Force fields?

Yeahh... these same poitns were brought up by the other guy.
I demolished them.

To your point:
I'm ignoring the fact that you're playing vs bots.
I'm guessing you're playing a choke-pointy map.

You build defence, I'll attack elsewhere.
You'll lose the map, I'll gain the eco advantage, i'll win.

It kinda sucks that people keep up the same arguments that have already been debunked.

Except you're making assumptions. I am not playing against bots nor on choke pointy maps. I realize you can go around. I use that strategy all the time and I do gain map control and beat my turtling opponent. I am actually a pretty good player.

My points aren't debunked. My points are they provide too much of a hp boost for the cost and that makes them OP. Saying go around them and expand doesn't debunk the fact that they provide too much hp for the cost which makes them op. It just explains the strategy for beating a turtling opponent. Strategies for beating a turtling opponent do not change the fact that shields are OP based on their stats.

And why not? You adopt the unfortuante position of saying "You're wrong", without actually saying why it's wrong. You want to argue, yet use smoke and mirrors. It doesn't wash.
I use hard-examples as to why you're wrong.
I even entertain your scnearios and explain why you're wrong.
I even conclude using your own statements that you are wrong.

And yet somehow the onus is on me to change things? No my friend. The problem is yours.

I don't know how much more of a argument you want based on this entire topic without actually thinking about what happens in reality. You keep focusing on one aspect at a time, and I keep telling/showing you why that aspect might be true in your scenario, but in the grand scheme of things is totally false.

I claimed shields aren't as efficient a measure at preventing damage to your assets from your opponent as destroying those assets which would do damage to you. You're right. It isn't an argument. It's fact.
Take the example you give later: Artillery is raining on your position. You can either turtle and stall, or sally out and destroy the offending artillery pieces. Which would a sane person prefer to do and why?

If the latter cannot be achieved, then it's that way for a reason that is beyond the scope of shields.
If the former cannot be achieved, then that would be the case if no tools existed to do so.

Sometimes in an RTS the concept of "buying time" to make a risky move is a very real one. In the above example, the answer would potentially be "both" if they so chose to do so. Why does artificially removing one of those choices make the situation any better? Isn't it a bit patronising to the player if the game assumes they would make an incorrect decision in the face of adversity?

NB: Please don't take it that i'm accusing you of making a statement in my questions. It's literally that - I want your opinion. Which, given your insistence on throwing insults into this, is something that surprises myself that i wish to have.

As I've already stated in my previous reply to you and you have, again, like many other things ignored.
How do shields create this "binary situation". I've stated it once, I'll state it again so you get the message.
Why is hardening a position against damage intrinsically worse than strengthening a position to do more damage?

You have just said that the position is already being defended regardless of whether shields are there or not. This "passive play" that you and I both detest is already there before shields come into the equation. You "can" claim that shields make this worse. I'm not contesting this point - I'm contesting the above - Why is this such a bad thing compared to the alternatives?

[quotes]

Exactly. You wouldn't.

The entire point is that it is irrational to attack a defensive position where you will lose all your units and inflict zero damage. Resources spent on a wall of turrets has a casualty threshold which is the HP of one turret. If you have shields, then the casualty threshold for one turret becomes the total strength of all shields, plus the HP of one turret. This means you need a lot more force in order to do any damage, whereas building more turrets only means you need a lot more force in order to completely destroy the position, with some marginal efficiency gains from increased firepower that can be offset by using assault units and artillery.

[/quote]

I would wish to iterate something that you ignore - This concept of "blocking damage" already exists in all previous TA-style games. Dragon's teeth in TA, Walls in Supcom, Walls in PA. Should these be removed as well?
If not, why not? They do exactly what the shields are doing.

Again, grounded in reality using your own example- that one turret isn't going to turn away anybody.
Your latter example is far scarier and far more problematic with regards to offense vs defence and passivity than your *one mega shielded PD* ever would be.

I don't understand this obsession with "no damage" - the same can be achieved with simply asking a construction unit to patrol the area and automatically repair everything in sight. What's the difference in total outcome? None.
This "binary nature" of total failure to success exists regardless of shields existing or not, doesn't it? I guess we better remove the ability to repair then?

