Lightweight composite hull upgrade

[CPTVICKERS]

All hull enhancement packages currently come in two flavors, armor, and resistance. Of course there is a blend of the two as well. I would like to see an additional option. The "Lightweight composite hull". Instead of gaining 3 to 60 tons, you would shed the equivalent max weight of the heaviest armor upgrade package. In return, you would lose x% armor, and gain x% integrity. The idea being you lose weight, armor, and gain integrity through replacement lightweight composite bulkheads, structural panels, longerons, laterals, verticals, interior panels, etc. The integrity boost would be a byproduct of increased rigidity throughout the structure, inherent of composites. However, since everything that can be thinner and lighter, is... you lose armor in the process. This could be a bonus for racers, and explorers. With additional engineering, you could of course go even lighter, or add resistances, creating the option for an interesting shield tank combination.

I could be wrong, it could be a terrible idea. Looking forward to the responses.

 

[MK Regular]

A bulkhead upgrade that is lighter(?) than the stock bulkheads, with more integrity but a lower armour value? Definitely an interesting idea. As you said, it would be very useful for players who plan on not being shot at, as most weapons would punch through it like it was made of tinfoil and do their maximum damage.

As it stands right now, armour values are tied to the ship, not the bulkheads. In order for your idea to be put in the game, armour values would need to be moved to the bulkheads, which could allow for more outfitting options (engineering, different armour values for different grades of bulkhead). In this respect, I think this idea could work quite well.

The part that I'm not too sure about is the negative mass of the proposed bulkheads, especially with the way mass works with engineering. In my opinion, it doesn't really make sense to have something magically remove mass from a ship's hull. This also raises the problem of having negative mass on a ship, which , unlikely as it is, would absolutely break the game. Then we get to engineering. When you get a mass modifier on a module, the game calculates the module's mass by multiplying its stock mass by the modifier. For example, if I get a +10% modifier on a 10T module, the modules final mass is:

10T + (10T * 10%) = 11T

This makes sense, and it works quite well. However, if I got the same +10% modifier on a module with a mass of -10T, I would get a final mass of:

-10T + (-10T * 10%) = -11T

In the context of the game, this makes absolutely no sense. I get a modifier that should increase mass, and I end up with a mass that is lower than my initial value. Conversely, if I had a modifier that should decrease mass, I will end up with more mass. Good luck balancing the heavy duty and lightweight modifications with this.

The best way (I can think of) to make your idea work would be to either:
A) give the new bulkheads a mass of 0T and make it a side grade to the stock bulkheads
B) reduce the hull mass on all ships by x%, give the mass taken from the hull to the bulkheads, and give the new bulkheads a mass of 0T

Option A would be fairly easy to implement, but it would not be any better for racers or explorers than the current stock bulkheads. Option B would be very difficult to implement, requiring several balance passes, and would screw over just about everyone who has put a heavy duty modification on lightweight bulkheads.

Overall, it is an interesting idea, but I do not think it would be implemented exactly as you want it to be.

 

[CPTVICKERS]

I'm going OT a bit, so bear with me while we swing back around to it, it has to do with the inspiration for the idea.

My real life experience in aerospace is actually building aircraft, I tend to think, in real world applications, and not in the math of the game. So when I see "reinforced alloy, or military grade composites" bulkheads, my brain visuaises that as extra material being applied to the bulkheads, skin, structure, etc of a spacecraft, for additional torsional, compression, and tensile strengths. That's my mental interpretation that provides some immersion into the game. I know in game it's a bunch of math, not an actual change to the ship, not one single polygon changes. Similar to how the polygons we can choose to add, have no effect on the performance values of the ship. Everything is a modification of a value that is referenced for the ships performance. But in my head, I add that module, and I can see it.

That all said, I wasn't thinking of a negative number being input into the game, on something that has a value of 0. I was thinking of something that adjusted the base value of the ships mass. Again, this is my head thinking in real world experience. If you reinforce the bulkhead on an aircraft, that becomes the weight of the airframe. Let's say you replace a bulkhead, for example, one made of thick solid aluminum, with a composite, either kevlar, carbon, or blend there of, whatever you like. You get a weight reduction, some some change of torsional rigidity, but increased tensile strength, and similar or better compressive values. That was the idea behind, lighter, but brittle.

After your explanation, it clicked in my head that I have never seen the base value of mass on the ship change. The bulkhead additions change, the total mass, that is reduced or added to, adjusted by type and or engineering with a base module value (lightweight alloy) of 0 as explained. So my brain was mistakenly on the physical track of, lighter spaceframe components, replacing heavier components in the spaceframe, causing a reduction to the mass base value of the spacecraft. -x% of base hull mass. After what you taught me, I can see the problem. The game treats bulkhead reinforcements as a module, just like any other module. The lowest value the engineering can handle in the current system is 0T as you said, due to some values expecting a number zero, or greater than.

What if we duplicated the lightweight alloys module, pre-engineered it weight reduction x% and rebadged it as Lightweight composites. Then you could have the option for one or two, completely separate, Lightweight composites only, engineering upgrades? Of course ultra light would be the goal of one of them. Then your math could be corrected to -10T + (-10T * -10%) = -9T for negative affect, and -10T + (-10T * 10%) = -11T for positive affect. With no need to bother the other formulas. Again, we are targeting a different crowd, so kinetic, thermal, and blast resistant are useless for this proposed module anyway, and could just not be an option for it.