aeon t3 shield
-
I think that the range of the shield is in great need of updating, I suggest updating its range to at least 18, and preferably to 19, let it instead become more expensive in matter and spend more energy per second.
This shield cannot even fully cover 3 artillery with energy generators, the generators are open on the other side of the shield, which often leads to their explosion, and it is not profitable to assist two shields under artillery fire.
Therefore, I consider updating the shield to be very important in order to make it more popular and useful.
-
-
-
Just make another shield then
-
They are very cost-efficient. Just make 2 and your art will have good def.
Don't attack faction diversity for no good reason.
-
@Kilatamoro said in aeon t3 shield:
They are very cost-efficient. Just make 2 and your art will have good def.
Don't attack faction diversity for no good reason.
That's why I suggest making them more expensive, but practical, I've never seen artillery defending with aeon shields in mid-rated games, that's the funny thing, everyone in the game uses seraph shields, UEF shields, even cybran shields and even those are used many times more often than aeon ones
-
Better idea, nerf the arty meta.
-
Only shields that need updates/buffs are the Cybran ED4 and ED5. Aeon is fine. You’re never defending something as expensive as a t3 arty with a single shield anyway.
-
@Exselsior yes, the shields of this race would also be nice to update, but they are tolerable, since they cover a fairly large area, it has a range of 20, 3 units more than the Aeon, I would just make these shields cheaper, shields that cost more than 4 thousand matter are too much.
here I am talking about the problem that it is hard to play an artillery war with an Aeon shield, since you need to assist a shield that will not cover an all artillery installation with T3 generators, because of which you have to assist two shields, which will really complicate the life of the Aeons
-
Cybran shields are not "tolerable". They are disgustingly bad. ED5 costs 1.18x more than a seraphim t3 shield, for 78% of its shield hp. That makes seraphim shields 1.5x better, or cybran shields 66% as effective as seraphim t3 shields. On the contrary aeon shields have the most shield HP per mass and as a result are the cheapest to assist. On top of that the aeon artillery is far and away the strongest for its mass, with cybran, again, being the weakest.
If you really have the game balance's best interest in mind and want to complain about shielding (in relation to t3 artillery), then complain about cybran
-
@waffelzNoob artillery is not in this topic, but since we started talking about it, I don't think Cybran artillery is bad, but on the contrary, almost the best, if any artillery needs an update, it's Seraphim, and Aeon artillery needs a nerf, but still, let's not talk about this topic here.
I'm not talking about the cost of shields, I'm talking about the radius of shields or range. In most cases, you put 1 shield, build two artillery under it and assist the shield with a bunch of engineers, and against this background, the cost of the shield does not seem like such a super important parameter (although I can't help but agree that Cybran shields are unbalanced and very expensive).
-
You have yet to actually justify why aeon shields need to be bigger. They’re in contention for the best t3 shield in the game, they really don’t need to be changed. If you don’t see them being used to defend arty in your games it’s because you’re playing with people who don’t know what they’re doing, especially if they’re choosing cybran over aeon.
