[Stunaep]

For pete's sake, make it an option, or turn it down entirely (preferably an option, since LM3 is balanced for beams not piercing shields), but

beams

must

pierce

shields.

It's cool. It makes FS2 main campaign actually challenging. it's logical (why not make a frickkin' big laser blob instead of beams? because beams can pierce shields - therefore bye-bye lucy).

Put the beams back the way they were. Puhleaaase?

*makes cute puppy face*

[J.F.K.]

I know it seems like a gameplay issue, but I'm curious - with what we know about FS2-style shields and the various types of beams (do Terrans/Vasudans/Shivans all actually have beams which work fundamentally the same way?) - would it make sense for beams to puncture shields or not?

If you're desperate to get your shield-puncturing beams back, maybe you could open up a new technology into the GTVA universe... you could make conventional beams puncture shields and then have Akheton or someone develop lower-energy beams which are vastly more energy-efficient on raw hulls but are stopped by shields. Or, conventional beams could be the ones which are stopped by shields, and the same guys develop a new type of beam which is has some sort of [insert techno-jargon] which enables it to bypass the GTVA shield system (and, by extension, the Shivan shield system) altogether. That, or you could just go back to the old way

[CP5670]

Was this changed in the latest fs2_open? I didn't notice it yet, but if it was it should definitely be changed back. I think that any of these modifications that affect the actual gameplay need at least an option to revert to the original for backward-compatibility. (perhaps a flag in the mission files or something)

[Fury]

While I prefer shields to be able to stop beams, I think it is best to leave it disabled by default.

We have gotten used to it, and mission (both official and unofficial) balance might change, most likely to easier.

I think I read somewhere that SCP is changing it in the next release, if it is not already in. Shield piercing flag is the way to go.

[Krom]

You *could* simply change the damage multipliers on beams to make them drain the shields almost instantly.  Then it would be even more challenging then before because not only will the beams punch through your shields, but then afterwards flak and fighters will have free access to your hull.

-Krom

[Bobboau]

I made a shield peirceing flag, so all one needs to do is make a small change in the tables and include it in the next relese

[Goober5000]

Suppose a command-line option, instead of a weapon or mission flag.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Suppose a command-line option, instead of a weapon or mission flag.

I think mission designers need to know how the mission will be played. What if you make a mission where a ship has no flack but lots of AAA. The outcome would be different depending on the flag and that just doesn`t seem right to me.

[pyro-manic]

Put it back the way it was!!!

AAA beams are now worse than useless. I've taken all three hits from an anti-fighter beam and suffered a grand total of zero damage. It's terrible! Back in the old days, you couldn't get a lock on something like a Deimos because the AAAs would smack you all over the place. Now you can cruise straight up to a corvette and get off a few volleys of torpedoes before you even start to take damage. It's far too easy, as you can ignore beams as much as laser turrets, because they won't hurt you at all.

PLEASE make them good again.

[Goober5000]

I think it should be personal preference whether beams pierce shields or not.  It should be up to the pilot, not the mission designer.  That's why I suggested a command line flag - everyone would be able to play it however they wanted.

The only reason beams penetrated shields in the first place was because of a bug.  And there's still a challenge in that you have to do your work quickly around the beams before your shields drop.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Goober5000
I think it should be personal preference whether beams pierce shields or not.  It should be up to the pilot, not the mission designer.  

what? of course not! otherwise it's up to the pilot to choose the range of the maxim and the strengh of the prometheus?
the pilot plays with what we give him, period.

I think this should be a general SCP rule:

ALL MODIFICATION THAT WOULD CHANGE THE GAMEPLAY BALANCE IN ANY WAY MUST BE DISABLED BY DEFAULT.

No exception.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Goober5000
I think it should be personal preference whether beams pierce shields or not.  It should be up to the pilot, not the mission designer.  That's why I suggested a command line flag - everyone would be able to play it however they wanted.

I disagree very strongly there. If the mission designer has designed a mission to be hard because of the presence of AAA then the mission will be a lot easier for someone who has switched it so that beams don`t penetrate shields. Now every mission designer has to test the difficult of the mission under both conditions adding to the amount of work that has to be done when it comes to play-balancing.

Secondly even if you make it a player option the first thing any mission designer who cares about this will do is edit the weapons table so that all beams have the Pierce flag on them thereby negating the players choice.

[J3Vr6]

Originally posted by Krom
You *could* simply change the damage multipliers on beams to make them drain the shields almost instantly.  Then it would be even more challenging then before because not only will the beams punch through your shields, but then afterwards flak and fighters will have free access to your hull.

I agree with what people say here, beams not piercing the shields makes it a lot easier.  So Krom's idea of draining the shields at an accelerated rate might make for a more thrilling ride.  It would be even more realistic than piercing the shields as the amount of power the beams generate would (In my opinion) cause shields to either overload or sustain so much damage quickly that they should drop out at a fairly quick pace.

EDIT: I was originally going to agree with Goober on the command flag, but I see venom and karajoma's point.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by karajorma
Now every mission designer has to test the difficult of the mission under both conditions adding to the amount of work that has to be done when it comes to play-balancing.

No they don't.  Mission designers generally don't test their work on all five levels of difficulty, do they?

Secondly even if you make it a player option the first thing any mission designer who cares about this will do is edit the weapons table so that all beams have the Pierce flag on them thereby negating the players choice.

More than likely they won't bother.  And anyway the source can be designed to prevent this.

Originally posted by venom2506
what? of course not! otherwise it's up to the pilot to choose the range of the maxim and the strengh of the prometheus?

No, the purpose of this is to correct a bug in the original, but leave people the option to circumvent it if they choose (or vice versa; see below).

I think this should be a general SCP rule:

ALL MODIFICATION THAT WOULD CHANGE THE GAMEPLAY BALANCE IN ANY WAY MUST BE DISABLED BY DEFAULT.

But this is a valid point.

Howabout this.  Put the beams back to shield-piercing by default, but make a command-line flag that will cause the beams not to pierce shields.

This is as convoluted an example of "it's not a bug, it's a feature" I've ever seen.

[Black Wolf]

Bad, bad idea. .

Don't change anything by default that screws with gameplay balance. Otherwise you change everything from the earliest [V] mission. If it was, as you said, a bug, then Volition would have fixed it. I'd say any gameplay affecting bugs, if they were adopted and worked into mission balance for the entire [V] campaign then they leave the realm of bughood and reach into featureness.

[edit] Goob beat me too it. Definitely do something like that. (I think though, that there will be an extra line in all future campaign readmes (I know there will be one for TI) "This campaign is balanced for shield piercing beams. Taking this out makes the campaign easier and will probably take away from the overall experience. We strongly advise against it" - or something to that effect).

[Nico]

I'd rather go with the weapon tag thinguy, that way, you can have both shield piercing and non piercing beams in the same mission.

[Stunaep]

definately a command line option would be in order. LM3 is balanced for beams not piercing shields

[karajorma]

I said this on the other thread too but what we need is a no-pierce shield flag.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Stunaep
definately a command line option would be in order. LM3 is balanced for beams not piercing shields

well OTT uses shield piercing beams. what would give any campaign the hand over another, I ask you?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stunaep
definately a command line option would be in order. LM3 is balanced for beams not piercing shields

Yes but the problem is that almost every other campaign isn`t. So everyone else has to tell all their users exactly how to disable shields not piercing shields for everyone who downloads their campaign.

This is why I say that we need a flag for this. You could alter the weapons table in 5 minutes to work for all people playing your campaign.