[TheLeadSled]

Once again great work on everything I've seen so far. Very impressive mod. I just thought I might make some obervations a few things that might need improving and some other questions I have.

1/ Firstly on the HUD (I don't know if this can be manually configured or not) but the shield display for your own fighter seems a bit small. Can it be enlargened slightly to make it easier to observe how much damage your shields are taking?

2/ That brings me to the next point - Shields. I've noticed quite a few times that your hull can take damage from laser shots even though your shields can be more or less fully charged and with no system damage ie shields. While the damage is not enormous every bit does mount up and it can end up being about 15% of your hull durability lost over a period of time even though your shields are fine. Was that planned or something that carried on from the FreeSpace 2 code? IMO I would peresonally prefer not to have hull damage taken with my shields up as it seems to be like punishing a pilot even if your flying skills are above average.

3/ Is Armor. Is there to be no seperate armor rating in WC Saga that was present in WC3 where u had Shields > Armor > Hull? I guess having a seperate armor isnt overly realistic as admisttably focused energy are likely to slice through any armor and hit the hull directly anyway. And I'm guessing that armor may have been incoporated into the hull strength. But either way im interested to hear the reason why the team decided not to implent a seperate armor rating for ships.

[Tolwyn]

Once again great work on everything I've seen so far. Very impressive mod. I just thought I might make some obervations a few things that might need improving and some other questions I have.

1/ Firstly on the HUD (I don't know if this can be manually configured or not) but the shield display for your own fighter seems a bit small. Can it be enlargened slightly to make it easier to observe how much damage your shields are taking?

Well, in a way it is possible. Still, we plan to add 3d cocpits and reconfigure the HUD completely.

2/ That brings me to the next point - Shields. I've noticed quite a few times that your hull can take damage from laser shots even though your shields can be more or less fully charged and with no system damage ie shields. While the damage is not enormous every bit does mount up and it can end up being about 15% of your hull durability lost over a period of time even though your shields are fine. Was that planned or something that carried on from the FreeSpace 2 code? IMO I would peresonally prefer not to have hull damage taken with my shields up as it seems to be like punishing a pilot even if your flying skills are above average.

Yep, it is not a bug, but a "feature" Warship mounted weapons already have "no pierce shield" flag, we added this flag to fighter mounted weapons after the initial release. Still, even now there is a possibility, that an energy bolt will break through the shielding.

3/ Is Armor. Is there to be no seperate armor rating in WC Saga that was present in WC3 where u had Shields > Armor > Hull? I guess having a seperate armor isnt overly realistic as admisttably focused energy are likely to slice through any armor and hit the hull directly anyway. And I'm guessing that armor may have been incoporated into the hull strength. But either way im interested to hear the reason why the team decided not to implent a seperate armor rating for ships.

First of all, all Terran and Kilrathi warships will be rebalanced for the main release. The reasoning is to focus on fast and intense fights, but on the same time, to not drag the battle on and on.

There will be considerable less HP now on ships, and more shields. The reasoning, it's the shields that are the protection for a ship, not the armor. If the shields go down, the vessel is in big trouble. There's no longer lots of HP to hide behind. If your destroyer's shields go down, the enemy cruiser will hammer you to space dust in just a matter of moments.

In addition, the Terran warships had to be more durable then the Kilrathi (they last longer and have better damage control systems, and are more technologically advanced), so we have to balance it so one on one, a Terran ship can destroy a Kilrathi ship in combat.

[TheLeadSled]

Well, in a way it is possible. Still, we plan to add 3d cocpits and reconfigure the HUD completely.

WoW a 3d Cockpit would be a great addition. Lets face it. Your teams gone this far so you may as well go all the way and do a full job.

First of all, all Terran and Kilrathi warships will be rebalanced for the main release. The reasoning is to focus on fast and intense fights, but on the same time, to not drag the battle on and on.

