Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Oh look another shield overhaul thread [WARNING: contains BIG DUMB IDEAS]
2016-12-28, 09:17 PM
Post: #21
RE: Oh look another shield overhaul thread [WARNING: contains BIG DUMB IDEAS]
I missed that bit then, sorry. Apart from that, the damage throughput of not is trivial, as it'l Just wear the shield down faster... The formula isn't trivial, as imo shields are just an armour layer and different shell types should react different.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2016-12-29, 07:31 AM (This post was last modified: 2016-12-29 07:40 AM by Lincrono.)
Post: #22
RE: Oh look another shield overhaul thread [WARNING: contains BIG DUMB IDEAS]
(2016-12-28 04:28 AM)Haywire Wrote:  Lincrono, how this scales with size is a balancing issue with core construction that, frankly, I might not have the brainpower to figure out Tongue
As for your three points, in order;
-In this system, no shield would be invincible; even the most powerful could be dragged down by enough massed fire. Maybe your dinky little machine gun will never penetrate it, maybe 50 of them won't either, but they might weaken it enough that your larger shells might start sneaking through, and your lasers and explosions might start doing non-negligible damage- remember that some damage from those always leaks through!

This is exactly the kind of thing you can't have damage MUST not be totally stopped OR shields must not stop it for long. You can't assume that a ship HAS 'other weapons' because not everything is a battleship. If the potential to completely eliminate damage to the ship itself exists you open the door to ships mounting such powerful shields they are effectively invincible. People will mount multiple systems, they will pack massive steam engines, they will abuse the mechanic every which way. If the potential is there they will find it and the overall balance of the game takes a massive hit.


(2016-12-28 04:28 AM)Haywire Wrote:  -That's something I specifically had in mind with this- engines, cannons, they can be squeezed into like three or four blocks, and they'll be crap but they'll still work! That's why I added the direct-power option for pylons- if you have just a couple blocks of space and a little bit of engine power to spare and you want to make your tiny drone just a little bit more annoying to kill, you can do that! If you want to spam tiny direct-power pylons all over your ship instead of setting up a core and take the hit to shield strength in favor of robustness against damage, you can do that! The player is empowered to make these kinds of decisions.

those are fake decisions. it's like being offered the option between a wooden sword and an M-16 the choice exists but it's not a choice. Again, the one good thing about current shields is you can mount them on a small vessel and allow that small vessel parity with a larger ship, this opens the door for balanced play between groups of ships and between groups of smaller ships vs larger ones, this is something the game should encourage, not kill and a new shields system must account for this. I'm not saying a frigate's shields should rival a battleship's in raw stats, but the Frigate should be able to build a meaningful, well designed, well implemented system of it's own rather than be stuck with something inherently inferior. Furthermore, If the designer so desires it should very well be possible to mount a system a class-size or two stronger on a small ship (a shield based tank if you would) at the cost of another system (much like you may chose to mount a huge missile rack at the expense of also mounting a decent size cannon).

Think of it this way: a 50m frigate can't mount as many missiles as a 300m battleship. It just doesn't have the space. but that frigate might chose to carry only missiles, and carry 50 of them. A battleship can't ignore that kind of damage and while the frigate alone might not get the kill a group could because there's nothing inherently inferior about those missiles. Now let's add an artificial volume limited balance requirement (let's say missiles must use natural ammo-box generation, not processors). Suddenly that frigate no longer has the option to use 50 missiles, It will never be able to carry that much ammo. The battleship meanwhile doesn't care, he has space to spare and happily murders the fleet of now, useless frigates.

That's the kind of situation I see if you require too large a core to be useful or require too much minimum power. It's not an easy balance problem, but it is an important one to get right.
(2016-12-28 04:28 AM)Haywire Wrote:  -That's the main thing I had in mind while designing this. NOTHING gets no-sold. Even if a shell fails to penetrate, it did a non-zero amount of damage to the shield, which could stack up to something appreciable, and even if the shield recharges then that costs a non-zero amount of fuel over and above normal upkeep, etc.
Kinda hits on the first post. You look at this system and see something that's balanced and makes sense, because this is how shields tend to work in fiction. The problem you run into is that as soon as you make it possible to avoid all the damage of a shell anyone trying to min/max is immediately going to start calculating how much power they need to negate all damage indefinitely or, failing that, long enough to kill the other ship. This is exactly what we saw with the new shields. People realized that with only a few level 1-2 shields they could have essential immunity from kinetic weapons. High strength shields disappeared, low strength layered shields rose to the top, and kinetic shells disappeared from meaningful play.

