| Author |
ICC-shields |
Starcommander
Marshal
Joined: December 14, 2005
Posts: 579
From: In your base, stealing your cookies
|  Posted: 2010-03-21 19:31
Letting reloads and depots repair shields like they do armor will not unbalance anything. In fact it would allow ICC to DO THERE JOB in defending, like defiance said. It would allow ICC to do what UGTO dose when in combat, self repair when in stations, or use supp ships to heal armor. It doesn't do much during the combat but it helps a tiny bit. Take away the self regen shields have (or have it 1/2x that of armor regen instead of 2x) and just allow them to be repaired (aka recharged) like any other piece of armor. Been saying this for a long time and something at some time was in the works but its never shown up. Just add shields to repair drones, really, it shouldn't be rocket science.
_________________
WH 40k armies, Grey Knights, Dark Angles, Imperial Guard (Vostroyan First Born) and Orks.
There is a thin line between knowing when to give up and when to try harder.
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-03-21 20:08
Depots will not be recharging shields.
_________________
|
SPaRTaN Z
Chief Marshal
Joined: June 26, 2009
Posts: 235
| Posted: 2010-03-21 21:07
why don't the shield generator buildings provide a little bonus to recharge then.. ?
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-03-21 22:05
The complaint you all have is that shields don't regenerate fast enough out of combat repairing, like when you spawn a ship at 5% hull. Whereas armour repairs with the aid of depots, shields do not and this hampers your ability to get back on the battlefield. The key word there is out of combat.
Any sort of regeneration bonus we want to apply is based on out of combat repairs. The systems you're all suggesting involve combat based bonuses, which isn't going to happen as we don't want a return of 1.483 based shielding.
The armour and shield systems are very balanced when it comes to combat, and I think I speak for the dev team when we say we're very happy with how it's currently working in that context. The only issue people have, as I stated above, is the downfall shields have when repairing out of combat, and that's something we've looked into solving before. You'll just have to wait for it I'm afraid.
_________________
|
Point Of No Return
Chief Marshal
United Nations Space Command
Joined: December 24, 2007
Posts: 78
| Posted: 2010-03-22 00:36
Here is my reply as a ICC pilot for the past several yrs from 1.843 to present. ICC shields can be rotated to recover a damaged arc at the cost of all the other arc's and then the recharging comes into play, while in combat ther is no noticeable recharge to shields so as the 1 arc is temparily refilled by draining the other 3 arc's and shield generator to (0) in most cases. That being done in just a few alfa salvo's from enemy ships or fighters and now leaving the 1 layer of standard armor for each arc and the power drain to refill those shields and generators while using weapons and recharging of said weapons and devices. In comparasion to UGTO ship's with thier 2 armor's per arc means that even if you get through the 2 plates of armor on that 1 arc they still have 3 arc's with 2 full armor's each to fend off enemy fire and if a suppy is near by the armor is easily repaired while in combat and taking damage between salvo's from enemy fire without any form of power drainage to system such as weapons or devices unlike ICC shields. Now I agree with the Dev team that the factions ships should not be too much alike but in the effort to balance the game play (ie. combat) the ICC being labeled a defensive faction by virtue of having shields and shield generators as they have been redesigned in thier present state instead of armor plates has made the ICC very non-defensive in combat. Feel free to spoof my response but remember I've. been in more combat, ship to ship, close and long ranged against UGTO and Kluth and killed and been killed than most people who sit in the lobby claiming that the set-up is just the way they like it, most of whom refuse to go into combat in a ICC ship unless its a top end station or a very nimble scout class ship without the sureity of loosing the ship in combat or trying to run away after a very few moments of contact with an enemy ship.
_________________
|
Great Budda
Fleet Admiral
Pitch Black
Joined: January 01, 2008
Posts: 157
From: Omaha, NE
| Posted: 2010-03-22 02:37
Well said Point..... well said.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2010-03-22 02:42
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-21 22:05, BackSlash [R33] wrote:
The complaint you all have is that shields don't regenerate fast enough out of combat repairing, like when you spawn a ship at 5% hull. Whereas armour repairs with the aid of depots, shields do not and this hampers your ability to get back on the battlefield. The key word there is out of combat.
Any sort of regeneration bonus we want to apply is based on out of combat repairs. The systems you're all suggesting involve combat based bonuses, which isn't going to happen as we don't want a return of 1.483 based shielding.
