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

I'm not sure his statement was directed at you...

His second to last comment was directed to me and was trying to deflect in a similar way by degrading me. So I expected it to be aimed at me.

Before I type this, I want everyone in this thread to take note -- I see a LOT of posts talking about how skyshields can, depending on terrain, mess up ground play. That is how it is for pilots 100% of the time in 100% of the locations with current skyshield mechanics. Think on that seriously.

You may be misinterpreting how I view skyshields. I believe that skyshields should totally null and cancel air from attacking a base -- but still allow for air to participate in the fight.

I don't believe that air should be able to pop a skyshield. In fact -- I don't think air should be able to damage skyshields AT ALL (as skyshields take damage.) I think that skyshields should have a high damage component to troops to prevent Gal drops.

However, I don't think skyshields should prevent planes from being in the area -- which they effectively do. A gal flies over a base -- it can't shoot through the shield. It can't drop through the shield. It SHOULD, however, have the option to wait. If the ground forces do enough damage, and the Gal gets a small window of opportunity to drop a few people in before the shields go back up.... A lib SHOULD have the opportunity, to try to try to prevent reinforcement armor columns from destroying the assaulting armor column.

My beef is with the AA shooting up through up through the shield preventing any sort of strategy involving air.

Mentioned in my response to Tamien -- simply make air unable to damage skyshields. 99.9% damage resistance to air weapons. Air could not feasibly wear a skyshield down. Skyshields block weapons from going in OR out and you solve any and all problem with them.

How would this solve the problems with skyshields?

1: Air can still participate but not until the ground forces do their thing.
2: Skyshields can't be placed, with topography in mind, so that they mess up ground forces play. As they would block shots from inside the base as well as outside if they were 2 way blocks -- any base that turtled itself in like that could do nothing except get shot at from outside without any way of retaliation. The skyshield would go down and the base would be lost. People would stop abusing skyshields like that as they would only be useful if used as intended.

I really can't see any problems arising from that simple change nor can I think of any problem with skyshields that it doesn't solve.




1 more note -- I think player base modules -- skyshield, turrets, core, etc.... should be *immune to friendly fire.*

Like that other guy earlier mentioned -- any idiot can log on an alt, spawn in, and c4/tank mine the crap out of the base from the inside. That's really horrible considering the time and effort it took to make -- and it effectively destroys the concept of the base build system.

I took a couple months off from PS2 and came back to see ANTS and bases in full affect. I have spent the last couple days doing nothing but attacking and defending ANT bases, some as solo, some with a squad, and some with a full platoon. I can say with certainty that attacking an ANT base is harder than attacking any established base on the map. ANT bases are stronger defensive positions than an actual base, I can't imagine it was meant to be this way but it is.

People saying it's not OP because you can (insert specific set of sequences here) to take one down, are just making the case about why these bases are OP. There is only one or two specific ways to take one down, depending on location, and they all require greater population.

Also if you are good enough to 2v1 2 defenders you can usually take a base from them. That is not the case with ANT bases given the sheer number of auto turrets surrounding every ANT base. One person cannot assault an ANT base unless it's completely undefended for a long time.

IMO (and it is just an opinion) I don't think they are enjoyable as they only add a "grind" element that isn't particularly fun.

You'd be surprised. You can't do much to them completely by yourself, but it isn't overly difficult to destroy a module on your own. If your team notices before the enemy's, you can be surprised at the damage that can be done while the enemy is trying to get their turrets online, especially if they put themselves they can't get cortium easily. They spend all their resources right away trying to build a big base, forgetting that they actually need to replace things to make it worth the effort.

I got this pretty much from what you said. And like I said.. normally I'd be in total agreement. My biggest pet peeve is the Burster MAX in a spawnroom.

Though a spawnroom can't be shutdown before they go there. They can go there anytime. With a Skyshield.. you can annihilate them as they get the cortium to put down the Shield and its silo.

I don't really have an opinion for or against your idea of Skyshields being invulnerable to air. I think they're fine as they are.. since they are VERY vulnerable when you drop them before they are even placed, or taken out by clandestine means. I mean I love the idea of infils loading in to kill a shield right before a Gal drop.. that sounds cool as hell. Probably effective too if done properly.

