Front shields or rear shields? Performant distribution to 6 sides.

[NeonSturm]

A weapon blocks has approximately 5 dps (1/reload of a cannon block).

Power tanks can store 1000 power = 100 damage (= 20 seconds of fire), while shields can store 55 charge + 0.605 recharge during 11 seconds (= 12 seconds of defence against weapon fire) and recharges at a rate of 0.55 /second under fire

That means that with basic tanks, you should have 2 weapons per power-tank and 100 for the default 50'000 storage = 10 seconds of power, but you might use more (because of thruster drain > regeneration, thus weapons have to match that time) or more (because of energy regeneration waste).

I think it is safe to assume 3 weapon barrels per power tank which lets shield be alive for maximum damage in about 8 seconds.
OR
1 weapon barrel for 24 seconds (incl. shield regen).​

But in reality you can make 4 capacitors for 1tank + 3 barrels => 11 seconds life time or 2 capacitors for 1 tank, 1 barrel => 48 seconds life time.​

Ok, now another variable: 1 power reactor even when producing only 25 energy per second can supply 50 shield regenerators recharging at 0.55 per second or 0.5 barrels which are doing 2.5 dps and draining 25/second.
Now imagine the attacker has 17 barrels and 33 reactors/tanks rather than 49 shield regenerators and 1 reactor and is doing constantly 85 dps against your 27 shield regeneration​

And then consider that power tank grows in efficiency, shields do not.​

Attacker always has the advantage and takes between 8 and 12 seconds to bring shields down. Not regenerators make the difference, but how much dps you can deliver during your life-time.


But what if the defender shoots down turrets while being attacked? => Why would the attacker need them when they only drain power from other guns when the energy starts getting low?

this is what I wrote in a general discussion thread few minutes ago (before starting to write all this).

Conclusions I took:

If a reactor's 25 eps supports 2.5 dps from 0.5 barrels, while 0.5 tank provides power for 1 barrels for 10 seconds, power tanks can double your damage in the 10-seconds time-frame (for equal block count).
If you do 1/2 tank, 1/2 regeneration, you have still 42..43 dps against 27 sps after you depleted your weapons (for 50 blocks).​

If I didn't confuse something, defenders of equal mass live about 11 seconds and you need 3 times mass to stay alive forever.

Not included in calculation: power tank efficiency increase.​

If you could calculate the average position of the shield generators with.

float6 sum_extreme // p=0 + 0..2 for xyz,  n=3 + 0..2 for xyz
sum_extreme.strength( Block[] blocks, boolean mode ) // blocks to add or remove
{
    float3 halfSize = (float3)ship.lastBuildSize /2 // should be 1/2 of positive or 1/2 of negative side of center

    // once for each of 6:
    float3 x = (mode & ADD_BLOCK ? 1
                 : (mode & REMOVE_BLOCK ? -1
                 : 0) )
    foreach shieldBlock in blocks
    {
        float3 pos3 = ((float3)ship.lastBuildModeExit.ShipCentre - (float3)shieldBlock.position) *6 /halfSize // 6 sides
        (sum_extreme)this[0..2] += pos3
        (sum_extreme)this[3..5] += (pos3)1- pos3
    }
    // alternatively you can divide through halfSize once while dividing through shieldBlockCount, but this leads to high numbers (average position number * number shield blocks)
}

float6 distribution = sum_extreme / (float6)shieldBlockCount

Every block placed in the outer half of px would 0..1 to px

same for all positive/negative x, y, z
positive = in front / above/ right of centre
negative = behind / below / left of centre

Centre is the centre after leaving build mode the last time (after a change of 10% size it should update all blocks)

• this is the only downside and only when leaving build mode
• but could be a lazy-update background process which takes the previous or the average value while not finished calculating a new one

Now you only have to divide sum_extreme / shieldBlockCount to get how strong your shield is in each direction. It will be a value between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%)


Projectiles hit -for example- from top if (on shield impact) diff(projectile.angle - ship.angle) is closer to straight-from-top than to straight-from{ front, rear, left, right or bot }.


Looking at above conclusions I took ...

If a reactor's 25 eps supports 2.5 dps from 0.5 barrels, while 0.5 tank provides power for 1 barrels for 10 seconds, power tanks can double your damage in the 10-seconds time-frame (for equal block count).
If you do 1/2 tank, 1/2 regeneration, you have still 42..43 dps against 27 sps after you depleted your weapons (for 50 blocks).​

...


