Forums / Games / Halo Wars Series

Lets start a real open discussion about Base Slots

OP iOxygen xYz

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
If people are going to bring up cheesing with 3 shield generators and 1 cloaking generator. Lets bring up the issue with 2-3 siege turrets paired with 1-2 watch towers. The UNSC option is very much more over powered than the Banished option. A base that can attack half way across the map with devastating damage and accuracy is ridiculous, it not only offers offence but defense as well. If having a base being defended by shield generators is overpowered, then what do you call a base that can attack with extreme damage half way across the map?? It doesn't make sense to me. I'm a little tired of all these 1 sided discussions, if 1 side is going to get a nerf, the other one should as well. People will say that well the banished shields are overpowered because you can set a full army under the shields, which is NOT true. You can maybe at best get close to 5 units safely under the shield. While the cloaking generators range is not that much more than the shields. So which one is more overpowered? A base that can destroy your army half way across the map, or a base that stays defended by shield with a few units defended as well? You could literally build a UNSC base next to a turtled shield base and shell it with siege turrets no problem? I don't even understand why there is so much complaining about banished bases. Both factions have their pros and cons. Learn to use them.
3 siege turrets only do pathetic damage.
Not even remotely comparable.
This is your second post defending Banished shields. You're basing your opinion off of your own experience playing the game, at a Onyx and below skill level. At the highest level of play, or at least at Champion 100 and above. Shield stacking poses a real problem.

UNSC Siege turrets cost like 900 each, for that same amount a Atriox can purchase 3 Shields. Also you're wrong about how many units can sit in a shield base. If you spread them around the base properly and sit them close you can fit an entire 120 population inside.

Feel free to watch the Finals of the BTC 1v1 Tournament, and tell me that shield stacking wasn't a determining factor in the results of the tournament.
i have to agree tthat they are not even remotely comparable.

siege turrets are 900 supply each which is 3600 for 4 thats a huge investment considering most matches end before 25 minutes. shields only cost 600 200 thats 800 total and these shields protect your units

the problem lies with shrouds, if i see someone turtling with kodiaks or siege turrets build 4 shrouds boom those 900 resourse turrets are now uterly useless plus shrouds can cloak so just focus the watch tower and cloak ezzz

banished need a pretty huge nerf no dout about it, leave unsc where its at but buff forge, anders and johnsons abilitys there awful compared to banished abilitys.
Shrouds can shoot down those shells........

They also can't target air. So shields>siege turrets
If people are going to bring up cheesing with 3 shield generators and 1 cloaking generator. Lets bring up the issue with 2-3 siege turrets paired with 1-2 watch towers. The UNSC option is very much more over powered than the Banished option. A base that can attack half way across the map with devastating damage and accuracy is ridiculous, it not only offers offence but defense as well. If having a base being defended by shield generators is overpowered, then what do you call a base that can attack with extreme damage half way across the map?? It doesn't make sense to me. I'm a little tired of all these 1 sided discussions, if 1 side is going to get a nerf, the other one should as well. People will say that well the banished shields are overpowered because you can set a full army under the shields, which is NOT true. You can maybe at best get close to 5 units safely under the shield. While the cloaking generators range is not that much more than the shields. So which one is more overpowered? A base that can destroy your army half way across the map, or a base that stays defended by shield with a few units defended as well? You could literally build a UNSC base next to a turtled shield base and shell it with siege turrets no problem? I don't even understand why there is so much complaining about banished bases. Both factions have their pros and cons. Learn to use them.
Ok, I am now totally convinced you are trolling.

Siege turrets are a 900 supply building slot. For the cost of two of them and 2 watchtowers, they literally cost as much supply as an ultimate unit.

But let's ignore their obscene cost. It's all about utility, right? Well, that's worthless too. One shroud, just ONE, completely mitigates the damage of a full base of siege turrets. Not only that, but on offense when you get close to the base the turrets stop firing. This strategy isn't a problem in the SLIGHTEST.

Even then, why would you let an opponent take an expo right next to your base? You'd have to be getting stomped on to allow that to happen if you are maintaining map awareness. If someone can pull that off, the base shelling you is not the issue. The game was already over.

And 5 units under the shield? Is your controller broken? I don't usually say this on the forums, and I will often defend players opinions on here, but you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Please, stop acting like you do.
Mate... This is a bad one and im pretty sure you know it. Siege turrets need LoS to hit a target. Cant hit air units. A shroud can take out the shells anyways. Most late game banished units are shielded and most UNSC since its either Isabel or Cutter at this point. So even if no air units the siege does shyte. On top of the 900 cost. Which i could build 3 vultures almost for 2 siege turrets they have a very long build time. Only a map like graveyard are they even viable. Barely and thats due to the garrisons on only one side of the map... If the enemie takes them and goes through everything listed.
ESL Knife wrote:
This is your second post defending Banished shields. You're basing your opinion off of your own experience playing the game, at a Onyx and below skill level. At the highest level of play, or at least at Champion 100 and above. Shield stacking poses a real problem.