There will be considerable less HP now on ships, and more shields. The reasoning, it's the shields that are the protection for a ship, not the armor. If the shields go down, the vessel is in big trouble. There's no longer lots of HP to hide behind. If your destroyer's shields go down, the enemy cruiser will hammer you to space dust in just a matter of moments.

In addition, the Terran warships had to be more durable then the Kilrathi (they last longer and have better damage control systems, and are more technologically advanced), so we have to balance it so one on one, a Terran ship can destroy a Kilrathi ship in combat.

Ah thats good to hear as I think there could be some better balancing.
SPOILER
The main battle at the end of Mission 5 between the cruisers was a bit drawn out maybe its just cause the Terran cruisers didnt launch any torpedoes at the Kilrathi ships but I'm not entirely sure. So I guess the cap ships may be a bit over armoured.
/SPOILER

But some fighters were underbalanced; The Thunderbolt (my favourite WC3 fighter) was too weak in hull strength for its speed and on the Ticonderoga mission I've witnessed one being destroyed by the lowly Dralthi IV. And on the Gauntlet it seems to be the fighter that I die first in simply because the ship doesnt have sufficient stamina to withstand multiple laser shots and missile blasts to compensate for its sluggishness.   

[AlekTrev006]

I'm curious why you would want the "Pierce Effect" for Fighter-based weapons as opposed to Capship / Warship weapons ?   

If anything, wouldn't it make more sense that the enhanced firepower of a 500-meter  capital ship would result (sometimes) in a "Shield Pierce effect" as opposed to the Meson Guns of a Kilrathi Light Fighter ?   Just curious why you would ADD the "flag" to Fighters, but intentionally leave it off the warships ?

---

Secondly, While I support the idea of Shields being the primary method of Ship-Defense (because that is in-keeping with the Wing-Universe / Stories / history, etc.) - I'm a bit concerned that shifting the stats of the Warships might result in them being "too weak" again ?  _ Now I realize you Saga people are great with balancing and in-general, producing a very reasonable and challenging game - but I'm just a bit "scared" that the Cap Ships will become "easy targets" for a few starfighters ....something I know you tried to avoid in your rendition of the game . . . ?

I would actually be in favor of a set-up wherein the Cap-Ships were largely invulnerable to star-fighter assaults (thanks to their Phase Shields) unless those fighters attacked with missiles or torpedoes . . . ala - Wing-II

The idea that 4-5 Arrow's would ever be able (in an actual Wing-Universe Engagement - not counting in-game stuff where some things have to be fudged) - to destroy a Kilrathi Destroyer or Cruiser is pretty far-fetched. 

Any time you see a big ship (bigger than Transport / Tanker or Corvette class I mean) - and you are in an Arrow or Hellcat, the reaction should probably be "radio home-base and report the location so they can send a strike-wing out to take this thing out"  - NOT "oh, a Cruiser, okay Arrow's, let's go blow it up with our Lasers and Ion Cannons !".

Dunno what you guys think about that though ? 


---

On Terran Ships - I know what you mean about the more-technologically advanced Terran ships needing to be able to dispatch Kilrathi equivalents (to some extent) - but how does this work in a Terran Destroyer VS Kilrathi Destroyer duel ?   I seem to think that the Cat ship has more Missile Launcher (Torpedo Launchers) areas than the single tube on the front of the Destroyer...so "in theory" can't the Cat ship simply overwhelm the Terran one with 2-x's (at least) the number of Torpedo's being shot out at one another ? 

---

Lastly, one suggestion I'd make here is that in some of the Prologue Missions, I noticed that you could approach a Cap-Ship from the rear (mainly Kilrathi destroyers) at a certain angle - where you faced fire from only ONE gun-turret (and sometimes if you maneuvered just right, you were "below the arc for even that one gun").  What I was able to then do on a couple of instances was blow out that one turret, not that tough with 1-2 missiles and a stream of full-gun shots - just put most power into fore-shields and you were fine from the few shots that might hit you while doing this. 

