I dont think Shields being stronger as they get reduced will effect gameplay one bit. Relatively speaking , you will still need x number of laser shots to eventaully break down a shield to cause hull damage. A shield that stays the same strength will still need a certain x number of laser shots to eventually break down a shield. All you really see is a Shield bar that measures shield strength in reverse Logrimithic so people just have to work it out.

the only other thing I can think off that might effect gameplay is if as shields becomes lower then they regenerate faster , or are able to nullify the effects of low grade weapons . So for example , Fighters can take a crusiers shields down to half , but after that , their weapons power isnt high enough. Or maybe 10 Frigates with x1 Fire power each , will struggle vs a lowered shield compared to a single Crusier with x10 Fire power.

Hmmm, I really hope they don't do that with shields. It would make no sense that certain weapons can take a shield down to a certain point, but then no further. That's just Crazy Talk! Besides, Blair's post said nothing about anything like that. Personally, I think we are all missing some critical detail about the whole "shields get stronger as they take damage" thing. If Blair could further clarify, I would be eternally grateful.

I was also bit confused about his post that Phase Drives don't need Anti Matter, but still 'spoil' some of it during travel. I mean, while a bit lame, I can see the problems the developers are trying to solve by doing this.

Problems that gamers would have encountered if Anti Matter had been necessary for Phase Space Travel:

Problem #1. If Fleet A is trying to escape from Fleet B, and takes a pounding while doing so, all of its antimatter could be used up (I believe that shields and special weapons use antimatter). If Phase Drives needed Anti Matter as well, then Fleet A would be unable to escape. Hmmm, even if Fleet A had just enough antimatter left to jump the nearest system, Fleet B would know that, and would follow Fleet A and finish it off there.

Problem #2. If Fleet A uses up all its Anti Matter jumping to a system but finds a huge enemy fleet waiting for it. It would die a horrible death because it doesn't have enough fuel to use the Phase Drives to get away.

Problem #3. Some weapons drain Anti Matter reserves, which could be used to prevent a fleet from escaping. Hell, you could send a few sacrificial ships equipped with such a weapon to drain a defensive fleet of Anti Matter so they will be unable to Phase to the rescue when you attack in force elsewhere.

Problem #4. If ships needed antimatter for phase travel, it would limit how far you could jump. This would mean that you could only jump to systems in range. The result here would be that you would be bottlenecked into attacking specific systems before you could even reach the next one. Of course, the players would concentrate on fortifying these key systems, and the game would never end. We don't need another space trench warfare game, the market is already flooded with plenty of those.

Problem #5. If ships used up most of their anti matter for traveling, they would be at a huge disadvantage when arriving at an enemy system. They would be limited in their use of shields and special weapons. This would give the advantage to defending fleets and encourage fortification strategies that usually result in endless games.

So there are just a few of the reasons for why Ironclad wouldn't want Phase travel to require antimatter. Still, why then make Phase travel 'spoil' a percentage of antimatter? Easy, they want to discourage players from aggressively phase traveling non stop all over the place looking for weak points in their opponents defenses. This way, the more a player aimlessly jumps around looking for an opportunity, the weaker they will be to take advantage of it when they find it. It is kind of a way of punishing players who want to take advantage of phase drives in a cheap way. It also encourages players to think strategically in their use of Phase travel.

Ok, I DO have a problem with this info... Me and Schem went over it quite a lot and I don't like his theory about the crew rerouting the energy from the toilets ( ) into shields before they fail. If they knew they have it it could be counted in. So I'll just take it as though the shield energy is presented expotentially, so even though it is a small "move along the X axis" which is represented by the energy bar the actal fall of energy is the steepest here... This way it becomes the choice of representation and not seeking some wild explanation.


This can't be just the representation, though. So if the ship has AM the jump will consume it, if it doesn't jave it, it won't... What happens here? It seems as though the AM isn't neccessary for the jump, yet it diminishes if you have it. Does the AM evaporate in hyperspace?

ANTIMATTER AND PHASE DRIVES:

Yeah, Phase drives really should require some antimatter to work. Most of the problems I mentioned in my post above could be solved by Phase Drives requiring only a minuscule amount of antimatter to engage.