-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2016-12-31, 12:59 PM
Post: #23
RE: Oh look another shield overhaul thread [WARNING: contains BIG DUMB IDEAS]
I do like this idea, but like many have said there is a problem with smaller ship shields. Now I am one to build massive ships mostly and generally I don't use shields as I think they are inherently broken. Also a reason I banned them from my CC. This system has a lot of good points, but needs refining. Small ships with only the pylons could have an option to be directly powered by the engines so they could be powerful and negate even large shells, but have a small buffer so maybe a second shell can penetrate. That way they could possibly recharge faster between damage and mostly rely on speed and manouverability to negate damage. Now larger ships need the core and the added shield banks to negate consistent damage to the shield. As they recharge slower they can be taken down.

Also I think the shield core should be very volatile in nature, possibly launching a massive EMP blast throughout the ship if destroyed (no point in having EXP happening on a battery based system).

The ricochet system should still exist in this system, but like already said it should be based on the armour mechanics instead of the current shield mechanics (I sometimes have shells ricochet when hitting a shield head on O.o). If you hit the sphere at a large angle, it should ricochet.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2016-12-31, 01:15 PM
Post: #24
RE: Oh look another shield overhaul thread [WARNING: contains BIG DUMB IDEAS]
(2016-12-31 12:59 PM)Finnwolf88 Wrote:  ... Small ships with only the pylons could have an option to be directly powered by the engines so they could be powerful and negate even large shells, but have a small buffer so maybe a second shell can penetrate...

The concept already mentions directly powering the pylons.

Nuclear Reactor Mod v0.9.81
Future Tech Mod, tomorrows technology today! - Discontinued
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2016-12-31, 10:11 PM (This post was last modified: 2016-12-31 10:12 PM by A Lemming.)
Post: #25
RE: Oh look another shield overhaul thread [WARNING: contains BIG DUMB IDEAS]
Remove shields, nerf APS reload speed and make missiles have less health and detonate upon contact with other missiles. Make PAC nerfed to 33% on all damage types
Destroy the spam

[Image: DrBGmGy.png]

Join the Universal Supreme Alliance!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2016-12-31, 10:51 PM
Post: #26
RE: Oh look another shield overhaul thread [WARNING: contains BIG DUMB IDEAS]
(2016-12-31 10:11 PM)A Lemming Wrote:  Remove shields

+1

[Image: 504.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-01, 03:21 PM
Post: #27
RE: Oh look another shield overhaul thread [WARNING: contains BIG DUMB IDEAS]
(2016-12-31 10:11 PM)A Lemming Wrote:  Remove shields, nerf APS reload speed and make missiles have less health and detonate upon contact with other missiles. Make PAC nerfed to 33% on all damage types
Destroy the spam

Remove shields? Why? They are a perfect way to buff an otherwise weak craft and/or make for added defensive measures, but they do need to be balanced! As for your arguments, APS reload speed is already painfully slow. And if anything, missiles need a buff, not a nerf. They are weak as hell, barely deal any damage, consume fuel like it's nothing and are expensive. The only plus side? If they're not taken out by, idk, LAMS, CIWS, Anti-Missiles, Flares, or Smoke (they are by far the MOST counterable weapon) they mostly hit their targets. Unless the target is fast, then it'll just run out of fuel.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
2017-01-08, 03:15 AM
Post: #28
RE: Oh look another shield overhaul thread [WARNING: contains BIG DUMB IDEAS]
(2016-12-31 01:15 PM)gruntmaster1 Wrote:  
(2016-12-31 12:59 PM)Finnwolf88 Wrote:  ... Small ships with only the pylons could have an option to be directly powered by the engines so they could be powerful and negate even large shells, but have a small buffer so maybe a second shell can penetrate...

The concept already mentions directly powering the pylons.

True, but it implies that direct power is inefficient and disadvantageous.

The idea of having them powerful enough to provide significant staying power against larger weapons and having rapid refresh if downed at the expense of having a smaller buffer is a markedly different idea. In particular it sketches the following mechanic:
-small ships remain viable their shields are strong but lack depth. Therefore, they are downed more rapidly and more often, but they recover faster. (many periods of vulnerability)
-large ships on the other hand have strong shields that don't lack depth. Therefore, they can tank more and longer but when the shield does drop they recover slowly (fewer periods of greater vulnerability).

Mechanics like those, ones that offer a distinct interplay, are what form the core of a heathy, balanced system. Otherwise we get more = better which encourages brute force over actual design and often leads to balance issues like those we have now.

-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)