Give us Shields! Come on!

That isn't bias, thats true about every RTS game.

And I'm not saying it's the only strategy either, as it is apart of the trio of opening strategy's of Rushing, Turtling and Booming.

This is nothing to do with PA's current balance, this is about RTS strategy, you don't turtle in the mid and late game if you want to win.

.

how bout EVERYTHING from early to end game ... sounds more fun to me than just being fixated on one linear path ...

exactly.

that's my point. it is bias to want things a certain way when there is no need for it to be that way.

? I have no idea what you meant then.

I had no intention to say that turtling must be a early game strat, or anything of the like, but more that it is one of three major philosophy's of how the start.

The main problem with turtling being viable is that it's fun for neither party involved.

i don't care...

why does this debate revolve around turtleing?

how are you guys not latching on to the fact that shields ≠ turtleling yet?

That's why early game artillery is important.

You won't be runing with artillery, but the turtle won't be destroyed by a simple rush.

The turtle ensures they survive the first 10 mins, so they can transition into teching or steam-rolling or something.

The point of a early turtle is to defend against a early assault, but this is vulnerable to a boomer who build a large economy strait up.

Its about a rush counter-play.

Turtling does not revolve around shields, no.

But shields still don't have a purpose, not while we have walls which are far more balanced.

Actually I know a lot of people who have fun turtling and it's also quite satisfying when you take out a turtle, not saying it's the best thing, but I mean wouldn't more viable strategies be more fun? Expansive turtling should be viable at least.

Shields != turtling.

However, Shields == makeEasier(turtling).

You get it yet?

Wow, this thread has indeed turned ugly. *Hides under Flamer Shield and sports a trollface*

... *shakes head unimpressed*
dude you do it wrong
...
*builds anitflamebunker with armored glas window*
*puls out desk, comfy chair, bier and popcorn ... ... and sunglasses*

Shields break all balance of every unit or structure they cover. The whole game would have to be rebalanced for one feature that doesnt add anything really to game play. Shields equal more turtling=fact, it doesnt create it, it encourages turtling.

Shields are nothing more than a hitpoint modifier. We dont need a flawed feature in pa.

This game is about marco, making shields, make players micro
and micro is not the point of this game.

Think we'll all just have to wait until someone in the modding community comes up with shields to really see just how many people actually want shields but this is a useless debate because all sides have good reasons why shields are extremely viable and why shields should not be added. It will become clear when people start to test this out one way or another but I still thinking having a lobby option to enable shields or disable them for the match is just simply the best way to go to please everybody.

I don't need to get that. I think I've been around enough to assume that I know that already.

Though there's another step in the logic process yet. And that's getting from there to "hence adding shields will result in more turtleing all around" and here again I deny this reasoning.

I'll add more to that: while shields seem like they may make turtleing easier they donnot give the turtle strategy more success. They may even, by seemingly promoting this strategy, guide the inexperienced player who opts for turtle into an escalated commitment to that strategy. Wrongly so, of course.

But the point is, it will not help turtlelers have more success, on the contrary.

that is because the correct use of the shield is not turtle ; it is offensive fire-base, forward offensive structure longevity and most importantly anti-cheese: commander protection.

In the case where you can provide a counter to teleportation and com-snipe tactics, the presence of shields in the key points serve to proove that if the player still came in with his forces and still won that the win was well deserved. Whereas the way it is now, the win can feel controversial at times.

I know that this is a small gripe but that is not the only reason I advocate shields:
-I find that in the logic of BASIC-ADVANCED walls are the only unit that do not have an advanced counterpart. hence making territory control worthless at t2.

-the ground attacks can be blocked for t1 units by walls but no airborne attack can be blocked. meaning the excuse that you can just patrol with t2 air units is ridiculous as you could just get the payload through by brute force, pushing through the air patrol with a sufficient swarm of t2 bombers or gunships and at the right point in the patrol cycle.

-shields mean more focus on economy, a shift back to macro, as stalling energy could be your death sentence. and basically the fact that economy should matter more in a game where you're advocating flow economy. I'm getting tired of seeing even our best players stall the living hell out of their eco, because it doesn't matter at all.

-more scouting to actually see where shields are and avoid wasting troops firering inefficiently to instead move them underneath the shield to obtain a successful mission: a lot of the games I see noone bothers to scout once they have a general idea of where their enemy is. I see this as threatening to PA's gameplay: player should desperately want to ID units while playing: this stuff should matter. finding out if there is a stealth generator and where, finding out if there is a shield and where, finding out if there is a com and where EX-CE-TE-RA

-really just the whole depth going on with this mechanic is something that I cannot see as something other than an addition to PA. It just adds. It works in the medium that is PA by adding to it's depth. some ideas can't boast as much : like a trading card mechanism to control buffs and bonuses, a Pay2Win system... ect

so sniping isn´t a well deserved deserved win now ....?
why does need everything a tech counterpart ?

No sniping is not a well deserved win right now. All you have to do is select 5 units and right click. It does not matter how well you are defending / attacking if your opponent can just cheese his victory in seconds.

No not everything needs a tech counterpart or whatever you want to call it, but by adding shields we would lose nothing and gain quite a bit in return so the only logical thing to do is to include shields.

all of my +1s

combat feels too volatile in the midgame currently with cheesy snipes and most 1v1 games end before 13 minutes. I think even adding weak sheilds would help extend the duration of small games and would ultimately not affect the duration of multi planet games as shields dont stop mega blobs of T2, nukes, or planets.

if Uber and these die hard TA fans want to be stubborn and not put it in we will find a way afterwards but it is incredibly frustrating considering a 'remove shields' option could be available.

The issue with SXX satellites isn't the lack of shields. But the insta fire of the laser sats. Make it so the laser sats take a few seconds to warm up, which makes sense for many reasons.

Giving the Commander a cloak also would fix this.

Only logical thing? There are many reasons not to have shields. That have been stated over and over in this thread.

NO what make SupCom a Epic game was the Epic battles that happens on the game, w/ Exp or a bunch of regular units like ASF