At least then it could be logically explained that it only requires a small amount of antimatter to jump ships in and out of phase space, but once they are in phase space they can travel using conventional drives. That conforms well with the sci-fi idea that ships can move faster than light by traveling through a smaller parallel dimension = pretty much Phase Space in a nutshell.

Ironclad might want to consider that space strategy gamers REALLY like technologies to make sense. I think we all have seen games get blasted by gamers for having illogical technologies.

SHIELDS:

I notice a lot of people are unhappy about the whole "shields get stronger as they take damage". Before we decide we are unhappy, maybe we should ask Blair to explain shields more clearly.

My take on shields is that ships experience a diminished return on shield power. A linear increase in shield strength requires an exponential increase in power consumption. So, as a big strong shield gets reduced by weapon fire, it becomes easier for the ship generators to maintain.

Okay, that seems simple enough. But what does it mean? Do shields regenerate faster when closer to depletion? Do shields take a smaller % of damage from weapons fire the closer they get to depletion?

Hi Blair, if you read this, hopefully you can help clarify the shield issue for us. Thanks!

(Sorry in advance, if already mentioned in old or new forum)

Pilot/cockpit view (a la Cataclysm)

I missed that in HW2!!!

no, you missed what I was saying. he doesnt mention if the shields take more damage, rather that they mitigate more damage.
which doesnt answer my question.

first of all he used the word "mitigate" not "resist", and even that is way too nitpicky for my purposes.
the word mitigate is too vague, resist too is vague. but he didnt even use that, so what does it matter.

no, he already mentioned that shields only block percentages of damage (unless this has been recently changed)
again, you people are being too word specific. in the end your overdisecting words and not leaving room for speaker error.

again, not unless something changed while I wasn't looking (which may very well have happened)
blair said on the last forums that damage is only mitigated (to be word-picky) not blocked completely.

problem is that if you're so nitpicky and scholarly with disecting blair's words you get a paradox, mitigate (which does not mean stop, it means lessen or reduce) versus the vague concept sentance "When they reach zero the hull of the ship starts taking damage" which you guys assumed means that it doesnt take otherwise. but when put in conjunction with the sentance "They can't mitigate any damage once they have reached zero" you can see how the paradox is resolved.
you guys are making vague, unstructured arguements based on the hopes that blair is 100% accurate with his words, yet your arguement does not hold ground regardless.
I want a concrete answer. not something assumed through the intricacies of language, let alone when adjacent sentances/words contradict.

Good point Schematicsninja. We definitely took Blair's word's extremely literally.

So from what you are saying, shields reduce pass through damage to the hull by an increasing % as the shields weaken. Hmmm, logic would suggest the opposite would happen.

Still, maybe it could be explained that the shield generators become less efficient the more power they have to maintain within the shield field. So that would mean that the less power the generators need to manipulate within the shield field, the more efficient they are in doing so.

Effectively, a linear increase in shield strength suffers an exponential (or linear) loss of efficiency. So as the shields are reduced, the more efficient they become. Hmmm, this logic works pretty well.

Haha, maybe this logic can help Blair explain why the shields work as they do.

but then wouldn't you just keep the shields at low power?

I think our working thesis is that the shields are most energy/resist power efficient at low levels, and as the shields become more damaged either 1) that ratio goes up so the system automatically compensates or 2) the crew freaks out and starts to increase power screwing efficiency.

all I know is im for the shield system. I dont understand it but from what I gather...

- it will make battles look better , if more ships get damaged

- dont need to do the whole homeworld pop a single ship micro all the time if its better to just shoot at multiple ships.

Pretty soon everyone will get a chance to analyze how the shield system works in-game and we look forward to your feedback. As for how it works technologically: the lore and technology of the Sins Universe is something we'll be releasing closer to August. Ofcourse if someone guesses right, I've been known to salute them in the past

You wouldn't keep shield power low, because then only a few hits would take them out completely. But what I think you are trying to say is why not keep the shields on an efficient low power setting, and slowly apply more power as the shields get damaged. The problem is what happens when that low powered shield is hit with several shots at once and fail entirely before you can compensate = dead ship that would have survived had the crew not been stingy with shield power.


