Lovin' those dome shields

Discussion in 'Test Server: Discussion' started by Naehloseht, Jul 3, 2013.

  1. Nogrim313

    if they want to force dome shields there are a few things they need that they havent been doing

    1. generators - ffs if your going to force them on us at least let us disable the stupid things
    2. astehtics - they look ugly as **** and out of place, either make them a full base shield that touches the ground or meets with walls, or give them a tower so they look less ********
    3. function - by passable by infantry at the very least, originally air craft were supposed to be able to pass through and gal drops were supposed to work, there was a risk / reward element for ducking in/out of them
    4. base design - ffs i dont want another continent redesign but you can ham fist something like dome shields in to existing bases and expect it to work

    few months back i posted a neat idea for a new structure (https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/dome-shield-tower-implementation.143358/) that would be both the shield emitter, house the generator, as well as some AA defences. it would be a lot easier to build a new building around the dome shield concept and then add those in to the occasional smaller bases.

    tech plants and Amp stations do not need dome shields ffs they have 8 + AA guns already and are already pretty much infantry only slug fests, ffs with the costs of vehicles its ridiculous to expect people to pull then abandon them just to move between bases
  2. YoXn

    I think the problem with that is: They not allowing units to pass through because they are lazy. I am pretty sure they will fix that, it's just to stop ammo, and what-not. Kinda obvious.
  3. Nogrim313

    i actually doubt that unless they are using spawn room shields, if it wasnt intended they could have just used the properties of vehicle shields (then at least infantry could fall through them)
  4. DeadliestMoon

    I know turrets can be effective, and I know that the vehicle shields can be taken down. I was just pointing out to you that having those shields in the first place brings a strategic way to attack a base. You're copy & paste argument can be used for AV and AI turrets as well. Why have vehicle shields when you can just get guys to man the AV turrets? Same goes for Infantry. It's to provide a strategic way to attack a base, the same will happen with air shields. Point is, your argument still remains invalid because just like how people are fine with ground vehicles and infantry having shields to prevent entry and generators to take them out, it'd make sense for aircraft to get shields to prevent entry for them.

    On Lattice, what do you expect people to have done with hex in order to create a front line and prevent ghost capping? Stand at every out post bordering enemy territory? That'd be boring for people to do.
  5. Larolyn

    No. I'm close to Auraxium on my Skyguard now. This will just make it harder for me to farm ESFs. Stupid idea. Anyway, Amp Stations have the most AA available at any base.

    Oh and 2 the guy complaining about a single lib at a small fight. He's being cheesy, go full on sweaty stilton at the guy and pull an A2A missile ESF. Plink away from a safe distance til the guy is down. Job done. Easy as. Best AA after all, is having your own air.
  6. DeadliestMoon

    Dude it's the same as a vehicle shield, do you complain about not being able to shoot through those? Besides no one says you only have to shoot as ESFs at bases.
  7. Nogrim313

    actually skyguards shoot through vehicle shields 1st of all, secondly dome shields are not the same as vehicle shields, infantry can not pass through dome shields, so your wrong on pretty much everything
  8. DeadliestMoon

    No i'm not wrong on pretty much everything and I believe that you are forgetting that this is the Test Server, things can change, therefore the dome shields can be made to be more like the vehicle shields. So technically I'm not wrong.
  9. BaronX13

    My argument, is that there is ALREADY a strategic way to attack a base. Move in a drop squad of some sort, take out the AA guns/tower depending on the base, then bring in your air, etc etc etc. Also, vehicle shields cover a much smaller area, all the vehicle shields cover is a simple gate. The dome shields cover the area of a circular football field (or whatever spacial alternative you choose to compare it to). In addition to that, vehicles are ALOT tougher than most air vehicles. It doesn't take much to discourage some curious air, it takes 4-6 rockets to take out an MBT, takes 2 Deci shots plus some for a harraser, and sundies may not have heavy weapon power like a tank, but they can spawn enemy soldiers, etc etc. The reason people are ok with vehicle shields is due to the strength of the vehicle being much more than an air vehicle counterpart as well as the fact the gate doesn't block out the ENTIRE base pretty much. On another note, the only reason these shields are needed is because players are too lazy to have adequate AA up in the first place. So let's say they DO link these dome shields to a generator...then those same lazy players are just going to complain "Oh, its too easy for them to take these generators down, make it so the shields just stay there *whine whine whine*". Also, never did I say I was OK or agreed with vehicle shields...so nice assumption there but you're wrong. Same goes for vehicle shields, players should have an active defense setup with AV/AI turrets as well. Difference is, an ESF can't fly through your base at ground level like a tank can drive through it, and an ESF is EASILY taken out if you're ready for it. The only real air vehicle I could see being a problem is maybe a liberator, and for that you can just spawn either your own air, or focus fire it. If the enemy is organized enough to have a full on air force, then they deserve to own the skies over your base if you don't have an equal strength air force to counter it. So my argument is still completely valid, if you'd like, you can say I agree that even AV shields are a joke when we should have AV/AI turrets up, it is just more reasonable to have vehicle gate shields than giant snow globe dome shields covering the entire sky over a base.

