Air Defense Shields are total !!!BS!!!

Air shields are a need. Otherwise the simple strategy to take out a base would be: get a Liberator -----> success.

I just wonder if it wasn't better if shields blocked fire in both directions.

The shields are a need, but does that mean they should stay as they are? Or that they should have a 100% effectiveness against Liberators?

Liberators, or any aircraft for that matter, shouldn't be excluded, especially not by something that takes zero skill to use and instantly protects you against practically any attack the aircraft can muster. Yes a Liberator shouldn't have a breeze blowing up fortresses, no single vehicle should have. I think it should take about the same effort to take down an air-shield permanently as the effort used to take down a rampart wall permanently.

Think of it this way, it'd be downright stupid if player bases didn't have shields because Libs and ESF's would completely and utterly dominate them and there would be no player bases.

Or maybe make damage deal to the skyshield drain cortium faster?

That would bring up the question: How much faster?

If 3 Liberators, with their immense DPS, could basically drain a base in mere minutes it defeats the purpose of the shields entirely, since the base would be disabled (and thus not useful) in a short time. If it takes too long then it isn't useful.
But it also means that in many places your base is basically impossible to hold. Any position where ground forces can easily shoot the shield you would almost lose by default, because of the massive amount of DPS the ground forces can wield over time. Fortresses should not be defeatable by merit of "stand at position X, lob shells till the fortress fails".

Air defense shields should be just that: Air defense. They should have total immunity against aircraft weapons AND block aircraft from entering. What the shields should not do is block small arms fire, infantry and vehicles. The shield needs to be spherical, but both infantry and vehicles should be allowed to pass through it with no ill effects(except for Gal-dropping infantry).

I'd also like for the shield to drain extra cortium from the silo when tank shells hit it, especially HEAT. AP should be the least effective at base assault to encourage people to pull more than just AP cannons.

I've heard if you put enough damage in it that they go down.

Air does get more benefit from cover vs ground units and ground is less protected by cover vs air specifically, the only time air gets attacked from above by ground units is when said ground units are ether sitting on a hill above the air units or LAs jetpacking down from a dropoff aircraft to try and C4 air units.

there is few cover in this game that will protect ground vehicles from attacks from above and hossin proves that tree based overhead cover doesn't work it only lets airs get in attack and retreat using the tree's foliage to escape LoS and cover from retaliation via flak/lock-ons.

The real issue for air now is ground has cover they can put up so air can't do much about it, you know like infantry and air do all the time for ground vehicles, by attacking as a group forming a long range AV nest or quickly moving into attack range as a group, toasting ground units then legging it away before AA can retaliate effectively.

just admit it, air doesn't like being held to a similar standard as infantry and ground vehicles.

Let's not forget rep gals you know those? put a few together and unless you have a ton of AA units those gals will repair each other and be a PITA to take down with their crap ton of health while they are slaughtering infantry and if you bring vehicles the ESFs around will demolish them.

Bases are more about combined arms then anything else in this game, if infantry wants to push the base vehicles have to remove the AI turrets, if air wants to participate it needs some ground units to get an angle on and hammer the AA turrets or air shield, if ground vehicles want to participate, infantry/air have to help them hammer the AV turrets.

If someone gets a good position for a base with good coverage for their air shield and protected from vehicle attack kudos to them, you can still beat them by attrition and resource denial, to a degree i think they should increase the resource consumption rates of HIVEs so you need a secure supply to keep it running without affecting the generation rate of VPs.

They do, i've had one block attacks when i was aiming for their silo, focus fire on it and it goes down for a few seconds so you can hammer your primary target. The way the shield is designed is for smart placement since it only covers you from above, not the sides and requires actual teamwork with focus fire to bring it down, not a soloer or a couple of people taking the highest dps weapons and trying to bring it down in a single salvo.

u cant go all air get some ground to take it out in this update u cant just do evrything u accually have to do the tactics thing whatever tactics means but thats what u have to do

Can get a Galaxy under the sky shield no problems at all.

Galaxy under, drop, c4, BOOM..... easy as pie! Who cares about the turrets.

Most of people don't complain about the AD shield against air, they complain about AD shield against ground units.
If well placed, shield can block an entiere ground army : shell are blocked, small weapon bullet are blocked, infantry are burned, etc. This is why people complain about the AD shield, not because of it's anti-air capability.

LOL


You didn't even know that the Skyshield doesn't actually stop vehicles from going through?

Ideally. skyshields should block defender shots as well as attack shots. When they go down the AA guns come on-line and fire at aircraft. And, as you and many others have said, regen after a set time.

There IS a flaw to the two way block on the shield though. Me, in my lib, can just hang out over the base waiting for the skyshield to go down. ***I'm not taking damage from the defenders during this time*** When it does I can unload on the base. When the shield goes back up I am free to sit in the air getting repped by a gal. The defenders don't have much of an option in that case. That doesn't seem very good either.

I'm at a loss as to what could be done with skyshields.

Spitball thought: allow lock on missles go through skyshields from the defender side? That'll keep ESFs running, and allow gals and Libs to operate in the area while still taking not unreasonable damage (as heavy craft like libs and Gals can withstand several of those before needing to vacate.) Combine with plan for skyshields to have x health and need to regen back up?

You failed geometry as a kid didn't you. Or not old enough to take it yet? Not sure which. Try rereading my post to you very specifically describing how bat **** insane that is, and get back to me.

