My Thoughts on Shields

If the thread that got derailed and closed had legitimate discussion and conversation i progress that was derailed by 3 posters then yes I feel very justified to make a new thread.

I was not talking about the last thread in relation to constructiveness I was referring to the post I was quoting, from this thread. reasoning out why you don't want shields IS constructive and I encourage you to do so. I am not looking for a yes or no to shields I am looking for a dialogue. However the remarks made by you and other vanguard in the threads have been damaging to civil dialogue and helped contribute to the personal attacks that closed the last thread. there is room for argument in all things and suggesting that we should not discuss this anymore because it has been in the past is ridiculous.


to all vanguards:
being a 'highlighted' community member you are influential in discussion as you have a higher chance of being viewed/listened to. please try and maintain a healthy community and lead by example.
that said we all have bad days, just know you're attitude here does affect the rest of us.

I think I seen wrongcat post, and his attitude seemed fine to me and 95% of us besides nekahara and you I guess, I posted and my attitude is the same. I didn't see any others.

My reason? The artillery that are literally in the game right now require such proximity as to be reacted upon by an army. If you just wanted to snipe a single artillery piece, you could do so with 10 bombers almost assuredly with such short distance, or throw a blob of 20 tanks and grenadiers or infernos if necesary to just break the turrets and pelter and even if they died they would accomplish that.

That short range also means if their pelter works, and it is exactly 2 turret distances away, your turret and theirs, then it will probably break the single pocket of mex if it was a mex field, or a few pgens and the turrets guarding the perimeter. It literally will not threaten anything more distant than that without another artillery built. Artillery "creeps" are somewhat strong, but you can only build 2-4 more before a SMART player would have build their own the exact range back that they can build it before you build yours. They will lose their perimeter, but will stop the "creep" of your pelters.

Holkins are very expensive, very slow fire, it can maybe kill a mex or pgen in the same time you build another which doesn't do overall damage, and they can snipe important structures from a decent distance but it destroys a nuke while being lower threat while a nuke is much higher threat anyway. To build enough holkins to be a REAL threat would cost a nuke just about. Really a nuke is more of an instant investment while a holkins is a slower investment.

And really, those are the only thing a bubble shield would be useful for.

And to expand on my explanation, we had a special type of bad gameplay turtle device in the game a few builds back. Called OP turrets. They nerfed them too hard since them, but, when they were OP you build NO t1 units. They were an instantly killed investment. Instead, you rushed t2 with your absolute turret protection. People didn't even like THAT, because it was just turtle and use high tech. People don't want to be able to turtle 10 minutes of a game and just rush straight to top tech. They want to build mass low tech, and then build some high tech somewhere later while still building low tech mass.

That is why 70% of people don't want shields (wasn't that the last poll results?)

What type of shields? SC bubbles... i dont like those.. im creating a thread only probing the idea of layer shields im going to search first

My guests went home so I've got a few minutes.

This realy is a very speculative case and is very much a matter of taste. The longer individual units survive on the field the more opportunity there is for micromanagement. I would consider it an improvement to allow a player managed mobile defense force to have more value, but it's entirely subjective to every player's personal interpretation. Given that we have a single faction with identical loadouts the issue is not "balance" in the sense of fairness, but rather a question of "does this promote enjoyable gameplay." If everyone could agree on what is the most enjoyable there would only be 1 video game... it would be perfect and everyone would play it.

This is also completely true for many vanilla games. Many devs abandon the game post 1.0. Uber has made it clear they won't include shields in the 1.0 release, but following neutrino's comments they have committed themselves to building engine support for features they know modders want but they don't plan to use themselves. So far I've been enthralled by Uber's development team and I am confident that given time they will make sure modders have the engine support we need to have several different implementations of shields.

In the case I suggested, allowing AA to target incoming shells would have it's limits. The balance would really lie in "how much health does a shell have?" and "Can the AA keep up with the artillery?" If shells are low health then a single AA site would be able to pretty consistently shoot down every shell fired at it... unless the shells were coming in quicker than the fire rate of the AA. Given that the missile tower is cheap you can expect several so nearly any artillery barrage would be halted. However, if the artillery shell takes 2-3 hits before being halted then it would be fairly easy to out gun a position with concentrated fire. Personally, I think a happy medium would be to raise the damage on the missile AA but lower it's fire rate. This would mean that 1 AA could reasonably counter 1 artillery piece, but if you mix in an air attack they wouldn't have enough AA assets to handle both. Alternatively, if the AA site had a clip that required a longer reload after intercepting 4 shells then the 5th+ would get through in a 1 to 1 stand off.

