Force fields?

"Just balance them?" That's easy to say.

The point that has been brought up, and been talked about in very long winded and detailed posts on other threads, is they cannot be balanced.

As ghostflux brought up, shields use energy to power. Energy can be built in abundance and does not need much map control. Mass is needed to build units/nukes/etc. This means that shields are much more efficient than units at defending since they recharge and do not require mass.

And as ledarsi brought up, with shields players can receive no damage in an attack while inflicting large amounts of damage on your opponent. Both sides should take damage.

And actually, it is possible for hardcore (annoying) turtles to build shields all around their base - especially on certain map types. I've seen people build very thick layers of turrets and walls all around their base. They can do it with shields.

If you want to improve your defenses, use walls.

Simple fact of the matter is, shields won't be in the game. Someone likely will mod it though. Play with that.

Turrets do damage and they cost nothing after they are build. Hows this different from shields soaking up damage? Units can move and it doesnt cost anything. In your logic everything should cost something in order to do something. In fact shields already arent free after they are build. They need energy.

Shields can be balanced its ridiculous to just claim you cannot balance them. If its possible for a turtle player that only controls 1/10 of his enemy to shield his entire base with multiple shields then shields need a nerf.

Shields also can be broken they dont make you invulnerable. It does however makes small attacks inefective because of the regen.

There is a tremendous and obvious difference between turrets and shields. Turrets deal damage, and shields mitigate it.

Creating more turrets creates more discrete units which have both HP and weapons which can be destroyed separately. Creating more bubble shields, on the other hand, creates a consolidated HP pool which must be exhausted before any of the discrete units being shielded can be destroyed, or even damaged.

As you say, a single shield makes small attacks totally ineffective. You will only damage the shield, while the units making the attack will be destroyed. It also makes light long-range bombardment totally ineffective, because the shield will simply absorb the damage. With very small values, this isn't pathological, but it also doesn't change anything. With larger values (or with more shields) it becomes pathological to the same degree it actually affects gameplay.

The gameplay pathology is that you must bring a large, consolidated force or bombardment in order to inflict any damage at all. Whether that is a very large battery of artillery or a very large army focused on attacking a heavily shielded position, either way it destroys positional play, and makes military exchanges extremely high-risk, encouraging risk-averse, passive gameplay.

We want to encourage players to be active on the map with many different forces in many different places, not force every player into deploying one giant army just in order to avoid a complete rout with zero damage to the enemy. The way to accomplish this is to make small groups more efficient when fighting larger ones. They don't win, but they inflict some damage. Larger armies arise as a response to sparsely covered terrain, or multiple smaller enemy forces. But if those smaller forces die with zero damage inflicted, whether against deathballs or against shields, they will never be used because they die (lost firepower) with zero damage done. However if even in the most horrendous tactical situation, a small force will usually at least kill a few of the soldiers about to annihilate it, then it makes better strategic sense to use several such groups as combat elements instead of a single very large army.

Furthermore, we want to encourage mobile play, not static shielded positions that take zero damage unless the enemy's force or bombardment reaches a certain magic tipping threshold. Movement and maneuver are critical for military strategy, not just composition. An inferior army with better map position should be able to straight up win against a superior army. And not in the ridiculous Starcraft 2 sense of "positioning" which is all of 1.5 seconds before a battle, but in the strategic sense of having the right size force in the right country at the right time, where the enemy is too far away to do anything about it. Shields encourage conservative, static play to create a very hard distinction between a successful engagement (total victory, some casualties), and a failed engagement (total rout, zero damage). With those odds, it pays to be very focused in your attacks and only maneuver where you expect large returns. Being active on the map and actually trying to do things to your opponent depends on a reasonable expectation that some of those moves will be advantageous, and shields make a very large proportion of those moves completely pointless, in addition to being risky.

Zero-K has implemented bubble shields with some peculiar modifications. The introduction of EMP weaponry as an extremely hard counter to shields being the most important one, as well as individually weak shields which link, both simplifying shield construction and management, and making each additional shield a smaller factor, as well as less geographically fixed because shield energy can be transferred. I'm on the fence about whether Zero-K wouldn't be improved by scrapping the entire concept, but some very radical steps had to be taken to make bubble shields even workable.

