Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change? - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Where medkits are always free.
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

View Poll Results: Should Shields Replace Armor?
Yes! Keep it like it is! I love it! 54 41.86%
Yes and No, Use both systems for different classes. 36 27.91%
No! Give us back our armor system! 32 24.81%
Yes, but only for Vanu armors. 7 5.43%
Voters: 129. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-03-16, 05:37 PM   [Ignore Me] #1
Zekeen
Major
 
Zekeen's Avatar
 
Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


Greetings fellow vets and hopeful recruits-

Lately, I have been wondering how many people know, or care, of a certain issue that scares me with the change. According to the thread on game features:

• Shields replace armor, shields regen if you don’t take damage, health takes full damage, no BLOODY SCREEN health heal, different types of shields (regen slower, higher max, faster regen timer)

Now, I know a of people play and enjoy games like Halo, CoD, ect, that employs a shield, or shield style health system, but I know others also enjoy games with a more permanent health that does not regenerate without assistance. Health will be separate from shields in PS2, obviously, but is giving everyone shields over armor a good idea?


The Bad:

In PS1, we had armor and you'd have to go to an equipment terminal or find an engineer to get repairs. This gave engineers are more close quarters and infantry styled job. Instead of being just mine layers and vehicle crews, they'd jump off into the base and storm along side you, killing and repairing as they went, keeping the push going.

Having armor over shields also means that if you wing someone and chase them down, they will still be hurt. With shields they can hide and regenerate their shields and face you at full again, despite having been hit earlier.

The Good:


It can speed up gameplay. No longer do you need to worry about facing an enemy weakened or hunt down an engineer. You can just wait a minute, recharge and jump into the fray again.

If you get injured in the middle of no where, you can recover without trekking back to the nearest base or engineer.

You won't have to worry about minor hits that aren't worth seeking help over. As the shields regenerate, you will always start a fight at full.

The Either:

As seen in the recent gameplay video. When hit, the player flashes since his shields are taking damage. On one side, it helps you hit a target, if they glow for a second, you know where they are and that you hit them. On another side, it takes out a bit of realism and difficulty, and makes you light up if you happen to be hit by a stray bullet in the middle of a battle while taking a tactical position or flanking.

Also, shields are most likely intended to keep the battle heavier and more brutal. If you regenerate shields, you don't need an engineer and to seek repair. On the other hand, if you get hit, you may be more inclined to hide every time to regenerate, instead of with armor where you can't so you would charge in an all or nothing attack since it was your only chance sometimes. Would shields speed up combat, or make us seek shelter every time we take dmg, the same way many instinctively reload after every shot.



My personal take:

While I understand what they are after, I myself, do not like the idea of going to shields. It takes out a LOT of tactical elements and they are making the game a bit too fast paced as is. Armor gave you a greater sense of vulnerability, made you think on your next move after every conflict cause it kept you alive. Shields just keep going and going. I makes combat too different, and that's not just nostalgia speaking. Personally, I think shields can work as an armor class of their own, but we need armor. Shields should be on top of a light amount of armor and primarily used in Vanu infantry and armor, it makes more sense for Vanu to have it. I'm pure NC, and I don't like Vanu, but as far PS goes, Vanu need stuff like this while the rest use harsher armor system. It makes it more themed and feel right.


So what does everyone else think of this replacement of armor with shields? Does it make sense? Is it good for PS theme? Is it a good gameplay choice? Should it belong to all 3 factions or just Vanu?

Last edited by Zekeen; 2012-03-16 at 05:40 PM.
Zekeen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-16, 05:44 PM   [Ignore Me] #2
Briq
Private
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


I didn't mind the old system, but a shield system sounds good too. I definitely think they should keep it equal across all factions though, it would be too hard to balance otherwise.
Briq is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-16, 06:00 PM   [Ignore Me] #3
Zekeen
Major
 
Zekeen's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


It is a sequel though, and to a MMO no less, so it is touchy.

One thing I should of added to the polls, though it is kinda covered by yes and no, is that it'd be nice if shields were just slightly weaker than armor and you could choose your armor loadout for some classes to use shields or armor. Armor would be better if you had an engineer in your team, but shields for when you lack an engineer or the time to repair. It'd be like a side-grade that way.