UNSC Siege turrets cost like 900 each, for that same amount a Atriox can purchase 3 Shields. Also you're wrong about how many units can sit in a shield base. If you spread them around the base properly and sit them close you can fit an entire 120 population inside.

Feel free to watch the Finals of the BTC 1v1 Tournament, and tell me that shield stacking wasn't a determining factor in the results of the tournament.
I'm the 99%
ESL Knife wrote:
This is your second post defending Banished shields. You're basing your opinion off of your own experience playing the game, at a Onyx and below skill level. At the highest level of play, or at least at Champion 100 and above. Shield stacking poses a real problem.

UNSC Siege turrets cost like 900 each, for that same amount a Atriox can purchase 3 Shields. Also you're wrong about how many units can sit in a shield base. If you spread them around the base properly and sit them close you can fit an entire 120 population inside.

Feel free to watch the Finals of the BTC 1v1 Tournament, and tell me that shield stacking wasn't a determining factor in the results of the tournament.
I'm the 99%
Then congrats, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to input.

RTS YODA VIDS.... I finally understand.
ESL Knife wrote:
This is your second post defending Banished shields. You're basing your opinion off of your own experience playing the game, at a Onyx and below skill level. At the highest level of play, or at least at Champion 100 and above. Shield stacking poses a real problem.

UNSC Siege turrets cost like 900 each, for that same amount a Atriox can purchase 3 Shields. Also you're wrong about how many units can sit in a shield base. If you spread them around the base properly and sit them close you can fit an entire 120 population inside.

Feel free to watch the Finals of the BTC 1v1 Tournament, and tell me that shield stacking wasn't a determining factor in the results of the tournament.
I'm the 99%
Then congrats, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to input.

RTS YODA VIDS.... I finally understand.
You do not need the top 5 players to balance the game. Once again, as I'm sure 343 could vouch for, this game isn't only made for 1v1 deathmatch. I do understand that is the "best" way to balance, but some leaders are meant for 3s imo. For example it'd be hard to argue Isabel isn't the best 3s unsc player. She isn't close to the best 1s player.

Either way, back of my tangent, the 1% dosent need to continue with there arrogance. If you truly want to see the game grow, the 1% has to get their head out of their "$% and start helping, or at least being somewhat friendly.

The siege turrets are not a problem. Not even close. If you'd like to pick any UNSC, ill be atriox, build only atriox, and still push the game to over an hour, no problem. When. I can take the current #1 player over 2hrs, not even attempting offense, it's a problem. When I have complete map control as unsc and have to continously attack and thin for 2 hrs before they funnily run low.on resources to win, it's an issue.

When I can simply only build bases and a leader and win games against platinum level players, it's an issue.

A 900 resource turret that can only do splash damage (effective only against bunched up units, non micro) and are completely useless against any air, and a 509 resource shroud can completely negate damage, not to mention that is if you can see the army at all, that is a problem.

My fear, however, is that 343 sees this problem that I believe the community has pretty clearly adressed is that they absolutely destroy the shields ability completely. I've noticed a trend when the community all agrees, they do TO MUCH NERGING.

Less nerf the shield stacking, but let's not absolutely kill base shields.

#babysteps
ESL Knife wrote:
This is your second post defending Banished shields. You're basing your opinion off of your own experience playing the game, at a Onyx and below skill level. At the highest level of play, or at least at Champion 100 and above. Shield stacking poses a real problem.

UNSC Siege turrets cost like 900 each, for that same amount a Atriox can purchase 3 Shields. Also you're wrong about how many units can sit in a shield base. If you spread them around the base properly and sit them close you can fit an entire 120 population inside.

Feel free to watch the Finals of the BTC 1v1 Tournament, and tell me that shield stacking wasn't a determining factor in the results of the tournament.
I'm the 99%
Your the 1%. Shield stacking is op. Siege turrets are okay right where they are.
ESL Knife wrote:
This is your second post defending Banished shields. You're basing your opinion off of your own experience playing the game, at a Onyx and below skill level. At the highest level of play, or at least at Champion 100 and above. Shield stacking poses a real problem.

UNSC Siege turrets cost like 900 each, for that same amount a Atriox can purchase 3 Shields. Also you're wrong about how many units can sit in a shield base. If you spread them around the base properly and sit them close you can fit an entire 120 population inside.

