Base Shields

If it makes you feel better about it we use it alot when dragging a line of factories. or a line of anything.

but if we can think of more uses for this mechanic then yay!

Zep put that in to FAF some time ago, AFAIK the values are still undergoing tweaks, but it's a horribly unintuitive compromise to solve the fundamental flaws with shields in FA because the community wouldn't countenance their removal.

Just because your friends like playing long games doesn't make them bad players. It's a strategy game, come up with a better turtle-cracking strategy if you're not in it for the long haul. After all being purely aggressive doesn't make you a better player, it makes you aggressive (like outing your friends on the PA forums for being 'dumb'). Not that there isn't a time for aggression in an RTS, but it fits best when paired with a good strategy. With that said, some people aren't in it for the quick win. Some people want to play purely to fend off wave after wave of attacks. It's a survival game to them. Everyone plays the game differently, and everyone has a strategy they're comfortable with. I think Zoliru said it best:

3 hour games... pffffff child please #casuals

None of my argument was to do with my own skill at anything.

Your argument is based on that entirely, something I didn't do or said that I was.

A logical fallacy to wash away an argument because of YOUR opinion of my ability to play a game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Your argument that I am wrong because you believe to have more experience is a fallacy.

That is a poor argument if I have ever seen one.

The on-line program FAF is a fan made patch, of an expansion, of the game.

And is even further from from the alpha state of PA, a game that hasn't even released and had post realised patches yet.

Your example seeks to remove the opinions of a game just because of your preference for a fan made patch for the games expansion.

And that is wrong.

But that is the wrong way of solving the problem isn't it?

Building a unit that's only purpose is to adsorb enemy bullets is pointless, because every unit can serve that job, and even then that doesn't stop the artillery.

To stop the artillery, you must either cut it's power or disable/destroy the gun it's self. No other measure is the correct way of deal with the situation, because other situations only lead to time saving measures, or wastes of money in general.

And should you take out the artillery, whilst buying yourself time with a anti artillery shield, then what?

Tanks can shoot at surface targets, bombers can too, but a anti artillery shield so so specialised that once the few in number anyway artillery is gone.....then what is the point of the unit?

Much like the Anti-Nuke system, but a considerably less of a gamble that your enemy is even going to deploy artillery in the first place.

It was obviously an assumption made from what you said... from my experience turtling under the shields is not winning strategy and from my experience you don't really have time to turtle under the shields in the game so I made an assumption that maybe it's not the games fault. Also I've hated many things about FA myself but when become better I have accepted them and thought that they aren't that bad and most of the crappy things were direct consequence of my own mistakes. And it has lot to do with your map choice will you have turtle game or more active game.

Argument from authority is completely valid. It's not a proper argument but it doesn't need to be. E.g. if person A who has played 15 games against AI in supcom says that the game is only about turtling and person B who is the best player in the world says that nope, it's obvious that I would trust person B.

I'm sure that 95% of FA and Supcom players would say that FA is better than supcom in every way. Supcom vanilla had so many issues. Don't you consider it to be a problem that we have people here who:
A. Have only played vanilla and probably hated that game (which I can understand very well)
and
B. Have also played FA.
mixed together here? If someone says "Supcom sucks", how do I know which one is he talking about, how do devs know it, how can I ever know what is his experiences based on.

If you'd say "Supcom is only turtlefest" and were talking about vanilla, I'd agree with you. But if you said that about FA I would disagree with you (unless 40x40, 81x81, ffa, etc). See the problem?

That's what I'm always doing when I play with them. Trying to figure the best way to crack their turtle bases. And giving them very hard time turtling (or, playing very defensively). I can be hard when there's 3 turtles on opposing side. Shields have not saved them, no.

It is defiantly the players fault for believing that turtling is only about sitting under shields and turrets, with the hope that massed map-crossing artillery and the occasional nuke will save them.

It IS however the games fault for providing the player a way to slow down the game without the tool also being a way of winning the game.

Shields in supcom, present a way of bolstering your defences passively, without also bolstering your attacks.

Tanks, like shields can defend your base, but unlike shields can destroy an enemy one.

This in its self makes the shield and expensive way of slowing down your own death, without speeding up your opponents.


So my argument is that ignoring my argument, one that is very similar to yours, just because you feel that you have more experience then me, is frankly, insulting.

It obvious yes, but it's still a jump to conclusions that ignores the argument that the other person is trying to make.

Its more common for people who talk about FAF, to actually mention FAF like it's the single greatest thing since sliced bread.

Much like vegans, you don't need to ask who's a FAF player, they will tell you.

All competitive RTS games can never be played solely as a defensive strategy, without there being a way of winning without actually attacking.

And generally, a defensive posture is only useful in countering a rush type strategy from the beginning of the game.

The trinity of Boom, Rush, Turtle is how you start a game, but they must change and evolve by mid game or risk being easily defeated.

Turtling is very easy to start with, as I occasionally do.

But without a strategy change into something like raiding, steam-rolling, proxy basing or Booming.

It fails.....without the "non-violent" victory.

You did not have argument. You said "shields promote bad gameplay". That's not an argument, that's a statement. What bothers me is when people say things like that without further explaining at all. It's hard to argue when there is no argument.

Now you actually said an argument, good. What do you mean shields cannot bolster your attacks? You can use mobile shields to protect your army. Or make shielded artillery/etc. bases. Shields will slow down the game just like every defense unit. Actually, I don't think it's that easy to claim that they slow down the game without being aware of all of their indirect impact to the game. But they also have a massive weak point (no energy = all down. or just move inside it). And like you said, very expensive. I don't see the problem here.

One major reason I’d like dome shields to protect my assets is thus… I want a little time to react to incoming artillery fire or fire from orbital structures! That is all!!!

I’m not expecting to hold out indefinitely under my shield or shields and I expect the shields I place to be a severe drain on my energy economy; but at the same time I’d expect the shields to buy me some time from artillery so that I can MICRO manage or divert some very important attention to any situation developing!

As it is right now, by the time artillery starts to fall on your facilities… it can often be too late to do anything about it. In my opinion shielding an area can provide you with time needed to formulate a response!!!

Well shields add to your defensive ability, like a tank does.

But you can't attack with a shield, and most mobile shields aren't really great force multipliers when compared to simply having more units.

They tend to be extremely bi-polar in being too good, or worthless.

Units like the inferno and vanguard can be used for both attacking and defending, but usually never end up shooting anyway, because their support does that for them.

But they don't solve the problem they were introduced to solve (Defending against artillery) because the best solution, it to kill the artillery.

Shields don't kill artillery.

Shields don't kill artillery but give a few extra seconds to react to them, basically you can still react when the artillery has not yet done damage. Which is what shields were made for, to protect from single small attacks and "snipes" and give you time to react to these threats (just noticed kingbarber said the exact same thing). Mobile shields actually have very good shield hp (and shield regen) compared to their cost.

Igncom1

what you dont understand is that that a Shield againts altierry and Catapults Would give you time to react while you looking at your other 2 planet.........

right now if your enemy Ninjabuild an arty somewhere you loose ALLOT of stuff right away befor you take it out.

Ok if were going to complain about the ob of sheilds that COULD Be, lets just make anti-arty units that shoot down the arty shot OR anti-arty sehidling like in supcom FA

sounds like an excuse for not scouting ... that aside picture notifications ...

Sounds like you didn't see the word "ninjabuild".

And you don't know the word, area patrol.

That's two words.

Nevermind searching, nevermind shields.



Build some Hummingbirds/Peregrines or flak cannons