Turret Shielding

[leion247]

This is a much argued debate about whether to have shielding of the ship be shared with the turrets. While in theory this is a good idea, in balance it isn't. There would need to be really creative people to figure out how to make it possible and balanced for both sides. I'll explain both.

The people that argue for it say that turrets have to be huge because of how is currently is. Needing to place tons of shields and rechargers just to defend it giving little room for turrets that are both combat effective and good looking. That would be because of all the room being taken up for the shields instead of personal power so the ship can use it's weapons, or effect modules to increase power. Making smaller turrets dead quickly before they did any damage.

This is a much argued debate about whether to have shielding of the ship be shared with the turrets. While in theory this is a good idea, in balance it isn't. There would need to be really creative people to figure out how to make it possible and balanced for both sides. I'll explain both.

The people that argue for it say that turrets have to be huge because of how is currently is. Needing to place tons of shields and rechargers just to defend it giving little room for turrets that are both combat effective and good looking. That would be because of all the room being taken up for the shields instead of personal power so the ship can use it's weapons, or effect modules to increase power. Making smaller turrets dead quickly before they did any damage.

The people that argue against it say that sharing shields would make the turrets impossible to kill on bigger ships making smaller craftin useless in the fight as they will just be picked off by the turrets and can't do anything to them. How it currently is nerfs the already OP big ships.

Both sides are right though, neither is wrong in there right, but, if I may, I'd like to suggest a way to please both sides. Let the turrets share shields, but only that of which would be 10% or less of the main ship. Basically, the shields the turret will have at any moment would be 10% or which the main ship is, same with recharge. They will not need a module for this as it would be storaged in the docked core. to add more shields you just add capacity. The percent will never go higher than 10%, unless you add some on.

Let's give an example of what 10% would look like. on a ship with 100k shielding the turrets on it would get 10k base. Let say it had 100k shield and 20k recharge. Then the turrets would have at base value 10k capacity and 2k recharge.

The thing to limit how high it would go through it that a turret can only have 20k capacity and 4k in recharge, as an example, as max for a base value. They would have to add capacitors and rechargers to make it higher. Even if a ship had a million shield capacity the turrets could only have 20k in base value in shield sharing along with that 4k recharge.

This would still let smaller ships be able to do damage to a ship's turrets. Not only that, but because of the new feature the smaller ships could have a very basic and small turret on them for killing missiles or helping them attack when they fly by big ships. They won't have to worry about the size of it as much since it will be possible to have a smaller turret without it being blown off.

 

[Jaaskinal]

So basically changing the threshhold where shield's protect turrets. Currently 50%, to 90%.
Also, 20k is less than the alpha on cannon/cannon for a lot of combat ships. I don't think a hard cap is ever a solution.
And finally, if you bring one small ship against a big ship, you really should get destroyed. You are not luke skywalker. You are not going to destroy the death star with a fighter.

 

[leion247]

So basically changing the threshhold where shield's protect turrets. Currently 50%, to 90%.
Also, 20k is less than the alpha on cannon/cannon for a lot of combat ships. I don't think a hard cap is ever a solution.
And finally, if you bring one small ship against a big ship, you really should get destroyed. You are not luke skywalker. You are not going to destroy the death star with a fighter.

Well, it was mostly an example to use 20k, not my personal thought of what it should be. This was a suggestion to let the turrets have shields without having to make it look ugly when they are smaller. Also, I have yet to see the shield sharing that was ment to be 50% actually work. As quoted from the starmadeapedia, "The "base" segment may contain a number of Shield Capacitors and Shield Rechargers, for the protection of the barrel, should the host entity's shielding drop below 50%." From personal experience my turrets would be damaged and missing blocks even though the main ship never went below 95% in shielding. This would leave me to believe the whole shield sharing the wiki says it does as a bunch of bowl at that. But with that aside I thought this would give people a new way to think of it and maybe some of what's in here can help create something everyone can agree with. Also, we all know that small ships will still be destroyed on there own, but with this in play in very large numbers, they might actually be able to do something. if not to the main ship, then the turrets, but not without a fight. It also doesn't need to be a hard cap, it could easily be a soft cap using the same basic idea.

