Add upgrade t2 shields for aeon

I’m sorry, calling the Aeon shields the worst in the game is just completely and unequivocally incorrect. Smaller shield radius does not mean bad, that can actually be useful in some scenarios such as getting nice shield layering.

Also, if rebuilding t2 shields into t3 is something you’re needing to do on a regular basis then you’re probably doing something else wrong. T3 shields are not always better than their t2 counterparts.

Dude. Come on....
Stats: | Shield HP per mass | Regen | Recharge | Power drain | Size | Mass cost |
Aeon | 22,92 | 138/s | 27s | 150e | 20 | 480 |
Seraphim | 18.57 | 153/s | 28s | 250e | 28 | 700 |
Uef | 15.00 | 120/s | 26s | 200e | 26 | 600 |
Cybran Ed2 | 15.2 | 88/s | 25s | 200e | 21 | 460 |
Cybran Ed3 | 7.93 | 112/s | 28s | 300e | 28 | 1260 |

You are just another delusional Aeon fanboy crying for buffs, sad to see it.

Nice forum formatting lol...

@i_forgorthescene

That juicy Aeon shield regen time

@i_forgorthescene said in Add upgrade t2 shields for aeon:

Dude. Come on....
Stats: | Shield HP per mass | Regen | Recharge | Power drain | Size | Mass cost |
Aeon | 22,92 | 138/s | 27s | 150e | 20 | 480 |
Seraphim | 18.57 | 153/s | 28s | 250e | 28 | 700 |
Uef | 15.00 | 120/s | 26s | 200e | 26 | 600 |
Cybran Ed2 | 15.2 | 88/s | 25s | 200e | 21 | 460 |
Cybran Ed3 | 7.93 | 112/s | 28s | 300e | 28 | 1260 |

You are just another delusional Aeon fanboy crying for buffs, sad to see it.

Nice forum formatting lol...

And by what characteristics is the shield Aeon so much better that it does not need to add an upgrade?
In your table, the counts are balanced in cost, radius and power. The fact that Aeon does not have a shield upgrade is a misunderstanding that was once added by the developers of the original game.

@zetroy Bruh. How can you look at the numbers for Cybran shields and say that is balanced with Aeon being the worst? Seriously, it gets a full 4 shield hp per mass more than the next closest shield (that's huge) and has the lowest power drain with the second fastest regen per second. Not only is it already the most efficient shield to build, it's also the most efficient to maintain by a large margin.

I actually kinda wonder if @I_FORGORtheSCENE has the numbers for ED3 wrong because that is disgustingly bad if accurate, the other numbers make more sense and I've seen before.

@exselsior
No, the numbers are real.
And it only get's worse, though ED1 is kinda pog:

Ed1 - 25 | 45/s | 23 | 100 | 18 | 160
Ed4 - 5.28 | 130/s | 28 | 400 | 34 | 2460
Ed5 - 3.89 | 140/s | 25 | 500 | 40 | 4260

@i_forgorthescene Oof. There's an actual balance forum post. Buff Cybran shields pls. But yeah ED1 is nice

@Exselsior
The most effective Seraphim shield ever.
Aeon is the weakest and mediocre shield.
The weakness of the cybran shield is compensated by the fact that there are hives that can quickly upgrade it, the weakness of the aeon shield is not compensated by anything, but is even complicated by the lack of an upgrade.
I do not understand what can be argued here, adding an upgrade does not strengthen the aeon shield in any way and does not change the balance. The upgrade for the aeon shield adds what should have been the default from the very beginning.

@exselsior
Based on looking at the blueprints as well as the cumulative upgrade costs in game, it appears that the following is the cybran shield hp per mass:

ED1: 4000/160=25
ED2: 7000/460=~15.22
ED3: 10000/1260=~7.94
ED4: 13000/2460=~5.28
ED5: 16500/4260=~3.87

So, ED1 is quite mass efficient, ED2 is mediocre, and the rest are quite inefficient, but the trend in efficiency is comparable to the tech-equivalent shields in the other factions (T3 is much less mass efficient than T2, ie: sera T3 shield hp/mass is ~5.83), but with ED1 and ED5 as more extreme.

