My Thoughts on Shields

i would like to see a whole range of counter measures

light lasers super accurate but very low damage can target rockets
bigger missiles would have more HP

flares counter light rockets but not missiles could be on interceptors and advanced bombers. if anti ground rockets get added maybe tanks could have flares

layer shields protect vs artillery but are weak against combat units
heavy tanks could have a single layer of shield making them stand out a bit more
mobile layer shields for attacking artillery positions

radar stealth on some light units like scampers and scouts
maybe stealth field generator advanced vehicle

catapult/mobile missile launcher that can target orbital units.

advanced air superiority fighters can target orbital and fire slowly but powerful alpha strike (maybe a laser) making massed tier 1 air able to beat them if they can catch them
i would like to see a whole range of counter measures

light lasers super accurate but very low damage can target rockets
bigger missiles would have more HP

flares counter light rockets but not missiles could be on interceptors and advanced bombers. if anti ground rockets get added maybe tanks could have flares

layer shields protect vs artillery but are weak against combat units
heavy tanks could have a single layer of shield making them stand out a bit more
mobile layer shields for attacking artillery positions

radar stealth on some light units like scampers and scouts
maybe stealth field generator advanced vehicle

catapult/mobile missile launcher that can target orbital units.

advanced air superiority fighters can target orbital and fire slowly but powerful alpha strike (maybe a laser) making massed tier 1 air able to beat them if they can catch them



basically add specialist defenses that fit the role of the unit

You say "just balance them."

But, as we keep on saying over and over, they cannot be balanced. You just keep on not reading what we say.

Getting a HP boost for a bunch of structures and units for some energy is not balanced. In everything about PA, HP requires metal. But then you propose a new system that requires energy to give HP.

That is not, and cannot be balanced. It's two entirely different systems.

What's the difference between walls and a shield? Walls have fixed HP and must cost METAL to be repaired. They don't auto regenerate for energy.

Very big difference.

And we keep on saying that over and over and over.

You know.... that's a pretty damn good point that few people realize....

like seriously... in what way ....in the universe are walls not all the things people throw as a critic towards shields? turtle oriented? slows down game? all that... any and all of the same arguments apply.

So why do they get to keep walls but keep shields out? It boggles the mind.

Few people realize that in essence; it is the "advanced" to the "basic" wall.

why is there an advanced specialized version of every unit except the wall?

that's rediculous, listen to yourself.

You want to be listened to but you're staying deaf and dumb to his argument by proposing a counter argument that in no way answers his and that in no way fills the quality you say his argument lacks....

where's your argument? you're just saying it switches resources ...... I'm gonna say yeah. and?
isn't energy the resource we have the least of right now? So we add a huge consumption to a resource that'll instantly crash AND HERE'S THE CATCH: one of the two that you compare (repair or construct units (metal) and shields (energy)) resources provides flow-based distribution in case of a crash ...one DOESN'T. One simply ceases to distribute in it's entirety upon resource crash : the shields go off.

they don't become shields but slower or something dumb.

so perhaps unbeknownst to yourself you provided an argument against your own camp.

Now lets move on to the second part of your argument: they can't be balanced.

well this is where taking a step back I feel @fouquet has a point and you ....don't.

Here's why: here's examples of attempting to balance shields:
Reducing the Hit Points
reducing the radius
augmenting the recharge time
augmenting the energy pull

Now here comes the best part : the stuff you hadn't thought about (not to mention the stuff FAF did, so if you wanted to seem knowledgeable about shields you had all the time in the world to document yourself) :

bigger hitbox
reduce or null splash damage gradient (meaning full spash area takes bullseye damage)
make all overlapping concerned (meaning touching shields get dealt damage even if they were nowhere near the hit zone)

You didn't know? yeah that's FAF's shields. And it's no secret I've told everyone every opportunity I got.

Now let's get into the things even FAF didn't do.

Change bubble shape/height
fixed height "passthrough" zone (meaning, for ex, it shields top down but stops a certain height from the ground and shots fired that height pass through)

I could go on but I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here. ah? ah? anyone? someone?