I have nothing against the lore of shields, or force fields, or whatever you want to call them. But the past implementation of a bubble shield that protects other units is bad design. I am in favor of having PA just scrap the concept in favor of paying for durability in the form of more units. The lore concept of shields might be implemented with personal shields that only affect a single unit, perhaps even with a quite different damage profile, such as counting discrete hits instead of damage- think FTL shields. Suggest a different shield mechanic, and the gameplay effects will be completely different, and it might be a good idea, similar to old shields in name only.

But the old bubble shield is just bad design because its primary function is to completely break damage-HP interactions, where HP costs resources and most damage does not. A shield which saves you HP is too efficient to ignore, even if it were "balanced" to be very weak, it would only be less pathological, not beneficial.

Nice counter point.

Let me start out with something before I continue with my arguments. I used to be a pro-shields guy. I used to use major shield nets in SupCom. After discussing shields on the forums and after playing PA a bunch, I changed my mind.

By launch, all turrets (laser, missile, catapult, arty, etc) will all require energy to fire. Some already do, and all will by launch, have a certain amount of energy they can store. Each shot requires a certain amount of energy to use. They have a certain regen rate. The regen rate is such that they can have continuous fire provided there is enough energy. However, if there is not enough energy, they deplete their stores, and then they stop firing until they're able to trickle up energy to shoot again. If someone attacks on multiple fronts, turrets fire up, deplete energy, things shut down, get destroyed. Strategy can make turrets inept.

When a turret gets shot at, it takes damage that must be repaired with a metal cost.

The difference, as I said in my previous post, lies in both sides taking damage. With shields, a player takes no damage and deals lots of damage. That is not balanced.

This game is about controlling multiple planets. Not hiding behind a shield net.

Again. As previously stated. Uber said shields won't be in the game. The general consensus on the forums is also one of no shields.

I think the pro-shield group is of two minds as to why they want shields. The first group likes the lore, and thinks plasma or electromagnetic shields are awesome. And the second are weak players who prefer to turtle, and find shields are very convenient and effective at preventing their precious units and structures from being damaged, forcing them to take the expensive and unpleasant step of rebuilding their losses.

There's not much I can do for the second type, who really should just learn that the best defense is a good offense. But for the other set of players, I can definitely imagine a different shield implementation that could be interesting with none of the issues of bubble shields.


First of all, shields are individual and are never shared between different units or buildings. As a result, you are paying for the additional durability of a regenerating shield when you purchase the shielded unit specifically, and you cannot receive escalating benefits from overlapping, stacking bubble shields. The cost and effectiveness of the shield is baked into the cost and stats of the specific unit.

Second, shields count hits and are not the same as regenerating HP. Flat regenerating HP could work, but at that point shields are pretty much functionally identical to additional HP, since they cannot be shared or spread around. Any type of damage source will deplete one point of shield, regardless of quantity. This makes shields extremely ineffective against rapid-fire weapons, which will very quickly deplete their shields and begin dealing damage to their HP almost immediately. However this makes units with shields much more resistant to large damage instances, including weapons that would normally destroy them in a single hit.

Third, shields regenerate one point at a time over a fixed interval, regardless of whether the unit has fired or taken damage. Suppose a unit has 3 points of shield with a 5 second recharge time, and is hit. The unit will regain one point of shield 5 seconds later unless it is already dead within that time. Even if it loses a second point of shield, it will still replenish one point of shield 5 seconds after it lost the first shield point, bringing it back up to 2 shield, with a new 5 second counter beginning immediately when the point was regained.

A shield designed this way creates a mechanic to allow units to be made resistant to incident fire, and to particular powerful weapons in small quantities. A wall might have a shield which will make the wall resistant to the occasional heavy artillery shell landing nearby. And a heavy tank might use a shield of this type to make it more survivable against heavy weapons without inflating its HP to unreasonable levels. A small, cheap bot with a shield could even be designed as a new type of micro-weight-class assault unit with a few points of shield for minimal cost. Each individual absorbs a few hits and goes down, but in aggregate a massed assault of such units would be tough to hold.

