I'm no mod, but as the person behind DRv3, I don't mind this option provided it entails that opportunity cost. You'd basically choose to drain your barrier power by the damage of the weapon to have a firing arc you normally would not possess. However, I do think every application of the Discharge Redirection should carry its cost.
If, say, a Plumeria-class was gifted with this technology, it might fire its Light Anti-Capital Aether Shock Cannon and use the Discharge Redirection to entirely funnel it to its aft (usually impossible). This would inflict highly destructive damage to the barrier (a total drain of 150%), likely split 75% front and 75% back.
I'm a bit confused as to the comment of 75% front and 75% back reference, as two-faced barriers aside from those on mecha aren't supposed to exist (and Wes upheld this when asked recently). I didn't think Plumeria had a six-faced barrier either. Am I in error?
I can amend Discharge Redirection (it's by no means iron-clad here), and a part of me likes your interpretation perhaps in the context of the main gun use. Unfortunately, a key point behind this is for the ship to use its point defense turrets more freely and not require them to be so intrusively placed on some designs. This may not be possible in all cases without damage that makes it impractical. The Plumeria's smaller turrets manage to be 4 Tiers below the shields, so it looks like it might work...until one realizes that the shots from the turrets across the hull could be considered cumulative. Also, if we fire a physical or encapsulated antimatter round, and it does the full damage to the ship's own shields...then the round's been depleted. Going strict "Do the same damage to yourself as the enemy" just means that the attack never reaches the enemy in the first place, right?
I suspect that a penalty for using it with the main gun makes sense, especially since it'd be more a desperation maneuver for specific situations, but I'm torn on smaller ordinance. Just where that boundary lies and what penalties exist, however, are open for discussion.
On a more personnal opinion basis, I think this is an excellently written article. I think its language leans a bit too toward proving how its better than the current tech (meaning that if it's approved and widely adopted, it'd need to be adjusted to refer less to previous tech and better than by its lonesome). But besides that, it has good tables, the diagrams are very nice, and if its goal is to modernize explaining how barrier systems work in the Star Army from now on, it nearly succeeds.
Modernizing and consolidating information on how barrier systems work is another serious attempt made here. I had to ask a
lot of questions on how CFS worked in various situations, dig around to see what had been obsolesced and what hadn't, and piece together a lot of data. If there is something lacking, please be more specific so it can be corrected or improved further. As for the tone of the article, I was worried about a lack of uniformity. This is based on Andrew's article, which is in turn based on a yet older article, etc. I initially had a separate article for the updates, but once I realized I'd have to re-write a bunch of stuff for modernization anyway, I decided to just make one integrated article. And that article turned out thick on things.
Again, on a personnal opinion basis, what kills it for me is how it crams in so many features and improves redundancy. CFS systems are usually central to a ship and while redundancy has happened in the past, it's been more experimental than anything else (and it malfunctioned easily). The usual flaw of something extremely miniaturized is that it's usually small, fragile and easily subject to stresses (think laptop vs desktop computer). Here, I just see stuff getting better and better with little caveats... and it eats at me to see something that was already powerful get perfected to such an extent.
If this wouldn't involve propulsion, stealth and the ability to project aether beams, I'd warmly endorse this.
Andrew added the redundant aspects, but his implementation had the side effect of much finer potential control. The only real hardware change I made is the possible implementation of more Deflector Clusters to avoid one-shotting a ship by hitting a single vulnerable point (and aspects of a dedicated main weapon deflector cluster which at this point will likely be removed). The new modes of operation are meant to be forms of refinement after the tech languished for 4 years. Granted, this is meant as an explanation, not an excuse. At this point, I'm not sure how I can make an article about CFS that isn't wordy and thick without being incomplete...and I have trouble trimming down my articles' length to begin with.
Base CFS is always about propulsion, stealth, and aether beams to begin with. For those specific things, I feel like the result would be inferior if they weren't included. Stealth hasn't been upgraded at all. The propulsion upgrades are exclusively for evading a pursuing enemy at FTL speeds and have no offensive purpose whatsoever since FTL combat isn't a thing. Their intent is for a ship not to need the fastest FTL speed to avoid interception or ramming by an enemy. The Projected Beams are a holdover that is explained by weakening the CFS while they are used and an attempt to make them DRv3. The offensive application that's actually new is Discharge Redirection.
Which specific aspects are badly worded or excessive? Do you have additional recommendations or specific ways we can balance the Damage Redirection problem better while preserving its initial intent?