 

[Battle]

There are several flaws with the idea.

Capping the amount in absolutes is not conform with the main idea of the game. The players define what is huge and small based on how big they build their ships and stations. It would have to be relative.

Jaaskinal
The difference is, each turret has its own shield, which has to be beaten down. It is not enough to damage the ship shields to 50% (or whatever is in the config), you actually need to deal damage to the turrets. This alone seems to be a good idea.

But giving free shield capacities or not specificable amounts is not acceptable. It would have to be a combination of both... like 20% of the overall shield capacity is reserved for turrets, and if turrets take damage equal to 20% ship shield, they become vulnerable. Anyways... this would contradict the idea of giving each turret it's own shields... or at least not complete it.


However, there is a major flaw in the whole idea of small ships fighting turrets of big ships. The reason for the existence of small ships in a combat versus huge ships is to have them destroy its turrets. Turrets are meant to destroy fast and small ships. So they are solely meant to counter what is meant to counter them? It's like, you place turrets only to create a minigame for small ships, which merely bothers you, as they deal insignificant damage to your ship, but in a real fight they counter the counter and that's it. See the logical problem?

No turrets -> you ignore small ships, they ignore you. Maybe you can catch them with your main weaponry.
Turrets -> your turrets try to shoot them, they try to shoot your turrets.

I am against the Luke Skywalker idea of having small ships to destroy turrets. I prefer having 100% protection for turrets no matter what. They are a part of the ship, just as anything else on it, with just little differences -> they can have their own AI and they can rotate. There is no need to create gaping vulnerabilities which are countered by what they are meant to counter anyways. There would be a difference if there would be weapons which would have to be external and much more powerful, which are meant to add damage to the main weapons.

Maybe small ships are just not needed in combat between huge ships... at least as long as they are not AI-controlled, which would give sense to them. That way players would not need to pilot them, and they could be used as interceptors... flying extensions of a ship which give a boost to the damage dealt... and also effective against other small ships.

Anyways, the idea has good roots, but leads in a wrong way.

 

[godmars]

There are several flaws with the idea.


snip

why is it that every time someone mentions 'small ship', the knee jerk reaction is to picture a fighter with a machinegun?

no, a fighter shouldn't be able to damage a cap ship, but that doesn't make them, or bombers, gunships, corvettes, and the like irrelevant, or that they SHOULD be. In a lot of the fictional space war military doctrine(s), fighters exist to protect larger, slower ships from getting nuked to oblivion from every direction by bombers and other larger but comparatively smaller ships that can exploit their speed and partially circumvent PD, basically ensuring 'space superiority'. The only reason this doesn't happen in Starmade is because cap ships can move at the same max speed of a ship 10x smaller than it while thrusting backwards, and AI is currently too stupid to effectively bomb a target, otherwise I would just fly around in a bomber with a mass of drones ruining everyone's day.

..ANYWAY, back on topic, I think the % shared between shields is fine as-is.

 

[Battle]

why is it that every time someone mentions 'small ship', the knee jerk reaction is to picture a fighter with a machinegun?

no, a fighter shouldn't be able to damage a cap ship, but that doesn't make them, or bombers, gunships, corvettes, and the like irrelevant, or that they SHOULD be. In a lot of the fictional space war military doctrine(s), fighters exist to protect larger, slower ships from getting nuked to oblivion from every direction by bombers and other larger but comparatively smaller ships that can exploit their speed and partially circumvent PD, basically ensuring 'space superiority'. The only reason this doesn't happen in Starmade is because cap ships can move at the same max speed of a ship 10x smaller than it while thrusting backwards, and AI is currently too stupid to effectively bomb a target, otherwise I would just fly around in a bomber with a mass of drones ruining everyone's day.

..ANYWAY, back on topic, I think the % shared between shields is fine as-is.

Who said irrelevant? You obviously did not even read what I wrote.
If proper AI and controlling possibilities would exist, small ships would have their use. But it makes rather no sense to put a player in a small ship to shoot down turrets of a capital ship, which are solely there to shoot down themselves. Besides that the shield damage is inexistent, hull damage can eventually give some meaning to them. I think it makes only a minimum of sense to make turrets so vulnerable. It's a bad solution for a conceptional problem.

