Introduction:
As many know, current and past balance councilors and balance team were never elected by the community. Mostly through fake news and conspiracy theories claiming a popularity contest would lead to bad game changes they managed to circumvent democratic processes in the past to implant themselves like a cancerous oligarchy. This is of course the common premise of all dictators who know that in a fair election process, their self centeredness would never trump superior candidates’ ideas. This has become very clear over time in their "balance" patches that create new imbalances, lessen strategic diversity, ruin map designs and reduce units to obsolescence (I.e. Fire Beetle).
Unfortunately FAF nowadays is in ruins, having become increasingly stale and uninteresting, as viable strategies to create advantages and counterplay keep disappearing. I want to see the game saved from this path, the ‘S’ in RTS for FAF is almost dead but we can bring it back, bigger, better and stronger than ever before with real change that you can really believe in.

Cause and effect:
The issue is as follows: With their unlimited term in office and no stated manifesto, the current group have no reason to hurry along completing their process of "balancing the game" and consequently use their position to prevent much needed changes and improvements they either don't understand or don't see how those changes would improve things for themselves.
Nevertheless they keep making adjustments to units after playing games in which they did not like the outcome, i.e. that they lost and the blame goes to the unit used against them "obviously being OP". This leads to poor patches necessitating further "balancing" after they lose yet another game. The vicious circle never ends and while the head of the hydra has changed from time to time, at its core the balance team is still the same group of people who appease their "friends", while others get ignored when proposing improvements to the game. Balanced gameplay is not just about changing individual unit costs, HP and DPS, failing to see further implications to the changes than just one dynamic between 2 units, it is much more complex.
You may say they are good players because they have high ratings. OK, but where do these ratings come from? Is it that they can click faster, have better memorized build orders or that they have shaped the gameplay to favor their strengths and preferences? Are these factors alone really relevant to the task at hand of balancing units vs each other in a complex dynamic web or should there be a general framework based on math and analytical models that anyone can look at and scrutinize?
The issue with saying a unit 'is better balanced' and 'it is intended to do X' is that those are just claims/opinions with no supporting evidence. As an example, many maps have specific ideas behind them based on the range of T1, T2 and T3 navy units and why should map makers have to redo their maps because the balance team decided to change ranges on navy vessels' weapons? Another example were t1 bombers being sterilized for 5 years because the first bomber on 5x5 maps was "too strong" which not only affects the first bomber but also every subsequent bomber. At the same time they weakened the bomber, they also buffed the T1 mobile AA reducing T1 bombers’ utility even further.
It only reverted when a new leader of the team took over with no explanation whatsoever. Why did we have to live with that mistake for 5 years and still do with the many others?

Conclusion:
We need an alternative to this current feudal system. Like politicians, they never will admit they made an error and will keep their mistakes in place to the detriment of all of us as long as they have their say in the decision-making process.
We need a superior balancing system to the current opinions-based one. Competing candidates with their own ideas should lay out what they intend to change with fixed terms of say 6-12 months to implement them. The community can then decide to re-elect those who deliver improvements or dismiss those that do not. Most importantly, the changes to come would be known in advance through their proposals as the game in theory is a static set of data. This would also weed out those who only want the power to decide what to change for their own benefit and prevent many meaningless changes presented as balance improvements when they are not just to achieve volume.

-Evildrew

Consider it allowed....
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/46637108/214552114-c2d36dd3-c96d-4f74-826d-738ee39f1ff0.mp4

My understanding is that you are creating kind of a lighthouse-like rotating vision feature. I think you have proven it is doable I just am not that enthusiastic about it and don’t see how it’s fits supcom. It’s something I am familiar with from commandos or the men of war series where eye sight focus makes a lot of sense. Maybe others like it though so just giving my opinion, not discouraging you in anyway. I am just thinking people will say it’s great because your implementation is flawless but then they will complain that their unit’s vision was off while their opponent's vision was on their unit at a key point and that would be contrary to the skill expression dogma…
Anyway the sonar idea you outlined I thought was really valuable.
I also have some ideas I was thinking about implementing that would be great but it’s like asking people who live in a circular loop to try something outside their perception. Lots of people just don’t care what you do until it’s in fashion.

@thewreck said in The End of FAF:

Tell me evildrew what statistics did he show?what numbers did he present to prove his point? I'm making stuff up lmao.

