hmm, i should have started reading this sooner, it's very interesting.

I recall there beind shield arcs, so this should probably apply to each arc individually. And I agree on there being some kind of limited cumulative effect,

Say a weapon with damage 100 shoots at a shielded ship, lets say for calculation ease that all hit occur within generally the same timeframe.
First hit, and the shield arc gains 100 damage, and 20% mitigation
Second hit, within a small time, shield arc gains 80 damage and an aditional 10% mitigation for a total of 30%.
Third hit, shield arc gets 70 damage, and an additional 5% mitigation.
etc etc.

Now the attacking ship needs to reload, so the shields recarge at a set rate, but the mitigation also drop at an exponential rate, slowly first, but faster until the mitigation is 0.

The enemy has finished reloading, so it fires again, dealing 100 damage, adding 20%mitigation. The next shot is targeted at another ship, so the mitigation drops a bit, down to 17%. the next shot hits, dealing 83 damage, and adding more mitigation (somewhere between 10 and 12% i'm not good at exponential calculus at 2330) so the next hit would be mitigated 27-29%.

All numbers are open to tweaking of course. I don't design games

I think that was questioned and denied.

I was thinking quickly and then tapering off slowly.
that way focus fire is detrimental over time.

the focus fire principle I was talking about.

I would think that a big disturbince (i.e. phasenuke) would make a larger disturbance in the shield than say, a 50 cal round.

Sorry about that WedgeHG. I was just trying to make an example.

I agree with you that there will have to be some hard calculations on weapon power and the shield resistance they cause.

aha, so mine was the original   

Welcome back then, Great Emperor. It is good to have another voice of reason on board to keep Schem in check...hehe

Shhhhh, don't tell him that. He is already sad enough, let's not further depress him.

Yeah takes does make more sense, but only if the mitigation remains stable for a while, and not immediatly start dropping, then it's better gameplay as well as (for me) more consistent.

Also, yeah, the shield arcs were indeed dropped, my mistake


I disagree on that. If the shields are more drained, they have less power remaining, I think the mitigation should remain the same.

But that depends on how you think the generators work. If they're like a pump, pomping a constant ammount of energy into the shields (visualise a bucket) then it makes sense to have an equal ammount of mitigation.

If you think of the shields like a field and a capacitor, then the mitigation would decrease, as you have less to work with.

or if the drop off is slow (i.e. it becomes negligible over 5 seconds or so)

I think the "lower the shields" Mechanic was removed to make room for this.
otherwise it becomes too complex, too complicated and too powerful.

Side Question :

Are there weapons or special weapons that negate shields alltogether.

Hey P5y, I think there are weapons that drain shields and AM. There are probably other secret weapons that we won't see for a bit yet.

Can't say I agree with you there. While you are taking less damage per shot, there is still less of your shield left so a weakened shield will still become completely depleted sooner than a shield that is at full power to begin with.

pssh. like my ships would need a hull.
my tech is so advanced, our shields so strong our people just... float there...

yeah...

@Schem: I think we need to take this to the "you know what" thread

I get it, what I was saying was that. Since I that even though the shield would be low, I would know that this small fraction would last longer than the small fraction of the a fully charged shield. So I would get away while this last small bit protects me, and if it doesnt then theres the hull. I was discussing tactics not mechanics.