@FtXCommando Please for the love of FAF, include mapgen

Aeon sucks. Here's why:

1. The Aurora is hot garbage because of the paper armor and slow speed. It's the only T1 tank which dies en-masse to single bomber and medusa hits. The Medusa is faster, longer ranged, and costs only 36 mass but one shot can obliterate 4+ Aurora costing 52 mass apiece. This wouldn't be so bad if bombers didn't mass-OHKO them too. Did I mention they also always miss their first shot? And high alpha is supposed to be one of their advantages...
2. The fervor sucks. Only advantage is best raw DPS against structures, which is a poor trade off for being completely useless against units.
3. The beacon (T1 frigate) sucks. It's the most expensive, can't use full DPS forwards, has no AA, and has very low HP. Only advantage is modest anti torpedo.
4. The shard (T1 AA boat) sucks. Despite being a dedicated AA boat, it's AA is worse than Cybran Frigate AA. I've watched this miss literally every shot against T2 torp bombers. It's useless.
5. The simmer (T1 bomber) sucks. It has the lowest damage of all T1 bombers. 4 bombs are required to kill a UEF T1 pgen or mex. UEF bomber only takes 2 passes to kill an Aeon T1 pgen or mex.

Now onto other tiers:
6) The T2 transport sucks. Lowest carrying capacity of all T2 transports. Can only carry two T3 units.
7) The T3 bomber sucks. Trades enormous AOE nerf for minuscule damage buff. As a result, it's no better against structures than Cybran T3 bomber but far, far worse against units and ACUs. Also, Aeon T3 bomber lacks a secondary weapon.
The T2 shield generator sucks. Expensive but with a tiny area of effect. Can barely cover a T2 pgen next to it. Very hard to cover nearby mex with it. Can't be upgraded, either.

Okay here's how we can fix it:

1. Aurora needs a bit more armor. 140 --> 155 should do it. It'll survive a medusa shot or 3/6 cybran T1 bombs hitting it. Medusa needs a nerf, too, because it's OP as hell.
2. Fervor is probably fine as long as Medusa is nerfed.
3. Beacon should get a small HP buff (1850--> 2000) and anti-torp buff, paired with a small buff to Aeon T1 subs.
4. Shard should have muzzle velocity increase so it can actually hit stuff.
5. Shimmer bomb should track and/or have 2 second stun against T1/T2 units. Lower damage is fine if it's a guaranteed hit against T1.
6. Some advantage, such as perhaps being faster, should be given to T2 transport.
7. T3 bomber shot should track so it doesnt miss.
8. Shield gen should have greater range and/or reduced cost (480 mass --> 360 mass)

You should make a rule prohibiting this sort of ad hominem nonsense that makes no attempt to address the information provided.
"I'm assuming OP just lost a game and is mad because he thinks he lost to the balance."

With the new patch on the 19th of November and the (much needed) buff to T3 mobile AA, I think we now have a good opportunity to differentiate SAMs and T3 mobile AA.

First, some history. Obviously, T3 mobile AA was not in the developer version of FAF, but it was added because it was needed. The first iteration of T3 mobile AA was minimalist in order to not change balance very much: It was essentially an exact copy of the SAM, just mobile. However, obviously that was underpowered, so it was eventually buffed.

Now, T3 mobile AA is a low-cost deterrent to T3 bombers and gunships, and a minor threat to passing ASFs and scouts. This is a great spot for T3 mobile AA. Now what about SAMs?

SAMs should be heavy anti-air. I'm proposing an increase in cost by 100% (800 mass/8k Energy --> 1600 mass/16k Energy) paired with an increase in damage (+100%), a decrease in rate of fire (~40% decrease) and an increase in maximum range (+50%), and a minimum range (of maybe 30 units). (UEF SAM example: 200 damage --> 400 damage. Range: 0-60 --> 30-90. Firecycle: 6x1/0.1 sec + 3.1 sec reload = 3.6 total --> 6x1/0.1 sec + 6.6 sec reload = 7.1 sec total.)

With these changes, SAMs will be significantly distinguished from T3 mobile AA, with T3 mobile AA being clearly better sometimes, particularly against masses of T1 and T2 air units and in the early T3 air stage. Also, SAMs that are built alone or closely together will be vulnerable to T2 gunship and will need mobile T3 mobile AA or flak to cover them up close. Also, this will buff SAMs against T3 air, mainly enabling them to One-Shot ASF, and improving performance against experimental air units.

Thoughts?

It's just so much fun. Makes me want to neglect my other responsibilities just to play.

Side note, is there anybody still working on the map gen? It sometimes produces buggy maps, but overall the quality is very high.

See subject. There's little point in putting in a lot of effort into making a new balance thread (see guidlines) unless it's something the balance team actually cares about. It would be nice to see the new balance councilor post some thoughts of his about current balance and areas he might try to improve.

I think the comparison images are unfair because the second image has way more units/structures which obscure the terrain.

That said, I think I like the mapgen version better. The contour lines on the GPG map are more clear, but elevation isn't important to know. I think the mapgen version makes it more clear which areas are passable by land and which are not, and obviously higher areas are lighter. This is much better.

