ReachCast Episode 36 CQ

ReachCast · 2013-05-28, 10:33 AM

This weeks question is ...

Should the Dome Shield Emitter be something that can be disabled?

as always if you would like to call or email in your answer below is that info

Email us at [email protected]
Call us at (415)787-3224

GeoGnome · 2013-05-28, 12:54 PM

Yes, the domes are very powerful buffers between infantry and aircraft, protecting aircraft from AA. But, with such a powerful buffer, it shouldn't be permanent and is something that can, through work, be disabled.

I would say put it underground or just place it well in the base, so that it is something the defenders must be mindful of, but attackers don't have to have entirely won the base in order to deal with. Remember that it'll be a double edged sword to take it down: Yeah you are now exposing defenders to aircraft, but you are also exposing attackers to aircraft.

Rahabib · 2013-05-28, 12:59 PM

YES! we need more objectives other than kill the other team.

NewSith · 2013-05-28, 01:00 PM

No, if it can be disabled it will almost never be up when it is actually needed.

Mastachief · 2013-05-30, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

No, if it can be disabled it will almost never be up when it is actually needed.

This, have people learned nothing from the SCU gen?

bpostal · 2013-05-28, 03:35 PM

Sure, but not until the SCU goes down (during the last 30 seconds of a base cap).

GeoGnome · 2013-05-28, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by bpostal

Sure, but not until the SCU goes down (during the last 30 seconds of a base cap).

That would render the use of such a generator obsolete.

No, it can go down when the SCU falls, but it should have a separate generator.

Frankly, I think the SCU should have a generator as well, centrally located so it can be defended from the spawn room, and in tight corridors.

bpostal · 2013-05-28, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

That would render the use of such a generator obsolete...

That's my point.

Hamma · 2013-05-28, 08:17 PM

Personally I think it's something that shouldn't be in there at all.. so imo you should be able to disable it.

Sifer2 · 2013-05-28, 09:01 PM

That would make it similar to the tank gate shields. Which sounds like a good idea to me so long as the generator is actually in a defensible position. That is not outside in a shack like most generators.

Zadexin · 2013-05-30, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Personally I think it's something that shouldn't be in there at all.. so imo you should be able to disable it.

^THIS^

I have never seen a more artificial implementation of "We said so" in game design, period. I'm not generally given to hyperbole, but I think these aircraft shields could break the game for a large percentage of the population. (looking at you TRAF).

With the unbreakable tank shields I have already cursed pouring thousands of certs into vanguards, prowlers and lightnings. Beacon spawns are the only useful way of transport now.

disky · 2013-05-30, 01:08 PM

The more options for defense, the better. Yes, I think it should be something that players can disable. It should also be part of an NTU-like system which allows players to starve out a base and its defenses by depriving it of nanite.

ChipMHazard · 2013-05-30, 01:17 PM

Alrighty. Writing up a lenghty email as we speak... Well, type. You know what I mean.

TartarosCZ · 2013-05-30, 02:01 PM

What's the point of the shield again?
I mean, what does it bring to the game that isn't already there and/or shouldn't be there reached via other means?

Biolab for example already has a "shield", i.e. the dome. I think other bases should work that way too. We need more walls, or more to the point, roofs and ceilings, not magical shields.

PredatorFour · 2013-05-30, 02:17 PM

You should be able to disable it from a separate generator. It's not going to stop me flying in and shooting people with the turbo laser so imo it doesn't matter if it's there or not.