There's lots of ways of going around this, I just don't like there being JUST shields and health like that. Makes it seem like you got a small portable handheld shield device pinned to your chest and your armor is just for show.

I'm somewhat guessing though, that they just made armor a part of health and shields might just be a light protective field with minimal capacity. We really haven't gotten to much info on this (part of the reason for me trying to call attention to it). If it's a health based thing with minor shields, even people like me won't be very upset. It all depends on the system.
Zekeen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-16, 05:52 PM   [Ignore Me] #4
Skitrel
Contributor
Captain
 
Skitrel's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


I have no problem with it at all. It's no different to cod, battlefield and the like. They should all be considered exactly the same system. Regen health is no different to regen shields, they're just different names for what is essentially exactly the same gameplay feature and effect.

Doesn't hurt any other game that uses regen, it won't hurt PS.
__________________

Mod: /r/gamernews
Join The Enclave: http://www.enclaveoilrig.com
Skitrel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-16, 05:54 PM   [Ignore Me] #5
Zulthus
Colonel
 
Zulthus's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


I'm not really a fan of recharging shields; I liked that there was some teamwork involved with repairing and healing other players. Now it's sit in one spot waiting for your shield to recharge, drop a med box, and go.

I'd have to see it in game first to really judge it.
Zulthus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-16, 06:00 PM   [Ignore Me] #6
WiteBeam
Second Lieutenant
 
WiteBeam's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


I don't want a Halo type rechargable shield. I liked how in PS if you got someone down to an ounce of life, you could hunt them down like a scared little rabbit. I wouldn't want anyone to be able to get shot and just hide behind a wall waiting to get health back. Whats wrong with the damn glue and med certs? Why do we have to be like all these console games?
__________________
Originally Posted by Graywolves View Post
VS [MAX] ability should be to cover their entire surroundings with glitter.
The Enclave
WiteBeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-16, 06:27 PM   [Ignore Me] #7
BuzzCutPsycho
Sergeant Major
 
BuzzCutPsycho's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


Originally Posted by WiteBeam View Post
I don't want a Halo type rechargable shield. I liked how in PS if you got someone down to an ounce of life, you could hunt them down like a scared little rabbit. I wouldn't want anyone to be able to get shot and just hide behind a wall waiting to get health back. Whats wrong with the damn glue and med certs? Why do we have to be like all these console games?
Except with Medic/Engineer that's precisely what everyone in PS did. Having to use an armor repair and health repair "weapon" doesn't make it any different.

Now it's just less annoying.
__________________
BuzzCutPsycho is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-16, 07:10 PM   [Ignore Me] #8
WiteBeam
Second Lieutenant
 
WiteBeam's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


Originally Posted by BuzzCutPsycho View Post
Except with Medic/Engineer that's precisely what everyone in PS did. Having to use an armor repair and health repair "weapon" doesn't make it any different.

Now it's just less annoying.
I guess it would only be the same as long as you only healed up if you stood still long enough.
Maybe they will put a long enough timer on it so people can't run and hide to heal after any damage is taken.

As long as health doesn't recharge it won't be a big deal.
__________________
Originally Posted by Graywolves View Post
VS [MAX] ability should be to cover their entire surroundings with glitter.
The Enclave

Last edited by WiteBeam; 2012-03-16 at 07:11 PM.
WiteBeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-16, 07:06 PM   [Ignore Me] #9
MooK
Staff Sergeant
 
MooK's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


Originally Posted by Zulthus View Post
I'm not really a fan of recharging shields; I liked that there was some teamwork involved with repairing and healing other players. Now it's sit in one spot waiting for your shield to recharge, drop a med box, and go.

I'd have to see it in game first to really judge it.
This. I believe it pulls away from teamwork. We'll have to wait and see whether or not that theory is correct.
__________________
MooK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-16, 09:05 PM   [Ignore Me] #10
Shade Millith
First Sergeant
 
Shade Millith's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


Originally Posted by Skitrel View Post
I have no problem with it at all. It's no different to cod, battlefield and the like. They should all be considered exactly the same system. Regen health is no different to regen shields, they're just different names for what is essentially exactly the same gameplay feature and effect.