If any implementation of a shield regenerates health or layers over time then it has the potential to indefinitely resist a given damage source. The question becomes "how does it regen?" If it requires a full 5* seconds without taking damage then it's very possible some of the smaller artillery pieces will be able to wear it down by not letting it rest, but if the shield regenerates constantly then you need a combined DPS greater than the regen rate of the shield or it will remain 100% effective. This is a matter of implementation and balance, so it could swing in any direction.

This is an extension of the bullet above it. You had made a comment about allowing the defender to choose if he wants to engage. To me that implies the defender has the option to simply absorb the damage and hope his power stays up.

If the shield is capable of regening constantly then it is a question of balance. Does the artillery piece out DPS the shield's regen? If the shield is one of the aforementioned "layer shields" then the question remains, how quickly do layers regenerate? If any of these things are faster than a single artillery piece can fire than it really can just sit and ignore it forever. It is certainly possible to balance a shield so that a single gun can eventually get through, but it's also possible to balance an anti-artillery defense so that it can counter the first few shells but has to reload before it can fire again. Eventually the artillery would get through if it has an equal or greater number of guns firing.

I agree it's a matter of tastes. I agree that a shield would definately grant a more reliable health buff to defenses, however roving units do still provide a great lure for enemy fire even when they are too small to inflict much damage themselves.

It can work both ways easily. If the enemy believes it has your commander in it you could use it to draw enemy fire harmlessly away from the rest of your base. Imagine his disappointment when he finally cracks it open to reveal nothing inside. Then again, you could also build more than one and use the others as decoys.

The problem with this argument is that the defender has the home turf advantage. His shields will already be built and established. It's hard enough to even place the teleporter in many cases, imagine if now you can't even clear a landing zone to build it because the enemy has shielded all of his umbrellas. While it would be nice to shield your beachhead the truth is that any universally valuable static defense will always favor the defender. If a weapon is specialized enough though it may not prove of any use to the defender, but is very valuable to the attacker. Case in point, mobile Anti-nuke or anti-artillery. Heavy artillery is at it's best on defense and it currently has little to no role for attack during an interplanetary assault. The result is that a newly placed teleporter will quickly get shelled out of existence but the attacker must depend on a flood of fast moving assault units to close the gap. If the attacker had access to an effective anti-artillery it would make planet breaching noticeably easier.

And you're very welcome for giving me the chance to have the debate. I totally understand clipping some of the quotes, I've had to myself. We broke 10,000 characters a while ago.

a quick theory craft for layer shielding vs artillery

to kill one shield you with artillery would need at least 5 artillery firing either in volleys

5 layers down takes 10 seconds to full charge so 5 artillery would take 2 volleys to pop the last shield layer (but not get any damage through) the third volley then gets 2 (5 - 3 layers based on 4s +2s +2s charge time) shots past the shield and kills the generator.

5 ADV artillery take a full 32 seconds to get through 1 shield at 3500 metal 500 energy upkeep vs 500 metal 3500 energy (max) upkeep.

at 7 artillery you can start penetrating advanced shields in a single volley but multiple shields (which would be reasonable at assume seeing that many artillery) you can hold out much long.

if you do get a critical mass of artillery (probably around 10) to start really peeling back shield defenses your opponent should have had plenty or forewarning, and plenty of time, due to the shields that if he doesn't strike the artillery he deserves to lose his defensive position.

pure artillery should not be a *viable* strategy but possible given enough time/non reacting opponent.

Artillery used in conjunction with intel and combat units? now there we have some strategy.
Artillery are good for forcing an opponent to invest energy into protection and supporting the combat troops you send to assault those defenses.



*all metal values are pulled out of thin air and are subjective and relative.

I have no need to go back and edit a post that's in the past. You're the one who threatened to report my post (which is off-topic and doesn't apply to the thread in the slightest).

