Jump to content

Shields Please


Zen001

Recommended Posts

My understanding is that there will be safe areas from bombardment. But wouldn't it be better to free up an entire planet by equipping cities, facilities, colonies and private dwellings with shield generators? That way the entire planet can be utilized instead of a relatively small area. What's more there maybe some very unique locations that do not fall within the safe zone and would be ideal for building. If this cannot be done, would it be possible to have shield generators for those wishing to live outside safe zones? Having shields would also have the added benefit of making the game/universe feel more persistent because players would need to insure their generators are running with ample power 24/7; it would also insure players are actively logging on if they wish to maintain their facilities and/or living quarters - and keep scavengers from stealing everything in sight!  :ph34r:

 

 

Scene: Imagine, you are on some distant exotic world peacefully tending your fields, repairing your ship or what have you, then suddenly a shield dome activates over your outpost and blurs out the exotic alien landscape; an alarm sounds and you run inside, turn off the alarm and check your defense probes to see who is approaching the planet and/or exclusion zone. Time to prepare or call for help!   

 

And on a much larger scale, shield generators could add a whole new dimension of gameplay either through sabotage or all out warfare.

 

Anyway, just a thought that maybe has already been posted. 

 

Boeing Patent for force field:

 

 

Force fields by 2537? Very likely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the lore it is mentioned that the Ark provides plans on how to construct a shield to protect yourself with. 

"During the simulation, Aphelia nonetheless explained to me how to duplicate the Novark’s force field defense shields on a small scale. Always good to know" 

 It is towards the end of Part 3.So we can expect at least base shielding. 

 

And I agree with Vylqun, I dont think this one is ment to be invulnerable, and it shouln't be. I would be ok with it being able to recharge as fast as you can feed it power, since this would still allow you to overwhelm it. But there must be some way to break it. 

 

 

And while the Boeing tech is cool, it really isnt a shield system, it is more of a reactive armor. There have been proposals on how you could lock hydrogen atoms into a solid wall forming a real shield though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also recommend shields like that and not just small save Areas.

As I mentioned in my post where I suggest destructible Planets, we also have to speak about the planet defence.

 

I thought in one Topic there was an Suggestion for the shield that it shouldnt act like one big bubble it should have parts. ( see the Picture below )

 

http://imgur.com/44BgRos

 

 

So if you are able to Focus your fire, one of this parts should break for a Moment and you could be able to send out some troops to the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to have to point out that the only 'safe area' we know about so far is the arkship protection range on Alioth, nothing else in the verse will have any protection other than what the players decide to create themselves.

 

That being said, I'm sure there was another thread somewhere about shields, that has lots of ideas in it also, but I agree with what you are saying, and also want to reiterate what 'DD' says about it being in the lore, we just don't know the size, scale, protection, capacity ect of the shields. So its more of a question of how they will work other than if we will get them.

 

nora,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I would like to see both types. Smaller modular shields that you piece together like panels to surround thigs like ships. This allows you versatility as well as strategic thinking in combat.

(I come in head-on, letting my front shields absorb the alpha strike, then turn broadside where the sage will be spread out across more shield emitters)

 

But for massive city shields who wants to deal with small panels for a huge area. Besides you can't rotate the city to spread the damage. So install a huge dome emitter. It would be cook if you could adjust its size to. Say from a small room forcefield to one covering an entire territory. And energy consumption could be proportional to the shield's area with a recharge rate modifier.

 

Although in reality I would think a shield would have a maximum force limit It can stop, anything above that would bleed through. And it would have a give power draw that was constant to sustain it. However having it draw more power as it 'repairs' ads and interesting level to it since you're now oven to being sieged.

 

The question is, can friendly ships and weapons pass through the shield? Or is it a barrier to all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I would like to see both types. Smaller modular shields that you piece together like panels to surround thigs like ships. This allows you versatility as well as strategic thinking in combat.

(I come in head-on, letting my front shields absorb the alpha strike, then turn broadside where the sage will be spread out across more shield emitters)

 

But for massive city shields who wants to deal with small panels for a huge area. Besides you can't rotate the city to spread the damage. So install a huge dome emitter. It would be cook if you could adjust its size to. Say from a small room forcefield to one covering an entire territory. And energy consumption could be proportional to the shield's area with a recharge rate modifier.

 

Although in reality I would think a shield would have a maximum force limit It can stop, anything above that would bleed through. And it would have a give power draw that was constant to sustain it. However having it draw more power as it 'repairs' ads and interesting level to it since you're now oven to being sieged.

 

The question is, can friendly ships and weapons pass through the shield? Or is it a barrier to all?

As for your last comment, perhaps that could be taken care of by tags. Anyone with the proper set of tags could pass through them unmolested, while anyone else else would collide with them.

 

I like the idea of having different kinds of emitters. I wonder if on larger ships with enough power generation if both types couldn't be used. Use a main spherical shield and then smaller modular shields for sensitive areas for when and if the main shield goes down. Hell, if you have enough power generation for multiple shield layers, don't see why that couldn't work either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree the tag system could easily be used to manage this, but it was more of a question on IF it should be allowed. Usually friendlies can bypass shields, and we could easily come up with lore on the tech allowing it. But imagine if you had to shut your shields down to pass. It would defiantly make sieging a place more interesting.