To the second point - you actually haven't stated anything. You've stated an example and a scenario and it's result. You haven;t actually given a conclusion, and to what that conclusion means. In any case, in your own example, you have stated what the problem with regards to the weakness of shields as opposed to why they're problematic. In the way you describe, they're definitely a problem if you go about addressing the increasing number of guns with... nothing. The only real conclusion I can draw from your statement is that Shields have the potential to be a noob trap.

The problem is in the grand scheme of things, people can make a choice. As you state in your example, eventually the attacker will win. Well duh, the stuff doing damage isn't being removed. To buckle down without having a plan to remove the offending damage is the wrong decision as you've concluded yourself in essence. People making bad choices will happen regardless of what's in a game. What this has to do with shields isn't exactly clear to me at the moment.

Is it the right one? Thats down to the game.
Using SC faf as an example, with one possible scenario among many:

A) - tanks roll in
B) - builds a PD
A) - brings in artillery
B) - builds long-range PD to destroy the offending artillery.
A) - brings in longer range weapons that out range the LRPD
B)- builds shields to defend his investment
A) - brings in even more LRW's to siege the location.
B) -builds counter measures like TMD to counter the LRWs.
A) - T3 artillery? Strat bombers? Overrun the position?

The problem does not begin and nor does it end with shields.
At any point in the above scenario can other factors come into play. Person B's own forces. Person's A desire to attack elsewhere.
The above scenario, that of a hard, defended point that stops aggression, does not begin and nor does it end with shields.

I don't get why mandatory removal of a defensive mechanism makes for better gameplay when whether it is there or not the scenarios where it would be used would happen regardless. Whether it would be the right choice or not to buckle down and defend would happen because or inspite of their presence.



I'm not having a personal go at you or your beliefs, as i believe you might be feeling given how defensive you remain. It's for my own understanding of the situation - One cannot hope to be objective unless they understand all aspects of the argument.

Then.... That's surely a balance problem as opposed to a mechanical problem?

Shields and repair are not remotely similar. Granted, if you could repair quickly enough in combat that a combat unit is actively taking damage and cannot be destroyed because of repair, then yes, that would need to be changed or removed. And in games where that has been a problem, it has been so changed for exactly the reasons I have outlined. Even the apocaclusterfiascomare that was SupCom 2 had the sense to nerf repair on the ACU because it was overpowered in combat.

However you know as well as I do that repair is not actually that useful in live combat, due to the cost and fragility of constructors, their value relative to most things they might repair, and the slow rate of repair compared to the high rate at which units take damage.

Again, you know as well as I do that walls and shields are not even remotely the same. The dragon's teeth/wall does not block indirect fire weapons at all, it has its own pool of HP instead of conferring it on another unit directly, and it costs resources by itself, more like a unit/turret than shield energy.

One turret will turn away a small group of raiders. More turrets will turn away increasingly large numbers of enemies. But you will have a VERY hard time making a line of turrets so dense that the enemy can't actually kill any of them. Bubble shields make it quite easy to make it very difficult for the enemy to do any damage.

The scenario of using artillery against shields is meant to highlight the stark distinction between the shield successfully blocking incoming damage, and when it reaches its point of failure. And consequently how the other player is encouraged to play passively against shields by using enough force to safely break them with minimal losses, because bringing overwhelming force to bear on a defensive position or army also results in relatively few losses for the attacker.

However a single giant army absolutely crushing a shielded position is just not as strategically interesting as having many separate battles that are much more hotly contested, and where the forces are more similarly matched.

You've just done it again. Here we go down another totally unrelated rabbit hole. I never said the attacker will win, I never said it wasn't superior to remove enemy artillery....

Nevermind. It's just a thought experiment to indicate how shields affect a confrontation, by mitigating damage up to a certain amount, and then failing. The natural inference should be that players will always seek to use an amount of force greater than that minimum threshold. And that minimum threshold can be further increased by constructing more shields. The result is a passive construction arms race, not dynamic gameplay on the map.

