Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Proposal for New Shield System

93 posts, 3536 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 5 (93 records)
sort
I have been fairly dissatisfied with the Zero-K shield system for some time because a sufficient quantity of linked shields essentially negates all damage. This can lead to an extremely boring game state where practically all damage is rendered moot.

Obviously under most circumstances, shields work as intended as a bulwark for a moderate amount of damage. Then they fail and any additional damage gets through. Especially in 1v1 shields are actually a fairly poor option compared to building more guns. However in the late game, with enough economy on both sides, I have seen 1v1 games where shields break the otherwise fast, fluid, and active gameplay of Zero-K.


LARGE SHIELD NETWORKS

The true extent of the pathology of shields is evident in large multi-way free-for-alls, where expenditures on aggression are dangerous. Enough shields linked together will even render superweapons irrelevant- a Starlight can't get through a sufficiently dense shield network. A very large network of shields acts like a universal defense barrier, magnifying the effectiveness of front-line units and defenses, anti-air, and also protecting against artillery and even superweapons.

Players should be forced to balance multiple needs in multiple areas, not just apply one type of asset in great enough quantity. Anti-air only protects against air units. Shields will buy more time for your anti-air to work, and better still it will keep those air units from inflicting casualties on your anti-air, or destroying economy in the limited time they have.

Simply put, shields remove tension, risk, and discourage activity. They take Zero-K's fluid, flexible, active gameplay and reduce it to a very binary, damage-mitigation centric paradigm where players aren't constantly losing and replacing assets. They just remove too much damage and risk from the equation. They lead to boring games. Such large shield networks do not occur often, but there really is no truly effective counter.


COUNTERS

Existing counters are effective for dealing with limited shield use. EMP missiles are excellent for a specific site using shields, even a heavily shielded single site. However a large shield network cannot be effectively disabled using EMP missiles because any active shield gains power from the rest of the network. Each EMP missile costs 600 metal, and only temporarily disables a small radius of shields.

EMP bombers and Ticks have much the same issue; at the stage in the game where such a large shield network is even an option, defenses against direct intrusion by enemy units are already in place. Anti-air and anti-ground defenses are cheaper than shields, and will deny limited attacks wholesale. Limited attacks are very likely to do absolutely nothing; sending in a few Lichos to try to snipe a Singularity might result in an unpredictable density of shields either absorbing all damage, and you lose your birds for free. Failed attacks are a waste of resources because of shields, and losing a lot of EMP-equipped units is no different.

The Racketeer has a slightly different problem, shared by any other kind of weapon that deals a lot of damage to shields. It is very effective at dealing damage to shields from a safe distance. However, shields link. Which means the amount of shield strength and regeneration can quite easily outpace the amount of damage that can be brought to bear on a particular point. And again, lost units means resources lost, while lost shield power does not matter at all.

Gauss counters shield bots- not really shield networks. The Detriment being the exception; without gauss the Detriment really would be virtually useless under most circumstances, since a large shield network would make it unable to do any damage.

Despite these counters, a large shield network is extremely resilient even to a very focused attempt to be aggressive against it. EMP missiles don't work as long as one shield remains active in the target area. That one shield can then draw power from others and can still hold off an almost unlimited amount of damage.

Simply put, Zero-K needs weapons that just ignore shields from a distance. These weapons would allow a player to attack a shielded position to eliminate the shields. This would make both defending and attacking a shield position much more active.


NEW SYSTEM

I propose making specific types of weapons completely ignore shields. Shields should deflect artillery, including assault cannons, light artillery, long guns, ship cannons, etc. etc. And shields currently interact well with beams, blocking damage up to a certain amount and then failing.

However, I propose to make certain projectiles ignore shields. Missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, and other slow projectiles, in addition to the existing exception for gauss weapons.

This would allow tac nukes to be used to kill shields instead of merely stunning them with EMP missiles. If this supersedes the current only use for EMP missiles, perhaps make them track again and use them as an additional counter to Striders?

This also creates a useful purpose for the currently woefully underpowered Merl. Due to its low rate of fire and poor accuracy when attacking wobbling radar blips, other artillery options are vastly superior. But Merls would ignore shields, unlike Hammers, Pillagers, and any other kind of artillery.

