Questions about Shields.

[Nashoba]

After an IRC conversation about some of the information in this section of the wiki:

Multiple Shields

Is there a limit on the number of layers of shields a ship can have?

 

[Wes]

Currently there is not, but multiple shields are not very useful because the current rules mean that a ship with multiple shields has the same overall shield SP as a ship with single shields.

 

[Nashoba]

There are some advantages, for example a ship with triple shields of threshold (2) SP 5.

A weapon hit of SDR 5 would not damage the ship, because the the thresholds would stop it.
Shield 1 Pierced - SP down to 3
Shield 2 Pierced - SP down to 3
Shield 3 Holds - SP down to 4

This means it could take two hits from a SDR 5 ship and emerge unscathed.

While a ship with one shield of (2) SP 15 would have taken 6 points of damage.

 

[Fred]

That was actually exactly the ongoing gimmick for Miharu's shield generators, which was why they were such energy hogs: to make sure that shields wouldn't be pierced through by tunneling positron weapons and shield-piercing weapons, they had multiple generators on hot standby.

However, in the current scheme, multiple shields is not a feasible thing. They don't have a threshold that stacks, and their absorption value could very well be increased in other manners more economical than adding another shield generator system (with the additional power costs).

Therefore, you could labeled it as unfeasible and impractical ICly, to exploitative and overpowered on a OoC basis.

 

[Zack]

Multiple shields not being feasible is not stated in the rules anywhere and it makes no sense that people would specifically design ships to be worse at their function when they have a way of improving on them (the multi-shield design).

Sense power is not really an issue for starships, this seems like one of the better shield setups for starships and should be included in any small starship.

 

[Wes]

Summarized from the Damage Rating article: "Ships are allowed to use more than one type of shielding at once, but it does not give multi-shield ships any advantage. "

 

[Zack]

Actually the text reads:

Again, the total SP should not give multi-shield ships an advantage.

Meaning using multiple shields should not give an advantage in total SP, IE: you should not be using 50 SP 5 shields on a ship to get 250 shield SP.

Nothing is said about the infeasibility about multiple shields and maxing out your shield threshold seems to be valid according to the rules.

There are plenty of problems with the DR article, and if this is not the intent of the rules then they should be rewritten. Players can only be expected to play by the rules, not mind read their interpretation from the people who wrote them because they didn't include something (or left it out to give their own ship an exploit).

 

[Cy83r K0rp53]

Ships are allowed to use more than one type of shielding at once, but it does not give multi-shield ships any advantage.

Yes, type, but it says nothing about the number of active shield layers.

IE: you should not be using 50 SP 5 shields on a ship to get 250 shield SP.

I would assume you can split the max 50 SP into smaller units but are still limited by that cap of 50. So, no, you could not use 50 SP5 shields, period. ((However the best configuration would be 50 SP1 layers, even with a threshold of 1 they can stop an SDR100 volley))

Considering Wes' Uber-turreted ship designs, this could be the only thing preventing a battleship from being annihilated in one salvo. (or at least reduced to a Couple Hull SP)

===EDIT===

Multiple Shields
Ships are allowed to use more than one type of shielding at once, but the total SP shall not exceed the SP of a regular shield system. For example, a ship with one shield system might have 20 SP (Threshold 2), while a dual shielded ship could have two shields that are 10 SP (Threshold 2) each, or 5 SP and 15 SP. Again, the total SP should not give multi-shield ships an advantage. Basically, multiple shield systems are pointless in this setting.

Ships with more than one shield system can still use their complete SP on damage to one shield; to do so, their engineers must transfer power from one shield to the other through roleplaying.

So, basically what this says is that the threshold of additional shield layers is ignored... that makes no sense.

...So, essentially multiple layers make no difference and are treated like a single layer.

 

[Wes]

..So, essentially multiple layers make no difference and are treated like a single layer.

Yeah, that's the idea.

 

[Cy83r K0rp53]

..So, essentially multiple layers make no difference and are treated like a single layer.

Yeah, that's the idea.

Rediculous, I say, like I do to most of the rules that make no sense if you think about them for a second.

 

[Jimmy]

I support Wes in this, not that he really needs it but...

Maybe I see things a little different from most people, but to me the issue is game balance (if that can be applied here), how would multiple shield setups enhance gameplay? In my opinion it wouldn't, as it would very easily start an arms race and make almost any other vessel without a multi-shield system obsolete.

Imagine if two fleets are facing each other down, one side fires their BBQPWNAGE weapon at the other, and gets laughed off by the OMGWTF shield, "WTS!" cries the first fleet "Our BBQPWNAGE weapon no longer PWNs, we need something bigger!" and the cycle continues.

Also, try to remember that just because a weapon can laydown an uber-pwnage amount of firepower, doesn't mean it will always hit, to my understanding the GM makes most of the calls in ship combat.

Yes, I'm a noob here. I claim no industry or roleplay experience, but I have had numerous discussions about game balance on another project, and I look about fleet combat sort of like a dice game or computer game.

 

[Cy83r K0rp53]

I support Wes in this, not that he really needs it but...

Maybe I see things a little different from most people, but to me the issue is game balance (if that can be applied here), how would multiple shield setups enhance gameplay? In my opinion it wouldn't, as it would very easily start an arms race and make almost any other vessel without a multi-shield system obsolete.

Imagine if two fleets are facing each other down, one side fires their BBQPWNAGE weapon at the other, and gets laughed off by the OMGWTF shield, "WTS!" cries the first fleet "Our BBQPWNAGE weapon no longer PWNs, we need something bigger!" and the cycle continues.

Also, try to remember that just because a weapon can laydown an uber-pwnage amount of firepower, doesn't mean it will always hit, to my understanding the GM makes most of the calls in ship combat.

Yes, I'm a noob here. I claim no industry or roleplay experience, but I have had numerous discussions about game balance on another project, and I look about fleet combat sort of like a dice game or computer game.

I know a common saying here is more or less "No one uses the numbers, they don't matter in-game", but I'm inclined to argue against that, because the numbers help you makes sense of everything and not just "I feel it does this, so that's how it is".

Sorry if I'm a little demanding about this, but it drives me nuts when numbers don't add up or the system/rules are unclear or don't make rational sense. I understand there are game-balance issues that makes no sense if you look at it from a simulationist perspective, but generally game-balance is only needed when people are competing against each other and not collectively building a story.

I'd like to think we aren't competing against each other here in the SARP.

 

[Jimmy]

Actually, I find the damage tables to be excellent guidelines that provide a clear view of relative firepower (except for the tactical nuke=SDR1 thing, but I digress). They provide a clear guideline for GMs to work with, rules to work against.

And while I stated before that my opinion was based on experiences that may not be applicable to SARP, I believe fleet combat would be much more interesting if both sides could play their strengths to hurt the other, instead of one side trampling down the other leaving nothing but ashes and scorch marks in their wake. On that note, I remember Moonman recently put up a notice asking for players to become ship, and even fleet commanders, so perhaps a bit of competition is a good thing, all in good sport of course.

 

[Wes]

The question has already been answered and this forum is not for discussion...nor is it a place for Cyber to post his personal opinions of the SARP damage system, especially since his views don't speak for the site at all and could be misinformative to new players.

Topic locked.