Hmmm, I really hope they don't do that with shields. It would make no sense that certain weapons can take a shield down to a certain point, but then no further. That's just Crazy Talk! Besides, Blair's post said nothing about anything like that. Personally, I think we are all missing some critical detail about the whole "shields get stronger as they take damage" thing. If Blair could further clarify, I would be eternally grateful.

I was also bit confused about his post that Phase Drives don't need Anti Matter, but still 'spoil' some of it during travel. I mean, while a bit lame, I can see the problems the developers are trying to solve by doing this.

Problems that gamers would have encountered if Anti Matter had been necessary for Phase Space Travel:

Problem #1. If Fleet A is trying to escape from Fleet B, and takes a pounding while doing so, all of its antimatter could be used up (I believe that shields and special weapons use antimatter). If Phase Drives needed Anti Matter as well, then Fleet A would be unable to escape. Hmmm, even if Fleet A had just enough antimatter left to jump the nearest system, Fleet B would know that, and would follow Fleet A and finish it off there.

Problem #2. If Fleet A uses up all its Anti Matter jumping to a system but finds a huge enemy fleet waiting for it. It would die a horrible death because it doesn't have enough fuel to use the Phase Drives to get away.

Problem #3. Some weapons drain Anti Matter reserves, which could be used to prevent a fleet from escaping. Hell, you could send a few sacrificial ships equipped with such a weapon to drain a defensive fleet of Anti Matter so they will be unable to Phase to the rescue when you attack in force elsewhere.

Problem #4. If ships needed antimatter for phase travel, it would limit how far you could jump. This would mean that you could only jump to systems in range. The result here would be that you would be bottlenecked into attacking specific systems before you could even reach the next one. Of course, the players would concentrate on fortifying these key systems, and the game would never end. We don't need another space trench warfare game, the market is already flooded with plenty of those.

Problem #5. If ships used up most of their anti matter for traveling, they would be at a huge disadvantage when arriving at an enemy system. They would be limited in their use of shields and special weapons. This would give the advantage to defending fleets and encourage fortification strategies that usually result in endless games.

So there are just a few of the reasons for why Ironclad wouldn't want Phase travel to require antimatter. Still, why then make Phase travel 'spoil' a percentage of antimatter? Easy, they want to discourage players from aggressively phase traveling non stop all over the place looking for weak points in their opponents defenses. This way, the more a player aimlessly jumps around looking for an opportunity, the weaker they will be to take advantage of it when they find it. It is kind of a way of punishing players who want to take advantage of phase drives in a cheap way. It also encourages players to think strategically in their use of Phase travel.

ANTIMATTER AND PHASE DRIVES:

Yeah, Phase drives really should require some antimatter to work. Most of the problems I mentioned in my post above could be solved by Phase Drives requiring only a minuscule amount of antimatter to engage.

At least then it could be logically explained that it only requires a small amount of antimatter to jump ships in and out of phase space, but once they are in phase space they can travel using conventional drives. That conforms well with the sci-fi idea that ships can move faster than light by traveling through a smaller parallel dimension = pretty much Phase Space in a nutshell.

Ironclad might want to consider that space strategy gamers REALLY like technologies to make sense. I think we all have seen games get blasted by gamers for having illogical technologies.

SHIELDS:

I notice a lot of people are unhappy about the whole "shields get stronger as they take damage". Before we decide we are unhappy, maybe we should ask Blair to explain shields more clearly.

My take on shields is that ships experience a diminished return on shield power. A linear increase in shield strength requires an exponential increase in power consumption. So, as a big strong shield gets reduced by weapon fire, it becomes easier for the ship generators to maintain.

Okay, that seems simple enough. But what does it mean? Do shields regenerate faster when closer to depletion? Do shields take a smaller % of damage from weapons fire the closer they get to depletion?

