Shield alternative concept

Play nice everyone.

If we can get some kind of artillery tracking radar, designed to reveal the locations where shells are coming from that could help newer players in finding them and destroying them before they become a problem.

If artillery is powerful enough that people believe we need shields then we aren't doing enough or giving enough tools to help players do what they are supposed to do to get rid of them.

The best defence is a good offence. So I feel we need to provide the intel to let players commit to a offence.

The best defense is a good offense and information is the best ammunition.

wow I hate when people talk about things they don't know, no If you hit one shield it hits them all. and they all go down at once. (this of course wasn't the case early on but it was patched)

no. as mushroom said five posts above this, if i'm winning I don't have a single one. no need to waste micro and ressources when i'm about to end the game.

I'm not for shields in PA, I get tired, though of people who don't know how they were used in FA (by pros or meds, not by newbs) and who think the depth behind shields in FA was an entirely different noexisent problematic than the real one it was.

Shields in FA were an absolute must in the case of head on confrontation (generally called firebases) generrally brought on by wreks in the middle of the map for the players to fight over.

They were good to have on your commander, but the reasources were much better spent on HP buff upgrades first or resources upgrades or game-ender upgrades instead. but as an extra once you had that yea why not AND AGAIN as mushroomards said, people seem to think there was no breaking shields, they're just whiney babies, sheilds only put off the inevitable by a fraction of a second. late game DPS was so sky high that it made the commander and anything you put in it's way feel like an ant. I'll make a video illustrating the difference between sniping an unshieled commander, and a shielded one, I guarantee you you'll be like "appart from the shiny shynies,... what was the difference???"


EDIT : I can't give enough kudos to all the posts mushroomars made in this thread, this one in particular, take my kudos! all of them!

So Mushroomars and tatsujb, I think you guys are thinking of the game a little differently than other people who are in favor of shields. I understand that the best counter to artillery is to just blow it up with a bomber. And that the best way to counter catapults is to just spam bots everywhere to confuse it. These are the most efficient strategies, I wont deny it.

However, lets not forget that this is a game. The best strategy is not always the most fun. I like to use your strategies sometimes. Just be offensive, trade attacks and counter-attacks. But that takes a lot of mental energy. Sometimes I just want to sit back and play against the AI, or even against a friend, or what have you. Times like that, I really enjoyed layering a million shields to make an invincible super base. Watching the AI fruitlessly try to break through was a ton of fun to me.

I think that it should be a tactical choice to make an offensive strike, or a defensive counter. And if the defensive counter gets you a loss in pvp ranked ladders, then people won't use it in tournament play much. However it would see lots more use in newb games, and against the AI in less competitive games. I won't lie, I'm not that good at RTS games. All the micro is hard for me, and I get distracted easily, or I like to focus on one area of my base too much and lose track of managing my eco perfectly or whatever. I'd rather just build a "shield" or shield type structure for the peace of mind. Even if it's "worse". I think that making shields a choice, and not a necessity would cater to both very competitive players and more casual players.

Not a bad idea. It could be automated as well. The RTS Warzone 2100, for example, had a CB tower that housed a counterbattery radar. Artillery units slaved to it would automatically fire at the point where enemy artillery fire originated from.

osirus9, you could make an impenetrable "Go AFK for 30mins" defence in TA against even the toughest AI, and you never once needed shields to do so.

Shields are such a lazy, dull way of defending yourself that they shouldn't be dignified or even associated with the word "Strategy".

How to shields, without shields, in TA:

Build a bunch of guardians
Build a bunch of walls just inside the max range of the guardians
Build Big Berthas behind the guardians
Build Flak AA all around your base
Set mobile AA to a patrol all around your base
Produce PeeWees/Rockos/Cans constantly
Build Antinukes

Congratulations, you are now invincible. Shields make being invincible far too easy to achieve, similarly to how a major offensive is difficult to plan and mount, it should at least require a little effort on your part to build a base that is essentially a fusion-powered rocket-spewing turtle shell.

Example: When you assaulted a firebase in SupCom, you did not use T1 units. Nor did you use T2 units, and rarely T3 units. You either used T2 and T3 Navy, Experimentals, Gunship Swarms, Strat Missiles, or Tac Missile/Arty spam. That's a Setons match, scale that back about 1 tech level and you have your average, consumer-grade Isis match. Inject more raiding and snipezors you have your average 5x5 or 10x10 1v1.