I accepted @tatsujb's post - you're the one that brought it up.

I take your blustering and aggressive posturing for what it is - an excuse to avoid answering my counterarguments and questions to you. I thank you for acquiescing to reason, and I hope we can put this ridiculous topic behind us as you so evidently agree with me.

If you don't, answer the questions instead of trying to garner emotional responses. As I said, I've been moderating forum trolls for too long to be riled up by the likes of you (note: not calling you a troll, before you have another hissy fit).

EDIT: whups, double post.

Walls do block off units, but shields don't.

But that doesn't in itself mean that shields are necessary. Have you given though to the expanded idea of walls (let's call it ablative armour for the sake of being fancy)?

Walls and shields together are far too many defensive options for a game that is meant to be about attacking. A key failure of a lot of RTS games is that it's incredibly easy to turtle. Turtling should perhaps be a valid tactic, but not easier than anything else.

If you're outmatched and outplayed, you shouldn't be able to obtain a comeback by simply turtling (for a greater payoff with less skill invested than your opponent who has to attack you to finish the game).

Why shields are bad considering walls already exist in the game:

1. Developer implementation (resources, design time, shifting focus from other systems).
2. Turtling as a strategy becomes easier, which isn't something an offensive game should promote.
3. It skews resources in favour of those with more resources. It's a false choice in the early game, because game build optimisation is tight as it is; realistically people aren't going to use shields if they drain a moderate amount of Energy until they have enough Energy to support them. The fact that walls exist make them a safer and less expensive choice for the early game (even as walls are now, without any of my suggested modifications).

However, in the late game, people with more resources can field more shields and more anti-shield devices than people with less resources. It doesn't open up tactics because the tactics are dependent on the economic situation. Shields don't help the economic situation. They protect people with a massive advantage, or the allow people who should have been kicked out of the game to hole up on a little circle of land on a planet somewhere as the winning player tries to break their multi-layered shielding.​

Note: turtling should be a strategy, and if that isn't possible right now then that's something that can be solved by balance and design passes. Turtling by itself is not a reason to implement shields.

Note: the fact that shields existed and worked in a previous game is not reason enough to include them in PA. PA should be a game for the future, and not bound to repeating the mistakes of the past.

I agree totally with you here.

I have not yet tried to make a mod myself but Uber seem to be promising some very powerful interfaces. If they deliver those, even if they then decide to leave the project, modders would have an easier job at fixing / improving what is already there.

I would love to see at least 3 Shield mods, 1 for directional shields, 1 for bubble shields and 1 for layer shields. With those mods we could really get to play out the many different theorys that are developing here. And maybe some of the mods will be picked up by Uber in a fashion that will benefit both uber and those developing the mod. We will have to see what happens with the scene.

I feel that you can turn around your argument and applie it to shields just as well. It would then become a question of how much health does a shield have, and what is the DPS of an artillery.

I am iffy about things shooting down rockets and artillery since Supreme Commander. In Supreme Commander there also were anti rocket point defenses, but half of the time the would just not work. Or at least not work well. It was nearly always a case of me getting frustrated because yet annother shot managed to pass through the defenses even tho it should not have. Or it was not obvious to me why this rocket passed through but the rocket before got destroyed.

I totally agree with you here. We would have to try out multiple solutions in order to find out what works best, even for shields alone.

Allright I can see where we were misunderstanding each other now. I see shields as an equalizer. The attacker can always decide when and where to attack, and the defender always has to defend when and where the attacker decides hes going to attack. So the outcome of the battle is in my opinion reliant on the analysis of the attacker and much less of the skills of the defender.

If we introduce shields into the mix the defender will still have to engange when and where the attacker decides, but the defender will now have more time to react to an attack. Shields would also give the defender the upper hand if his forces are the same size as those of the attacker.

The best way to deal with regeneration is in my opinion to make it only happen out of combat. So if a shield takes damage it would not regenerate until after it has not taken damage for a set amount of time. How long that is would have to be decided by trying out what works best.

Well nothing speaks against having shields and patroles coexsist.

Imagine his frustration if he has to break through a shield and then through a bunker to find that it was a decoy .

I can see bunkers working if you can build multiple bunkers reasonably cheap in order to confuse your enemy. This would also more or less solve all cheesetactics since your enemy would never know where to hit exactly.

