[Shielding] Upvote if you want SE2 to have new technologies
Not Enough Votes
"From the perspective of pure science, force fields are fact — and not just fact but familiar. The four basic forces that govern our universe — gravity, electromagnetism, and "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces — are all associated with force fields, some of which provide protective shielding."
Realism Threshold:
Ion Thruster - Low threshold. (exists in a real world context) Shields - Medium threshold. (semi-theoretical) Jump drives - High threshold. (science fiction)Reactive Energy Armor:
You supply energy to the armor blocks to increase its defence against certain weapons.
- Energy field appears about 1mm from armor blocks.
- Could also be implemented as infused into the armor blocks themselves.
- Powered by reactor ultimately.
- Energy could be distributed across the armor from plasma conduits or manifold blocks that are embedded into the armor itself to provide proper coverage.
Visuals:
- Visually would appear as a hue on your hull or only appear when hull impacts objects or is shot at.
- If implemented as infused into the hull itself adding protective properties it may not require a graphic.
Purpose:
- Would balance light armor blocks in combat, adding more tactical depth to building combat ships.
- Protect light armor blocks, thus allowing builds to be lighter while still affording them protection.
- Add in more power consumption mechanics for reactors, and power that is generated would have more uses.
Files:
Screenshot 2025...
I like this feedback 
Shields on ships have a proven history.
Just asking for a more futuristic shield.
Shields on ships have a proven history.
Just asking for a more futuristic shield.
Force fields could also be used for doors, and under water containment/airlocks. So the idea of adding shielding to the game expands other applications as well.
Force fields could also be used for doors, and under water containment/airlocks. So the idea of adding shielding to the game expands other applications as well.
I was just discussing this subject and evolved into a theory of balance if a reactive electrified armor were to discharge too rapidly, say in close quarters conflict it could also have momentary emp results shorting out systems like weapons targeting, ion thrusters and the like making it more useful at longer ranges and hopefully evolving an additional fighting style and tactical distribution of force rather than everyone playing the exact same way with massive brawlers. I would suggest also diminishing returns at higher points and much reduced shield recovery while in combat. Create a type of soft cap as it were to the shields to make it more of a conflict assist rather than an armor replacement. While I am completely behind the idea, there is a matter of balance and tactical utility to continue having other established routes still viable when introduced.
I was just discussing this subject and evolved into a theory of balance if a reactive electrified armor were to discharge too rapidly, say in close quarters conflict it could also have momentary emp results shorting out systems like weapons targeting, ion thrusters and the like making it more useful at longer ranges and hopefully evolving an additional fighting style and tactical distribution of force rather than everyone playing the exact same way with massive brawlers. I would suggest also diminishing returns at higher points and much reduced shield recovery while in combat. Create a type of soft cap as it were to the shields to make it more of a conflict assist rather than an armor replacement. While I am completely behind the idea, there is a matter of balance and tactical utility to continue having other established routes still viable when introduced.
Is this supposed to be put into the SE2 forum?
Is this supposed to be put into the SE2 forum?
Reactive energy armour sounds great, similar to that of an armour hardness stat? (think stellaris)
where varying hardness-generator-block/type of armor/way of building/designing a ship. Can increase this 'hardening' characteristic to withstand more energy/damage depending on strength of system or amount of power supplied? you feed more energy in, does its job better?).
Each type of projectile/explosion must have to meet a criteria/sufficient level of kinetic energy to actually damage the area/block. You could incorporate different types of projectiles? creates varied Archetypes of combat. Ie: Armour piercing, (railguns/kinetic artillery), Flak/chaff (anti personnel/shreds very-light/un-armoured craft), Explosives (penetrative torpedos/raw explosive power), Ramming?? (extra hardness could work as a battering ram?)
Players could focus/specialize in making nimble but very-costly (maybe very energy dependent?) vessels that have some 'armor hardness generator' (patent pending) granting the toughness of a more medium armoured/heavier craft. Otherwise players being able to spend those valuable components on making stronger, more effective/penetrative weapons/ammunition to counteract?
-otherwise going the complete opposite way, these generators could be cumbersome, and only feasible to be installed on larger combat vessels/warships/haulers
continued: One hardened heavy armour 1x1 might have the same strength as 2-3-4 blocks of depth unhardened (depending on strength of hardening), Maybe absorbing damage would still incur any knockback/force the projectile/explosion carried, so even though your rover survived a landmine, you might be overturned? or atleast a substantial energy penalty to absorb incoming damage. Deapri Sevous' idea for an EMP effect, disabling systems would be super interesting aswell
I think this would allow you to follow that 'rule of cool' which is a concern for many ship designers. more so than traditional shields would, as they kind-of take away from combat in modded SE1.