He is making a statement based on non public material information. As you hopefully know he cannot disclose who posted what exactly when he is generalizing when eluding to it happening.
What he told you is that he has seen the players who you said never report each other report each other.
I do not see what statistics or numbers you would want to see from angel. You said that group never reports each other, he said he has seen it happen. So lets say greater or equal to 1 then to put it in numbers. So if angel has seen it happen at least once, I consider it disproving you point.

If you are not making stuff up, then tell us why is it that you know that most people reporting base ctrl k are 1500. Do you have access to the moderation reports, are you compiling statistics? I presume not since what you say and angel contradicts each other and he has an official moderation team tag and you have, well nothing relevant on display that would make you more credible than angel on this matter...

I had a chat with someone as a result of my scathing assessment of the balance team on the forums this week as a result of the most recent patch. I decided to let action follow words. In this post I outline my vision for the Navy aspect of the game. While I know that some will just disagree because they do not like me, I accept that not everyone will agree with me on each change. While some suggestions can be excluded, others cannot. Overall there are many interconnected ideas between the suggested changes and I am not able to explain every single possible aspect (not even in a spreadsheet). The perfect balance of the values is not assured as it is mostly about redesigning but anyway, this is how I would like to have navy reshaped to take FAF into the future. The goal is to stay within the parameters of what appears reasonable, logical and feasible.

The proposed changes are aim at:
*Increasing strategic optionality + diversity
*Increase unit relevancy
*Increase logic
*Create more interesting gameplay dynamics
*Increase balance without breaking it

A quick overall elaboration on the rationale of all these changes. The idea is to induce an amplified rock-paper-scissors dynamic into Naval warfare which takes it away from the current 1 dominant unit type (Destroyer at T2 stage, Battleship at T3 stage) to a much broader series of options that have their advantages and disadvantages over others. Strategic choices can influence the outcome of battle much more instead of purely superior ecoing and microing.

T1 Subs
32 range as is
While emerged visionradius 32
While submerged visionradius reduces to 16 (I.e.Watervisionradius=Visionradius)

Advantages to the game:
*Added logic
*Makes emerging not just a thing for killing mexes on the shore,

T2 units
Cruisers

UEF
2 fire modes with autotoggle and target priorities helping players prioritize.

1. 1 Missile able to track navy units only (not land units/buildings) doing 1k damage a shot, has a longer reload cycle of 10 secs (100 Dps) and Range of 90.
2. The existing bombardment without homing missiles

Advantages:
*Makes TMD on navy units that have it relevant.
*Increases optionality at the T2 navy stage.
*Enhances the relevancy of subs substantially in an indirect manner.

Cybran
It’s good as it is.

Aoen
Vision increase to 85
Gun fires only one shot doing 250 damage (well 2 shots same time 2x125),
MuzzleSalvoDelay = 0 (fires 2 shots at the same time looking as one)
Does stun damage for 2.2 seconds
Has range of 70
(Possibly does shield damage 200)
FiringRandomness = 0
MuzzleVelocity = 50
Stun radius of 3
RateOfFire = 0.28, (approx 3.57secs) Designed to mess up the firing cycle of UEF and Aoen Destroyers some but Cybran destroyers the most.

***(Ideally I would prefer a system like the normal gun firing every 3.33 seconds and every 10 seconds it would have a loaded overcharge like Stun weapon with Auto-OC like function / manual discharge dependent on the player’s preference with a 6 second stun to normalize the effectiveness vs all destroyers but I am not sure how to do this. The player could choose to fire the stun gun or shoot a regular round. However I do not have the coding skill to do this…)

Advantages:
*Act as a counter to counterintelligence boats of cybran.
*A tactical vessel able to stun high value vessels in a fight impacting their DPS or acting like a lasso when they are on the retreat.
*Makes Aoen cruiser competitive in direct combat vs Cybran cruiser but has its key strengths vs UEF and Sera cruisers.
*Seraphim can submerge destroyers, UEF can build shield boats to counter the stun gun.

Seraphim
I don’t it needs changing but it could be a 2 missiles system like suggested on the UEF cruiser tracking navy units doing 500 damage a shot, (100DPS)

Destroyers

UEF
Fires 12 torpedoes doing 50 damage each, very long reload cycle of 15 seconds, short range of 28, aim is to only counter t1 subs effectively.
Max speed 5.5 to make up for the shorter turret range of aoen and cybran destroyers.
Turret range to 65 to give a bit of advantage vs Seraphim destroyer while keeping it weaker than Cybran and Aoen destroyers and cruisers.
Range on main guns 60-->65
HP 8000-->7200
Advantages:
*The shorter range torpedoes makes the UEF destroyer a true close combat unit while maintaining the Cooper as the predominant anti-sub-unit.
*Kills 1 sub in one salvo but takes for ever to reload.
*Buff to range offsets reduction in HP and improves the imbalance for the main guns that has always existed.