No mechanic should completely block out aircraft, or any unit for that matter. It's OK to have it in some places for variety but to be able to place it and instantly be safe from aircraft? Bad idea.
The Rampart walls are prefect examples how it could be done: The walls themselves can be targeted and they don't completely put the ground units out of business. In fact, they are a primary reason why fortresses can be fun: You really need to assault them, they offer a challenge that's better than "fire at enemy structures from afar till fortress drops".

The Skyshields should be no different. The shields should have a medium amount of health that can be dropped, but they also recharge quickly. This gives aircraft (and ground units on high elevations) short moments to fire into the base. Considering the toughness of the structures you would need coordination or masses to destroy anything... Which is exactly how the rest of the fortress works as well. It's unlikely for a single vehicle or infantry to have a massive effect on the fortress, and more often than not you need a ton of players to overcome the challenge.
On the other hand, any shot from the defenders that pass through the shield should deal reduced damage. I was thinking of 50% reduction, although it could be ramped up to 90% if truly necessary.

This does open up the way for Galdrops. But considering the teamwork required to drop the shield and land on the right spot, why not?

I highly dislike 1. But I do like 2. My system allows skyshields to be used as damaging walls as well, but because of the concentrated fire ground forces can bring to bear it would

The "let aircraft participate in an equal manner to other units". We should finally stop treating aircraft as something special, that should either be kept out of bases and area's with deterrents or be allowed to farm to their hearts content. Aircraft should face the same amount of danger as ground vehicles: There's going to be AV, but that's just the par of the course. If it were perfect we would be removing the ridiculous walls and upping the ways infantry can defend themselves against vehicles and aircraft so that vehicles aren't excluded from fights and infantry won't be crushed just because bases don't have walls anymore.
"defend" does not necessarily mean "blow up their enemies". As I've proposed before there's plenty of non-lethal weapons that could help protect infantry and give them an edge and instantly promote combined arms.

I think they already are. There were some updates that made at least some of them invulnerable, I know for certain that the Silo and HIVE are supposed to be 100% immune to friendly fire.

I don't get it? Skyshields work fine. We take them down all the time yes but a well built base will be hard to take down. It shouldn't be bam skyshield gone and now the base is done for. Bases require combined arms efforts if well placed. If it is a big base you wear down the skyshields while taking out walls and turrets so that infantry can charge in. once a few skyshields are gone the battle becomes more interesting.

It is not supposed to be easy it is supposed to require a lot of work to bring down a well defended base. Right now the only thing i dislike is that the Repair modules are to effective making it impossible for 6 lockdown Prowlers to take out a wall which remains full health even after barrages that brings it down to 30% health and woop full again. They should just double Wall health or resitance to damage. Since yeah the buildings are a bit to squishy atm.

Oh, believe me, I know you can under them, and I do it regularly. But the issue is that you can place skyshields in basins and bowls that present no gaps at all. I was responding to the post that suggested that one can simply land through the shields on such bases.

Wrong. I point out the obvious.

I'm not saying they're over-powered generally, merely that in a number of particular situations, the sky-shields does become unbalanced.

Also, why are you being so reckless with passengers? You're just asking to have them jump out while still in the burn zone for the shield. Its better to fly under the gap, if it exists. Also, again, refer to my point that a properly built base is often too hazardous to land or dust off in , particularly with the skyshield obscurring the terrain. You could be landing in a cluster of AV maxes or dumbfire heavies, and then your passengers are gone before they can bail out. Also, there's this issue of turrets, you see...... Even with a Galaxy, it is rather unhealthy to set down in the LoS of a bunch of spear turrets. Also, you might end up getting spun around on one and putting the vehicles exit points in a very unfavorable spot.

Its not a question of me not being able to do it, its a question of me not seeing a reason to consistently. And the comment is still not constructive. Its safer and more effective to get a window through the skyshield gap and see whats in there, then do a pop-up over the walls, rather than trying to crash land through the shield.

I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of "can't participate." Part of that is how I worded one of the sentences in that explanation. However, to come to the conclusion that you seem to have, you would have had to ignore the whole of my explanation. Let's try this again.

