The Logic of Internals

[shadragon]

Some things like Hull Reinforcement packages, limpet controllers, SCB's, chaff launchers, etc., can have multiple units installed.

Other things like fuel scoops, shields, Interdictors, etc., you can only have one on-board.

The previously highlighted concerns over things like tank FAS with no shields, multiple hull reinfs and 2,800 hull points, or ships with multiple SCB's has been discussed before in depth. I don't want to revisit that, I simply want to ask if limits on the number of internals you can fit, is needed.

SCB's have been balanced by extreme heat penalties, but you can still take as many as you like. You just need to install heat sinks and it's no real trouble. This really has no effect on combat, save to extend the time you can stay in a fight. In a battle, two pilots with the same ship and skill level should be equally matched, but equipment outfitting can give a definitive advantage to the one who has all armour or mega-shield SCB combos.

That's fine as long as both ships are outfitted the same, but realistically you end up in a situation where one pilot is a tank and another is in a cargo ship or general purpose vessel, it's a slaughter.

Should SCB's be limited to installing only one unit? Same question with hull reinforcement. Given limits, like one SCB, one chaff launcher, etc., then combats will be shorter and outcomes much less in favour of the tank. A regular ship would have a better chance of surviving if jumped by a player and combats would rely on skill rather than the gear installed. 2.1 is bringing more powerful weapons which make the tanks even more of a threat. Do we need to dial back other aspects of the game mechanics to compensate?

On the other side of the argument, there's fuel scoops. Why can't we have more than one installed for speed runs?

I'll throw the topic open to any other internals you want to address.

I really have no fixed position on this. I see pros/cons on both sides. What do you think?

 

[Weps]

I'm with the OP on this one. I know players are very fond of maximizing their setups, and I can understand the need for that in PvE, but on the other hand, as the OP mentioned, the differences between a combat outfitted ship and any other ship are so large that the outcome of the battle between the two is predetermined. Trader ships for example already suffer from reduced maneuverability, worse weapons and so on. Having defensive mechanics which can be stacked only by attacking ships makes the matter worse.

I'd dare go as far to say that this may be the reason we see so much controversy around PvP in Open. Players who know they are on the losing side will always attempt to run instead of putting up a fight, which will lead to attackers being unsatisfied with their player interaction, which will make them more vicious. Even out the playing field a little, and you may see more fun on both sides and less drama.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

Internals definitely need to be limited. If nothing else having to forgo cargo space, fuel scoop, scanners, vehicle bays or other equipment to be able to PvP is annoying as heck, as well as heightening the PvE/PvP imbalance.

My favoured solution would be to make it so that to fit a combat module such as shields, SCBs, HRPs or interdictors, your internal must be millitary rated. Not all internals would have this

So for example, the FAS's internals would be rated

5M
5
4
3M
2M
2

(M for millitary rated)

This would take a PvP FAS's max hull down from 2610 to 1700, and would mean that you could fill your remaining internals with fun/quality of life internals such as cargo racks, fuel scoops, fuel tanks, vehicle bays or hatch breakers

This would also mean that trade/multipurpose ships would not have to be kept as horrible so they don't become OP due to huge numbers of internals (see cobra IV, Keelback) and new combat ships would not require lots of internals to be viable (see Corvette)

 

[Gypsy12]

OP has a very good point.

Repped.

 

[The_Quasar]

And less reality too!

A fully armed and protected combat ship should always beat a cargo ship easily, otherwise there is no point in having combat ships.

Sounds like you only want all rounders; personally, I like horses for courses. However, if you only allowed 1 module of each type in a ship, I guess that would kill trading stone dead!

Let's, please, keep things as they are, it means you have to be a bit creative and think about your load out: after all, we all have the choice how to load out our ships, and I believe that is one of the strengths of the game. Otherwise every ship would be almost identical, because you would have taken away our choices. Imho, that would be a lot more boring.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Not sure why they added HRPs when we already had the upgradable hull.

I feel that with each combat oriented addition to modules the gap between combat and non combat loadouts becomes greater.

Suppose this could be intentional.

My main beef with HRPs though is the ships in combat zones. You can take their shields and powerplant, but taking down their hull can take ages, even with a strong ship. Best option is to keep trying to get that poweplant to blow but wish could finish off the hull quicker.

 

[Alexander the Grape]

And less reality too!

A fully armed and protected combat ship should always beat a cargo ship easily, otherwise there is no point in having combat ships.

Sounds like you only want all rounders; personally, I like horses for courses. However, if you only allowed 1 module of each type in a ship, I guess that would kill trading stone dead!

Let's, please, keep things as they are, it means you have to be a bit creative and think about your load out: after all, we all have the choice how to load out our ships, and I believe that is one of the strengths of the game. Otherwise every ship would be almost identical, because you would have taken away our choices. Imho, that would be a lot more boring.

The current system takes away more choice, because every viable loadout has to be filled with combat internals or be useless.

 

[lilikin]

And less reality too!

