Well tbh this doesnt sound like a bad idea, but making them a tml projectile doesnt realy make any difference when you want to snipe a pushing acu (they wont have tmd). When it comes to sniping somebody sitting in a base i think this would be a massive buff to mercys since nobody really has more than 2 tmds sitting in one place to defend vs 15 tml rockets and 1 or 2 aa wouldnt be able to to kill a mojority of the mercys, sice they have way more hp now. I think if you remove the homig missile part this would actually make more sense.

Well the pattern I see here is that lots of noobs or low level thinkers come in here and shit-post about this or that needing to be changed and everyone seems to get a default approach of trashing any post that comes through (because statistically that is a good guess without even reading the post). Then when people actually raise good points the normal crowd does it's hatchet job and theres more counter-argument than there should be so it stalls or appears on a numerical post basis to be unpopular. Gonna take some special kinds of insight to work around that so hopefully you'll see what I'm talking about and act smartly.

@exselsior said in 2v2 Full Share means: Eco > Snipes, Luck and Unit Skill: @veteranashe said in 2v2 Full Share means: Eco > Snipes, Luck and Unit Skill: With share until death you only need to kill one acu to win, and it's not very fun when your teammates acu gets killed. Correct, this is what I was talking about a bit more since I knew other people would talk more from the vantage of the one doing the sniping. With fullshare when your teams acu gets killed your seriously fed for about the next 5 mins and if you hold out and figure everything out then it's just a 2v1 after that. You don’t get fed, you lose every single unit in production in your teammates factories. You have to restart all production, redo all engineer orders, redo all movement commands, shore up the hole created from acu explosion, possibly now stop 2 gun coms with one, etc. You don’t magically have more eco than the other two players unless your teammate was quite far ahead. As other people have said, it’s not “just a 2v1.” 2v1s aren’t magically easy. Don’t believe me then see if you can find some high rated shared army gameplay to see just how hard it is vs double apm even without the massive handicap of one acu vs two. I feel like I remember watching Yudi going full sweat vs maybe two 1800-2k players using shared armies and losing at the end despite being better than his opponents and having an apm so high I barely keep up just watching. This isn’t exactly the same but it helps show some of why it’s hard to 2v1 unless it’s a very closed off map. Hey, little typo, not fed, f'ed, or screwed, James, fucked, etc just like you describe lol

if they are unit without the 'SNIPEMOD' cat, they will retarget, as soon as mobile unit come in range. what would be interesting to see is if pillar that would keep the target on the acu in that kind of situation without using custom MOBILE, would actually retarget to other unit if you use the custom MOBILE target prio.

Idk what it would mean for balance but it would def be fun to micro. It seems like jesters have a good amount of hp rn so maybe decreasing health, decreasing cost, and adding what he said above might have a cool result. Like a lab but in air. Just throwing out ideas, i have not looked at the numbers at all.

As long as i can load them in a transport, i don't quit care about what you do to aeon lab

I am asking you because I think it would alleviate all the balance update hate in this sub forum. If people got a chance to be part of the evaluation it would be a much more “community approved” action rather balance coming out every so often to declare “okay, these are the updates, don’t care if you like them or not”

don't tell him about t1 tanks

@corvathranoob said in Wreck value and health: @sinforosa I think reclaim decay is a pretty creative and interesting idea and you have some good points to support it. I'm not sure if there is a way to avoid this effect for wrecks that are initially placed on a map, or if it is a good idea to have them still decay, or what rate of decay would be appropriate. I guess if we can't exclude those initial wrecks a number of maps would just have their design impacted, for better or worse. What rate are you thinking might be appropriate? 10% per minute? 0.5% per second (30% per minute), or more? And maybe so that you don't need to use a lot of bp to reclaim large wrecks quickly, the decay mechanic could be paused if the wreck is currently being reclaimed? I agree with you that recycling wrecks encourages creativity and speeds things up, but I also find reclaim to lead to more defenders advantage than I would prefer, so if the decay idea isn't feasible, maybe we could still get the best of both worlds by keeping the same reclaim value for units and structures that are ctrl-k'd, while decreasing it to 50% (or so) for units or structures that are killed? In theory people might be able to somewhat abuse that differential, but I'm guessing it would be pretty difficult to do in practice for anything besides T4s. You can make a distinction in behavior for static wrecks (placed by the map maker) and dynamic wrecks (during gameplay). As an example: https://gitlab.com/supreme-commander-forged-alliance/mods/mass-adjustment-proof-of-concept You could therefore change the decay behavior too.

Put equal mass titans v ml, then equal mass percy v ml Fun result

Not to say that properly micro'ing your bomber while managing your base is much harder and APM intensive then defending vs first bomber by splitting engies and re-queueing orders. I think that everything has been said, I am locking this for now as this is more so a rant then a serious thread about an imbalnce.

