Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Boomer on June 13, 2005, 01:11:11 pm
-
Just out of curiosity, for matters of balance, should Anti-fighter beams in general be able to go through shields?
-
yes because that's how [V] made it :p
-
Beams already go through shields.
Until the option is added, I vote for Snuffleupagus.
-
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?:rolleyes:
-
Stand down there, hotshot. 'Tis (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,32724.0.html) simply (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,31522.0.html) a (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,31528.0.html) long (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,31561.0.html) long (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,32839.0.html) running (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,30307.0.html) joke.
*hands Boomer some Bosch Beer™*
-
Zoidberg. :p
"Ability to control sea creatures?"
"Hey, Zoidberg, get in here!"
"Screw you!"
"Nope, don't have that one."
:D
-
What, no Snuffleupagus? :(
-
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).
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
What, no Snuffleupagus? :(
Haven't you heard - http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/bigbird/default.php
-
*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.:D
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.
-
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!
-
Anti-Capship Beams - Yes
Anti-Fighter Beams - Not completly
[ X ] Depends
-
yes, i agree with deepstar. different types of beams should have diff efects on sheilds...
[X] Depends
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Rott3
Haven't you heard - http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/bigbird/default.php
OMFG!!!! :eek: :eek2: :(
-
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...
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
Here, Here!!:D
-
w00t, im with you pnakotus.
but i do like it how in the heavy bombers you can just take everything...
and to answer your question from before...i find that the..no sheild peirce option thingo doesnt make too much of a difference to me. i just find in missions while escorting things are harder with it on...but you know, i do play on insane...so that little advantage is a big difference on this difficlty....i was like, normally they die from at most 3..and its changed to 4 sometimes 5 hits...and seraphims..OMG!!! thier shields were annoying enough..they dont get touched by AAA....anyway whatever
-
Without reading more than 5 posts:
Shields should be able to be resistant against AAA beams.
-
i agree with you topace...but only AAA
-
Let me clarify:
When I originally posted the question I meant for "beams" to only refer to fighter beams. I forgot no one else was a mind reader.:nervous:
-
Originally posted by Cobra
Zoidberg. :p
:D
Yes, thus ANTI figher beams.
If it was a Cap shield and beams, then no.
-
Ahh, but capship beams shouldn't get a 'cheat through shields' flag either. They're just too strong for shields to block, and already this is the case. With -nobeampierce, capship beams will kill you instantly if you're in the way or totally strip your shields and damage you if you're nearby, which is good enough for me.
It's the *power* of the capbeams that is dangerous, not anything magical about that one weapon. Giving just them 'beampierce' is what they do in bad FPSs when they set the sniper rifle to 10,000 damage: they're fudging it.
Thanks, fergo, for sharing your experience. It's similar to my own, that -nobeampierce makes it HARDER rather than EASIER.
-
And Zoidberg takes the lead!
Hooray!
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/zoidberg.jpg)
-
They should pierce.
Shields are an area defense system effective against relatively slow-moving plasma, kinetic/explosive, and particle weapons of large calibur. (Have you ever tried to figure out how large a Terran Turret blast is? It's at least 12 inches in diameter, probably more like 24. Most GTVA fighter guns seem to be between 3 and 4 inches in diameter. Flak is the size of a Hornet missile, which means it's about 4 inches or more.)
Beams are point-impact very-high-velocity very-high-energy weapons. Shields are designed to defeat weaponry of a much larger calibur and much lesser energy. Most weapons have to batter down an entire shield quadrant. Beams, thanks to their much higher ratio of energy to calibur, achieve a instantanous or near-instantanous very localized burn-through of the shields.
This phenomenon can also be seen when you sometimes take damage from fighter weaponry despite having shields still up. The damage was enough to overwhelm just the portion of shield it hit and have some get through. However, the rest of that section of shield remains functional, and probably seals the breach instantly.