 

I truly hope there is no limit to how many of each component you can place. If you can power 50 shield emitters go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think shield generators should be shield generators whether they are on a ship or on the ground. Just have different sizes that are able to cover more or less area while requiring more or less power. I wouldn't want to see the biggest ones covering too much area though - say max 50m radius? That's a pretty big area. Have them adjustable so you can shrink the area they cover, concentrating their defensive power.

 

What I definitely would not want to see is energy shields being the ultimate defence against everything as that just limits creativity. Shields should be one part of a much larger puzzle. Should shields stop people or vehicles from walking through? No way. Should they stop projectiles? Nope. Plasma weaponry? Maybe partially. Particle beam weapons? Yes, stop them dead in their tracks.

 

Players should have to think about where and how they lay out their base and choose defences and defence placement that would be most effective. Some possible base defence choices are shields, walls, CCTV, surveillance drones, fixed, automated weapon batteries, stealth technology, huge player numbers, mines, etc each with their own advantages and drawbacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think shield generators should be shield generators whether they are on a ship or on the ground. Just have different sizes that are able to cover more or less area while requiring more or less power. I wouldn't want to see the biggest ones covering too much area though - say max 50m radius? That's a pretty big area. Have them adjustable so you can shrink the area they cover, concentrating their defensive power.

 

What I definitely would not want to see is energy shields being the ultimate defence against everything as that just limits creativity. Shields should be one part of a much larger puzzle. Should shields stop people or vehicles from walking through? No way. Should they stop projectiles? Nope. Plasma weaponry? Maybe partially. Particle beam weapons? Yes, stop them dead in their tracks.

 

Players should have to think about where and how they lay out their base and choose defences and defence placement that would be most effective. Some possible base defence choices are shields, walls, CCTV, surveillance drones, fixed, automated weapon batteries, stealth technology, huge player numbers, mines, etc each with their own advantages and drawbacks.

Well, in all honesty there could be multiple types of shields. You say they shouldn't be able to stop projectiles, ships or people, but the fact of the matter there are many types of theorized shields. Plasma windows are one possibility, these use charged plasma to generate an impermeable barrier for gasses, but not much else (think the hangar shields from star wars).

 

Then there are defense shields which use magnetics or deflection or some other variation of handwavium to stop beam weapons and plasma weapons. There is still bleed through on projectile weaponry (think star trek shields).

 

Then there are bubble shields (Ala halo) which protect against a lot of damage but either have a very slow recharge or are destroyed or depleted when used.

 

The above merely reflects that there are or could be multiple types of shields, and it would be up to the player(s) to determine how many and what type they would like to implement on their ships and other constructs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in all honesty there could be multiple types of shields. You say they shouldn't be able to stop projectiles, ships or people, but the fact of the matter there are many types of theorized shields. Plasma windows are one possibility, these use charged plasma to generate an impermeable barrier for gasses, but not much else (think the hangar shields from star wars).

 

Then there are defense shields which use magnetics or deflection or some other variation of handwavium to stop beam weapons and plasma weapons. There is still bleed through on projectile weaponry (think star trek shields).

 

Then there are bubble shields (Ala halo) which protect against a lot of damage but either have a very slow recharge or are destroyed or depleted when used.

 

The above merely reflects that there are or could be multiple types of shields, and it would be up to the player(s) to determine how many and what type they would like to implement on their ships and other constructs.

 

There may be many theorised types of deflector/energy shield but they are usually not so straight forward to implement or to use.  Practical shields lie firmly in the realm of science fiction.

 

In any case what I am interested in here is what makes for good, varied gameplay that allows for player creativity on both sides of the coin.  When we talk about shields we tend to think about something that is negligible in size compared to the area that it can defend, that is invisible while not being fired upon, and that only blocks shots in one direction.  Even if you say that there are different types that block different weapon types, that to me is the same kind of defence and doesn't allow for the kind of creativity I'm looking for.  If you also make it so that they can block anything, and make the area they can protect extremely large as some have suggested in this thread, then they are a superweapon that everyone has to have.

 

When I talk about advantages and drawbacks I don't just mean what it can block and what it can't.  There are huge range of things to consider such as set up costs, set up time, energy requirements (or none), space required, area protected, visibility from the outside (will this defence make our base more or less visible?), visibility from the inside (will this obstruct our view of the surrounding area and potential threats), defence against vehicles, infantry, aircraft, how the thing integrates with surroundings and the rest of the defences, does it cause damage to an assailant, and a whole lot more besides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be many theorised types of deflector/energy shield but they are usually not so straight forward to implement or to use. Practical shields lie firmly in the realm of science fiction.

Well are in the realm of Science fiction. Because of that, I don't see the issue with many forms of shields for different puposes.

 

In any case what I am interested in here is what makes for good, varied gameplay that allows for player creativity on both sides of the coin. When we talk about shields we tend to think about something that is negligible in size compared to the area that it can defend, that is invisible while not being fired upon, and that only blocks shots in one direction. Even if you say that there are different types that block different weapon types, that to me is the same kind of defence and doesn't allow for the kind of creativity I'm looking for. If you also make it so that they can block anything, and make the area they can protect extremely large as some have suggested in this thread, then they are a superweapon that everyone has to have.