Also there are fights where capital ships are not involved.

 

[godmars]

I didn't insinuate you said anything.

The flaw in your reasoning is the presumption that smaller ships are designed to 'just' destroy turrets, and that's all they are capable of doing, which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[leion247]

Everyone calm down, the small ships fighting capital ship turrets what just a example situation for both parties. I wasn't implying that small ships could only fight turrets of big ships or that they should go against them. I was just saying that in a situation like this, where a fleet of small fighters fought caps, they could use the new system for shielding to their advantage and what it could lead to.

 

[Battle]

I didn't insinuate you said anything.

The flaw in your reasoning is the presumption that smaller ships are designed to 'just' destroy turrets, and that's all they are capable of doing, which couldn't be further from the truth.

If you amass enough small ships, which are AI controlled and controllable by the player with commands, they become useful. If not, you won't put players in small ships anyways. As of now, there is no such AI control mechanic, right?

To deal damage to a capital ship you will need so much weaponry, that the problematic with turrets is way out of scope. Turrets get more and more ineffective against ship sizes above ~2x times their own. From there on they become sadly merely a nuisance. Also those ships become reachable by main weapons. And this is the point why turrets are only effective against small ships and small ships are only effective against capital ship turrets. Of course we do not speak about fights between ships of similar or near to similar sizes, because it's all relative.

However, there is no good reason to make turrets so vulnerable at all, and a personal shield derived from the main ship is therefore a good idea complementary with the current 50% turret shielding system. However... in my oppinion the best is to grant them full protection... if anything can bring a capital ship to 50%, then it can also bring it down to 0%.

 

[GalactusX]

A turret is simply a ship destined for such functions, therefore, the "turrets" need to have their own coat and the mother ship does not have to give a percentage of their own free shield, 50% of the shield seems more than enough ... the problem has always been there ... you want to fight a big ship? builds another larger ship, currently there is no way to "condense" shields or power in less space, if you want your turrets have more shields, adding more shields ...

The purpose of the small fighters is to throw down the defenses of a larger ship, whether their turrets and other ships of defense, this does not mean that a small ship mass 1k you can destroy another big ship of 100k mass, small ships have its purpose as large ...

We really need a way to control the behavior of the AI, I mean to link small ships / drones to the mother ship, such as: patrol an area (useful for space stations), back and dock, collecting ships destroyed / asteroid / planets, repair a ship or give energy / shields ...

 

[DivineEvil]

The whole discussion makes no sense to me. I cannot really distinguish what's the "debate" is all about. You have a 50% shield share from main ship. If you want to protect turrets more, you place some shields on a turret itself. Seems working, balanced and legit. Nothing to discuss.

 

[Battle]

The whole discussion makes no sense to me. I cannot really distinguish what's the "debate" is all about. You have a 50% shield share from main ship. If you want to protect turrets more, you place some shields on a turret itself. Seems working, balanced and legit. Nothing to discuss.

Wrong. Turret shields are the first to be drained, and as soon as they are depleted, the main ship's shields. Even if it worked vice versa (how it should), it would still leave gameplay flaws. So basically it is neither working, nor balanced and legit. Sure it works in *some* way, however that's all.

 

[DivineEvil]

Wrong. Turret shields are the first to be drained, and as soon as they are depleted, the main ship's shields.

I haven't said anything about an order in which shields are drained.

Even if it worked vice versa (how it should),

Why?

it would still leave gameplay flaws.

I don't see any.

So basically it is neither working, nor balanced and legit. Sure it works in *some* way, however that's all.

To make such bold statements, you actually need to provide straight arguments, which are not limited by your own assertions.

Again, you have turret shields, which are local. If they are depleted, then the capacity of a wielder is rerouted to it. Makes perfect sense, and the opposite doesn't.

 

[Battle]

I haven't said anything about an order in which shields are drained.
Why?
I don't see any.
To make such bold statements, you actually need to provide straight arguments, which are not limited by your own assertions.