T2 Mobile Missile Launchers (MMLs) for all factions are terrible. This is bad for gameplay as it makes the most interesting tech level (T2) also the worst for turtling. MMLs should therefore be greatly improved.

First, let's note that MMLs fill a similar role in Tech 2 that T1 mobile artillery fills in Tech 1 and then state clearly why MMLs are so awful:

• For Cybran, T2 MML DPS/cost ratio is much worse: ~1 versus about ~0.3. By contrast, for Cybran T1 bot and T2 tank, DPS/cost is ~0.5 and ~0.3, indicating a reduction of only 40% raw paper strength from T2 to T1. This would suggest that MML raw damage should be doubled so that T2 to improve DPS/cost to ~0.6, a reduction of ~40% from the ~1 DPS/cost ratio for T1 artillery.
• T2 TMD and mobile/stationary shields block MML shots. The previous bullet suggests that MML are underpowered even in absence of missile defense and shields. Missile defense and shields serve to aggravate this problem further.
• T2 MML shot linger time - the time between a missile being launched and a missile hitting the target at maximum range - varied from about 6 seconds (for Seraphim) and 12 seconds (for Aeon). Compare this to T1 artillery shells which linger for about 8 seconds.
• T2 MML damage radius is very small at 1. T1 artillery (other than Aeon) damages in a radius of 2-3.

Now let's talk how to fix these problems:

• Low DPS can be fixed by improving raw damage. Raw paper DPS suggests a 100% damage buff is necessary. Analysis of damage radius and shot linger time suggests another 50-100% beyond that would also be warranted. Also, there's no reason why MMLs shouldn't one-shot T1 pgens. The Aeon MML can 1-shot Cybran and Aeon pgens, but all MMLs should get a buff so that the Seraphim MML (405 damage) can one-shot even UEF T1 pgens (720 hp), so perhaps 810 damage total.
• The T2 shield/TMD combination renders a fire-base all but immune to MMLs. Due consideration should be given to the idea of missiles passing through shields (similar to how strategic missiles do) although this may not be needed if DPS is improved substantially.
• MML linger time cannot be set directly because it is a product of the missile's performance values (muzzle velocity, acceleration, maximum speed) and it's guidance script, but effort should be made to reduce UEF/Aeon MML shot linger time to <9 seconds, reliably. Also, UEF is the only MML with an unpack animation, this unpack should be made faster to improve the MML's responsiveness.
• If MML raw damage is only doubled, improving damage radius from 1-->2 would make sense. If MML damage is improved by a factor or 2.5x or 3.0x, more damage radius is not necessary.

Additional notes:

• It has recently been stated that TMLs are OP. I disagree generally. They only seem OP because they are so much better than MMLs that they are used to siege much more often. If MMLs are made to be good, TMLs versus MMLs will feel like a real choice rather than obvious selection of the superior siege weapon (TMLs currently).
• Adding a minimum range to MMLs to give tanks some breathing room would make sense. Perhaps 10-15, perhaps as high as 20.

@speed2 Yes. I made the first several Forged Alliance mods and implementations of the reinforcement script. (If it's coded poorly, that's because I'm not a programmer )

T1 subs from all factions are terrible. We should fix them.

First, let's state plainly why T1 subs are so bad:

• T1 subs are expensive at 360 mass apiece. Cybran's T1 sub is 40% more expensive than it's frigate.
• T1 subs are fragile at only ~550 hp. T1 subs die in one hit from torpedo bombers and are utterly obliterated by T2 destroyers and torpedo boats.
• T1 subs do so little damage that they are ineffective against even targets that cannot shoot back. (Cybran T1 sub torpedo DPS is 38 compared to Cybran frigate surface DPS being 64. This is 40% less DPS for 30% higher mass cost. A Cybran frigate can kill an enemy ship faster than a T1 Cybran sub can, and also it is cheaper, has AA guns, and has radar.)
• T1 subs are virtually the same for all factions. Some faction diversity would be nice.

Let's buff T1 subs to address these issues:

• T1 sub cost should be reduced to about 300 mass, a reduction of about 15%.
• T1 subs should have their sonar completely removed to make them harder to detect by enemy subs at the T1 and early T2 stages. (This leaves Air scouts, T1 sonar, and T2 cruisers the best ways to find them. ) Vision should be reduced from 32 (same as torpedo range) to 25. (This allows a modest defender's advantage in sub-against sub T1 battles when T1 sonar is used to spot enemy subs, or an attacker's advantage if T1 air scout or suicide frigate is used to spot enemy subs.)
• T1 sub DPS should be modestly improved (10%) and more front-loaded. Aeon T1 sub fires one salvo for 150 damage every 4 seconds. It takes 4 salvos (12 seconds) to kill an enemy sub or 13 salvos (48 seconds) to kill a Cybran frigate. (4 subs working together take 12 seconds.) Damage for all subs should instead be 250 damage every 6 seconds. With this, it takes 3 salvos (12 seconds) to kill a sub or 8 salvos (42 seconds) to kill a Cybran frigate. (4 subs working together would take 6 seconds to sink the frigate.)
• T1 subs should also be modestly differentiated based on faction. Ideas follow: Aeon gets the cheapest T1 sub (-10% cost. 270 mass) due to most expensive frigate and no deck gun. UEF has toughest T1 sub and now is the only one which takes 4 salvos from another T1 sub (if the aforementioned damage/ROF change is made). Cybran T1 sub should cost more (+10% cost, 330 mass) due to cheapest frigate, but retain the sonar. Seraphim T1 sub should stay the same. (Increased damage per torpedo and reduced fire rate constitutes a modest buff to the Sera sub's torpedo defense and incentivizes hit and run attacks.)