Results

You could now survive for about 10 seconds with equally distributed (shield's average position is centred)
OR
35 seconds if you are running away and put 7/12 shields on the back of your ship and use 5/12 for 1/12 on each side

in these 35 seconds the enemy may run out of main weapon power (stored)



Strategy will be a lot more valuable.
Docked "Shield Plates" may get value

1. can be 6 times as efficient, but only in 1/6 directions (thus with 1/6 block count on average distribution)
2. need to sink into hull to be covered against impacts from 5 directions or have no advantage thus the ship needs a bit of the 1/6 shielding for itself
3. => tiny parts (may be hard to hit) will protect the plate. The plate sucks most damage.

Well, maybe not too good, but some may think about it.​

What ya thinking? is it good or bad?


Don't hesitate to correct me where I am wrong. I like to re-think about my errors to learn for the future.


WOW, took 1.5 or 2 hours to make it that descriptive and cleaning the code...


EDIT: Do not ask if efficiency is shield value, regeneration or "shield armour / damage reduction" this are 3
options about which we can have a discussion.

Maybe I make a ingame-logic implementation of the math to prove it's not laggy in Java :D

 

[Byamarro]

I'm fan of distribution of shields to 4 sides or eventually to keep it simple - 3 sides (front, rears, back).
And allow player to switch shields (maybe come shield compuet, so You will be able to ask Your friend to controll shields while fight?).

And I have additionall idea... What If sum of values of shields % will be able to be smaller than 100%? So You will save power for another uses.

 

[NeonSturm]

And I have additionall idea... What If sum of values of shields % will be able to be smaller than 100%? So You will save power for another uses.

You can always multiply power drain rate with the same multiplier which you use on efficiency.

1. I like how EVE-Online does it:
   • While your micro-warp-drive (= something like a 300% to 600% speed after burner) is active, you lose power capacity.
2. Or maybe (energy regeneration multiplier == %usable capacity)?

These two options could encourage people to shut down systems they don't need jet and open a vulnerability. But it should be an option as this is already suggested back in the days of the old forum and some peoples don't like to have a vulnerable-time.

 

[blurb357]

I sent this idea to schema a couple of months ago... he didn't answer Here is the conversation: i have an idea, at the moment the shield covers the whole ship and it will take the shield down all over the ship, why don't you quarterise the shield, divide that shield power by four and have that amount of sheild power on each quarter, also why dont you have it so you can change how much damage your cannons are doing, for example you could change the cannons to 1% efficiency for a warning shot and you can do the same with the shields, I also think that you should be able to diver power, for example you could say in battle only 60% of power is on the weapons and the rest is on the sheilds, also make it so we can lower our shields.

 

[FunnyBunny14]

I wouldn't really want to see it. It would make combat even harder than it already is. Right now things are kind of balanced, so I wouldn't want it changed.

 

[NeonSturm]

I wouldn't really want to see it. It would make combat even harder than it already is. Right now things are kind of balanced, so I wouldn't want it changed.

No, ship design.
Suggested because I got a good idea on the math (performance wise) and think it would lead to more specialized (thus less brute-force titan) ships.


When posting this I was thinking of a Star-Trek scene with Captain Archer where 3 Klingon Bird-of-Preys were chasing the Enter-price with shields transferred to the front.

The Enterprise fled into a dangerous space and make 2 Bird-of-Prey-Captains fearfully return.

Then it fired a torpedo (or phasers) at the front mounted shields without much effect.

They had to fly through a "dense nebulae"-spot and make a looping to get behind the Bird-of-Prey which was very vulnerable from this direction.

They did a hell lot more damage than expected with the new torpedo technology they got in the same or last episode.​

Maybe some think it is a bad idea, but what if stations can equip a very small cheap station-only shield modifier which creates 6*efficiency in all directions?

Now makes no sense. But with this implemented it would be easy to explain and implement (100% for each direction - 1 multiplication less for stations)​

 

[OdraNoel]

Unfortunately in this case i must agree with funny, i can totally see why this would be suggested (worf! full power to the forward shields!) but in the grand scheme of things it would seem to unnecessarily complicate things. i have a feeling that everyones issues with shields will be solved once the HP system is implemented.

but as is, i dont think having directional/location based shields would really provide much benefit to the combat system. it would just make things a little more frustrating then fun. but thats just my opinion

 

[FunnyBunny14]

I'm just saying that the recent updates already nerfed the shields a lot. This suggestion would have made sence with the previous shield setup, but now it will just make fighters able to take down even the biggest of ships.

