Ship Builds & Load Outs Probably dumb question about shield strength

MoonRacer

MoonRacer
Sorry - I did not find a clear answer, so please allow me this (probably) beginners question:

I have an Eagle, without engineering, here: Eagle with 3A shields
This is one of my first builds, so don't be too critical. I used a 3A shield, as you can see, and it has 102 MJ. So far so good.

Now I am planning to build an Imperial Courier, and this is how I plan it: Imperial Courier - I plan 3C shields. This is how I plan it, but this lead to my question below:

My question: Both ships use a size 3 module for shields. For the sake of this question I did change my planned Imperial Courier to non engineered 3A shields: Imperial Courier with 3A shields for comparison.

The shields are both 3A, both have the same Optimal/Maximum mass and both ships are below optimal mass. The power draw is 2.52 MW in both cases. How come, that the Imperial Courier has 340 MJ shields, this is over three times more than the Eagle with the same shields and the same power draw??

How comes, that I need to spend the same power for 1/3 of the result on the Eagle? Is this a problem with the Coriolis shipyard? The Eagle actually exists, the Imp Courier exists not yet.
Could somebody please explain this or point me into the right direction? I did read a post/thread about optima/maximum mass with shields, thrusters and FSD, but this does not explain my question.

Thank you.
 

Wimmer

Wimmer
It's because of base shield factor. It depends on ship type. Eagle has 60MJ of base shield strength, and iCourier has 200MJ.
 
Last edited:

Red Zephyr

Red Zephyr
Yeah, shield strength is not only from the generator, but from a hidden multiplier on the ship itself also. Some ships have much stronger shields than others, even with the same generator.

It's what makes some ships better at shield tanking and others better at hull tanking or hybrid.
 

tolm

tolm
The weird thing is that it’s not based on any “logic”. An Eagle is SMALLER than a Courier so you’d think, logically, the same size shield generator would be able to project thicker/stronger shields over the smaller ship? But no!

Same reason I don’t understand why a C6 shield is so rubbish on a Federal Gunship yet manages to be much better on a Python or Krait which are way larger / more complex hull to cover.
 

Innocentius

Innocentius
On that same Coriolis.io on main page you can sort the ships by their "base shield" value and see how they compare:

https://coriolis.io/

136512


Basically when you know that value and you know how many utility slots you can use for shield boosters you know how good a shield tank you can build of the ship before you consider on how you use internal slots for SCBs and Guardian shield reinforcements. It is not exact, but it is a semi-good approximation as there is a still one final element which is the ship's hull mass compared to shield's optimal hull mass. I guess for anaconda for example that causes shields to be a lot closer to corvette's shields than the base shield strength alone would suggest and conversely why it takes so many internal slots to make FAS in any way a shield tank (high hull mass compared to max shield gen size and poor base shield strength)
 
Last edited:

tolm

tolm
Useful stats to know but makes no sense. Shield strength should absolutely NOT be affected by mass but rather by VOLUME. There’s no way the physically larger ships should have higher base stats as the “projection” of the shield would have to be spread out farther. Likewise, complicated shaped ships (eg Python, Krait) should have lower shields (for the same size generator) than something simple like a Keelback or a FAS.
 

MoonRacer

MoonRacer
tolm said:
Useful stats to know but makes no sense. Shield strength should absolutely NOT be affected by mass but rather by VOLUME. There’s no way the physically larger ships should have higher base stats as the “projection” of the shield would have to be spread out farther. Likewise, complicated shaped ships (eg Python, Krait) should have lower shields (for the same size generator) than something simple like a Keelback or a FAS.
Click to expand...

You are right, of course, from a physical/logical point of view.
But things are different in the game, and games are not always logical. ED is the best example for this :)

I just wanted to know, why things looked confusing, and I will watch this and experiment with it. Frontier wanted just to have less shield modules and without crazy strong shields for very small ships, I think. In a way it fits, since the Eagle is much smaller than the Imperial Courier. If the Eagle would have nearly the same shield strength like the Imp Courier, it would be quite unbeatable, since it is harder to hit.
 

Morbad

Morbad
tolm said:
The weird thing is that it’s not based on any “logic”. An Eagle is SMALLER than a Courier so you’d think, logically, the same size shield generator would be able to project thicker/stronger shields over the smaller ship? But no!
Click to expand...

The logic, if you need an explanation, is that the the shield emitters are part of the ship hull and just as important a factor as the generator feeding them.

Same engine in the same size car can result in totally different performance if the rest of the drive-train is different.

Same amplifier driving a similar sized radio transmitter can have very different range and coverage depending on the shape and frequency targeted.

Same air conditioning condensor unit can result in vastly different cooling of the same volume in the same environment if design, insulation, or ducting are different.

The Eagle is an old, cheap design, and it's shield emitters are crap. The Courier is a vastly more expensive and refined ship.
 

tolm

tolm
Morbad said:
The logic, if you need an explanation, is that the the shield emitters are part of the ship hull and just as important a factor as the generator feeding them.

Same engine in the same size car can result in totally different performance if the rest of the drive-train is different.

Same amplifier driving a similar sized radio transmitter can have very different range and coverage depending on the shape and frequency targeted.

Same air conditioning condensor unit can result in vastly different cooling of the same volume in the same environment if design, insulation, or ducting are different.

The Eagle is an old, cheap design, and it's shield emitters are crap. The Courier is a vastly more expensive and refined ship.
Click to expand...

Okay, I can buy that: same engine but different gears result in different speed ... same shield generator but different “emitters” result in different shield strength. Good enough.

Still sucks for the Fed ships, though :)
 

Innocentius

Innocentius

tolm

tolm
Innocentius said:
It does.... BUT with engineering there are always workarounds. One of my most fun ships to fly in PVE combat is a shield tank FAS. 1 turreted laser on top and 3 plasma accelerators on bottom. Effective shields at around 3500 Mj.
https://forums-new.frontier.co.uk/t...or-bh-and-some-fixed-weapons-training.451237/

Coriolis EDCD Edition

A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous
s.orbis.zone s.orbis.zone
Click to expand...

Nice! Working on something similar with a set of C2 rails but not quite got it tweaked right yet.
 

Villany

V
I'd like to throw this idea out here: It's a shield generator, not a projector. What if the shield generator is just a core module, only a part of the shield systems, and loads of other parts that also heavily contribute to shield strength are baked into the ships themselves, like the actual projectors and such are part of the ship and not the shield generator module.
 

tolm

tolm
Villany said:
I'd like to throw this idea out here: It's a shield generator, not a projector. What if the shield generator is just a core module, only a part of the shield systems, and loads of other parts that also heavily contribute to shield strength are baked into the ships themselves, like the actual projectors and such are part of the ship and not the shield generator module.
Click to expand...

Yeh, I think that’s the best way of “explaining” the behaviour. Shame we can’t get some of those super-efficient Corvette projectors fitted on other ships ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom