Self Restraint

[Old Duck]

I unlocked Selene Jean last night on PC, and I brought my fleet to her to engineer the hull and HRPs. As with many aspects of ship design and engineering, I just could not bring myself to maxing out most of my ships. It just doesn't feel right. People complain about the game lacking challenge, but we bring this on ourselves much of the time. For example, my cargo ship T9 is just that - a CARGO SHIP. It's not a flying battleship, so after buying military armor for it and giving it some thought, I sold that armor minutes later and just stuck with the default lightweight armor instead. I did engineer that armor, as I think a big ship should be able to absorb a lot of bullets before going down, but obviously my T9 is still much less of a bullet sponge that it could have been. This gives me both a sense of realism and challenge.

I did similar things with other ships. My Mamba has a reinforced hull (again, a ship that doesn't feel like a "military" ship), and I actually went with the light weight mod rather than the meta hull-buff mod. Other ships that I buffed I purposefully stopped at G3. Only a couple of ships did I max at G5, based on the actual hull toughness numbers. My my very flimsy Krait Phantom, for example, needed all the help it could get.

Even unengineered HRPs add a ridiculous amount of hull strength, so I've scaled back my usage of these and tend to engineer based on resistances or lightness over pure brute hull strength. Being bullet proof may sound like fun, but then we complain that the game is too easy and there's no challenge, something that players starting off in unengineered E-rated ships rarely complain about. G5 shield and hull tanking ships is the equivalent to selecting "Easy Mode" at the start of a traditional game IMO, and I'd rather keep ED PvE challenging and fun.

So am I the only weirdo who does NOT min-max for the sake of realism and gameplay challenge?

 

[Bob McBobblehead]

No matter the ship, I always have to install an A grade power plant and either engineer it to G5 low emissions or G5 overcharged. All my cargo and exploration ships run A-rated G5 low emissions power plants and my only combat ship runs overcharged.

 

[Lightspeed]

I unlocked Selene Jean last night on PC, and I brought my fleet to her to engineer the hull and HRPs. As with many aspects of ship design and engineering, I just could not bring myself to maxing out most of my ships. It just doesn't feel right. People complain about the game lacking challenge, but we bring this on ourselves much of the time. For example, my cargo ship T9 is just that - a CARGO SHIP. It's not a flying battleship, so after buying military armor for it and giving it some thought, I sold that armor minutes later and just stuck with the default lightweight armor instead. I did engineer that armor, as I think a big ship should be able to absorb a lot of bullets before going down, but obviously my T9 is still much less of a bullet sponge that it could have been. This gives me both a sense of realism and challenge.

I did similar things with other ships. My Mamba has a reinforced hull (again, a ship that doesn't feel like a "military" ship), and I actually went with the light weight mod rather than the meta hull-buff mod. Other ships that I buffed I purposefully stopped at G3. Only a couple of ships did I max at G5, based on the actual hull toughness numbers. My my very flimsy Krait Phantom, for example, needed all the help it could get.

Even unengineered HRPs add a ridiculous amount of hull strength, so I've scaled back my usage of these and tend to engineer based on resistances or lightness over pure brute hull strength. Being bullet proof may sound like fun, but then we complain that the game is too easy and there's no challenge, something that players starting off in unengineered E-rated ships rarely complain about. G5 shield and hull tanking ships is the equivalent to selecting "Easy Mode" at the start of a traditional game IMO, and I'd rather keep ED PvE challenging and fun.

So am I the only weirdo who does NOT min-max for the sake of realism and gameplay challenge?

I have taken an Orca Explorer out into the black. FSD drive engineered as far as possible, of course, but I only engineered the thrusters to level 3 clean. Taking it further felt like overkill and a waste of material gathering effort.

 

[Northpin]

So am I the only weirdo who does NOT min-max for the sake of realism and gameplay challenge?

Only? Probably not
Weirdo? Probably

I usually engineer to the max if i have the mats. And i usually make sure that i have them
But i do fly in combat a non engineered Eagle from time to time. Cant do anything else in it bar Nav Beacon hunting, still it's quite entertaining. It's named Floppy

 

[Deleted member 38366]

There's IMHO little point in not fully engineering, unless - as you wrote - we're talking a whole fleet.

Under such circumstances, it's better to slap any Special Effect onto low-grade Mods and then polish them up later via Remote Engineering as feasible.
That avoids the floodwave of Mat Requirement and the associated Engineering/Mat hunting stress.

As for handicap/challenge, not much difference between G3 and G5 Engineering.
And a T9 - under bad circumstances - needs all the Engineering love it can possibly get

 

[veryDead]

G5 is superior in every way to all other grades, so if you have the materials and are engineering anyway, there is no reason not to.

I do have some partially engineered ships though, because sometimes "good-enough" is exactly what is needed.

