[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Goober5000


Very interesting idea.  If this was implemented, we could say that the beam was concentrating so much energy over such a small area that the shields couldn't keep up, hence why beams tend to "penetrate" shields.  More diffused energy weapons can be stopped, but beams can't.

Exactly!  So let us make them damage both simultaneously.  Or rather, not so much us (since that would include me) as you people who actually know code.  It is matter of great amusement to me every day that I wear an SCP avatar...

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
 That doesn't sound like a very significant shield damage effect, and certainly not "twice as powerful."  If they were twice as powerful as a result of my proposal, that would mean that they are just as powerful when damaging shields as they are when passing through them, and the whole debate would be moot! No, what will happen with my proposal is that they will be a little bit more powerful, and not enough to throw off play balance.

Err.. I was confused before you started up saying that it would make them more powerful but not change game play..

either way, can we please have the option to turn what you say off (or on..) ?

[CP5670]

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.

They become much more vulnerable to flak and other stuff from the destroyer though. I think your idea sounds good in general and would work nicely for missions designed for that setting. However, as a default setting it is almost as bad as the other option, since it would significantly alter the gameplay, just in the other direction (make beams better instead of worse). The reason that many of us are pushing for having beams ignore shields is that the main FS2 campaign missions and any other missions released prior to the latest fs2_open release should remain exactly the same as before in terms of gameplay regardless of any modifications that are made by the SCP.

I don't really like the command line idea much either, since the choice of whether or not to upset game balance would then be with the player, so if you are doing this you might as well let the player mess around with entire tables or missions without it considered cheating.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
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.

Except in missions where only one side has capships. In every single one of those missions the gameplay balance has now moved in the direction of the side that has capships.
 Suppose you have a mission where you have to wipe out an enemy Sobek. Your wingmen will now get wiped out far quicker than before leaving you on your own to finish the mission. Even worse if the mission is to protect bombers you`ve made the mission far harder.

In short put it back the way it was by default. Then code stuff to allow it to work the way you want if the mission designer decides to have beams affect shields.

[Nuclear1]

me vote pie

tries to resist putting up a W&B link

[Knight Templar]

Stop trying and I will hurt you

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670


flak

Originally posted by karajorma


only one side has capships

Hmm.  Indeed.  I now see the lacuna in my argument.  Therefore, I do suggest this be an optional situation, but still think my proposal should be what the option is changed to.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Hmm.  Indeed.  I now see the lacuna in my argument.  Therefore, I do suggest this be an optional situation, but still think my proposal should be what the option is changed to.

I have no problem with that

[Razor]

Originally posted by Goober5000

Well then maybe we should vote all three. We wouldn't get anywhere with this.

[Star Dragon]

Any ship (fighter or capship) that has shields are protected until the shield is taken down to 0% (captain shields at 60% but holding)...

   Now if you are in a fighter then tough luck! your shield may help you if you take a glancing blow but realisticly if you get hit dead on your toast (reload and try again ace).

   I voted this way cause I'm keeping ST in mind. All ships will have some sort of shielding and relative strengths.  Now I'll say this. FS2 ships may have more powerful beams than phasers, but they STILL are gonna have to take down the shields BEFORE they can scratch the hulls. Otherwise what's the freaking point of having a shield? Get rid of all shields and just double the hit points of EVERY ship in the game then and be done with it!

    Now I never got the borg shield depleter to work right against capships, but if I do then that will be a perfect example of a weapon that is specifically designed to take down a shield of a ship/station in ONE SHOT so the real damage can begin...

  Of course this should always be optional. Make a tag for (Piercing Beams Off) in the mission editor. That way those of us that like realistic combat can have our protections that need to be depleted first...

[Killfrenzy]

Point the first: I was always under the impression that AA Beams and Flak would work together - the flak knocking down shields (which they do brilliantly) and the beam dicing the fighter.

Point the second: AA Beams aren't that powerful, and many is the time where they demolish a fighter with a single shot whilst the shields are still at full! If they do THAT much damage, they should do more damage against warships.

Point the third: If you lot insist on having a default, I say it should be beams NOT penetrating shields.

[Goober5000]

Very good points, and those were some of the reasons I fought for that way.  But I was outvoted.

I build in a -nobeampierce command line option that overrides that, however.  See the SCP thread.

[CP5670]

Wait, so what is the default setting now? Do the beams go through shields or damage shields? Also, the table flag for shield piercing is "pierce" right?

[Goober5000]

Default: beams go through shields like before.

Table flag: "pierce shields" for conventional weapons to pierce shields; "no pierce shields" for beams to not pierce shields.

[CP5670]

okay, that looks good; thanks.

[Star Dragon]

Does that mean teh final result is an all or nothing thing? They either pierce shileds (not afeecting it at all, shield remains 100% but beam damages hull). Or beam is stopped by shield (still does not damage beam)?

There should be an option for a beam to damage a shield and if the shield is taken down in the blast the rest of the enegy hits the hull.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Star Dragon
There should be an option for a beam to damage a shield and if the shield is taken down in the blast the rest of the enegy hits the hull.

I`m sure that's what happens for beams which don`t pierce shields. Once they`ve taken down the shield whatever is left of the beam starts on the hull. Otherwise non-piercing beams would never damage the hull cause the shield rarely stays at zero (since it continuously recharges unless you`ve reduced your shield recharge bar).

[SadisticSid]

Whoops, I misvoted. I think beams should pierce shields by default. AAAfs are no good against fighters if this isn't the case.

You could say the GTVA developed beam cannons (from a technical point of view) because they pierced shields - thus negating any future threat of a Lucifer or something else with an impenetrable shield in normal space.

Sid.

[Vertigo1]

I think it should pierce by default, but also be up to the mission designer whether to have them pierce or not.

[Sesquipedalian]

Do you people even read these threads?  The issue has already been resolved.  Stop voting and let the thread die.