Shield Shape Bonuses

[Nickizzy]

This is an entirely new idea that has never come up before on forums, as far as I can tell, so I'm starting a thread about it, with my own ideas.


The Issue
Currently in starmade if you take a ship and only show certain parts, most parts show dynamic infrastructures, grids running across the ship, and reactor cubes spaced throughout the ship. One exception, however, is shields. Shields have no power bonuses, they work just as well individually as in long chains or cubeish reactors. The result is ship shield layout looking like a huge cube in the middle of the ship, and a splattering of blocks where they fit into the interior. No strategy needed. One layout is as good as any other.


My solution

Shield Shape
Shields should have some sort of bonus shape, like with power reactors having the xyz axis bonus. I think it should be a circle bonus, where if a group of shields are placed in a perfect sphere or ellipsoids, the shields get a bonus in that the sphere has the same effect as a cube(if you have a 10x10x10 sphere of capacitors, it's shield increase is the same as a 10x10x10 cube.) This would make shield layouts more interesting, and save resources and let ships have more space. There would be a new option in the advanced build mode that would make your 10x10x10 cube you place be a 10x10x10 sphere. It would also work with 10x5x10, to make ellipsoids, or 3d ovals.

Shield Location
It would be cool if shields benefited or were weakened by their location. My idea is that any shield group would have a center, determined by it's shape. That center would ether measure the distance to the core - the distance to the outside of the cluster, or measure the distance to the outside of the ship(when the measure line would go out forever without touching the ship again) - the distance to the outside of the cluster, drawing a straight line to that point. I would make a ratio of the two numbers. If it is a grouping of capacitors, the closer it is to the core in the ratio, the greater bonus it gets. The closer it is to the outside in the ratio, the greater tax it would get. Shield rechargers would work the opposite, the farther from the outside, the less bonus it gets. At 1:1 there would be no bonus or tax. Bonus and tax would max out at 2x better and 1/2 as strong. This would look really cool, with reachargers, because there would be "bubbles" on the outside of ships with only a thin layer of armor between it and the outside, resulting in mon cari style ships:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d3/23/b5/d323b5a40ef99adb4cd1ea7a52cde1b2.jpg
These changes would be really cool, and would add strategy to shield placement. Please stay on topic, and have your own ideas and contribute to others.

 

[NeonSturm]

I am against shapes. They penalize free ship shaping.

I would however like it if groups create an asymptotic bonus. A curve that goes through these 3 points:

• 1x shield = max - (max - min)
• 8x shield = max - (max - min)/2
• 27x shield = max - (max - min)/3

If more shapes for essential systems get implemented.

 

[Draeke_Forther]

Maybe if the shield strength was dependent on the proximity to the shield emitter blocks.

 

[Travesty]

Power and weapon systems make up the general shape, and then you use the shields to fill in the gaps. To enable players freedom to make ships look how they want, you need one of the systems to be the filler block, and I'm perfectly happy letting it be the shields.

 

[NeonSturm]

Power and weapon systems make up the general shape, and then you use the shields to fill in the gaps. To enable players freedom to make ships look how they want, you need one of the systems to be the filler block, and I'm perfectly happy letting it be the shields.

I am also against filler blocks - they are ugly to replace and make design adjustments equally difficult.

If you could only ever have 20% weight in system blocks, it wouldn't matter as much.

 

[philthy mcnasty]

I think we should consider force field blocks becoming a "hard shield", like having an emitter block on the outside of the ship, and when activated, emits force field blocks that soak up damage, and when that damage is reached, disappear for a bit. Also have them prevent transporters from working, like in star trek.

The catch, is that guns can not shoot through them, cause they are hard shields, purely defensive only. this would also make for some cool interior defenses. They also should not be covered by the ships normal shields. this adds some strategy to attacking ships with hard shields, as you know where the weapons are firing from.

these can add some fun to the game, like have support systems get linked to the emitter, so that they get bonus defense abilities.

 

[Aynslei]

I think we should consider force field blocks becoming a "hard shield", like having an emitter block on the outside of the ship, and when activated, emits force field blocks that soak up damage, and when that damage is reached, disappear for a bit. Also have them prevent transporters from working, like in star trek.

The catch, is that guns can not shoot through them, cause they are hard shields, purely defensive only. this would also make for some cool interior defenses. They also should not be covered by the ships normal shields. this adds some strategy to attacking ships with hard shields, as you know where the weapons are firing from.

these can add some fun to the game, like have support systems get linked to the emitter, so that they get bonus defense abilities.

Most of that is actually already possible and done in at least a few faction ships that I know of. (Mine included)

 

[philthy mcnasty]

Most of that is actually already possible and done in at least a few faction ships that I know of. (Mine included)

what is the hp of the force field block? i thought they where like doors, and if they get destroyed, then you have to replace them?