The bug was found, fixed and now it's being tested.

We found the core bug, we fixed it with the help of Dragun and after testing it a bit more we will merge it into beta.

@Tagada I disagree about Aurora being to strong if Aeon MAA didn't die in one bomb. You view games from ~2400 rating. I view games from ~1100 rating. We have different viewpoints of the same game. Disadvantages of Aurora that would remain if MAA was buffed. Still dies to one T1 bomber bomb. Still can't raid as effectively as other T1 tanks. Still can't storm PD as effectively as other T1 tanks. Benefits if Aeon T1 MAA HP was 260. Would not die to one bomb anymore (mostly). Theoretically could soak more dmg from T1 tanks (lol). Hay, you know what, why not make the Aeon MAA extra range (3 units) meme actually useful? Increase by some amount (e.g. 5 units) so it is more effective against bombers but still dies in one hit if you forgot radar. Try this idea. Also T1 bombers are primarily used (from watching replays and my experience) to kill engineers. Can a change be made to their default target priorities have engi's (or units) > structures?

"eco progression in faf is something that is not intuitive, noobs frequently ring t1 MeX with storages or forget to ring t3 mex because it’s not clear that this is unholy inefficient" Well this is somewhat true I suppose, but I wouldn't say that it means there is a "balance problem" to fix. Noobs just need to pay some attention and learn the most efficient path is: build T1 mex--->upgrade safe T1 mexes--->cap T2 mexes--->upgrade capped T2 mexes. So I don't think we really need to do much about mex storage adjacency. If anything, we could easily increase t1 storage adjacency so that a fully capped t1 mex gives 4 mass total. It would still be significantly less efficient than upgrading the mex to t2, so it doesn't really matter, but would be just a bit less punishing for noobs. I don't think storage adjacency is OP, but I have had a small lingering feeling that storages could be a tiny bit more beneficial for t2 mexes, and slightly less beneficial for t3 mexes. It would make eco upgrade choices a little less of a big decision, since in many games a t3 mex is a very expensive investment with a large payoff if you make it work. Maybe something like 10 mass for a capped t2 mex, and 25 mass for a capped t3 (compared to 9 vs 27) would smooth the economy upgrade path sufficiently. (maybe some cost adjustments would be justified as well) But I must emphasize I'm quite uncertain if smoothing economy upgrades would be an improvement, or how to best approach it. Maybe it makes the game a lot more strategic and interesting to have t3 mexes a very expensive and very effective upgrade, and a more linear or smoothed out upgrade path would be more boring.

Adjacency matters when you are dealing with low amounts of resources and you need to be most efficient resource wise and not time/ BP/ scaling wise. I submit my every single BO on low mass maps where I put my t1 pgens around my t1 air factory/s.

buffing the uef frigate would be game breaking in combination with uefs shield boat and late game t3 ships / hover units

looks like someone already made that comment https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1027/the-scu-rebalance/29

@dragun101 "Now I get it my opinion vs someone like Tagada is basically meaningless. But if you told me "Your invalid", (SIC) I am not gonna bother posting let alone be willing to help to try and fix something. Especially bugs or help in balance patches." Dragun, I'm not saying that you're invalid or only players with a high rating can contribute to the game, but we can distinguish between helping with balance, and coding. I appreciate all useful contributions people make to FAF. Unfortunately, most people don't know what they don't know, yet apparently many received enough participation trophies during their childhood to make them think they know a whole lot more than they do. I hardly ever play ladder, so I know my own opinion on balance for ladder at ~1300 rating is completely worthless, so I have never offered any suggestions for ladder because I'm not an overconfident, arrogant prick. @Tagada I would say that balance decisions should ultimately be decided by 2k+ players, and so I would also be perfectly fine with voting myself out of having any opinion at all on the subject. My only concern is that limiting it to 2k plus might narrow it too much. At this moment I see 11 2k+ ladder players, and 29 for global, slightly more if you round up, but also not counting overlap for players 2k+ on both. My thinking is that some of the differences at the top are likely due to build orders, apm, etc. so players a bit under rating may understand the mechanics and balance well enough to still provide useful ideas regarding balance. I don't know where would be best to make a cutoff though. It seemed to me that at 1500 you'll at least weed out most of the complete garbage posts, but maybe 1800 is optimal. In any case, I would much rather prohibit those ignorant garbage posts than be able to offer my own opinion on balance.

@Tagada I have looked at the unit bp's the aeon one and sera have defined target bones of the turret and barrel where as the uef and cybran one's don't they just use the default centre so this should be an easy fix