As for gameplay effects, this type of shield actually encourages using small forces in mobile elements. The shield is equally effective for a single unit as it is for a large group of similarly shielded troops. Because the shield only absorbs a few hits, it simply isn't very significant in close combat against more than one or two enemies. However, it does discourage sending out heavy weapons alone since a small group of shielded units will easily dispatch it. Such assets should be protected by a few regular troops. The combined group using both light and heavy weapons has the ability to engage small targets, large targets, and targets relying on either HP or shields.

I agree with you here.

Yea i think this should be made a lot clearer.

the problem is BUBBLE shields. not shields in general, but bubble shields. The problem is that they can be stacked and throw unit balance out of the window. E.g, a powerful gun that can't take hits suddenly becomes a gun that can soak up a ton of damage. Taking a ton of bots and putting them under a bubble makes them equally strong yet far more resilient. Individual shields are fine. I am not sure why you imply it's a bad thing to let them just be regenerating HP. That's what shields ARE. they're an HP threshold that you have to cross. That's fine.

I think that the problems with your designs quickly pile up with some specific cases. For example, making heavy artillery hit as hard as a single bot cannon will lead to people mass-producing bots. Especially shielded bots. Most turrets are fairly low-ROF which means that base defense quickly becomes a problem, and most turtlers will only be less happy, not more. Nukes are also a big problem: do they count as a 1-hit? or not?

I would rather have a layer of regenerating HP than your system, because traditional shields are predictable.

And from what i see of the argument, its painting people with a very broad brush.
Either they're
A) Lore-based or
B) Bad.

If you're so prejudiced before a debate even happens, how can you hope to be objective?

Using SC as an example, the amount of resources on the map is finite.
If player a) turtles, then player b) should just all-out expand.
Efficiency of units doesn't matter one jot if you can produce x3-x4 your opponent if not higher.

I'll use this as an example.

So what?

If you spend your money on an artillery piece and shield it, that's your mass investment into a stationary structure. The other player is not oblidged to attack that point. Even in the game without shields at the moment, Player A can choose to harden a point with turrets. Player B can Either bring up artillery, over run it, or just attack somewhere else. Both parties will be restricted by their economies as to how much they can use.

This is exactly the case in SC. If player A choose to invest in long-range point defence (sod it, in most cases they dont even build shields further invalidating your argument but we'll run with this) and shields it, he will be sorely lacking somewhere else. He wants control of 5% of the map? Ok. Go ahead and spam units and control the rest of it. And laugh at him.

In addition, if anything the above is an argument for shields given how much more open the map is in PA - given how the map is 360 degrees from a given point as opposed to just half (I.e, in previous games you would know your enemy wasn't exactly going to come from behind you), there is even more scope to simply bypass an opponents hardpoint.

Your theoretical example would hold water if said gun was really powerful, long ranged, yada yada yada. Then it becomes a matter of balancing the units as opposed to simply saying "omg shields break the game".


NB: I am hardly a "pro shields" guy. I am simply a guy who absolutely hates seeing piss-weak arguments being thrown about.

For me it seems like there is a lot of talk about shields whether they be the bubble type or not. I think it would be good to find a compromise seeing as everyone is so passionate about them either way. I have a few ideas how shields could work but I don't have the design expertise to elaborate on the finer details. I think it does need looking into tho, even if its a compulsory decision to have shields in game before you start the game like an option in the lobby?

I imagine shields would be in the game by default, as I do not know any game which has units blacked out by default in its ladders.

I imagine, however, they will adopt a TA/SC style of "unit mods" whereby people can choose what not to allow, if such a feature is implemented.

Sounds good to me.

I know a lot of people who are passionate about shields too. They don't want to see them in PA at all.

If you can come up with a good plan on how the shields will work, then I am sure people will listen to you. The only way I see shields working is if when the shield takes damage, the players economy takes a noticeable hit, and that means metal consumption.

What noticeable hit do they want?
In SC, they took energy to run, and in any substantial situation required considerable investment (I.E, artillery bombardment) in resources to build and maintain to be effective.

I don't think I need to tho, just reading through the forums there are many people passionate about not having them in PA and a lot of people who feel the same about having them in. If its needed, Im sure Uber will find a way for it to work.

