My Thoughts on Shields

We'll consider it if it falls into the bucket of viable strategies. ;p

Replies to @nehekaras will have to wait, time allowances.

Where did I ever assume that shields would be stackable?

Point me to my post, or better yet, paragraph.

1. If PA is a "turtle", why are people complaining about the lack of defensive options?

I thought you said the game was more about "attack moving blobs of units". Am I wrong?

2. I was under the impression you thought it a viable tactic that having shields wouldn't harm. Can't look up the post, pressed for time.

3. I didn't assume you wanted shields in 1.0. I didn't assume that at all.

I'll be patiently looking forward for your arguments then

because they can turtle all they want it can't protect their Com, only their eco and base.

yes, to have been correct there you'd have had to have quoted me in the text. Neither deathball nor turtle are mutually exclusive and they even just so happen to coexist in PA.

in PA current gameplay you don't see groups spitting up much, raiding is something you excusively see pros do and at a very minute level. You'll have deathball vs deathball and deathball vs turtle.

cookie cutting is actually a popular build in PA, it never was in FA.

no, lol, you understood what I said backwards, you gotta read me top to bottom or you'll miss stuff.

here's the quote :

what that translates to is : "I don't care about tutleling but figure this : adding shields will not provoke more turtle so if that is the reason you fear shields you are placing fear on them uselessly. Also in FAF their prescribed use is mostly offense, so..."

alright, I wanted that to be clear. My point being that pre 1.0 shield are pushed down to "not in the least bit prioritary" because core features such as gaz giants, GW, ladder, ranking, bugs, balance optimizations, more units ect... are in pole position, whereas post 1.0 shields get to jump back up a couple slots and hence have all the legitimacy in the world taking up developer time.

This isn't supreme commander.

You basing your assumptions on how balanced shield would be included in PA is on an entirely different game. Stop it.

Yeah, um no.

I am going to base my opinions of something on experience, obviously so Im not going to stop that now, or ever.

If people cannot base their opinions on their own experiences, then they would have nothing to base their opinions on.

Supreme commander and PA are not entirely different games, they are very similar games, both RTS games and large scale RTS games at that.

My opinions are less to do with the balance of shields, but more the overall mechanic of shields, I just don't think they can work.

They are not assumptions, I am not assuming they would work like they have on the past, because I have no ability of divine foresight, I cannot see into a possible future to a possible implementation of shields, so I cannot comment on them and their theoretical balance.

I am talking about now, the current suggestion and their mechanic.

Telling me to stop is not conducive to either side of the discussion, or the entire discussion.

Telling me to stop is a attempt to silence me with no attempt at discussion and talking about your points.

And your rude behaviour frankly makes people on the pro-side of shields look bad, and this is actually rather bad for your argument, if you can even call it that.

If you wish to discuss point with me, then please do, otherwise, please leave the discussion to the people who actually do wish to.

Now when you base your experience off of shields in Supreme Commander Shields i agree that you can use your experience to compare their validity and applicability to PA..

However seeing how you mentioned shields in the following comment....
"I just don't think they can work."
You used "They" to describe shields as an undefined plurality. Now i am assuming you refer only to armor and bubble shields.. This, I agree that they offer no tactical advantage.

However Layer shielding i believe is the only chance to have some semblance of existence in Planetary Annihilation..

I am still referring to the mechanic in general.

Reference Layer Shields Directly please.. Provide me reasons why that specific implementation cant work yet Metal based walls can?

Layer shields don't fall in the "general mechanic" of shields from Supreme Commander therefore they cant classified in that grouping..

To be honest....I have kind burned out on long discussions on this topic, and have said I really came to say.
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/my-thoughts-on-shields.60191/page-4#post-939482
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/my-thoughts-on-shields.60191/page-4#post-939522
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/my-thoughts-on-shields.60191/page-4#post-939550
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/my-thoughts-on-shields.60191/page-5#post-939604

That's me, and my mind is kinda solid, even with me encouraging you pro-shield guys to keep pushing to get the tactics you guys want in the game.

I just don't want shields is all.

From your linked posts i get the idea that you might agree with my version of directional shield layering.. where you build a "shield generator" and on completion of construction you pick a permanent direction for the layering.

