Add upgrade t2 shields for aeon

@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

@Exselsior
Adding an Aeon shield upgrade does not enhance the shield's stats in any way, they remain the same.

@zetroy Shield micro is usually a sweaty late team game thing, but the ability to upgrade t2 to t3 to get a fresh shield is useful, hence it's a buff in certain scenarios over having to ctrl k and rebuild the shield. Which also kinda goes back to my general point: why are you even trying to upgrade from t2 to t3 often enough that this is such a problem, especially in contexts that you don't realize that it is, in fact, a buff to be able to do so?

I think this would be a great quality of life change. Nerf it if you really must.

@snowy801 Yeah I mean it's fine if there's a nerf and then this is added as a QOL change I guess. I kinda like the faction diversity here though. There are actually interesting tradeoffs with the different approaches to shields between the four factions.

@Exselsior
The upgrade is not a critical buff and does not affect balance or shield stats in any way. The aeon shield is already balanced by the coverage radius.

The importance of shield radius.
The Aeon shield at the forefront can hold 21 objects.

The Seraphim shield at the forefront can hold 49 objects.

The Seraphim has twice the capacity of objects under the shield.

@zetroy I have not read this whole thread so i offer no opinion. i just want to point out that bigger shields take much more damage since they cover more area. So its harder to miss the shield bubble and the shield will go down quicker since more is under it.

@zetroy I think that if you're trying to argue that aeon t2 shields are bad because a single 480 mass shield can only cover 11,088 mass of t2 pd, you're using them wrong...

I think it was just an example, and people usually do not spend their games filling shields with t2 pd's.
But if example on FAF's "chessboard" is not good, then:
Aeon t2 shield 20203.14=1256 superficy
Sera t2 shield 28283.14=2462 superficy
Sera one covers 1.96 times more surface. Considering space lost underneath the shield also, two Aeon shields covers less useful space than one Sera shield. And two Aeon shields cost total of 960 mass, and consume/drain 300 energy. While Sera one costs 700 and consumes/drains 250 energy. And of course you dont always have space to put small shields everywhere. Much easyer to have overlapping and "blinking " shields with bigger shields. And not so many units that can totally (and always) miss an Aeon shield bubble. I suppose t3 arty can miss it, but can also fall two times in the same place...
So, I would like to point out, that shield size can be huge advantage, on static as well as on mobile shields.

edit: calculation marks have dissapeared.? I mean 20 multiply 20 mutiply 3.14 and 28 multiply 28 multiply 3.14