WUT? Who said anything about air getting attacked from above by ground units? How does that have to do with anything? What you are saying is like me saying that because tanks don't get attacked from below by air units, that they are in cover better...

Shocking, the ridiculousness you read online.

you don't seem to get it, look at the cover in this game ground is vulnerable most of the time to attacks from above, while aircraft can fly nape of the earth for cover having no such vulnerability to ground units.

the air shield fills the role of air cover on demand so air can't just slaughter any thing they like and go wherever they like.

air has no problem with ground vehicles getting locked out of fights, yet they complain when it's done to them or they can't jsut fly in and farm all day.

leave them as they are AA has always had low DPS the only way to protect them from air is to make them resistant to damage via the air shield while allowing their their damage to go through the shield to keep air from just hovering there and farming anyone that leaves the shield's protection.

without the shield the only way to protect AA from air would be to give them high dps in their intended fighting range so they would be a threatening counter, which i might add pilots would hate because they don't like being countered effectively, they prefer joke counters that they can demolish solo or can demolish in a group quickly and easily.

stop playing air all day and actually play something else if you can't break a base just spamming one unit type.

This is true. I was on my TR and me and a few other MAXs DPS'd the thing for like 10min straight (I bet the engie giving me ammo for my lockdown Pounder MAX was swimming in certs) and they finally went down.

I think small arms should pass through both ways. That was it still provides protection from aircraft but it is possible for infantry to shoot through (the shield module can be destroyed through small arms fire).

Ok 1:ANy time an aicraft can shoot a ground unit, the ground unit can shoot back. At most it is a wash. and 2 ground units are far less visible and able to get more out of the environment whereas planes are extremely visible. Add to that ground units can stick close to their cover -- be a few meters away. Planes are generally far farther away and must take the time to cover distance to get into any sort of LOS blockage while dealing with vectors ground units don't have to. Like I said -- geometry. One can argue that G2A and A2G are imbalanced all day (fairly so) -- that is NOT this argument. This argument is about cover magically working for air and not ground --> the exact opposite of how cover works. Your bias in hating air for other things about them that may or may not be true has bled into this and is having you make a ridiculous statement in an attempt to justify a broken anti air system.

2. I run AA dedicated.

3. You are out of your mind -- aircraft are the most locked out of fight vehicles in the game. They cannot exist in any medium to large fight that has 4-5 people who say 'I'm going to kick the aircraft out.' No other vehicle (or infantry class) is that marginalized. Air craft farm small fights or each other simply because they have no other choice if they want to participate in a fight.


Back to topic -- One way damage shields are not the answer. Neither is letting 2 libs with dusters **** a base. I would say skyshields and AA being looped -- when one is up the other is down -- is the best way to go. It could even be a switch on the wall in a base, defenders could use the activate shields/AA switch -- pop the shield down and the AA up and fire a salvo of AA missles or unload with a clip of burster flak, then pop the shield back up (and the AA down) in tandem. That would be cool.

Had one of my best stalker infil runs last nite, in and around enemy hive. Had to fight off 3rd faction infil that was also there. Saw a couple different air drops, ground attacks with only infantry, but were decimated pretty fast. The AI modules for the turrets were quite effective, throw in just a few live bodies to man the AV turrets when needed. They had 2 sky shields, and no real natural protection like canyons, cliffs, etc...didn't touch the ground anywhere...both opposing factions with superior numbers were repelled. They tended their hive well. I came back 3 or 4 times, just becuz was interesting to watch. I suppose I wasn't very popular, but never got a hate tell. I never did get hit by the AI control, but thinking a bit more cooperation and stealth, sometimes, might go farther than obvious brute attack.

wrong, air can and does shoot at ground units that cannot retaliate due to being beyond the angles of their weapons, air can use cover just as effectively as ground units, look at the maps you'll find proper overhead cover is fairly rare, while air doesn't have to worry about ground units firing from above unless the air is below a nearby hill/mountain.

the fact is air doesn't like that ground actually has reliable, on-demand overhead cover that requires forethought in a game that is sorely lacking overhead cover that doesn't help enemy air get closer undetected until they open up.

i'm going to suggest something, give ANTs a smaller deploy air defense shield at the cost of cortium like air shield to act as a mobile defense(stronger shield when deployed, faster cortium sue when deplyoed) for skyguards and walkers, make air actually have to accept that their counters will kill them with lower dps due to protection, maybe they'll realize the game is combined arms, not spam one unit type and whine when you can't farm anything you want wherever you want.

I'm not convinced there is an issue here. The shield shields. That's what it does. Its neither impervious nor complete in its ability to protect. I've seen shields drop from damage. I've seen them bypassed. And I've also seen them countered by a single individual with a sidearm.

Like many things in the game, skywall shields provide both a tool for those who utilize them, and an obstacle for those who face them. A challenge for both parties.

Too often when something new is introduced, some are provided with challenges they are not used to. The first instinct is to suggest things to make it easier for them to overcome. This is what is happening here. As I've said, it takes one person to counter the shield, with no nanites or cortium needed. However to put up the shields it takes a significant effort comparatively.

The best course of action is for players having issues to either educate themselves on different strategies.. or get better at the ones they know. Sure this is pretty much a 'git gud' response. But that doesn't make it any less of a fact.