[Boomer]

Just out of curiosity, for matters of balance, should Anti-fighter beams in general be able to go through shields?

[redsniper]

yes because that's how [V] made it

[Nuclear1]

Beams already go through shields.

Until the option is added, I vote for Snuffleupagus.

[Boomer]

Ahh, Yes!  That's it!  I must journey far and wide to seek the ever-impressive, endless knowledge of the all mighty Snuffleupagus!!!

How could I be so foolish as to think otherwise?

[Nuclear1]

Stand down there, hotshot. 'Tis simply a long long running joke.

*hands Boomer some Bosch Beer™*

[Cobra]

Zoidberg.

"Ability to control sea creatures?"
"Hey, Zoidberg, get in here!"
"Screw you!"
"Nope, don't have that one."

[EtherShock]

What, no Snuffleupagus?

[Setekh]

If I were authoring the universe I would make it "depends" - different classes of shields. We already have two - Lucifer shields and fighter shields. 'Regular capship shields' could probably be implemented and beams would probably take a while to work through, while fighter shields would simply be passed through (as they are now).

[Rott3]

Originally posted by EtherShock
What, no Snuffleupagus?

Haven't you heard - http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/bigbird/default.php

[Boomer]

*hands Boomer some Bosch Beer™*

*Boomer drains in one gulp*

*Looks at expiration date*

*Shrugs*

*Passes out*

*Wakes 20 years later*

Ahh, I needed that.
I always felt that beams should have to go through shields, after all, they are no different from a laser except that they are sustained.  

Although fighter shields shouldn't be able to hold on that long when under bombardment.

[EtherShock]

Originally posted by Rott3


Haven't you heard - http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/bigbird/default.php

No, that's not true! That's impossible!

In any case, they should go through--like budda!

[Deepstar]

Anti-Capship Beams - Yes
Anti-Fighter Beams - Not completly


[ X ] Depends

[psycho_fergo]

yes, i agree with deepstar. different types of beams should have diff efects on sheilds...

[X] Depends

[Nuclear1]

Why shouldn't anti-fighter beam weapons be allowed to go through shields? That's their purpose -- they're anti-fighter beam cannons, developed during a time when fighters have shields to protect them from enemy fire. Shields can defend against fighter-based primary weapons, missiles, flak bursts, and capital-ship based laser weapons--that's every type of weapons in the game except for beam cannons.

Shields are powerful, but they shouldn't be powerful enough to stop a beam of concentrated fighter-killing death from coming through.

[Cobra]

Originally posted by Rott3


Haven't you heard - http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/bigbird/default.php

OMFG!!!!

[pyro-manic]

I say yes. They do in Vanilla FS2, so that's how they should stay.

EDIT: The Lucifer's sheilds, on the other hand, are completely invulnerable to most things, so they should have to burn through those first...

[TrashMan]

This is very debatable...

All 3 options are equally valid..

The easiest way to implement it is for weapons and shields to have new stats.

for ships that would be ship type: type 1, 2, 3, 4 or whatever..doesn't realyl matter

for weapons that would be shield pierce: 1, 3
This means this beam can pierce trough type 1 and 3 shields, but not trough others. Simple.


Alltough I would like to see beams having to burn tough all shields. Just increae the power of AAAF beams..

[Pnakotus]

Shields absorb and redirect energy: why should beams automatically penetrate shields?  This 'automatic penetration' smacks of technobabble garbage to me.  Shipkillers work fine: they void your shields on the slightest contact.  AAA beams just aren't powerful enough to kill with one hit.

Does anyone play frequently changing -nobeampierce on and off?  I always use it these days, but I don't find the game measurably easier (actually, cap defence missions are harder, since the AAA beams aren't as effective).  I'd like to hear from people with more diverse experience, to see how it changes the game.

I'd direct 'V intended' people to broken turrets, awful models and everything else the SCP has fixed.  We're here to improve, not recreate.

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by Pnakotus
Shields absorb and redirect energy: why should beams automatically penetrate shields?  

They don't "automatically penetrate shields". Compare when you get hit by an AAAf with shields to when you get hit without your shields. You take a lot more damage (that's what I've noticed, honestly) from a lack of shields.

So, in this sense, they don't automatically go through your shields; your shields do absorb some energy, just not all of the energy from the beam.

I'd direct 'V intended' people to broken turrets, awful models and everything else the SCP has fixed. We're here to improve, not recreate.

By this logic, you imply (at least to me) that everything :V: did in FS2 is misguided and wrong, simply by pointing out a few problems with the original game.

Believe or not, :V: did something right... that's why FS2 had such a loyal fanbase. I found AAAf beams to be one of the better points of FS2, and I liked how they worked; shields can absorb almost all of the damage done by any other weapon in the game, but there is still one weapon that can get past that: beams.

That's what made FS2 so involving--you knew the danger of an AAAf beam, so you knew that you had to take steps to disable it, whether that be loading your ships out with Trebs/Stilletos/etc to destroy the turret or by evading a ship altogether to let the bigger ships take it down. Beams should pierce shields; otherwise, bombers can often bomb cruisers and corvettes while the fighter escort is distracted with no real fear of danger.

[Pnakotus]

I (admittedly, only noticing off-hand) that AAA beam fire doesn't actually seem to *drain* your shields - they DO seem less effective with vs without shielding, but it doesn't seem to be similar to other weapons that use the hitpoints.  I'm all for allowing the beams to penetrate, *IF* there is normal shield degradation and an increase in effect as they weaken etc.  I remember in vanilla dying to AAAfs (I was 18 ) with full or almost full shields, which is retarded.

While I don't suggest everything in vanilla is broken, some things ARE, very much broken.  Capships not shooting at asteroids anyone?  Triple turrets that aren't anyone?  Since we're not a historical reenactment society, I'm all for improving over the original in all possible ways.  I honestly don't understand the 'don't touch the precious' attitude many people have.

However, I must pick out one part of your post: the application of paper-scissors-stone mechanics to FS is something to stay the hell away from.  Saying beams should penetrate shields because 'something has too' is a terrible decision.  Should we point at the massively powerful bombs that do 0.02 damage to shields, for pure unadulterated game convienience?  Surely they should apply their radius-reduced damage to shields normally, or perhaps bypass them entirely?  It would certainly reduce bomb effectiveness!

If you're looking for a more sensible balance - and believe me, I totally agree we need one - borking shields isn't the way.  Jack up AAA beam power, reduce the (ridiculously powerful) shields on heavy bombers, speed up blobfire: fix something broken, don't break something else.

*eye twitch* Don't get me started on the Trebs.  Ugh.