My Thoughts on Shields

normally, I would just post this in the thread this was about... but seeing as how that thread is really going in a different direction, and where it's going... I felt I really needed to make this seperate. so I apologize if it seems this is 'yet another thread'

now first off, I just want to get this out of the way, I am NOT just making this thread to suggest we add shields, I understand uber wants to make this game as much like TA as possible in that you should always be 'on the move'

but to be fair, I am really getting tired of seeing people say shields should not be in the game simply because 'shields suck' 'shields are overpowered' 'shields just encourage turtling' and so on. really, your just bashing shields because for whatever reason you hate them. if you have a solid reason why shields are a bad idea, please, share them. don't just bash them, because then your no better then the people on the other side saying shields are the greatest thing since the wheel.

'but wait, you just pointed out there overpowered and encourage turtling, there's 2 reasons right there' well... no, those aren't really valid reasons.
if shields are overpowered, that would imply they DO belong, they are just simply 'to powerful' if that was the case, they could simply be balanced properly. so really, saying this is in fact saying you DO want them in the game, just not as powerful.
now I will agree that shields can and probably would encourage turtling. but then so does every single defensive structure in the game. especially walls. seriously. what difference is there between a shield and a wall? if encouraging turtling is such a bad idea, then put your money where your mouth is and suggest we get rid of walls to. but turtling ISN'T such a bad idea in terms of how the game works. it's just a bad idea on how to PLAY the game, which there is a difference. the correct use of defenses, as you all should know, is to make it harder to attack high value targets. if you spend to much time doing so, then you lose the war because your not spreading out as much as you could. this is an even bigger issue in PA since you could turtle a planet all day long, and lose to the first asteroid crash that comes your way. so if anything, encouraging turtling is more non-existant in this game then any other, simply for that reason.
also, for all of you bashing turtling in general... you don't really get it anyway. the point of a -succesful- turtle strategy is to rush the biggest superweapon possible, that you then use on the offensive. most people just think of turtlers as those who just sit there and spam defenses all day long with no real intention of attacking. that's not turtling... that's just bad gameplay.

now with that being said, no, as it stands now, I wouldn't suggest adding shields either.
to add any unit in a strategy game, it needs to have a definite purpose. traditionally, shields offer only 1 thing, protection against artillery. in supcom, this was evident by things like the t3 arty's, mobile and structure kinds. in PA, we simply don't have that. take another look next time you play a game at your artillery structures, you'll see there range isn't -really- all that far. meaning for someone to 'setup' artillery they need to get fairly close to you in the first place.

so please, next time someone asks for shields, just ask them what they want the shields to protect them from, because between vanguards and ssx platforms and leviathans, shields would be pointless... instead of just sitting there bashing each other for multiple pages.

The issue I have with shields (personally) is not that they encourage turtling (I love turtling personally, if done in the right situation, such as big FFA), but that is discourages rapid expansion. This is not the same as encourages turtling.

In order to promote large scale conflict, requiring expansion is important. The game is intended to be faster pace and shields would really slow it down. It would also seriously hamper commander snipes, which I think is an important part of the "assassination" game type (I know people complain about it but once more game modes are in people can play as they see fit).


Personally, I'd love to see directional shields (basically a wall that move). it would be vulnerable to attacks from multiple directions, encouraging defenders to find and utilize choke points, and attackers to find more interesting ways of attacking rather than pure steamroll. (ex, death ball from the front, quick bomber snipe on generators from the side).

Either way, you can be sure all sorts of shields will be modded in real quick upon release.

It's easy top pick out the times when we say it sucks, but we really have provided many reasonable arguments as to why they don't work.

Firstly, most people can't even agree what the point of shields is, are they a counter to artillery? Or are they a omnidirectional wall for your base?

SupCom showed an instance where the tier system had T3 units and buildings become so strong that shields were required in order to bridge the gap between a T2 and T3 arsenal.

Map crossing artillery is one of the biggest culprits, as is massively powerful radar, making the only place you can be safe from harassment and attack under a shield.

People feel like they require shields, anti-nukes and tactical missile defences, because of the lack of actual counters to these units, instead requiring the player to counter the weapon.


And this is a big, big problem that has not been solved since TA, let alone SupCom.

We don't have the counters I feel we need to these forces, we need active counters, not passive counters, because passive counters most of the time are obtuse and badly designed unless they are very common...and then you get to a problem of a passive counter being too common.


And im not really sure PA will solve these issues with countering artillery, missiles and nukes, But introducing shields is just going to exasperate the situation.

We already have a problem with the lack of proper T1 artillery units, making base defences seem overpowered, so now we nerfed defences once again, rather then actually solving the situation of the lack of proper solid counters.