Cybran
Torpedo range of 35
Advantages:
*Enhances T2 subs effectiveness vs Destroyers while T1 subs are still no match for it.

Aoen
Torpedo range of 35
Range on main guns 70-->75
Advantages:
*Enhances T2 subs effectiveness vs Destroyers while T1 subs are still no match for both.

Seraphim
Torpedo range of 42

Cooper
Longest range torpedoes of 50

T2 Subs
Cybran
Has stealth already but when submerged, stationary and not firing should cloak
Torpedo range 42

Aoen
When submerged, stationary and not firing should have stealth and cloak
Torpedo range 42

Shield boat
Is fine

Stealth boat
Is fine though the stealth field is tiny especially compared to that on the T3 Cybran Sonar…

T3 Sonar
Lower Sonarradius to 150 (passive sonar) and E to -400
Explore if it is possible to have an active sonar which would work like a wave with a range of say 300-350 when the player clicks the active sonar button it would increase E usage (Like on T3 arties) for the duration of the emitted wave, say -1000E and optically look like the suggested chrono of Deribus. Might be a good idea to make the Sonar stationary (.I.e no movement speed) for the duration of the active sonar scan. https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1354/chrono-dampener-rework?_=1675468176661

Seraphim does not get this feature because they always get the short end of the deal and can submerge their T2 sonar.

T3 nuke subs
Add the shorter range homing missile feature as mentioned for Cruisers to them and adding a secondary bombardment mode could also be introduced since UEF has 6, Cybran has 3 but I think only 2 should be used and the 3rd left for the nuke since 1 cybran missile splits 2 cybran missiles equal 8 and the damage is equivalent, Aoen has 4 missile silos +1 different looking silo for the nuke.

T3 Missile ships
Could have shorter ranged homing missiles for navy vessels to once more bring TMD on navy ships into play.

Suggested range for homing missiles: 120 range, 2x3 missiles, 100dps
As a contrast bombardment missile range is 200 (2x5 missiles)

Mobile factories
Carriers should get mobile factories to make them more than a buffed cruiser.

Atlantis
Future Battlefield pack has a version of it in which the Sams come out like seen in the original trailer but the Atlantis in that mod looks different. I believe we can do that too with the right people.

Reverting one change from the last patch
Cybran frigate range back to 28

Other recommendations to enhance gameplay further:

Torpedo bombers
HP from 720 down to 480 or 560

Advantages:
*Inities become more effective and hover flak miss them since they were changed much more than before.

Fix Sera and Aoen overshoot

Advantages:
*Sera and Aoen bombers cannot dive into a UEF shield boat and get 1 of their torpedos dropping inside the shield while UEF and Cybran can. Fixing their overshoot also fixes this issue.

Nuke subs&Nuke launchers
Nuke launchers to max range of 700 indirectly enhance Nuke subs and Sera battleships utility.

What I would need help with to implement this if desired:

1. The active sonar lua coding and optics.

2. Making Auto-Toggle as seen on Cybran cruiser work on UEF cruiser and on Aoen missileship.

3. Vision changing when submerging/emerging subs.

4. UEF Nuke subs script fixing or Lod file fixing in blender. Hatches open weirdly.

5. Lod file on Atlantis to have sams extend like in the Future Battlefield Pack without changing the entire look.

6. I took me ages even with some much needed help to get the UEF cruiser’s hatches and firing sequence to work properly many years ago, but I will need to do the same kind of script work around for the UEF destroyer it seems - someone with good lua knowledge will certainly spot how to translate it from one to the other.

7. Stopping the smoke on UEF cruisers when you cancel the firing cycle is something that would round it off even more.

The remaining changes I believe I can do myself.