Doesn't hurt any other game that uses regen, it won't hurt PS.
In your opinion.

My opinion is that regenerating health makes the game easier. And that's not a good thing.
Shade Millith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-16, 09:20 PM   [Ignore Me] #11
Skitrel
Contributor
Captain
 
Skitrel's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


Originally Posted by Shade Millith View Post
In your opinion.

My opinion is that regenerating health makes the game easier. And that's not a good thing.
No. It's not opinion, an opinion is "my preference is non regenerative" a statement of fact is "it makes the game easier", a stupid fact because something that effects absolutely everyone gives absolutely nobody an advantage, or a disadvantage. It makes the game play differently, it does not however give anyone any advantage over anybody else and therefore can't make the game easier.

Point out exactly why and how regenerating health hurts those games that have it, and why those games that do have it would be better without it, explaining what the gameplay effects would be and why those gameplay effects would be better.

Support your statement. The success of the core games that all use it is enough evidence to show that it doesn't hurt those games. Burden of proof is on you.
__________________

Mod: /r/gamernews
Join The Enclave: http://www.enclaveoilrig.com
Skitrel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-17, 02:32 AM   [Ignore Me] #12
Shade Millith
First Sergeant
 
Shade Millith's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


Originally Posted by Skitrel View Post
No. It's not opinion, an opinion is "my preference is non regenerative" a statement of fact is "it makes the game easier", a stupid fact because something that effects absolutely everyone gives absolutely nobody an advantage, or a disadvantage. It makes the game play differently, it does not however give anyone any advantage over anybody else and therefore can't make the game easier.

Point out exactly why and how regenerating health hurts those games that have it, and why those games that do have it would be better without it, explaining what the gameplay effects would be and why those gameplay effects would be better.

Support your statement. The success of the core games that all use it is enough evidence to show that it doesn't hurt those games. Burden of proof is on you.
My OPINION is that it's bad. You want reasons for my opinion? Here's why.

In PS1 getting shot meant time spent doing something other than shooting. You had to actively heal yourself, or otherwise get someone else to do so. Someone on your team had to put aside their gun to do so.

Regenerating health or armor means that less time is spent worrying about health.

This lines up perfectly with instant resurrection. It's all about making the game simpler, and less about tactics and supply lines and more about gun gun gun gun.

Just because EVERYONE has the same means nothing. It's about what is taken from the game as a whole. Instant Resurrection is possible by all, but it still makes death a non issue. It's taken a vast amount of the penalty of death out of the game.

That's my problem with it.


Every single FPS out there today utilises recharging health barring Valve titles and there's a reason for that, people like it. It let's people get on with the shooty shooty and spend less time running off to find health and armour.
And I hate it. The FPS's today are too interested in "EVERYONE HAS TO SHOOT ALL THE TIME MORE DAKA!! IF YOU'RE NOT SHOOTING YOU'RE WRONG!!"

To imply that Battlefield 3 doesn't promote teamwork is also ludicrous
Compared to BF1942, it doesn't.

The original you had to work together to keep everyone alive. And I mean ALIVE alive. If you die, you're dead and have to go back to a held flag. No magic squad spawning. No magic 'Oh, you're dead? Not anymore' shockpaddles.

You spotted an enemy? You'd need to tell others on their location and movement manually. Actually utilize teamwork. None of this easy 'push bootan', everyone and their granny knows a pin point location, and their direction (Hell, you can use the icons to shoot them without actual LOS).

Last edited by Shade Millith; 2012-03-17 at 02:50 AM.
Shade Millith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-17, 02:40 AM   [Ignore Me] #13
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


Originally Posted by Shade Millith View Post
In PS1 getting shot meant time spent doing something other than shooting. You had to actively heal yourself, or otherwise get someone else to do so. Someone on your team had to put aside their gun to do so.