I call BS you clearly stole someone else's thoughts.

Me or one of those two?

Did I quote you? No. You may have a complex. The world doesn't revolve around you .

I CALL BS!

Before we go on, I want to know what type of shields are we talking about. Are we talking about dome bubble shields like that other thread is going on about? Or are we talking about shields walls (T2 walls is what im thinking)? Or shield/shielded units?

@Geers
you didn´t quote anybody... soooo ... you don´t mean no one ??? ??? .... ???

let´s say we were talking directional shields, static and mobile ... what would make them different from walls and vanguards/infernos how much more usefull might or could they be?

I was talking about energy bubbles.

Walls are good, they have counters and units that just ignore them.

Now will the shield be emitted by a unit or a stationary building?

I was talking about bubble shields. ones that try to protect an entire area.

Either I feel are just as bad.

Same follow up question. Will the shield be emitted by a unit or a stationary building?

well, to re-iterate, there is other reasons why I don't think area shields are a good idea at the moment (and a lot of threads I've seen seems to be uber is of the same mind to... shields will not be in 1.0, but they are thinking of doing it later if they find a better way of doing it)
[--edit: these were some old threads though... so I suppose it may have changed since then. sry in advance if this has changed since then]

but the reason why I say walls and shields are practically the same:
they are both static defenses that are used to protect other things
some units can ignore them (vanguards would ignore shields, artillery ignore walls)
some are better against them (almost every game with shields has something that specializes in taking them out, walls are useless against things that can reclaim)

and as to which is emitting it... really, either.

Well walls you build to cover a angle, bubble shields you build to cover every angle.

And if people just want a better wall.....then Id like a actual better more specialised wall.

And tank traps build by combat fabbers, as a wall you can shoot over, but blocks movement like a normal wall.


Like how about a T2 wall, that only artillery can shoot over (No turrets) and also blocks vision of the stuff behind it, but is a more inefficient version of the basic wall? (So the HP you get per cost is less effective, so people have reasons to build both).

That could be cool.

But bubbles, don't really do that, energy is cheap, and a bubble's weakness of not-preventing movement can easily be a accounted for.

People have suggested directional shields (They project a wall in one way) or umbrella shields (To only shield from above) and while they do step very close into the right direction, I just feel like there is a better solution to the wall/artillery-counter unit type.

agreed.

in fact, in the other thread, I was just pointing out how it would actually be pretty cool if instead of the typical bubble shield idea, you put it down piece by piece like normal walls (the firestorm wall shield from C&C firestorm comes to mind as an example)
it would be more an advanced wall, then an actual shield, then.
also, a directional shield would then be the same as a normal wall, and a wall circling your base would be the same as a bubble shield. again... not really any difference.
I'm more pointing this out now to point out, in a way, we already have shields, lol, just use walls.

also umbrella shields = umbrella. unless we get orbital bombardment (please please please please....) umbrella would do the exact same function, except better. this kind of goes back to my point that there really just isn't actually a place shields would fit into PA right now... there's nothing there for it to protect -against- that doesn't already have a solid counter to.

in supcom, this was t3 arty, it would protect against long range attacks long enough for you to get out there and protect your base. even if it wasn't going to protect it forever, it protected it from those crucial first few shots letting you know it's there (enough storage and buildpower... you could sneak one up fairly quickly and easily)
in PA... there's nothing like that.

a unit needs a role to fill to be important, and right now, bubble shields have no role to fill.

I have brought this up before and I haven't really seen much of an argument but what if we change the way shields work to something more like FTL layer shields where each layer blocks a shot.

make stationary shield bubbles with 5 layers and mobile shields with 3.

now artillery and laser platforms take time to work down shields but unit blobs cut through them like butter.


this shield style is more akin to an active point defense system that can store shots.

the mobile shields would be very weak to normal units but very valuable for moving on pelters or mobile artillery.

I ask which is emitting because a unit emitting the shield would become part of the army composition and act as small buffer from static defenses and bombers and due to the size of units it will be able to absorb a shot or two before the unit over loads. Will it stop a nuke? No. Will it be able to absorb a missile from a catapult, probably.

However, static shield buildings are the opposite matter. They give a player a false sense of security, they will not expand outside of the set range of the shield, putting themselves behind the other player. They are also a pseudo hard counter to too many different things (arty, nukes, catapults, SSXs). And even though you could throw a lot of stuff at the shield to bring it down, wouldn't you have already technically won at that point and the other person is just dragging out the game?

If done right, I like the idea of shields, but off topic I would much rather see radar planes and radar jamming units.