Shields change.

    Zerefette

    <|°_°|>
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages
    171
    Reaction score
    70
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Hello everyone, this is something I'm not even sure of, we all know how thrusters work with their configuration part so I thought, what if this was appliead to shields?
    Here's an example.

    This way we can reduce the quantity of shield blocks to 1 and perhaps tie them with the chamber systems.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: alterintel

    Mariux

    Kittenator
    Joined
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages
    1,822
    Reaction score
    658
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    What is the difference between shield strength and quantity specs?
     

    Lancake

    Head of Testing
    Joined
    Aug 20, 2013
    Messages
    794
    Reaction score
    560
    • Schine
    • Tester
    The main reason why thrusters have the radial menu stuff, is because adding block based scaling for new thrust blocks would be weird or frustrating to manage when it comes to thrust direction. If we simply used a single type of thrust block (that we have right now) where the orientation matters, it would be chaotic to even start figuring out which ones to remove or to re-orientate to get the desired effect. Let's say you want a little bit more forward thrust for a giant ship, well that would require you to either remove thousands of thruster blocks (and hopefully the right ones) or add even more to them.

    For shields, you already control the quantity and the recharge through 2 block types. Shield "strength" is a bit vague and to me just sounds like a synonym for quantity, as adding more quantity to a ship, gives you a stronger shield.

    Now if we want different shield types, where one shield type excels better at something than the other, we could integrate that with effect blocks or use the chamber system for the new power system.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: nightrune

    Mariux

    Kittenator
    Joined
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages
    1,822
    Reaction score
    658
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    Strenght would give the shield some armor and quantity just pure shield, going for quantity could be useful if you go in teamplay and act as a shield pool to recharge your ally.
    Unless you add some sort of "shield armor pierce" effect that stat is useless.
     

    Zerefette

    <|°_°|>
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages
    171
    Reaction score
    70
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Unless you add some sort of "shield armor pierce" effect that stat is useless.
    Ion on weapons could be changed to ignore part of the shield armor and make it less "a must" to kill enemy shields.
    Also even if there wasn't a armor pierce why would it be useless if you can increase the efficency of your shield while trading quantity/recharge?
     

    Mariux

    Kittenator
    Joined
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages
    1,822
    Reaction score
    658
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    Ion on weapons could be changed to ignore part of the shield armor and make it less "a must" to kill enemy shields.
    Also even if there wasn't a armor pierce why would it be useless if you can increase the efficency of your shield while trading quantity/recharge?
    Because there will always be the most efficient ratio between those two to suck up the most damage.
     

    Zerefette

    <|°_°|>
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages
    171
    Reaction score
    70
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    That is not OK because that makes it a useless mechanic.
    I just explained how it could be played and why it would not always be the best choice.
    [doublepost=1498150841,1498150756][/doublepost]
    going for quantity could be useful if you go in teamplay and act as a shield pool to recharge your ally.
    Ion on weapons could be changed to ignore part of the shield armor and make it less "a must" to kill enemy shields.
    Also even if there wasn't a armor pierce why would it be useless if you can increase the efficency of your shield while trading quantity/recharge?
    you could play as a team with rechargers.
     
    Joined
    Apr 21, 2015
    Messages
    27
    Reaction score
    11
    Why though, shields go down pretty quick as is.
    to make smaller ships viable against larger ships, plus it adds more to combat than just, I can't hurt you unless my ship is big enough to out dps your regen
     
    Joined
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages
    415
    Reaction score
    179
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    to make smaller ships viable against larger ships, plus it adds more to combat than just, I can't hurt you unless my ship is big enough to out dps your regen
    Small ships are viable against larger ships though, in numbers, as they should be. That is also how it should be. The shields in this game remind me alot of W40k in that they can stop all damage so long as they are up, but they drop quickly and take awhile to restore afterwards. Smaller ships get less shielding, and have trouble damaging larger ships unless they are in numbers.

    a frigate should not be able to damage a cruiser through its shields.Neither should a fighter/bomber, be able do damage a frigate through its shields. I wish warheads where a viable weapon choice(without changing their default settings) so that you *COULD* build a fighter that would be able to do such a thing.

    That is my opinion of course, and yours is yours. Its a different style of shields, which i particularly have a problem with.
     
    Joined
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages
    629
    Reaction score
    243
    to make smaller ships viable against larger ships, plus it adds more to combat than just, I can't hurt you unless my ship is big enough to out dps your regen

    offense scales like 14x defense. if your ship cant penetrate enemy shields, youve either built a shit combat ship, or your enemy is WAY out of your league, and you shouldnt reasonably expect to break his shields.
     