Realism? Bah! There is nothing realistic about Elite at all. It is pure fiction based on nonsense, which is why I love it. You keep that dirty realism to yourself!

 

[Old Duck]

There's IMHO little point in not fully engineering, unless - as you wrote - we're talking a whole fleet.

I had the mats, I just didn't want remove all the challenge from the game. The possibility of death is what reminds us that we are alive. Granted, I could avoid ALL engineering for the most challenge, and I have been doing fine up to this point with only G1 armor / HRP engineering, but this is why I chose other forms of engineering (like lightweight for my Mamba) to try to balance challenging vs. realism (as I see it).

I'm also not opposed to G5 for certain types of engineering, like the FSD on said T9. I engineer to create what feels like a realistic (not "god ship") top-of-the-line ship for its class, so a FAST Mamba doesn't bother me, nor do long range lasers or cool power plants. Infinite shields and hull, on the other hand, just make for a boring "I win, I ALWAYS WIN" game unless you're into PvP, in which case it's a boring, "Let's dance for 30 minutes until one of us wakes out" game. That's why my PvP is CQC.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convert anyone to my religion, but I'm happy to start a church if there are other followers of "The Way" as described in my OP

 

[Wyaston Hypatia]

…
So am I the only weirdo who does NOT min-max for the sake of realism and gameplay challenge?

Back in my self-ironman days I had a whole set of rules to follow such as only repair 10% damage per station visit. So not alone, although I now am a far more casual player than I was.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I understand your POV, but personally I prefer to either engineer to the max and take on ever more crazy odds, or under engineer for a specific purpose rather than do it for a challenge.

ED engineering to me is a double edged sword- you absolutely need it to do BGS / Powerplay / PvP where you need to squeeze out everything you can, where it shines and I have some fun is in PvE where you can make frankly silly builds for a laugh. For example I made an ultralightweight combat Corvette that turned like a Vulture, but was so compromised it was a flying coffin- or a bounty hunter T-6, and so on.

 

[Brrokk]

In your (OP) T9 example I wouldn't use military armour: jump range is more important.

 

[Nerwan]

G5 is superior in every way to all other grades, so if you have the materials and are engineering anyway, there is no reason not to.

I do have some partially engineered ships though, because sometimes "good-enough" is exactly what is needed.

With the exception of power plants of course, generally with those you overcharge to the minimum required or you do low emissions/sturdy G5 if you can get away with it.

 

[Old Duck]

I understand your POV, but personally I prefer to either engineer to the max and take on ever more crazy odds, or under engineer for a specific purpose rather than do it for a challenge.

ED engineering to me is a double edged sword- you absolutely need it to do BGS / Powerplay / PvP where you need to squeeze out everything you can,

I don't disagree, but for me engineering is always about compensating for deficiencies in the game rather than making unrealistic god ships (like your physics-defying Corvette). So for example, I'll eventually engineer G5 SRB MCs for my Mamba, only because the ships in combat zones are stupidly unrealistic bullet sponges that take forever to kill with the same MCs unengineered. Heck, I'll even use premium ammo! And the shorter range at least gives me a different challenge - getting in close enough for my guns to track and fire at the enemy.

But I can solo a high CZ in my G1 reenforced hull Mamba, so making it a G5 hull is way too OP for me. Nor do I think a Mamba should be able to single-handedly take on a wing of Elite Anacondas in any universe, well except perhaps the Marvel Cinematic Universe where Vibranium is a thing..

 

[Crank Larson]

The only modules that I'll always G5 as soon as possible are the thrusters and FSD. I modify other components as needed to do this.

The ship I usually fly is pretty much fully G5 modded now, but only because I've been flying it for so long. I usually just upgrade as the urge takes me.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't disagree, but for me engineering is always about compensating for deficiencies in the game rather than making unrealistic god ships (like your physics-defying Corvette). So for example, I'll eventually engineer G5 SRB MCs for my Mamba, only because the ships in combat zones are stupidly unrealistic bullet sponges that take forever to kill with the same MCs unengineered. Heck, I'll even use premium ammo! And the shorter range at least gives me a different challenge - getting in close enough for my guns to track and fire at the enemy.

But I can solo a high CZ in my G1 reenforced hull Mamba, so making it a G5 hull is way too OP for me. Nor do I think a Mamba should be able to single-handedly take on a wing of Elite Anacondas in any universe, well except perhaps the Marvel Cinematic Universe where Vibranium is a thing..

For me there is a part of my brain that could never not go to the max, and that (as you point out) its FD that set the limits- with G5 engineering it is too much in the wrong places. In solo PvE I have no qualm at all about engineering 'wrong' or different ships and effects, its where I have a lot of fun. For example that Corvette had to have premium ammo and jumponium to even jump at all. With a 2 and 4 T tank each jump had to be calculated perfectly, and that my time in system was spent fighting but also looking at the fuel gauge.