The armour and shield systems are very balanced when it comes to combat, and I think I speak for the dev team when we say we're very happy with how it's currently working in that context. The only issue people have, as I stated above, is the downfall shields have when repairing out of combat, and that's something we've looked into solving before. You'll just have to wait for it I'm afraid.
|
|
Do you have any statistics or actual value of all factions shield and/or armor protection factors versus damage from actual weapons fire?
And also the repair/recharge time of the armor/shielding.
From here, perhaps we can better understand how balanced the factions are in terms of their defenses.
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo on 2010-03-22 02:43 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-03-22 06:51
Being a developer and having access to the source code, yes, of course I have access to the raw values. Having said that I won't disclose them here for obvious reasons (no-one in the industry does this for the same reason).
Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, you will just have to live with your factions intended disadvantages and exploit their advantages.
Shields are weaker than armour when a fight involves taking damage from more than once facing. Having said that, some ships have been given extra shielding via aux generators, to help withstand this in an assault-like situation (see Assault Dread or Cruiser). Armour may have the benefit here, as it has more HP per plate than shields do, however, they recharge much slower, and they cannot be rotated. A shield that rotates it shields can bring almost 3x more hp to bear on a single arc than a similarly armoured ship.
This is intended, and will not be fixed or removed. However, as I stated in previous posts, we have looked into getting ICC ships back on the field sooner. The exact system has not been designed yet, nor have the values been discussed or tested. You'll just have to wait patiently.
The chances of us giving shields armour-like values are non-existant, as is the chance of us returning shields to their 1.483-esque game values.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash [R33] on 2010-03-22 09:30 ]
_________________
|
Glaceon
Fleet Admiral
Joined: January 08, 2010
Posts: 141
| Posted: 2010-03-22 08:27
why not when u turn off shields to regenerate them faster and have a second option to turn it off to save energy but not regenerate.
_________________
|
Mersenne Twister
Fleet Admiral
Joined: May 11, 2003
Posts: 1161
From: Sector C Test Labs and Contol Facilities
| Posted: 2010-03-22 09:25
seeing that 4 icc managed to hold off 6 ugto stations, a couple dreads, plus supplys and other smaller ships last night around ooi, clearly this means we need to nerf icc shields
_________________
I wouldn't screw with it if I were you. The doctor already holds you in poor favor. Messing with this might really fry his shorts.
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2010-03-22 10:22
Yeah, Im sure the K'Luth nipping at UGTO's heels didnt help ICC in anyway.
The biggest issue with ICCs shield honestly are the veterans who know exactly how to take them down. It really cant be fought against.
But I still think if there was a way to interlock shields to off for power regeneration, it would prevent battle exploit, and speed up their return to battle a little better. UGTO armor is not the fastest repping in the world either, and I would like to see that looked at as well. Im perfectly fine with K'Luth's repping abilities. I dont want us all equal, as one of K'Luth's advantages lies in repair speed, but I dont like seeing the other factions so far behind in the curve that I fall asleep waiting for them to repair. I have seen good battles just dwindle because by the time everyone is done repairing half an hour has gone by.
_________________
bucket link
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2010-03-22 10:59
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-22 09:25, Mersenne Twister wrote:
seeing that 4 icc managed to hold off 6 ugto stations, a couple dreads, plus supplys and other smaller ships last night around ooi, clearly this means we need to nerf icc shields
|
|
This bears two mentions. One of which I will post here, but the other is a new suggestion altogether so it gets a new thread!
ICC were mostly hiding behind planets to avoid retaliative fire.  In no way is it a testament to the fortitude of the shields, although yes, without them we could not have done it. Moving all shielding to the front has ridiculous implications.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2010-03-22 11:23
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-22 10:59, Bardiche wrote:
ICC were mostly hiding behind planets to avoid retaliative fire. |
|
Oh. So in short, you were using the Uggie's planet hugging tactics against them.....
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Winters Rapture
Fleet Admiral
United Nations Space Command
Joined: December 09, 2007
Posts: 355
| Posted: 2010-03-22 12:07
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-22 11:23, Kenny_Naboo wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-22 10:59, Bardiche wrote:
ICC were mostly hiding behind planets to avoid retaliative fire. |
|
Oh. So in short, you were using the Uggie's planet hugging tactics against them.....
|
|
Know thy Enemy...
_________________
Time for revenge. . .
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2010-03-22 12:30
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-22 11:23, Kenny_Naboo wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-22 10:59, Bardiche wrote:
ICC were mostly hiding behind planets to avoid retaliative fire. |
|
Oh. So in short, you were using the Uggie's planet hugging tactics against them.....
|
|
I'm lost, how does this relate to the matter of ICC shields?
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
