Shields?

If the argument is that shields are needed to deal with big guns, then it sounds like big guns are the issue that should be addressed.

Granted, this is true, but then you could just make the shields effective against Artillery Only, as in Balanced Annihilation.

These aren't shields in the classic sense, they're just reflectors, and they're extremely late tech and expensive to build. When people say "shields", I think they're talking about the kind you can just spam and defend against everything, and that's horrible for the game as indicated by SC1 and FA.

I agree with everything else you said, but I have a hard time understanding how to make shields effective enough just to protect you for a short time, without making the game extremely defensive, boring, and campy. There's a reason why shields don't exist in extremely successful RTS games like Starcraft 2, because they promote incredibly defensive and boring gameplay.

If the PA team can add shields without taking away from the aggressive dynamic aspect of Total Annihilation, then I'm all for it. Unfortunately I'd rather they spend their time on more instantly advantageous aspects of the game, that don't require such massive balance testing and continual reiterations.

In conclusion, I still don't see the need for shields on a game of this scale. What does a shield do when you're planet is about to get hit by a huge asteroid? They are so many better things they could be focusing on.

I made a similar suggestion in the On defensive structures, and shields thread.

Starcraft 2 did have shields. While you could gloss off the personal shields of every protoss unit, unfortunantly they also have guardian shields. Furthermore though, the key elements of starcraft ar fundamentaly different from TA/SupCom. In starcraft for something to hurt you it basicaly needed to be where you could hurt it (at your base, at your army, etc.). With the ability for artillery to fire drasticaly further than the largest starcraft map and inflict significant damage with every shot things are a little different because things no longer have to be where you can fight back to hurt you.

What does a shield do when hit by an asteroid? two words... go down. The asteroid will probably not even notice.

When the first round of an artillery shell lands on your commander and its instant game over... well thats bad gameplay. If the first round lands on your power and your economy is now running at 80%, then 70%, then 60%, thats bad, it would be recoverable if they weren't shooting a round every ten seconds. Obviously these are lucky shots and TA made artillery work without shields, but PA isn't TA and it has a much larger scale.

How long should a base be able to withstand artillery fire? no one is questioning that Sup Coms "indefinantly" was far to long. However the vast majority of people also say that making all your key structures vulnerable to artillery instantly is undesireable as well. Shields can allow for a middle ground that allow you time to try and respond instead of being possibly remove from the game instantly. The time period before your shields go down is the amount of time you have to do something and people have been having a lot of good dicussion about how that time limit is defined in such a way that it not only isn't to long, but can't be layered in a multaplicative way.

In conclusion, I only see a need for shields in a game of this scale. Smaller scales dont need shields because things are so close together you can always react in a timely fashion.

Honestly I think that this is the best solution. Leave shields out and deal with artillery with a CWIS-esque system (similar to the UEF tactical missile defense).

I could take or leave shields, but lasers/guns/missiles intercepting shells/missiles seems pretty awesome.

The SupCom implementation sucked because there was no good shield counter. All there really needs to be is something like the failure of an Aeon anti-shield unit that got patched into FA just before they stopped updating it; something that does at best middling damage to regular units but will absolutely chew through shields. (said Aeon unit sucked because it was basically a tank that was supposed to counter shields, but then it didn't do a ton more damage to shields than a regular force in the first place)

That, and/or some sort of diminishing returns on stacking them.

(also, there are actually anti-supcom TA snobs? idon'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg)

the problem with this is that they hard counter artillery, in a way making them far better than shields.

The issue with supcom shields was that they were all or nothing. Either you have enough nested shields to endure indefinitely, or you don't and everything under them is devastated in seconds due to the amount of fire required to knock them down.

A better solution would start by having shields link up into a single bubble as has been suggested. Then give them low HP, a high recharge rate and remove the 'going down' mechanic. This sort of shield would have the capacity to absorb a certain amount of incoming fire without needing nesting to let it recharge. If you apply just barely more damage than the shield can absorb a few stray shots start leaking through to damage the underlying base. If you apply overwhelming fire power however the shield will only soak a small percentage and let the rest through.