Again, you have turret shields, which are local. If they are depleted, then the capacity of a wielder is rerouted to it. Makes perfect sense, and the opposite doesn't.

Alright.

1. Turrets should be as effective as possible. Forcing players to give them own shield systems is already a problem, as that makes them unnecessarily clumsy and big -- also possibly making them look ugly.
2. The order matters a lot. Assuming you fire at the turret while the main ship is above 50%, and then drops below that threshold (caused by another large ship), that means, its own shield system practically gave it 0 more survivalability facing you. However, if the shields are first touched when the main ship is below threshold, it means they get a little more sustain AFTER the docked/turret vulnerability began.

This is quite a significant difference, however as of 1., it should not be needed at all.

Also the gameplay flaw is that turrets' main purpose is to destroy smaller ships, which in turn have the duty to destroy turrets of capital ships (in a battle with capital ships). This means A counters B, B counters A, and both serve no greater purpose above that. So - making turrets extra vulnerable by lowering the 50% protection cap, or in this case by having a bad shield usage order would just boost the issue.

Speaking about "perfect sense" - regarding a potential sci-fi explanation, there is none which would explain why turrets, which are just a part of a ship like anything else, do not get full shield coverage. I could build floating blocks 1km far away from my ship and it will get full shield coverage, but my turrets would not even if burried into my ship. Or, a little less extreme: I can have a weapon hanging far out of my ship - no problem, but if it even just accidentaly happens, that it is a turret, which can even move 1°, god beware, it must not have full coverage because ehm... science?, logic?

Yes the logic is in the thought, that turrets should provide "vulnerable" parts of a capital ship, destined to be destroyed by smaller ships, which otherwise wouldn't have any impact on a combat. I am truly sadened, that this quite dumb mindset is possibly affecting the majority of the players. Even I have plenty of space battle fantasies, but I wouldn't allow them to interfere with good gameplay mechanics. And in this case, people think it's super awesome to Luke Skywalker around capital ships to destroy turrets.

Imagine you drop the turrets... you don't place them on the capital ship. What happens with the small craft? Nothing. They contribute with like 1% damage. However! If there would be weapons on capital ships, which need to be exposed to vulnerability just like turrets now, and if they are super effective in combat against other capital ships or large ships, THAT would make them a worthy target to be picked off... but that is not the case and most probably unlikely to ever happen.

 

[DivineEvil]

. Turrets should be as effective as possible. Forcing players to give them own shield systems is already a problem, as that makes them unnecessarily clumsy and big -- also possibly making them look ugly.

Nobody forces you. You can a well have turrets, that has nothing but weapon modules to shoot with, and they still get the 50% of the wielder's capacity. Turret shielding is more of a optional bonus you can apply when you're making a turret with predefined aestetics, and have extra space due to that. Shields has no grouping limitaions, thus they can fit any shape. What makes turrets big and clumsy are the weapons themselves.

2. The order matters a lot. Assuming you fire at the turret while the main ship is above 50%, and then drops below that threshold (caused by another large ship), that means, its own shield system practically gave it 0 more survivalability facing you. However, if the shields are first touched when the main ship is below threshold, it means they get a little more sustain AFTER the docked/turret vulnerability began.

It's own shields is what depleted before that 50% can be bypassed. I'm not sure where you've coming from here. In essence there's zero difference - either way you deplete 50% shields of a ship and 100% shields of its turret. If you deplete a ship, turrets will have their local shields intact; If you deplete a turret, ship will be left with ~50% its own shields.

Also the gameplay flaw is that turrets' main purpose is to destroy smaller ships, which in turn have the duty to destroy turrets of capital ships (in a battle with capital ships). This means A counters B, B counters A, and both serve no greater purpose above that. So - making turrets extra vulnerable by lowering the 50% protection cap, or in this case by having a bad shield usage order would just boost the issue.

