Bubble shields in PA:T?

There is no "incentive" to be aggressive.

I have found it is basically "Be aggressive or stop playing" because there are no other valid tactics. Most of the defense structures (aside from the anchor) are so squishy you need an army of them to stop anything, and you might as well build an army in that case.

The Statera repository is still there, untouched since I started Galactic Annihilation. Feel free to do whatever you like with it.

It's not for shielding your units, it's for shielding buildings against attack :L

even worse ...

it's a strategy that leaves no room for specific countering it's just "punch shield down to be actualy able to damage units" it's pretty much brainless with no reason not to do it other than build and maintainancecost ...


take vanguards, infernos or combatfabbers as example or even spinners because with them there is always the choice to either target or avoid a specific unit ...

[/QUOTE]
Riddle me this batman, how do you intend to stop an orbital battleship, cruise missiles and Holkins from blasting your base from outside your reach?

It's like calling a bunker a bad idea just because it means you can be safe from most attacks :L

Quick idea! Shields should not allow units inside to fire out of the shield.

Can I vote no again. Having a structure soak up damage for 10 seconds does not sound like fun or revolutionary gameplay. It sounds like a delay which slows down the game. Yes you can move your com or build more defensive structures while sheilds are up but you should have had them built or com moved to begin with.

Good point, nuke deals 30,000 damage? Shield should have 20,000 HP, charge slowly (500 every second, stops charging if it takes any damage, only resumes charging after no damage for 10 seconds) and use up 20k power whilst charging, then 15k power when active but not charging.

I would like to remind you that shields cost resources to build as well. That also means it costs fabricator time and other fabricator resources. (Which also means that it takes away from offense as well, but temporary defense (temporary, meaning not long)) I had also suggested that units can move in and out of the shield, including opposing units therefore not keeping them necessarily out of the shield but keeping them from firing at what is on the other side of the shield, except for if you noticed what I said about Gill-E's. Gill-E's can fire inside and outside of the shield freely, and I've noticed recently that people are starting to use Gill-E's less and less because tanks and locust swarms are serving their purpose and range doesn't really matter as much anymore because armies move too quickly (Gill-E's are not as advantageous to build anymore because they are easily overpowered by the new units and don't have as much firepower against other units recently). My version of bubble shields would add game-play and wouldn't make the game any longer than a minute longer on average. (And make it more interesting and strategic)

No, you are protected from only some attacks and since the shield is big it is going to receive more fire than a wall would.

Think of what that would really mean for the game and how pointless a bubble shield would be. Infact it would probably make things worse for the player making the bubble shield.

Add to shield aspects that units from unit cannons are not blocked by the shield
Add to stats that energy cost is 5500 per sec

It provides another way to defend your units and structures... air attacks also make the shield more vulnerable than you might think because air units can move quickly and destroy your shield in a matter of seconds (because the shield's maximum health is low) if not defended properly.

NEW STRATEGY: Hide units until massive attack (can be good if you do it right) instead of just harassing the enemy all the (damn) time and making the game more fun with large battles instead of many many small ones and a large (ish) one to finish them off.

I think my suggestion is still better

Yes! Exactly.

PA: Titans has all the defensive structures needed to construct a well fortified base. Adding another defensive structure like a bubble wouldn't directly solve the problem.

I think the problem that shields are trying to solve is the issue of defense placement in late game.
Constructing nicely fortified bases with defenses in every direction is a difficult and time consuming process. Often, a player needs to sacrifice his ability to make a proper defense just to manage his offensive goals.

This compensation is the issue because the players are bounded by their own ability to play an rts on such a large scale. There is no scale of base design from your initial starting point because a player has to physically place every structure down. As a result, people get sloppy and lose. It frustrates every player that voted yes because they never intended to be sloppy. As a result, players must choose between offense or defense.

Good players recognize this issue because they don't even construct a defense. Focusing on building a well defended base has little return for the insurance policy that it essentially is.. To compensate for this, they build a chain of teleporters that their commander can trave l through. Smart...

Players often have a surplus in economy during late game. Players would invest in a better defense if they were physically capable of doing so while on the offensive.

Rather than bubbles, I think the conversation should be more directed to how to help the player actually build a well defended base. I suggested in the mod section the ability to build a predesigned "Cookie Cutter" base that would counter this element of gameplay. It is apparently difficult to take on such a task.

If UBER were to take try and attempt to solve this problem, I would suggest looking in this direction rather than bubble shields.

It's good, but without massive health it's going to be just another wall, keep in mind that if you surround a shield with T1 tanks, the damage will culminate and quickly whittle down the shield's health. Good idea in that case would to have perimeter turrets outside the shield, essentially making the shield best used to protect core structures.

It's a different kind of wall... and t1 tanks will probably move into the shield before they destroy it in that situation. Also remember that you are able to build defenses inside as well, destroying the tanks. You also are able to construct units.

In multiple planet games, I don't construct a defense, I construct a trolling mechanism.

Build enough halleys for my last planet to move, target another planet and move, go around the sun, stop the planet, target the planet again, move, go around the sun (and while the planet is moving units can not be sent to it including nukes) and stop again, target the planet, go around the sun and stop. (EDIT: And keep on doing it of course XD) Its a pretty offensive way of getting people to leave the game and win
**
In all seriousness this bubble shield that I have proposed changes the way a player can defend a base. Infact, I've tried in GW on hard and relentless ai on a 4 ai map that a defense system and stacking up units and defense with a subcommander does not work and can not work with the current system. In the current system its just build a military a few necessary turrets (umbrellas, antinukes, double turrets and sometimes missile launchers (only to be offensive with fabricators)) and that's it. Defense gameplay is pretty much only building units just as capable in offense. I am suggesting developing defense gameplay by developing the game, because defense gameplay cannot be developed further than even the average player expects as of this build of the game.

EDIT: Do not take this offensively walmart, but you seem to use bold letters to manipulate people rather than emphasize words...

And, a major point of these structures is to prevent unit harass, not to completely stop an attack.

But they don't do anything against harassing units! How do they prevent anything?

...that's actually f*cking smart. o-o

They prevent ranged assaults, and force the enemy to fight in your territory with no long-range support

I'm not sure that's quite true, because these shields are never quite that big.

But I have gone into this many times long ago, I don't believe SupCom style shields have any kind of purpose.

In these structures if you want to prevent harrass put it near metal extractors and put a turret inside, that simple rather than building a bunch of little walls..

EDIT: Game glitches are easy to predict, spot, and manipulate to your advantage these days...

Lets play the hypothetical game, shall we? I mean none of the following is actually real, but lets say it was.

What if I was from the future from a dying game called PA from an alternate universe, which I was trying to prevent from happening in 2019. (Which already happened in that universe.) Remember, this isn't our universe, and its hypothetical. Lets say I've played this version of the game before. Lets say the graphics of the game has improved, but so has the competition of the game industry, especially in RTS with the improving graphics. What would Uber do? They would need to do everything they could to make the game better and not just doing the same thing over and over again in the game until they get bored. New strategies in that RTS game Uber made would need to rise, and to make the game more interesting and more intense and develop new ways to make that game fun. Lets also suppose this shield and more had solved that problem, and lets also say I've gone back in time to fix a few things including this game. Any thoughts on what a person from the year 2028 would be thinking about to improve the game? (REMEMBER: HYPOTHETICAL (and trying to prevent the game from dying (which may not be its fate anyway)))