Racketeers' missiles would also go through shields, allowing the player to manually target the enemy's shield generators and disable them. Massed fire of artillery can overwhelm shields, or alternately the player can use EMP missiles to disable a particular shield.

Air strikes would obviously be vastly improved in effectiveness. Instead of relying on shields to mitigate incoming damage from air units, more anti-air would be required to eliminate those units more quickly. Or, better yet, players might actually begin using defense in depth with their anti-air to make it risky and difficult to make an air raid deep behind their lines. Currently, shields allow less anti-air to be constructed as well as protecting against artillery and superweapons, and also defending front-line units and defenses from direct assault.

Although arguably a nerf to the shield bot factory, it seems to me that the effect would be marginal. Lichos already ignore shield bot factory units' shields, and would be unaffected. Most of the time shield bots' shields absorb damage that would still be mitigated, including Thugs' guns, artillery, Felons' weapons, laser turrets, and so on.


ON DAMAGE TYPES

This does raise the specter of armor types, but it already exists for shields in Zero-K and I simply propose to expand the category of weapons that ignore shields.

The existing system causes a weapon to ignore shields only if its weapon damage exceeds the power of the shield. Treating the shield as an individual, even if it is linked, it cannot block projectiles more powerful than its own strength.

What this creates is a de facto armor type, where certain weapons pierce certain shields while others do not. However the existing system is highly opaque, and really requires manual testing to determine which weapons pierce which shields. This is bad.

My proposed system will govern which weapons pierce shields by the weapon's appearance, which is much easier to display to the player than the amount of damage. Zero-K already does this with gauss weapons. Expanding it to include weapons like tac nukes, merls, torpedoes, etc. does not greatly increase the complexity of the shield system.

As a result, all weapons with the visual appearance of the "cannon," a small yellowish sphere type weapon, as well as any type of beam weapon, again clearly indicated by the weapon's appearance, is stoppped by shields.
+1 / -2

10 years ago
Shields would be basically ineffective in this system. Thugs in particular would be mostly useless. They would not stop Slashers, Rockos, Rogues, Recluses, Banishers, Scalpels, BlackDawns, etc. Almost all of these things will demolish a shieldball. If you are facing shields, you just switch to a factory with these units and win.

P.S, The Impaler is already great, and Gauss no longer penetrates shields, because that's precisely the kind of mechanic that is bad for the game.

I agree shields are too strong at the moment, and are particularly a problem for torpedoes (though so is terraform), but adding a totally arbitrary class of weapons as complete hardcounters is not the answer.

Ideally I'd want shields to form a solid bubble, so that you do not get multiple overlapping walls of shields, but can do direct damage as long as you are under a shield. This is technically challenging. Failing this, I'd like to increase the cost and size of shield generators, so that you get fewer shield generators per unit of area covered, so they are less able to overlap, and are also not as powerful for cost. This unfortunately makes early shield/felon etc stuff in 1v1 and small games impossible or difficult, though we could either make the mobile shield different (and perhaps much weaker so it's not a substitute) or just accept this. The extended range also makes it easier to put sheilds in a safe position back from the front line.

We could just cut it's power, of course, which I think would be fair.
+2 / -0

10 years ago
Isn't gauss now blocked by shields? There was a patch a while ago.

But other than that, I agree with you. Static shields are usually an easy and lazy defence option. Enemy barreling down/about to barrel down on you with light arty? Make some shields and ignore it. Arguably easier/less risky than bumrushing your opponent's army or going around and attempting a flank on their arty. I also feel like shields in general make any kind of static def stronger. Without shields, porc can get damaged by attacks and sniped by arty. With shields, lighter damage will just be shrugged off with zero effort from the defending player.

I'm not saying the current system is bad, but perhaps it's not optimal.
+1 / -0
The very fact that ledarsi wrote an extensive proposal and didn't even know that gauss are no longer not-blocked by shields, proves the point that it's too confusing to have only certain types of weapons blocked by shields while others are not. It's too difficult to learn or keep up with changes. A shield is a shield - it stops weapons.

