Let us know your thoughts about shields and shield mechanic in general! Please check the announcement thread for the full changelog:
Congratulations on the Polarized Hull Shields. They work excellent, with the current game play. However I am disappointed in the limited options available for what you can mount onto a HV/SV/CV/BA. You NEED more size options. Trying to stuff a 3,3,3 unit into a small CV is just impossible! Here is what I suggest: HV/SV PHS Units. Tier 1 Level Unlock: 10 Max Number: 1 Size: 1,2,1 Shield HP: 1500 Tier 2 ( This is the existing unit ) Level Unlock: 20 Max Number: 1 Size: 2,3,1 Shield HP: 4000 Working with your current PHS, 2x3x1 at 4000 HP which is 666 HP's per cube, it projects as: T1 = 2 cubes, 2 * 666 = 1500 (round up nearest 500) T2 = 8 cubes, 6 * 666 = 4000 (round up nearest 500) CV/BA PHS Units. Tier 1 Level Unlock: 10 Max Number: 4 Size: 1,1,1 Shield HP: 2000 ( Max: 8000 @ 4 units ) Tier 2 Level Unlock: 20 Max Number: 2 Size: 2,2,2 Shield HP: 15000 ( Max: 30000 @ 2 units ) Tier 3 ( This is the existing unit ) Level Unlock: 25 Max Number: 1 Size: 3,3,3 Shield HP: 50000 Working with your current PHS, 3x3x3 at 50000 HP which is 1851 HP's per cube, it projects as: T1 = 1 cube, 1 * 1851 = 2000 (round up nearest 1000) T2 = 8 cubes, 8 * 1851 = 15000 (round up nearest 1000) T3 = 27 cubes, 27 * 1851 = 50000 Once a given tier PHS is placed you may ONLY place more of the same tier of PHS, if allowed. No mixing of Tiers. Otherwise someone could max out a CV, for example with 7 units from all three tiers for a total of 88000 HP, which would probably break game balance. You can use the same GameObject for the different tiers. Just adjust the LocalScale of the X, Y and Z axis to the appropriate size. So this change should be minimal, as you have all the mesh/texture assets in the game, all you need to is add the additional scripting and prefabs for each tier of PHS.
I like it, gotten quite used to it during exp10. Here's what I'd like to see: Instant feedback on turning shield on, you press X it's not clear if the shield is turned on to power up. You got to wait a few seconds for it to wake up. Maybe visual effect to the model when shield powers up and when shield is lost? I'd like to see shields expanded more, I like LurchUSA's ideas on different sizes. I think the shield module should be the base unit and you have other components to change the characteristics: Shield HP Boost: +5% Hitpoints to the overall shield, recharge rate -2%, power consumption +5%, size 2 x 1 x 1 Shield Recharge Boost, -2% Hitpoints to overall shield, recharge rate +5%, power consumption +5%, size 2 x 1 x 1 Shield Power Consumption Boost: -2% Hitpoints to overall shield, recharge rate -2%, power consumption -5%, size 2 x 1 x 1 You can have as many as you want! Just be prepared for a monster power hungry monster build. In addition there needs to be some actual repercussions to redlining your generators! I built a ship that was taxing the generator at 214% to no negative effect. I was honestly expecting the generator to blow up or thrusters to fail if I carried on flying for much longer but nothing happened More signals, please can we get more signals in, for example it'd be great if we could set parameters. And create more logic such as "if Shield < 10% then close shutters" and "if Shield == Initializing then Generator7 = active"
Try Avorion, it has a near perfect system of prioritizing what devices use up power from a ship. We don't have to go that far though, but it's clear that it is more important to divert power to engines to keep ship from falling, and instead make shields regenerate slower. Generator shouldn't run over 100%.
Absolutely need a T2 SV upgrade! 4k Shield hit points is almost pointless when flying through an area with 3+ level 9-10 POIs.
We need better generators and RCS for SVs before we'll ever get useful shields. At present it takes too many generators to run both thrusters and shields and the internal space to fit the generator is already taken by dozens of T1 RCS, because a T2 was never made available to the ship type that needs it most. Instead, we have CVs that fly like how SVs are meant to; and SVs that fly like CVs should.