The only time I under engineer is with criminal ships where they acquire huge bounties and need quick disposal / build times- so often only one aspect is G1 and the rest is either empty or A grade stock.

 

[Stealthie]

So am I the only weirdo who does NOT min-max for the sake of realism and gameplay challenge?

I guess I'm a weirdo too.

Imagine being in the air force.
You're flying a C130 Hercules in Afghanistan.
You look at the plane, decide that it needs armour-plating, bigger engines, rocket launchers, better avionics and additional defences.
You take your shopping-list of requirements to the base commander, he looks up at you, puts down his cigar, sighs audibly and then quietly suggests you get your butt aboard the plane and carry out your orders unless you want to face a court-martial.

That's kind of how I see ED.

When I'm building ships I'm the air force's procurement department.
I decide what role a new ship is intended to fill.
I decide it's specifications and it's budget.
I then build the ship and it goes into "service", at which point I become the pilot and my job is simply to fly the ship in whatever role is required of it.
I, as the pilot, don't get to decide that it needs different weapons, better armor or whatever.

Is this a little schizophrenic?
Probably.
Or not.

 

[Ashnak]

In your (OP) T9 example I wouldn't use military armour: jump range is more important.

I'd put that the other way round: the T-9 comes in at ~1500...2000 tons. The 150...200 tons for heavy armour won't change much. Rather slap in a G5 Guardian FSD Booster. That'll give you 10.5 ly additional range, no matter how heavy your ship is.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I guess I'm a weirdo too.

Imagine being in the air force.
You're flying a C130 Hercules in Afghanistan.
You look at the plane, decide that it needs armour-plating, bigger engines, rocket launchers, better avionics and additional defences.
You take your shopping-list of requirements to the base commander, he looks up at you, puts down his cigar, sighs audibly and then quietly suggests you get your butt aboard the plane and carry out your orders unless you want to face a court-martial.

That's kind of how I see ED.

When I'm building ships I'm the air force's procurement department.
I decide what role a new ship is intended to fill.
I decide it's specifications and it's budget.
I then build the ship and it goes into "service", at which point I become the pilot and my job is simply to fly the ship in whatever role is required of it.
I, as the pilot, don't get to decide that it needs different weapons, better armor or whatever.

Is this a little schizophrenic?
Probably.
Or not.

I always had a half idea that for some missions you are given a ship to a certain spec which is similar to your post- a bit like the training missions.

 

[Ashnak]

With the exception of power plants of course, generally with those you overcharge to the minimum required or you do low emissions/sturdy G5 if you can get away with it.

Or you go for armored, with monstered, low emissions or sturdy as secondary.

 

[Old Duck]

The only time I under engineer

With many engineering branches, "under" engineering is a bit of a misnomer. You can under-engineer a lightweight hull or efficient weapon, because there are no negatives, but most engineering has some tradeoffs, be it power draw, weight, reduced range, etc. Unfortunately these negatives aren't enough to offset the creation of silly, unrealistic godships, but I personally do pay attention to them and find some negatives not worth the enhancements.

BTW, I have no problems with players like you creating silly godships for the fun of it. I'm more of a realism / immersion player myself (to the point where I flew an Anaconda with undersized thrusters to keep it feeling like a large ship), but to each their own. My only complaint is when players whine about how easy the game is after they build their G5 ships, thus resulting in stupid bullet sponge NPCs in CZs that affects all of us.

 

[Rubbernuke]

With many engineering branches, "under" engineering is a bit of a misnomer. There is no way to under engineer a lightweight hull or efficient weapon, because there are no negatives, but most engineering has some tradeoffs, be it power draw, weight, reduced range, etc. Unfortunately these negatives aren't enough to create silly godships, but I personally do pay attention to them and find some negatives not worth the enhancements.

BTW, I have no problems with players like you creating silly godships for the fun of it. I'm more of a realism / immersion player myself (to the point where I flew an Anaconda with undersized thrusters to keep it feeling like a large ship), but to each their own. My only complaint is when players whine about how easy the game is after they build their G5 ships, thus resulting in stupid bullet sponge NPCs in CZs that affects all of us.

By under engineer I mean anything under G5- for competitive features you can't go lower really.

That Corvette is almost under engineered though, because its aim was to be as fast and agile as possible- 330 and 428 boost was lovely, but to get there it becomes more fragile than a Cobra Mk 3 with limited DPS. It would be a great racer ironically!

I have an outlook which aligns with you, just in a different way- I go G5 but seek out as much stacked danger as possible to push even G5 stuff. I got there once, by stacking pirate lord and cargo missions giving me two pirate Corvettes, an FdL assassin, a whole comp.nav wanting my cargo and all sorts inbetween. It was the only time I can remember that my ship and me were pushed really hard. The other is BGS murder in those underspecced ships killing civs and outrunning ATR.