Shields?

I'm an old SupCom player.

I don't want bubble shields unless there's also localised economy (which PA does not have).

How about something that TA had that would work just as nice?

DRAGONSTEETH!

There's a reason the threads keep coming up.

I don't want shields but it's going to put a lot of players off the game. I think uber would be better adding them and making them underpowered or too costly. The same applies to the megabot - a lot of people will be put off the game without some kind of big unit. Sad but true I think.

I agree with the thought, but what will happen is that people will scream to buff said units.

Precisely because they're underpowered. The doubly unfortunate thing is that you will hear calls for buffs from otherwise excellent players, because they have the view that all units should be useful (which is a pretty reasonable stance to have).

[EDIT]

Then Uber will have pressure to make the units useful, which will have a negative effect on the game (and that's why many people today are campaigning against shields).

I miss an I don't care button

I understand both parties, shields are awesome for turtling (what I always did in supcom) but no shields is better for aggressive playing what I do in PA.

I must say that I do love trolling my friend, who always uses a lot of artillery in supcom, with a shitload of shields so he doesn't get through

This makes no sense, how could "making unit's useful" create a dis-partitive effect. You can balance everything,

Can you balance everything? That's a bold statement. Before you go any further, I'd like to see some evidence that your claim is true.

It would at the very least allow for modders to work more features, if shields were available - but costly.

Don't multiplayer lobbies have ways to disable units/structures anyway?

@Selis

no...




i´ve got to say that shields realy are the thing i am the least hyped about ... not hyped about them at all ... looking back on supcom especialy with UEF that was all about having armies buffed with shields was the most tiring to see in any match ..
i rather heave stealth and stealthgens than shields

again with the arrogance of the original forumers... wake up guys you were the original core, you are not the whole player base and every poll since those first one or two has resulted in YES to shields.... and other things you said no to, too....

Much bait.
Very vexing.
So opinionated.
Wow.

Even back then, 40K backers and maybe ~100 poll responders. Any serious statistician would laugh at that.

Polls have no real significance. Even if every forumgoer would vote, it would still only ever allow the conclusion: "of forumgoers, X percent thinks yes/no". And Forumgoers are only a percentage of the full PA pool.

As to shields, i think just about everyone is against Bubble shields because they're inherently flawed. Most people, including myself, would be willing to listen to a *good* proposal that doesn't allow huge shield bubbles that take forever to burst and requiring everything to be scaled around shields, making regular units cannon fodder.

Uber did tease at one point a directional shield of sorts, covers one direction, from the ground.

That could be..........interesting, as opposed to the movement and squat walls.

Isn't that the wall we have now?

I like shields. I think shields would look cool. That said, I can't really see what positive affect they would have on gameplay. A bubble sheild is tactically very similar to a lot of walls from what I can tell, except for one thing: it defends against artillery. Now there are three options: 1) shields are useful against direct fire units on an order similar to walls. Result: nobody builds walls because shields have added utility of stopping artillery and are otherwise similar, plus they require less micro. 2) shields are less powerful then walls but still are strong enough to stop equal metal artillery bombardment. Result: artillery becomes useless unless the game is already won through map control. 3) artillery beat sheilds metal for metal. Result: no one builds shields. 4) shields do not regen hp, but have a lot of health for cost and work as infernos or vanguards do to take the shots for a the rest of the higher metal/hp force. Result: shields are simply a mandatory army addition if mobile and a powerful static defense if immobile. One is boring the other drags out already won games by slowing the advance of the victor into the final base. I want to be persuaded. Shield apologists: how do shields help the gameplay?

Kinda, but the wall is a small omnidirectional barrier, if put in fount of your stuff.

Where as the shield suggested by them, would be like, a projected wall in one direction from the device, fluid like SupCom shields, but weak against attacks from every other direction then it is pointed.

But yeah like a wall essentially, but people have also been asking for fortress walls too, so who knows.