Rethinking HRP

[Morbad]

Well, I am currently returning to Colonia to get rid of my HRP. I mistakenly believed that it would protect my hull against damage. This transpires not to be the case. It only applies to combat damage. How it knows what type of damage is being received is what I want to know!

Yes, this an explorer gripe but consider the chase through an asteroid belt where the environment becomes part of your strategy and may hit an asteroid or debris. Or when you collide with your enemy. You'd expect that HRP to be earning its outlay then wouldn't you?

HRPs do help against collisions. Collision damage is untyped (used to be kinetic a long time ago, but they changed that), so resistances won't help, but the greater hull integrity most certainly will.

I pull all the HRPs off my Corvette then drop it on a high-G world with my shields disable and the thing will explode. I use my combat HRP loadout and she'll bounce four or five times before I get worried.

 

[CaptainHoyt]

Which is why people prefer to not get stomped and just play in solo. SCBs, SB's, HRPs, MRPs, Engineers, they are all nails in the same coffin, which is Open.

this is just all nonsense, why are SCBs, SB's, HRPs, MRPs nails in opens coffin, which isn't a thing open is just as full as its always been.

 

[StiTch]

Well, I am currently returning to Colonia to get rid of my HRP. I mistakenly believed that it would protect my hull against damage. This transpires not to be the case. It only applies to combat damage. How it knows what type of damage is being received is what I want to know!

Well how it detects the damage types is obvious (from a gaming perspective) but the rest is news to me. HRPs give HP and resistances (in small amounts non-engineered), so how can this be true unless the game detects the damage is collision/drop-out/heat based and then deliberately scales the damage up to deal an equal percentage?

What you may have heard (asides from the fact collisions ignore resistances) is that your ship takes damage to it's "integrity" over time described as wear/tear. As this decreases your ship hull strength does too, and some explorers are of the opinion that consequently HRPs are useless because when integrity hits 0% you're gonna melt under hull damage anyway.

I don't understand this stat explicitly (and would love to be corrected) but my awareness of it is that when all the way at 0%, which takes some time, your ship has 30% less hull strength. That doesn't exactly make HRPs useless, and it doesn't stop them being a nice buffer against an inopportune collision...

 

[TERMINATRIXXX]

Well its not like its my fault for not putting shields or armour on my ship, this games balance is BROKEN!!!

I'm Engineering my FAS, when I'm done can I test it against your Cutter? my weapon setup is designed to take down big ships.

Anytime hun Always up for messing and testing loadouts.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

this is just all nonsense, why are SCBs, SB's, HRPs, MRPs nails in opens coffin, which isn't a thing open is just as full as its always been.

Because it theoretically widens the gap between combat fit ships and non-combat ships.

Theoretically, when in practice they all still have the same optional internals except for those that recently got military slots because they were gimped beyond reason.

 

[babelfisch]

Fair cop, I can get on board with sarcastic humour. Apologies for the forum policing, just came across as nothing but sheer bias.

Ah, so you're against instant join-ups in multi-crew then? Against the current chat system that clearly utilises FTL communication despite the fact that's incredibly expensive in the ED galaxy? Against multicannons, which would only belong in a museum in 3303?

Please, let's not use realism as arguments for ED gameplay. I get enough of realism at work and play ED to avoid the very thing...

No, I just like to think about alternatives that don't compromise gameplay, armuor packs have a different impact on usability than the removal of accessibility to multicrew. I'd also like to walk around my ship some day, inspect the modules and ideally repair them. The system needs to be believable.

Sorry, I am not seeing what you mean. The proposition states that basically HRPs move to their own slots, which would be independent of the ship's normal internals. Where's the tradeoff in outfitting? If you want to build an armoured trader just stuff it full of cargo racks and put HRPs in their own slots. All you've lost is a minor amount of jump range. Combat ships suddenly get HRPs as default and can fit w/e they want inside regardless, ending out looking like armoured multi-role ships. Multi-role ships now get to stuff themselves full of utility internals and STILL get armoured, which was the same area of discrepancy military slots was trying to sort out.

