Wrong. I use area triggers for "bubble- shields" on a few different cosmetic ships. They absorb projectiles just fine.Invisible blocks do not absorb projectiles or beams, FYI. Open plex doors are not a viable shield.
Question for you, based on something else you said;
IF turrets and the mothership had shared shields, then the balancing factor would be turret turn speeds, correct? Why would anyone build bigger turrets if the shielding would be the same, and it would turn slower? Damage is linear, so 10 turrets with 40 blocks each is the same as 1 with 400, except with better power efficiency and no need for power tanks. Such a system would mean it'd be less efficient to build larger turrets, and people would spam smaller ones, thus making fighters less useful since all the turrets would be small enough to track them.
Some servers have turret limits.
That is true with how people currently build ships, but people will exploit what they can. I remember a step design with rows of turrets that was to be part of a ship I never built. Many turrets all designed to be in range when you tilt the ship at a slight angle (coupled with target selected).
How do you intend to do this? Turrets themselves, especially small ones, can easily get more than enough power regen. Computers work by adding a power cost modifier based on the outputs detected, using a similar system would mean forcing a power modifier onto turrets based on how many turrets modules are intact, and that would only work if the turrets themselves were designed to have their own power supply (some people do not have power on their turrets). It would also punish large ships with many PD turrets the same as a small ship as well.
Are statements like this strictly necessary?
It is when you throw out an idea with what seems to be the intention of someone else figuring it out. The point is that PD and other turrets on a large ship can be numerous, what would be considered a reasonable number of turrets on a large ship would be a ridiculous amount on a small ship. Counting active docks would be as easy as counting logic outputs, since an active dock does output a logic signal, but it is blind and punishing to those who don't build within a certain guideline, i.e., a limit.
People would build large turrets only as sniper turrets, meant for one or two massive shots before getting in close. You have to remember that many ship designs are not built with these humongous turrets thrown in. If you don't force folks to build huge turrets, ship shapes become much, much more flexible than the standard flattop we see these days. Suddenly, that aesthetically pleasing organic shape (or wedges, even) becomes a feasible combat design - at least offensively.
Just have each turret drain power by default from the mothership based on mass. Add in a non-negligible base value for all turret docks, and voila! Small turret farms are limited!
So big ships should be vulnerable to smaller craft? I don't think you understand how balance works. You cant expect a machine gun to sink an aircraft carrier, you need somthing big enough to punch a whole. Same concept (should) apply here. As with any other sci-fi universe, once you get trhough the shields, then anything is fair game, as it should be.
Assuming that original idea makes sense, sure, but this is not one such idea. The reason those other sci-fi things are successful is because they did it right. It made sense, it felt right, and it worked. Making turrets unprotected "weak spots" by design does NOT work. No one in their right mind would EVER design a ship with intentional weak spots. That goes against every sensible form of logic in the book. Weak spots are flaws in design, not put there by design.
A fighter might not be able to sink the aircraft carrier, but it can drop destroy the planes on it's deck and potentially pop a weapon off the deck (I assume Carriers have some AA defence). Destroying a turret does not sink the ship, it just hinders it. No one wants a fighter to sink a titan, they just want fighter to have an effect on the fight, just like how a squadron can get lucky and pick off a gun on a battleship. Battleship still lives, but suddenly the odds are more against them. If fighters could not do anything, then why do they have anti-air? In real life we have fighters and bombers, in Starmade those are both more or less the same ship (which kinda makes sense, given the lack of air resistance, such a thing should be viable.
Bombers. Learn you some history. The fighters mainly took out other fighters and small ground targets to prevent the US from retaliating. But they had a single torpedo that used on ships, most of which, mind you, missed.
Again, bombers. A MACHINE GUN can NOT take a turret off a battleship. Put a torpedo on a fighter, you get a 1-off crack at a (Shieldless, mind you) ship, but after that, the fighter alone is moot.
Turrets are not supposed to be vulnerable by design, but they also aren't as strong as the ship (because turrets require all that engineering and such for the gun)
That becomes quite hilarious when big ships equip what could be called a "machine gun" and slowly eat ships. In starmade, weapons are linear, unlike in real life, where you can pack a lot of power into a single use item. If you scale up a weapon to the point where it would be considered a "bomb" in terms of damage, you got a corvette. A fighter in starmade is not a fighter in real life. Bombers do not exist in Starmade either, they are just bigger fighters. Bigger is better is not something you will find a whole lot of support for.
This whole argument that maintenance can be passed off to another player in your faction is ludicrous. I'm in a (currently) three player faction on MFleet, and we all do our own thing. If we need to fight something or someone I'm sure we'd do quite fine (we have some of the best engineers in the server). However, the maintenance would be out the window. The new block system has alleviated this somewhat, so that I can basically build block the entire ship, then add the missing blocks to a Blueprint. Much faster than repairing for most ships, and I get all my turrets back. Back when we had a twenty player faction, we didn't assign those things. It just wasn't something anyone wanted to do - after all, it's your goddamn ship. You broke it, you fix it.
I can't say I've ever really heard of anyone doing that, since you are wasting space with tanks. The DPS is also lower compared to other weapons, with the only advantage being the large radius, though a rapid fire missile could prove just as, if not more effective I would think. But that is off-topic rambling on my part.
I never said ships shouldn't need maintenance, nor turrets shouldn't get blown off. However, I don't think turrets should magically be more vulnerable just because they are turrets. They should share shields with the main craft. Once you punch through the shields, then the entire ship is fair game, turrets and all. If you cant punch through the shields, then you picked a bad fight. Simple as that.
Big ships shouldn't be vulnerable to small ships. However, turrets are, by nature, a small ship themselves. So, a fighter should be able to take them down. You can't expect a machinegun to take down an aircraft carrier, yes, but in Starmade, all weapons (should) have equal DPS, so a machinegun can take down an aircraft carrier. Of course, that's not what you meant, is it? You meant a small gun shouldn't be able to take down a big ship.
This sounds more like an issue with faction organization and not gameplay. If your faction members "all do their own thing" then you're more of an allegiance than an actual team. A well organized faction would have no problem with repairing other ship's turrets if need be.
Bombers weren't much bigger than fighters, and it only took a single well aimed bomb or two to sink a ship.