Reactive energy armour sounds great, similar to that of an armour hardness stat? (think stellaris)
where varying hardness-generator-block/type of armor/way of building/designing a ship. Can increase this 'hardening' characteristic to withstand more energy/damage depending on strength of system or amount of power supplied? you feed more energy in, does its job better?).
Each type of projectile/explosion must have to meet a criteria/sufficient level of kinetic energy to actually damage the area/block. You could incorporate different types of projectiles? creates varied Archetypes of combat. Ie: Armour piercing, (railguns/kinetic artillery), Flak/chaff (anti personnel/shreds very-light/un-armoured craft), Explosives (penetrative torpedos/raw explosive power), Ramming?? (extra hardness could work as a battering ram?)
Players could focus/specialize in making nimble but very-costly (maybe very energy dependent?) vessels that have some 'armor hardness generator' (patent pending) granting the toughness of a more medium armoured/heavier craft. Otherwise players being able to spend those valuable components on making stronger, more effective/penetrative weapons/ammunition to counteract?
-otherwise going the complete opposite way, these generators could be cumbersome, and only feasible to be installed on larger combat vessels/warships/haulers
continued: One hardened heavy armour 1x1 might have the same strength as 2-3-4 blocks of depth unhardened (depending on strength of hardening), Maybe absorbing damage would still incur any knockback/force the projectile/explosion carried, so even though your rover survived a landmine, you might be overturned? or atleast a substantial energy penalty to absorb incoming damage. Deapri Sevous' idea for an EMP effect, disabling systems would be super interesting aswell
I think this would allow you to follow that 'rule of cool' which is a concern for many ship designers. more so than traditional shields would, as they kind-of take away from combat in modded SE1.
Shields have this bad habit of turning defense in to a relatively simple math problem that once solved very quickly results in a rather significant meta. I'm all for modding them in or making them a part of the game that the server's host needs to enable, but they would unbalance the game too much to be part of the default vanilla play.
As for armor-hardening devices... They'd be more balanced than shields (though far from ideal), but would generally only really serve to drag fights out and (if the diminishing returns are implemented) penalize players sitting in the middle-ground between "buffed light" and "don't care heavy". The issue it seems you are attempting to solve is people's propensity for playing brawl-bricks instead of going for more nimble designs, but this stems more from the proverbial "skill-floor" of both strategies. The brick is easier to use, it just has to sit there and generally be bigger to win, and if attempted maneuvers save it from a bit of damage then that's just a bonus. Agility builds on the other hand need to be quick enough to control range and evade fire, and the pilot has to be skilled enough to pull this off without significant mistakes against opponents with a wide range of skills and strategies. It is easier to play and win more reliably with the brick than it is the speedster, and people will play what they do best with.
So, I'd be against both. If you want people to fly fast instead of heavy, start an SE Top Gun school :)
Shields have this bad habit of turning defense in to a relatively simple math problem that once solved very quickly results in a rather significant meta. I'm all for modding them in or making them a part of the game that the server's host needs to enable, but they would unbalance the game too much to be part of the default vanilla play.
As for armor-hardening devices... They'd be more balanced than shields (though far from ideal), but would generally only really serve to drag fights out and (if the diminishing returns are implemented) penalize players sitting in the middle-ground between "buffed light" and "don't care heavy". The issue it seems you are attempting to solve is people's propensity for playing brawl-bricks instead of going for more nimble designs, but this stems more from the proverbial "skill-floor" of both strategies. The brick is easier to use, it just has to sit there and generally be bigger to win, and if attempted maneuvers save it from a bit of damage then that's just a bonus. Agility builds on the other hand need to be quick enough to control range and evade fire, and the pilot has to be skilled enough to pull this off without significant mistakes against opponents with a wide range of skills and strategies. It is easier to play and win more reliably with the brick than it is the speedster, and people will play what they do best with.
So, I'd be against both. If you want people to fly fast instead of heavy, start an SE Top Gun school :)
Been wanting to see shields for awhile now in SE. Give us a base model to work with and let folks adjust the strength up or down to their liking, or turn them off if they wish. I don't care if they're off by default, but give people the option just like they're doing with food and have done with other features. Shields are not hard to balance like the anti-shielders love to say they are. All you need to do is establish a baseline of how much damage you want them to be able to take from a single weapon before they fail then ship it to players and from there it's an arms race. No different than if you made a higher tier armor. Folks who want them could have them, and folks who don't won't have to.