The "easy trick" I then found was as long as you matched-speed with the capship, and didn't move Up or Down (keep same position as you had when you blew out that 1-turret) - you could stay in-range and just blast the rear of the ship with your guns, endlessly, and eventually the capship would blow apart (it took a while, but you were never in danger of being shot at any more !).

The reason this seemed to happen is that even though the ship had tons of other workable gun-turrets and shields / armor on other quadrants were just fine, the ships seemed to follow a pre-set flight path, and didn't bother to turn around or alter their flying to respond to a target to their rear, sides, etc...   In "real life" the Destroyer (or any ship), knowing it's rear-gun was blown out, would probably turn a bit to the Port or Starboard and bring its other gun-turrets to bear on me (or even perform a roll of sorts to bring the belly-side Tachyon Turret into firing arc against me) ... is this a glitch, a "easy way to blow out warships" that I found, or something that you can modify on the final release (make the Capships "smart", just like a Fighter would be, in regards to turning, maneuvering, etc. to not allow this easy-kill thing to work so well ?)

[Tolwyn]

I too do not understand why cruiser of earthmen do not shoot torpedos, but they have Multiple Torpedo Tube! And why they do not try to shot down a torpedo flying in them, they have 8 Heavy Laser Turret!!!

I am sorry?

[TheLeadSled]

I'm curious why you would want the "Pierce Effect" for Fighter-based weapons as opposed to Capship / Warship weapons ?   

If anything, wouldn't it make more sense that the enhanced firepower of a 500-meter  capital ship would result (sometimes) in a "Shield Pierce effect" as opposed to the Meson Guns of a Kilrathi Light Fighter ?   Just curious why you would ADD the "flag" to Fighters, but intentionally leave it off the warships ?

I'm more inclined to agree. Yesterday I played the gauntlet on hard with the Thunderbolt. Against the first Kilrathi Darket I traded shots head on with my own shots missing but the kilrathi fighter reducing my shields by about 40-50%. But I also lost 16% hull durability which is a lot considering my shields were still up. The thunderbolt is designed to take enemies head on and have stronger shields to absorb more damage, but that damage to pierce seems a little excessive. So yeah I guess I'm not really a fan of the flag but I'd be interested to hear what other people say. On the arrow or hellcat it wouldnt bother me cause they are faster more manueverable fighters in which you don't take enemies head on but from behind or the sides.

Lastly, one suggestion I'd make here is that in some of the Prologue Missions, I noticed that you could approach a Cap-Ship from the rear (mainly Kilrathi destroyers) at a certain angle - where you faced fire from only ONE gun-turret (and sometimes if you maneuvered just right, you were "below the arc for even that one gun").  What I was able to then do on a couple of instances was blow out that one turret, not that tough with 1-2 missiles and a stream of full-gun shots - just put most power into fore-shields and you were fine from the few shots that might hit you while doing this. 

The "easy trick" I then found was as long as you matched-speed with the capship, and didn't move Up or Down (keep same position as you had when you blew out that 1-turret) - you could stay in-range and just blast the rear of the ship with your guns, endlessly, and eventually the capship would blow apart (it took a while, but you were never in danger of being shot at any more !).

The reason this seemed to happen is that even though the ship had tons of other workable gun-turrets and shields / armor on other quadrants were just fine, the ships seemed to follow a pre-set flight path, and didn't bother to turn around or alter their flying to respond to a target to their rear, sides, etc...   In "real life" the Destroyer (or any ship), knowing it's rear-gun was blown out, would probably turn a bit to the Port or Starboard and bring its other gun-turrets to bear on me (or even perform a roll of sorts to bring the belly-side Tachyon Turret into firing arc against me) ... is this a glitch, a "easy way to blow out warships" that I found, or something that you can modify on the final release (make the Capships "smart", just like a Fighter would be, in regards to turning, maneuvering, etc. to not allow this easy-kill thing to work so well ?)