For me, Im happy to use a mod if ones available.

Sovietpride, you convey a very fundamental misunderstanding of how SupCom works. First of all, resources are NOT finite. Resources are produced constantly over time by extractors (and mass fabs) for as long as those assets survive. And in SupCom, it is actually viable to hold less of the map and rely on upgrading mexes as well as fabrication once you have enough mexes to begin upgrading. It requires more time than the more efficient purist expansion style, but careful expenditures in raiding and defenses can be used to buy time. If shields are attacked with a force insufficient to completely break the position, the attacker accomplishes absolutely nothing, discouraging attacks into a defensive position without overwhelming force, which takes time to acquire.

In addition, you cannot assume one player has 5% of the map, infer that they lose, and conclude anything about gameplay. That says nothing about shields, only that the massively out-expanded player didn't understand how to play. The issue for shields is when a competent player decides to leverage their highly efficient damage absorption properties in an otherwise fair game. The result is a static, passive, and risk-averse game by both players. You cannot assume a player has 5% of the map and then think your assertion that this leads to defeat does anything productive in terms of argumentation. Shields are a non-factor in such a game; the player with the overwhelming economic advantage could do almost anything; the sheer economic difference makes all strategy irrelevant, and it is not possible for the defeated player to make any useful moves.

Shields' primary effect in a protracted battle is to buy time during which the shielded units suffer no casualties, while an unshielded force does suffer casualties, decreasing their firepower. The fact that shields stack further increases this time period without casualties with additional shields. This time advantage can be so significant that it might last for the entire critical period of the battle, and even if there are some units left to destroy the battle is already won because there are too few enemies left to put up a real fight.

Furthermore, if we assume the players are of roughly equal skill and are aware that they need to contest the map, shields remain a factor. However the shield-using player is instead using them in a manner calculated to maximize his or her return on investment in shields by absorbing enough damage to make an attack inadvisable. Ordinarily squishy buildings like T3 energy generators might get a shield to protect them from artillery and air strikes, and buy time to shoot down an attacking air force. A defensive position on the isthmus of Seton's Clutch is guaranteed to be valuable because that is the only land bridge, and shields are virtually guaranteed to pay for themselves in losses avoided. You must assume that shields will be used intelligently, and by capable players, and only where shields are advantageous because they outperform discrete HP of individual units. And in those cases, odds are they will wildly outperform discrete HP when used en masse.

Shields break HP and weapon interactions, by their very design. Their core mechanic is to prevent damage efficiently. It should be no surprise that players will use them when they are advantageous. Even if they are expensive and weak, that only limits their use case and reduces their gameplay impact; it does not make them beneficial when they appear.


And Devak, I agree that there are certain coincident modifications that would need to be made. But introducing cluster bombs is hardly a big deal. Large submunitions that contain multiple smaller explosions precisely for the purpose of defeating shields is easily introduced into certain heavy artillery to make it effective against shielded light bots.

Part 1:

On the contrary, you show a fundamental misunderstanding of what i'm getting at, and attempting to fob it off by explaining how the economics work is a pitiful attempt to establishing your superiority, of which does not exist.


Resources *are* finite. Are there infinite mexes to build? Is there infinite space to build buildings?


The answer to both, is no. There is a finite amount of both. Resources points, and map control, of which go hand in hand. I don't know what game you're playing, (I'm basing my observations on FA), but when you're trying to tell me that a t2 mex at 900 mass giving +6 mass is as efficient as x3 t1 mexes at 36 mass each giving +2... Yeah... No.


Good luck with your careful expenditures in raiding and defenses. You want to spend 700+ mass on upgrading that one mex and somehow assume that you'll be able to keep up with someone whos spreading across the map? Not going to happen.


Let's put this another way. Using your example, which whilst technically true is also fundamentally flawed, yes. Resources are "infinite" in that eventually they will generate the theoretical same amount. In reality however, people are constrained by very finite resource of time.



Player A and player B can both build nukes, regardless of the economy. If i own 75% of the map and you own 25%, who's going to get it first? They'll both get it eventually. Will they both get it? No. Because resources are finite. I would have the majority of the resources, and assuming an absence of retardation, I would win.