A damn good point! 100 RCS on my cargo hauling SV just to turn slowly. T2 generators would also be a great boon for extending the life of our SVs
I like the new shields, but I wonder if they should provide quite as much cover as they currently do. I think having shields protect basic blocks - so, Concrete, Steel etc. as well as windows - is a good thing, but having this protection covering everything seems a bit too much. If in the future we gain "dome" type shields for Bases and spherical / ovoid ones for ships, then having complete protection makes sense. However, using a Polarised Hull Shield to protect the main structure, while certain devices and components remain exposed would add some more tactical elements to a base / ship design. I personally like the idea of a shield protecting all main base blocks as now, while devices such as doors and turrets etc. are not protected directly. I.e. to protect Generators etc. you'd place them in a "room" of blocks and said blocks would be shielded via the main shield, but doors would be vulnerable and would need protecting. Multiple armoured doors, well-placed sentries etc. to protect these weak points. I'd then introduce a secondary, much cheaper shield type, that just provides local shield protection just for nearby devices. I.e. I'd build say a Cannon Turret on my base, which would not be protected by the main base shield. However, building one of these local shield generators would provide a small amount of hit points to any devices within its effect radius. So, the main base / vessel shield will protect as now, but it'll only apply to structure type blocks. Any Turrets, Doors or other devices would be exposed to direct fire. Adding a number of these secondary local shields would enable a separate hit-point pool to nearby devices. So, external turrets could be protected, but not to the same degree as the current shield, allowing external components to be defeated prior to the main shield going down. I'm trying to look at this not from purely a single player perspective, but from the perspective of multi-player assaults vs. a shielded base - it'd be no fun not to be able to take out that single Sentry Turret just because the base shield is still up. Equally, allowing NPC (namely Zirax) structures to have shields would be cool, but not with the current shield implementation. Having to bring down a POI's shields just to take out an exterior turret or breach a door is...well, an exercise in frustration I feel. However, simply having to bring down the aforementioned Turret or Doors local shield, then being able to breach sounds like more fun gameplay to me. I personally like the idea of a well-shielded Base or Vessel being able to take a pounding and it's Core structure surviving, but many external elements having been destroyed. Having to place additional local shield generators to protect Thrusters, Turret emplacements, Doors and the like appeals to me. Current design means there are no weak points until the main shield is brought down. With my proposal, weak points will still exist, they're just going to be a bit stronger. Plus of course, from a challenging POI design perspective, it can help prevent a player from "short cutting" a POI via just blowing through a wall. Sure, it's still possible, but it makes more sense to blow through individual (locally shielded) doors, that wear down the main shield - which of course recharges constantly. I don't know if this is something that readily fits into the current shield implementation - i.e. is it easy to be selective regarding what the current shield protects - but I think it has some merit going forward. Ultimately, I'd like to see multiple tiers of shields, all the way from the top-tier "dome" shield for bases, spherical / ovoid shields for vessels, then Hull shields for basic blocks, then local protection shields for devices. Multiple tiers of each along with "boost" devices that can be used to improve capacity and recharge at ever increasing energy costs. Scoob.
It is SOOOOOOOO FUN to read all the SV RCS T2 'requests' noaways…. Not too Long ago, 'everybody' wanted to nerf the SV (and CV) RCS alltogether. Not too Long ago, when I recomended to imrpvoe the HVSV thrusterss, People tended to Reply like: Lets nerv CV thrusters instead, they're Op... Now.. ppl complain About too much power use of a Shield.. muahahahaa… Make them even MORE power hunger (but increase the Shield-Points as well!!), at least the 't2'. And please please with a cherry on top... Give us T1 & T2 Shield gens for each vessel C/H/SV that are in different sizes… the gens… Basicly, as @LurchUSA suggested. But as for the Feedback..... When i Activate the Shield, it blinks with 10%.... When i turn it off.. it's shown as 100%... <--- THIS IS CONFUSING !! Is it on? Is it active? is it stable? I'd very much prefer it like: Disabled Shield: <no text // DISABLED> Active Shield: "Shield: XY%" Maybe with a small Symbol at the side with an up-arrow to indicate it's charging… -if/when it is charging… Because, flying over a poi, and just Looking quickly at the HUD seeing Shield:100% IS absolutly misleading…. Specialy as the Shield is de-activated…. Other than that, I like it so far
The main problem in the past was that it was before Mass and Volume. With the addition of cargo weight, thruster strength isn't quite so OP when you're trying to lug several tons of fuel and ammo and balance it all inside your ship so you don't roll over. Unfortunately, the RCS inadequacies for SVs only got worse with M/V as now there's more resistance to turning, which means more RCS need to be added. RCS are already heavy and will likely be CPU-consumptive as well when we get CPU in full, which are just more and more strikes against SV use.
Well put! It's not that SV's shouldn't be able to carry cargo; in fact, they carry the right amount of cargo given the thrust available. The issue is that CV's carry far too much in comparison and have thrust values far in excess of what a proper progression from SV thrust to CV thrust should look like. To put it into perspective, my brick of a cargo SV can lift 1.2kt of cargo to orbit. A CV at half it's size can easily lift 4-5 times as much weight.