It would be far easiest if modded games were grouped together and had say an orange font to differentiate them, but the choice was made to make it so you can just hide them because the people who asked for and implemented it that way decided that is what they wanted. Many survivals are heavily modded and get played because for survival that's ok I guess but a meaningful number of people hide them because they want to only play rated PvP games and unrated games they don't take serious. Those games lack that risk reward element. It is not really about it being a modded game because lets be honest, FAF is a mod of SC:FA. Me personally I cannot understand people who say they only play regular FAF when FAF is modified every few months and lacks both consistency and definitive form to meet the definition of regular but people throw out words that sound good even though they clearly have no idea that they are contradicting themselves in what they say.
Anyway, the key problem is that the Balance Team's Game Team's combined mod has taken over the role of the base game. It doesn't even matter that they do not share the same view of what the game should be like. So there is no static dataset considered a real base game. A base game would be a fully functional unaltered set of data that every mod would use to not break each other, but the balance and game team have decided that their mod is the only mod that matters so when they change their mod, they affect all other mods. So the main issue with making mods ranked is that whenever a patch is released, the changes in those patches can alter/break the mod which would make players of that mod unhappy plus gives the modder extra unwanted work to do. I believe if mods were ranked and the base game they modify was stable, then that would improve competition but I just do not see that happening since the base game has been monopolized killing off any competition that could make the game better in preference of one size fits all and "we don't care if you like it or not, we know better".
A common misconception by the malthusians is that mods fragment the community but that is so untrue, they add a lot of diversity to a game and in a free market of ideas the best ideas would trump the lesser ideas and that is what improves a product. If we just think back to Equilibrium, the running gag was sort of "First fixed/seen in Equilibrium". A number of my ideas in the past were taken without asking me or people presented my ideas as their own, or maybe they really just had the same idea after I published them, but they did got into FAF. The issue though is that a lot of people who make mods and have innovative ideas and skills relevant to the task at hand are ignored for the leadership roles because skills such as fast clicking speeds, memorizing build orders on maps are preferred because of the much higher ratings that are associated with those skills.
I can imagine that you are thinking, if they didn't like the mercy change they can just make a mod called Mercy useful again but would that not lead to games having 12 mods eventually just to undo the nonsensical changes over the years.
Anyway, there is a long way to go for what you are trying to achieve and no will among those who have the final say to do it. I personally would like if people played the Superior FAF Experience but people who have never played it have opinions about how shit it is and then make claims that are completely untrue because again, they have not tested the product but are experts on it. Yet when someone sees something they like in it, they don't want to play it, instead they say, lets take this for ourselves.
*Another thing, the replay vault does not even say if it a game was modded or not...

I watched the Sanctuary video that was released today and from my past of having run a mod what always bothered me was when the balance team out of the blue decided to add some feature that then would be merged into my mod because they are editing the base game (victim talk I know).
Also this has affected all the other great mods that were created in the past such as BlackOps, Mayhem, etc.
So since the Sanctuary guys were talking about having a base game with base settings that isn't being touched and them having the official version of the units settings as a mod, it got me thinking and I concluded that sounds like a much better implementation that we should have too on FAF.
It is the best way to protected any contributors' work who is not creating content as part of the official FAF Teams but is creating alternative content independently.

@blodir said in Make SAMs weaker vs gunships and strats, but stronger vs ASF:

In order to satisfy moderation:

Some Sort of Ethos: I've played the game since 2013 and been one of the top rated players ever since. Yay!
Identify a Problem: SAMs disproportionally strong vs air to ground compared to ASF. SAMs make air outside of exps almost completely useless, but it's difficult to nerf them since they are already so weak vs ASF.
Showcase the Problem: Pick an abitrary teamgame of length >30min
Find a Solution: Make SAMs weaker vs gunships and strats, but stronger vs ASF
Justify the Solution: SAMs can be nerfed now and you can do more stuff with air to ground as a consequence

The issue why Sams are OP vs Gunships and to a lesser extent Strats but suck vs ASF is that Sams have AOE and Gunships move in clustered up together tight formation, strats are less clustered but still to some extent. Even if it doesnt look tight it is a tight formation, the different between 0 AOE and 0.1 AOE is that it is going to hit others Gunships that are far from the one being hit. ASF do not have this issue to the extent Gunships and strats have because the mass density of the area affected by the AOE of the Sam does not hit as many ASF in terms of resource value. Consequently Gunships have +/-6k HP, strats +/-4k HP to make up for the splash damage despite strats costing almost 2x what Gunships cost and having less DPS than Gunships.
The only way to achieve what you want is to increase DPS on Sams and their remove AOE. At the same time you would have to change ASF HP and DPS and the same on Gunships and Strats etc.
The following quote by you is not a solution, it is a wishlist with no clear way of how to achieve it.

