Balancing Shields

Just my 2 cents:

I feel as though the only valid arguments in this thread (yes I read it in its entirety) are the ones that first acknowledge that intelligence gathering is THE MOST IMPORTANT COUNTER IN THE GAME. So, ask yourself first before blah blahing for or against a unit/structure, if the primary focus is gathering intelligence can I properly negate X threat without singular-purpose unit/structure Y (this is implied in most arguments as shields being primarily for anti-artillery)? If the answer is yes, then why is Y needed? Redundancy in games never adds much value IMO, and shields tend to be redundant in that proper scouting and non-static response would have saved one from needing shields in the first place. Artillery can be very easily balanced IMO with cost/build time. Shields aren't needed... if they turtled so hard that you can't get something in to take out an expensive artillery piece then you are failing at intelligence gathering. TA, SC, and even SC2 all heavily favor mobility over static... there is no reason why this game should be different. Always keep in mind that static = support... static should never be a first option.

As far as a "for shields" type argument, I think that they can be useful when they are used to temporarily help push out the control boundaries. I think this could be done via a nothing in or out approach (i.e. no stupid good-guys can phase through them) while giving the desired HP area boost. This means they would offer temporary protection at the cost of having 0 return firepower ability (ie you can't drop static defense structures underneath to fire outwards while being shielded from incoming fire). This would encourage their use only in very specific instances that would be much more dynamic than traditional shield use. Also, as mentioned earlier, if implemented, shield layering should have drastic diminishing returns or offer 0 benefits.

Only thing I have to say about the "cheap" argument is that unless the high level play becomes stagnant with only one strategy for an extended amount of time, it likely isn't cheap... you just don't know how to counter it yet.

i like how you basically described walls x)

lol exactly

I honestly do hope they stick with the no-shield approach. Walls are a better option IMO... but mostly so that you can write fun messages during games

That's wrong though. No shields reward mindless attackattackattack zombies who think every tactic should revolve around attacking, while shields provide the tools for a balanced strategy that the refined gentlemen pursues

See, I can polarize aswell.

Edit: We're at 17 pages already, this actually is the most pressing matter according to reply count in this forum. If the devs choose to ignore this issue then they'd act very unwise. A ton of people want them, and a lot of people do not want them, but the only reasons they say they don't want them is any form of "I don't want them in this specific way". There is only one conclusion to be drawn here: If we have shields, it's possible to modify / balance / change them in a way that will fit with most people ( shield faction + most of the anti shield faction ). Examples for this would be warding against specific damage tyes only, creative approaches ( deflection ), full blockage of everything friendly aswell, some kind of non-shield shield, such as modified point defenses, and so on and so on. There is some kind of solution out there that will satisfy the most people.
On the other hand, if you remove them completely, there is no way of such adapting or changing being possible. You will at best have the 50% anti shield faction be happy with it, with the other 50% hating you. You can't improve from here, you can't balance or change something that doesn't exist

Having shields and tweaking them to everyones liking should therefore be the superior alternative

@cephel

You're not polarizing, you're just pointless trolling at this point unfortunately. There some very nice arguments in this thread, especially what Sacrificial_Soul just wrote. Better argue with those imo.


Edit: Also, arguments ad populum are always bad. You know what they say that ants eat? Well, there are trillions of them so we all should eat the same I guess.

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


Anyway, great post Sacrificial_Soul. It took me sometime to realise your shields were walls

yeah, one of the bajillion TA mods had some really high walls that could be built, and I always liked their balance of function. They gave protection but hindered you at the same time.

I'll likely sleep fine whichever way this works out. People who rely on shields won't make it up to the same tiers of 1v1 ranked play that I hope to be in, so they aren't a huge concern. Team players should be a bit more concerned though... shields make for VERY boring team games IMO. Granted, with the added twist of multiple planets they may not impact team games as much (i.e. hard to dedicate one player to shield multiple planets while end-game unit rushing).

Sorry, but worse than argument ad populum is using pretentious latin buzzwords wrong. Saying the game shouldn't be enjoyable for the maximum amount of people is just wrong. There are a ton of good arguments for both sides in this thread. I merely stated that having something and tweaking it is always superior to not having it and loosing the ability to tweak it. People who don't want shields consists of many different people, you can make everyone happy even with shields, if they fulfil certain conditions ( someone pointed out he didn't want them be an everything counter, which i agree btw ), so you can just make shields not work against everything, problem solved. Another person happy. Who're really in the minority is people who are against shields without a specific reason or cause and just don't want them period, without giving any sort of argument why they do. But fortunately that's only a few. The rest of the anti shield faction can be worked out with a shield solution that satisfies both sides.
I was merely stating a different aspect of wether or not to have shields, that goes beyond gameplay predictions ( and they're that, predictions, because as long as not all units are in, you can't 100% say how they influence the gameplay ).

