Give us Shields! Come on!

.... nope ... rather not ....

mhhhhhhmmmmm .... marshmellows with caramel .... *DROOOLS*

infernos and vanguards ... basicly doing the same .... being meatshields and taking shoots

He wants FA

No, he wants rebirth, evolution, survivability.


he has the sensibility to see PA's hidden potential, I respect that.

he realizes all that PA is under the hood.

he can also see how SupCom's long evolutionary process' experience could come in handy.

As a general case figure, people who seem to think shields are a bad idea have no experience of them at all.

They imagine what they think it must be like then describe that

this is why I see so many different descriptions of how shields work which are nowhere near the truth.

I'd like to say that contrary to a lot of people here I come from the competitive side of things, not the AI-stomper side of things.

and so I am furthest as it gets from advocating tutleing yet I support shields. (FAF's implementation of shields)

does this not tilt your head in curiosity? do you not want to know more?

#1 It can be balanced. They did it in Sup Com, they can do it here.

#2 Which strategies do shields kill? They provide a way to make a stronger defense, at a high cost and constant energy drain. You can still rush, you still have to be careful. What they do is make commander sniping harder and provide a chance to defend against massive late game armies.

#3.1 Would you be happy with a building that increases the resistance of units in its range?

#3.2 Are you saying that combining multiple units to make them stronger together is bad? I really don't think so. Shields regen, health doesn't, but shields provide much less protection. Seems like a fair tradeoff.

I really don't get what people are worried about. If someone spends a ton of mass making shields he either has so much more that he deserves to win or you used that mass to get ahead of him with an army, nukes, or a planet smash.

apparently i'm not a general case.

nope. now i'm gonna play shieldless PA and have fun




EDIT: Quotes should be fixed.

Bad quotes.

1. We have said that, for the time being, no shields.
2. We have limited dev time, so we're not likley to change our focus for a feature we don't think adds positive gameplay.
3. We can always change our minds if we change our minds.

Having opinions is awesome. Telling others what their opinions should be isn't. When modding gets released, I'm sure someone will figure out how to make a type of shield and then they can prove for themselves whether if turtling really makes a game more fun/strategic/deep.

speaking for my self ... no ... i find shields boring

That's exactly what we're trying to do. Change your minds

something is off with the quoting system i expierenced this for the 4rth time now that i got the wrong person quoted even though i hit reply on the post of the person in question

in all fairness, if it were not for the orbital layer, I think starcraft DOES have more strategic depth to it. not saying that to bash PA, I think uber is doing an awesome job on it. but it's the truth. but that's also because PA has the orbital layer, which is the whole premise of the game. I just wish they would do more with it :/ I mean... unless it's a multiplanet start, orbital seems to usually just be an afterthought unless they think there going to lose the ground war. but that's another discussion for another time.
well, that, and also, starcraft is on it's, what... 4th? 5th iteration? whereas PA is going into entirely new territory. so comparing the 2 in terms of 'polish' is really kind of unfair...

as for the rest of my thoughts on shields:
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/my-thoughts-on-shields.60191/

but long story short: PA doesn't need shields, unless we get longer ranged artillery. one could argue it would be useful to protect against ssx platforms, but that's what umbrella's are for. so really... shields really would have no purpose that isn't accomplished by something else already. that, and seriously... what's the difference between a wall and a shield? there both used for the exact same thing...

--edit:
the more i think about it...
I would totally approve of a "shield" if it was really just what we have as a wall now, that acts like a shield, ie only lets friendly fire through and has limited health. that would be pretty cool, lol

starcraft is rather about tactical execution with it´s spells quick responding and small scale .. you are more active in battle than in TA, SupCom and PA
... unitwise afaisi PA has a well ammount of unittypes as starcraft does so if you were to play your macro game it wouldn´t be all that different there either ... PA and co have long rangeweapons to them basicly being your SC2 spellcasters ... so strategywise ... i realy don´t see too much a difference in that
and even then you CAN if you like have starcraftsyle matches on small to tiny planets in PA ...
scaleability is the watchword ...

Yeah starcraft does have the in depth strategy of positioning and war mind games.

Most RTS games do in some way at least.

Starcraft just emphasises the control of individual units and their ability's more, where as PA is more about abstracting away these ability's so you can spend more time in the war mind games, mostly.

Both have a great level of mind games.

you just equated turtleling to shields !!

what? why?

have you not even considered that the two just may happen to be separate entities that may even at times be opposed?

this is the case in supcom FAF. Please take this into consideration.

So the plans for inter-planetary artillery have been scrapped? And aren't t2 artillery considered to be long range, catapults and t2 missile ships as well.

It's certainly not gonna happen before 1.0, so for the time being it's pretty much a waste of time. When 1.0 hits, we'll be further down the line with the game and i'll be at the forefront to tell Uber to rethink earlier decisions.

Some other good comments i plucked from other threads as food for thought:

To be honest, I don't know how anyone could not think mass bombardment of someones base shields is "NOT" fun... that is some pretty damn epic gameplay in my opinion, knowing you're shields are only going to hold out for so long before there is a mass rush of CHARGE are your base, or vice versa, completely non stop bombardment of someones base wearing those shields down before you go all out RAMBO on the base. How can shield gameplay be not fun? seriously? Just imagine what the shield effects could look like in PA too, would be pretty sweet, they were good in supcom can only imagine it would look even more impressive in PA.

I don't find it fun when my shields either don't work to defend me and thus were pointless, or a completely invulnerable, and thus overpowered for my own attempt to siege.

So, just as a recap, here's what we learned in this thread:
No shields before 1.0

And here's what we knew prior to this thread:
No shields before 1.0

So, conclusions. This thread is pointless and this guy is insufferable. No matter what arguments we give him we're called SC2 trolls because this guy can't think of a valid counter-argument. This thread needs to die.
In short:

*yey for spelling error*

There is your shield, good knight!
Wish you the best luck, to become the champion of the King's tournament!




Though... I believe you will also need a sword of steel; a masterpiece
One that only befits the truest of champions!



May the force be with you to help you deliver the One Ring to Narnia!
And remember: Winter is coming!​