Sorry, guys, what does HRP means?
Hull Resistance.....?
o7
Hull Resistance.....?
o7
Military Grade Composites: Why are they so bad?
- Thread starter XW_Ziggy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- armour hrp hull hull-tanking
This. Military is an affordable alternative to reactive especially on big ships. The resistances come from the high number of HRPs a large ship can fit.
What's more ridiculous than military armor IMHO is mirrored armor for the same price as reactive. Given its inferiority to reactive, it shouldn't cost more than military.
Last edited:
its not "thinking", its knowing, because it was explained in detail by the devs, in a very long topic some time ago.
xw_ziggy already confirmed it for me.
Hull Reinforcement Package
Reactive composites seem like the problem for lacklustre hull upgrades, but why do they have to cost so much?
Corvette - 182M
Reactive composites 443M.
The armour costs 2.5x the ship itself. I feel like FDev just put a decimal point in the wrong place, effectively making the already-undesirable hull-tanking 10x more expensive, like kicking a man who's already down.
Since I have spare internal bays to take cargo in my Corvette, I just swap in three more HRPs to bring my integrity up by another 1500 and resistances up by another 50% when dealing with PVP or thargoids. It makes the reactive composites look silly and pointless.
I get that they're useful in small ships that have a lack of internal bays, but it seems like they're priced by an insane madman to the point that they're unappealing to anyone except the billionaires who revisit small ships for fun later in the game. The only three ships that are too small to fit an HRP without compromising other defenses are the Sidewinder, Hauler, and Diamondback Scout:
A Sidewinder with lightweight alloys is 4K.
Reactive composites are 139K.
The bulkhead upgrade alone costs 35x more than the ship.
A Hauler with lightweight alloys is 29K.
Reactive composites are 282K.
The bulkhead upgrade alone costs 10x more than the ship.
A Diamondback Scout with lightweight alloys is 460K.
Reactive composites are 1.33M.
The bulkhead upgrade alone costs 3x more than the ship.
Let's look at the DBS - Reactive composites add 204 integrity, +60% explosive, +45% kinetic, and -40% thermal resistances.
For the price of Reactive composites, you could just buy a DBX which has two more cargo slots for HRPs and those would be vastly superior to the benefit of the reactive composites.
(ignoring the fact that the DBS jumps further, carries more, has better hardpoints, has a larger PD for more firepower, has more hull integrity to start with, has a higher hull hardness, and is generally a much better ship)
Corvette - 182M
Reactive composites 443M.
The armour costs 2.5x the ship itself. I feel like FDev just put a decimal point in the wrong place, effectively making the already-undesirable hull-tanking 10x more expensive, like kicking a man who's already down.
Since I have spare internal bays to take cargo in my Corvette, I just swap in three more HRPs to bring my integrity up by another 1500 and resistances up by another 50% when dealing with PVP or thargoids. It makes the reactive composites look silly and pointless.
I get that they're useful in small ships that have a lack of internal bays, but it seems like they're priced by an insane madman to the point that they're unappealing to anyone except the billionaires who revisit small ships for fun later in the game. The only three ships that are too small to fit an HRP without compromising other defenses are the Sidewinder, Hauler, and Diamondback Scout:
A Sidewinder with lightweight alloys is 4K.
Reactive composites are 139K.
The bulkhead upgrade alone costs 35x more than the ship.
A Hauler with lightweight alloys is 29K.
Reactive composites are 282K.
The bulkhead upgrade alone costs 10x more than the ship.
A Diamondback Scout with lightweight alloys is 460K.
Reactive composites are 1.33M.
The bulkhead upgrade alone costs 3x more than the ship.
Let's look at the DBS - Reactive composites add 204 integrity, +60% explosive, +45% kinetic, and -40% thermal resistances.
For the price of Reactive composites, you could just buy a DBX which has two more cargo slots for HRPs and those would be vastly superior to the benefit of the reactive composites.
(ignoring the fact that the DBS jumps further, carries more, has better hardpoints, has a larger PD for more firepower, has more hull integrity to start with, has a higher hull hardness, and is generally a much better ship)
Last edited:
Have you ever wondered why the hull reinforcements are on the inside option compartments and the bulkheads (which are on the inside of ships) are on the outside of the ship. I have never worked that out.
Last edited:
The problem is that they approached the price of hull upgrades from a logical perspective (unlike a lot of other aspects for the game), where buying a hull is literally almost buying another ship. You are buying a thicker version of all of the metal that covers the outside of your ship.
I'm not saying it's good for the game, just saying I see where they were coming from.