What about the unit catapult btw? When you can just throw units right into a base bypassing any sort of defense? That's another thing we need to keep in mind when designing possible shield applications

Ummm... your definition of defense is very limited. I'm guessing it will take a very long time to build and cost a ton of resources, as well as launch a limited number of units. So, is that a serious question? Do you expect to watch (or maybe you don't scout and don't watch, don't know) someone build a very expensive structure like that and sit back idly waiting for it to throw stuff at you?

Then again it would be hilarious to see a sudden expansion trampoline shield put into the game to scatter those silly flying tanks to the wind

Reasonable, but still it has issues. I counter wit this thought:

Basic rules:
First: lets name it something different...say Electromagnetic Barrier (EMB's for short).
Second: you can only have one EMB generator on a given planet. The generator is a massive project.
Third: The EMB can be extended through the use of EMB Repeaters or Extenders, smaller structures that take the energy of the Main generator and spread it out. This has a consequence, extending the EMB weakens it. So making a massive turtle shell means it is as weak as an egg shell.
Fouth: the EMB is NOT impenetrable, The EMB is more akin to a deflector and EMP Pulse. Craft passing through the EMB will take damage while energetic projectiles passing through will become disrupted. Mass based projectiles will have nothing happen to them unless they are guided munitions.

It is kind of simple, but the idea is sound. While not a shield, it does provide a tactical defense with repercussions to its use. Plus the idea has not really been done before since the common idea of a EM Barrier is that os the Star Trek Shield/Deflector...Even through Shields and deflectors are TWO different things entirely.

It's also completely useless, with only one per planet being allowed.

It would depend on the coverage and if the player uses an extender at additional bases making a new dome at that position. Reading things and taking them only at face value with out adding to the idea is not constructive and shows why many people are not game developers or artists. :lol:

@sybersmoke

And you still didn't show why shields are necessary.

You invented a quite complicated device that adds what to the game?


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

That's not how game design works. (Also, please add some paragraphs for readability.)

First of all, having something in a game just for having it in is pointless. You don't say, lets add X and then after you've added X you start thinking, oh my, how can we make X work? (Well, sometimes you do that of course, like doing planetary destruction and then thinking about how you balance it. But usually its not just done that way because adding stuff costs limited resources of dev time.)

Secondly, you're making numbers up about how many people like A, B or C without any sources backing you up. This was my pointer about the argument from popularity. First, the argument is a fallacy by itself, secondly your numbers only exist from your imagination, since you have nothing to source them.

And third, the major blow against your argument is, that those at Uber the decide what gets in and what not, said there won't be shields. You have to bring up a convincing case why shields are necessary and not having them will be a significant drawback. As I've mentioned multiple times in this thread, TA did not have shields and TA is a great game that works perfectly well without shields.

You have to argue against this third point to convince Uber, not just repeating what some people liked about shields in SupCom.

if it works so well why were shields often modded in?

Maybe so, but then, why not just have shields? What's the difference?

Because people who play computer games have some kind of psuedo-sexual fantasy about a giant mecha base with glowing shields everywhere. Hell, even I like the way bases with tons of shields look... but the question here isn't are they a cool idea, but rather what will they add to the game? To that end the arguments have not been very persuasive.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but Absolute Annihilation (one of the more popular mods IIRC) didn't have shields... just giant walls. Giant walls of awesome. And those epicly expensive long range anti-air torpedoes

wrong, they said they'd look for a creative spin on them

especially here:

They eventually patched them in when caydr made the switch to spring

Nowadays literally every mod that strives to preserve the TA feel has them. BA, AA ( discontinued afaik ), CA ( before it diverted from TA ), Escalation, you name them

Yeah, and all those mods are worse for having them in.

As for sources, I have access to those too:

1. 2. 3.

So nope, not wrong.


My basic argument still stands. TA didn't have them and it worked fine without it. Some mods eventually had them, but they diverted from the original TA and play differently from it. (Ofc modding the game usually makes it play differently. So... yeah. :mrgreen: )

You still haven't established a need for shields.

Likewise, nobody has established a need to not have them yet

Unless you plan to make Total Annihilation: HD, which the devs are not, both options are up for discussion. PA already diverts from the TA playstyle more than the mentioned mods ever have. So that's a moot argument

Edit: Also funny how you just mindlessly copy the sources, when 2 of them basically say we'll get them eventually

Redundancy.

Laziness