A fully armed and protected combat ship should always beat a cargo ship easily, otherwise there is no point in having combat ships.

Sounds like you only want all rounders; personally, I like horses for courses. However, if you only allowed 1 module of each type in a ship, I guess that would kill trading stone dead!

Let's, please, keep things as they are, it means you have to be a bit creative and think about your load out: after all, we all have the choice how to load out our ships, and I believe that is one of the strengths of the game. Otherwise every ship would be almost identical, because you would have taken away our choices. Imho, that would be a lot more boring.

I think the OP is saying that he doesn't mind combat ships but the min maxing means that is too much certainty.

This wills spawn the standard response 'in RL this ship would beat this ship'

and back to that I say this isn't RL lets make the game fun.

Of course maybe FD are just balancing with the thought of a T9/panther firing 3-4 small ships will balance it effectively so we need to wait until then

just a thought

 

[Hell Razor5543]

I believe that the reason you can only have one fuel scoop is that as they use magnetic forces to guide the fuel in (in the same way a Bussard Ram Jet would), and having two fuel scoops running would cause the magnetic fields to interfere with each other.

 

[Gypsy12]

I'm with the OP on this one. I know players are very fond of maximizing their setups, and I can understand the need for that in PvE, but on the other hand, as the OP mentioned, the differences between a combat outfitted ship and any other ship are so large that the outcome of the battle between the two is predetermined. Trader ships for example already suffer from reduced maneuverability, worse weapons and so on. Having defensive mechanics which can be stacked only by attacking ships makes the matter worse.

I'd dare go as far to say that this may be the reason we see so much controversy around PvP in Open. Players who know they are on the losing side will always attempt to run instead of putting up a fight, which will lead to attackers being unsatisfied with their player interaction, which will make them more vicious. Even out the playing field a little, and you may see more fun on both sides and less drama.

Well, the way I see it is this: Cargo vessels are full of room. They should have a mechanism in place where they can sacrifice space for shield tanking, but not weapons. Perhaps also adjust the speed cap - boost will bring you up to maximum speed and top out, but with sustained speed the vessel will slowly increase speed to a new cap. Say... 20% extra. Enough to make it hard for a Cobra to keep up.

You could put it under the logic that combat vessels are so compacted and their engines so tuned for speed, that they cannot release heat so easily. And thus are capped to prevent destruction of their engines. When their engine fails, a capacitor kicks in generating a small frameshift pulse, that kills inertia and puts the ship at a dead stop so the pilot can be retrieved easily. On the other hand, cargo vessels do have room to absorb heat and can go past their limit a bit... but you're cargo can be cooked if its organic...

 

[CMDR Corlas]

Internals definitely need to be limited. If nothing else having to forgo cargo space, fuel scoop, scanners, vehicle bays or other equipment to be able to PvP is annoying as heck, as well as heightening the PvE/PvP imbalance.

My favoured solution would be to make it so that to fit a combat module such as shields, SCBs, HRPs or interdictors, your internal must be millitary rated. Not all internals would have this

So for example, the FAS's internals would be rated

5M
5
4
3M
2M
2

(M for millitary rated)

This would take a PvP FAS's max hull down from 2610 to 1700, and would mean that you could fill your remaining internals with fun/quality of life internals such as cargo racks, fuel scoops, fuel tanks, vehicle bays or hatch breakers

This would also mean that trade/multipurpose ships would not have to be kept as horrible so they don't become OP due to huge numbers of internals (see cobra IV, Keelback) and new combat ships would not require lots of internals to be viable (see Corvette)

I think this is kind of brilliant.

Optimization and choice in outfitting a wonderful strength of this game but, as I've said elsewhere, too many options and you end up actually limiting choice for people who want to be competitive, because you greatly inflate the relative power of a min/max builds over others.

Min/maxing is a not inherently bad, but it needs to be kept on a tight leash.

 

[babelfisch]

And less reality too!

A fully armed and protected combat ship should always beat a cargo ship easily, otherwise there is no point in having combat ships.

Sounds like you only want all rounders; personally, I like horses for courses. However, if you only allowed 1 module of each type in a ship, I guess that would kill trading stone dead!

Let's, please, keep things as they are, it means you have to be a bit creative and think about your load out: after all, we all have the choice how to load out our ships, and I believe that is one of the strengths of the game. Otherwise every ship would be almost identical, because you would have taken away our choices. Imho, that would be a lot more boring.

I think it's the other way around, currently there is no point in having combat ships because multirole ships have more internals = more SCB/HRP.

 

[diddycarter]

this are good points but its impractical simply because very few people actually do pvp. if you do this then the pve people that make up majority of the game will be the ones to suffer and this will never happen.

 

[Nodor]

As frustrating is the flip side of the coin. In theory the Type 9 is the best "cargo" ship. Sadly, due to jump range, max speed, and relative cargo capacity it is outperformed as a Cargo ship by the Imp Cutter, Fed Corvette, and the Anaconda.