-
I'm with #1. Not only is it [V]-endorsed, it also makes logical sense, as ngtm1r explained. We're not talking about a bullet or shard of metal or blob of plasma or missile, we're talking about a high-intensity, concentrated beam of pure light energy that draws on a lot of power. I don't believe for a second that a little fighter's shield system would be able to form enough of a resistance at any particular point to absorb any significant portion of the beam. I've never played with -nobeampierce, but I could see how it could easily change gameplay substantially. Half of the difficulty in going against enemy capital ships is caused by anti-fighter beams; those things can cut you to ribbons in no time, which forces you to employ a much greater deal of strategy and caution. If they didn't pierce shields, I could just sit right next to an enemy ship in a bomber and pound away. As was mentioned above, it would also make escort missions much more difficult, since it wouldn't have as devastating an impact on enemy ships. I think the way things have always been is perfectly balanced.
The Lucifer's case represents somewhat of an enigma, since we don't have any evidence as to how allied beam weapons would have affected it. Obviously, Command felt as though the Colossus would be able to break through the Lucifer's shields and destroy it. I'm of the opinion that the Lucifer's shields might be strong enough to partially absorb beam weaponry, but I think that they would soon be broken through.
-
I think they should effact shields but the damage from the beam should be upped so it can rip thru shields. Same overall effect as canon but more intimidating
-
LOL the 'don't change anything' crowd doesn't want to change anything. Who'da thunkit? :D
Even BETTER is when they admit they've never used -nobeampierce, then make a series of sweeping predictions... which have already been shown to be false, by people who actually HAVE used this function. It's like... they don't even... read our... posts. Head in sand? Nah.
I love it every time someone like ngtm1r starts talking about slow moving plasma. We should all take him seriously since he uses big words! We should accept his baseless description of shield interactions based on... nothing! We'll all sleep better with this discussion put to rest. ;)
-
-nobeampirce is an obsolete flag isn't it?
-
ngtm1r, your numbers are in my opoinion way too samll, a hornet missile should be atleast 40 inches across.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
The Lucifer's case represents somewhat of an enigma, since we don't have any evidence as to how allied beam weapons would have affected it. Obviously, Command felt as though the Colossus would be able to break through the Lucifer's shields and destroy it. I'm of the opinion that the Lucifer's shields might be strong enough to partially absorb beam weaponry, but I think that they would soon be broken through.
I'm sure that one of the Volition staff said - back in the days of the VBB - that the Lucifers shields were only impervious with regards to FS1 era weapons (i.e. with regards to their energy output).
I think it was Icefire that came up with titbit of info.
So I'd say the Lucifers' shields could be broken through, and maybe not only by beams but also the very heavy weapons like Helios bombs. Unfortunately, it's probably impossible to make a direct comparison between even FS1 and FS2 era weapons, because I'd imagine that (for example) the Prom-S would have been upgraded over its natural lifespan.
-
I think it's quite logical that the Lucifer's shields are not only impervious to beams, but to Helioses as well. But I don't think Kaysers could do much damage in it.
-
(Sorry for the slight diversion here...)
Yes, Pnakotus, I don't want to change anything about the campaign. You know why? I consider FS2 to be the single greatest singleplayer game I have ever seen. To me, everything about it is perfect. I've never had the amazing experience that was playing through it in any other game I've tried. Does that mean I have my head in the sand for not wanting to fix any supposed "errors"? No. It simply means that I think that Volition did everything just about perfectly the first time around, and I don't think that what isn't broken in the first place should attempt to be fixed.
From what I've read of your statements, in both this thread and others, you feel like the entire campaign should be overhauled. Just earlier, you were complaining about Trebuchets, which happen to be my favorite missile (for obvious reasons). As I've said in the past, you or anyone else are perfectly free to edit the campaign in whatever way you want. Just don't try to pass it off as the "real" FS2 experience, or anything like that.
The reason I've never used -nobeampierce is not because I have my "head in the sand," it's because I've always considered the concept of turning off the piercing aspect of beams to be cheap. As I said above, the fact that beams don't bother with shields is part of what makes the FS2 capships so imposing to me. You say that using the flag makes escort missions harder, which, as I said above, I can see somewhat. However, you never mention at all the effect it has on attacking an enemy capship. If an anti-fighter beam can be mostly stopped by your bomber's shields, how can you say that the difficulty of bombing runs isn't affected at all?
I also think it's rather childish to say that the strength of ngtm1r's description is based on his use of "big words." I fully agreed with him because I felt that what he said makes sense in the context of the game universe. As I said, a beam of concentrated light energy is a lot different than shrapnel or a blob of superheated gas. I'd imagine that the relatively small reactor on a fighter couldn't put out nearly enough energy to power a shield system capable of deflecting the former.
