OPINION ALERT!
***
I think SCB's are in a good place right now. You can pile on as many as you like, but not without consequences; they pretty much require HSLs on most ships to avoid module damage on use, they drain ship energy while powered which limits how many you can have active at a time and takes potential power away from weapons or other systems, their effective shield provided is limited both by your maximum shield and the module size, they take time to power up, and take time to charge your shield. They even contribute to your ships' weight.
HRPs on the other hand, have zero downsides. They don't contribute to your heat profile, they don't drain power, they don't impact your agility any more than an SCB, they are entirely passive, and provide the exact same benefit for the cost per slot regardless of ship hull strength. This means you can stack as many as you want with virtually no consequence on any ship. This devalues shields and SCBs on small ships and massively devalues bulkheads on large ships, widens the gulf between PK and PvE builds performance-wise, and kneecaps PvE difficulty just as much as the SCB exploitation orgy did pre-nerf.
Rather than limiting the number of HRPs as some might suggest, I'd rather see HRPs function exactly like a combination of SBs and Bulkheads, providing a percentage improvement to hull, at a percentage of the ships' cost, with the last, least factor being HRP rank/size. I'd also like to see Bulkheads reduced in cost, as they are very much prohibitive on larger ships. maybe 50% of the hull for the best possible armour rather than 100% for military and the 200% or whatever for reactive/mirrored or whatever it is. That's still pretty expensive (and the HRPs would be in a similar boat) but a far cry from 300 mil for 400 armour points. Like SBs HRPs would scale on a percentage rather than flat value, with 20% for the best single HRP available. This would reduce the disparity between HRP value between small/large ships, equalize them with bulkheads, and make shields valuable on small ships again.
EXAMPLE 1:
An Anaconda with six C5-D HRPs today (with no bulkhead upgrades) has 2895 hull points, with 1950 of those from the HRPs or 205% hull at a fraction of the cost of the bulkheads. With these changes the same Anaconda would have 2079 hull points with 1129 from HRPs, or 120% hull, at the same equivalent cost as bulkheads (remember bulkheads would be much cheaper).
EXAMPLE 2:
A Cobra by comparison can't fit C5-Ds, so we'll fit it with 3x C4-Ds. That gives 1206 hull points, with 990 of those from HRPs, or a whopping 458% extra hull! This time our HRPs cost about 75% of the cost of military bulkheads, which is closer together than with the Anaconda but the HRP is still providing about 33% more hull points, and for less money. That is insane no matter how you slice it. Now apply the above changes; C4-D's are a step below the C5's so we'll say they provide 16% extra hull, since there are 5 size classes, making them in 4% increments makes sense to me. Our Cobra now has 319 hull points with 103 of those or 48% from HRPs. That's a far cry from 1206/990, and one that actually justifies the inclusion of a shield generator (C4-A SG provides 124 mj to the Cobra). This also sidesteps the reality-shattering madness of a Cobra having more hull points than an Anaconda for a fraction of the cost.
This solution is balanced for every single ship and would not be all that hard to implement.
***
I think SCB's are in a good place right now. You can pile on as many as you like, but not without consequences; they pretty much require HSLs on most ships to avoid module damage on use, they drain ship energy while powered which limits how many you can have active at a time and takes potential power away from weapons or other systems, their effective shield provided is limited both by your maximum shield and the module size, they take time to power up, and take time to charge your shield. They even contribute to your ships' weight.
HRPs on the other hand, have zero downsides. They don't contribute to your heat profile, they don't drain power, they don't impact your agility any more than an SCB, they are entirely passive, and provide the exact same benefit for the cost per slot regardless of ship hull strength. This means you can stack as many as you want with virtually no consequence on any ship. This devalues shields and SCBs on small ships and massively devalues bulkheads on large ships, widens the gulf between PK and PvE builds performance-wise, and kneecaps PvE difficulty just as much as the SCB exploitation orgy did pre-nerf.
Rather than limiting the number of HRPs as some might suggest, I'd rather see HRPs function exactly like a combination of SBs and Bulkheads, providing a percentage improvement to hull, at a percentage of the ships' cost, with the last, least factor being HRP rank/size. I'd also like to see Bulkheads reduced in cost, as they are very much prohibitive on larger ships. maybe 50% of the hull for the best possible armour rather than 100% for military and the 200% or whatever for reactive/mirrored or whatever it is. That's still pretty expensive (and the HRPs would be in a similar boat) but a far cry from 300 mil for 400 armour points. Like SBs HRPs would scale on a percentage rather than flat value, with 20% for the best single HRP available. This would reduce the disparity between HRP value between small/large ships, equalize them with bulkheads, and make shields valuable on small ships again.
EXAMPLE 1:
An Anaconda with six C5-D HRPs today (with no bulkhead upgrades) has 2895 hull points, with 1950 of those from the HRPs or 205% hull at a fraction of the cost of the bulkheads. With these changes the same Anaconda would have 2079 hull points with 1129 from HRPs, or 120% hull, at the same equivalent cost as bulkheads (remember bulkheads would be much cheaper).
EXAMPLE 2:
A Cobra by comparison can't fit C5-Ds, so we'll fit it with 3x C4-Ds. That gives 1206 hull points, with 990 of those from HRPs, or a whopping 458% extra hull! This time our HRPs cost about 75% of the cost of military bulkheads, which is closer together than with the Anaconda but the HRP is still providing about 33% more hull points, and for less money. That is insane no matter how you slice it. Now apply the above changes; C4-D's are a step below the C5's so we'll say they provide 16% extra hull, since there are 5 size classes, making them in 4% increments makes sense to me. Our Cobra now has 319 hull points with 103 of those or 48% from HRPs. That's a far cry from 1206/990, and one that actually justifies the inclusion of a shield generator (C4-A SG provides 124 mj to the Cobra). This also sidesteps the reality-shattering madness of a Cobra having more hull points than an Anaconda for a fraction of the cost.
This solution is balanced for every single ship and would not be all that hard to implement.