What people don't want are bubble/dome shields that prevent arty/missiles out.

you've probably not realized yet that your walls block enemy shots but not your own

I'm gonna be honest here... I never knew that simply because I always try to avoid building walls because I feel it's better used in things that can actually move early on to attack before fortifications can be brought up en masse... lol. I'll defenitely have to try that, because I always imagine a wall as ... well... a wall, lol.

also...

well, to be fair, I think your right... which is why I'm glad the shield that people keep suggesting would cost metal... to build it. like any other unit. in the entire game.
but to be fair, someone DID suggest a shield type that would require a constant strain on metal, specifically... shot down for same reasons as any other shield. so obviously, this is not the issue, as otherwise you would've like it.

if a shield generator costs 1000 metal, and someone manages to rush in bombers to kill it losing 300 metal worth... how is that shield being overpowered?
yes, shields would give hp regen based on energy... but isn't that a good thing? right now energy ingame is literally a joke. just pop out an advanced generator here and there and nothing really requires more. so wouldn't more units requiring energy be a -good- thing? also, that is hp regen... if the regen is slow enough, it won't matter except between battles.
but besides all that, your forgetting something very important: damage vs cost. if the bubble shield gives your force effectively 1000 more hp, but it costs 1000 metal... how is that better then, say, 4 vanguards at the front? that can take that damage AND do damage? it would be worth it if the opposing force cannot get through that first 1000 hp, but once they do, you have an absolutely HUGE target painted on that shield generator. this is what people conveniently forget when talking about shields. yes, it's giving hp to nearby forces... but it is an absolutely huge target economicaly because of the resources needed to build it. and considering the fact it's only useful -on- a front line... that's very important.

edit:
also... maybe people keep not listening to you because they know your arguments are invalid, but don't know why well enough to argue it? also maybe people keep suggesting it because they feel something is missing from the game, and feel 'shields' fit the bill best?
on this note, the game is defenitely missing -something- defensively... but honestly, I think it's because of balancing of turrets, not missing units. but that's another discussion for another time, when we actually have all units ingame.

The double rainbow is an awesome shield!

But frankly when do u ever play a game where u like" oh man, if only i had some shields now. Would totaly make all the Pelters, Holkings and missiles useless" ?

I agree... this is why I have said multiple times, and still stand by, the real reason why shields are not needed/should not be ingame, is because there is nothing for it to counter. shields being a 'general universal counter' is not a good idea, and usually to help with this, they are made extremely weak, and costly. there real benefit is being able to protect from long ranged shelling... which as of right now... that is no where found. longest range unit we have atm is pelter, which putting into supcom's ranges, would be equivelent of the t3 mobile arty... somewhat far, but not really.

if at some point we have a interplanetary bombardment options... or a unit that can shoot from one side of a planet to the other... or something like this. then ya, shields would have a very specific function, but until then. it's not that they would be -bad- per se... just unneeded. and right now, there's a ton of other stuff that needs worked on.

I would expect to get rapid fire long range artillery and shields at the same time.
I really wouldn't want one without the other.

We've had a few threads in the last few days all discussing the exact same thing, and because my answer in each of them almost exactly mirrors the question the OP asked here I've opted to simply quote myself.

I re-ask the same question as the OP here... If you feel there is a specific combat role for the shield to fulfill why would you object to having that role fulfilled in a different way?

Do you see a combat role that needs filling, or are you do you simply want shields and are looking for a way to justify them?

It's totally OK to say "I want shields because they look cool." but don't try and tell us all that we NEED shields because they are the only way to improve gameplay.

Shields are an effective counter against artillery. But we really don't have scary artillery in this game yet so they are not really needed. But they do really look pretty cool!

You know what else looks cool? Scary artillery!
I vote for both!

I hope we don't get the ridiculous sup com artillery.

do you want shields? well here is something to think on. walls with combat fabbers behind them. just one, could indefinitely protect a whole section of walls against an army. here is your shield. and by the way, that totally needs to be balanced.

Ah, come on. You don't like crazy, buzzsaw, extreme range, AOE, mega cannons?
If we get these then everyone will want a shield to hide under.

We don't really need either one of course. But we don't really need tiers, navy, orbital, air, multiple planets, or bots either. Many folks seem to be content with just playing around on single planets with T1 tanks, and I am fine with that. There is even a e-sport series dedicated to this practice that draws considerable attention.

No, I don't like them for the problems they introduce.

being?

The ability to destroy your enemy, without leaving your base.

This opinion is formed from many hours of supcom and there is no way your going to change my opinion on this.

even if that problem is solved by layer shields? you still need to get units to the enemy base to lower the shields.

units>artillery>shields>units

now artillery is ranged fire support for your armies and useful for little else due to specialized shielding that is bad vs armies

I would never advocate one without the other.

Shields don't solve artillery, period.