Docked turrets get parent ships sheild coverage.

[gashnal]

with the recent redesign of how shields work and how many blocks you have to devote to having adequate protection for turrets why not just do the sane thing and make docked objects use the parent ships shields. with as much space shields take up vs effect now the word "balance" shouldn't be a factor. as it stands with the new shield changes small objects like turrets have very few shields which leads to people targeting a turret because its the easy kill that damages your offensive power the most.
from a scifi point of view there is no scifi series where the shields of a ship only apply to its core and not its attached parts ie star wars being a prime example.

 

[BDLS]

I dunno man, small ships would have even less of a purpose in big fights without turrets to pick off.

 

[CyberTao]

Its creates a Scenario where you can design a turret with only high dps weapons, and has the shields of a battleship. It also Renders Small ships even more worthless in Large ship battles, and removes the tactical element of Destroying turrets and sliding into a newly created Blindspot o -o

Also, This belongs in Suggestion (for the game), not in Site Suggestions (which are changes for the site and forums :p)

 

[gashnal]

You know your right I totally put this in the wrong place
can a mod move it??

 

[gashnal]

I dunno man, small ships would have even less of a purpose in big fights without turrets to pick off.

its fine to have that role but lets be honest for a minute, all that making this change does is forces large ships to slug it out with the support of the smaller craft until shields are depleted THEN you get your chance to break off a turret after both sides have battered each other heavily making the need for a small ship to break turrets before shields start to recharge all the MORE important a role. because in those few moments a small ship can alter the flow of battle while giving all types of ships a fair chance to shine. the way things sit now small ships bunch up rape turrets and then chase a crippled capitol ship till it eventually dies because it cant fire back. unless they have allies which gives small ships a clear and unrealistic advantage.

 

[Lecic]

its fine to have that role but lets be honest for a minute, all that making this change does is forces large ships to slug it out with the support of the smaller craft until shields are depleted THEN you get your chance to break off a turret after both sides have battered each other heavily making the need for a small ship to break turrets before shields start to recharge all the MORE important a role. because in those few moments a small ship can alter the flow of battle while giving all types of ships a fair chance to shine. the way things sit now small ships bunch up rape turrets and then chase a crippled capitol ship till it eventually dies because it cant fire back. unless they have allies which gives small ships a clear and unrealistic advantage.

First off, that isn't rape. Don't call destroying turrets that.

The role of smaller ships is to weaken larger ships so that their own larger ships can take down the enemy large ship with fewer risks. The best way to do this is for small ships to perform anti-turret attacks, to weaken the firepower of the large ship. A battle is pretty much decided by who breaks shields first, and even with the upcoming HP system this will more or less stay true. If we make it so small ships can only break off turrets after the main ship's shields drop, the small ships will be doing next to nothing. A large ship SHOULD be a sitting duck to fast, nimble bombers picking off their turrets one by one. That's why you need allies or AI escorts to protect you from the bombers. Also, point-defense turrets go a long way. A rapid turret with overdrive can cripple fighters easily.

EDIT: Malacodor , where is the bad spelling? I'd love to know so I can correct it.

 

[gashnal]

Small ships can still fire at the other capitol ships meaning there damage is additive to taking down a large ships shields, don't disagree with my on the grounds that your tiny ship should be able to neuter a dreadnaught because you're not going to win and are going to look biased as hell in the possess.
As a server admin I want the setting to allow attached craft to share the core ships shields. Frankly I don't really care about the opinions of the whole I want what my players want, and they all want shared shields.
Its a setting like any that a server admin can chose for them selves to use or not.

 

[madmann135]

There are a lot of pluses and minuses to turrets sharing shields of the parent ship, and each advantage and disadvantage can go either way.

With the current system small ships can get in between the fire arcs of turrets and disable the turrets. This promotes fleet mechanics, namely smaller ships supporting larger ones and individual ships having a more specific roll.
Turrets with their own shields would weaken the turrets as space that could otherwise be used for firepower is replaced with defense. This also requires that the main ship has at a minimum one weapon system.

If shields were shared then that would enable more powerful turrets for the same size. It would also enable ships who's primary means of attack is turrets, this would also put greater demand on pilot skill and turret placement. Small ships would be less useful, while specialized medium and large ships would be more useful (Example, a ship with anti-shield sege weapons for disabling enemy ship shields), this would also require more fleet communication in order to exploit the 10 second gap when shields are down.
Game-play wise, I think shared shields is more in dept as to my knowledge there are zero science fiction universes with energy shields that turrets do not share main ship shields. It would also make shield information universal, if the main ship's shields are low then the turrets shields are low.

While small ships would be less useful in fleet combat, I like the idea of having shared shields. Currently when in combat I am most concerned with my turrets receiving damage, because it is difficult to calculate at what strength their shields are at.
If you are to take into consideration the new weapon systems, then one can argue that the small ships are now only useful for early game. In fact there are no rapid fire single computer weapons tuned for fighters.

 

[SkullCollector]

where is the bad spelling?

be a sitting dick

Some ships might look like that, but should they?

 

[Lecic]

Some ships might look like that, but should they?

Whoops. I've corrected it.

 

[whiterhino16]

Why are we saying that a fighter taking out turret is unrealistic? We're playing a game where:
Everything flys like planes in space (Don't get me started)
All planets are perfect dodecahedrons
Gas giants don't exist
Or moons, those are a physical impossibility apparently
A ship core with no obvious heat shields won't burn up on reentry
Digital currency can make a block of metal with communication capabilities instantly (EDIT: out of nothing)
Etc. etc.

