[Sesquipedalian]

I really don't think a command line option is the way to go.  As your poll thread in GenFS indicates, Goober, people want this in the control of the mission designer if it is going to be a toggleable thing, or else their mission design process goes into the toilet.

However, if I may repeat my suggestion from that thread, I would point out that the problem is not that we don't want beams to damage shields, but that we don't want the hull not to be damaged.  Therefore:

Have beams damage the hull directly and damage shields, simultaneously.

We get what we want, shields damaged by beams, without giving up anything we want to keep insofar as hull damage is concerned.  And I don't think this will have a major effect on play balance: sure it will make things a bit harder, but not that much, especially if the beam effect on shields is currently so weak as to cause this issue to come into existence in the first place.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Originally posted by venom2506


no, that's the exact opposite, and you can write it as big as you want I don't care. if nobody notices, that is creating a serious fuss, and most people are not happy with the change. so it has to come back the original way, PERIOD.

I actually meant that they should. I was very tired last night.
I will edit the post to prove this.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian in the GenFS thread on this issue
Okay, since I am quite serious about my proposal, I've done the math for it to see how it would pan out.  Here are my results:

All AAA beams apply damage to hull and shields at an equal rate, so the difference in how powerful an AAA is against a fighter with or without shield piercing is dependent on the shields of the fighter.  So I took a sample set of ships from the table to see how they would be affected by my proposal.

Seth:
580 shields
280 HP
860 Total
Therefore, the beam is 1.32 times as powerful against a Seth as before.

Myrmidon:
390 shields
290 HP
680 Total
Therefore, the beam is 1.42 times as powerful against the Myrmidon as before.

Boanerges:
850 shields
325 HP
1175 Total
Therefore, the beam is 1.27 times as powerful against the Boanerges as before.

Mara:
620 shields
200 HP
820 Total
Therefore, the beam is 1.24 times as powerful against the Mara as before.

Seraphim:
1600 shields
500 HP
2100 Total
Therefore, the beam is 1.31 times as powerful against the Seraphim as before.

By the above sample set, my proposal will increase the brute effectiveness of AAA beams to an average of 131% of their original level.

HOWEVER, that number is somewhat misleading.  An AAA will kill the fighter no more quickly or slowly than before.  It means only that for a short time after being hit by the beam, the fighter will be more open to fighter fire from others.  But since all fighters are affected in this way, in exact proportion to their individual number of shield hit points, the overall play balance remains UNCHANGED.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB


I actually meant that they should. I was very tired last night.
I will edit the post to prove this.

hehe, sorry, then

[J.F.K.]

It seems most logical that we go for a TBL solution, then. A command line option is far less flexible and not conducive to the already excellent TBL system. And having an anti-shield tag on beams allows old campaigns and the original campaign to retain their balancing, meaning that it only affects new campaigns. Makes perfect sense.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Originally posted by venom2506

hehe, sorry, then

Fear not, oh venomous one, 'twas my fault really.

[Grey Wolf]

The problem is fixed, correct? There is a tag to make beams pierce, and there is Bobbau's table with the tag on all the basic beams. Hence, problem solved.

If you still wish to argue the point until you manage to piss off everyone, TAKE A SEDATIVE AND CALM DOWN. Thank you, and have a nice day.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
The problem is fixed, correct? There is a tag to make beams pierce, and there is Bobbau's table with the tag on all the basic beams. Hence, problem solved.

If you still wish to argue the point until you manage to piss off everyone, TAKE A SEDATIVE AND CALM DOWN. Thank you, and have a nice day.

You haven`t thought this through. Bobboau may have done a table for standard FS2 but suppose I download Deralict. I`ll have to go through and edit the table myself.
Suppose I then download the Aeos Affair. I`ll have to edit the table myself. (assuming that both these campaigns don`t use default weapons)

Unless we get a central repository for these edited tables EVERYONE who downloads a campaign that wasn`t written with this in mind will have to edit the tables.
  Are you volenteering Bobboau (or yourself) to make a table for every single campaign that doesn`t use default weapons?

[Goober5000]

This is annoying. Patience, everyone.  I'll do a switch soon as I finish posting.  Should take me all of five minutes.