As Saktoth said, there are other ways to manipulate the power of shields in various situations without nerfing them outright. Perhaps the shield-link mechanic could be tweaked to lower the rate of link transfer for large shields while maintaining it for small guys like thugs. Just throwing that out as a way to mitigate some of the porc problems without nerfing the mobile forces in shield bots.
+1 / -0
I agree that damage types are bad. However the current shield system is a de facto armor type. For example, the Licho ignores a Thug's shield, but not an Aegis.

Regarding the usefulness of Thugs, I disagree. First of all, with the exception of Slashers, all the units you list (Rockos, Rogues, Recluses, Banishers, Scalpels, BlackDawns) are skirmishers which are meant to counter the Thug.

In addition, not having the use of its shield doesn't make the Thug useless. It just has to depend on its HP like any other assault unit. If the Thug would need some of its durability moved from its shield to its HP, so be it.

If I am incorrect about gauss ignoring all shields, so be it. But they defintely do penetrate shield bots' shields, while many other weapons do not.
+1 / -0
10 years ago
what if some shield power was lost when transmitting it from one gen to another? maybe 1% or 2% of the amount transmitted.

This would still allow shieldballs to work, but would make large linked porc less powerful.
+2 / -0

10 years ago
Ledarsi, Gauss was changed. It used to penetrate, yes, but it no longer does. This was a few months ago.

We used to have this on the Crabe, where missiles would penetrate but ballistic weapons would not (Surely there are people old enough to remember this?). It didn't work, it was bad, totally arbitrary classes of units were countered while it did nothing to others, and changing the Gauss was the last vestige of this kind of thing.
+0 / -0
10 years ago
Whether or not Gauss penetrates shields is not the problem. Large shield networks absorbing all incoming damage is the problem.

Nerfing shields' effectiveness will only mean that a larger number of shields is required to create a large, impenetrable shield network. Making each shield generator larger and more expensive will only increase the resource investment required to produce such a network. The underlying mechanic where shields run away in quantity remains.

Zero-K needs some type of unit or structure that hard counters shields specifically. Making an existing weapon do this job is one approach. Adding something new would also work. Whether it does it by ignoring the shield completely, shutting down the shield on impact, or by some other method, is not as important.

But the current system of only breaching shields with "enough" firepower of any type, when shields link, is a big problem. Any source of damage can be overcome by adding more shields. And unless you can breach the shields, you will never kill even one shield generator.

Without some way to actually deal with the shield generators directly, a sufficient number of linking shields just becomes unbreachable.
+0 / -0
10 years ago
1 old thread:
http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/3407
+0 / -0

10 years ago
Possible solution:
Make the static shield (Aegis) not link at all.
Make the mobile big shield (Aspis) link only with smaller shield units, so Aspis are a source of shield strength but not a destination; they dont recharge other Aspis.
+4 / -0


10 years ago
In case you hadn't noticed, Shadows currently dive to get under shields.

Gauss and flame penetrating shield was awful. Gauss turrets were the instant "beat shieldbots" turret, they were only used against shieldbots and would stop a shieldball in it's tracks. Scrubber and Pyro really messed up shieldbots because Thug has no synergy with Outlaw when the shield does nothing.

Thug is already really bad against the inaccurate rocket skirmishers because it is a relatively large target for their inaccurate weapons. If you increase their health to offset this then they become less interesting. They lose their synergy with your own skirmishers and they are just an ordinary health based assault.

I don't want missiles and bombs to penetrate shields for many reasons. Firstly if we were to balance around this behaviour it would significantly affect our freedom to make weapons with varied weapon characteristics.

As Saktoth said, Crabe used to have a shield which repelled plasma bullets. At the time we a unit, Morty, which was effectively a plasma cannon based Recluse-range skirmisher. Or you can think of it as a lower range Hammer. Anyway, Crahe basically became the counter to Morty blobs.

Duck is a raider which shoots missiles. It would be able to snipe Outlaws where no other raider is able to. We would have the Scrubber and Pyro problem all over again.

HLT is a good counter to Skirmishers but when your opponent makes a shield to protect their skirmishers you would have to make Defenders or Gauss (if Gauss goes back to countering shields). Shields would have to be very powerful for people to consider making them for this purpose because there would be so many hardcounters.