Here's your personal assumptions arise. Turrets has no "main purpose". Turrets are less durable, more flexible mounts of the same weapons as the ones placed into the ship's chassis itself. They occupy the same mass, use the same energy, and the whole difference is that they can fire where primary weapons cannot. You can make a capital ship, which uses nothing but turrets, and use it against other capital ships just as well. Same is true for ships of any size. A comparative force of small ships can wreck a capital ship just as easily, as the capital ship can wreck a force of small ships. It is defined by the design in a given scenario. There's no set roles for anything. There's benefits, and there's drawbacks.

I'm not advocating for lowering the cap, I'm completely fine with it as now.

Speaking about "perfect sense" - regarding a potential sci-fi explanation, there is none which would explain why turrets, which are just a part of a ship like anything else, do not get full shield coverage. I could build floating blocks 1km far away from my ship and it will get full shield coverage, but my turrets would not even if burried into my ship. Or, a little less extreme: I can have a weapon hanging far out of my ship - no problem, but if it even just accidentaly happens, that it is a turret, which can even move 1°, god beware, it must not have full coverage because ehm... science?, logic?
Yes the logic is in the thought, that turrets should provide "vulnerable" parts of a capital ship, destined to be destroyed by smaller ships, which otherwise wouldn't have any impact on a combat. I am truly sadened, that this quite dumb mindset is possibly affecting the majority of the players. Even I have plenty of space battle fantasies, but I wouldn't allow them to interfere with good gameplay mechanics. And in this case, people think it's super awesome to Luke Skywalker around capital ships to destroy turrets.

- All I've said, is that it is perfect sense that turrets are protected by a wielding ship only if their own shields are depleted, and not the opposite way (protected by the ship initially). You always use the resource, which is closer.
- It is also perfect sence, that ship systems wouldn't deplete an entire shield capacity to protect a freaking anti-missile turret or something; turrets are not so important compared to the ship structurual integrity. They are merely weapons, yet on the other hand can recover their local shields freely, while ship is under fire.
- I'm in no way a supporter of Luke Skywalker shit you're throwing around. At the moment, a turret is definitely more potent, than a ship of the same mass. It doesnt need thrusters, it doesnt need power, it doesnt need jump drives or anything else. It is a weapon, optionally coated into shields and armor. This makes a turret about twice as deadly as the equally-sized ship. 50% share cap is what needed to compensate for it, and I'm fine with it. It is balanced, and I have yet to see a valid point for why it is not, as you stated.

Imagine you drop the turrets... you don't place them on the capital ship. What happens with the small craft? Nothing. They contribute with like 1% damage. However! If there would be weapons on capital ships, which need to be exposed to vulnerability just like turrets now, and if they are super effective in combat against other capital ships or large ships, THAT would make them a worthy target to be picked off... but that is not the case and most probably unlikely to ever happen.

You'll lose a customization option, and there's nothing else to achieve.
You can make a capital with few enormous turrets, they will be vulnerable and super-effective against Capital ships. You also can make a small ship with nothing but few powerful turrets. Can't see your point. As long as you've managed to drop the shields, you can pick on any part of the ship you want. Picking off turrets is like the least time-efficient way to defeat any given ship, in my insight.

 

[jayman38]

It's own shields is what depleted before that 50% can be bypassed. I'm not sure where you've coming from here. In essence there's zero difference - either way you deplete 50% shields of a ship and 100% shields of its turret. If you deplete a ship, turrets will have their local shields intact; If you deplete a turret, ship will be left with ~50% its own shields.

I have to disagree here. There is significant difference on the order of shield depletion.

1. Current situation: turret shields drop first, then the ship shields have to drop 50% before the turret can be directly attacked by small craft.

In this first example, small craft can attack right away and strip away a turret's individual shields. Meanwhile, it's up to a capital ship to drop the main ship's shields sufficiently for damage to the turret blocks. The small craft will probably be destroyed before they can break blocks to make a significant contribution.


2. Proposed situation: ship shields have to drop 50% before the turret's shields come into effect. The turret's shields can then be attacked and dropped, and then the turret itself can be damaged.

In this second example, small craft must hold back or risk certain annihilation while the capital ships do their damage. Once the ship's shields drop below 50%, smaller craft can swoop in and attack a turret directly with some hope that they can damage, and possibly even destroy it. The small-craft pilot will need to exercise patience at the beginning of a battle, but if the timing is right, they can then make a significant contribution to the battle. I think this would be more fun for those pilots who prefer smaller ships, and won't really effect capital combat in any significant way.

