EMP Shields?

According to the wiki, the strength of the EMP shield is 64. The strength of the EMP Cannon is 32, and the Missile I and II have strengths of 18 and 20 respectively.
However, I still have ships that are affected by EMP, even when shielded. Am I missing something here? How does the EMP shield work?

It’s a percentage chance per hit. I believe the EMP strength reduces the percentage chance of the EMP Shield but I’m not sure about that part.

I don’t think its particularly effective. I would have preferred if we had armors and shields that had some built-in ECM defense rather than needing to spend a whole separate module slot for a defense that isn’t particularly effective and is rarely used.

Waitaminute… what wiki?!

See my signature for the URL. And feel free to contribute!
Edit: Here is the url in case I change my sig at some point. :slight_smile:
Gratuitous Wiki – gratuitousspacebattles.wikia.com … ttles_Wiki

For the most part, stick to scrambler, so they will be useful against both frigate EMP and other missiles.

I never had problem with cruiser EMP, their number isn’t large enough to make a difference in my experience. I won’t pay a whole module to reduce that.

Cruiser emps are actually pretty strong, compared side by side frigate emp. But usually they aren’t useful because you usually want to focus fire, which makes it redundant. It’s potentially useful with radiation spam, in which case, you possibly want to spread out fire so as not to lose DPS due to killing stuff too fast. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to get that to work well.

I’ve been considering one day introducing more ecm-related modules. I like the idea of an ecm-capacitor that would, for example, reduce the effects of a succesful ecm attack by some large chunk. That way, you still take the hit, but it’s heavily mitigated.
What ships really need are ‘rigs’ or some other kind of mini-slots that allow you to add minor upgrades without losing a whole module slot.

+1 (downgunning, hear, hear!)

Upgrades that drop directly onto a filled slot? Slightly modifies the weapon/component. Thinking along the lines of weapons in MOO2 where more weapons you can slightly modify a vanilla weapon. Making things slightly more power in detriment to cost/weight/crew or making things cheaper in detriment to weight/crew/ability etc.


I’ll direct you to an old post of mine about EMP

Or, lacking the coding time to add such “mini slots,” add EMP resistance to the list of faction / ship class variables. Hull % bonus, etc. Add EMP resistance–some factions build better gear that’s more hardened vs. EMP, others…don’t.

I’d far rather have it as a mini-module-installed option on a ship-by-ship basis instead of an entire racial bonus that comes with it whether I want it or not. Leave the choice in the hands of the player, please! Better to not have it at all than implemented in a dodgy way.

If we can’t “upgrade” modules (yet), then I would much prefer to have ECM Defense as a variable in the modules such as shields or weapons so that we can have different types of items. Imagine if “turbo shields” gave you ecm defense… some people might be more inclined to consider it, while others might insist that they are still inferior… which is pretty much much the ideal situation.

Of course the other possibility is to have ECM-resistence built in to individual modules, allowing them to still function when the parent ship was jammed.
That could be a per-moduyle upgrade, or a special module variant.

Cliff,i think i love you… again

rigs seem like a good idea, rigging individual modules sounds much better,module variants aint a bad idea either :stuck_out_tongue:

I kind of like having to make those hard decisions on what to actually include on my ships, forcing me to evaluate what’s really important to have on this particular ship.

Could there be spatial anomalies along these lines?

Maybe not provide easy upgrades to ships but take away a certain weapon type or effect?

Missiles suddenly don’t work?
Beam weapons are ineffective?
EM weapons fizzle out?

Figure that’d make for interesting campaign and challenge situations.

Ah rigs, and rigging, I reamber when they were put into Eve-online. EVEYONE complnied that they were eather overpowered or too underpowered noone liked them as they came out. Now days you almost NEVER spot a ship that does not HAVE rigs in it unless its a throw away ship. And even some of them have rigs.

As in Eve-online i think to make rigs more effective IF we go that way, is to have a set for EACH class and they be strounger or weaker depending on the class. Also while on the subject of eve-online rigging they also have scripts that reprogram ceratin modules to do certain things, For example a sensor booster, Normaly it both incresses range, and time to lock ships. There are two scripts for this one that incresses the range, but incresses the lock time, and another that reduced the time to lock and reduced the range of the ship. I feel that we might be able to use then in repair modules, shielding, and some weapons.

repair modules= incress repair speed at cost of supplies, incress supplies at cost of reapar time

sheilds modules= incress sheild restance as cost of recharge time, incress recharge time at cost of restance, and maybe one to incress shield hitpoints at cost of shield recharge.

weapons= incress tracking speed at cost of range, incress range at cost of tracking speed, incress damage at cost of range.

Anyways my $0.02
Lone starr

Where does this term “rig” come from? The word has many uses in the English language, but I’m not familiar with the term as its being used in this forum. From what I understand, the correct usage of the term would be to describe the ship itself or a collection of modules as a rig, such as a “weapons rig” or a “jamming rig” or a “missile rig”, but not individual modules. I understand there’s some boat jargon that has to do with rigs, but I thought those specifically applies to the structure that supported the sails. The hull would be a “rig” as I understand it. I don’t understand installing rigs into my ship.

I’ve never heard it as a science fiction term or a computer term either. Is it an acronym of some kind?

I think the term rig as we are saying is stomthing that you did yourself to something in a modifycation to the orgegnal item. Try looking up jerry rigging, and i belive rig is a offshoot of this.

“Rig” in this case is a verb or an adjective, not a noun. And the use of rigging in this sense isn’t to modify, so much as it is to “tamper with the normal operation” or to “make an unusual adjustment”, and usually implies that the change is temporary, unstable, or unorthodox. Rigging my coffee maker into a bomb, for example. Or rigging an election. A rigged laser cannon doesn’t sound like something I’d want on my ship.

I looked up “jury rigging”. “Rig”, in this sense, refers to the sail (or “rigging”) of a ship, and “jury” means temporary, so the term “jury rigging” was a nautical term used to describe temporary repairs to the sails.

But even in that context, the term “rig” is not the correct term to be using. Because the jury-rig is not a “rig” as a result of modification. It was already a rig – that’s the term for the sails. The hasty, unconventional repair of them just made them a “jury rig” instead of a “rig”.

So the usage of the term still doesn’t make any sense. What made people on this forum start using this term in the first place?

I haven’t a clue. It strikes me as annoyingly non-intuitive, too; it isn’t just you who feels this way.

How about some more discussion about the functionality of the proposal instead of the nomenclature? We’re waaaay off the topic already.