And about now you're going to be going "Well duh, you have most of the map". Then I would ask you, Why would I have most of the map? Because you surrendered it by choosing to be stationary and build your little fort of shields, which cost resources - resouces which aren;t going into contesting map control. Then you might say "but I wouldn't lock a place down unless it served me an advantage of some sort", to which my reply would simply again, be obvious: Congratulations for identifying a situation to take advantage of. If you execute it, you've out played your opponent in that regard - shields don't come into it.


TLDR of that paragraph: if you get into a situation where a stationary structure like shields gives you a considerable advantage over your opponent, then that situation and advantage come from you identifying and creating the situation, not the fact that shields exist.


In addition, you list an example of absolute crass stupidity. Don't talk about shields and "wasted effort". Those shields could be units, and the same would apply. If you apply pressure to a position that is insufficient to break it, you've wasted your time and resources, shields or not. The simple answer, that everybody here seems to not be able to grasp, is that of attack somewhere else.


If he's invested that much in that location that it cannot be attacked in a reasonable time frame or with reasonable resources by yourself, then he'll be lacking elsewhere. If he isn't, then either he is A) hacking or B) severely out playing you or C) there is something fundamentally wrong with the game.


None of those have anything to do with shields.

The 5% number was pulled out of thin air as a rough example of what I'm trying to get at. And as for quoting how people don't understand how to play, you don't seem to understand either. You happily state that one party is out-expanded, and yet state they don't know how to play. How can you draw any conclusions about the state and impact of shields when you dismiss people's abilities? You seem to want to, in your first sentence, state how I don't understand how SC works. Then fine. Show me a 1v1 game where shields blatantly affect the outcome. And even if you do, you still face the uphill struggle of showing how they affect the majority of such games.


The short answer is, they don't. Because becoming static in a flowing game is suicide. You're basically saying "I agree with what you say about economic advantages and expansion, therefore you're wrong."

I'll iterate it again. Placing shields down takes effort and resources that could go elsewhere - namely taking the map.

If they choose to do so, they're surrendering those resources from elsewhere - namely taking the map and thereby giving their opponent the advantage.

They will generally lose the game via this route, as opposed to win. Because, As you state yourself: "the player with the overwhelming economic advantage could do almost anything; the sheer economic difference makes all strategy irrelevant, and it is not possible for the defeated player to make any useful moves.".


You wish to bash me for not throwing together a cohesive argument yet have a position that is not backed up by fact is entirely laughable. You then wish to agree with me by using facts which support my argument.

Part 2:

It's funny how you bold time and yet in the first paragraph seem to be utterly oblivious to its concept with regards to resources. But moving swiftly on.


Your example is correct.
The solution? Don't attack it.

If you wish to keep throwing resources into a situation where you are at the disadvantage, that is your own fault. Whilst I did spend time wondering as to how such a situation as you described would arise, fundamentally it was irrelevant because:

A) What happens if you don't attack it and go elsewhere? It's wasted.

B) What happens if you out range it? It's now working against him as he needs to build more to keep up with your bombardment if he wishes to keep that area.

C) What happens if you divert your economy to gaining some other advantage like Air? He's ceded control elsewhere.

D) What happens if you attack it like a blithering idiot? You die.

You have, just like that among many, options A), B), or C) to negate your example. You, and many others, seem to be fixated upon option D) - Derp and Die.


NB: I assume we're talking about stationary shields.

Uh. Huh.

Your points are semi-valid, but are undermined by a severe problem.

Team games in an RTS are nigh-on impossible to balance. What might be balanced in a 1v1 can suddenly turn into a very broken concept in a team game. I'm no Starcraft 2 expert, but from what I gather they don't do team tournaments because the balance in team games is far too difficult to get correct. Why starcraft 2? Because from the top of my head its the most "competitive" RTS at the moment. Do they look to team games to balance the 1v1 scene?Stop anything stupidly overpowered, but fine tune balance? I dunno. You tell me.


If you wish to state that shields would be broken in a team game, the fine. I have no real comment on the matter. But that isn't what you said.

Ye, and no.

Shields break HP and weapon interactions, by their very design. Their core mechanic is to prevent damage

True.

"efficiently" - no.