I see your point as even Wing Commander 3 had given the AI some options to move away from targets. For instance I remember once when I was playing the last mission on the losing tree at Earth before Blair gets captured by Prince Thrakkath one of the those destroyers; the Sheffield defending the jump point did not blow up like they usually were scripted to and survived unti the mega Kilrathi dreadnought warped in next to it. The Terran destroyer was then being absolutely torn apart by the Dreadnoughts AMGs and actually turned 90 degrees and actually managed to escape from the Dreadnoughts gun turrets. But yeah I think having capital ships being able to move freely would be a nice option but I guess it depends on whether Tolwyn says it can be done. I'd been interested to hear some feedback on this.

[Tolwyn]

I'm more inclined to agree. Yesterday I played the gauntlet on hard with the Thunderbolt. Against the first Kilrathi Darket I traded shots head on with my own shots missing but the kilrathi fighter reducing my shields by about 40-50%. But I also lost 16% hull durability which is a lot considering my shields were still up. The thunderbolt is designed to take enemies head on and have stronger shields to absorb more damage, but that damage to pierce seems a little excessive. So yeah I guess I'm not really a fan of the flag but I'd be interested to hear what other people say. On the arrow or hellcat it wouldnt bother me cause they are faster more manueverable fighters in which you don't take enemies head on but from behind or the sides.

How often do I have to tell you, that our weapons do not have "pierce shield" flag? It is the standard FS2 behaviour.

[TheLeadSled]

How often do I have to tell you, that our weapons do not have "pierce shield" flag?  It is the standard FS2 behaviour.

Ah ok I get you now, sorry my mistake then. So you removed the flag but there is still a chance that a shield pierce can happen. If I'm wrong again just correct me I'm really sleepy right now

[Tolwyn]

"pierce shield" means that the weapon would pierce the shield all the time

We put "no pierce shield" on warhips' weapons to prevent laser bolts from going through your shield (I was kinda frustrating when you had 3% hitpoint and full shields and yet you died from a random energy surge waiting for a target lock.). Same flag has been added to the fighter mounted weapons after the initial release. But even now there is a slim chance, that enemy shots will penetrate your hull.

[IceFire]

FreeSpace took a different approach to shields than most Sci-Fi seems to do.  The shields are there and absorb most of the fire directed at them but if you're shields are even slightly lower than 100% then they do tend to let some things through.  Thats why even if you have a really well shielded fighter you can do damage to the target without fully bringing down the shields.

Just the way they did it...in Descent: FreeSpace you don't even have shields until about 1/3rd of the way through the campaign.  Makes things a little frenzied.

[AlekTrev006]

does this pierce-effect work with missiles too ?   it would be bad enough having some gun shots get thru, but if misile damage could randomly "pierce", then  !!?

[IceFire]

Probably.  Its a small percentage so its like being hit by a laser.  I haven't tested for it...its definitely less noticeable.  So far 90% of you haven't even noticed

[AlekTrev006]

I guess it is tough to notice because it seems like shields collapse and armor is fried after 1-2 missile hits in almost any fighter you are flying . . . ?


I posted earlier that I wondered why / if the Saga team didn't try to use the listed values on Penetration VS Armor / Shield ratings given in the Wing-III manuals (or at least use them as a reference point ?)

Under those numbers, a Dart-Dumbfire (DF) missile (the strongest type a fighter normally mounts) - had a listed "Penetration Value" of 800 - the manual explained that this was representative of an ability to penetrate "80-centimeters / equivalent of durasteel armor".

Durasteel is what they generally use as their hull armor and the "equivalent" part was done for simplicity - basically they gave Shields a "Defensive value" that was "Equivalent to XXX-centimeters of Durasteel" (as IF it was actually a layer of armor itself).

Anyways, if a Dumbfire was supposed to punch through 80-cm of armor/shield per hit   then a Hellcat-V fighter with a  250-cm/equivalent forward shield and 100-cm of forward armor would have (essentially) 350-cm/eq. of defense against the missile.

Thus the 1st DF-missile hit "should" reduce the shield from 250 to 170 - essentially a 30% decrease from the single warhead.

