Please give us size 6 7 and 8 module and hull reinforcement packages. Currently they only go up to a size 5 so a lot of space in the big 3 (and T-10) is wasted in those slot sizes. We can get shields in that size, it makes sense to have the same for hull and module stuff too.
Size 6 7 and 8 HRP, MRPs
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
Riverside has a point.
Hitpoint inflation shouldn't be getting any higher than it is. It's already about 10x over stock HP while DPS inflation is only about 2x higher.
Hitpoint inflation shouldn't be getting any higher than it is. It's already about 10x over stock HP while DPS inflation is only about 2x higher.
It would be more like exchanging shield hitpoints for armour hitpoints.
No, if you die too quickly, there is something wrong with your skills, not with the armor on your ship.
Errrr... these would be so heavy that yar ship wouldn't move.
Thargoids stole them.
We (Dark Marauders) stole them all and sold them to our Black Market.
No.
thx
Thargoids stole them.
We (Dark Marauders) stole them all and sold them to our Black Market.
No.
thx
Ships are bulletspongey enough already. The only ships that die fast are the ones that aren't fitted with any reinforcement at all.
I wouldn't complain, but I'm sure the PvP crowd will. They don't like adapting their meta builds to change.
For hulltank builds having 6 7 and 8 would be very useful.
Just because shield mechanics are broken does not mean other parts of the game should be as well. Shields need a hard nerf for sure and I really want that to make hull tank and hybrid builds actually worthwhile.
Either way ships will be sponges: you can have 8 shield boosters and have huge amounts of Guardian shields to make 10K shield monsters, or, you fill those slots with hull- and at least with hull it does not grow back.
I don't understand this argument though. Shields have had twice as many extras added to them as hull has, and no-one complained about that at all. You have G5 engineering, human boosters and guardian flat boosters. Thats 3 levels of augmentation compared to 2 with hull, in slots that really don't have much use in a combat ship and are wasted. I mean, other than a shield or a SLF bay, what else goes in a larger slot?
EDIT: 4 levels of augmentation if you count SCBs.
LOTS of people complains about hit point inflation. I do in every relevant thread.
The problem is, if you simply limit the number of boosters or guardian reinforcements the
What I want to see really is more variety in builds that are viable, and give more choice to larger ships in big slots. Ships like the Cutter and Corvette suffer as they have an abundance of size 8 (Cutter), 7 and 6 slots that really go to waste, so they never really get better than an Anaconda which has better suited internals and either matches or out performs them. All you see is giant hangar, large SCB and large shield.
I would like a shield rebalance, but based on heat weapons rather than a hard nerf. FD could do it many ways that don't prejudice non-combatants, by upping power requirements, making powerplants less potent.
But as you say its about overall balance, and ED lost that with engineering and too many spinning plates.
I would like a shield rebalance, but based on heat weapons rather than a hard nerf. FD could do it many ways that don't prejudice non-combatants, by upping power requirements, making powerplants less potent.
But as you say its about overall balance, and ED lost that with engineering and too many spinning plates.
I don't think this proposal would add more variety because the player can already fit the biggest HRPs available in the larger slots. The proposal would only add to the hull hitpoints as a straight buff (with a downside of extra mass and lower jump range).
Personally I think power creep should be avoided or delayed as much as possible and this would only benefit those players not concerned about jump range at the expense of those who are.
Personally I think power creep should be avoided or delayed as much as possible and this would only benefit those players not concerned about jump range at the expense of those who are.
Honestly, considering how larger HRPs and MRPs give diminishing returns compared to the exponential returns of larger SCBs, I'd argue that size 6-8 HRPs and MRPs would only ever collect dust in outfitting if they were introduced since they would almost certainly be less useful than same-size SCBs. Currently, the Corvette and Cutter work best with SCBs (which you absolutely should be using on them), and I don't think this would change with the introduction of larger HRPs and MRPs simply because they wouldn't give as many additional hitpoints.
The only way I could see size 6-8 HRPs and MRPs being useful is if they were added as part of a much larger armour and shield rebalance, which is outside of the scope of this thread.
This is what I'd like to see- my other thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-generation-based-on-booster-stacking.510145/
What bored me about big ships (and engineering in general) is that you can't really experiment anymore- in the end its all shield based.
Last edited:
Uh, no. You can gain a lot of survivability by adding plenty of small HRPs and engineer them. A good combination of shield and hull goes a long way. And that's not just pure theory and having fun, also a number of PvP players (i am not one, i just like to build tough as nails PvE ships) run hybrid setups with plenty of hull reinforcement packages.
[Sidenote: that's also to some degree based on SCBs and feedback rails. In PvE i can use SCBs quite fine, but when you try to use them in PvP, chances are that your get very little out of them, as your enemy will just rail them. But even I as PvE player often build for some hull durability. After all, HRPs don't need power, don't create heat and just do their job. ]
That all being said, those ships don't need or even want HRPs in the big slots. Look at HRPs. The bigger they are the less they offer compared to their size and mass. And that's even before looking at engineering, where again a higher number of smaller HRPs gain much more of a benefit than a few big ones.
The bigger internal slots are rather filled with MRPs and perhaps an AFMU. MRPs scale much better with size. (Although a combination of a big one to absorb the damage and a small one to boost the absorption rate also is very often seen and very powerful. )
That all being said: unlike many other suggestions, which would just add to even more power creep, i wouldn't really be troubled by this suggestion. Considering how HRPs scale, all this suggestion would do is adding some useless modules. It would bloat the list of modules and thus the database a little bit, but would not really affect balance.
I have to disagree. During engineers era 1 I built an ultra fast long range lightweight Corvette that did just that with multiple small HRPs- in PvE it was fine, but against other players it folded quickly to meta ships. I also built a hulltank Corvette, and found that the large slots were wasted because I could not max out hull via them. In PvE combat it was ok, but it was handicapped due to the large slots being underequipped. If I had larger HRPs it would have been less of an issue. I then settled on a hybrid, which again was sub-optimal simply as I could not pork out the hull if I decided to use an undersize shield.
In combat you'll also find your hull will go quicker than any module in PvE. I used to run two MRPs until I noticed that my 5000 hull was getting down to 10% while my modules were sat at 90% or more. In PvE hull = life for hybrids and tanks. In PvP MRPs play a role, but in a big ship people will simply ping your powerplant so its shields again. Soon as they go down a big ship running is toast.
This is why I think ED does not reward experimentation on big ships. The large slots are simply there for shields and SCBs and not much else.