Allright so in the scenario you are painting the defender would have to have his whole planet covered in shieds. In order to sustain so many shields he would need a massive energy income. In order to protect his whole planet and in order to have enoguh energy for all those shields he would most likely have to have build at least half of the planets surface full of energy generators.

My solution to such an uncrackable planet would be to simply nuke his energy. Since his engineers will most likely be tied up in building either energy our shields or umbrellas he would have to neglect his nuke defense. If he does not, he simply would be to slow, or he would need to many workers who in turn would require to much energy wich is needed for the shields to run in the first place.

Once I have nuked his energy ( or maybe even dropped some units to destroy them via astraeus ) I could start invading the same way I would invade any other planet, but with the upside that the defender has spent most of his ressources on things that are now doing nothing for him.

I would / should also have the upper hand if we take ressources into consideration, since my enemy spent all his time on one planet all the while I was able to expand. If he expanded as well he would not have the time to manage all his defenses, even setting up a building queue would eat up so much time that he would have to spent the rest of the game trying to catch up to what the other side was able to accomplish.

In short I do not see a planet being covered in shields being a reliable strategy ever. In theory it would be hard to attack, in praxis however I feel that it actually makes it easier.

Yeah we are really bringing the forum to its limits here. Wich is a good thing all around . I have once again shortend some parts in order to be able to post.

1. Anything ever requested will take developers to implement them. Seeing as there is a demand for shield related gameplay it is up to the developers to decide wich direction they want to be heading.
   
   This is neither pro nor contra shields in any way.
   
   
2. Turteling is always the easiest strategy. Thats why it always loses you the game. Just because a unit can be used for a bad strategy does not make the unit itself bad.
   
   
3. All you are saying here is that the winning side can win with shields more than the losing side can win with shields. I do not get what you are trying to say.
   
   Are you suggesting that the side wich expanded and probalbly won more encounters should get some artificial mechanic bound to them in order for the other player to catch up? Because I feel that leads to a very unenjoyable game all around.
   
   The side with more ressources at its hand is, given both sides are of equal skill, always going to win. Nothing can and should ever change that.

I know I am going against my word of not engaging you but I dont want to be taken as someone who sidesteps uncomfortable arguments. I do however still feel that you are giving off a needlessly aggressive tone and would once again request you to please try and formulate your posts in a more civil way. You can think of me as overly sensitive all you want, just please keep that opinion to yourself as it does this conversation no good at all.

There's better ways to have economy sinks other than units, nor is there a need to have any economy sinks other than units.

I argue that units are the better things to put your economy into that shields. Shields don't destroy your enemy.

The Realm's balance mod incorporates the energy ammo system into more units and structures. Shellers and double barrel laser defense towers use energy for that matter. Spinners do. Gunships do. All around more units use energy to fire.

But more importantly, the realm balance mod doubles the health of units so engagements last longer.

If you want more time, then the better way to do that is to increase the health of units. Not add in structures that convert health into energy, which is inbalanced and OP.

1. There is a demand for a lot of things. Things that are unequivocally good for the game, as supposed to shields which have a divided opinion. I'd rather not Uber look at shields at all when there are things that can be implemented that are absolute improvements (client functionality, modding scope, performance improvements, replays, local games, offline play, Galactic War improvements).

Thus, it is an argument by definition of priority. Shields are not an absolute improvement.

2. Turtling, if it always loses you the game, is therefore not a strategy. A strategy is something that enables you to win.

3. I'm saying that shields do not affect the game in the way you (and others) say it will. Read my previous post again; I explained quite a lot in that single paragraph so points could be missed.

4. Stop telling me to keep opinions to myself and then tell me I'm being aggressive. My post wasn't aimed at you (and you replied . . . again), and it was perfectly neutral in tone. Better still, stop replying to posts aimed at other people and ignoring posts that I specifically aim at you.

1. The question of priority is decided by the up and downsides of the feature that is is to be implemented. Priority in itself is neither pro nor contra anything.
   
   We are arguing about why we feel that shields do belong in the game, and why we feel that they solve some problems. Obviously that means that to us the priority is high, while for others it is low.
   
