Build snipper turrets inside or outside of force field?

[Buttons840]

Sniper turrets can fire through force fields, but do they suffer a damage reduction when they are physically located within a force field?

Is there any reason NOT to build them inside a force field?

[Vinraith]

Sniper turrets completely ignore force fields, so they suffer no damage reduction when firing from underneath them. Consequently no, there's no reason not to build them under your force fields as long as there's room.

[Diazo]

I understand it to work the other way.

I'm actually pretty sure that sniper turrets DO suffer the attack power penalty when under a friendly Force Field.

As far as I am aware, anything fired from under a friendly force field generator suffers the attack power penalty, including units that are force field immune.

The logic is that even though they are tagged force field immune, the force field still protects them from incoming fire, therefore they suffer the penalty for being under a force field.

Note that only force field generators have the attack power penalty for protected units, Force Field Bearers and Force Field Modules do not impose an attack power penalty on anything they protect.

Again, that's how I understand it to work, would need to actually test this.

D.

edit: Just ran a quick test and yes, sniper turrets do suffer the 75% attack power reduction when underneath a friendly forcefield.
Which raises the question, is the engine damage of spider turrets affected by this attack power reduction? I don't have the knowledge to unlock them to test it in my game at the moment.

[Buttons840]

Thanks or the test.  Do we know anything about other sources of force fields like FF bearers (you already mentioned these) and FF from tactical command stations?  Do you know for sure that these do not impose a penalty?

[Vinraith]

edit: Just ran a quick test and yes, sniper turrets do suffer the 75% attack power reduction when underneath a friendly forcefield.
Which raises the question, is the engine damage of spider turrets affected by this attack power reduction? I don't have the knowledge to unlock them to test it in my game at the moment.

Whoa, that's fairly huge news, thanks for the correction. That badly demands a tool tip rewording, then, since "fires through forcefields" (in the sniper turret description) and "[sniper turrets] can move and fire through force fields as if they are not there" (from the force field description) sure makes it sound like they're unaffected by them to me. Apologies for leading you astray, Buttons, I've apparently been doing this wrong all along.

[Fox Soul]

I've always had my snipers behind my forcefield generators shield while my spiders inside the shield.

[Diazo]

Thanks or the test.  Do we know anything about other sources of force fields like FF bearers (you already mentioned these) and FF from tactical command stations?  Do you know for sure that these do not impose a penalty?

Well, there's the FF generator unit (Atk Penalty), FF Bearers Ship (No Penalty), FF modules on riots/hybrids (no penalty). I am not aware of any other FF's in the game, the FF on the new command stations has been removed already.

I can't test the Bearers or the FF Modules at the moment, but X has specifically said in the forums somewhere that they don't have a penalty.

D.

edit: Well, I remember him saying that, I can't actually find the thread I have in mind.

[Lancefighter]

indeed, forcefield bearers and riot starships do not incur an attack penalty on ships under their area of effect.

[lanstro]

I think it'd be nice if the force field mechanics were better explained in-game.  It it not at all obvious in-game that placing a turret under a force field will reduce that turret's damage.

Perhaps some kind of coloured outline (eg a light red one) around units that are doing less damage?  Then have a line in that unit's status explaining why it's doing less damage.

[Spikey00]

It does say within the forcefield descriptions that units under it will suffer a 75% decrease in attack.

[LintMan]

Anyone know what happens to Ion Cannons and Counter-Spies if they are under a FF?

Also, I presume that the new Military command stations take the penalty when under a shield, but this seems like a real weakness on their part.  Anyone know for sure?

[x4000]

No ships are immune to the damage reduction from friendly force fields.  The immunity to force fields refers to enemy force fields -- they can fire through enemy force fields, and be under them, which is actually really useful.

In terms of ships like ion cannons and such with infinite-damage attacks against certain ships, 25% of infinite is still infinite, so there's no effect.   However, when they do shoot at ships that are immune to insta-kill, ion cannons do a smaller amount of conventional damage and that is indeed down to 25% power.

[Lancefighter]

minor question i never think i actually noticed: Mass drivers, do they get a damage reduction too?

[x4000]

minor question i never think i actually noticed: Mass drivers, do they get a damage reduction too?

No ships are immune to the damage reduction from friendly force fields.  The immunity to force fields refers to enemy force fields -- they can fire through enemy force fields, and be under them, which is actually really useful.

In terms of ships like ion cannons and such with infinite-damage attacks against certain ships, 25% of infinite is still infinite, so there's no effect.   However, when they do shoot at ships that are immune to insta-kill, ion cannons do a smaller amount of conventional damage and that is indeed down to 25% power.

[Lancefighter]

well yeah, but i was kinda just wondering because ... er... mass drivers are huger than ion cannons?

Now I'm wondering if those times i placed a mass driver next to my command station was such a great idea.. cant remember off the top of my head, but really i cant recall any starships back then though :\

even still, 150k damage / few seconds of a mass driver under forcefield is a lot of damage to a starship, especially when starships are the only things targeted.