As a final note, I wish you'd stop disparaging those of us who don't want the main FS2 campaign to be fooled around with. We know what we like, and it isn't what you keep proposing. Think of us in the same way as you'd think of someone who wants to prevent a forest from being torn down to make way for a strip mall. :p I would welcome further dialogue about the campaign, as long as we keep things civil.
(Once again, sorry for the interruption.)
-
Aside from more philosophical matters, I find any description (even , yes, tech room descriptions) of FS weapons as plasma utterly ridiculous. The problems with plasma being used in this was are so manifold and so obvious to anyone with a scientific background that I simply will not consider it. I don't particularly care WHAT they are, in fact.
ngtm1rs suggestiong includes many flaws, such as assuming the effective area of a missile impact is the same as it's casings diameter, when in fact HEAT warheads (for instance) have a much smaller area of effect. I'm in the process of making shots to establish it, but I'm not convinced AAA beams are '12 inches' either. On external views, they're larger than the pilot.
However, I'd be happy if such a model was implemented. He is correct insofar as conduction through the shield surface would limit usefulness: if very concentrated or very powerful weapons could exceed the shields input levels and have the excess bypass the shield altogether, that would be quite cool. His comparison between the 20-40pt regular guns and the much more powerful AAA beam is quite apt in this regard.
I simply object to counterstrike-style fudging like 'zomg it bypasses shields'. If there is a mechanism, and it works for everything (for instance, I'd want to see direct treb hits bleeding through shields in the same way, making them even MORE powerful) then it's fine. However, 'beampierce' implies to me that a theoretical, low power beam would ALSO penetrate shields, even at comparable power levels to regular weapons. This would be silly.
To address your concerns about -nobeampierce, I'm not really sure what to say. I play on medium, and unless a cap has no cover at all, a straight bombing run is unsafe. Defensive fire is still effective, and you still can't launch at long range since they'll get shot down. I don't often find myself the sole target for defensive fire, and beams still mess up your shields - something which becomes a serious danger inside flak range. I find attacks on cruisers relatively easy, but even a Fenris is better protected than a Cain.
-
If the GTVA understood the phenomena that stopped shields working in subspace, and understood the reasons for it, perhaps they developed beams as a method for bypassing shields (ignoring rather than by sheer power) - for example to tackle the Lucifer class.
-
I think the question here is if capship had shields, would capships beams be able to pierce trough capship shields?
Leave the AAF beams and fghter out of this for a second.
logicly speaking a Orion can generate as much power (and direct it inot the shields) for offense as well for defense...so it makes sense that beams should chew trough shields...
"beam of concentrated light energy is a lot different than shrapnel or a blob of superheated gas".. .yeah right - in the eand it's all about energy.. energy field trying to stop energy from coming trough..and heat = energy. Beams may be more powerfull, but if it takes 20 plasma blobs to break trough a capship shield, then it should take 2-3 beam shots to break trough too...
Capship beams (big ones) will incinerate a fighter regardless of his shields anyway (becoause of it's power), and AAAF beams with a little tweaking can still be very dangerous.. why?
first the knockback effect - increase it. Now bombers will have a hard time getting a lock being thrown around constatnly. Second - triple it's damage. Now it's damn dangerous, shields or not.
-
As a final note, I wish you'd stop disparaging those of us who don't want the main FS2 campaign to be fooled around with. We know what we like, and it isn't what you keep proposing. Think of us in the same way as you'd think of someone who wants to prevent a forest from being torn down to make way for a strip mall. I would welcome further dialogue about the campaign, as long as we keep things civil.
Holy sh*t, I think I started WWIII.
*To Trashman*
Here, Here! (Again)
I'm not taking sides, however, so feel free to continue to send in input.:D
-
OK, people. One question to solve this:
Are FS ships invisible with shields? No. Therefore, Beams should penetrate shields.
-
Are FS ships invisible with shields? No. Therefore, Beams should penetrate shields.
WTF does the matter of being able to see a ship or not with shields have to do with beams going through shields?:wtf:
-
Photon Beam Cannons
Photon=A Particle of light.
If the shields blocked light, you wouldn't be able to see the ship, IIRC.
So, if the shields can't block light, why should they be able to block Streams of Photons?
At least, thats my understanding of it. If anyone cares to correct it...
-
Originally posted by Pnakotus
Aside from more philosophical matters, I find any description (even , yes, tech room descriptions) of FS weapons as plasma utterly ridiculous. The problems with plasma being used in this was are so manifold and so obvious to anyone with a scientific background that I simply will not consider it. I don't particularly care WHAT they are, in fact.
Canonical facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. They're plasma. I'd also advise you to look up an article on the subject Aldo posted awhile back.
Originally posted by Pnakotus
ngtm1rs suggestiong includes many flaws, such as assuming the effective area of a missile impact is the same as it's casings diameter, when in fact HEAT warheads (for instance) have a much smaller area of effect.
And since all available evidence indicates the GTVA is not using HEAT warheads on their missiles...
Every single damn missile from the MX-50 on up has a nuclear warhead. Every missile. It's the only way they make any sense.
And you fail to do more then allude to the "other flaws". Name them. You have a bad habit of pretending to know more then you actually do, you see...
Originally posted by Pnakotus
I'm in the process of making shots to establish it, but I'm not convinced AAA beams are '12 inches' either. On external views, they're larger than the pilot.
Did I say that AAA beams were 12"? I did not. I did not give them a size. I said that Terran Turret blasts were a minimum of 12".
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Photon Beam Cannons
Photon=A Particle of light.
If the shields blocked light, you wouldn't be able to see the ship, IIRC.
So, if the shields can't block light, why should they be able to block Streams of Photons?
At least, thats my understanding of it. If anyone cares to correct it...
But they blocked the ML-16 most effectively...and it was a laser.
Best guess would be they're tuned to block certain levels of energy, though how one would do that is beyond my ken...
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Canonical facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. They're plasma. I'd also advise you to look up an article on the subject Aldo posted awhile back.
Le sigh: in ngtm1rs world, both lasers and high energy plasma can fly in little packets, highly visible, through a vacuum at a few hundred m/s. Wow, what an amazing world - of fiction. If you want to take the techroom fluff of the Subach being a 'laser' go right ahead. I'm not following you.
I did completely forget the yields on FS weapons. I'm not 100% if they're actually nuclear weapons, or simply very high yield: they sure don't LOOK like nuclear explosions (rather like petrol bombs, actually ;)).
Apologies for mistaking your claims about beam lasers. Not that it really matters with regard to regular missiles, since the beam has much more energy in any case. However it's easily arguable that the treb detonation would be harder to handle than a AAAf, so why doesn't it penetrate? But hey, don't ADDRESS my points, just handwave them. ZOMG CANON! :D
I'm going to ignore 80% of your post, since you ignored most of mine.
-
How's this for an analogy:
Think of shields as a kevlar vest, regular weapons fire as 9mm pistol rounds, and beam cannon fire as an armor piercing sniper round. The force of the pistol rounds will get dispersed across the vest but the AP round will punch right through it. However, the AP round only makes a small hole in the vest, so the vest could still stop more pistol rounds. So an AAA beam punches a hole through your shields and goes straight to your hull, the small hole in your shields is easily recharged, and the whole time your shields can still block weaker weapons fire.
-
Originally posted by Pnakotus
Le sigh: in ngtm1rs world, both lasers and high energy plasma can fly in little packets, highly visible, through a vacuum at a few hundred m/s. Wow, what an amazing world - of fiction. If you want to take the techroom fluff of the Subach being a 'laser' go right ahead. I'm not following you.
Read the damn post, you're putting words into his mouth. He said the the main FS weapons were Plasma, as in not a laser. Therefore he isn't taking the techroom "fluff".
-
Originally posted by FireCrack
Read the damn post, you're putting words into his mouth. He said the the main FS weapons were Plasma, as in not a laser. Therefore he isn't taking the techroom "fluff".
AND I QUOTE.
... in ngtm1rs world, both lasers and high energy plasma can fly in little packets...
Yeah, I'm really ignoring that he mentioned plasma. I'm not addressing that at all. :rolleyes: Lets not even go into why plasma isn't going to work that way: you need to start with reading comprehension.