Find a Solution: Make SAMs weaker vs gunships and strats, but stronger vs ASF

Well suffice it to say, it would require a more extensive rework of several unit settings to achieve your goal. Not impossible at all, I could certainly write up something workable that would achieve the aim but my opinion doesn't matter to the decision makers so, I guess we let them figure how whether to give Strats 5 or 6k HP and Gunships 10 or 12k HP and make Sams do 500 or 600 DPS...

Please create a proper (default) version in the list of available options when creating a game. It doesn't even matter if it is the steam version or some older version from a few years back. All it has to be is stable. Modders can always add in new stuff from FAF's patches if they want it in their mods or host in the currently named FAF(default) mod version if they want all the features and files to be automatically applied.
Reason:
Every time the game team (mostly) is modding around with FAF(default) it always risks to break every other sim mod. This creates a lot of work for modders who do not want the extra work especially when extensive patches like the recent one are released. They add new files that were never there before and automatically merge into mods. These files cannot be anticipated and are not coded in a way that will prevent them from becoming activate in mods where they are not intended to have an influence.
An unknown amount of mods have stopped working (f.ex. Equilibrium to name a more extensive body of work) because the authors no longer update them. FAF will keep losing valuable content as long as there is no stable version for mods.

@jip said in Mex ringing shortcut:

Can we have an option so that you have to hold Ctrl or Alt or some other button of choice?
Whenever you tell a handful of engies to go assist an upgrading mex and find another bunch of engies and want to give them to order to also assist that same upgrading mex, the game recognizes 2,3,4 assist commands on the mex and automatically assumes you want to ring it, that can get really annoying when t2 engies start t2 mass fabs while you have no storages building yet.

My understanding is that you are creating kind of a lighthouse-like rotating vision feature. I think you have proven it is doable I just am not that enthusiastic about it and don’t see how it’s fits supcom. It’s something I am familiar with from commandos or the men of war series where eye sight focus makes a lot of sense. Maybe others like it though so just giving my opinion, not discouraging you in anyway. I am just thinking people will say it’s great because your implementation is flawless but then they will complain that their unit’s vision was off while their opponent's vision was on their unit at a key point and that would be contrary to the skill expression dogma…
Anyway the sonar idea you outlined I thought was really valuable.
I also have some ideas I was thinking about implementing that would be great but it’s like asking people who live in a circular loop to try something outside their perception. Lots of people just don’t care what you do until it’s in fashion.

@blackyps Maybe the way I said it did not come across correctly. I have tried reading the documents related to FAF by Balthazar, I do not understand it all, and probably it is not covering everything either relevant to the conversation. I have even read other stuff related to lua coding just to manage to do up my skills enough to do the things I have done myself in my mod. However, I cannot dedicate years of learning coding full time to become savvy on all the matters relevant to the topic at hand. I did my masters in business management, not IT management or computer sciences. Besides, there are so many files relating to the game and how it is structured in those files is not so easy to oversee.
You can believe me when I say I have done a big effort to learn as much as I did already and I believe my accomplishments speak for themselves on this matter.

@brutus5000 If you re-read with an open mind you will notice I am not saying the game team is hostile. What I am saying is FAF as an organization or more as a platform is setup in a hostile manner the way things are implemented. The point though is that you are right, it was never envisaged to be setup with what I am asking for in mind. You said it was this way forever which means no one prior had ever brought this up in public discourse so it was presumed to be a non-issue but now the topic is on the table. I have asked what FAF's official statement is, Jip gave his opinion but didn't say he was speaking for FAF, so there is still no answer on this question.

I don't think I am being hostile, I am complaining and have read enough conversations here on the forum and discord to justify my impressions based on those observations. There is opinion and fact. I think I navigate in a fair way between the two and am clear when it is in fact an opinion or a fact. I can understand you do not like some of my opinions because you take it personally, but my criticisms do not target you personally. I try to understand your arguments but at the same time, I think certain elements can be split between the base version and a mod on top. You said it would be difficult to do, ok, maybe we are both right maybe I am wrong. How would anyone know? So many things that were considered impossible and tossed aside years ago have been overcome with the right people showing up. Maybe one day such a person will take charge of the balance team too and those top level players will stop leaving and more will be excited by the game that is a 30 minute U-shape of excitement, time will tell...