Respect for the thoughts but I see no evidence this encourages sacrifice in loadout, or any sense of individuality/"playing your way". If everything goes in its own slot you all end up running the same build with minor variations.[/quote]
I think the trade off in maneuverability should be really high (much higher than it currently is). If you want to fly a tank, it should handle like a tank. This still gives room for nimble fighters' without HRPs that fly circles around them.

Aaaah, so ED lives for PvP only? What a notion that would be

And no, I run a trader in Open around imp. slave hotspots when I need lazy money or rep gains and have never lost my trader once. Because I build it defensively at the cost of maximum profitz.

That's not what I said.

 

[CaptainHoyt]

Anytime hun

Cheers darling

 

[babelfisch]

this is just all nonsense, why are SCBs, SB's, HRPs, MRPs nails in opens coffin, which isn't a thing open is just as full as its always been.

Because they increase asymmetry and force players into one specific load out. But this is getting off topic...

 

[DukeIronHand]

There are HRP modification to augment each resistance type and, unlike bulkheads, there are no such distinctions with the base modules already grandfathered in.

Ah. Thank you.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because they increase asymmetry and force players into one specific load out. But this is getting off topic...

.... and if they didn't exist there'd still likely be a meta loadout for ships, given the new imposed limits on some defensive parameters.

 

[babelfisch]

What a shame. Why don't we get rid of all of them.

And after that we'll exchange hardpoints with plushie mounts.

I'd prefer a game based on skill rather than a game within a game.

 

[StiTch]

Because they increase asymmetry

Asymmetry, being able to choose what goes on your ship...tom-eh-to, tom-ah-to

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'd prefer a game based on skill rather than a game within a game.

None of the ranks / reputations in the game require skill, just time....

 

[babelfisch]

.... and if they didn't exist there'd still likely be a meta loadout for ships, given the new imposed limits on some defensive parameters.

Which is a good thing. A Corvette should absolutely be superior to a T9 when it comes to combat. It's a combat ship afterall. What doesn't male sense is that a Corvette doesn't stand chance against a Corvette unless it follows the meta. The choice is an illusion.

- - - Updated - - -

Asymmetry, being able to choose what goes on your ship...tom-eh-to, tom-ah-to

No. It's either PvP or not PvP. There is no other choice involved.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which is a good thing. A Corvette should absolutely be superior to a T9 when it comes to combat. It's a combat ship afterall. What doesn't male sense is that a Corvette doesn't stand chance against a Corvette unless it follows the meta. The choice is an illusion.

As long as we can customise our ships there will be meta.

 

[babelfisch]

None of the ranks / reputations in the game require skill, just time....

There is a difference between PvP and ranks / reputations though.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as we can customise our ships there will be meta.

Which (again) is not a bad thing as long as it can't make a ship 500% stronger.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There is a difference between PvP and ranks / reputations though.

Indeed - everyone will progress in the ranks / reputations whereas it would seem that the minority get involved with PvP.

Which (again) is not a bad thing as long as it can't make a ship 500% stronger.

It's up to each player how they outfit their ship - what is being proposed is to reduce options.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

I'd prefer a game based on skill rather than a game within a game.

How about both?

And let's go for games within games within games while we're at it.

Let's get things balanced so that there isn't all this crap about "The One True Meta."

You know, introduce some player choice?

 

[babelfisch]

It's up to each player how they outfit their ship - what is being proposed is to reduce options.

So your argument against HRPs in additional slots is that it allows too many options and your argument against limiting defensive modules to defensive slots is that it takes too many options away?

- - - Updated - - -

How about both?

And let's go for games within games within games while we're at it.

Let's get things balanced so that there isn't all this crap about "The One True Meta."

You know, introduce some player choice?

That's the thing, everything they added to increase player choice actually reduced player choice in my opinion.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So your argument against HRPs in additional slots is that it allows too many options and your argument against limiting defensive modules to defensive slots is that it takes too many options away?

Nope. The problem arises when multi-purpose slots are proposed to become unable to equip modules that they can currently equip to suit the play-style of a subset of the player-base.