The Honourable Guild of Test Pilots

[Commander McLane]

I have an assignment for the Guild. Anybody willing to take it?

It's about testing a new version of NPC-shields.oxp. UK_Eliter's question in this post got me thinking, and of course there is a way of reflecting shield boosters or shield enhancer in NPC-shields.oxp.

In the unchanged game both equipments raise an NPC's max energy by 256. The shield enhancer also raises its energy recharge rate by a factor of 1.5. The idea is to (at least partially) convert this to a raise in shield strength.

This is easy for the shield boosters. All ships with shield boosters get a raise of 256 in shield strength, and the shield boosters are removed. Thus the protection is fully transferred from energy to shields.

For the shield enhancer it's a little more difficult. If it gets removed, the NPC also loses the increased energy recharge rate. Currently I don't want to do that. Therefore in the test version of NPC-shields.oxp NPCs with a shield enhancer keep it, and therefore also fully keep their increased energy. Still I also want the shield enhancer to affect their shields. Therefore I decided to increase the shield strength as well, but "only" by 128. Secondly, the shield recharge rate is also increased by a factor of 1.5. Note to testers: If this makes them too tough, the 128 shield strength increase could be removed, and the enhancer would only raise the shield recharge. Please give your feedback.

Thus the current situation is this:

• standard NPC: normal max energy, shield strength 128 (exactly like in NPC-shields.oxp v 1.1)
• NPC with shield boosters: normal max energy, shield strength + 256 (in NPC-shields.oxp v 1.1 it used to be max energy + 256, shield strength unchanged)
• NPC with shield enhancer: max energy + 256, energy recharge rate * 1.5, shield strength + 128, shield recharge rate * 1.5 (in NPC-shields.oxp v 1.1 it used to be max energy + 256, energy recharge rate * 1.5, shield strength unchanged)

I'm interested in feedback with comparison to v 1.1. Does the new version tip the balance in favour of NPCs? Note: of course both versions make NPCs tougher compared to vanilla Oolite. That's the purpose of the OXP. But do they get too tough with v 1.2? That's what I'm mainly interested in.

Download of the test OXP: https://www.box.com/s/d1a2a9b80e8b13accdf8

And thanks for your time.

[Cody]

I'm too busy for testing, but I'll make an exception for this... downloaded.

[Cody]

Any effect on Thargoids, McLane?

[Commander McLane]

Any effect on Thargoids, McLane?

No, they're excluded (from the very beginning). My reasoning was that (a) they're already tougher than the standard vanilla pirate, and (b) they would have a different technology.

I am, however, open to suggestions. It may be that Thargoids are becoming too weak by comparison to pirates. The vanilla Thargoids don't have equipment other than ECM, though, so they'd only get the standard 128 shield points.

[Cody]

Might be worth considering that... I'll try and get some quality flight time tonight.

[Cody]

Preliminary report: I like this - and I don't think that the NPCs are too tough. Certainly harder to kill, but so far it's within my capabilities. Several hours of gameplay leave me thinking it's cool as is, but a more thorough test will be ongoing over the weekend. It was run using my normal 'hot set' of OXPs (only core ships, except for the Green Gecko 'Hardnut' which fortunately didn't put in an appearance) in my near-standard Cobra Mk III, but with the railgun disabled and only using the fore laser, as is my habit.

I actually got wiped by an Interceptor for the first time in quite a while, which brought a huge grin to my ugly old face. Also, I was rammed and destroyed by a desperate Mamba escort after I'd gutted its mother Python and splashed its escort partner. With the previous version, I'd probably have killed him before he could ram me. One of the joys of being a test-pilot is one can really turn nasty and act the heartless pirate, which is not my normal style. I never gut innocent traders in normal game-play! Bounty-hunters are a different matter though - I hunt them mercilessly! Next stop - interstellar space to gauge the unhardened Thargoid warships to see how they compare with the hardened NPC ships. Looking good, McLane!

[Cody]

You owe me 50,000 Cr for the repair of my cloak, McLane - not to mention the other substantial repair bills along the way. I definitely like it so far, and I have a vague impression that some ships are not much harder to splash than before, whereas others are most certainly tougher. Probably down to combat fatigue!

Oh... I reckon the Thargoid warships are probably fine, as is.

[UK_Eliter]

I too suggest leaving the thargoids - unless one leaves unchanged the hits they can take, but nonetheless give them a shield glow, i.e. give on the one hand (shields) and take with the other (energy).

[Commander McLane]

If I read you both correctly, your votes are contrary. El Viejo: let the Thargoids have shields; UK_Eliter: rather let them not have them.

Thargoids have 600 energy. The shields give them another 128, effectively raising their energy to 728. That's a 21,33 per cent increase. Considerable, but not dramatic. Unfortunately there is no way of compensating for the shields by lower energy. At least not short of manipulating their shipdata, which is out of the question just for the sheer impracticability alone.

Any more votes to be expected?

[Cody]

Heh... to clarify, I don't think the Thargoid warships need anything extra (I wouldn't mind trying it though). They're still pretty tough to splash in a standard Cobra III.

[Commander McLane]

Thanks for the clarification. So it's in fact: contra shields: 2; pro shields: nil. We may have a winner.

[UK_Eliter]

Yes, you read me right, Commander McLane. I'm saying: give the Thargoids shields only so long as it doesn't make them tougher (and you added: that's not really possible - to which my reaction is: OK, fine!). The NPC shields OXP is a great idea, by the way - if I haven't said so before. It makes the game more plausible, and thus adds to the famous 'immersion'. Also, it lets one see more clearly when ships are taking hits, which is useful.

PS: El Viejo, what does 'Mobilis in Mobili' (Latin, right?) translate as?

[Cody]

PS: El Viejo, what does 'Mobilis in Mobili' (Latin, right?) translate as?

It was Captain Nemo's motto on the submarine Nautilus in Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, a novel I regard as one of the earliest sci-fi classics.
You could translate it as 'motion within motion' or 'a moving entity within a moving entity'. My Latin is a little rusty after over forty years.

[UK_Eliter]

Thanks El Viejo. 'Motion in motion' - or (for it sounds better?) simply 'motion in motion' - has the disadvantage of being, on the face of it anyway, pleonastic. 'A moving entity within a moving entity' doesn't. But, if the first moving entity is the submarine, what's the second? The sea? (I haven't read the Verne book, and my Latin is rusty to the tune - if that figure of speech makes much sense - of some twenty years.)

[Cody]

... if the first moving entity is the submarine, what's the second? The sea?

I've always thought of it as the sea, yes. Maybe 'motion within a moving entity' serves better. Summon a Latin wizard!