Nah. Aeon is kinda about that kind of planning, forethought, and single unit specialization. Not to mention the required volatile external storage is a weakness that can be attacked, making your turtling under a paragon alone far less useful.

@sheikah said in Repair units balance: Another thing to consider is that making repair more efficient will just add to the defender's advantage already present. Defenders will be able to get the reclaim from the dead unit and repair their own units easier. So most likely any increase in repair efficiency would need to be balanced with that in mind as well. Repair is already used by defenders on firebases - I see repair most often used to repair a T2 PD that is under attack. Buffing or expanding the mechanic might see attackers start using it too.

I think everything has been explained here, I am locking this thread.

@swkoll said in Soul Ripper should have stealth: Guys, is this the first time the balance forum has successfully produced a balance change? Yeah this has to be the first time, i've personally seen a Balance Team member be like "We'll consider it" XD

Neat. Would be fun to see.

I would love to see something like where ships don't stop, they keep steaming in circles or something

To me, getting rid of the large power drain removes depth. As it is now you can build it to take advantage of overflow, you can throttle it when power is more important, and you can decide between saving e costs, and saving/earning more mass. T3 Fab farms are more efficient than SCUs, we don't need to change something to make Mass Fabs compete better than them (even though this idea makes them slightly worse). As for ease and accessibility, I think templates make things easy enough to not need changing as well.

@valki said in Could T1 Interceptors be further differentiated?: I think it adds very little and makes early air openings even harder to balance and deal with. Well, sometimes the little things add flavor and depth. For example, does the fact that the Sera air scout has brief vision on death do all that much? No, but it adds to factional diversity and is a cool feature for little effort. And the changes I am proposing would not make early air harder to balance at all. I am not asking to make the interceptors weaker or stronger than one another, they of course should have equal effectiveness. But how can we make them feel different? The similarity between ASFs has bothered me though, I would like this suggestion if applied to ASFs. I wouldn't be opposed, I really enjoy the privilege as a Cybran player of having the stealth ASF but the other factions don't really get anything to compensate. (Please don't give UEF ASF Jamming though...) @thomashiatt said in Could T1 Interceptors be further differentiated?: The cyclone does have a high alpha and low rate of fire weapon, that's why it's the best interceptor. @mazornoob said in Could T1 Interceptors be further differentiated?: UEF and Sera inties are also a bit better at low count intie fights and killing transports. Cybran and Aeon inties deal 48 damage per volley, so they need 7 volleys (>288 DPS) to kill UEF and Sera inties (295 and 290 HP) and 6 volleys to kill the rest (285 and 280 HP). UEF and Sera inties deal 50 and 51 damage per volley respectively, so they can kill any interceptor in 6 volleys. This also means that C/A inties need 11 volleys to kill a T1 transport and U/S inties need 10 volleys. Well it seems that all inteceptors are already not created equal, albeit by a very tiny degree. I don't want to make them so that microing different factions' inties is in any way different, so I wouldn't touch range, speed, accel or turning radius, firing angle, or DPS. Rather, I'd make small changes to their flavor that don't change combat effectiveness. Stuff like: UEF interceptors have an extra minute of fuel. (6:00 instead of 5:00) Cybran interceptors can land on water instead of having to hover and waste fuel (possible in the engine? If not, then alternatively they could have double fuel recharge when landed) Aeon interceptors have 30 vision radius instead of 28. Seraphim interceptors give 20 energy storage per interceptor, just like engineers give varying levels of mass storage. Also, I was unsure when making this thread as to where it belonged-- "Suggestions" vs. "Balance Discussion". I'm not actually advocating for the balance to change, I want interceptors to be equally effective. They are not OP or UP. I was just wondering if it would be possible to make each faction's interceptor more interesting and unique. One might say that any tweak made is so minor that it won't matter, but I think that is a good argument for making the change. It won't hurt anybody.

Oh yea. Titans are super busted. They fight better at range than loyalists, have 800 extra hp of which 700 regenerates and have the same movement speed. Increase loyalist base movement speed so they actually can compete.

Necroing this to say that I'm shocked that in vanilla Supcom Cybran did 120 damage per shot. The ladder junkie Cybran only side of my brain is salivating, but 100 dps on a stock ACU is super integral to the T1 land balance of the game. It's a nice round number that makes calculations easy and provides a decent but not overwhelming offensive armament. I would be very interested in some other minor tweak aside from HP between ACUs. But all I can think of is speed and we probably shouldn't touch that. Maybe Cybran ACU can have a faster turret (upper body) rotation? While UEF has the slowest?

@jip said in Suggestion: Show mass reclaimed by engineers: This requires passing information from the sim to the UI - it can't be a UI mod therefore. I have no idea how to keep track how much an engineer is reclaiming , maybe via two unit callbacks (StartReclaim and StopsReclaim) and keep track of the time it was reclaiming? What it properlt requires is adding “Update Consumption” function after “Issue Reclaim” issued I can do some testinf after I get home

You stop it by not getting into that position in the first place. What you’re saying is a line of thinking myself and most other people fall into, not just in FAF but in general. You’re in a situation and it feels bad because you can’t counter or deal with that situation well. You think “well if this is happening, how do I counter it?” Your mistake happened before that situation started. What you should be asking is “how can I not get into this situation in the first place.” That’s not helpful for when you’re already in that position, but it’s helpful for not getting in that position in the first place in the future. So how do you avoid another faction doing a gun com or pd creep into your base as Cybran? Well PD creep has an easy and direct counter, especially as Cybran. Make MML. Cybran MMLs are hard to counter for any faction other than Aeon because the missiles split after being hit once. The gun com one is more interesting because it goes back to my previous point about avoiding the situation in the first place. If you’re constantly raiding and destabilizing your opponent it’s going to be much harder for them to amass a large enough force for them to feel comfortable pushing you hard. You can constantly hold the threat of Corsair snipe over them keeping them from wanting to push in too far with their com. Force them to leave their com more exposed with stealth raids using a mobile stealth field, a rhino or two, and a couple Medusas. They have to move either their com or some units to intercept or you can do a lot of dmg if you handle those raiding groups well. Either way it slows them down and keeps them on the defensive, which is fundamentally what you want as any faction, but especially as Cybran. As Cybran you also have the best tools to do that with. Stealth, fast t1 tanks, and good anti unit t1 arty is a nice combo for raiding at virtually all stages of the game.

Thread locked. Please review the pinned guidelines.

If anything, this and similar topics have taught me that there is a lot to know about which navals suck. For example, I have been reluctant, a few years ago, to build Aeon Destroyers because I never felt destroyers were very good when I played a lot of UEF. New or low-ranked players might complain less about navies when we know not to build 10 Aeon cruisers or 10 UEF destroyers. I feel all this could somehow be communicated better to players, maybe with tooltips - just a wall of text players will find in the client could help.

Thread locked, please use the existing SACU rebalance thread for questions on this topic.

Thread locked. There hasn't been a description of the issue, and it has been discussed before. Thus far this has been nothing but a retread of old ground.

A uef strat running away from a small group of inties (irc 3-4) can beat them down, perhaps 1 broadsword should be able to kill 1 intie per pass

@archsimkat just realized, the widow mine cloak is disabled when recharging in SC2. You can ditch the stealth entirely reminding low ranked players to build scouts, and if you want you can pair them with deceivers.

How about increasing the damage to it's secondary weapons? Make it a walking sam launcher and/or increasing the bolter's to 500 dps?

Cruisers doing aoe removes possible micro potential from torps where you try to dive in to snipe 1/2 key units and get out because torps alwqys stack onto eachother