@Redsniper: As I mentioned in the part of my post that ngm1r ignored, I have no problem with this model of shield interactions. Did you read my post? Did anyone? Can you explain why AAAf beams should penetrate (due to intensity) and Trebs should not, since Trebs arguably have *greater* intensity at point-of-impact than an AAAf? I would love to see such a model implemented in FS.
-
IIRC [V] once issued an explanation,(Incomplete\) that it was an ionized beam of energy, therefore it was oppisitily charged to the shields, and it went write through them. Meaning the kevlar vest explanation is wrong. It is more for scientific reasons that they go through.(Incomplete/)
-
Shields partially block the kinetic energy transmited by the Trebuchet while the AAAf manages to pass because it fails to interact with the shields.
-
[rampant speculation]I think that missiles don't explode until they hit the hull. Umm Let me put it this way:
M=Missile damage
S=Shield power
If M < S, Missile explodes against shields and applies damage to shields.
If M > S Missile itself penetrates shields and explodes against hull.
[\rampant speculation]
@Jetmech: What if shields only block coherent or polarized light?
It's possible that the inherent frequency of beam weapons could be exactly in perpendicular phase to shield energy. i.e.
l=shield.
-=beam
l
-----------------------
l
-----------------------
l
-----------------------
l
-----------------------
l
-----------------------
l
They don't react because they don't vibrate on the same plane, so there is no interference.
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Photon Beam Cannons
Photon=A Particle of light.
If the shields blocked light, you wouldn't be able to see the ship, IIRC.
So, if the shields can't block light, why should they be able to block Streams of Photons?
At least, thats my understanding of it. If anyone cares to correct it...
"Gunnery control, commence PLASMA core insertion"
photon, plasma, laser or meson? [V] should make up their mind allready...
Alltouhg a laser is techinly allso light...does that mean a ML-16 should pierce trough shields????
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
"Gunnery control, commence PLASMA core insertion"
That could be just part of the power-up sequence (i.e. it uses plasma for power). It doesn't mean the plasma was actually fired.
-
I always interpreted that as starting up some form of reactor to power the cannon, myself.
-
It is my own theory that FS "lasers" are plasma with a laser bouncing around inside them (somehow). Or mabye even they're packets of bose-einsteinium condensate? that's a viable explination.
-
Or mabye even they're packets of bose-einsteinium condensate? that's a viable explination.
There is another!
I always wondered if someone would mention that possibility.
BTW: explination=explanation
mabye=maybe
bose-einsteinium=Bose-Einstein
Just playing Grammar Inquisitor:nervous:
-
Be careful - you're infringing on Goober's territory, and he won't like that... :D
Your theory about beams being out of phase with shields is interesting, but surely a tech somewhere would just tweak the shield frequency, to stop it from happening?
As for the "plasma core insertion", I always thought of that as being the means of charging the beam, not the weapon itself.
-
's not grammar, that's spelling :p
-
Well, it could be that the sheilds of the target are actively scanned before firing the beam, kinda like what the prometheus supposedly does, but with sheilds.
By the way, i'm experiencing extreme keyboard lag right now.
-
My god. In a discussion about explosions, someone mentions frequency. It just never stops.
The shields can't 'block' the KE of an impact - it has to go somewhere. In any case, a nuclear-yield explosion without contact is probably going to do it's work with heating, rather than KE.
I love how Firecrack falsely accuses me of dishonesty and just ignores it. That's integrity! I love the totally implausible 'plasma contained by a laser' theory! :)
If it matters, I was under the impression the 'plasma core' thing was referring to powerplant or safeties on the weapons, not that the beam guns somehow fire 'plasma cores' at things. However, the beams COULD be a form of particle beam, which would in fact use plasma. Does anyone who the knowledge know if the beams are in fact instantaneous effects, or if they simply propagate extremely fast?
It doesn't seem that anyone is interested in any serious attempt to develop a proper theory on shield/beam interactions (like, with predictive power and supported by experimental data). I'll give everyone a little experiment: load FS2. Look at the nearest ship. Fire. You have just obtained proof that the guns are not lasers.
-
Oh will you stop that laser thing! Never take it seriously when they call guns lasers.
Star Wars had lasers. Yeah, right :doubt:
Almost any space shooter has had lasers. :ha:
Some games have weapons that would go as lasers (looks like a beam thingy) but they are not called lasers.
