Forums » Suggestions
Make energy weaps bounce off shields
ricochet please!
+999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 and add one
+1
As long as they still do the damage to shields, this is reasonable. +1
Shields could have a rating where each weapons damage has to be above a certain damage number to actually damage the shield. Those weapons that are not powerful enough to drain the shield could bounce off the shields.
How about a weapon that would drain shield strength permanently, so if a shot drains 5% then the shield can only recharge upto 95% capacity until repaired, but this weapon can only damage shield, not ship armor.
Or instead of ketchup and mustard being sold separetely at the grocery store, they could combine it into Ketchtard.
"Make energy weaps bounce off shields"
the thread is asking for a separation of "ketchup and mustard" so it would make sense to have a weapon to target the shield exclusively.
It could have a high power drain so if you want to use it you can't use much else, it would encourage co-op play to bring down cap ships.
the thread is asking for a separation of "ketchup and mustard" so it would make sense to have a weapon to target the shield exclusively.
It could have a high power drain so if you want to use it you can't use much else, it would encourage co-op play to bring down cap ships.
They already have that, its called Mustchup.
+1 to OP. This would be a neat effect and make flying right up a capship's ass and firing blasters a more dangerous prospect. I agree with Kierky, as long as the shield still takes a hit from the reflected shot, this is a good idea.
the thread is asking for a separation of "ketchup and mustard" so it would make sense to have a weapon to target the shield exclusively.
No, that's just an off-topic post that probably belongs in a separate suggestion thread.
the thread is asking for a separation of "ketchup and mustard" so it would make sense to have a weapon to target the shield exclusively.
No, that's just an off-topic post that probably belongs in a separate suggestion thread.
I particularly like the possibility of having your energy shots do a multiple recoil between two adjacent capships to multiply your DPS. It would be extremely rare for that kind of opportunity to actually present itself, of course.
Also, it should damage the attacker if it bounces back and hits them.
You guys realize that in order to "ricochet", we would have to basically calculate the proper angle on the server, then broadcast to all clients a new "shot creation" emenating from that location at that angle/time, increasing the amount of overall network traffic? So basically, if you shot some capship shields with a gatling cannon, it would be the same network usage as if two gatling cannons were firing.
It's possible to do (lasers are a lot less network-intensive than say, swarms), but it's not trivial to implement, and I'm not sure that the cost-benefit would be.. super great.
It's possible to do (lasers are a lot less network-intensive than say, swarms), but it's not trivial to implement, and I'm not sure that the cost-benefit would be.. super great.
Doesn't anything really cool end up using more bandwidth? ;)
Hey i'm just an ideas guy... I know nothiing of what it takes to make it happen. :)
don't forget, Inc: You'd also need to add reflection, absorption, and transmission coefficients to shields to calculate how much energy is left in each shot after it bounced. You do the math.
don't forget, Inc: You'd also need to add reflection, absorption, and transmission coefficients to shields to calculate how much energy is left in each shot after it bounced. You do the math.
Hah.. no. We aren't aiming for a simulation :).
Hah.. no. We aren't aiming for a simulation :).