Shields

I don't get it, don't they already take full damage at the start? The upgrades just improved the shield's strenght, e.g. a 20 damage attack would only do 18 damage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember HP decreasing while the shields were still up. ???

 

Once again shields level reduces damage to the shiled. A sield level of 2 means the shiled will take 2 less damage per hit

Same thing with armor level a level of 2 means a unit takes 2 less damage to HP.

I am asking should some units have a higher shield level such as the zealot will have a level of 0 unupgraded meaning it will take full damage to shields while a carrier would have a level of 3 taking 3 less damage to shields

 

that's a great idea, the dt should have 0/1 armor even though it has that stupid looking armor now.

_________________________________________________

in bw carriers had 300hp/150sheild, but hp had 4 armor, against regular marines the shield can take about 27 hits counting rengen but the hp can take 150 hits!

i thought the personal shield generator forms a part of the zealots armor, it might enhance the zealots mental powers but i think it still uses technology

_________________________________________________

this a very good point.

_________________________________________________

no, what Unentschieden was saying is in bw every weapon had a damage type and every unit had an armor type(which is its size) the types work like this:

normal damage does 100% to all sizes
explosive damage does 100% to large units, 75% to medium units and 50% to small units,
concussive damage does 100% to small, 50% to medium and 25% to large.

muta was the only small flyer while all other flyers are large, most of the attacks against the muta only did half damage, effectively doubling its hp and regen. this is the main reason why it's so good.
firebats and vulture did concussive damage that's why their attacks sucked against anything non infantry.

however all attacks types does 100% damage to shields, which is the reason why the vulture is good against archon.

in sc2 instead of particular types reducing damage, the new system gives bonus damage, this means for example the siege tanks 50 + 50 vs armored will only do 50 damage to zealots shields, where as in bw it did full 70 to zealot's shields. (the siege tank has been scaled up costing more food and resource. 50 damage in sc2 = 35 in sc1)

this means the shields no longer receive "100%" damage from all damage types, which is a huge improvement

 

Ok time for a quick lesson for anyone still confused about what BoP is talking about. Shields just like HP have an armor value that can upgraded. The armor that shields use is called plasma armor (another example of this is terran infrantry use infantry armor). As of Brood War all Protoss units had a base plasma arrmor of 0. What BoP was originally suggesting is that number should be changed so that some protoss units have a base plasma armor of greater than 0 (just like alot of later game units for example the BC has a starting 4 armor and that can still be urpgraded 3 times).

And before anyone starts calling someting out as OP we are not talking about numbers (which we really shouldnt in my opinion all numerical descisions should be to blizzard for fine tuning balance and all these cummunities should provide is just a general idea of what something should be) yet. So far i have only seen alot ratios.

As for the disscussion that has been going on i personally think shields should act just like a units HP relative to some attacks and that units shilds about as much plasma armor as the unit has in normal armor. Also i would really like to see units in SC2 have a greater portion of there total health be shielding because besides the archones in SC1 no unit had even half of its total health be shielding.

Finally, High Templar units should always have better shielding than Dark Templar units. Becuase the High Templar have always focussed on direct psionic attacks and shielding while the Dark Templar have primarily focused on cloaking, evasion, and disruption.

 

I voted no. I always thought shield technology is shield technology. Bigger units do have bigger shields - but this is because they have a larger surface area. Since the Plasma Shielding technology is the same across the board for the Protoss, they shouldn't have different shield integrities. Armor is the way to make larger units actually tougher to kill.

 

It would be cool that the Mothership have base shield level 5.The marine have no chance against the Mothership.

 

Although I have often wondered that myself, I've come to think that there's a reason for the universal base plasma armour. Unlike the different, various types of armour on each unit, plasma shields are universally the same. So even though a carrier is able to produce more shielding than a probe, whether it be because of the larger surface area or a better generator (be it an actual machine or a mental ability), the shielding is of the same type.