I'm pretty sure realism has been thrown out of the window and hit with a perfect dodecahedron planet by now.

Also, kinda ad hominin but whatevs, don't refer to destroying turrets as "r(PLSDONTBANME)ing" them. It's blatantly offensive (And I'm saying that as a male).

 

[cptkickercutleg]

Shared shields for a solo player would mean less hassle, but separate shields encourage fleet tactics.
A smaller ship being merely added damage defeats the purpose, especially as they're likely to get chewed up before they can get take shields down. Because of this, it is my belief that in the interest of game and player community progression, we should be tasked with separate shields because of the aforementioned tactical possibilities.

Having a small ship against more powerful turrets with more health is just mean.

 

[Ithirahad]

Why are we saying that a fighter taking out turret is unrealistic? We're playing a game where:
Everything flys like planes in space (Don't get me started)
All planets are perfect dodecahedrons
Gas giants don't exist
Or moons, those are a physical impossibility apparently
A ship core with no obvious heat shields won't burn up on reentry
Digital currency can make a block of metal with communication capabilities instantly (EDIT: out of nothing)
Etc. etc.

I'm pretty sure realism has been thrown out of the window and hit with a perfect dodecahedron planet by now.

Also, kinda ad hominin but whatevs, don't refer to destroying turrets as "r(PLSDONTBANME)ing" them. It's blatantly offensive (And I'm saying that as a male).

Yay, more awful arguments. Most of those things are planned to change, or are non-ideal but necessary compromises between realism and gameplay. The only thing left when you remove things in those categories is the space friction, but solutions to that issue have been proposed too, so...

...Furthermore, most people seem to want MORE realism (At least in certain areas) as opposed to less. So no, that argument doesn't work. Maybe in a game that was in late beta rather than very early alpha. But not here, not now.

 

[starhaiden]

I remember playing stars the clone wars and I was able to destroy the turrets with the shields on so I destroyed the turrets on the outside or went inside the enemy ship and destroy their auto turret control thing. Making it easier for me to bomb their ship and also so they don't kill as many of my al ships. it also made so it took longer for them to destroy my ships shield

 

[whiterhino16]

Yay, more awful arguments. Most of those things are planned to change, or are non-ideal but necessary compromises between realism and gameplay. The only thing left when you remove things in those categories is the space friction, but solutions to that issue have been proposed too, so...

...Furthermore, most people seem to want MORE realism (At least in certain areas) as opposed to less. So no, that argument doesn't work. Maybe in a game that was in late beta rather than very early alpha. But not here, not now.

I don't want more realism, I was saying the game was never meant to be realistic.

 

[Valiant70]

This has been brought up time and again. Turrets have separate shields for a reason.

Forget it already. It's better the way it is!

 

[jayman38]

Simple ideas I had while reading this thread:
1. Ship Cores should provide basic minimal shielding, perhaps at a cost of energy storage. One hit from anything would be enough to drop this shield. Energy tanks should have double their current capacity, while ship cores should probably drop from 50k to 20k.
2. Random 50% chance (server-customizable) that the hit on the turret will be absorbed by the host ship's shield.
A. this way, a rapid-fire fighter would get hits in on the turret, but the host ship's heavy shielding will still be able to provide protection some of the time. ("Intensify forward firepower!")
B. I figure this would allow smaller craft to contribute while having a chance to reduce the effect of a larger craft's massive weapons focused on that turret. Poor little guy.
C. Minimal changes to the existing system.

 

[ltmauve]

Chance of absorption by the parent ship? I like the idea. I'm trying to think of a way where the small turret on a small ship gets a good bonus, while the small turret on a large ship gets an okay bonus, and a large turret on a large ship really doesn't get a bonus.

 

[madmann135]

There are many reasons to want turrets protected by the parent shield/station and there are many reasons to not want it.
I say give them both, make it an option for servers.

I am for the idea of turrets using the parent shields, I have many reasons why I want it but a simple reason is that not many will engage in epic PVP fleet battles. Most epic fleet battles will be player VS NPC.
Long story short, organizing an epic fleet battle with a server that can hold up to (for argument sake) 35 simultaneous players will require planing and preparation. For argument sake I will say that more than half of all of PVP battles will be 1v1. In addition we do have a limit of technology, epic fleet battles will most likely be fought with ships with only one or two turrets due to being small so that the server does not crash or lag.

But my main reason is pretty simple, most players on servers will have to work for every block they get, either through trading, mining, farming, manufacturing, etc. With the player working for every block the player will want to protect their investments.

 

[Planr]

not many will engage in epic PVP fleet battles. Most epic fleet battles will be player VS NPC.
Long story short, organizing an epic fleet battle with a server that can hold up to (for argument sake) 35 simultaneous players will require planing and preparation. For argument sake I will say that more than half of all of PVP battles will be 1v1. In addition we do have a limit of technology, epic fleet battles will most likely be fought with ships with only one or two turrets due to being small so that the server does not crash or lag.

You don't even play the game, do you? PVP fleet battles have always been a big thing and they always will be, much moreso than NPC fleet battles. You also seem to be thinking that it is uncommon for servers to be able to hold 35 players but there have been many times where servers have had more than that, NASS for example. Factions already plan and prepare fleet battles all the time; I cite the DFN and Vaygr for that. Also most fleet battles that happen on the game are with very large ships that are hundreds of meters long and have a dozen or more turrets. Not tiny ships with one or two turrets.

You're totally off on everything you said here in your post. That's not belittlement, that's just the truth. The game is not what you're describing it as being like in those respective areas.