 

[Aynslei]

what is the hp of the force field block? i thought they where like doors, and if they get destroyed, then you have to replace them?

iirc forcefield blocks are equal to advanced armor, and yes they are like doors and are a physical block that would need to be replaced, but they can be used in much of the ways you want and even be easily replaced and make good use of defensive systems if you know what you are doing.

 

[philthy mcnasty]

iirc forcefield blocks are equal to advanced armor, and yes they are like doors and are a physical block that would need to be replaced, but they can be used in much of the ways you want and even be easily replaced and make good use of defensive systems if you know what you are doing.

Advanced armor!? crap, i see why people would use them that way, from my understanding, they are much cheaper to make then advanced armor. I never used them much, cause i like blast doors better, but now i got to try them out.

 

[Aynslei]

Advanced armor!? crap, i see why people would use them that way, from my understanding, they are much cheaper to make then advanced armor. I never used them much, cause i like blast doors better, but now i got to try them out.

Blast doors and blue forcefields are actually pretty much equal, even down to the resource costs to make them. (other colors other ore)
It mostly comes down to a style thing at that point.

Also if I am not mistaken the recent patch made it where shots can pass through open doors now, definitely something you should play with.

 

[philthy mcnasty]

I have been toying with the idea, of having weapons bays, and cannon batteries controlled by a clock. so the cannons dumbfire based on the clock, and have this linked to a red light for cool flashing effects. This would definitely be fun to play with, by having blast doors over the bays.

 

[Lecic]

I disagree. Most smart builders make the outer few layers of systems under the hull shield caps. This is a smart way to install shields, since they're definitely the least important system to lose blocks of once your shields have dropped. This would seriously mess up an intelligent way of building.

 

[Dire Venom]

iirc forcefield blocks are equal to advanced armor, and yes they are like doors and are a physical block that would need to be replaced, but they can be used in much of the ways you want and even be easily replaced and make good use of defensive systems if you know what you are doing.

If you open them can they still be hit :?

 

[Aynslei]

If you open them can they still be hit :?

Also if I am not mistaken the recent patch made it where shots can pass through open doors now, definitely something you should play with.

It used to not be the case, but unless I screwed up and I am mis-remembering a few recent tests you can now shoot through open doors.

 

[Dire Venom]

It used to not be the case, but unless I screwed up and I am mis-remembering a few recent tests you can now shoot through open doors.

Hmm.... advanced armor bubbles that can be turned on/off... Now THATS a concept Id love to play with :D

Im pretty sure it also weighs less as well. Might cause problems for your turrets though.
Does having large ammonts of open forcefields cause any lag :?

 

[NeonSturm]

I think 2 armour types are sufficient, if you can replicate the intermediate by using 7 basic + 1 advanced in a 2x2x2 field.

• armour types, not visual styles.

Force-field-blocks should not have any mass, except when active (if you like).
Neither they should be possible to kill completely, unless their emitter-block is destroyed.

• I would replace their HP-value with data about grouping (master-block-direction for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th group - 2 bits each ?).

But as always – my own opinion until somebody else shares it.

 

[Dire Venom]

I think 2 armour types are sufficient, if you can replicate the intermediate by using 7 basic + 1 advanced in a 2x2x2 field.

• armour types, not visual styles.

Force-field-blocks should not have any mass, except when active (if you like).
Neither they should be possible to kill completely, unless their emitter-block is destroyed.

• I would replace their HP-value with data about grouping (master-block-direction for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th group - 2 bits each ?).

But as always – my own opinion until somebody else shares it.

Say you could link capcitor/recharge blocks to a force-field grouping:?
To balance maybe 10% less effective shielding? Thatd open up a lot more shielding options

 

[philthy mcnasty]

I disagree. Most smart builders make the outer few layers of systems under the hull shield caps. This is a smart way to install shields, since they're definitely the least important system to lose blocks of once your shields have dropped. This would seriously mess up an intelligent way of building.

That makes some sense, but isn't there penalty now if systems get damaged? Though if you are in combat, and you are taking damage after the shields are down, your kinda in a bad spot, and the recharge rate penalty is the least of your worries....

 

[Dire Venom]

That makes some sense, but isn't there penalty now if systems get damaged? Though if you are in combat, and you are taking damage after the shields are down, your kinda in a bad spot, and the recharge rate penalty is the least of your worries....

Interestingly enough certian shaped ships resist and mitigate damage a lot better than others, a good eaxmple is a cube vs a sphere. A missile will do less damage to the sphere than the cube as more of its damage is wasted in empty space. A ship with lots of spikey bits (like a hedgehog) would take very little damage at all from missiles without having to use Point defense