One of the fixes to this is to make Transport ships have access to a better class of FSD that can ignore laden weights. Then double cargo capacity in a non-military slot. The type 9 should probably be able to carry 2-5 times the cargo of a cutter. If to do this, it has 3 fixed internal slots, rated size 9 cargo holds it will accomplish that. Giving the Type 7 a few fixed size 7 cargo holds and the Type 6 the same, would make them good cargo ships. Right now they seem like straight up bad purchases. Not only can you not get away, you cannot defend yourself. Other ships can do these things and carry more cargo.

 

[babelfisch]

this are good points but its impractical simply because very few people actually do pvp. if you do this then the pve people that make up majority of the game will be the ones to suffer and this will never happen.

I am a PvE guy and think SCBs and HRPs should be limited to one per ship. But removing them completely would be the best solution in my opinion...

 

[goemon]

i clearly see the problem OP describes, even if i would weight it differently. i personally don't think that getting into pvp-action is to much of a matter - if i want to shoot back, i will, but in most cases i anyway want to do something else (for exampel: getting my rares delivered).

i see more problems in there, that even pve-combat gets problematic with non-combat ships in a non-combat optimized set-up. lost my python yesterday in a high res first time, with some cargo ... at 50% thruster mass, a class 6 scb, due to a ramming anaconda with rail-support. the AI gets better and harder, which is great if you want to do combat, but it also forces very much specialized builds and ships. have been a long time since i lost any ship in a RES - last time was when i was running a railgun-adder.

on the other hand i'm all against limitations in shipbuilding - i love the extreme builds, cold running dbe's and shieldless mining pythons, and i wouldn't mind if you could fit 3 fuelscoops.

maybe things don't have to be balanced. ship transport may make things better - simply summon your special build to the place you want it at.

 

[The_Quasar]

Perhaps the OPer should ask him/herself, what do I want to do? Should I use an all-rounder, or should I use a dedicated ship?

Some always try to use an all-rounder, and some always like to use a dedicated ship.

I like specialised dedicated ships for a given purpose, they are usually very good at what they do. All-rounders, on the other hand, are always a compromise.

The fact that we're having these discussions, imho, does credit to the versatility of the ships in the game, and the forethought of FD.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

this are good points but its impractical simply because very few people actually do pvp. if you do this then the pve people that make up majority of the game will be the ones to suffer and this will never happen.

I think it would encourage more people to participate in PvP, if there wasn't an expectation that they were starting out at a such a serious loadout imbalance.

I know I would engage in PvP more, for the few times I've been interdicted or attacked by CMDR's. As it is now, I just ran, because my assumption was that if they were picking a fight, they were ready for it, and since I was in not in a PvP optimized ship, the fight was already starting out at a massive imbalance. If I knew that, at most, they had one SCB installed and a one HRP to my one HRP and no SCB's, I'd likely stay and fight. But the expectation is that I have my one HRP, and they are fully loaded with them or SCB's, so the fight would start off so slanted, there's no point in my sticking around for it.

 

[Kaocraft]

I think it would encourage more people to participate in PvP, if there wasn't an expectation that they were starting out at a such a serious loadout imbalance.

I know I would engage in PvP more, for the few times I've been interdicted or attacked by CMDR's. As it is now, I just ran, because my assumption was that if they were picking a fight, they were ready for it, and since I was in not in a PvP optimized ship, the fight was already starting out at a massive imbalance. If I knew that, at most, they had one SCB installed and a one HRP to my one HRP and no SCB's, I'd likely stay and fight. But the expectation is that I have my one HRP, and they are fully loaded with them or SCB's, so the fight would start off so slanted, there's no point in my sticking around for it.

Yeah this. The fact of the matter is that any ship outfitted specifically for PVP will massively outclass a ship outfitted for anything else, including hybrid builds. This means that the only sane choice is to run from every attacker, because the survivability gap tends to be so large that no amount of skill will make up for it. I don't know if limiting SCBs and HRPs is necessarily the right answer, but if the survivability gap were smaller or the interplay between different types of weapons and different types of defenses were more paper-scissor-rock ish, then PvP interactions could be more dynamic. As it stands right now it's mostly a "victims and murderers" kind of situation outside of arranged duels and matches.

 

[shadragon]

A fully armed and protected combat ship should always beat a cargo ship easily, otherwise there is no point in having combat ships.

Sounds like you only want all rounders;

I was referring to the same ship in different configs, not fighters versus transports. Here's an example.

Cobra - Hardened version

http://coriolis.io/outfit/cobra_mk_...7.Iw1-kA==.EwBjEYxccr6A?bn=Cobra Tank Version

Cobra - Cargo version

http://coriolis.io/outfit/cobra_mk_....Iw1-kA==.EwBjEYxccr6A?bn=Cobra Cargo Version

The Tank has more than nine times the hull points of the Cargo version (plus shields). Same effective config in both cases except for internals. I actually didn't realize the difference was that stark until I did these up.

This shows the armour plate on a WW 2 aircraft, the Thunderbolt.