[Bobboau]

tell you what, if you give me all the tables you are worried about I'll fix them and upload them to my VW FTP and you can link to it, it is realy a five second fix, and five seconds X 20 major campains = less than two minutes
I implemented the shield pierceing flag the way I did to make it easy for future moders makeing weapons. rather than haveing a flag for shield peirceing, and the lack there of, for diferen't types of weapons I simply had one flag determine the state the same way for all weapons,


so how about a mission flag that if is there will enable beams to hit shields, by defalt in new fred3.5.1+ editions will generate this flag by defalt (as in you can turn it off if you want to) so older mission files will not have the flag and thus beams won't hit shields, newer ones will...

I can already hear people asking "why won't my beams hit shields, I thought you fixed that!?!"

[Goober5000]

Here, I fixed it just now.  It's back to the way it was, by default, but I hardly changed anything.

For the laymen, any weaon whose table entry includes "pierce shields" will pierce shields, just like the classical beams.  Beams themselves pierce shields by default now, unless their table entry includes a "no pierce shields" flag.  On the other hand, using the command-line argument -nobeampierce overrides the entire thing and beams will not ever pierce shields.  This is for those who will use it as a difficulty setting.

For coders (Bobboau in particular), the way I did that was to add the pierce flag at the same time as the beam flag.  If "beam" was found in the flag list, not only was WIF_BEAM added but WIF2_PIERCE was added as well.  Where you added the test for "pierce shields" I added a test for "no pierce shields", and if that came true, I unset the pierce flag.  Then at the end of all that, I had the command line thing override it if necessary.

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Here, I fixed it just now.  It's back to the way it was, by default, but I hardly changed anything.

For the laymen, any weaon whose table entry includes "pierce shields" will pierce shields, just like the classical beams.  Beams themselves pierce shields by default now, unless their table entry includes a "no pierce shields" flag.  On the other hand, using the command-line argument -nobeampierce overrides the entire thing and beams will not ever pierce shields.  This is for those who will use it as a difficulty setting.

Looks like you covered all the bases to me.

[Inquisitor]

You know what folks.

Not EVERYTHING will be backwards compatible, in all areas. Goober was able to make it so here (presuming you have no other complaints) but you cannot have you cake and eat it too.

Some things, especially user made campaigns, will NOT be backwards compatible and will be up to the mod authors to make them useable with fs2_open. Also, as new technology is emplyed, EXPECT system requirements to increase. You cannot have you cake and eat it too.

Existing campaigns might want to use the released fs2 exe. In development projects (like TBP), are fluid enough (and have coders on staff here) to be able to adjust themselves or us.

Every effort is being made to ensure backwards compatibility with the MAIN FS2 campaign, and, we DO rely on you to tell us when something goes kablooey, but, we are not your *****es, please be nicer about it. We're in this together.

No, this is not directed at anyone in particular.

[Sesquipedalian]

Well said!


By the way, for people who intend to use the "no pierce shields" like I am for SA:  

Given my above mathematical calculations,

Change for all beams:
$Shield Factor: 1.0 to $Shield Factor: 3.0

Change for AAA beams:
$Armor Factor 1.0 to $Armor Factor: 1.3

in order to produce a difficulty level comparable to the original set-up.  

It doesn't function just the same way (it still takes an AAA longer to kill a fighter by itself), but wreaking such damage on the shields makes it very vulnerable to other forms of weaponry, so that the total effect is just as scary as the original.

[pyro-manic]

Ummm, this may seem like a stupid question, but why was it ever changed in the first place?

[Killfrenzy]

I'm sure I'm part of the root cause - I'm using a LOT of fighter beams in The Swarm War (cuz they look better and are more realistic) and they needed to hit shields to prevent you getting vapourised in a nanosecond.

I was also the one to ask Bobboau to change the code so that a fighter doesn't vapourise when destroyed.

[Inquisitor]

There is another thing to consider.

fs2_open doesn't HAVE to be one size fits all. If something like this is positively required for a campaign, but optional or even undesireable for everyone else, well, that's why we have the source. It is conceivable (though perhaps not the greatest idea) that REALLY custom campaigns will have their own exe's.

Food for thought.

[Goober5000]

Well, so far we've been able to get it to work both ways.  Look at ballistic primaries, for example.  I'm optimistic that we can continue to do so in the future. (At the same time, I'm aware of the possibility that this eventually may not be the case.)

[Inquisitor]

That's all I want people to think about. Some things may be mutually exclusive. And we have the code, so, that could even be "OK"

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Originally posted by Inquisitor
It is conceivable that REALLY custom campaigns will have their own exe's.

Sounds like Half-Life or UT Mods.

Like it.