After playing a bit with the code, I noticed we could eventually change how station shields work (for R5). This has been already mentionned somewhere at some point but not really deeply discussed.
Proposal:
When station shields are up, no ennemy ship can go 'thru' the shields except rescue pods.
They act as a solid 'wall' around the station . So, friendly ships can 'hide behind' station shields while still shooting weapons/missiles at enemies (only friendly bullets/missiles can go thru the station shields, enemy bullets/missiles score 'hits' on shield like now).
To make this more visible, we would draw a transparent "shields shape" around the station when its shields are up.
When shields are down, things will work like now.
When shields come up again, every ennemy ships still within the inner shields boundaries could be 'rejected outside' and take some damage OR
station shields couldnt regen as long as there are ennemies within them OR other proposal.
Well what happens when shields go up again is the tricky part of this change and require discussion /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
Additionnaly we can add a new value for 'station shields radius' in the core to set how far the shields extend around the station . As well as a new GAs for this too.
'Solid' station shields
Hmmm, you could make it so that enemies inside the shield radius, when it goes up again, can't leave and use it as a trap or something. Combined with the "self-destructing" bases...
If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut. -- Albert Einstein
I'd prefer have something like this on some ships and possibly drones.
Something I'm thinking but would take lots of changes:
Make a drone that can lock on a rock and create a shield around it. It could be interesting to defend miners.
I think the base of idea has lots of potential(The shield thing), but the way it is presented wouldn't be a lot funnier in my opinion.
Well, if the shield had a large range(let's say 2.5k), then I could see it being usefull and fun. if it's like 500m, it'd be useless.
Something I'm thinking but would take lots of changes:
Make a drone that can lock on a rock and create a shield around it. It could be interesting to defend miners.
I think the base of idea has lots of potential(The shield thing), but the way it is presented wouldn't be a lot funnier in my opinion.
Well, if the shield had a large range(let's say 2.5k), then I could see it being usefull and fun. if it's like 500m, it'd be useless.
I don't think you can made it that large. It needs to be less than the max for a Rix Station Drone1, otherwise, Rix SBs might be at a big disadvantage.Vlymoxyd wrote:QUOTE (Vlymoxyd @ Aug 4 2007, 11:13 AM) I think the base of idea has lots of potential(The shield thing), but the way it is presented wouldn't be a lot funnier in my opinion.
Well, if the shield had a large range(let's say 2.5k), then I could see it being usefull and fun. if it's like 500m, it'd be useless.
I'm not sure if I'm into the idea. I think the biggest difference it that it will be alot harder to kill miners when they're about to dock. You probably won't see people ramming miners to prevent them from docking anymore. That might be too big of a change in gameplay.
SB and HTT runs would be most effected by this change.
Perhaps make it a momentary flash that the commander would be in control of in F3, a well timed activation could prevent the initial HTT dock attempt or some of the ABs from hitting the base; but not long enough to prevent a determined HTT with good nans or a well co-ordinated SB run.
A 'fig leaf' defense.
GAs could extend range and time.
Perhaps make it a momentary flash that the commander would be in control of in F3, a well timed activation could prevent the initial HTT dock attempt or some of the ABs from hitting the base; but not long enough to prevent a determined HTT with good nans or a well co-ordinated SB run.
A 'fig leaf' defense.
GAs could extend range and time.
-
Clay_Pigeon
- Posts: 3211
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:00 am
- Location: my pod
It seems interesting, but I dislike this idea. Base camping (an excellent technique vs tac) would be much harder. You could no longer stall a miner/con outside of a base either.
Last edited by Clay_Pigeon on Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me." -2 Cor 12:9
"Never know how long I've waited, anticipated your smile pressed against mine." -Running
We had considered station shields like the ones described but decided against it because it would encourage lots of people to fly close to the station. That could lead to framerate (lots of people in one area in addition to the big station) problems. That isn't as big a factor now, but when we were pushing the hardware limits, it wasn't good.
There were a couple of other problems as well:ships inside a station shield would still be subject to AOE damage (which presents some interesting options for weapons/tactics to counter a camped station).
launches from stations should be reworked to keep the ships inside the shields (though -- if this was done -- it would prevent exit camping).
drones should use the station's shield shadow as a safe zone.
There were a couple of other problems as well:ships inside a station shield would still be subject to AOE damage (which presents some interesting options for weapons/tactics to counter a camped station).
launches from stations should be reworked to keep the ships inside the shields (though -- if this was done -- it would prevent exit camping).
drones should use the station's shield shadow as a safe zone.
It sounds a good idea and since it is optional there is no reason not to implement it.
I prefer to have the enemy ships rejected as soon as the shields come up again.
I see a problem though; HTT runs. I do not know how long the shields stay down from an EMP missile hit but if the HTT fails to dock on first attempt (e.g. due to a rum) it would be simply unfair to through it again away from the door.
Also, what Mr. Kltplzyxm says about miners is also a big gameplay change.
A solution to these two problems would be to have the station shields radius set so that the shields field just passes outside the green door of the base.
If people fly inside the station shields to avoid damage then the base will probably die by a bomb run that stays at 1K away, so I do not see a problem here.
I prefer to have the enemy ships rejected as soon as the shields come up again.
I see a problem though; HTT runs. I do not know how long the shields stay down from an EMP missile hit but if the HTT fails to dock on first attempt (e.g. due to a rum) it would be simply unfair to through it again away from the door.
Also, what Mr. Kltplzyxm says about miners is also a big gameplay change.
A solution to these two problems would be to have the station shields radius set so that the shields field just passes outside the green door of the base.
If people fly inside the station shields to avoid damage then the base will probably die by a bomb run that stays at 1K away, so I do not see a problem here.
" There is good in everyone. You just need the eyes for it. "
At the green door? The what's the point? Why bother? The only thing you're preventing is someone from hiding in the superstructure. That's kinda fun in it's own way.parcival wrote:QUOTE (parcival @ Aug 5 2007, 01:38 AM) A solution to these two problems would be to have the station shields radius set so that the shields field just passes outside the green door of the base..
Also, bases dont' have a nice spherical shape to it. So does that mean that shields for Belter bases going to be oblong? It'll be weird with the garrs too as the blue door extends out futher than the green door.
Seems like alot of work for very little gain. The best reason not to implement this is probably because there are bigger fish to fry.
Last edited by Kltplzyxm on Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.