Feel free to watch the Finals of the BTC 1v1 Tournament, and tell me that shield stacking wasn't a determining factor in the results of the tournament.
I'm the 99%
Then congrats, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to input.

RTS YODA VIDS.... I finally understand.
You do not need the top 5 players to balance the game. Once again, as I'm sure 343 could vouch for, this game isn't only made for 1v1 deathmatch. I do understand that is the "best" way to balance, but some leaders are meant for 3s imo. For example it'd be hard to argue Isabel isn't the best 3s unsc player. She isn't close to the best 1s player.

Either way, back of my tangent, the 1% dosent need to continue with there arrogance. If you truly want to see the game grow, the 1% has to get their head out of their "$% and start helping, or at least being somewhat friendly.

The siege turrets are not a problem. Not even close. If you'd like to pick any UNSC, ill be atriox, build only atriox, and still push the game to over an hour, no problem. When. I can take the current #1 player over 2hrs, not even attempting offense, it's a problem. When I have complete map control as unsc and have to continously attack and thin for 2 hrs before they funnily run low.on resources to win, it's an issue.

When I can simply only build bases and a leader and win games against platinum level players, it's an issue.

A 900 resource turret that can only do splash damage (effective only against bunched up units, non micro) and are completely useless against any air, and a 509 resource shroud can completely negate damage, not to mention that is if you can see the army at all, that is a problem.

My fear, however, is that 343 sees this problem that I believe the community has pretty clearly adressed is that they absolutely destroy the shields ability completely. I've noticed a trend when the community all agrees, they do TO MUCH NERGING.

Less nerf the shield stacking, but let's not absolutely kill base shields.

#babysteps
actually if u got the top 5-10 players to balance the game itd be so much better lol. who elses input would matter more tha players who have tested out every nook and cranny of the game and understand it more than everyone else lol. are they a bit bigheaded? yes but man even i read some of peoples comments and completely understand why they get aggravated lol.. this guy just said siege turrets are as impacting a shield bases.. actually laughable... please 343 take the top 10 players into a studio and let them play a part in game balance lol it would help alot and not leave so much to speculation.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
You guys are missing the point here. Take away shields from the banished and what do they have that isn't completely useless as a base slot??? Banished turrets die 25% faster than UNSC turrets. Also, the banished don't have a long range artillery tower they can build on multiple base slots. A UNSC base is more offense, as a Banished base is more defense. It's called balance. 1 is meant more for defending, and the other is meant for offense(siege towers). You guys are exaggerating out this whole shield problem, a base with 4 shield generators only has 45% more shielding, which honestly isn't that much of a difference in terms of HP, considering you just used all 4 base slots. Siege turrets have just as much offensive power as shields have defensive power. That is how both sides of the spectrum are balanced. Get over it, it is not a bug nor a glitch, it has been like that since HW1.

And why should the game be balanced around 10 players who quite frankly don't mean anything, except for their place on a non-existent in game leaderboard? You think 343 should cater to 10 players versus the other 10,000? You guys think you're so elite sitting on top of the hierarchy trying to dictate, not influence, policy revolving around the game. Just like some corporate backed bankers trying to influence congress like some lobbyists.

Shield Stacking isn't overpowered. No excuse.
You guys are missing the point here. Take away shields from the banished and what do they have that isn't completely useless as a base slot??? Banished turrets die 25% faster than UNSC turrets. Also, the banished don't have a long range artillery tower they can build on multiple base slots. A UNSC base is more offense, as a Banished base is more defense. It's called balance. 1 is meant more for defending, and the other is meant for offense(siege towers). You guys are exaggerating out this whole shield problem, a base with 4 shield generators only has 45% more shielding, which honestly isn't that much of a difference in terms of HP, considering you just used all 4 base slots. Siege turrets have just as much offensive power as shields have defensive power. That is how both sides of the spectrum are balanced. Get over it, it is not a bug nor a glitch, it has been like that since HW1.

And why should the game be balanced around 10 players who quite frankly don't mean anything, except for their place on a non-existent in game leaderboard? You think 343 should cater to 10 players versus the other 10,000? You guys think you're so elite sitting on top of the hierarchy trying to dictate, not influence, policy revolving around the game. Just like some corporate backed bankers trying to influence congress like some lobbyists.

Shield Stacking isn't overpowered. No excuse.
so since i won the tournament abusing shield generators, allow me to jump in:
shield gens are 100x better than siege turrets
IMO the only thing they should change is make shields tech 3. If shields still give you major problems past tech 3, you're simply not using the right units or strategy.
2 shrouds counter siege turrets. This has never been a problem for UNSC v Banished scenarios.

And in UNSC v UNSC match ups they're unshielded so they can be brought down.
ESL Knife wrote:
This is your second post defending Banished shields. You're basing your opinion off of your own experience playing the game, at a Onyx and below skill level. At the highest level of play, or at least at Champion 100 and above. Shield stacking poses a real problem.

