% sarcasm all the time
Everyone wants different things. There's as many, if not more, threads on this forum focussed on how much more "realistic" the game needs to be.
You can never keep a player base 100% happy. But people have just gotta trust that devs do their thing. It's almost like people think devs come up with these ideas and the coding falls together and it gets released without testing, and the "testing" phase they talk about is an excuse to delay updates.
There is no real issue here with HRPs - with the change in ratio of mass to hull HP as class increases they're one of the more balanced aspects of the game. But say we nerf them as intended - people are either going to use them still and be much slower, including my iCourier that needs a couple to avoid being turned to dust when the shields are down, or people stop taking in as much. And then what? PvP combat lasts five seconds because there's nothing to stop a wall of railguns. So we gotta think about changing them, and so on.
Yes...traders, with all that space dedicated to heavy cargo, are going to be disadvantaged against combat ships. But as it is pirates don't really use them because it means sacrificing an internal space, which in my first post was one of their first caveats. And if pirates can't abuse them, where's the issue - it's solo players flying around in open when someone who will inevitably be labelled a griefer opens fire on them (which is another constant of online gaming!). And FD blessed us with private/solo play for them issues.
In any case, it's more reason to experience the game in full and ask a mate or two to accompany you.
Edit: Apologies if the sarcasm is too strong. Sarcastic humour in text always just comes across as being a bunghole. And I never learned anything outside sarcastic humour apparently...
Last edited: