Ship Shield Compromise

[Serene-Switch]

While I have never before considered larger ships to be unbalanced; due to power restrictions, that has recently changed due to the new power auxiliary blocks. Furthermore, fleet mechanics and star-fighter carriers have been introduced into the game as well.

The idea of the "bubble shield" has been discussed many times, and has been dismissed due to undeniable performance issues however, being in love with both the sci-fi genre and voxel style games I feel a compromise can be reached.

My suggestion is simple, a six sided "voxel" shield requiring less contours (and therefore calculations) than both a "bubble shield" or the current "skin shield". This would require larger ships to equip anti-fighter turrets, allow star-fighters, and thereby carriers, to be combat relevant, and would make fleet combat in general more dynamic by requiring fleets to be comprised of numerous support craft ie star-fighters, bombers, flak frigates etc.

When I think of Starmade and of fleets and factions, my only conclusion is that if fleet combat is ever to reach its full potential it will need more complex and intricate mechanics and strategies than "whoever has the biggest ship" to capture the true feeling of being a Space Commander.

If anyone has an opinion on this, or a better idea please reply/post.

 

[Malacodor]

1. Aux reactors are way more vulnerable than docked reactors, since every single block is a weak spot.
2. A fleet of smaller ships is already superior to a single big ship of the same mass.
3. Brick shields would encourage brick ships.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

If it comes to bubble shields, I personally would like a more modular shield system with power management like that of the new Aux reactors.
That way, you can build specialized shields internally as well as externally.
With the power management you would need to be smart with your power gen, but you would also have the ability to claw back power for other systems.
If you wanted to, you could build internal shields for Aux reactor containment. Which has way less mass than advanced armor.

 

[Serene-Switch]

1. Aux reactors are way more vulnerable than docked reactors, since every single block is a weak spot.
2. A fleet of smaller ships is already superior to a single big ship of the same mass.
3. Brick shields would encourage brick ships.

I'm aware of Aux power being vulnerable, I was referring to their generation being immense (like a 300meter cruiser having 10m e/s).
Since I imagine most builders put them in the center of their ships, I don't see fighters being much of a threat to them even without shields.

Also I don't believe anyone who isn't building brick is going to start based on shield shape, since the shield would scale with the ship dimensions there would be no advantage I know of to building bricks.

 

[MrFURB]

Did someone say bubble shields?

But yeah, the gameplay impacts of having shields effect a bubble shape around your ship kinda messes up explosion calculations and near-misses. Simply having the visual effects of your shield being hit be a bubble popping up does sound neat though.

While I have never before considered larger ships to be unbalanced; due to power restrictions, that has recently changed due to the new power auxiliary blocks.

The power aux subsystem is a replacement for old docked reactors. They both have roughly the same efficiency, though power aux is much cheaper to manufacture. I do not believe that they are more powerful but they are easier to create and to use, and probably lead to more ships utilizing post-softcap regen.

 

[Jojomo]

This would require larger ships to equip anti-fighter turrets, allow star-fighters, and thereby carriers, to be combat relevant, and would make fleet combat in general more dynamic by requiring fleets to be comprised of numerous support craft ie star-fighters, bombers, flak frigates etc.

Im not saying you're wrong at all, just that I don't understand the reasoning behind this statement. Why would bubble shields have this result?

EDIT: Ah, I think I've figured it out - because fighters could fly through the shields and therefore ignore them? (Would have been a useful point to write in the OP)

If it were possible for a player to determine how far shields were from the hull, is there any reason why they wouldn't keep then a close as possible, and therefore make flying inside them impossible or extremely unlikely?

And if the distance of the shields from the hull is automatic, couldn't players build gigantic shield screen ships that actually have very little mass or structure - they'd only need two or three three long thin "arms", one on each axis, to create a huge cuboid bubble shield that at points would be a huge distance from the hull, and could screen an entire fleet.
This would also strongly encourage the shape of fighting ships to be close to cuboid, to avoid empty space that enemies could fly into.

 

[Spoolooni]

I don't think larger ships have an upper hand at all. In fact, if auxiliaries became part of larger builds, sniper cannons with high penetration are now even more prevalent as poking some holes into large ships could quicken your enemy's death sentence due to the highly explosive nature of auxiliaries. It's pop up pirates all over again.

 

[Serene-Switch]

Im not saying you're wrong at all, just that I don't understand the reasoning behind this statement. Why would bubble shields have this result?

EDIT: Ah, I think I've figured it out - because fighters could fly through the shields and therefore ignore them? (Would have been a useful point to write in the OP)

If it were possible for a player to determine how far shields were from the hull, is there any reason why they wouldn't keep then a close as possible, and therefore make flying inside them impossible or extremely unlikely?

And if the distance of the shields from the hull is automatic, couldn't players build gigantic shield screen ships that actually have very little mass or structure - they'd only need two or three three long thin "arms", one on each axis, to create a huge cuboid bubble shield that at points would be a huge distance from the hull, and could screen an entire fleet.
This would also strongly encourage the shape of fighting ships to be close to cuboid, to avoid empty space that enemies could fly into.

I apologize for not being more specific as to how I imagine it would work, however my programming knowledge is limited and IF this was implemented it would be so at Schines discretion. How I see something like this working would be the game calculating the size of the ship and having the shield a set distance (25-50m maybe) from the farthest reaching points making the shape of the ship more or less irrelevant.

As for a shield screening ship, yes it would be possible with three long sticks however that type of ship would also require shields and power itself for an entire fleet and with enemy ships able to pass through the shield, I don't see that as being a very viable option in combat and, if anything, would be fairly useless except at long distances.

Though now that you mention it, this kind of idea is the kind of strategic planning I would hope this system would help inspire.
[doublepost=1477381576,1477380884][/doublepost]

I don't think larger ships have an upper hand at all. In fact, if auxiliaries became part of larger builds, sniper cannons with high penetration are now even prevalent as poking some holes into large ships could quicken your enemy's death sentence due to the highly explosive nature of auxiliaries. It's pop up pirates all over again.

I'm not sure I understand your point exactly. However it doesn't seem to me that a ship (example 50m long) with a sniper cannon or even a group of them would be effective against a ship (example 500m long). Though Power Aux is a weak point, it is only so if a ships shields are down, I do not believe a fighter squadron at present is able to take out the shields of larger ships let alone penetrate its armor and hit one (of possibly many) Aux Power Generators.

 

[Spoolooni]

I apologize for not being more specific as to how I imagine it would work, however my programming knowledge is limited and IF this was implemented it would be so at Schines discretion. How I see something like this working would be the game calculating the size of the ship and having the shield a set distance (25-50m maybe) from the farthest reaching points making the shape of the ship more or less irrelevant.

As for a shield screening ship, yes it would be possible with three long sticks however that type of ship would also require shields and power itself for an entire fleet and with enemy ships able to pass through the shield, I don't see that as being a very viable option in combat and, if anything, would be fairly useless except at long distances.

Though now that you mention it, this kind of idea is the kind of strategic planning I would hope this system would help inspire.
[doublepost=1477381576,1477380884][/doublepost]

I'm not sure I understand your point exactly. However it doesn't seem to me that a ship (example 50m long) with a sniper cannon or even a group of them would be effective against a ship (example 500m long). Though Power Aux is a weak point, it is only so if a ships shields are down, I do not believe a fighter squadron at present is able to take out the shields of larger ships let alone penetrate its armor and hit one (of possibly many) Aux Power Generators.

I'm not talking about a fighter squadron, though I wonder why people keep trying to make fighter squadrons work. Generally a fleet of at least 3,000 mass or higher can really do some damage. Though Malacador worded it better, a bunch of ships that total the mass of a larger ship is far more deadly then that larger ship itself. Also to counter your point about Starmade being a game of size, I really disagree with you there as well, the larger the ship, the less economical and effective they become thanks to thrusters with poopy base stats and docked reactors no longer being part of the game any longer- "Capital" sized ships are more of a statement than anything.

 

[Panpiper]

Aux reactors have created an absolute about face in my strategic planning and ship/fleet concepts. Whereas before I would always be building for myself some battlewagon with an obscene quantity of docked reactors (my latest had 48), now the only ship I will put aux reactors on is something like a battleminer, which is only expected to ever face pirates, and whose shields are expected to never go down. Actual PvP or faction combat is now for me strictly about smaller ships, nothing larger than can be powered with regular power modules.

Large ships are NOT 'OP' and absolutely nothing needs to be done to make them more vulnerable to small ships. My main fleet element right now consists of 4000 mass 'destroyers' that in any sort of numbers will absolutely gut any ship sorry enough to contain aux reactors. The ONLY thing that will keep those large ships from virtually instantly having their aux reactors in exploding mode are those shields you want to try to nerf.

 

[Malacodor]

A 200 block cannon/pulse weapon can penetrate 3 layers of advanced armor, 9 layers of standard armor and up to 21 layers of systems, and that's a pretty small weapon. A swarm of fighters equipped with these can easily turn big ships into sieves.

 

[Serene-Switch]

I'm not talking about a fighter squadron, though I wonder why people keep trying to make fighter squadrons work. Generally a fleet of at least 3,000 mass or higher can really do some damage. Though Malacador worded it better, a bunch of ships that total the mass of a larger ship is far more deadly then that larger ship itself. Also to counter your point about Starmade being a game of size, I really disagree with you there as well, the larger the ship, the less economical and effective they become thanks to thrusters with poopy base stats and docked reactors no longer being part of the game any longer- "Capital" sized ships are more of a statement than anything.