2nd missile would blow the shield down to 90-cm equivalent.

3rd would blow it down to 10-cm equivalent (nearly collapsing the shield).

4th would blow the shield out completely and destroy 70% of the Hellcat's forward armor.


A 5th DF-hit would / should blow the fighter to bits.



Now...that's going by how they wrote it out to be .... with the current set-up of missiles blowing you up in 1-2 hits (depending on Hull Armor %-value at the time of the impact) - it seems like missiles (even weaker ones like Friend-or-Foe's or Spiculum-Image Rec's) have been enhanced tremendously.


If 2-missiles destroy a Hellcat-V now ...and the Hellcat still (presumably) has it's listed values of 250 Shield / 100 Armor - then we have to imagine that each missile hit is doing something like 175-cm / equivalent of penetration ! ! !

This means a "converted" value of 1750

Compare to the manuals suggested DF-strength of 800


Saga missiles, even non-DF ones as noted above, are now over TWICE the power of the Wing-III listed values ? 

       I'm just curious how or why the decision was made to enhance them THAT much ?    Yes, some increase might have been okay for increased challenge / mission-tension - but to more than double even the weaker varieties of missiles' power to a point where they now are dealing more damage than the strongest missile from the actual Wing-III game ever did ....well...I'm just curious what the reasoning was behind that boost ?

[KeldorKatarn]

well...I'm just curious what the reasoning was behind that boost ?

Better gameplay?

[Tolwyn]

Me, I had a vision, a dumbfire missiles came out of nowhere, it went through my shield, it went through my hull, it pierced my flesh

[TheLeadSled]

FreeSpace took a different approach to shields than most Sci-Fi seems to do.  The shields are there and absorb most of the fire directed at them but if you're shields are even slightly lower than 100% then they do tend to let some things through.  Thats why even if you have a really well shielded fighter you can do damage to the target without fully bringing down the shields.

Just the way they did it...in Descent: FreeSpace you don't even have shields until about 1/3rd of the way through the campaign.  Makes things a little frenzied.

That makes proper sense now. I'm just used to the Wing Commander system of having shields.


As for missiles well they mostly penetrate shields anyway and heavily damage your ship unless u get hit by an FF missile in a Longbow so I don't think people would notice any pierce damage

[AlekTrev006]

To Keldor: - you said "Better Gameplay" - as if it was natural that more than doubling the missiles' damage would naturally equate to "better gameplay" - but I'm not sure that is necessarily the case.   Recall that just a few weeks back when Saga first came out, that there were many posters in here "complaining" about the fact that 1-2 missile hits were blowing them to bits.... so I don't know if they naturally concluded "oh, this is just better gameplay !  I like getting missiled to death !" - 


True, you have Decoys/Chaff - but when the margin of error is that slim (1-2 hits kill you !) - well...

[Tolwyn]

Missiles do exactly the same damage as in WC. Freespace 2 calculates damage a bit differently, but that is another story.

Take a lookie here.

http://wingcommander.by.ru/VS/Streak34.html
http://wingcommander.by.ru/VS/Streak36.html

According to you guns do exactly the right amount of damage, but missiles do not. The manual tells us a different story. Then again, ingame calculations are a bit different - I wish I could take a look at ingame stats (WC3/4)

[AlekTrev006]

Well, for the MOST part guns seem to do decent damage - if anything, I noticed they seem to do a bit less damage than before (seemingly) - those Gothri's take a LOT of Full-Gun shots to bring down it seems.

Also remember that the Laser Turrets are only doing 3% damage per hit to the Gothris, as I noted in another past thread.  So I'm not sure that they should be quite that in-effective, considering they are huge capital-ship gun emplacements.   

But overall, yeah, it "Seems" that the guns are more balanced than the missiles, which blow you apart in very few hits should they happen to strike.

[Tolwyn]

As noted before: this is your oppinion. We are quite happy as to how missile damage turned out