From my point of view, to compare a 40m long SMALL vessel with a CAPTIAL vessel that is only 20m Long, THAT is NOT in relation! (your own mentioned relation reduced to the ship's length) How your relation sounds to me: My drivable grass cutter of 20m length cant carry as much as my 10m long pickup truck… Of Course. And who's talking about that SVs should carry as much as a CV? I have easily more than 32k Cargo on ANY (even starter) CV I have built. I do NOT have 32k on ANY SV I have built. (beside that any 32k su HVSV bursts the CPU limit, if you want to move it.) 32k is the max volume allowed for HVSV, which cant be moved (last time I checked, for 64k SU you need 187 * 3x3x13 Jet XXL thrusters ;just lift off... to lift the additionl thrusters for left, Right, Forward, backward not yet accounted) 'All' I ask for is this, let a HVSV move it's own Cargo Limit of 32k within CPU Limit. Food for thought… EDIT: That's off-topic... sorry.
I agree with Lurch that different configurations of the generator are needed. Not sure if having the sizes he recommends with less power is the correct solution or not, but it seems fairly balanced with the exception of having only a single block one for a CV. The other alternative is to keep the same shield strength and number of blocks required but allow different configurations, for example if you have the 2x3x1 which is 6 cubes then have a configuration that is 6x1x1 or other variations to allow it to better fit in a ship. I also agree with Catman about the generators, they should not be able to go above 100% power, and if they do it should be a small percentage like 120% but causes damage to the generator while running above 100% Honestly if there is not the power available you should not be able to turn the shields on at all, or have them only have a % of their strength based on what % of the total power you have available. Another solution to the generator issue is make shields use its own special shield generator that is separate from the main ship power source, which is how things would probably be built if shields were made in real life as you wouldn't want a hit to the shield to overload the main generator for a ship and disable all systems, by isolating the system the worst that happens is an overload and destruction of the shield generator.
I continue to think that the shield system should consist of multiple components and should support stacking. Limiting the shield system to a single-fixed size device simply makes it so that every ship will carry one, instead of letting the player determine exactly what shield system properties their particular ship needs. In most sci-fi, shields are one of the primary power draws (aside from energy weapons and thrusters), so powering them from the main power grid makes a lot of sense. If you overload your generators, then that's on you as a designer for not building in enough extra capacity. The better solution would be configurable power sliders for each subsystem instead of simple on/off switches, of course.
Nach dem was ich bisher im Spiel gesehen habe, scheint es sehr gut umgesetzt. Schilde dürfen kein „God Modus“ sein, sondern vor einzelnen Treffern schützen. Sie scheinen gut in der Balance zu sein. Habe bisher allerdings es nur beim kleinen Raumschiff testen können. - - - Unfortunately, I can only speak very little English. Translation program German – English: From what I have seen so far in the game, it seems very well implemented. Shields must not be a "god mode", but protect against individual hits. They seem to be in good balance. So far, however, I have only been able to test it on a small spaceship.
This is gonna be a pretty long & comprehensive list of suggestions for a more mature shielding system, so I apologize in advance for the long read. The basic gist of it is that shields should be modular, and should primarily only require energy as input to charge/maintain, therefore only needing pentaxid for construction of the shield components (and will probably require an overhaul of the power generators for SV/HV). How pentaxid is involved in the manufacture/use of these devices is not the main point of this suggestion, so consider that point a lower priority, secondary to the main functions of the devices listed below. Modular Shield Systems All shield systems require a main shield control system, limit of 1 per structure (regardless of tech tier). All other shield modules cannot be placed on a structure, unless a shield control system is present (additionally, all other shield modules provide absolutely no effect if a shield controller is not present, such as if the controller is destroyed). This is the most “expensive” of the shield modules. Largest device of all the shield modules. By itself, it primarily only enables shields on the structure, providing an almost-negligible amount of HP and regen (but also minimal power drain). Requires a lot of pentaxid to build, especially the T2 variant. T2 version = slightly more HP and regen provided, but the main benefit is a strongly reduced charge-up delay to activate the shield, and enables T2 variants of all other modules. Capacity Booster: Adds a significant amount of HP to the shield system, at the cost of increased power drain to maintain the shield (idle consumption), and increased power cost to activate the shield. Obviously, most people will want to add at least one of these to the shield system, to make the shield capable of providing more than a single pistol round of protection. Requires a significant amount of pentaxid to construct (again, T2 requires even more). T2 = increased and more efficient amount of HP added, per power drained while idle, and more volume-efficient as well (takes up the same amount of blocks of space, or only a few more, but overall more efficient for the amount of shield HP added). Also more efficient power cost to activate the shield (for the amount of HP provided). No device limit, and may