My Thoughts on Shields

I'm so glad that the conversation finally came back around to the question I asked! "What role do you want filled and how can it be filled?"

I like the idea of an artillery defense but I don't think that defense should buff everything, and most importantly it shouldn't make already difficult planetary assaults any harder... so I've been thinking this....


What if Radar had a much smaller inner radius (marked by a yellow ring instead of green) where it could detect incoming artillery (shells and missiles). Detected shells could then be targetable by any AA weapon in range to counter it. No new structure is added, mixing T1 radar with your defensive structures is given a new value even after spy satellites and T2 radar are available. It has the added perk that the artillery defense is only as effective as your stacked AA, and that massed artillery can be mixed with air attacks to overwhelm the defense.

I agree with mredge73 that space bombardment is another form of artillery, but we already have a strong counter here, the Umbrella. The only weakness being that the laser sat can fire as soon as it appears in orbit so it bypasses the counter for it's first barrage. If the laser satellite folded up it's wings during interplanetary travel and then had to unfold them before attacking from orbit it wouldn't be capable of insta-sniping on arrival. This would fix an abusable commander snipe while also fixing the Umbrella's role as a counter.

edit: mredge73 posted while I was typing. The Umbrella should probably be made a little cheaper and a little smaller, but it is already a T1 structure so you should be able to get them across your base before an enemy can sneak an anchor over your base.

I will not waste time editing posts that blatantly ignore the rules. - Garat

Appearance and mechanics are different things.

(and I'm not talking about the drop shield, that is a bubble)

I'll reply shortly, as stated before to @igncom1 there was no insult in my post.

I feel saddened by your reaction. moving on, I feel you haven't indeed taken into account all implementations of shields since you left one the one that actually matters to me, the one i've described in everysingle one of my posts up unitl now: FAF's implementation.

They do not have overlapping.

there's a bunch of other stuff they do not have.

they are very different from FA's or SupCom 2's takes each.

I didn't know you weren't against shields by principle.
that changes my view. perhaps you can forgive me?

I've edited my post that some found insulting, tell me if this is any better, keep in mind that english is not my main language.

Of course I will, I was more surprised really as you are usually a rather agreeable guy.



But yeah, shields are kinda out of there for me.

But id love to see what you can come up to get some of these ideas in.

Indeed it supports transparent textures. Problem with shields is that either you get clever with merging them all into single geometry mesh (which is tricky) or you overdraw every single sphere. With size of PA we face possibility of hundreds of shields. Top game engines (and graphic cards) can do like 20-30 overdraws then everything slows to crawl. This is not a problem for single atmosphere effect. But try to draw 100 of them at once.

And this was problem in sup com, shields lagged graphics a lot. PA already has performance issues with huge armies. With current eco making lots of shields to lag enemy when he zooms in would be valid strategy. OR making lots of mobile shield units to lag him while he is defending base.

So i write it again: a lot of coding for something that is not really needed and can be replaced gameplay wise with another mechanic. Scope of PA battles limits a lot of cool ideas that we are used to.

Perhaps a different idea for the same thing:

Anti projective laser defence.

Every laser defence can shoot down a projectile every 2-3 seconds. Consumes energy, Tier 2 defence tech. Range is the same as T1 turret. Only stops artillery shells and long range missiles. Very low health.

This would be ideal to defend small areas against artillery.

Solves coding issues, solves lag issues and solves too much turtle.

Make it T2 and mobile. This would also solve problem of artillery creep and give time to eliminate it with strike team.

Well I never had any problems with shields lagging the game in Supreme Commander, and up on researching the matter further I found no evidence of shieldlags being a real problem. Given that a shield has limited size, there will likely never be a point at wich more than 10 shields are actually overlapping.

I think that if we were to implement shields they should not overlap. Yes that means more work needs to be done to implement them but I am certain that those at Uber are smart enough to find a good solution.

You seem to have more data regarding this topic than I have so if you could point me to the source of your claims I would be very thankful.

Regarding to much work for to less gain - obviously we disagree there.

Yeah the shield effects never had a problem on my end.

Even at the lowest settings where you just full purple with cybran shields.

What line? The dupe comment? It was a joke.

Methinks you're just looking for an excuse to find insults.

None of your answers solve why they can't be solved by walls of some description.

tatsujb, nehekaras,

I'm asking you both by name directly because you both strike me as reasonable and my question to the "pro-shield" camp has been pretty blatantly ignored on every thread....

