Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-06-01T00:35:49+02:00

may be you are right .... may be with good micro but really good micro, with one aeon frigate and 40 t2 mobile aeon shields it is possible to annilate a destroyer's armada ... thx for your tip ... and may be with max veterancy the one frigate can survive a nuke

Statistics: Posted by dstojkov — 01 Jun 2012, 00:35

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-31T18:01:27+02:00

dstojkov wrote:
And don't forget ... even if you win the navy with aeon that not mean you win the game .... aeon don't deal damage on land until t3 with his missile ship .... mean aeon navy only good for defense against navy not to destroy enemies base like the other faction do

Aeon navy has great shore bombardment options. Frigate has the most range and DPS. Destroyer has pinpoint accuracy against stationary targets, good DPS, and 80 range compared to UEF and Seras 60. The battleship has the least range and lowest ark but has the most DPS, most speed so it can avoid T2 arty the best. But if you won navy just spam missile ships. Nothing beats them at shore bombardment. Overall aeon have the best shore bombardment options through the game.

Tl:Dr - its completely the opposite to what he said.

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 31 May 2012, 18:01

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-31T17:55:53+02:00

hi guys,

you wrote:
Aeon navy alone is shit, 40 shields with aeon navy is OP. But thats the topic of the thread

Indeed this is the topic .... you have to survive before you become OP like you said and this is also the first ground why aeons navy is crap and no one want to have it

Instead of trying to make the shield like 10 hp, regen rate 0.000001 and cost 400 energy per shield try to make this faction playable with navy !!!!!! in that case even if you have good shield you will not build them because why invest in protection instead of attack ? you invest in protection BECAUSE your attack is crap. look for exemple to the seraphim they have a better mobile shield that aeon but no one build them on water not because they are expensive to get run but this is nt worth the mass invested in !! better build t3 sub eliminate the thread and then finish the game with cruiser.

And don't forget ... even if you win the navy with aeon that not mean you win the game .... aeon don't deal damage on land until t3 with his missile ship .... mean aeon navy only good for defense against navy not to destroy enemies base like the other faction do

Statistics: Posted by dstojkov — 31 May 2012, 17:55

Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-27T15:56:03+02:00

apart from that time you had enough mobile shields to make your navy immune to t4 bomber from tnuk....

Statistics: Posted by galacticfear — 27 May 2012, 15:56

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-27T15:52:57+02:00

It's not OP, and never was since 3599. Maybe before 3599, no idea there.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 27 May 2012, 15:52

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-26T23:14:26+02:00

so how is the navy OP when you need T2 air, T2 land and skills? OP is usually the thing that is easy to get and easy to use.

Sure, when theres a ton of stuff on the field (including T2 hover land) it soaks up a lot of damage.

Aeon navy alone is shit, 40 shields with aeon navy is OP. But thats the topic of the thread

Statistics: Posted by Pavese — 26 May 2012, 23:14

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-26T20:06:54+02:00

aeon navy is op. it just takes more micro to make it op and also takes t2 land and minimal t2+ air. its not just navy but its the combo. and most MOST people dont play aeon on NAVY maps because its harder to get all those things working well together on. and most people havent practiced enough. to do it well so they dont.

Statistics: Posted by Pic — 26 May 2012, 20:06

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-25T15:22:24+02:00

you right ... read it OP :-/ sorry isen

Statistics: Posted by dstojkov — 25 May 2012, 15:22

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-25T15:00:30+02:00

dstojkov wrote:
if that have been really overpowered like you say

He said the exact opposite?..

Isen wrote:
Also aeon navy is still up

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 25 May 2012, 15:00

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-25T14:52:51+02:00

You wrote:
dstojkov always trolling man

If that true have been .... why almost no one play aeon on navy map ? not only now but back then ?
if that have been really overpowered like you say sorry but no one would had and would play anything but aeon.
This is right now not the case also i am not saying something extravagant or exaggerate ... the fact are talking in my favor.

Statistics: Posted by dstojkov — 25 May 2012, 14:52

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-25T14:41:23+02:00

dstojkov always trolling man, air is still > than all navy but shielded navy, and with > i mean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
And aeon or sera has even more facilityes against air, becuase of hover flaks. Also aeon navy is still up, shield are still usefull and like in gpgnet, you couldnt just spam shields and destroyers, frigates always have been important, and it hasnt changed.

Statistics: Posted by Isen — 25 May 2012, 14:41

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-25T14:27:34+02:00

hi

nooby you wrote:
Shielded cybran stealth navy. Not nice to play against. Even just a single shield protecting each cruiser helps so much against air.

Also the community complain about overpowered air you change it .... now you have another problem with navy also this is pur logic
the eco for spamming unit in 3599 was from cheaper to expansive :
land < air < navy
and it had some logic in it ....
making air more expansive and navy cheaper will not allow you make some pressure on navy with air until you get ready ... also here the "shielded navy" his only a consequence of the new balance not a reason.

Statistics: Posted by dstojkov — 25 May 2012, 14:27

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-25T00:36:11+02:00

dstojkov wrote:
hing sorry
you claim FAF better gameplay fixing bug, same chance to each faction and so on ... but sorry to say the truth now aeon navy is even worser ! why simply not remove the asylum ? if so overpowered ? Tell me after that how you will make the people play aeon ? What drive me crazy is that you don't complain about t2 uef shield ... also really ....

We complain about all mobile shields. FAF devs will not add in or remove any units. Aeon navy is good in large scale navy battles where there is less micro. Aeon destroyer reigns supreme in unmicroed battles by a large margin. Also if its a team game then you get faction mixing - Shielded cybran stealth navy. Not nice to play against. Even just a single shield protecting each cruiser helps so much against air.

Statistics: Posted by noobymcnoobcake — 25 May 2012, 00:36

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-25T00:00:22+02:00

I dont want nerf the asylum, i want nerf all mobil shields, and the asylum is not a unit made thinking in water battles

Statistics: Posted by Armmagedon — 25 May 2012, 00:00

Re: Mobile shields cost effectivness

2012-05-24T23:53:14+02:00

Hi guys,

this is the stat of 3599 for the asylum:
5000hp (size: 16 (312m), regen rate: 65hp/s, regen start time: 1s, recharge time: 26s, recharge rate: 192.3hp/s)

back in time in FA you were not able to have really fun to play aeon on water .... that also why no one wanted to ... navy map = cybryan (almost)
you may say it's because destroy always miss what actually true is with micro but that can not explain all thing sorry

you claim FAF better gameplay fixing bug, same chance to each faction and so on ... but sorry to say the truth now aeon navy is even worser ! why simply not remove the asylum ? if so overpowered ? Tell me after that how you will make the people play aeon ? What drive me crazy is that you don't complain about t2 uef shield ... also really ....

Statistics: Posted by dstojkov — 24 May 2012, 23:53