Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

Poll: Good idea?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
No.
0%
0 0%
No, needs major changes.
0%
0 0%
Yes, with minor changes.
50.00%
2 50.00%
Yes.
50.00%
2 50.00%
Total 4 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Shield Projectors: Kinetic and Energy

#1
I find that disruption shields are useless, reflection shields are overpowered to the point of being mandatory, and laser absorb shields are prohibitively energy-intensive given their purpose in providing laser defenses to a vehicle which already has a high power consumption from using laser weapons. I think that shield types can be simplified and balanced by splitting them into only two categories - kinetic and energy protection - and having them function more like laser absorb shields with some changes.

Rather than simply having a chance to bounce projectiles, kinetic protection shields should soak damage, draining energy from the ship's battery power to stop projectiles with any kinetic component to their damage. Such shields suffer damage both from the kinetic damage component as well as any payload which is triggered by impact, depth penetration, or inertial change, and such fuses are overridden such that their payload detonates on and affects the shield before reaching the hull. If there is insufficient battery power to stop the kinetic component of a shell, the shield has no effect and the shell passes through unobstructed. The shield strength affects the armor value of the shield, which at maximum strength can be on par with heavy armor.

This will balance all shell types as kinetic shells will be able to chew through the energy reserves of a shield and payload-based low-velocity shells would be easier for the shield to stop but the shield would still take the brunt of the damage from the triggered payload when it does this. Making an effective shield would depend on providing it with battery power and choosing its strength and coverage carefully - no more denying high-velocity, high rate-of-fire cannons by simply tossing a shield generator carelessly anywhere and angling it slightly at a low strength level.

Energy protection shields would operate in an identical manner but they would affect laser and particle weapons instead of conventional shells. Tuning the strength would simply affect the armor value - which could be mitigated by the wavefront adjuster - and damage could only be absorbed as long as there is sufficient battery power on board the targeted ship.

These changes would greatly balance the current power difference between conventional and energy weapons, giving all shell types the opportunity to be fairly countered but also to overcome their counters, while making it less energy-intensive to counter laser weapons while still allowing lasers to overcome the defenses, and applying these as a method of countermeasure to particle cannons in a similar manner.
Reply

#2
Everyone knows that Shields are broken, It is on the Todo list of the devs, they're going to fix it eventually Big Grin Smile

other than that, good suggestion, some points were already mentioned in other threads though Wink
There is always a weak-spot if you search Hard enough.

If you fire enough AP at that shield, at some point you're going to come through.

There is no "best" I wouldn't even say there is anything universally good, Good is subjective, I find everything bad even if it's in theory good against this or that.

Reply

#3
I would rather have it take major part of shell's kinetic energy and also tip time from first impact and contact fuses.
I also would move explosive damage to energy weapons category so you could have kinetic outer layer and inner layer that stops explosions.

Other thing could be direct energy fuse tripper that would atrempt to detonate all incoming shell's paylods with adjustable probability.
Reply

#4
I want to make an adjustment to this recommendation. I think that consuming battery power discourages the use of electric engines, and so rather than using battery power as a health pool, kinetic and energy absorb shields could use a set of slider bars similar to the way the Particle Cannon works. In addition to its usual settings for shield size, distance, and angle, shields could have their strength slider split into three more characteristics: total shield hitpoints (1 -> some big number), armor value (1 -> 80), and regeneration rate (after a few seconds, draws from engine power to restore hitpoints at a rate of 0.01 to 1.00 per second, with 1.00 being 100% of the total).

This way, shields could be tuned to absorb more precisely expected attacks, with the highest values being prohibitively costly in terms of power demands, and all types of attacks would still be able to overcome shield defenses sooner or later, while shields would be easily configured to withstand a certain amount of punishment before they wear out. This would probably make shields much more effective against alpha strikes but less able to withstand sustained firepower for the entire duration of the battle - an active defense just strong enough to give its platform a chance to match its attacker with superior firepower before succumbing to enemy attacks.
Reply

#5
(2018-06-25, 05:49 PM)RotG Wrote: I want to make an adjustment to this recommendation. I think that consuming battery power discourages the use of electric engines, and so rather than using battery power as a health pool, kinetic and energy absorb shields could use a set of slider bars similar to the way the Particle Cannon works. In addition to its usual settings for shield size, distance, and angle, shields could have their strength slider split into three more characteristics: total shield hitpoints (1 -> some big number), armor value (1 -> 80), and regeneration rate (after a few seconds, draws from engine power to restore hitpoints at a rate of 0.01 to 1.00 per second, with 1.00 being 100% of the total).

This way, shields could be tuned to absorb more precisely expected attacks, with the highest values being prohibitively costly in terms of power demands, and all types of attacks would still be able to overcome shield defenses sooner or later, while shields would be easily configured to withstand a certain amount of punishment before they wear out. This would probably make shields much more effective against alpha strikes but less able to withstand sustained firepower for the entire duration of the battle - an active defense just strong enough to give its platform a chance to match its attacker with superior firepower before succumbing to enemy attacks.

I'd say consuming battery power encourages the use of electric engines. I don't generally bother with having any significant amount of batteries unless there's something on the ship that requires battery power anyway. Electric engines and batteries are both best used for handling occasional power draw surges or otherwise moderating things to compensate for sharp changes in engine power draw, like preventing shields from flickering when a ship's LAMS fires.
Reply

#6
A pack of batteries without an electric engine drainable only by special components, like shields? laser? rail? - so the end conclusion is DIS not EN Wink

All of my units have electric engines, some even generates power - and they are working together.
From the Depths english playlist starts here, before that it's hungarian:
https://youtu.be/Ltdx0yVI9cA?list=PLImar...ZokVtdBa73
MULTIPLAYER!

[Image: 6yFiDvF.jpg]
Reply

#7
(2018-06-27, 12:23 PM)Normal69 Wrote: A pack of batteries without an electric engine drainable only by special components, like shields? laser? rail? - so the end conclusion is DIS not EN Wink

All of my units have electric engines, some even generates power - and they are working together.

That sounds like a personal preference; my ships generally only have batteries if they also have LAMS or some reason to use batteries. (In the case of LAMS this is to keep the shields up while the engine is ramping up after LAMS activates.)

Electric engines are easily able to be tacked onto practically any section of batteries, being 1m by 1m, and I can't see any reason not to once you already have batteries. Whereas if you don't have batteries that's an awful lot of weight you're saving from not having batteries. Anything that encourages the presence of batteries encourages the use of an electrical engine, with the only possible exception being batteries in spaces so small that the 1mx1mx1m space is better devoted to air or battery itself, at which point you're probably not running any significant PAC or shields or rail off of it anyway.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)