    Joined
    Apr 21, 2015
    Messages
    27
    Reaction score
    11
    Small ships are viable against larger ships though, in numbers, as they should be. That is also how it should be. The shields in this game remind me alot of W40k in that they can stop all damage so long as they are up, but they drop quickly and take awhile to restore afterwards. Smaller ships get less shielding, and have trouble damaging larger ships unless they are in numbers.

    a frigate should not be able to damage a cruiser through its shields.Neither should a fighter/bomber, be able do damage a frigate through its shields. I wish warheads where a viable weapon choice(without changing their default settings) so that you *COULD* build a fighter that would be able to do such a thing.

    That is my opinion of course, and yours is yours. Its a different style of shields, which i particularly have a problem with.
    yes but currently the number needed is so high that you'd crash the server before you ever came close to actually fighting. not saying a fighter should be able to take down a battleship, but it should be able to Atleast make a dent. I'm just saying let's bring shield dmg absorbtion down to 60%, for argument sake. then allow chambers to boost it up to like 95% max damage reduction. a fighter still won't take down a battleship, but it could chip away at turrets and at least contribute to something other than being a distraction swarm.
    [doublepost=1498156716,1498156587][/doublepost]
    offense scales like 14x defense. if your ship cant penetrate enemy shields, youve either built a shit combat ship, or your enemy is WAY out of your league, and you shouldnt reasonably expect to break his shields.
    pointless assessment when we are talking about small ships/fighters/bombers
     
    Joined
    Jul 23, 2015
    Messages
    415
    Reaction score
    179
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    yes but currently the number needed is so high that you'd crash the server before you ever came close to actually fighting. not saying a fighter should be able to take down a battleship, but it should be able to Atleast make a dent. I'm just saying let's bring shield dmg absorbtion down to 60%, for argument sake. then allow chambers to boost it up to like 95% max damage reduction. a fighter still won't take down a battleship, but it could chip away at turrets and at least contribute to something other than being a distraction swarm.

    Is it really that high? ive seen some peoples "fighters" and they are the size of my corvetters(some hundred meters in length or more). and those can pack quite a punch.

    Really thats all a fighter should be when it comes to that scale this isnt the real world, where fighters are 9 times smaller than a destroyer, but can carry enough firepower to actively destroy one.

    ive posted elsewhere, fighters and bombers do not work in most space games, its almost entirely impossible to balance a game around them. They are either to weak(Homeworld for example), or to strong(Sins of a solar empire for example).

    Combat *should* be balanced around ships of the same size however, not small vs alarge, which i would argue it is currently, so long as no exploits are used and the ships are around the same mass. I will argue to the end of days that a fighter should not be able to penetrate a battleships shields ever, with the standard weapons, theres a way already that they can penetrate shields of larger ships, its just not effective, and i would love to see it so.

    if warheads where balanced there would be no need for this discussion, because you could make torpedos that a fighter could carry that would actually do something(and i mean *do* something, other than the small amount of damage they do now), and be threatening to a large ship, as such weapons(missiles, torpedoes, bombs etc) are IRL, and in engagement, the larger ships turrets are more than likely going to be aimed at another larger ship, or multiple smaller ones, allowing such weapons to be deployed. Edit: this would allow for fighters to be used as escort ships to prevent bombers from doing such things.
     
    Joined
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages
    629
    Reaction score
    243
    pointless assessment when we are talking about small ships/fighters/bombers
    it applies at all sizes, and was a direct reply to your comment.

    if you think a lone fighter should be breaking something more than 14x its size... thats probably considered unreasonable. although if you optimized your small fighter to be like 80% ion guns, a ship 14x your size would need to be a similar % of shieldyness to really be invincible to you... which would be unreasonable for the avg ship anyway, so if you properly optimize, youre looking at killing shit even more than 14x your size if you went off the deep end gunning up your fighter...

    also, fleets of small fighters can absolutely shred large ships. the caveat is they have to actually be built well. sure a swarm spam of junk ass ships will crash a server before accomplishing anything... but that doest mean anything except someone built a shitty fighter.


    Is it really that high? ive seen some peoples "fighters" and they are the size of my corvetters(some hundred meters in length or more). and those can pack quite a punch.
    only if they dont know how to make their fighters fight
     

    Zerefette

    <|°_°|>
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2015
    Messages
    171
    Reaction score
    70
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Guys I'd like if your feedback included more of the original topic.