 

[Battle]

You said, turrets are kind of overpowered because they do not anything else than weapon systems unlike regular ships. Absolutely wrong view. I don't mean slightly missed the point, I mean really really failed to understand gameplay mechanics or what I was trying to say. Maybe it was my fault, even though I tried hard.

Turrets might not have the need for any other systems, but that is good and correct, as they act only as an EXTENSION of something else. Their power, shields (sadly just in half measure) and even movement (it is being transported) are absolutely dependent from the main ship. The assumption, that turrets are "more potent" is plain wrong. The power generators have to be there. The thrusters too (if it is a ship). The warp too. Shields too. They are just on the main ship. All the modules placed on the turret could also be placed on the ship directly, making no difference in power consumption and dps. There is no hidden secret bonus dropping magically off only because it is not the turret who is carrying its maintanance needs. They are an extension and not some kind of thing you randomly happened to put on your ship, which deserves only half protection.

Also, if it helps you, imagine the shield system like that: Ships have a bubble which protects them and anything in it. That is the main ship shield. Turrets are under that protective shield, and if they have own shields, they would be totally untouched until the main ship shield is down. In StarMade however the shield is displayed as it would be a skin on the hull, but the reasoning is rather the fact, that the game is developing and improving, step by step, and that this is just one of the steps. An early version, where it was just about adding shields in just some way, which is conform with that current state of code. It is quite imaginable, that future steps have bubble-like shields - but that is not even the point. The question is, what makes more sense and what improves the game.

Do you know the Battlestar Galactica? I like that ship concept. It has hangars which can be extended. That integral part of the ship, which would have to be a docked element, is quite vulnerable because of the 50% shielding cap. And there is really no sense why it should be vulnerable.

Hell, I would even say combine all thrusters, shields, power generation, warp, effects from turrets and the main ship and make everything shared. This would even allow building ships by segments. You could make interchangable thruster segments, core segments and weapons segments, which could be docked together. Having separate shields or weird 50% caps is just, as again, an artificial hinderance to achieve 1 thing, which is: Give small ships the opportunity to take down capital ship turrets (which as stated above, is in itself illogical and bad gameplay).

 

[Master_Artificer]

Okay, what about a fleet of small ships against one big one?
Like, 5-6 of them, say they bombers are squaring off against one 50k mass ship with no support.

Would/should having a half dozen 1k-2k mass bombers be able to damage a ship? Should they be able do damage a ship?

Currently, can they deal damage to a ship? I think this is a question for personal testing.
(I would define bombers as big attack craft with large alpha damage but low reload time. The Bomber is probably large enough to warent a few missile defense turrets as well.)
Could I have someone test this for us please?

 

[shadowulf]

The point Battle makes is valid, although bubble shields have been rejected ALOT. A ships turrets are an integral part of its design, and (in my case, at least) each turret I design and build that is multipurpose is not as effective on some ships as a specially-built turret would be.

 

[godmars]

Okay, what about a fleet of small ships against one big one?
Like, 5-6 of them, say they bombers are squaring off against one 50k mass ship with no support.

Would/should having a half dozen 1k-2k mass bombers be able to damage a ship? Should they be able do damage a ship?

Currently, can they deal damage to a ship? I think this is a question for personal testing.

There's no way to really quantify that since ship designs can wildly vary from player to player. But 6 1k mass ships, as long as they, are built to actually maneuver well and not like a brick can do a lot of damage to kill a ship that size..that's if they can get close enough to circumvent PD while getting shot at by Bobby in Aim-bot range, and the ship doesn't have swarmers to instantly annihilate them.

As far as my experience goes, those 6 AI ships vs an AI ship of the size you suggested (with light/no PD, and no swarmers) would do enough damage to drop shields quickly and scratch the hull at which point half of them would be dead and the rest partially destroyed. Player controlled bombers would do better with a radar jammer and if they could exploit their acceleration and just circle strafe the ship to death, but vs another player that isn't going to happen.