Laser is just light. It travels at the speed of light. I know because I have a laser pen, I use it to make people blind. :devil:
So any projectile that does not travel at the speed of light is not a laser. This result I have reached by using common sense.
-
Your point? Obviously FS 'lasers' aren't lasers, regardless of what they're called. I'm not arguing with your examples, merely asking where you're going. What something is called is certainly less important than observed behaviour. Since most people here seem to assume they are, in fact, lasers, I labour the point. :)
I'm actually surprised: since it's just a game, I've always largely ignored the descriptions of weapons et al. However, if you're going to try and come up with justifications for game mechanics, you've got to look at it more closely than 'tech room says x-ray lasers'.
-
I see. I was to subtle.
My point is:
Why people keep arguing are they lasers or not!
Now, isn't it clear that FS was never meant, and never will be realistic when it comes to weapons. We should not talk about (at least not in this thread) what the weapons "really" are. But how will the issue in the poll effect game play. And what will it look like in the game, visually.
I think that beams should not pierce shields, because I think it looks cool. But they should cause huge damage to the shield it hits (the shield is trying to stop the incredible amount of energy the beams delivers). If a beam is powerful enought to just go trought shields like paper, what stops it going trought the hull too?
-
I think that beams should not pierce shields, because I think it looks cool. But they should cause huge damage to the shield it hits (the shield is trying to stop the incredible amount of energy the beams delivers). If a beam is powerful enought to just go trought shields like paper, what stops it going trought the hull too?
Good point.
Laser is just light. It travels at the speed of light. I know because I have a laser pen, I use it to make people blind.
BTW, just to reinforce this, lasers technically shouldn't even be visible except from the impact area.
And yes, feel free to debate the nature of Freespace weaponry. I'm getting alot of input.
-
I just had an idea. Why don't we just give all beams really high shield damage multipliers? Sure you'll lose a whole shield quadrant when an AAA beam hits you, but that will add to the challenge.
-
I think that increasing beam damage(either by increasing raw damage or just the multiplier) vs shields is the easiest solution. You get the immediate hull damage, but instead of ignoring shields they just cut through them. Indeed, with smartshields or quick arrow keys, you can reroute power to cover the arc again.
Maybe I'm imagining things, but don't you get some hull damage while shields are still up already? If so, you could tweak that system so beams let more damage through. I'm sure I've been crashing into things and taken small amounts of hull damage through full shields. Still, I'd like the ability to hit shields with so much energy that the system is destroyed and the vessel loses shielding permanently. *That'd* make AAAfs pretty scary! :)
And Prophet, sorry for misunderstanding you. I thought you were suggesting the discussion was pointless given FS's 'imaginative' nature. The whole scifi brainbug of 'plasma' weapons has just always irritated me.
-
Incidentally.... the GTVA probably had samples of the Lucifer shield system to work on with regards to beams vs that. Silent Threat mentions the Hades having a 'Shivan defensive system' or similar for the last debrief.
-
Shivan defensive system = Shivan weapons
-
Was it ever established exactly what Shivan technology the Hades incorporated, or what technology in FS2 was Shivan-derived? As far as I know, there isn't even any real evidence suggesting that the beam cannon are based off the Lucifer guns, since they were all destroyed and the other ships didn't have any. Obviously the fighter-shields are based directly off captured Shivan examples, but what else is there?
I don't remember (I could never finish the last ST mission :nervous: ) if the Hades fired Shivan guns or what.
-
It had Shivan blob turrets, but no beams/flux cannons. But it was incomplete at the time of it's destruction, so presumably not all of it's weapons had been installed (or perhaps even developed). I think it was supposed to have some elements of Shivan tech in it's hull plating as well, but I can't remember....
As for other tech, the Kayser is "the result of research into Shivan weapons technology". Can't remember anything else offhand, though...
-
It had Shivan Super Lasers (Lucifer beams) on it though.
-
I think beams were supposed to obviate shields, and GTVA even determined that they would defeat Lucifer - style shields, so that's why they were sure the Colossus would defeat another Lucifer.
-
Originally posted by Pnakotus
As far as I know, there isn't even any real evidence suggesting that the beam cannon are based off the Lucifer guns, since they were all destroyed and the other ships didn't have any.