    On the lattice vs old way, yes that is EXACTLY what I expect if that is what needs to be done in the old system. If players are going to act like children who expect NEVER to get bored, that is their problem, I won't judge. But on the flip side, why should those players who choose to take the boring route to get the job done be punished? And I never said they had to STAND at every outpost. What they should be doing is creating an official front-line and then PUSHING on all fronts. Basically, one squad at EVERY outpost on your front-line fighting to move up, it would spread out forces and basically make zergs obsolete (though zergs will never stop). So I don't see how bad players who choose to stay in a blob and don't want to use tactics and strategy and push on all fronts should be rewarded, but that smart player who goes "I'll cap around that silly zerg" should be punished. Again, if someone is moving a whole platoon to stop 1 backcapper, that's their fault. Argument stands, lattice wasn't needed, all that its for is to help bad leaders and to cater to those children who don't want to take 5 minutes of boredom to get the job done.

    It seems in many aspects of this game, intelligence and strategy has become OP. And it isn't SOE's fault, they're a business, they're there to make money, they HAVE to cater to the players so that they can keep paying people paychecks. So I will say this, the day that this game continues to "nerf" player intelligence, it will either die, or take quite a hit. That's exactly what the lattice was, it was a "nerf" to those free thinking players who found out ways to peeve off the zerg, so the zerg complained and SOE had to take it away. Same with these air shields, free thinking smart players would have active AA up, but those who just want to never think and only jump in an AA canon after the air is ALREADY there complained so SOE is considering taking it away. Which is yet again a way we would be making common sense and intelligence something that is unneeded in place of a more easy-mode fix. Also punishing pilots who were smart enough to hit the base BEFORE the AA was up, yet again a way smart players get punished to make it easier for those less so.
    • Up x 1
  10. DeadliestMoon

    I didn't "get called out", and therefore like I said, I'm not technically wrong seeing as how things can change. Don't go around insulting people, that is very much child like behavior.
  11. IamDH

    I do not like the domes.
    I have not played test server however artificially forcing vehicles out is just a terrible idea (like walls). This would explain why Esamir is so hated

    Indar proves that you can seperate vehicles from infantry without the need to cover it with a huge blue bubble. Taking vehicles out of a combined arms game is wrong on so many levels. The problem that should be addressed is tank spam, not tank vs infantry

    Make tanks 750resources then buff them.

    Result would be that their number would decrease on the battlefield a lot whilst they wield loads of power (making them feared again)

    Groups of infantry would still kill a tank but with more resistance
  12. DeadliestMoon

    I'm sorry but could you provide evidence of this? Because all I see are vehicles shelling the outside of bases so that infantry are cramped in one building/tower, making it impossible to fight in open field as an infantryman.
  13. IamDH

    I was referring to certain bases. I admit i was a bit vague so sorry for that

    There is that base near dahaka (not sure of the name but its right of quartz). Basically, the base is on a whole hill so vehicles can't get up there
  14. DeadliestMoon

    Oh you're talking about that base that can be bombarded by aircraft and has not AA what so ever?
  15. IamDH

    It was an example...I was also talking about tanks & not air

    Air can be blocked by trees or something
  16. Vastly

    ITYM players are too busy trying to have some fun than to sit around staring at the sky to mostly scare air away.
  17. BaronX13

    Players create their own fun, and as much as it annoys me, I accept the fact that players may not want to just sit around and wait for air targets. That's fair to me. But on the other hand, why should air players be punished just because the ground doesn't want to sit around and wait for them.

    I say, think of it in this way. ITYM, air players are going to be trying to have some fun than to sit around staring at a dome shield waiting for it to mostly go away. See, it goes both ways.

    Ground players don't want to have to sit in an AA turret all day to deter air? That's fair, I can accept that. BUT...then they also should be punished for not HAVING that AA up when the air does show up. They can't have their cake and eat it to. They have the freedom to either go have fun fighting ground targets and get blown up by air, or they can sit in an AA gun, and deter air. That sounds like a fair trade right? The dome shield takes away that fairness. Especially cause the air can't do ANYTHING to drop the dome shield. (Past flying under it...which let's be fair...is a death warrant.)

    Does this make sense?
  18. DeadliestMoon

    It'd make more sense for aircrafts to have fellow troops on the ground to help take the dome shield down, after all we are trying to encourage team play here and it wouldn't be fair for air to just show up and bombard everything without initial resistance.
  19. BaronX13

    You want team play, but don't want to do the boring stuff required to be part of a team, like sit in AA guns for a bit to deter air? So its unfair for ground to be bombarded by air (even though ground does have a way to counter) without *correction* good initial planning on the defense force. But it's totally fair for infantry just to show up, and not even have to fear air because they have an easy-mode shield over them? So hey, it's not ok if infantry is bored and has to sit in an AA turret looking at the sky, but it IS ok for air units to be bored looking at the shield and waiting for ground forces to do their job. That's completely one-sided, anyone can see that.

    If you're going to push the teamwork angle, true teamwork is taking one for the team, that means sitting in an AA turret and doing your job for the rest of your force. The pendulum swings both ways. You would be trading boredom on a turret, for boredom in a plane. And it doesn't even have to be that way, ground forces could just pull AA, the fix is THAT easy.
  20. DeadliestMoon

    Well I guess we're at an impasse then.