More options is not always better. Bad options won't be used and have no effect, and it would be simpler to remove them. And strictly superior options actually destroy choice by obviating a variety of other possible choices. In other words, players have to have weaknesses, liabilities, and vulnerabilities which they spend to mitigate, or which the other player exploits. And mere cost, by itself, is not a liability.

Turret porc can be used to create passivity, you are correct. However turret porc is very unlike shields because it can be chipped away at, even very slowly, with counterplay by the defender possible. Artillery bombardment where the attacker is killing turrets and the defender is trying to rebuild, and one side or the other is gaining or losing ground is actually dynamic and has player interaction and changing board state. There is a balanced back-and-forth with both players losing assets and fighting for advantage. A 'siege' of this type is quite a different game state and play style from raiding, a straight up assault, etc. etc., and seems to me to be vastly preferable compared to sitting beneath shields not doing too much.

Shields just remove the damage from the equation unless there is so much damage that the attacker crushes through. Which means that unless the attacker has such a force, they won't engage. And because the attacker is staying away, building, shelling from extreme range bouncing ineffectually off the shields, or whatever, then the defender really isn't doing anything interesting either.

Well lets all not forget, that is actually the whole point in shields, is to take no damage for a set period of time untill it looses power, gets breached or has taken enough DPS anyway. I disagree that an attacker would need this some how rediculous number of units in order to go through a shield, quite a few of ya are on this assumption that a shield will make the game this completly un-balanced turtle based game when you clearly know that simply just cannot happen in PA. The game is too fast paced for that to happen, the HP on turret and AA based defences is a joke anyway right now and can eaiserly get bombed instantly in a single wave of bombers.

There is nukes, planetary collision and orbital weapons, with all that firepower a simple shield is just completely OMG overpower? get real.... a planetary collision isn't goign to be defended by a single shield.... theres nothing that is going to stop that... if one turtles, you are going loose out massively in the economy war, your basically signing your own death warrent if you just sit back in PA... this isn't supcom guys.......... A shield just simply adds something extra and if you can disable having shields, then all you that like fast paced gameplay, that think somehow a shield its completely rediculous, then you can simply turn it off....... its about giving options to players, if you want it, you can have it, if you hate it, dont have it enabled, supcom was very good a game customization and PA is going to be no different in this regard.

If shields were to ever to implemented, I'm pretty damn sure they are NOT going to work in the same as supcom anyway! When I do base building, I ACTUALLY like my base to feel like a BASE! sorry... but errr... isn't that just the point of being able to build? without a shield, its a calamity of buildings where you are just simply building everything, everywhere!! there is no cohesion, no structure, at the moment there is nothing in the game that makes you feel like your main base area actually IS your main base area...... shield represents a central point of any base or super-structures, it would seem coherently un-feasible that the races in PA would have the technology to build a base on a damn lava planet, but not the simple ability to build a base shield, when they can fabricate everything else out of nothing.

There are all sorts of counter measures you can add into the game anyway, like an EMP blast to turn off any shield defences, or EMP artillery, Anti-shield orbital cannons or something, plenty of ideas but to just come out and say that shields are OP, terrible idea, throw in a bunch of HP scenarios where a shield SHOULD actually do what its supposed to do is silly...... Most of the impressions I get from all the threads about shields and the people that are against them, are ones that have had un-plessant experiences in Supcom where they haven't completely annihilated someone in 2 mintues because of shields which is a little unfair to the majority of players that actually like shields. There are numerous tactics to defeating shields, it ALL adds to the stragetic abilities of each and every player, if you simply cannot think of ways to get around a damn shield bubble, then thats your issue, its never been a balance issue, if it were, they never would have been added in supcom in the first place..............

I mean think about it, a shield is hardly going to stop another planet or moon is it?

Compare the cost of a few shields to the cost of an orbital factory a fabber and a few Halleys.

Doesn't seem fair.


Annnnd... One base is lame, boring and totally not awesome. Thirty bases on a planet most certainly is. Spreading out and callamity is good. You should be wanting a giant wet mess of buildings strewn across continents.

cost of shields would be higher... shields aren't even in the game yet... its not going to be the same as to what it was like in supcom if we have them.. Dont forget though, halleys are basicaly a potential game ender for a player so it should cost more then a shield when a shield can easierly be brought down to its knees....

