Force fields?

Hey, I was just wondering if there were going to be force field generators of some sort? Just for base defense like in Supreme Commander. Anyway keep up the good work UBER!

It is a confirmed no.

The list of confirmed things by Knight is a pretty good read.

Now having a /d for your commander, now that's something I want. DANCE C-MAN DANCE

I just had another idea... Perhaps different commanders could create different super-weapons (Currently only the nuke) Maybe a black hole? Ion cannon, Artificial sinkhole, artificially generated natural disasters, Napalm, EMP? Maybe another way of destroying planets would be to plant a black hole bomb thing in the core of the planet (like in Star Trek) and it would just suck itself into nothingness!

You should indeed check that list out, speaking of which it needs a refreshment right?

Yeah I just read the whole thing. Thanks!

The sheer number of people that want shields has got to make Uber at least think about adding it later on. The idea re-surfaces constantly making it somewhat surprising they haven't changed their minds on the shield feature. I can imagine those bubble-like shields from supcom would look pretty cool on the side of a planet, especially with that blue-glow. It will be interesting to see what that features list looks like come December...

Shields would look awesome.
What if shields would protect you from orbital lasers for a while. They consume energy. When the bombardment goes on long enough they burn out and you have to rebuild them.

This would not break gameplay and look cool at the same time.

I think the primary issue with shields is that they are inherently unbalanced. The point of them is to provide a damage-sink with superior cost-efficiency to "normal" units. Because "normal" units require metal to "regenerate" (either be repaired or be rebuilt), Shields would have to consume metal to be even comparable to "normal" units in terms of balance. Arguably, yes, power generators are the "metal deficit" caused by shield generators, but those are flat cost. Once you have the 1-10 power generators necessary to power a shield, you're golden. That shield stops costing metal and begins to pay for itself by absorbing damage. And considering the efficiency of shields in SupCom, they pay for themselves extraordinarily quickly.

In my opinion, shields are just a really boring and easy all-round defence. The more open and dynamic the game is, the better. Shields counter that. So I don't really think we need them. That said, there are people who want them.

Do a search before posting.

This is a confirmed no and has been talked about to great length.

why is the cost-efficiency bit locked to you? it's not like vanilla supcom shields ran anything like today's faf shields.

After playing the beta I'm happy either way, however the decision to have shields or not really would change the game dynamics in a big way.

Currently if you are getting shelled from long range, your only defense against that is an offensive to take out the artillery of the opponent. Shields would mean you could sit there for longer before losing all your buildings to the artillery. Without Shields it ups the urgency of a counter to the artillery.

What I have found often happens in games, in the current beta is you will get an artillery standoff, with both sides having artillery built just out of range and a DMZ forming in the middle. It has made for some interesting dynamics. Will be interesting to see how this evolves as more units become available.

If they are unbalanced just balance them. Dont get lazy and just dont add them at all. Its not like a turtle has enough resources to shield his entire base from 360 degrees, make enough power to power the shields and enough defences to keep units out of their shields.

Anyway 1+ for shields i really want them

If you guys want a game without defences then add that as a gamemode (or just exclude units) so everyone is happy.

I too would like to see shields in the game. They can be balanced, im sure of it. They could also be disabled in the lobby for those who do not like them.

Maybe not shields, but some defence against tactical missiles would be nice...

Uber has chosen not to add shields. This decision isn't about balance, its about how they want the game to be played.

You can argue that adding shields (in a specific way) will make the game more fun, but saying anything else is pointless.

I know that shields are a confirmed no, that doesn't mean we should not talk about them. Im sure if enough people said they wanted shields anyway, Uber would re-consider the position on shields, or maybe even look into another form of shields or defense..? Maybe.

Force-fields ... they exist in gameing for quite a long time ...
To be more realistic , although it has the same function but a different name , and basically does the same thing , magnetic fields sound more realistic and they did not say that they won't make them
Not something powerfull (it does not need to be) , and it can be made realistic (bouncing projectiles) .
Also , in the real life future , i see powerful magnetic fields rather than force-fields (cheaper and easier)

Please read this hellish discussion, this slightly shorter but just as hellish one, this gratefully short-lived one, and this one, which wasn't focused on shields but had short flame battles about them.

We have discussed shields to DEATH. I think every single possible way to balance shields to fit PA's playstyle had been discussed, as well as every single possible alternative Euclidean implementation of shields. We have discussed lore, and gameplay mechanics, and balance, and... Well, we've probably even discussed fetishes related to shields, I wouldn't be surprised.

I think a lot of people are more interested in the idea of shields than they are in actually using them in gameplay.

The gameplay pathology that shields create is exactly what they are supposed to do. They make damage below a certain amount have zero effect. This makes players feel safe, like a security blanket, but it has huge negative gameplay effects.

The first, and most serious pathology, is that you need enough firepower to breach the shield in order to do any damage at all to the area being shielded. This leads to consolidation beneath the shields, and it leads to consolidation by attacking forces against the shields. And worse still, it runs away because you can make multiple shields, further increasing the minimum amount of damage needed to breach the shield.

Now, many games "balance" this by making units able to walk through shields. This doesn't really solve the problem because it strongly encourages the player using the shields to over-leverage long-range weapons. Where their normal issue is that they are expensive and vulnerable, the exact same asset beneath a sufficient number of shields becomes a very different type of asset. And this encourages the other player to use a similar consolidation of long-range weapons to overpower the shields, because the alternative is to try to close to range, which is guaranteed to result in serious casualties, but does not guarantee successfully destroying the shielded position. Failure might mean a total loss of the entire army, with zero real damage done to the enemy. This is extremely bad gameplay; both sides should suffer damage, with the skew of which side takes more damage resulting in difficult balancing of strategic choices made by both players. Lots of shields makes it all-or-nothing for only the attacker, and the result is a very passive and risk-averse game.

By contrast, in a game without shields, damage is significant. You can chip away at a defensive position slowly, without worrying that shields are making you completely waste your time. And, conversely, the player setting up the defensive position must be aware that they are vulnerable to being chipped away at, and should create a defense in depth instead of one focused on a single point. They should also incorporate mobile elements into their defense, and those forces can also be used offensively if the player decides to do so.

Shields only act to encourage ridiculously overconsolidated distributions of forces, and create lengthy standoffs where neither side is really doing anything to each other. All for the sake of "feeling safe" that you won't take any scary damage from the enemy's scary weapons.

Suck it up and lose a few thousand troops. And then build more.