Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Mobile shield emitters should float on water

14 posts, 678 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

3 months ago
Shields on water are really overpowered when they are touching the seabed, they should instead float on the water level. Torpedoes alone have too low DPS to kill submerged shield for any reasonable cost ratio.
+8 / -0
Also the building equivalent floats, and the jump when morphed is jarring.

It would make it a hover, though, aka massively nerf shieldballs by diminishing their mobility.
+0 / -0
quote:
It would make it a hover, though, aka massively nerf shieldballs by diminishing their mobility.

Technically you can give it a waterwalking bot movedef, which already exists for certain units like White Dragons. See BHOVER5 and BHOVER3.

But the main reason why mobile shield subs are considered "okay" still exist is because commanders are also sub units that can have shields. I've already argued at length before that commanders having shields in water isn't worth it, but it basically seems it would require some form of testing for this argument to successfully pass.
+0 / -0


3 months ago
Cloaking units politely agree to turn off their cloak when submerging.

Same could apply to shield generators and cloak field generators.
+4 / -0

3 months ago
Maybe keeping the shields as is but reducing their submerged movement speed.
Biggest problem I've seen with them is that amphibious units are too slow in water to effectively catch up to the shield balls while hover and ship units have to deal with forced distance padding that water level gives them so they can't get under the shields effectively.
Sea units that should in theory beat sea shield spam is fast units like raiders(Dagger-Seawolf-Hunter) that run in and burn them down while assault units move in and fight the rest of the now unprotected shield-ball. Problem here starts that pretty much most naval shield balls is Shield + Siren + Envoy/Lance.
Sirens have strong AoE to do Riot job and lots of HP letting it tank waves of weaker units charging in while shields and artillery falls back.
+0 / -0

3 months ago
Replays.
+3 / -0


3 months ago
Replays would be good, yes. Also I haven't said that underwater shields are 'okay' because commanders have them. Rather, I have said that commanders shouldn't be the only source of underwater shields.
+2 / -0

3 months ago
I don't remember a water map that didn't involve shield spam, so just pick any water map and see games played on it. I actively avoid water maps so it's rare for me to be in one, but when I am there's always shields underwater pushing with sirens.

Here's latest one I was in https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/1427817
+1 / -0

3 months ago
https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/1430927

Shielded claymores, nothing can even get near the shields and there's nothing with enough ranged dps on water to damage shielded claymores.
+0 / -0

3 months ago
How about this , or is to to expensive?
+3 / -0
Reef would be assuming the shields will clump up in one spot, which non-traditional shieldballs don't really want to do in the first place.

In the above Skulduggery replay, there were at least 17 shield walkers by minute 10, excluding two more being built. (A significant part of this can be due to the mexes providing +15 income each on overdrive, as the mex values on this map scale with playercount.)
+0 / -0

3 months ago
+1 / -0
Anarchid it's not that cloakfields deactivate in water it's just that units underwater just don't cloak cloaked lance spam on water.(at least in my memory ;P )
also this is what the likho is for no ?. i mean you have to do some legwork but oce you get the shields down you could just go boom and shieldball isn't there. (or just silo it and then likho it.) i mean if the tactic is annoying enough you'll find a counter eventually. for examples limpet can slow down the shield for you to catch or try to thunderbird it . i had multiple games were i had a shield ball and somebody just sacked a thunderbird to kill it and the push.
+0 / -0


3 months ago
quote:
it's not that cloakfields deactivate in water

Indeed that is not what is. That is what could be.
+0 / -0