An Impaler has the damage to 2-shot a static shield. If your opponent makes any static shields you would just switch to veh and use Impalers to completely negate them. It's that much of a harcounter. Even worse, Racketeer cost less than Shields and can disable a static OR mobile shield. For shields to be useable at all with your system they would need to be ridiculously powerful.

Lichos which can penetrate shields would absolutely destroy shieldballs.

A fair amount of our AA is missile based. This is mostly dependent on whether the AA is rapid fire (laser) or burst fire (missiles). Shields have been used in conjunction with air in the past, mostly with Krow. Your system would force people to switch to missile AA factories against anyone who uses gunships with shields.

Any system of shield penetration based on weapon type has these problems. Using shields would basically be a game of 'chase the hardcounters'. With so many things which make shields completely useless they would have to be really powerful against anything which they are useful against. So for example shields may completely shut down Pillagers or Hammers, if your opponent makes these units just make a shield to force them to make Impalers. I want shields to be a support unit which provides utility for a large range of unit compositions. To do this they should not be in extreme hardcounter relationships with the 'mundane' units. I don't want any weapons which are extreme hardcounters to shields.

The current shield mechanics are very consistent (at least in the case of raw damage). The damage of a projectile is checked against shield power, if the power is greater then the projectile is absorbed. This consistently makes burst damage good against shields, especially small shields. Units which are good against shields tend to be the low range, high DPS units with Jack as an extreme example.

There is a bit of inconsistency in the current system. EMP (as well as disarm) damage deals 1/3 of it's damage against shields. This is because otherwise the units would completely destroy shields, look at how good Racketeer and Stiletto are at draining shields now imagine if they had 3x the damage. There is also a bit of inconsistency in non-damaging weapons. Capture and Newton goes through shields while Moderator beams do not. I think they should all go through shields because it makes no sense for them to deal damage to the shield.

I actually think that shield balance is fine. They do not seem to be overused in 1v1 or teamgames, I have seen some games where a lot are used but this does not seem to be a problem. Do you have any replays where a game just ground to a halt due to shields? FFA is a different matter entirely, they will be fairly passive no matter what you do. They may make Sandcastles play poorly but I think that map would play poorly regardless.

I think people have a lot of problems with knowing how to counter shields. In short, the counter to shields is to shoot at them. This can involve force firing at the ground which would be why people have problems with it. I have considered creating some "automatically shoot at shields" unit state but it has been more difficult than the time I have put into it.

Eventually, artillery will beat shields. Shields give you a bit of breathing room but eventually you will have to disrupt the artillery. Here is a list of how much cost in shields is required to sustain the fire from different artillery pieces (things which outrange HLT). I assume the shields are powered by Singularity Reactors (which is not likely early in the game) and all projectiles hit the shields.

Racketeer: 3.34
Tremor: 3.16
Sharpshooter: 2.34
Hammer: 2.25
Wolverine: 1.98
Penetrator: 1.75
Pillager: 1.43
Impaler: 1.34
Crabe: 1.10
Starlight: 1.06
Behemoth: 0.84
Big Bertha: 0.67
Catapult: 0.49

Almost every land factory has a unit which outranges HLT and drains shields very well for cost. Racketeer gets away with it's very high efficiency because it cannot actually kill the shield. Tremor will not always hit a shield but even if 1/3 of its shots hit a shield it technically doing well. Crabe does not do particularly well but its really good at other things and the whole spider factory is a bit weird. Jumpbots don't have good anti-shield artillery but they have a lot of melee jumper units so they don't really care.

Skirmishers have even better DPS/Cost than artillery so they are much better at draining provided they can get into range. Lower range units are even better. If your opponent spams nothing but shields then just go in and kill them with short ranged units. If they spam shields and defenses then artillery will easily beat that for cost.

For the large FFA case notice to block a Starlight you need to spend more on shields than the cost of a Starlight.
+2 / -0

10 years ago
One of the easiest way to beat shields though is tacnukes. Shields can block 1 tacnuke, so the second will penetrate. Even a massive overlapping shield ball will generally be drained below the 1-tacnuke-threshold by the first tacnuke (If there is a short delay for the shields to equalize).