   
2. Truteling, if it always loses the turtler he game makes it a bad strategy.
   http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/strategy
   
   
3. I ll go through your points sentence by sentence then:
   
   "It skews resources in favour of those with more resources."
   
   Yes it does, as does any unit in the game. The one with more ressources available to him is always going to have the upper hand.
   
   "It's a false choice in the early game, because game build optimisation is tight as it is; realistically people aren't going to use shields if they drain a moderate amount of Energy until they have enough Energy to support them."
   
   So what you are saying is that shields cant be used always? That they have strategic up and downsides? That they are not the solution to everything your enemy does and have to be used carfully?
   
   All those things are upsides for shields if you ask me.
   
   "The fact that walls exist make them a safer and less expensive choice for the early game (even as walls are now, without any of my suggested modifications)."
   
   Once again shields will not replace walls, they are not meant to do so. If they are a better choice for early game or not has exactly zero impact on shields.
   
   "However, in the late game, people with more resources can field more shields and more anti-shield devices than people with less resources. "
   
   The side with more ressources can field more of anything. Once again - more ressources = upper hand.
   
   "It doesn't open up tactics because the tactics are dependent on the economic situation."
   
   Everything is dependent on the economic situation. If you dont have enough ressources at your hands certain strategies will be unavailable to you.
   
   For example and comparsion: Nukes, Halleys and SXX Sattelites - you will not be able to build those and the strategies connected to them unless you have a certain economic strength.
   
   Why should shields behave different in that regard? What is there do gain if we disconnect shields from your economic situation? And how do we even accomplishe that?
   
   "Shields don't help the economic situation."
   
   Not every unit is designed to help your economy, or weaken the economy of your enemy. See radars for example. Or walls. Just because a unit does not fulfill a certain economic role does not mean its a bad unit.
   
   "They protect people with a massive advantage, or they allow people who should have been kicked out of the game to hole up on a little circle of land on a planet somewhere as the winning player tries to break their multi-layered shielding."
   
   What protects people with a massive advantage is their massive advantage and not one single type of unit alone, but rather that they can just outnumber and outlast their enemy.
   
   Shields should not be so strong that you can just hide on a tiny spec of land and be indestructible. And I am certain they wont. The point you are making only applies if the shield is really badly balanced.
   

I would advocate to delete point 4 from the ongoing discussion as it has nothing to do with shields. This is what I was trying to say in the first place. Im sorry if I worded my post badly, and I am sorry if that upset you.

1. Priority is different for each of us debating the feature.

However, for Uber, the priority for systems that we all agree are absolute positives is higher. Ergo, they should come first. Do you not understand what I'm getting at with this?

2. Turtling, if it always loses, is a bad strategy. More to the point, it's an ineffective strategy. Turtling doesn't always make you lose, and shouldn't always make you lose. Shields make turtling easier (as do walls, which is why I'd rather restrict the availibility of these defensive structures) to the point where it's easier than any other strategy.

That is why it is detrimental to general strategic gameplay.

3. It skews the resource game. Early game, they're not going to be affordable. If they're affordable, they're going to be more effective than walls. This is design redundancy.

I'm saying shields shouldn't be used, because in any situation shields can be used, walls can be approximated instead. They don't have to be used carefully. They don't have downsides, unless those downsides are so severe there's no point in using them. Again, redundancy.

I'm saying it's not a tactical (or even strategic) choice to deploy shields. If you cannot afford them due to economical constraints, they're not available to you and thus are useless. Walls, on the other hand, aren't useless. If you can afford shields, you're already winning. There is no point to them. There is no choice. You buy them as soon as you're able to support them because they provide a net positive assuming you can afford them.

I meant the general economic design. T1, vs T2, vs. unique unit roles, overlap of redundancy. Do you have much experience in designing game economies? Do you not see the issues here, given the difficulties the playerbase and Uber have had already trying to balance the scaling economy?

The point I'm making is that if shields exist, they will be used to protect a tiny little island. If they can't be used to do this, then they're not going to be effective on a large-scale either. Thus rendering them redundant. A shield needs to be effective at a large scale, but that same shield is going to be just as effective at protecting a small area. If you scale shield strength based on economical output, it means that shields become even more useless because they only become effective at higher economical strengths.