It makes more sense to keep the shields pumped up to maximum so they last as long as possible in battle. It would make sense to do this regardless that the generators get less efficient as the shield field strength grows.

Of course, another possibility we haven't looked at is as follows. Maybe as shield power starts to fail, the crew starts to increase antimatter power to the field. This increase in shield strength comes at the cost of faster antimatter consumption.

Either way works for me.

Should shields work this way just for one race and not another?

I think they work the same for all, although some races might have upgrades to the shields based on research or by building ship modules

I want a solar system named after me , although you can use a more discrete referance.

aha, now I understand what you're getting at.

not if increasing the power drains too much AM

your assuming a bit too much fragility in ship and shield. additionally it sounds to me like your assuming that shield integrity is tied to its power, I dont think thats how it works.


they look a bit similar...

*gets pumped*
ok, spam time

ancient artifacts
power increase damages systems
crew freaks and increases power
shield redirects Ke it takes into Ke to stop incoming weapons etc.
Chuck Norris said so.

Oh come now Schem, I cant see your name being a reasonable one. Plus begging for it wont help you.

I mean really
"Your fleet has entered the Schematicsninja system" It just doesnt have the right ring to it.

Hehe, it is like the Navigation Officer couldn't quite recall the name of the system and didn't want to look stupid, so he tries to mumble out a similar name and hopes no one calls him on it.

"Our fleet has entered the 'mumble' Schmaticsninja 'mumble' system"

true.

*Sir, our fleets have arived in the Schem sector, would you like them to commence the attack?*

its not all that bad. and thats why I said they could use a more discrete reference, as long as its obvious to ME that they were referencing... um... me   

Uh... is campaign mode still happening? I was kind of hoping to see a Blizzard-style approach to that where playing through all the factions in chapters completes a compelling narrative. I'll get most of my longterm SP fun from sandbox mode, I'm sure, but I think the backstory is interesting enough to warrant a scripted campaign and space RTSers keep getting shafted in that respect.

Star systems should have planets in varied orbital planes. There really isn't as much use in having a 3D map if every planet/star/asteroid is on a 2D plane.

Also, fleets X/Y/Z entry points on maps should be determined by the X/Y/Z of their departure point/map. This way, fleet engagements are more likely to include 3D considerations (which is cool).

Also, planets and asteroids should slowly orbit their stars as the game progresses. This would provide fun navigational challenges as well as balance multiplayer starting positions more fairly.

oh come on. thats like having a flat planet.

I do like this though.

I advocated the idea
but no go.

Didn't they orbit at one point? I thought there was a discussion long long ago about how planets orbit. Someone cracked a joke about how it would be funny if there were planets that moved faster than the ships and Blair laughed and said that they actually encountered that problem once.

... or maybe I'm just delusional. But in either case they do not currently orbit. Seems like a fun idea (Ascendancy's planets orbited and that was definitely something you had to take into consideration when assaulting an enemy planet or even traversing an enemy system) but I guess it would be kinda tough with the systems as crowded as they are in Sins. I mean really, can you imagine trying to make this mess spin?

What? Flat planets? Where did that come from? Hehe

Maybe I didn't explain well enough. I don't want all the planets orbiting a star to be in the same 2D plane. I want them to be arranged around the star in 3D positions (ie: some of them higher or lower in relation to others). In fact, think about a 3D model of the solar system when correct orbital planes are used.

If planets are spaced like that on the 3D strategic map, then we can correspond X/Y/Z departure points to X/Y/Z arrival points in the tactical 3D maps. This can encourage attacks from above and below.

um...
do you mean rotate? no they do not orbit.

I got a straight answer (never heard that joke... huh) there are NO ORBITS (courtesy of SD it would seem)

LOL

where did 3-D solar systems come from???

the effects would be too small to use in game (to the effect of points of a degree)

Schem, I mean a REAL long time ago. As in December-05-on-the-Chronos-boards long ago. I know (and stated) that they don't currently orbit.

And Paradoxnt:
It seems realistic for each solar system to be on a roughly 2D plane. Look at our own solar system. But that doesn't mean that the stars can't be scattered 3-dimensionally or that all of the systems have to be on the same 2D plane. There can still be plenty of 3D goodness with solar systems on a 2D plane.

True