Love it... YES!!! have a ton of bases all over a planet is absolutely awesome I gotta give you that

IF they are to be implemented into the game at some point, perhaps, you could only build one shield? So people won't overlap 10 shields and become an extremely durable defensive system. Maybe anything inside the shield couldn't fire outside the shield? I think they would be a good addition because of the "Artillery" weapon. I think they should downgrade artillery a little because I lose half an army to 2 artillery cannons before they can even get there. So when somebody builds one artillery cannon nearby your base, you are screwed because whenever you try to build a unit, it immediately gets destroyed by the artillery.

I know that may sound... "Noobish" but, regardless, I think it could be a good counter to long range weaponry. And like ledarsi said, it could be a very very expensive structure to build, so while you are building it, you are draining a lot of resources therefore putting your commander and your base at a very vulnerable position. Or when you build it, it can drain X amount of power while idle, and XXX amount of power while under attack. And if the power fails, then there goes the shield.

There are still a lot of factors that can be included if shields are to be implemented! People immediately think that shields are overpowered and alter the entire game. But it's not a black and white subject! Everyone always thinks "Add shields, don't add shields". It can be, don't add shields because we don't want them, or it can be, add shields but lets do this and this and this in order to make them not overpowered but still be a fun addition to the game.

Instead of shield bubbles popping, how about they deflate as they get shot? That way you could pound them back and expose some of the underlying structures.

That's a nifty idea.

shields add two beneficial game play features:
1. they give you time to react to a snipe. I cant tell you the number of times my com has been sniped before I can react at all, that is the time I have to react after hearing the commander under attack warning. shields could give a buffer to react to a com snipe, especially a laser sat snipe.

2. makes power gens in to a critical strategic points. Hit your enemies p-gens with a covert attack, there shields drop, send in your main assault. Currently the impact of killing power gens is minimal, sure you might slow there production a bit but, unless they put all there p-gens in the same spot you will do little damage. However with shields in play you only need push your opponent in to negative power income to drop all there shields greatly increasing the value of p-gens.

Sounds like you need to have stronger defenses and patrols. Having fighters patrolling around your base or radar coverage can provide intel. Laser satellite snipes are easy. Just set your commander to patrol in a circle and he's safe – it already takes several shots.

Power gens are already a critical structure to defend. Run out of power you can't build anymore. Destroying your opponent's power is VERY critical and slows down their production majorly. Adding shields to make power gens more useful is a bad reason to add power gens.

The effect of a bubble shield can be produced with the addition of one structure: anti artillery gun. I'm talking about an artillery like structure that shoots incoming high velocity munitions before they reach their intended target. The gun has a fixed shooting speed and a relatively high cost compared to the things it defends against. It's attack speed is able to defended successfully against about 3 artillery structures/units shooting to its range at the same time.

With this structure you can have the frontal defense capabilities of a shield with walls and artillery shielding capabilities with anti artillery guns. The combination is still vulnerable to nukes, aircraft and orbital units, which I think is good.

All in all I find the concept of the bubble shield very, very silly. It's impossible to create such a thing with our current knowledge of physics (that's to say, building it would require the existence of magic). I know realism is not the driving point of this game, but still. A pylon to pylon wall-shield is a little bit less ludicrous, but then again, we already have walls.

An interesting and little less magical idea would be a magnetic shield structure that either expels or sucks in incoming non laser projectiles. It would also effect friendly projectiles. The suck in option would require high hp and a repair-rate/assisting fabricator for the structure. The expel option would create a pro laser zone, but you can't shoot with your artillery over or from it.

Oh and while we are at it: mirror walls, the bane of the laser troops

Stuff like this has been suggested and I like it a lot.

I'd rather have this than shields.

It's a nice counter to catapult/pelter/holkins/sheller/etc creeps and it isn't as OP as shields. It also introduces a new level of strategy.

Oh, another shield thread. I trust this will be as productive as the others.

I would like to say that people suggested new things that haven't been discussed! But I cannot tell a lie... So I cannot say that...

@canadiancommander

1 - Scout. Ta didn't have the luxury of shields. People only got sniped if they were A) dumb or B) outplayed.
2 - Good luck producing anything in a competetive match when you have no energy.