The most efficient method of preventing damage is to destroy that which your opponent has to deal damage.

Case in point: Supreme Commander: Do you build shields to counter a TML in SC? Nope.


As for the rest of the paragraph, it was either a statement of the obvious, or a statement of irrelevance.


I'm not a "Pro-shields" person. I'm an "anti-crappy reasoning" person.

And it's still crappy reasons all about as to why they suck.


It's like, If you wish to state something along the lines of "Oh, it'll break a team game and we envision this will be a team game," Then fair enough. STating something like "They're broken and give an unfair advantage by their very nature" is dangerously misleading and downright false.

Rather than quoting each point and refuting it, since that is likely to lead to a confusing and overly lengthy reply, I will just go by topic.


Economic Issues

Essentially, you are claiming that building shields results in conceding an economic advantage to the enemy. That is not necessarily the case- you are apparently assuming that the shield-user is incompetent, and doesn't consider expansion of importance. There is no reason why shields must be rushed to, or used as a focal point of the player's strategy. Turtling on a small base is just bad- the fact that shields don't make it less bad is not a point in their favor. Similarly, failing to expand to be economically competitive is just bad play. A player that fails to realize this will lose against a player who does, completely regardless of the entire shield issue.

Between two comparable players who are both expanding, raiding, making intelligent composition and movement choices, etc. it becomes useful to talk about how shields affect their decisions. Your straw man that it is not possible to use shields in any way without critically undermining your competitiveness is simply false.

Obviously we shouldn't assume that a player would choose to cede massive amounts of map control in order to obtain this marginal advantage of having shields in one place. But if you have a significant and competitive military budget, and choose to invest a portion of it in shields, you do not immediately lose by being outmacroed or outmaneuvered. True, you could have a few more units, but your army strength is not critically weakened by using shields to deflect artillery instead of constantly replacing lost units.

Shields are not like experimentals or megaconstructions. They are not so exorbitantly expensive that merely choosing to use that type of asset critically weakens you.


Using Shields

Shields do not kill units. They only support. Consequently, they cannot by themselves do anything. Therefore your assumption that anyone would be foolish enough to use shields so extensively that they would just die to such an elementary technique as "attack elsewhere" or "build air units" or, (my personal favorite of your suggestions) "just outrange them" is just silly. Eeeexcellent, your shields are now working against you because they are blocking my long range shots... Yes, they are working against you so much you will build more of them.. All according to my brilliant masta plan!... I chuckled.

All the approaches you suggest to dealing with shields are obvious. Everyone knows about raiding where the enemy has not defended. Everyone knows about using artillery to crack a defensive position. My point is that your solutions like "just outrange them" lead to boring gameplay, not that they do not work, or that shields are imbalanced. Shelling each other ineffectually due to multiple layers of shields is boring. Being unable to deal any damage to a defensive position without bringing overwhelming force is boring because it makes all but the most focused, decisive, and certain attacks completely foolhardy because you may lose everything and not kill a single enemy.

Still, your claim that you can defeat a player who is using shields by "going elsewhere" is ridiculous. Every player will be using other assets than just shields. Shields by themselves are completely useless, and only a grade A imbecile would spam shields to the point they are unable to do anything else. Obviously they will have units, and most likely they will have long-range assets of their own.

A player with a large army who buys a shield instead of a few more troops does not immediately lose the game, you nit.


Shield Efficiency

Bubble shields allow a player to absorb incoming damage more efficiently than by replacing destroyed units and structures. You say this is not efficient, and you are wrong. You are paying energy for HP, and in fact you are paying energy for regenerating HP, which is even better.

Shields also become more efficient with more things under them, and they become even more efficient with more shields overlapping. Even if shields were balanced to be so weak they could not be used competitively, they could still run away. It would just be economically unwise/infeasible to do so, making them a non-factor in the game entirely.

That's not mitigating damage. That is called dealing damage. And obviously dealing damage to your enemy reduces their ability to harm you, otherwise what would be the point. Destroying military assets means the military asset is no longer useful to the enemy.

My entire point is that destroying units changes the game state, while merely damaging a shield does not. A failed assault into a defensive position will still have changed the board, and the attacker's lost resources will be mitigated by the units they destroyed. This reduces the harshness of the risk of attacking, and encourages more active play. Potentially including another assault on the same position.