mix tech tiers, but T2 variant requires a T2 shield control system. Regeneration Booster: Significantly increased shield regeneration speed, at the cost of increased power consumption when regenerating. Obviously, most people will want to add at least one of this module to the shield system, so their shield is not a one-time defense buffer. Requires a significant amount of pentaxid to construct (again, T2 requires even more). T2 = increased and more efficient regeneration speed added, per power drained while regenerating, and more volume-efficient as well. If based on a static amount of HP regen per module, then no device limit (although of course, if the regen HP/sec is equal to or higher than the total shield HP, then adding any more regen modules is pointless and only consumes more power). If based on % regen increase, then device limit to prevent insta-regen regardless of total shield HP. Using a %-based regeneration system should also change the power consumption calculations, to be based on the amount of HP being regenerated per second (since the regen rate would change as the amount of total HP changes, even if the % remains the same). This could make things more complicated (and be harder to code for), so a static HP regen amount per module may be the better method. As always, T2 variant requires a T2 shield control system. Toughness booster: Increases the damage resistance of the shield (similar to armor). Limit of 1 module of this type, regardless of tech tier. T1 equivalent to hardened steel, T2 is equal to combat steel. T2 toughness module requires a T2 shield control system. Requires a lot of pentaxid to construct, and adds a significant power drain as long as the shield is active (regardless of regen state). T1 version also adds additional activation delay (T2 version does not have this penalty). T2 version also provides protection for blast damage, by preventing explosion area-effect from bleeding through blocks (for example, a rocket hits a window, and a person directly on the other side of the window could still be killed even with the shield active…this version of the module would prevent that, so long as the shield is active and has enough HP to absorb the entire blast). Shield Stabilizer: This module reduces (or eliminates) the on-hit recharge delay. Limit of one module of this type per shield system, regardless of tech tier. T2 stabilizer requires a T2 shield control system. Requires a lot of pentaxid to construct, and adds a large spike of power drain whenever the shield is hit (as well as a small increase to idle power drain). T2 version provides significantly further reduction to the on-hit regeneration delay (or eliminates it entirely), at the cost of higher power consumption (but is overall more efficient in that power use). T1 version also adds additional initial activation delay (T2 version does not have this penalty). Bonus: A shield configuration with both the toughness and stabilizer modules allows the shield to extend the protection over forcefields. So for example, if a hanger door opens, the forcefield that keeps air from escaping through the door is treated as still solid by the shield, preventing weapon fire from penetrating through the forcefield as long as the shield has enough HP to absorb the fire. This would keep people and vehicles inside the hanger protected, even when the door opens. Standalone forcefields are treated the same way, so you can keep open areas protected. This has a side-benefit of making standalone forcefields more practical for use by players, and allows for the potential to design a bubble-like shield around a base/ship consisting of forcefields combined with an advanced shield system (though this would be quite expensive to build…but would also look awesome). The design principle/strategy for this modular setup, is to allow for a basic but effective shield system consisting of a T1 controller, and one each of the T1 capacity and regeneration modules. This would be roughly equivalent to the current T1 shield generators (except in terms of volume taken, for SV/HV). For larger, more complex vehicles and bases, a designer/builder can include many more modules, and T2 variants, choosing modules according to their design strategy and/or needs, but costing significantly more resources & power, depending on the modules chosen. This also allows players to incrementally upgrade the shields of their bases & vehicles, as they progress in the game. The dramatically increased power consumption of this modular shield system will likely require a complete overhaul of the generators for SV/HV. This could probably be most easily solved by simply adding T2 (or large) generators for SV/HV. Larger fuel tanks for SV/HV will likely also be required. Due to the possibility of creating incredibly powerful shield systems, some weapons may also need to be adjusted. For example, plasma and laser weapons could have a large bonus to shield damage. However, the high power drain also serves to balance overpowered shields, as a complete T2 system with all possible modules and many of both the capacity and regen modules, would require a prohibitive amount of power to run, requiring many generators and consuming humongous amounts of fuel…all just for the shields alone. I'm sure some people may make this mistake, but they'll learn from it, and shields used on multiplayer fields will naturally become balanced. Alliances wanting to use powerful shield configurations will need to establish a supply chain, for the large amounts of fuel being consumed.
I'm having an issue with the SV shield since A10.5. The generator cranks up and the shield builds to 100%. At this point, the generator winds down, but so does the shield!! And then it repeats. Am repeats! And repeats!?! Ther is also a tendency to raise shields to only 10% before dropping and starting again, And again......you get the idea. The CV shields seem to work fine. Any ideas out there?