To the first - That's a balance issue surely. If you attack my structure with an artillery piece, and I'm repairing it with enough bots to undo your damage, is that now unbalanced?
Actually, sod that - the best example to demonstrate this is in PA as it is - I regularly see people running with their coms with 2- repair bots in tow constantly repairing the commander.

The one thing I did think about overnight was how bubble shields basically give a regenerating hp pool on top of the existing units - that's the biggest difference I can think of. So my question is, if the shield, instead of just blocking flat damage, instead reduced damage by a %, (like that apocaclusterfiascomare that was SupCom 2 (At least we agree on that...)), what problem would you have with that?

True, but the problem is PA does not have indirect fire weapons in T1, making such a claim that the two serve different functions totally moot. A ring of walls in TA/SC:FAF was far less costly and came up earlier than a shield ever was. You pay once, and you get their benefits. Shields require maintenance. Surely, given the state PA is in and your own logic, you feel that walls don't perform a different function to shields.

Then you go on to yet another fantastical example of building the freaking Maginot line. You want to pour that many resources into a stationary place, go on. It'll be well defended if it's attacked head-on... as you would expect if you threw that many resources into it in a scenario where it would win.

In reality, as well as RTS, the point again arises - so what? The german's bypassed the line, in RTS you can bypass the line, spend your resources elsewhere. Your resources are finite.

But... I don't get it. Nothing forces a single-giant army to crush the shielded position. In fact, surely if there was a shielded position which prevented aggression, this would force people to go elsewhere, no?
Actually, never mind - again you fall into the pitfall of focusing purely on shields, and i'll explain what i mean:
TA and SC:FAF, merely having defensive structures like PD (especially T2pd) Gave a "home field advantage" created this scenario which you pin down to shields.

True.But that passive arms race benefits the attacker... If he's building more shields to block incoming damage, especially since PA is what I term a 360 degree game... then the defender is shooting himself by being passive. He made a wrong choice. He'll lose. What's the problem with this?

Sure, you'll probably be more frustrated and stymied by shields... but I attribute that to defensive structures in general. I don't know, I feel I'm missing something here.

Isn't this a balance problem as opposed to a mechanical one?
Don't get me wrong - I can safely say your statement is true, given how TA ended up. Nobody built T1 tanks, Nobody built t2 heavy tanks/mobile artillery.
More options aren't always better - but then we fall into a "bare bones" situation. Why is variety bad? Why don't we just do what supcom 2 did (please don't take this statement seriously in that way) and have no tiers, just upgrades?
A game with plenty of options, all of which are viable but their correct utilisation being down to the player is far more interesting than a game which essentially holds your hand with regards to choices.

It's like the Rhino in SC:FAF. From what I can tell, they used to be crap and nobody built them over Hoplites. Now, they're used a fair amount. Is the concept of a heavy tank bad? No, it was down to balancing.

No disagreement from me here. No really. None.

But I again disagree with this - using this as an example:

Absolutely no shields are present, yet this scenario is already in effect. Voodoo (blue) doesn't attack, shields or not, until he knows his attack will be more beneficial than detrimental. Shields don't really seem to do anything to this.


Hm...
So,I think I have a compromise of sorts.
Supcom2 style shield - flat % reduction of incoming firepower as opposed to flat block, with a minimum distance between generators to prevent stacking.

What would be wrong with that? Gimme your thoughts.

*Mod Edits: Please don't ruin an otherwise reasonable post with an attack on other peoples posts*

A way to prevent staking would be a nice improvement and would prevent shield nets.

Honestly, I'm most interested in a turret that intercepts incoming tactical missiles and artillery projectiles. Artillery and tac missiles are one of the biggest reasons for shields, since there is no counter for those short of attacking. Having a tower that can intercept them would be a nice balance without some of the crazy hp buff nature of shields. Each tower would be able to intercept X projectiles per second or few seconds. So one tower would be able to defend against X pelters or whatever.

Could even have a basic and advanced. Basic can be built quickly and can only intercept 1 pelter or something. And the Advanced takes much longer but can intercept 6 of them or something.