Single directional shields

I was thinking about shields in FA. Most people seem to agree they were a problem because they made turtling/defense too effective.

I would like to propose that this is due primarily to their omnidirectional nature, and not that fact that shields are, as a concept, overpowered or un-balancable. The fact that shields can't be flanked is an incredible advantage, so we should consider implementing shields that don't have that: Directional shields.

The Bomb Bouncer (from supcom 2, see picture below) is probably the best example of a directional shield in a modern RTS. It does a great job blocking shots from above (either from air or artillery) but doesn't block any direct-fire shots from any side. Similarly, and given that in PA, structures can be constructed at any desired orientation, directional shields would work great, in that you could build a shield that blocked bullets from on side only. In this way, you'd need 5 generators to provide complete protection on all dies (north, south, east, west, above), which is more ridiculous and not nearly as overpowered (also, these shields wouldn't even overlap, so you'd only have to break through one shield to destroy 5 shield generators).

Bomb Bounce, from Supreme Commander 2:

No shield ever

this

shields are fun.

Shields promote very un-fun gameplay (and this from someone who likes to turtle). They necessitate very large front-loaded damage on all weapons to overcome shields, which makes shields mandatory, and if your shields ever go down it's basically game over.

No shields.

But I'd like to see a unit like the Advent Iconus Guardian from Sins of a Solar Empire, a unit that would absorb a portion of incoming damage for allies in range.

I'm all in favour of a directional shield.

Picturing what is effectively a shield turret that points at enemies and blocks their shots. Flank it and it becomes useless.

It's hard to accept the feasibility of just an umbrella shield which is so commonly suggested here. Here is a simpleton explanation why:

The technology of these umbrella shields which can whether all projectiles is so versatile! Why can't I turn the umbrella sideways?

In fact, what real military, if they ever got their hands on this fantastic force shield technology, wouldn't consider every practical use of it?

Is it because of 'gameplay'? What is your game simulating then? All games need an anchor on reality. Otherwise, how am I supposed to relate to what is going on on the screen?
---
As for directional shields - they already exist; they are called walls(hopefully, fortress walls will make a return).

This whole controversy over no force shields needs to die. This paradigm of "we need force shields or an anti-artillery structure to counter artillery! otherwise, remove artillery from the game!" only spawned from Supreme Commander, which trains players to be lazy in dealing with long range threats. The need for force shields is also probably felt because every futuristic game has them, so we need them. This is not acceptable at all - the whole premise of force shields only exists as a technobabble concept, and there is no reason a game absolutely needs them.

I remember when playing TA I would turtle vs a few AIs and when i found of them building a Bertha I would freak the **** out and have to do something about it.
Good times.

I like shields.
I don't thinks shields are overpowered at all and I think it's fun having more options on the table.
It gives me a choice to turtle up my main, or expand far forward and build a small fire base.


I watch at least 1 SupCom replay a day.
And while shields are used, rarely do I see anything more than 1 or 2 shields in the main at the t3 factory and around the 4 main mexes.
And maybe 2 or 3 T2 shields in the firebase.


I like having them around.
And if they become abused, just rebalance them.

Yea I don't get why everybody is against shields. They really add a fun gameplay element. If your strategy can be countered by shields, your strategy isn't good enough.

I like how your example didn't actually perform the way its name suggests. The bomb bouncer was effective because it nuked air units out of the sky, and in fact it was the ONLY thing in Supcom2 that could deal with mass air. The layered shielding still created a rather obscene combo with ground experimentals, as their common weakness was some form of air or artillery unit 9 out of 10 times.

Area shields are a force multiplier, just as any other aura based ability is a force multiplier. Anything that subtracts damage is going to create asymptotic returns when it gets stacked up. It becomes a problem very quickly, especially on something as universally protective as shields.

Personal shields worked perfectly fine. At least, they didn't have the problems area shields did.

"Energy walls" or "energy fence" would make this concept easily understandable imo.
you build some wall structure on the ground with an energy field above it. Just a flat wall of energy not letting antything pass until a height of X meters.

I think play testing will be needed for this one.

I like the idea of force fields thy block in both directions and include unit movement so they are more like gates then shields.

For Personal Shields I like the idea of Plasma Armor.

Because what every RTS needs are more mechanics for air to be immune against...

Umbrella shields are designed to prevent turtling, due to the way that it cannot protect against ground units.

I would prefer to see the game without them at first, to see if they are required or if there is a better alternative for tackling them.

Obviously they aren't required since TA didn't had them and worked fine.


---------------

Instead of trying to shoehorn shields in desperately (no auras please, its not WarCraft...) lets deal with base defending otherwise:

- Make destroyed buildings keep their construction order. So just take any construction unit and click on the destroyed building to rebuild it.

Additionally, depending on the wanted automation:

- Have construction units on repair patrols automatically rebuild stuff

Additionally, for ease of use you could:

- Make the same building buildable over its wreckage. The wreckage metal automatically gets used to pay for some of the cost of the new one.

Then balance building hp and cost versus long range weapon damage and attack efficiency (rate of fire, accuracy) and you end up with more of a war of attrition against bases instead of either invincible when shielded or utter dead when the shield fails. Wars of attrition fit the flow economy better anyway.


All of it is much less of the balance nightmare then shields are. As has been said, shields are extreme force multipliers, unlike almost anything else that games in this subgenre usually have. Also, shields won't be in the game anyway, not even single-directional-half-penetratable-with-fluxuating-energy-needs-shields. :twisted:

Has anyone suggested having shields tied into the energy grid. This is the TA econ, so it would make sense to have a /s drain on power while the shield is up; but I don't think shields should use additional energy when attacked. If shields were a level* 2 or 3 consumer it would balance out nicely (assuming Long Arty was also a level* 2 or 3 weapon).

level* refers to consumption of resources on a scale of 1 - 3

Thats not a given fact AFAIK, they're not planned to get in for now, but the game is in a early stage and open to changes...

And dont understand why the loudest of all here are only turtler-enemies.
I guess they are frustrated by players who beat off their first rush-wave by using shields and stationaries insead of units. Which forces them to re-think their APM based tactics

That's not me^!

Also I feel an important balance point to consider is both the range and power cost to fire for artillery.

If a player can't stupidly stack many artillery into his base and keep them powered by artillery turtling, thus having the ability to win the game by having bust a fraction of the space using weapons that essentially replace nukes due to their range.

Then we won't need be shields.