I would agree that having shield strength in different areas be a configurable is a cool idea that would add a lot to the game, but having it done the way that it is (and i don't have any better suggestions for how to do it, other than maybe just a shield tab like the thrust one that allows you to set different damage multipliers on your shield areas) just makes the game worse. I think plonk anywhere shields are fine, as it allows a lot more flexibility in what shapes a ship can be and how it can utilize its volume and the amount of time it takes to make a ship. The way they have it now encourages you to either stay inside the bubble or go far enough outside it to make another strong bubble, anything in between those is just a liability.Would you at least agree that 'Area-Group-shields' are better gameplay concept than 'plonk-anywhere-and-forget-shields' ?
What do you think about 'All-or -nothing' vs 'Progressively-weakened' damage mitigation for shields ?
From what Lancake and Ithirihad say in their quotes in the OP it sounds like overlapping is fine in general."The way they have it now encourages you to either stay inside the bubble or go far enough outside it to make another strong bubble, anything in between those is just a liability."
this is actually a big problem if overlapping shield-bubbles are in any way problematic :/
You have three choices: cover it with a bubble centred elsewhere, give it its own bubble, or leave it unshielded.in regards to the last three posts, i didnt say anything about overlapping, but rather that anything that extends past the primary bubble needs its own bubble to have shield protection, if that part that extends out is not large enough for proper shield protection, then it will be blown off easily. If something is going to extend out beyond your primary bubble it needs to have a considerable amount of shields, anything that doesn't should just be condensed into the bubble and in that sense limiting what is feasible for a good ship
Well said. I feel this still provides pleanty of options to the player and gives them work-arounds if they want to build something wackey.i don't think Area-Shields is 'limiting' (and i am very much against 'limits' in general - for example, happy to see googly-eyed-tentacle-ships) -
Small parts, far from the main body of a ship should be easily damaged - cupolas/pods and more substantial projections and auxiliary structures should have their own shielding...
and there are still presumably chamber type customization that could boost effectiveness of small shield groups on distant 'pods'....
How many of those tentacles do you think will have good shield coverage?and i am very much against 'limits' in general - for example, happy to see googly-eyed-tentacle-ships
Tbh all ships will need to be gutted and refitted because of the power update anyway XD"How many of those tentacles do you think will have good shield coverage?"
they will have distributed shield coverage, and like all well behaved, classic Googly-eyed-tentacle-ships, it will progressively loose its tentacles to the brave little hero...but hey, 3/8 tentacles might just be enough to grab a tasty ship-snack
[re-fitting would probably be a pain, but at least this would be working towards a better mechanic that makes the game more interesting and varied]
Floating turrets aren't really much of a problem, most of them are pretty reasonable as far as distance from the ship goes and generally aren't in a super high quantity, and in their favor, they also tend to fall off nicer than a lot of conventional or embedded turrets if base entity docking is destroyed, if the docking for the barrel to the base is destroyed then its about the same as far as collisions go.Another thing this systems discourages is floating turrets/parts of the ship in space. They are somewhat cancer
I agree, it's only the more extreme cases which could be problimatic. They would also beable to have their own shielding as well, so no real loss by the shielding change.Floating turrets aren't really much of a problem, most of them are pretty reasonable as far as distance from the ship goes and generally aren't in a super high quantity, and in their favor, they also tend to fall off nicer than a lot of conventional or embedded turrets if base entity docking is destroyed, if the docking for the barrel to the base is destroyed then its about the same as far as collisions go.
You are burning my soul here man, there is nothing that inherently breaks the game about floating turrets unlike spaghetti and other similar things. Floating turrets still take normal damage and can still be targeted easily. They still have limits to what they can hit and normal turrets can still be big and clunky and do all the damage for a ship. Floating turrets are easy to make too, its not like some hidden secret the pvp community has been fighting to hide from the general population.I strongly dislike the ability to easily make free floating turret pods - these are essentially just tethered ships to do all the shooting on auto-pilot, and impose no real design limits on how they are mounted on the main entity (ie can easily just remount them further away...).
So far I have seen no clear solutions to these 'floaters', although Area-Shields make such pods more vulnerable. While I am in favor of strange and usual builds, 'floater' turrets are bad for the game (too easy to make very powerful/big with near 100% coverage, with very little design limitations - and, crime-of-crimes, often also just ugly).
Maybe the only solution is a simple requirement that when building every part must have at least 1 block attachment (even if just capsule or scaffold, not "open doors" or cargo though) to every other. That would still allow for moderate 'pod' designs, but these would require more thought to achieve similar mountings and coverage to current 'floaters'.
Spaghetti-monsters can be rehabilitated, but 'floaters' should be flushed away ...