Again i want shields to be a "Advanced version of a wall, metal based," I want them to behave the same way as t1 walls behave in regards to what they block and don't.. grenadiers... Now i believe they need "Layer regeneration" because in my implementation "Layer shields" are designed to absorb High damage shots, Not quantities of shots.. they Can't, in my implementation have "HP", but rather only absorb say for example 5 shots...

then the shield in that directional layer must recharge. the other layers wont go down yet if it they are not the primary directional layer they will not be able to hold off long against any force... In my implementation i suggest 1 layer for non-primary directions.

I believe that this has the potential to add interesting defensive capabilities, while at the same time allowing an opponent with the proper intel to easily counter specific layer shield installations purposes depending on their primary layering direction

I just don't really like the shield mechanic dude, the balance isn't really what Im talking about.

If we called it a point defense and gave it the exact same mechanics but made it look like a laser that hits projectiles would you still hate?

I don't hate shields, I just don't believe they work.

And a PD visual wouldn't cover my issues, as I have similar feelings with the anti-nuke.

Not that is matters much, I have explained this already.

Gorbles
'...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.'


You specifically asked not to be quoted in snippets, (and I screwd up my attempt) so I didn't quote your post out of context but here you go, plain as day you imply stacked shields not the word (you used mult-layerd instead), but the meaning is pretty obvious to anyone.

I was telling you to stop assuming, not to stop talking....

I'm not being rude when I tell you that you should, it's not helpful.

"Shields can't stack as well as artillery"

That I assume was an "opinion" as you call it, based on your experience with sup com? Because that's looks a whole lot to me like an assumption.

You do not believe that shields can be implemented as a counter to artillery? Correct? And what do you base this on, other than vague assertions of experience. It's all well and good to be experienced with the RTS genre, but that doesn't make you an expert nor does it make your statements factual.

Why can't a balanced shield, and I am talking any kind of shield here (there are many types other than bog standard sup com bubble) be a counter to a balanced piece of artillery?

I don't particularly like the Ballet, yet I don't go down to performances and tell the dancers that they don't deserve to exist.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assumption

My evidence to me, is my experience with them, that is my proof to base my opinion on the matter.

Experience is hard proof to convey, but I have tried before hand, so please, read my previous comments.

To me, it is a fact, and I haven't seen any prof to tell me I am wrong, especially as I have had many, many experiences with the same result.


There is nothing vague in my argument, to me, this isn't a assertion, to me, this is a fact of the matter, to me.

So do you agree to disagree like the others did, or are you going to tell me my experiences are wrong because you don't share them?

Don't dodge my statement and funnily enough, assume I was talking about something else.

You assumed that I was discussing that I don't like a balanced shield, and I was not, I was talking about the shield as a game mechanic.

And if you read, and understand my previous comment you can see why I believe this.

And quite frankly, you argument here doesn't even apply, as this thread is to specifically talk about shields.

So to me, no the don't deserve to exist, so this is really a non argument.

Evidence is only evidence to others if you can prove it, otherwise your arguments are just conjecture. You can label your assumptions as facts until the Earth is swallowed up by the Sun, I'm afraid you won't convince me without some hard evidence.

That would require lee-way. I find the notion of agreeing to disagree to be distasteful. I might eventually get bored of talking to you but that doesn't imply there is room for debate on the matter. I'm not saying your experiences are false, I'm telling you your statement(s) have been based off of assumed facts.

My points up to now have revolved around the premise that you weren't talking about balanced shields, but completely the opposite. How else would you discuss a shield if not as a mechanic? As a suggestion of a particular unit with particular stats perhaps, but neither of us has done that. You are talking about the mechanics of shields and so am I. Hope that clears that up.

My comment about the ballet was a metaphor, and a sarcastic one at that.

And now we have "No, shields don't deserve to exist. So there is no argument" What?......What are you on about!

Look dude, this has more been a thread about why I explain why I don't want shields then a actual discussion of why I feel I must convince you people of why you are wrong and why I am right.

This isn't me trying to convince you of anything, is is me explaining why I don't like shields.

I know full well im not going to convince you guys that you are wrong, and that we don't need shields because its far beyond that point.

Neither group has really shifted from this debate, we just understand the other side more.

So if its all the same to you:

"No, I don't want shields, please stop making more threads because I don't agree"

Is my official (And many peoples official) response, I simply felt the need to explain myself.

Translation: They don't like shields in any way shape or form, doesn't want them in the game and argues from that position - it explains a lot. I don't get why they bother posting when they've already made up their minds before the damn thread went' up...