TBH, I feel like a reasonable argument could be made that T3 shields are too expensive compared to T2 shields.

@ZetRoy
You are focusing too much on shield size. Shield size is not as important as shield hp per mass.

I don't think it's as bad as you think, while they are quite expensive with some proper micro they are way more sturdy than you would think. Upgrading ED1 into ED2 takes barely any resources and can give you a brand new shield during the fight without the old one disappearing, which can be clutch.

Yes it ain't much compared to the stats of the rest of the roster but it gives them surprisingly high durability that ain't really showing in the pure stats.
@Exselsior

@Penguin_ @I_FORGORtheSCENE Yeah you guys are right, it's bad stats wise but there's more to it than just the stats. There's a ton of nice micro you can do with only the Cybran shields if you've got the eco to support it. I'm memeing a bit here, I've certainly seen how effective good micro on them can be. Downside is that it's error prone, whereas a single sera t3 shield with something like the equivalent of 30 hives assisting holds vs a mavor with no effort as long as you don't stall.

@ZetRoy Serpaphim shields are expensive and take the longest to build. High level players will often opt to just not build sera t2 shields where they would have built an Aeon t2 shield. It's blatantly obvious Aeon shields aren't the weakest and most mediocre shields, they are in fact the best t2 shields as long as you don't need the extra shield size in a given scenario - which you often don't.

@penguin_ said in Add upgrade t2 shields for aeon:

You are focusing too much on shield size. Shield size is not as important as shield hp per mass.

The size of the shield is very important, for example, where one seraph shield is enough, two aeon shields are needed, such cases on the dual gap map very often occur that one seraph shield closes all mass extractors, in order to close all mass extractors for aeon, two shields are needed.
Far fewer objects fit under an aeon shield than any other t2 shield.

@Exselsior
The aeon shield is cheaper by 120 mass than the uef shield, the cheapness is due to the coverage radius.
But the absence of an upgrade to t3 is not due to anything, neither by price, nor by radius, nor by hp.

@zetroy
You don't seem to appreciate the importance of mass efficiency. An Aeon T2 shield costs 480 mass but has 11,000 shield health, while a Seraphim T3 shield has 21,000 shield health for 3600 mass. In other words, 1 Seraphim T3 shield costs as much mass as 7.5 Aeon T2 shields. So, you can make SEVEN Aeon T2 shields for cheaper than you could make ONE Seraphim T3 shield, and the total shield health of those 7 shields would be 77,000, which is ~367% as much as the 21,000 shield health of 1 Seraphim T3 shield.

You talk about the shield size as so important. You can cover way more area with 7 Aeon T2 shields than with 1 Seraphim T3 shield, while spending less mass on the Aeon shields.

Hello, did you know that normal maps have mexes spread out so that not even a Seraphime shield can cover them all?

For more interesting FAF tidbits subscribe to your FAF discord service powered by FtX hit squad.

While I think T2 Aeon Shield is in a fine spot I don't really see this "Feature" of not being able to upgrade them as something that has a lot of meaning and value besides being annoying every now and then. In competitive 1vs1 games you basically never upgrade T2 shields to T3 so it doesn't matter for that game mode. In Team games, it happens but it really doesn't have much impact besides being annoying for the player that built the shields. I will look into including this in the next Balance Patch.

@Penguin_
Shield radius t2 aeon 20
Shield radius t2 seraphim 28

Shield radius t3 aeon 35
Shield radius t3 seraphim 46

As you can see, the small radius is already compensated by the cheapness of the Aeon shield. The absence of an upgrade is not justified by anything.
In narrow areas it is not always possible to put a large number of shields.

@tagada Idk I think it's a buff in late team game situations for a shield that doesn't need a buff. It's a basically meaningless change in ladder, but not team games

@i_forgorthescene said in Add upgrade t2 shields for aeon:

Nice forum formatting lol...

Needs to be a proper markdown table, you forgot the header row separating the header / the content