The reason you need skyshields in the first place is because air can roflstomp a player built base that doesn't have them. Even with just suicide payload runs -- the players in the base are all in that base -- making them easy targets for splash damage -- which all aircraft (even the Valk -- in small amounts) can bring. Skyshields make sense in the respect that they prevent air farming and destroying a base for a fraction of the cost in both resources and time. I am not saying that to inform you or anyone else -- I am sure everyone knows this -- it's just to illustrate the reasoning behind my suggestion.

I don't hate the idea behind air damaging skyshields -- I just find it unbalanced considering other relative mechanics. If air can bomb shields down -- they have to take a long time to bring down said shield -- otherwise they would be able to relatively catastrophic damage in a short amount of time to a base and there would be no point to the shield.

AA scales poorly. In small numbers it is highly ineffective. In large numbers it is overly effective due to the number of sources of AA that can target aircraft simultaneously. A third of 1 squad, completely sans nanites, can kick a lot of aircraft out of the air. Half a squad can bring down any aircraft in seconds -- with or without nanite usage. The new automatic AA turrets are also extremely damaging to planes. Combined, the ground based AA of only 5-6 guys can remove the air support of more than 1 squad. Now, while air can inflict severe damage on these ground forces -- the skyshield protects them --> while still letting them attack the air. Due to that -- air cannot bomb shields down reasonably. With half a squad of dedicated AA you would need more than 4:1 in the air's favor.

Any mechanic that can be summed up as "I can shoot you, but you can't shoot me" is pretty bad. It is essentially the same as wall glitching. Some infantry jerk with infinite ammo (be it gun, or ammo pack) shoots through a wall at enemies who can't shoot back. We have seen videos of it, and people have been banned for it -- the skyshield in its current incarnation is essentially that.

So, remove the 1 way factor. Make it block shots from both sides -- however -- that ALSO presents a problem. Now ground forces can't shoot the air, but the air can float above and bomb the **** out of the shield until it goes down. This effectively removes the point of the shield.

However, if the shield can't be damaged by air, and the ground can't shoot through it -- it does it's job without screwing over the defenders or attackers. You act as though air forces can then do nothing to help assault a base. This is not true.

Even with a two way block shield immune to both sides, the air troops can do a lot of things. This includes preventing defenders in said base from making a counter push against assault infantry and armor. This includes providing transport and spawn points. This includes preventing the base from getting outside reinforcement. All useful and effective things.

However, if the shield is a 2 way block then the base is essentially going to be destroyed by extended siege...unless the shield is toggleable. If their is a switch (permissions on who gets to use it to be worked out by DBG) inside the base on the shield gen module that would turn the shield off, and turn the auto AA turrets on, then it would be a back and forth fight between offence/defence, and attacking/evading for the defenders on AA duty/aircraft respectively. It would also prevent any one side ever being in a situation where they can attack/defend with impunity --> which is the big thing we want to avoid.

Just gonna point out that base modules can be seen from 1000m away with a 12x scope on a sniper rifle, and 3-4 snipers with semi-auto rifles can take a module down pretty damn fast without fear of retaliation.

Most bases aren't build in a way to properly protect modules from sniper fire.

Food for thought.

The exact same reasoning goes for the rampart walls... Are those impervious? Nope! At least those walls will stay down when destroyed, the shield comes back because you didn't destroy the module!
If you want your idea I see only one way out: Change the shield to a giant rampart umbrella with a few firing holes in it (for what good they would do). The firing holes get shields when a shield generator is nearby. If the rampart umbrella is destroyed, the shield is destroyed. This makes it the exact same as the Rampart walls.

If aircraft need coordination to destroy base pieces before the shield goes up it's not OP or bad for the gameplay. They would only be able to kill some infantry, but once the shield is up the repair modules would get everything back up to strength before the next breach.

Which is why G2A weapons need a complete overhaul.

Which is why shots fired through the shield need to deal reduced damage, rather than completely shutting down the G2A weapons while also shutting down most of the A2G.

You just described 95% of the ground units when aircraft come along.
Anyway, mechanics do not just revolve around who can shoot who and if you can retaliate. It's OK to have some tank/infantry/air units incapable of attacking other tanks with success, or incapable of attacking aircraft. As long as they aren't defenseless and completely at the mercy of the skill of their opponent.