@resin_smoker So you would fire say 360 projectiles out in all directions with a sonar radius of say 5-10 to do this?
So if the water is very deep, the sonar radius would have to be wide enough (at least vertically) like a 0 to detect ACUs on the seabed which I believe you have demonstrated is possible.
I really like that you are thinking about projectiles not going through land, that way maps with many smaller islands or channels make subs less easily visible to T3 sonar adding depth to the game.

@resin_smoker said in Messing around with unit intel and whats possible:

@evildrew already have.. I can use dummy projectiles with a sonar intel that gets bigger the further away it travels from the emitting unit / sub.

Subs would only ping every so often, allowing them to see what they were facing at the time the ping (dummy proj) was created. If the projectile impacts land, it stops / is destroyed. (Sonar can not see past a land obstacle) Otherwise, the projectile would travel a fixed distance and then disappear on its own. After a short cooldown, the sub would again ping, repeating the process on its current heading.

Structures would be able to ping in multiple directions at once, but as they've not mobile, poor placement would limit its view. (Placed too close to land)

Is there a youtube video of this or where can I see this?

If you find something to alter sonar so that sonar emits a pulse, that would be really cool.

@jip This is not personal, I respect you and many of the FAF people, I will say not all though. It is just an observation based on actions whether intentional or not and the only word that comes to mind to describe it is in fact hostile or lets say unfriendly if that's less pejorative, after all we are on the list of unfriendly countries in Russia's eyes.
My understanding is every time the game team f.ex. adds a new function like the 'display of how long it takes to capture an enemy unit' f.ex. I would have to change the file affected if I merge it or hook it in the correct way. Every time you add a new file for a new function I have to add an empty one to prevent it from passively hooking into the mod.
You cannot deny that it is impossible for anyone to anticipate new files affecting their mod and FAF does not implement a structure that would make modders have the option to use a setting that prevents additional files from slipping in (if I am wrong then please do correct me). Maybe I am not describing this well but since you have to import a bunch of files into unit scripts to access functions f.ex., why is it not that there is a file called XYZ that says "this version only uses this list of files" and FAF teams could add to this list and modders could have their own list to prevent it.

It is correct that you did help me, and I wish I could have helped you more than I did in return but it was not meant to be. I think though you do understand why I can not be part of FAF as explained privately long ago and the reasons are still the same.

If you want to get the word out about this licensing thing, make a pinned post in the modding & tools section explaining what exactly it entails. I doubt hardly anyone is going to read through this thread and find that crucial information hidden in post 9.

Also the only video to follow along how to mod stuff is this one which does not really explain much especially in regards to more advanced mods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYfb_XhH25s
I know there are some documents to read through but reading those just takes too long and it's also inferior to seeing it actually be done with your own eyes.

Well the way I see it, almost no one ever plays fafbeta so I have to assume the wider community does not support or at the very least does not really care about what the balance team is working on. I cannot understand why FAF has allowed it to be this way for this long when their mod only panders to maybe 50 people at most. The way it is implemented creates a monopoly and I do not feel the need to have to link to posts of people whining about why the more competent echelon of the player base has disappeared while only casual players with no ambition to improve remains as a means to justify that just about the only people who still play do not notice how bad it is or are responsible for the deterioration.
Forged alliance still has the best fundamentals for any RTS platform out there and one would think with several key improvements that were made over the years FAF would have become better and attract more players but there are just so many things that were changed for the worse and so much crap that has been added that more than offsets the value of the improvements made.
It's like some of the FAF teams want FAF to fail so they can escape the burden of their responsibilities and not making their failure and the damage they caused apparent to everyone by denying anyone else to bring FAF back from the demise it is currently in according to their own words while throwing up smoke screens about irrelevant causes for player churn like name changes...
Anyway my conclusion then is that FAF's main mod could be layered on top of a default version like phantom is and while the default version might have to change for API or other technical reasons it is possible to have key folders for mods such as the projectiles, units, and others be unaffected by what the FAF teams want to modify.
Further. as it is "tolerated" being this way, I can only interpret it as a hostile stance towards any contributors who have their own ideas and do not want to give up their vision by having to be part of their amalgamated mod.

@arma473 Not talking about special prominence, attention or publicity... You are missing the point of the discussion.

Well since you brought it up, I really want to know then if it is also FAF's official stance that featured mods take precedence. If so then I'll have nothing more to add.