Been wanting to see shields for awhile now in SE. Give us a base model to work with and let folks adjust the strength up or down to their liking, or turn them off if they wish. I don't care if they're off by default, but give people the option just like they're doing with food and have done with other features. Shields are not hard to balance like the anti-shielders love to say they are. All you need to do is establish a baseline of how much damage you want them to be able to take from a single weapon before they fail then ship it to players and from there it's an arms race. No different than if you made a higher tier armor. Folks who want them could have them, and folks who don't won't have to.
Shields on ships have a proven history.
Just asking for a more futuristic shield.
Shields on ships have a proven history.
Just asking for a more futuristic shield.
Let's assume that the "shield" exists.
How will it work on a physical level?
Let it be some kind of magical "braking field" that deprives an incoming enemy projectile of its kinetic energy. This represents about 50-100 kJ for a Gatling projectile and several MJ for higher calibers or missiles. The shield must contain at least this amount of energy in its volume. And the ship's energy sources (batteries, reactors, solar panels) must supply at least this energy to the shield generators (we will ignore energy losses and the efficiency of converting electrical energy into shield energy). Generators must "put" this energy into creating and maintaining the shield that is supposed to intercept each individual projectile. And it must be replenished after each projectile is intercepted, or the shield will be weakened by each neutralized projectile and the interception of the next projectile will be less effective.
Side issue: The shield is significantly larger than the protected ship, so it will be damaged and weakened also by projectiles that are directed not directly to the ship's hull or .
So: What energy sources will the spacecraft need to create and maintain the shield?
How much energy will the shield need to contain? Or in other words, how many projectiles and how much energy should it be able to stop?
With classic armor, it's simple — we can calculate and experimentally verify how many projectiles and what type of projectiles one block of armor can intercept before it disintegrates. So we can express numerically how much energy one block of armor is capable of intercepting and absorbing. The same must be possible with a shield – and from this we can deduce how much energy the shield must contain in its volume.
How will the shield react to its own projectiles?
If the shield represents some kind of magical “braking field,” it will also capture its own projectiles, because on a physical level there is no way to distinguish between moving projectiles that are its own and those that are foreign. The only option is to increase and multiply the number of game rules —but even theolog William Occam protested against that procedure even in the early 13th century...
Let's assume that the "shield" exists.
How will it work on a physical level?
Let it be some kind of magical "braking field" that deprives an incoming enemy projectile of its kinetic energy. This represents about 50-100 kJ for a Gatling projectile and several MJ for higher calibers or missiles. The shield must contain at least this amount of energy in its volume. And the ship's energy sources (batteries, reactors, solar panels) must supply at least this energy to the shield generators (we will ignore energy losses and the efficiency of converting electrical energy into shield energy). Generators must "put" this energy into creating and maintaining the shield that is supposed to intercept each individual projectile. And it must be replenished after each projectile is intercepted, or the shield will be weakened by each neutralized projectile and the interception of the next projectile will be less effective.
Side issue: The shield is significantly larger than the protected ship, so it will be damaged and weakened also by projectiles that are directed not directly to the ship's hull or .
So: What energy sources will the spacecraft need to create and maintain the shield?
How much energy will the shield need to contain? Or in other words, how many projectiles and how much energy should it be able to stop?
With classic armor, it's simple — we can calculate and experimentally verify how many projectiles and what type of projectiles one block of armor can intercept before it disintegrates. So we can express numerically how much energy one block of armor is capable of intercepting and absorbing. The same must be possible with a shield – and from this we can deduce how much energy the shield must contain in its volume.
How will the shield react to its own projectiles?
If the shield represents some kind of magical “braking field,” it will also capture its own projectiles, because on a physical level there is no way to distinguish between moving projectiles that are its own and those that are foreign. The only option is to increase and multiply the number of game rules —but even theolog William Occam protested against that procedure even in the early 13th century...
A ship shield need not be a full coverage device, but could be a directionally applied device to cover a vulnerable area. Multiple directional shields could be used together to form a full shield, but once again this could be OP and should require a significant resource/power/run time cost to balance usage.
A ship shield need not be a full coverage device, but could be a directionally applied device to cover a vulnerable area. Multiple directional shields could be used together to form a full shield, but once again this could be OP and should require a significant resource/power/run time cost to balance usage.
Replies have been locked on this page!