Regenerating health or armor means that less time is spent worrying about health.
Actually this was explained before. If health is say 4 times larger than the shield then the shield is designed to stop random bullets. A player doesn't feel the need to "retreat" and repair their armor/health after getting hit once or twice.

So it's not regenerating health or armor that makes you more worried about health it's the disproportionate weight toward the shield that causes that. If the shield goes away and the next two bullets kill you then medics will be used to revive, not heal. You want players to be able to step out and take some shots at the enemy. They might get shot once or twice, but those random bullets are negated by the shield. If someone has skill and can sustain fire on a running enemy for instance they take down the shield and do health damage which reflects a permanent weakness that a medic can then heal.

This was one of my previous arguments for long TTKs if the connection isn't clear.

Last edited by Sirisian; 2012-03-17 at 02:41 AM.
Sirisian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-17, 03:02 AM   [Ignore Me] #14
Skitrel
Contributor
Captain
 
Skitrel's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


Originally Posted by Shade Millith View Post
My OPINION is that it's bad. You want reasons for my opinion? Here's why.

In PS1 getting shot meant time spent doing something other than shooting. You had to actively heal yourself, or otherwise get someone else to do so. Someone on your team had to put aside their gun to do so.

Regenerating health or armor means that less time is spent worrying about health.

This lines up perfectly with instant resurrection. It's all about making the game simpler, and less about tactics and supply lines and more about gun gun gun gun.

Just because EVERYONE has the same means nothing. It's about what is taken from the game as a whole. Instant Resurrection is possible by all, but it still makes death a non issue. It's taken a vast amount of the penalty of death out of the game.

That's my problem with it.




And I hate it. The FPS's today are too interested in "EVERYONE HAS TO SHOOT ALL THE TIME MORE DAKA!! IF YOU'RE NOT SHOOTING YOU'RE WRONG!!"



Compared to BF1942, it doesn't.

The original you had to work together to keep everyone alive. And I mean ALIVE alive. If you die, you're dead and have to go back to a held flag. No magic squad spawning. No magic 'Oh, you're dead? Not anymore' shockpaddles.

You spotted an enemy? You'd need to tell others on their location and movement manually. Actually utilize teamwork. None of this easy 'push bootan', everyone and their granny knows a pin point location, and their direction (Hell, you can use the icons to shoot them without actual LOS).
Wait, you're now attacking instant resurrection in tandem with this stupid argument?

You're aware it's not instant correct? You're aware that squad spawning has a respawn of 45 seconds right? The majority of the time it'll be quicker to spawn on the galaxy than do that.

What it sounds more like, from this and from everything else you say on the forums, is that you're against pretty much everything that brings a game up to date, modernises it, brings it into the next gen.

If you want to play PS1 go and play PS1, everyone else wants to play a new, up to date, modern shooter.

Regenerating health or armor means that less time is spent worrying about health.
Speeding up the game is a good thing, it means less time doing boring shit and more time doing the bits everyone really enjoys, participating in big epic battles, performing gal drops, being part of epic tank columns, and so on. It means less time running off to find someone that can heal you. It means less people all doing those things and instead they're spending their time and popcount as part of the battle as opposed to not doing anything cool or fun at all.

The same mechanics are present, they've just been consolidated into removing what was essentially boring play that removed people from participation. Participation is good and should be maximised as much as possible.

You're acting as if having shields means nobody will die. You're acting as though everyone is going to be a BFR now. You're acting as though shields mean nobody will need a constant supply of health, as though 100s of defenders shooting at an invading force of MAX's won't require maintanence, that the heavy assaults won't require a constant source of healing.

What you're doing is making small, unfocused or incorrect statements.
__________________

Mod: /r/gamernews
Join The Enclave: http://www.enclaveoilrig.com
Skitrel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-03-16, 06:02 PM   [Ignore Me] #15
Skitrel
Contributor
Captain
 
Skitrel's Avatar
 
Re: Shields Replacing Armor - Good or Bad Change?


Sigh.

Recharging shields are functionally identical to Battlefield. Nothing wrong with it.
__________________

Mod: /r/gamernews
Join The Enclave: http://www.enclaveoilrig.com
Skitrel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.