Please refrain from quoting my sentences line by line, out of context. It's incredibly irritating and you're missing the general picture (to the point of misinterpreting what I am typing).

what? who or what sais you can?

we didn't get to any concrete values yet.

The reality of FAF gameplay and shields is that turtleing consistently looses and so do people with less skill ....consistently

Turtling should be a viable tactic. That is a core principle I have stated at least five times now. You yourself defended turtling in earlier posts.

However, if turtling is viable, shields make it easier.

If turtling isn't viable, but shields make it viable, shields become a necessary investment in order to pull off the strategy at all, which is a Band Aid solution (i.e. it doesn't fix the core issue of the strategy not being effective by itself).

1. I actually have no idea as to what uber is currently working on. They could be bulding a time machine... who knows. You as well as everyone else can only make assumptions on where uber is placing their efforts.
   
   My point is therefor arguing about priorities is a mute point. We are not in the position to decide where uber is putting their efforts, and we dont know where their priorities actually are.
   
   As for us all knowing what features should come first and what should come last - we disagree there, hence this thread and many others.
   
   
2. Well its nice to see you come around and accept that turteling is a strategy. If we are comparing two equally skilled players the aggressive expanding player will always topple the passive bunkering one. This is how it is, and how it should be.
   
   Turteling is by its definition the easiest strategy there is. You could, in theory, just use your commander to build some walls and turrets and therefor be a turtle. It does not get any easier than this, and you should always be losing when attempting this.
   
   But still, just because shields enable one to perform bad strategies does not mean that the shield is a bad unit design.
   
   
3. Allright sorry for misinterpreting what you wanted me to do. I was trying to get to every point you made seeing as I seem to have missed some before. I was however not using them out of context as I was including every sentence you used in your third point.
   
   I disagree that when you are currently ahead shields will be pointless. Maybe if you have build up enoguh strength and now you are steamrolling your enemy - sure, shields have little use to you. However not every victory is achived by steamrolling. Often you have to use proxy bases and firebases in order to win, shields will help bring that sort of gameplay to life.
   
   I disagree that you can use walls as a shield replacement. They may have some overlapping desgin points I give you that. But they are far from being a redundant unit. Once again
   
   + Walls do nothing against air.
   + Walls do nothing against artillery and arc firing units
   + Walls do nothing against orbital
   + Walls dont regenerate
   + Units can not pass through walls, that goes for your units as well as those from the enemie
   
   I feel that when compared to walls, shields have quite a lot of qualities and drawbacks walls dont have. Shields can therefore be used in situations where walls can not be used, and walls can be used in situations shields cant be used.
   
   As for shields having drawbaks that are so severe that you cant use them - sure. You wont be using a shield when you cant afford it. You've been saying that multiple times now, and you are right of course, but your reasoning applies to every unit and can thus not be a drawback of shields.
   
   Shields do have plenty of drawbacks that are not severe enough for them to be useless, take for instance them shutting of during economy stalls. Units walking right through them. Shields eating up a part of your energy constantly. The list goes on.
   
   As stupid as this will sound, if walls are nor available to you because of your economical constraints you wont be using them as well. You wont be using anything at all if you can not fit it into your economy. This has no impact on the tactical or strategical use of a unit.
   
   As for your last reasoning there . One shield covers a small part thus one shield can cover a large part just as well? What? I am not getting what you are trying to say there at all.
   
   
   
   
   

You are consistently assuming shields would be stackable in all of your arguments, from what I've read, no one in the pro-shield lobby want stackable shields either, only they don't take that point the the logical extreme you do (no shields at all). Shields as presented about a dozen times now by various posters don't seem overly skewed towards your doomsday scenario of easier turtling than attacking, but potentially add flavor, variety etc..

no that's not how it works. Besides, PA is already more of a turtle than FA ever was. So in that respect shields won't change a damn thing. and again you're equating shields to turtle. They aren't linked as I've tried to explain many a time.

I'd like for you to quote me where I defended turtling, either I don't recall or I didn't.

​

you're assuming we want shields in 1.0.

...we don't.

past 1.0 developer time is free to go towards shields as the developers have stated themselves. As @neutrino has said he'd like to do.

I disagree on one point there. The easiest strategy is surrender.

Well woulndt it be easier still to not start playing at all?