• Very specifically, what gameplay roles do you expect the shield to fill?
• If a completely different solution was provided to fill each of those roles would that still be acceptable?
• If I can present an alternate solution to each combat role you list would you be willing to debate those solutions individually?
• If I can propose a reasonable alternate solution to every role you suggest would you be willing to concede that shields are not needed?

I ask because I started off with a very pro-shield opinion... I was a huge fan of SupCom and mods. I replayed SC:FA(vanilla) a fair bit while I was still debating if I wanted to spend $90 on Alpha PA access. When I broke down and bought it I immediately missed shields and came to the forums to see if they were planned. I read the debates and while not exactly convinced they were bad I did realize that the anti-shield camp had some valid arguments. I accepted I would have to wait for mods.

After playing PA since alpha though I've really come to enjoy it far more than I ever enjoyed SC:FA. I'll confess I still have some frustrations, mostly involving interplanetary stalemates and those already frustrating situations would only be made worse with shields. "I wish I had shields" has only crossed my mind when my teleporter was getting hit by an entrenched Holkins that I couldn't reach without bombers. At this moment I realized I really don't need shields, what I need is an effective anti-artillery defense and a better planetary assault method.

While I'm still very fond of shields I readily acknowledge they aren't NEEDED... they would be nice sometimes, but I also worry they might complicate some situations. Honestly, when they are eventually added in a mod I will definately try it, but I'm not convinced it will be something I use all of the time. I like the game without them.

This is what I was refering to. I'm still not sure If I should not just report you for that.

Please explain to me how walls will do anything against air units, or Orbital for that matter. I had included this point in my original answer to you:

• the ground attacks can be blocked for t1 units by walls but no airborne attack can be blocked. Meaning you could just get the payload through by brute force, pushing through the air patrol with a sufficient swarm of t2 bombers or gunships and at the right point in the patrol cycle.

To add to that

• Walls have a small hitbox, meaning that artillery and Advanced bombers will never unfold their full potential batteling walls.
• Shields can not be shot over
• Shields cover a larger area
• Shields are not directional

In order for walls to behave like a shield you would have to build a dome like structure above and around your base.

So since Shields behave different then walls they can be used for different situations and different strategies.

Once again walls do nothing at deterring artillery, and flying units, they can regenerate and have an overall different behavoiour then walls. They do have some overlapping points - both are damage sponges. But I feel that comparing shields to walls is unfair, both to walls and shields alike.

As a sidenote and please dont take this the wrong way:
Are you actually interrested in a constructive debate? I might be overly sensitive here but your writing style is giving off some bad vibes, intended or not. I feel that one locked thread on the shield issue is one locked thread to much and I do not wish to repeat the same mistakes that I made in that thread.

I know this is a issue we all have strong opinions about. I am certain that we cant make everyone agree on our view on shields - whatever that view may be. But I do feel responsible for keeping my posts as clean, nice and on topic as possible and I hope everyone else is trying as well.

Edit: Actually wrote a post.

Here is what I expect of shields

• I expect shields to mainly stabilize gameplay.
• They should buy you some time
• They should be used to cover up strategic locations
• They should give the defending side back some advantage over not being able to chose if to engange or not
• They should give the attacker some more strategies to try out in order to break a base
• They should be used to enhance the firepower of your defense in a defined area ( as in they can fire longer since they live longer, shields should not give a direct buff to damage)
• They should be used to be able to counter some of the more cheesy tactics while not negating them entirely - just making them harder

Those are the main things shields would introduce gameplay wise. At least those I can think of off the top of my head.

As for the need of shields being there, right now there is small to no need actually. I do think however that shields would open up many strategic possibilities that were currently not feasable.

I am open to alternative solutions. I do reserve a right to disagree with them however . At least expect me to try and find some downsided to your alternatives .

No problem, cool beans. I guess I'll edit my response to really respond to your real response.

What about something similar to the Aeon T3 anti-shield unit? Basically, it's great against shields but can also do some damage to other units as well.

I'm not really a pro-shield guy but still some room for thought.

So you're saying shields would be balanced if they required metal to run as well as energy or that they require metal to repair like a small structure that powered the shield? What you're saying sounds alot like a balance issue.

My Opinion of Shields:

There are too many threads on them.

I may not be a pro player or tourney winner, but I think competitives and casuals alike will agree on my assessment. NERF THEIR THREAD RATE!

A good unit, or at least a very valiant attempt, but id like to see it integrated with a few more units, and units in different levels (Like air, land, navy) at the very least.