UNSC Siege turrets cost like 900 each, for that same amount a Atriox can purchase 3 Shields. Also you're wrong about how many units can sit in a shield base. If you spread them around the base properly and sit them close you can fit an entire 120 population inside.

Feel free to watch the Finals of the BTC 1v1 Tournament, and tell me that shield stacking wasn't a determining factor in the results of the tournament.
...
You do not need the top 5 players to balance the game. Once again, as I'm sure 343 could vouch for, this game isn't only made for 1v1 deathmatch. I do understand that is the "best" way to balance, but some leaders are meant for 3s imo. For example it'd be hard to argue Isabel isn't the best 3s unsc player. She isn't close to the best 1s player.
All leaders should be viable for 1's, of not then that's horrible design (I feel like mentioning horrible design more often every day). It's a bad business model and it's bad for the game variety too. Pretty sure this is 343/CA goal as well.

I believe the best way to balance this is high level input + data. You can't balance out of just the top level guy's opinion and we've learned that the hard way, as I mentioned in another thread: top players demanded a Chopper speed buff, it was unnecessary and it has killed UNSC early game (along with some other factors).

IMO the only thing they should change is make shields tech 3. If shields still give you major problems past tech 3, you're simply not using the right units or strategy.
No. Some people get T3 around the 8-10 minute mark, that's irrelevant in a 60 minute match. This won't solve the problem.
Sir Nade wrote:
ESL Knife wrote:
This is your second post defending Banished shields. You're basing your opinion off of your own experience playing the game, at a Onyx and below skill level. At the highest level of play, or at least at Champion 100 and above. Shield stacking poses a real problem.

UNSC Siege turrets cost like 900 each, for that same amount a Atriox can purchase 3 Shields. Also you're wrong about how many units can sit in a shield base. If you spread them around the base properly and sit them close you can fit an entire 120 population inside.

Feel free to watch the Finals of the BTC 1v1 Tournament, and tell me that shield stacking wasn't a determining factor in the results of the tournament.
I'm the 99%
...
actually if u got the top 5-10 players to balance the game itd be so much better lol.
I disagree due to the reason I mentioned above.
ESL Knife wrote:
This is your second post defending Banished shields. You're basing your opinion off of your own experience playing the game, at a Onyx and below skill level. At the highest level of play, or at least at Champion 100 and above. Shield stacking poses a real problem.

UNSC Siege turrets cost like 900 each, for that same amount a Atriox can purchase 3 Shields. Also you're wrong about how many units can sit in a shield base. If you spread them around the base properly and sit them close you can fit an entire 120 population inside.

Feel free to watch the Finals of the BTC 1v1 Tournament, and tell me that shield stacking wasn't a determining factor in the results of the tournament.
...
You do not need the top 5 players to balance the game. Once again, as I'm sure 343 could vouch for, this game isn't only made for 1v1 deathmatch. I do understand that is the "best" way to balance, but some leaders are meant for 3s imo. For example it'd be hard to argue Isabel isn't the best 3s unsc player. She isn't close to the best 1s player.
All leaders should be viable for 1's, of not then that's horrible design (I feel like mentioning horrible design more often every day). It's a bad business model and it's bad for the game variety too. Pretty sure this is 343/CA goal as well.

I believe the best way to balance this is high level input + data. You can't balance out of just the top level guy's opinion and we've learned that the hard way, as I mentioned in another thread: top players demanded a Chopper speed buff, it was unnecessary and it has killed UNSC early game (along with some other factors).

IMO the only thing they should change is make shields tech 3. If shields still give you major problems past tech 3, you're simply not using the right units or strategy.
No. Some people get T3 around the 8-10 minute mark, that's irrelevant in a 60 minute match. This won't solve the problem.
Sir Nade wrote:
ESL Knife wrote:
This is your second post defending Banished shields. You're basing your opinion off of your own experience playing the game, at a Onyx and below skill level. At the highest level of play, or at least at Champion 100 and above. Shield stacking poses a real problem.

UNSC Siege turrets cost like 900 each, for that same amount a Atriox can purchase 3 Shields. Also you're wrong about how many units can sit in a shield base. If you spread them around the base properly and sit them close you can fit an entire 120 population inside.

Feel free to watch the Finals of the BTC 1v1 Tournament, and tell me that shield stacking wasn't a determining factor in the results of the tournament.
I'm the 99%
...
actually if u got the top 5-10 players to balance the game itd be so much better lol.
I disagree due to the reason I mentioned above.
umm what "high level" player said to buff chopper? cause everyone i play with along with myself disagreed with that immedietely
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2