Recharge rate and base HP would vary by tech level, but combining shields only increases the area covered not strength of the shield.

This gives you a defence that's fantastic against light harassment and unfocused shelling. But it can still be defeated in many ways and includes a hard cap on just how strong the barrier can be.

I LOVE shields. Can't really tell why though... I would not forgive them if they didn't include it. :lol:

Anyway, if the stackable shields are the problem, then just let them not stack. Or as said before, merge.

Another option is activatable shields. Place you generators in your base and let them consume 50% (example percentage!) of your max energy income; and then only when attacked you activate your shields. A bit like he RTS game: Perimeter. (Yes, I know that game was terrible, but some ideas where great)

As said before, I'll support bubbleshields with overlap, but only if any who are overlapping all break at the same time under fire. Then the only benefit to having them like that would be straight up more initial defense with the same cooldown period after they break, so that the window of opportunity doesn't go away.

So you have to essentially build a series of adjacent groups of buildings the same size as a shield?

Thoughtful placement of buildings should be rewarded but base building shouldn't revolve around shield placement.
When building in awkward shaped areas there would be parcels of land it'd be detrimental to build in.

Whatever is decided officially, I do hope one thing: That bubble shields be at least supported in the game, so that those of us who will be making mods will have the option of including them should we wish. To be clear - they should be a part of the game engine but not necessarily in the actual game itself. Although I tend to like them, I have to admit that in our Supcom mod (After the War) we were unable to successfully balance them in a way that removed their overpowered nature. No matter how we sliced it, bubble shields remained too powerful, because you could overlap them to make a powerful base impenetrable from a long distance, and you could reinforce the perimeter with ever increasing amounts of point defense to ensure that nothing could break in and take out the shield towers. We did make the towers themselves expensive and fragile though, and their imbalance only showed up in the late game. One thing I wished for but which the engine would simply not support was the idea that the shields would not overlap, but would instead simply expand the canopy. So anything inside the canopy was essentially under one bubble, rather than a multi-stage segmented bubble cluster which was much harder to take down. Either way, as implemented by supcom, the bubble shields were a nuisance to balance, but this is not to say that such things are impossible. I'd sure like another chance at it, perhaps with different mechanics.

What if every time a shield dropped, it would damage the structure of itself and every other adjacent shield generator, so if you take enough down fast enough, a great many of them would overload and explode.

So nobody would build shields...

I agree exploding generators aren't my favorite way of having shields, but constructive comments are preferred mate.

shields are turtley, best defence is a good offence

I like shields.

Features of shields I'd like to see are:

1. Use massive amounts of energy
- Can be taken down by disabling opponent's energy production.

2. Stackable / combinable
- More generators equals more protection

3. Fairly large and expensive
- Late game option

4. Shields block weapons only, not unit movement
- Swarms of units can easily get inside shields and swamp the defences

5. Can be depleted by focused fire
- Shield charge replenished at fixed maximum rate using energy

I see shields first and foremost as a way to defend forward bases against artillery and bombers.

Might seem like a silly question, but seriously think about it first.

Why have shields at all?

Why have base shields and not unit shields?

Why not give all units shields?

Why not give all units larger health pools instead of shields?

Back to the original question, what is it about shields that makes people feel they are so necessary. Take a moment and think outside of how you play and into the style of other players/computers.

Seriously, if your answer is because you like to build pretty buildings in neat rows and you don't like to ever lose one to anything (like long range guns or attacks), can you not come up with any other way to deal said attacks? (More guns maybe?) (Ring of patrolling T2 fighters, like hawks or Vamps?)

Edit to encompass a previous posting: Any forward base that needs a shield, given the scope of this game is unlikely. If you are attackign an established base, only the type of shield setup you would find in subcom would allow it to weather big gun attacks. Past that, your base should get outright crushed by the defending forces because you spent your time on shield building vice unit/gun emplacement. A player would have to be mightily distracted to allow someone to build a fully operational forward base within striking range. Shields should not be a crutch for poor tactical and strategic decisions.

Shields could also be implemented differently to Supcomm. I don't think the disable then charge system works that well.