Damage absorbed by a shield does nothing in the game. Telling the enemy "you better build more artillery" and volleying back "oh I better build more shields" ... You even state that outranging the enemy is a desirable response to deal with shields. I agree it is effective, but I think outranging turrets so you can kill them is better for gameplay than outranging turrets under a shield so you can stalemate for a while.


On Balance vs Gameplay

I never said shields give an "unfair" advantage. Only that the game where they are available is less interesting than a similar game which lacks them. The reason is because shields make passive, risk-averse play more advantageous by mitigating the amount of resources that must be spent replenishing already-constructed assets.

Allow me to phrase the issue in a different way. Is it entertaining to have your base be under siege with buildings blowing up, and scrambling to intercept enemy units outside, hastily rebuilding critical structures, just to barely survive with your base half-destroyed?

Or is it more entertaining to have enemy weapons be completely unable to harm you because of bubble shields? And to have the enemy know this and only attack when you have absolutely zero chance of successfully defending?

I may be the original proponent of the "just go elsewhere" argument on this forum in the early days of the Kickstarter. But that concept requires that actually sending that smaller force elsewhere has a positive expected value. Generally speaking the minimum expectation of killing some defenders goes a long way to mitigate the risk of losing those units. Factor in the possibility of killing undefended assets, and such attacks are usually worthwhile.

Players should be seeking to send barely enough forces to multiple different places, not completely CRUSH a hard position with overwhelming force. Shields, where they are used, force a player to bring enough forces to crush the position because of risk. A battle ending in total defeat with zero kills is the kind of defeat that decides entire games. It has a powerful chilling effect of discouraging players from making any bold moves.

What strategic options do shields create? What emergent gameplay? Because all I can think of is they lead to passive play. At its most pathological, passive play with artillery where neither side is doing anything productive except bouncing off each others' shields.


Conclusion

Shields are not a game-defining unit. They only support other units. Assuming players will lose map control, assuming their economy will be destroyed by using shields, or assuming their army will be critically weakened, doesn't make any sense. The existence of shields does not invalidate expansion, it does not invalidate raiding, conventional army management, composition, maneuver, and so on.

It is my claim that to the extent that bubble shields have an impact on the game, it is a pathological one of distorting HP-damage interaction and making players passive and risk-averse because of the fear that shields will result in a very decisive defeat.

If shields have no impact on gameplay, there would be no problem. If they have some impact, there will be a small problem. If shields have a large impact, there will be a huge problem.

Shields aren't "unfair" as you say. They are uninteresting.

I like it how everyone states that shields are a confirmed no, when Mavor stated that Shields are a no for now, but might be implemented after release at some point. He did the shields in SC1 and was not happy with the result, thus experimenting around with new ideas... which will not make it into the game till release, or maybe never... but shields are considered at some point.

I would like to have shields too, the reason why is simple, this game will have multiple theaters of war and I would hate to lose an important base within seconds just because I was focused on something else. Units simply die too fast...

A shields should not stop the attacker but at least win you some important seconds... especially on such a big scale game like PA.

The same goes with the ACU, I don't want an Uber-ACU but later in game, the ACU is a problem, since it is easily killed. At least lets get something to win during an attack another few seconds to actually respond.

Sadly, I must admit, that the community not always seem to focus on the subject of discussion and tend to focus on sort of "you said, I said" things more.

So, I suggest you not to waste time on trying to actually make anyone understand, how static defenses, map control, resource production rates, unit power relate. I mean, this is essential to understand how any sort of defensive structures work in any map with more, than 1 choke point.

I personally gave up after getting the idea, that even 95% of SupCom FA community failed to understand it.
Even some top 30 guys stated things like "static defenses should not be more effective (sic!) mass for mass, than mobile units because turtling should be never possible" (the dude was considering himself a pro and was doing tutorials too, but was suspiciously considering the game very complex too).

As for me, I want to leave here only one point: having commander not upgradable, how do you make it more durable in assassination games without shields?

Why does it need to be more durable? The game is based around the idea that instead of making it tough out it places where it doesn't need to be tougher.

Mike