 

When I talk about advantages and drawbacks I don't just mean what it can block and what it can't. There are huge range of things to consider such as set up costs, set up time, energy requirements (or none), space required, area protected, visibility from the outside (will this defence make our base more or less visible?), visibility from the inside (will this obstruct our view of the surrounding area and potential threats), defence against vehicles, infantry, aircraft, how the thing integrates with surroundings and the rest of the defences, does it cause damage to an assailant, and a whole lot more besides.

I agree that there do have to be drawbacks, but I belive that those are relatively easy to implement. Larger shields require more power, which requires a larger reactor, which requires more fuel, which requires more resources. Maybe shields recharge slowly but have a ton of EHP making them good for seiges. Maybe they recharge quickly but don't have a lot of strength, better for quick ship to ship battles but terrible for seiges. The point is in a game touted for player choice, let us decide what's best. There will always be some form of superweapon, and counters to it (infiltrate corporation and sabotage, etc).

 

I am sure that the developers have taken the time to work some of these systems out already, and unfortunately until we have more information, all we can do is speculate and provide opinion. Let me be clear: yes there have to be drawbacks, but there should also be ways to combat or counteract those drawbacks as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that there do have to be drawbacks, but I belive that those are relatively easy to implement. Larger shields require more power, which requires a larger reactor, which requires more fuel, which requires more resources. Maybe shields recharge slowly but have a ton of EHP making them good for seiges. Maybe they recharge quickly but don't have a lot of strength, better for quick ship to ship battles but terrible for seiges. The point is in a game touted for player choice, let us decide what's best. There will always be some form of superweapon, and counters to it (infiltrate corporation and sabotage, etc).

 

It's interesting that we both want the same thing - player choice - but in different ways.  Different types of shields are just all the same thing to me, just with different stats.  That's not much of a choice in my eyes.  How does building a wall compare with fitting a shield?  What are the differences in, cost, set up / tear down, maintenance, relocating, effectiveness, and practicalities during battle?  Now how does a titanium wall compare with a wall of some other material?  Well, they just have different stats, maybe the materials are harder to come by.  How does a deflector shield compare with a different type of shield - just different stats.  If you make it so that there's a shield that can block projectiles or players just as effectively as a wall can, why would you ever opt for the wall?

 

 

I am sure that the developers have taken the time to work some of these systems out already, and unfortunately until we have more information, all we can do is speculate and provide opinion. Let me be clear: yes there have to be drawbacks, but there should also be ways to combat or counteract those drawbacks as well.

 

Yes, we are definitely in agreement here :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that we both want the same thing - player choice - but in different ways. Different types of shields are just all the same thing to me, just with different stats. That's not much of a choice in my eyes. How does building a wall compare with fitting a shield? What are the differences in, cost, set up / tear down, maintenance, relocating, effectiveness, and practicalities during battle? Now how does a titanium wall compare with a wall of some other material? Well, they just have different stats, maybe the materials are harder to come by. How does a deflector shield compare with a different type of shield - just different stats. If you make it so that there's a shield that can block projectiles or players just as effectively as a wall can, why would you ever opt for the wall?

 

 

 

Yes, we are definitely in agreement here :)

Indeed why build the wall? Well for one it's a hard structure and won't fail if your power generator is hit. Second, and this has nothing to do with the first (tangent) I now want to build a shield bridge (light bridge?) That I can switch off should enemies on foot attempt to attack my base.

 

I also forgot about the other property, and this may be where the devs compromise or get interesting: passive armor. Or for that matter forms of armor. If the devs decide that shields cannot stop projectiles weaponry, then we must assume that armor becomes involved. There's many types here too, with different properties.

 

Ablative armor: if a section gets hit, that section falls away and exposes a new armor segment below it. Constraints would be weight and the amount of layers at your disposal.

 

Whipple shielding: technically a modern day armor already in use.

 

Reactive arnor: gel filled or some sort of other thing that reduces impact ballistics.

 

Etc etc, ad nauseum. Point is, we could get quite creative in this regard too...damn, tangent again, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that when I posted this I didn't think of whether 'areas' protected would be areas on a planet or entire systems like EVE. I thought it was the former. Regardless, even if an entire planet and/or systems are protected, shields would help those wanting to expand out of protected areas. I doubt few are going to colonize new planets only to have their assets and creations blown to smithereens. And definitely, shields should be vulnerable but not a cakewalk to bring down either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about it being a cakewalk, it's about having the rock to break the scissors. It's about having balanced, well considered defences.

 

All I'm saying is there should be a vast array of choices for defences. Shields should be one of your choices, not necessarily the best or worst choice, just a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about it being a cakewalk, it's about having the rock to break the scissors. It's about having balanced, well considered defences.

 

All I'm saying is there should be a vast array of choices for defences. Shields should be one of your choices, not necessarily the best or worst choice, just a choice.

That last bit I can absolutely agree on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...