about shields, repair and sam vs t3 air

[-_V_-]

I didn't really understand your passion to nerf the shields .... actually if you guys don't know how to break a shield turtelling it's not a reason to push getting them nerfed.

I agree when it comes to fixed shields, but the mobile shields on navy can go insane, seriously.

No one complain on 3599 ... the air is kind of useless now. What are you aiming for ? delete the shield ? For what for actually ? Some people like turtelling .. it's a strategy after all it can work but the experience shows that it likely will not make you win the game.

Air is NOT useless, it's become too easy to defend against, there's a difference. What is ironic is that it's actually the players with less "air skills" that suffer most from those new changes.

Oh sorry , shields. You missed a discussion on the chat where the IDEA of removing shields was talked about. That's how much some players are pissed off, regarding the shields. I don't honestly think it will happen though cause it would create way too many balance problems, and removing shields from FA would be like removing t4. Unacceptable, right ?

I still don't understand why this obsession against shields, but I guess it's the deal now. We've seen the mercies incident, the sera arty incident, the t2 gunships incident, the t1 bomber incident. Well each time something super OP emerges .

It would seem from the chat I saw that FIXED shields + t2 PD win games. Funny actually. I don't understand how you can win a game by turtling unless your opponent is , let's say not so bright. But people say it happens. Even if it does, then it means you play a map that is not open, therefore... up to you to not play it again if "tower positions" are so powerful.

It also seems that the interference script for the shields regen was not enough of a nerf. That's why they try to nerf them again. I'm actually not quite sure what's the last update on this, but last time the shields shouldn't be recharging, at least for the mobile ones. LOVE this idea

Truth be told, i NEVER felt any problem with the fixed shields, but with mobile shields , yeah completely. I cried a lot of times in the past to have something being done about those crazy bubble wars to get them nerfed. My suggestion at that time was to increase the energy requirements for all each with the number of mobile shields you own.

The interference stuff sounded good enough, but honestly since then, I didn't play enough with those against enough very good players to have a real opinion. People just say it's not enough.

[dstojkov]

Hi guys,


Actually, on land nothing can truly explain the reason of mobile shield for uef because their t2 land is the best one why a shield on top of that ? It's kind of IMBA. They have the range and the speed in one unit plus the buff to the t2 char hp make no need for a shield ! The aeon need a shield because they have a t2 char that is really slow and it don't have range at all.


The shield is a real pb for navy though ...
Not so much this one from aeons in my point of view because the pb can come into account only in late game ... the cost in energy is so huge that most of the time you can not reach the late game because the cost for running them is too high

The real pb is this one from uef .... the cost for running them is far too low .... and the cover is definitively too high.


Regards

[noobymcnoobcake]

I have started a few topics on the repair cost reduction and would support it. However it should not be for buildings because it could create some serious problems with PDs. Also for land it is almost useless as no land unit bar experimentals live long enough to make it worth repairing and chances are when you send an experimental in if it does not do its job and win the game then it will die.

So repair cost reduction is only useful for navy. 1/3rd of all costs sounds good to me.

[-_V_-]

H
Not so much this one from aeons in my point of view because the pb can come into account only in late game ... the cost in energy is so huge that most of the time you can not reach the late game because the cost for running them is too high

The real pb is this one from uef .... the cost for running them is far too low .... and the cover is definitively too high.

Not true.

[ExituS]

In a sense FA is two different games: fast-paced games on 5 & 10k maps and eco/experimentals on 20k+ maps. It seems that these suggestions are made with the latter type in mind. Personally I think that 1v1 gives a truer representation of the game when you're looking at balance and so on, because teching and turtling is not really viable and so you have to use units at all levels of the game.

In some cases bad balance only becomes really apparent on big maps, such as 3599 Restorers and ASFs, but in more cases large team games can give a distorted view of the game's balance. Say for instance two players on one team focus on T3 air, but only one player on team two does. Team one will get air superiority and team two will be virtually unable to get it back and will probably lose. Is this because air is imbalanced? No, it is because team games allow the dynamics to be distorted in a way that 1v1 (or even 2v2) does not.

Pretty intelligent words there. Let's compare it with SC2. It is balanced only for 1on1's. For a good reason. I don't like the changes i read in the first post considering 1on1's. Might be only my oppinion, but they seem indeed for teamgames, and it should be thought about their inpact for 1on1's.

Btw., i don't like the suggestioned changes at all.