As for the high templars having more shielding than dark templars due to their greater psionic potency, I would think that in channeling all of their energies to produce a psionic storm or hallucination, they sacrifice some concentration to improve their shields; whereas the dark templar has no such ability save personal cloaking, thus can concentrate more on their weapons and shields.

 

If the shield was enhanced in the BC vs Carrier fight it still wouldn't matter. It would still only increase the Carrier's life by maybe 10 or so milliseconds. The problem with those fights is the same in the original SC, the armor of the BC is 4, Carrier's damage comes in 2 sets of 3 per 8 interceptors. Meaning it is only 1 damage per hit. And that doesn't matter if it was 2 sets or not because at the higher levels the interceptors will do 1 damage regardless. The way the damage is inflicted is just different.

Now in SC2 it looks like they changed this to make the BC a little weaker by splitting the damage into 5 shots which means its damage is more affected by armor. It still ends up doing more damage to the Carrier then the other way around. Seriously try taking one carrier vs one BC, that BC will rape a carrier, assuming the BC commander doesn't do something stupid and attack-move.

Its why if you see them massing BCs you build up 2 Corsair groups with a Scout group to kill their base. Because they can't attack multiple units and Cosairs freaking destroy BC groups its better then Carriers(those are better at destroying bases).

 

I agree, sheilds are an important part of the Toss war machine, it would only make sense to have them be just as strong, maybe even stronger.

 

It'd be cool if protoss could switch shield types. Like some are anti ground shields and some are anti air shields. Just thought about it becuase the way the shield shows up for the tempest was awesome.

 

No, like ninerman said, its the same shield technology.

Their psionic powers help with psy storms and psy blades shields are technology. How would you explain the shield on the probes,shuttles, reavers,colossus if it was a mental process?

Furthermore, it would be overpowered, because you can kite too well when you lose your shield, regen with 2x the rate and come back, it becomes too strong.

Like someone already mentioned in sc1 shields too 100% = maximum damage, now they take 100% = minimum damage and they regen 2x speed when out of combat, thats good enough for me.

And for the record battlecruisers had 2 armor wheras carriers had 4, which i find unfair, not to mention carriers were much faster.

 

Battlecruisers had 3 armor. And more HP than the Carrier, so it evens out.

 

hm it is 3, well its still 1 less than the carrier, carrier only had 50 hp less if you add up shields and hp.

 

your right shield technology is similar for every unit in the Protoss armada but unless you think the things that power a Motherships shields are indentical to the machines powering a Zealot's shields there are still some key differences. Forget lore reasons for a second and think if a Battlecruiser gets to have a good base armor value why can't 1/3 to 1/2 the hp of a Protoss unit have a decent base armor value as well?

Also for those that must have a lore reason you could say that the plasma armor upgrades make the technology more efficient so it becomes affordable to equip every unit with plasma armor instead of just equiping capital units. (aka the Mothership, the Carrier, the Colossus etc...)

Finally as for the Carrier v. Batlecruiser debate the Carrier wins everytime if you assume both players have a reasonable level of skill. The only time the Battlecruiser wins is when there is someone focus firing with the Battlecruisers and no one is moving the Carriers.

 

Well, when you look at the Yamoto (sp?) Gun, I think the BC has the edge, but I could be wrong.

 

Trust me Carriers win the majority of time when the battle involves decent players. This debate was already had earlier on this forum so me and ych9 tested the fact. The results were Carriers win on anything but the smallest maps and assuming you have 2 decent players.

 

speaking of which, when upgrading the shields
does it reduce the damage taken or regenerate faster?
i always thought it would regen faster

 

Huh, I wouldn't have guessed that.

 

When you research the plasma armor upgrade it is just like when rsearch any other armor upgrade it reduces the damage shields take.

 

Kinda like how I thought for awhile that upgrading your hatechery to a Lair/Hive would make the larvae come back faster. Maybe they'll include the sheild idea in SC2.