Thats where I got the idea.

Shields, or shield-esque structures may or may not fit in with the gameplay or style of this game. That much is certainly up to debate.

But like it or not,shields have been a major part of strategy for a very long time Nanolathe. From sword and shield carrying soldiers, to castle walls and battlements, to trench warfare. Even now we use tactical missile defenses and chaff and anti-ICBM lasers mounted in airplanes to shield ourselves.

Will bubble shields be in this game? No. Will some kind of shield make it into the game? Maybe. Is shielding yourself "lazier" than counter-attacking? I'd say probably. Is it fun? ahh, now there's a question, and the answer is clearly yes to some people, and no for others.

I think adding some kind of anti-artillery defense is a good idea. Adding it in a way that makes it useful for people in competitive games is probably not a great idea, as that would make for a boring game to watch, especially if PA is aiming for e-sports. However making it a choice that is viable at lower levels of play would (I think) add to the game. If it sucks, fine, throw it away forever. Its alpha, the time for adding core features and experimenting with gameplay ideas without risking the destruction of balance (because there is none yet). But I think there is certainly enough interest in the community to take a serious look at a "shield" like the one presented by the OP.

EDIT:
I want to be clear that I am not advocating a perfect shield here. This would be an imperfect system similar to TMD to MITIGATE long range damage. I also agree that supcom shields were too easy to build as a counter to everything. Something like this encourages units with multiple projectiles. I feel like this is exactly the sort of thing you guys would go for, as your raiding party would kick its ***. I just hate it when the enemy gets that lobber up and you have to just leave that part of your base to die if you're not able to get a few bombers past his defenses.

More semantics. Sheesh. Did I really need to clarify that I was talking about bubble shields (And things that behave enough like them to be nearly indistinguishable), considering the content of your post and the topic at hand?

We didn't have TMD in TA days, and yet we were more than capable of making a completely impenetrable defence by understanding the strengths of various units at appropriate ranges.

Yes, you had to work at it to become the ultimate turtle. Why is there "certainly enough interest in the community" to make this process so... simple? Are you really that lazy?

Should not a work of art like an impregnable fortress take time and effort to create?

I suppose I thought that this concept was sufficiently different from a bubble shield, so I mistook your meaning to mean ANY kind of shield.

Maybe the small scale of the game as it stands is making me think that something to shield you from artillery fire is necessary. Perhaps in larger, multi-planetary games it would be pointless to build it, and you could just cover yourself in layers of turrets and artillery of your own and get the exact same thing as a shield accomplished (like in TA). I'll just have to wait and see I suppose.

Well by principle if you have more tools to fight back and defend with, surly that is preferable then to have more strictly defensive tools?

If you are shot by artillery, then why not have a system that actively encourages the player to attack and destroy these emplacements?

For instance, if my Catapults and artillery could be set on to a counter-battery mode for preferential bombardment? That way enemy artillery that expose themselves become the target for return fire first to be dealt with in a way that allows a more defensive player to use their 'sword' as their shield?

That doesn't sound like you're encouraging the player to do anything, other than flip a switch to say "Kill their big guns for me".

If I gave you a bulletproof vest, and told you to stand at the end of a firing range, would you walk down the range?

If I gave you a metal shield and told you to defend yourself, then pulled out a Claymore, would you be able to defend yourself?

If I gave you some ABMs (Anti-Ballistic Missiles), and then told you I was going to nuke you, would you gladly stand where I told you to?

I know that if I was placed in any of those situations, I would find a way around it.

Jesus Christ!!! Now I know what people trying to explain to others the apartheid was wrong went through. Misconceptions are tough as iron and I've thrown everything i have against this particular one.


LISTEN once and for all Shields never made anything invicible. especially not in supcom.

No, sorry, you're right, the ridiculous ranges on defenses and higher tech units did that.

PA will be TA scaled up to several theaters of war at once. When 5000 units are on the field per side, the level of detail of TA's gameplay is going to be difficult to work with. Some level of automation to relieve the cognitive load will likely be necessary.

I don't have a problem with that, just the way it was phrased. igncom1 was infering that flipping a switch to return fire was a "system that actively encourages the player to attack and destroy these emplacements"...

which it really isn't. It passively encourages the player to do nothing more than flip a switch.

You are not wrong in that regard.....I suppose return fire might already do that.

But yeah I am a supporter of intel based solutions, even if I don't always infer it.