I understand your previous point a bit better now. I agree medium sized ships are the most efficient in terms of game mechanics, and honestly the size I prefer (though that also has to do with my current rig). As for the fighter squadrons, we now have carrier and fleet mechanics however, not much in the way of combat mechanics. With carriers now being implemented there is an opportunity to expand combat complexity that (I feel anyway) is being overlooked.
[doublepost=1477413622,1477412973][/doublepost]

Aux reactors have created an absolute about face in my strategic planning and ship/fleet concepts. Whereas before I would always be building for myself some battlewagon with an obscene quantity of docked reactors (my latest had 48), now the only ship I will put aux reactors on is something like a battleminer, which is only expected to ever face pirates, and whose shields are expected to never go down. Actual PvP or faction combat is now for me strictly about smaller ships, nothing larger than can be powered with regular power modules.

Large ships are NOT 'OP' and absolutely nothing needs to be done to make them more vulnerable to small ships. My main fleet element right now consists of 4000 mass 'destroyers' that in any sort of numbers will absolutely gut any ship sorry enough to contain aux reactors. The ONLY thing that will keep those large ships from virtually instantly having their aux reactors in exploding mode are those shields you want to try to nerf.

Not sure if you read the whole post, but in an earlier reply I mentioned that the gap between ship and shield would be small, only big enough to apply to fighters about 50m in dimensions. Anything much bigger would probably be classified as its own ship, again the goal here is to make carriers combat viable and make fleet combat more dynamic.
[doublepost=1477413928][/doublepost]

A 200 block cannon/pulse weapon can penetrate 3 layers of advanced armor, 9 layers of standard armor and up to 21 layers of systems, and that's a pretty small weapon. A swarm of fighters equipped with these can easily turn big ships into sieves.

Which is why larger ships would need anti fighter turrets and damage pulse, but also support vessels and perhaps fighters of their own. You make a good point as to how this might hurt larger independent ships, however the purpose is to encourage diverse ships within fleets.

 

[Spoolooni]

I understand your previous point a bit better now. I agree medium sized ships are the most efficient in terms of game mechanics, and honestly the size I prefer (though that also has to do with my current rig). As for the fighter squadrons, we now have carrier and fleet mechanics however, not much in the way of combat mechanics. With carriers now being implemented there is an opportunity to expand combat complexity that (I feel anyway) is being overlooked.
[doublepost=1477413622,1477412973][/doublepost]

Not sure if you read the whole post, but in an earlier reply I mentioned that the gap between ship and shield would be small, only big enough to apply to fighters about 50m in dimensions. Anything much bigger would probably be classified as its own ship, again the goal here is to make carriers combat viable and make fleet combat more dynamic.

Carriers have always been part of the combat strategy. Now they're even more prevalent as people realize a fleet is much more powerful than one big monster of a ship. You seem to be the type that vouch for tiny ships in which It's not a bad idea to build a career for them.

 

[Serene-Switch]

Carriers have always been part of the combat strategy. Now they're even more prevalent as people realize a fleet is much more powerful than one big monster of a ship. You seem to be the type that vouch for tiny ships in which It's not a bad idea to build a career for them.

I would love to build a fleet centered around a carrier, but as of now to hold fighters capable of inflicting real damage they need to be fairly large requiring the carrier to be even larger. I suppose I look at the size of a BSG viper or a Star Wars Xwing and think "yea I could make it, but. . ." even small carriers need to be hundreds of meters to hold anything substantial. It is the plague of escalation I think StarMade suffers from, which is what drove people to build those Titans that were popular.

 

[Malacodor]

Not sure if you read the whole post, but in an earlier reply I mentioned that the gap between ship and shield would be small, only big enough to apply to fighters about 50m in dimensions.

If there were a 50m gap between ship and shields, this means that there would be a 70m gap for ships with a 20m antenna, for example. Also, ships needn't be <50m in size to penetrate a shield, they just had to stick their nose with the weapon outputs through it.

 

[Serene-Switch]

If there were a 50m gap between ship and shields, this means that there would be a 70m gap for ships with a 20m antenna, for example. Also, ships needn't be <50m in size to penetrate a shield, they just had to stick their nose with the weapon outputs through it.

You are correct in that only the weapon outputs would need to be inside the shield, while this would be dangerous for most fighters corvette and frigates, when facing a much larger ship would be able to exploit this. This is one of a few problems with this type of mechanic I am unable to come up with a solution to.

Unfortunately, the only other direction I think StarMade could take in making fleet tactics significant would be by heavily altering weapons and introducing new types of weapons into the game, or as some other posts suggest, making fleet logistics necessary ie ammunition, oxygen, food, fuel, water, requirements. I'm not sure I like those ideas more, too much micro management.

 

[NeonSturm]

Just push the ships apart if they aren't friendly to each other and come to close.

Like pushing 2 magnets with equal poles together.

 

[Nickizzy]

Just push the ships apart if they aren't friendly to each other and come to close.

Like pushing 2 magnets with equal poles together.

Or make a certain limit in how much of your ship can be outside the shield- having random shoving seems like something that would get exploited in seconds.