Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Wars Series

Lets start a real open discussion about Base Slots

OP iOxygen xYz

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
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.
Using siege turrets on a base for "offense" is not a valid argument. cutting 900 resources from an army does not allow you to be able to push through a banished army and shield.
300 for an atriox shield is way more cost effective than a 900 siege turret. because the unsc now does not have 900 to put into their army and 300 to an atriox is basically nothing. or the cost of 1 banshee. or look at it this way, 3 atriox shields = 1 siege turret. in other words the atriox base will not be touched and the unsc base for the same price is going to die. because that siege turret will instantly be countered by a shroud.
don't forget a banished turret can be upgraded to anti everything. unsc cant do that they have to choose 1.
I don't know how you cant grasp that. like why do I have to explain that.
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).

xx slushie wrote:
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
Nwvermind.
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.
Well considering that I can't march a base across the map and destroy stuff with it, I'd prefer it be more defensive than offensive...
Good job to all you hard working people out there taking your time to offer legitimate discussion on why the OP is out to lunch.
*face palm*

OP, this problem obviously relates to high-level players, which even I know. I need you to watch that BTC 1v1 championship game these players keep mentioning and you will understand why shield stacking is bad for the game.

Look, I didn't think much of it at first too, until I actually tried it in a 2v2 game and could easily see its mechanics as being too strong. This is your 2nd thread about this and I feel like you're just messing around with the community now.

Also, siege turrets have nothing on shields. I'd rather my base survive longer than taking out a few units.
There are ways around siege turrets as USNC and banished though. They aren't really overpowering anyway imo.
I'm not really familiar with shield stacking how does it work and what's the benefit?
I'm not really familiar with shield stacking how does it work and what's the benefit?
More shield generators result in stronger shields. It's pretty unfair and we're hoping it gets nerfed.
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.
This is like the 3rd time you've mentioned btc 1v1 finals. Yoda didn't lose because of -Yoinking!- base shields, he lost because King over expanded him, had better map control, had the correct unit counters, and out manuvered Yodas units and leader powers. Yoda was spamming banshees at one point and he got countered by anti air, he didn't lose because of shields, you are wrong about that and need to stop mentioning btc 1v1 finals as a reference for OP shield stacking.
I don't think OP realises the issue here. I will list them below for him.

It's that the enemy units sit under the shield, take no damage and take out a lot of your army while you take down the shield. This makes UNSC unusable in the mid to late game and makes Banished games go on forever.

The UNSC cannot base trade like the Banished can. How is it fair that it takes about double the time for UNSC to take down a double or triple shield base then what it takes for the Banished to take out a UNSC base especially if they have Locust and eradication.

Also when you spend time and you skillfully micro your units to finally take down a shield, then engage the enemy then the shield just regenerates within seconds so you have to do it all over again. Also if they lose a turret and rebuild it, the shield just goes up immediately.

When you have 3 shields and a cloaking generator you cannot even micro units effectively with out losing units due to the small range that detect units have. You have to be very close to a base with detect units to see the base and no detect units are good at attacking bases so it takes even longer to take out the shields and the enemy under the shields will focus on the detect units if they are smart.

OP, I cannot see how you think this is fair for UNSC and I can't see how you would buff UNSC to be able to compete with it. It needs to be nerfed.

Ideally, just have no shield stack, but if it was to stay then make it only shield the base and not the units under it.

Now for the original topic of UNSC Siege Turrets:

Siege Turrets are Tech 3, cost 900 supplies, cannot attack air, need vision to kill units from a far and don't actually do that much damage. Compared to the issues I listed above for the Banished shield stacking, it is not even worth complaining about.
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.
This is like the 3rd time you've mentioned btc 1v1 finals. Yoda didn't lose because of -Yoinking!- base shields, he lost because King over expanded him, had better map control, had the correct unit counters, and out manuvered Yodas units and leader powers. Yoda was spamming banshees at one point and he got countered by anti air, he didn't lose because of shields, you are wrong about that and need to stop mentioning btc 1v1 finals as a reference for OP shield stacking.
Perhaps you would like use the btc 2v2 finals as a reference when they upload it in a couple days or so.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2