Hi Blair, if you read this, hopefully you can help clarify the shield issue for us. Thanks!

no, you missed what I was saying. he doesnt mention if the shields take more damage, rather that they mitigate more damage.
which doesnt answer my question.

first of all he used the word "mitigate" not "resist", and even that is way too nitpicky for my purposes.
the word mitigate is too vague, resist too is vague. but he didnt even use that, so what does it matter.

no, he already mentioned that shields only block percentages of damage (unless this has been recently changed)
again, you people are being too word specific. in the end your overdisecting words and not leaving room for speaker error.

again, not unless something changed while I wasn't looking (which may very well have happened)
blair said on the last forums that damage is only mitigated (to be word-picky) not blocked completely.

problem is that if you're so nitpicky and scholarly with disecting blair's words you get a paradox, mitigate (which does not mean stop, it means lessen or reduce) versus the vague concept sentance "When they reach zero the hull of the ship starts taking damage" which you guys assumed means that it doesnt take otherwise. but when put in conjunction with the sentance "They can't mitigate any damage once they have reached zero" you can see how the paradox is resolved.
you guys are making vague, unstructured arguements based on the hopes that blair is 100% accurate with his words, yet your arguement does not hold ground regardless.
I want a concrete answer. not something assumed through the intricacies of language, let alone when adjacent sentances/words contradict.

but then wouldn't you just keep the shields at low power?

I think our working thesis is that the shields are most energy/resist power efficient at low levels, and as the shields become more damaged either 1) that ratio goes up so the system automatically compensates or 2) the crew freaks out and starts to increase power screwing efficiency.

Pretty soon everyone will get a chance to analyze how the shield system works in-game and we look forward to your feedback. As for how it works technologically: the lore and technology of the Sins Universe is something we'll be releasing closer to August. Ofcourse if someone guesses right, I've been known to salute them in the past

Should shields work this way just for one race and not another?

I want a solar system named after me , although you can use a more discrete referance.

aha, now I understand what you're getting at.

not if increasing the power drains too much AM

your assuming a bit too much fragility in ship and shield. additionally it sounds to me like your assuming that shield integrity is tied to its power, I dont think thats how it works.


they look a bit similar...

*gets pumped*
ok, spam time

ancient artifacts
power increase damages systems
crew freaks and increases power
shield redirects Ke it takes into Ke to stop incoming weapons etc.
Chuck Norris said so.

Hehe, it is like the Navigation Officer couldn't quite recall the name of the system and didn't want to look stupid, so he tries to mumble out a similar name and hopes no one calls him on it.

"Our fleet has entered the 'mumble' Schmaticsninja 'mumble' system"

Uh... is campaign mode still happening? I was kind of hoping to see a Blizzard-style approach to that where playing through all the factions in chapters completes a compelling narrative. I'll get most of my longterm SP fun from sandbox mode, I'm sure, but I think the backstory is interesting enough to warrant a scripted campaign and space RTSers keep getting shafted in that respect.

oh come on. thats like having a flat planet.

I do like this though.

I advocated the idea
but no go.

What? Flat planets? Where did that come from? Hehe

Maybe I didn't explain well enough. I don't want all the planets orbiting a star to be in the same 2D plane. I want them to be arranged around the star in 3D positions (ie: some of them higher or lower in relation to others). In fact, think about a 3D model of the solar system when correct orbital planes are used.

If planets are spaced like that on the 3D strategic map, then we can correspond X/Y/Z departure points to X/Y/Z arrival points in the tactical 3D maps. This can encourage attacks from above and below.

Schem, I mean a REAL long time ago. As in December-05-on-the-Chronos-boards long ago. I know (and stated) that they don't currently orbit.

And Paradoxnt:
It seems realistic for each solar system to be on a roughly 2D plane. Look at our own solar system. But that doesn't mean that the stars can't be scattered 3-dimensionally or that all of the systems have to be on the same 2D plane. There can still be plenty of 3D goodness with solar systems on a 2D plane.