The shield as it is offers neither. You can't really dodge the AA without making your entire purpose there almost futile and you can't retaliate because the shield doesn't allow it. You could change the AI that controls the turrets, but that does not solve the problem of completely negating air until the shield is gone.
I have high fears that if the shield becomes impervious from both sides you get a big problem. Aircraft will not be able to participate in the fight properly... Or they will be too good. They might use the shield against the players and hover at one edge, duck below to fire at an opponent which they can select through the shield, then move back up with afterburner for accelerated safety. I've seen this used in the first few days when AA turrets with AI modules were few and far between.

The solution: Allow the shield to be deactivated for short times by concentrated fire, then give only a small amount of time to fire into the base before it goes back up. If the shield is being attacked the players are basically also under attack so they need to be able to retaliate. To make it dangerous to pop a shield the aircraft need to have some damage, so allowing some damage to get through the shield would be a solution. To do this you can reduce the damage of any G2A that moves through the shield.

Yes, and the big difference is that there is no way to get at them because the wall or shield they use is impervious and they will do full damage.

Although I do not completely agree, maybe you have a bigger point than I thought. Shields might also be changed to prevent attacks from straight above... But allow attacks from an angle to still get in. Since you have a far smaller amount of targets and need more skill in selecting one from that angle, not to mention the threat of being in vehicle turret elevation, it could actually work out pretty well.

That is, as long as the shield isn't in a ditch somewhere.

I actually think they should come up with a solution like this: Once a shield generator is placed it calculates the average height of the ground (similar to how aircraft show the height to the ground but in this case across an area), then projects a shield at a certain distance from that average. This gives a much fairer shield, especially when the generator is placed in a ditch.
Alternatives such as when a shield edge gets within Xm from the ground it is projected higher could also work.

Turning the shield on/off could work, especially if the shield has a ton of hitpoints but only regenerates when it's off. The shield could fade away as it takes damage. A well-coordinated attack could make use of this: Wear the shield down over time until it's almost dead, then move in and crush a ton of things as the shield collapses. The defenders can now use the de-activation of the shield to attack the opponents and possibly catch them by surprise, or they are forced to de-activate it once in a while to regenerate it, and hopefully tank a small attack with their buildings and units and then block the larger attack by putting the shield up.

I'm sorry, but some of your responses are unrelated to what I said. However, it's fine. Overall point is that 1 way firing walls are a bad idea -- in 99% of all situations mechanically. Toggleable shields/AA is one option. Reduced damage from fire going either direction is another. But shields blocking air fire for extended periods of time while auto turret AA wrecks planes super fast is unacceptable and pushes pilots out of the new content. At least we agree on that point (I think.)

Have you guys ever heard of a "siege"? If a base is too heavily defended, with walls and a bunch of skyshields, guess what? They use up a lot of cortium. Just surround the place with tanks and/or AV infantry placed behind cover. Keep shooting the place, use ammo refills, get free accuracy stat boost. This is mostly to keep up pressure. The entire idea is to make the base run out of cortium. You just make sure no ANTs can get in or out. Once they run out of cortium, taking the base becomes extremely easy.

It also introduces new tactics, because the people running the defense have to somehow supply the place. This means co-ordinating both the defense of the construction and an outside operation to actually regain access to part of the base so they can get ANTs transporting cortium. You also have to balance troops, because if you take too many from defense, it'll just fail. Not enough, and nothing happens. Lots of factors. Being able to pull things like this off is what separates the great leaders from the rest.

I have been in this situation before (I was only a footsoldier, I wasn't co-ordinating the stuff) but it can actually be rather fun. Just learn that if someone goes down into a hole so they get good skyshield coverage, you just have to turn that hole into a grave. Brute force isn't always the answer, you just need to learn that.

The skyshield is fine. People need to learn how to adapt, not try to change everything to suit them.

Suggestion to the Air shield issue atm.
Currently the air shied is quite durable. For good reasons aka lots of people like shooting at them.
But they recharge way to fast so stacking shields is a tactic to keep defences up in some areas.
Then how about adding in an overload/overheat system that acts like this.
IF the shields are brought down to often the generator begins to overload/overheat and it takes longer to restore the shield at certain points in this overload/overheat stage. Then you could have it so that if an overheated or overloaded generator that gets damaged by 50% explodes.
This way you can keep really strong shields - but that strength comes at a cost/risk

Of course this could be looked into further as they develop this construction system even more.
Personally i just want more bunker models and infantry cover atm XD