The only thing the GTVA had were scans Aplha 1 took of the Lucifer.
But the lucifer cannosn weren't destroyed - they're just drifting near Earth. So I reckon if contact with Ear ever does get established, they will have really cool things (after all, they had pieces of Lucifer to study)
-
First of all, it's interesting to note that not all of the weapons in this category are actual lasers, or have anything to do with such systems. The term is derived from late 20th - early 21st century Science-Fiction films, where the term 'laser cannon' meant any particle/energy based pulse weapon. In reality these weapons use a multitude of ways to create destructive power - from higly focused X-ray emissions to microparticles whose wave functions emanate intense zero-point energy.[Quote\]
Direct excratction from FS2 tech entry, case closed.
-
Originally Freespace 2 Tech entry
First of all, it's interesting to note that not all of the weapons in this category are actual lasers, or have anything to do with such systems. The term is derived from late 20th - early 21st century Science-Fiction films, where the term 'laser cannon' meant any particle/energy based pulse weapon. In reality these weapons use a multitude of ways to create destructive power - from higly focused X-ray emissions to microparticles whose wave functions emanate intense zero-point energy.
-
Trashman, I used to think the Lucifer's 'head' survived as well, but last time I saw the FSend cutscene, I'm almost certain after the head breaks off it is completely obliterated. I SERIOUSLY doubt anything could be recovered of such a complex technology.
@Goob, are you sure? I don't have an ST pilot at the end, so I can't check. Did it have the 'trail' style Luciferbeams? If they don't fire at fighters, they could have been there during the battle and noone would notice.
-
I just checked it out in FRED, it has 2 Shivan Super Lasers, the same kind on the Lucifer.
-
sections that survived are at least cruiser-sized... that's about 300 cubic meters... a lot of volume in which stuff can be found.
And I watched the anis..two arms chunks and a large part of the head survived (at least)
note that with the destruction of Teranis, the GTVA had no insight on shivan warship tech, so even something small would be usefull.
-
It's also worth noting that the GTVA learned nothing from the Lucifer either as the debris was on the Sol side of the closed node :p
Unless of course there was communication via radio telescope between the GTVA and Sol.
-
True, but the people of Earth prolyl learned a lot..
-
I'm absolutely not going to dispute that ;7
-
I won't argue, since the GTVA apparently devised their own beam cannon just by looking at Lucifers guns work! :)
-
More Like a few good scans
-
Yeah, because scanning something gives you detailed blueprints, industrial tooling, and physics textbooks. If Shivan and T/V technology wasn't so close already, it'd be like watching someone fire a rocket, looking at it, then inventing gunpowder.
-
Then again, it might not have been the GTA that found out how to develop beam cannons--remember the Hades, anyone? ;) The Hades had Lucifer-style beam cannons implemented, though they were never used in Silent Threat. It is possible that, after examining either the wreckage of the Hades, or, more likely, by acquiring information from the GTI in one way or another, that the GTA and PVN learned how to better fit beam cannons into their own ships based off of the Hades' example.
The GTA didn't need to do all of the research into Shivan technology in order to acquire the beam tech--the GTI had already done that for them. It certainly was much more difficult than simply copy/pasting the Hades example (after all, it took a while before beam-equipped mainstream GTVA vessels started being produced), but it was possibly done through the GTI Rebellion in some way.
-
That is a very good point, i think the acknowledgement of the GTI all throughout FS2 is further evidence(SP) of nuclear1's point
-
I totally agree: it's similar to the situation with shields and improved weapons, where the technology was almost finished (better guns and bombs) or being secretly worked on by GTI (shields). If the Shivans had attacked months later, the Great War would've been very different.
It's a shame we never saw a Lucifer in FS2: I'd like to know if the Lucys wierd-beams were intended to be the regular beams we know from FS2, or something unique. Now we'll never know.
-
We already do know. The Lucifer supplied with retail FS2 has SReds. Nowhere near as powerful as LuciferBeams or Shivan Super Lasers, but beams nonetheless.
-
Is that taken to mean that Lucys guns are just SReds, or that Great War Lucy had different weapons?
-
Great War Lucy had to have more powerful weapons. SReds cannot take down an Orion in 2 or 3 shots.