Right now turrets are the biggest threat on big ships, so when you take them out, the ship, and especially capitals, will be defenceless. Then the big guns would come in to take down the shields and then everyone would tear the ship to pieces. Lovely team work.

While this might work with bigger ships, smaller ships would be completely useless, because turrets would just destroy it in no time, and thus not lose their use.
Especially with the new thrust update this would be a big hinderance, because you wouldn't be able to face the ship you are attacking with the front the whole time.

Conclusion: It works as it now, so why would you change it?

 

[NeonSturm]

Unfortunately in this case i must agree with funny, i can totally see why this would be suggested (worf! full power to the forward shields!) but in the grand scheme of things it would seem to unnecessarily complicate things.

I guess you are over-looking the whole consequences of the part:

• exactly targeting the weak spots between shield-plating (fighter) rather than throw all your fire-power at some target and waste huge amounts of energy.
• (though I might be wrong!)

Maybe I over-looked it before, but I think this is what makes me like the idea - the core part of it my reasoning behind supporting this opinion.

i have a feeling that everyones issues with shields will be solved once the HP system is implemented.

That would explain it IF your reasoning is based on "wait and look what comes, then we may re-consider it" which is essentially just a delaying strategy.

(Is the IF big enough? :D)

Right now turrets are the biggest threat on big ships, so when you take them out, the ship, and especially capitals, will be defenceless. Then the big guns would come in to take down the shields and then everyone would tear the ship to pieces. Lovely team work.

While this might work with bigger ships, smaller ships would be completely useless, because turrets would just destroy it in no time, and thus not lose their use.

First you are saying turrets are weak points. I would put shields on them to front as they always face at least one treat. I would put least shields in the back because it is difficult to get behind a turret which tries to face you (closest target) or is far enough away for some misses.

Then you are saying that small ships would be even more useless, while they are the only ones being able to turn fast enough to keep their front on the enemy.

True, the new thrust could limit that
BUT that would give you the choice between agile (strafing = fast in at least one direction (=up doubling for strafe+as shuttle)) and fast (easily dodging and skirmishing (= attacking from near out of range + get out of range for recovery), don't rely so much on side+rear shields)

On a side note: I think stating your opinion twice in 3 posts with to few other posters looks a bit like "downvotingspaming" because you bring in rather few new arguments (useful from the OP's point of view). Some would feel offended by this.
((In case you want to discuss this point, we should move it to a PM-conversation))

(Is the BUT big enough? :D)

 

[FunnyBunny14]

I'm pretty sure that everyones new weapon of choice is then going to be damage beams and/or lock-on missiles, because you would then easily be able to get the weak spots.

I might have a different opinion in the future, after I know what the new thrust system and FTL actually means for combat. But until then, I will still think that the shields are best left as it is.

 

[NeonSturm]

I'm pretty sure that everyones new weapon of choice is then going to be damage beams and/or lock-on missiles, because you would then easily be able to get the weak spots.

1. A fixed radius of 8 is easier to defend against with a capital ( 1 hull armour then 7 layers no hull to let damage expire after a distance) than with a fighter (which usually also has more weak spots).

This could also bring back balance. Sure other than we expected before looking at it from this perspective, but who says every weapon needs same dps for same power/second ...
A very complex topic.​

2. Beams have only 1/2 range. With a default weapon range of avg=1km, max=2km, with beams you might not be able to carefully tackle a titan from points which is only covered by a small share of all turrets.


3. For slow and auto-targeting stuff like tracking missiles it is often difficult to predict the angle at which it impacts after some travel-time passed.


4. If your ship has a lot of spaced-out turrets (spaced-out on XY when Z is the direction of your enemy), it might also alter the angle of attack.

1. this is not to be underestimated
2. may keep the game interesting for peoples which experience the success of learning how to improve their ships in a new aspect.

20 Q: Will bigger ships require bigger crew-sizes for maximum effeciency

A: NPC and player crew will greatly add to your ships, and expect players to be better crew-members than AI.

For example someone responsible for shields could have a GUI with an overview of where the ship is taking damage and change shielding to respond.