You know what dies to 1 tacnuke? Antinukes. Ignoring the fact that 1 EMP missile is often enough too. If you can hit things like Fusions/Geos, you can do a lot of damage.

I think the power point of shields is a little too high at the moment given the Gauss/Flame changes. Nor am I adverse to a radical change (Like a single 3d surface instead of overlapping shields). But making a whole arbitrary class of weapons the counter is not the answer.
+0 / -0


10 years ago
A single 3d surface has always sounded good. Who is going to implement it?
+1 / -0
If GF says shields are balanced then I certainly won't dispute it.

BUT:

If the network effect of having LOTS AND LOTS of linked shields is problematic (and ledarsi seems to be asserting that the network effect is one of the main problems), then perhaps we could make the returns diminishing, much like we do with overdrive? Perhaps the shield charge transfer rate goes down as more shields are linked together, so that adding a shield to the network still increases the recharge rate of a shield under attack but does so at a diminishing rate of increase.

Or, instead of messing with the transfer rate, impose an energy tax per link, perhaps even at an increasing rate with more links, so that the networked shields still equalize their charge in the same amount of time, but big networks become more expensive to recharge.

Or, impose a recharge rate penalty per link, perhaps at an increasing penalty with more links.

And relatedly:

Instead of dumping a bunch of effort into making merged shield bubbles, how about decreasing the opacity of a shield based on how many shields it is linked to, possibly also considering their size and distance, so that when you get a bunch of shields on top of each other each one becomes more transparent? A system like that would be a big visual improvement even if it wasn't perfect.
+3 / -0
quote:
A single 3d surface has always sounded good. Who is going to implement it?


I once proposed something like this. In my mind I imagined that if you build two shields near eachother, instead of linking, their shields would shut off, and I could spawn a double-radius-shield fake unit in between them. For three nearby shields, a triple-radius shield at the centroid. And so on maybe up to a certain point.

Technically this might not be too hard to manage (existing shieldlink code could be used). But gameplay-wise this could raise issues. For example, you have one static aegis shield which covers some existing structures, and then you build another shield nearby and the new double-wide shield, while large, no longer reaches the borders as the previous single shield did and some buildings are no longer covered.

Any other ideas?
+0 / -0
10 years ago
I don't think I've ever had a problem with shieldballs or even static shield spam, because they fail so hilariously against Racketeers and tremors.

BUT, that's only against LAND and SURFACE shields. The only problems I've had with shields are the UNDERWATER shields, because they're incredibly tough to counter without spending several thousands of metal on a Warlord or Serpents.

And even then you can often outmaneuver artillery ships unless it's a particularily narrow map.
+2 / -0
10 years ago
I think the current system is ok, shields are not exactly cheap and whoever spends loads of metal into Shields, will have to cut that out of their offense budget, giving others the opportunity to expand more freely.

So when you realize that someone is building up an annoying amount of shields, you can start preparations for this.
Shields sure can become annoying to a point where you have a standoff, but the game also has a solution for this, there are standoff weapons and units that will eventually hammer down or assist in hammering down an annoying shield wall.

If you play normally this will probably be extremely rare and even then there are ways to counter it.
I had some games with friends where we did let each other build up insane amounts of defenses to reach standoffs like this.
And even there i found that shields are very vulnerable to rainbows, the disco rave party completely annihilates them due to the included emp charge.

So like i said, in my opinion the system is fine.
If you really think the cost performance ratio of the aegis is bad, then may just raise its metal price.
+0 / -0

10 years ago
A razor wall in front of the shieldgens makes the entire setup pretty much immune to the DRP.
+0 / -0
10 years ago
From my experience, shield mechanics only break down at the extreme. Which is why I'm going to have to side with USrankCrazyEddie about diminishing returns. After a certain number, building more shields should become pointless.
+2 / -0
10 years ago
Mm... just to be mathematically correct. A 3D surface is only possible in 4-dimensional space(or above 4D). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_shapes
A bent surface(2D surface in 3D) can actually be a sphere or what you are talking, a combined bubbleshield where all the intersections are removed, is also a 2D surface.
I guess the implementation doesn't sound too hard if you know boolean algebra or CSG(Constructive Solid Geometry).
+1 / -0
Page of 5 (93 records)