With these changes, T1 navy should be more balanced and less focused on T1 frigate spam, but not fundamentally changed.

Mex (and radars) shouldn't be upgradable until after an HQ of that level is obtained.

To clarify, I don't actually agree that this change is a good idea, but it's fun to think about. It would certainly make eco whoring harder if construction of a T2 mex required a T2 land (or air or navy) HQ and T3 mex required a T3 land (or air or navy) HQ.

If you really think about it, it's kind of silly that only mex (and radars) can be produced at one tech level before the fixed cost of that tech level is paid somewhere. T3 Air was actually balanced this way. Functionally, any T3 air production requires that a T3 pgen be constructed first. Therefore, on top of the T3 Air HQ, one also must invest in an expensive T3 pgen before T3 air can be used.

In addition to the tech balance, the same power balance can be applied. Currently, a T2 mex required about 60 energy income to upgrade, and a T3 mex takes I think like 400 (unassisted) If the tech nerf isn't enough, mex upgrade power consumption/cost can be nerfed to something requiring a higher tech pgen before upgrades are really feasible. A t1 mex upgrading to T2 could take 300 (500 - 300 = 200 left for other things), and a T2 mex upgrading to T3 could take 2000.

But these are just fun ideas. I know the balance team will never approve.

(*And of course the engineering suite upgrade on the ACU or an SCU on field would also count as the 'HQ' that allows T2/T3 mex and radars to be constructed.)

These look fantastic. How did you make them? What printer did you use? What is your cost per unit? Could you make more? Are you willing to sell them?

Originally in Supcom, T1 transport could carry ACUs. This was only removed because it was too easy to draw somebody by comm bombing them. (This was way back when ACU death nukes did a full 70k damage against all targets, including other ACUs.)

Given that the nuke problem has otherwise been avoided, we should undo this pointless change. Simplify transport logic and let T1 transports carry ACUs.

@sinforosa You're just jealous you didn't have this brilliant idea first.

Back in the early days of Supreme Commander, the only differences among the unupgraded ACU were damage and health. UEF ACU had the high hp but lowest gun damage at 12000 hp and 100 damage. Cybran reversed this with 120 damage but only 10,000 hp. Aeon was in the middle with 110 and 11,000.

I propose ACU balance be reverted to this. Mainly because the Cybran acu regen is a little OP and tbe Aeon acu (before upgrades) is a bit UP. My idea would therefore set Uef/Sera/Aeon/Cybran hp/damage to 12k/100, 11.5k/105, 11k/110, and 10k/120, all with 10 regen. (But if you wanted even more balance, set regen to 12/11.5/11/10 to make time to regen from 0 to 100 percent hp be a uniform 1k seconds for all ACUs.)

Replay not attached because this is a small thing. nbd

Generally speaking, everybody likes the rating system and the game quality indicator as defined by people preferring to keep it or change it than simply play without it. It's not perfect, but it is good. One of the weaknesses of the game quality indicator is that it seems to underweight teams with a large rating difference. For example in 2v2 TMM, a 500 and a 1500 will generally lose against two 1000s significantly more often than the other way around. I propose a novel solution to this problem and a general issue to team balancing: Handicaps and bonuses.

Let's assume that the game intends to balance everybody to 1,000 rating. Players below a rating would be assigned an in-game bonus (perhaps +build speed and +resource generation) to bring them up to the same strength as a 1,000 rating player. Likewise, players rated over 1,000 rating would have a similar penalty to make them about as capable as a 1,000 rating.

This would solve two problems:
1- All games with equal numbers of players on each team would be balanced because, with handicaps/bonuses applied, all players would be approximately equal strength (~1,000 rating).
2- By removing the game quality indicator, the aforementioned issue with high rating differences between same-team players causing the game quality indicator to be inaccurate would be removed.

Here is a suggestion of specific mechanics for the balance/handicap:

• Possible target rating (raise/lower all players to this rating): 1,000
• Possible bonus attribute: Build speed and energy/mass production for all units
• Possible bonus degree: 5% per 100 rating, multiplicative.
• Possible effect of win/loss on rating: Same as before

Example 1v1 match under handicap system: 800 player fights a 2000 player. 800 player receives (1.05)^2 multiplier (1.1025)bonus to all mass and energy production and all build power. The 200 receives a (0.95)^10 multiplier (0.59874) penalty to all mass and energy production and all build power.

Potential downsides to a handicap system:

• May not be suitable for tournament environments
• May disrupt gameplay intuition (8 minutes may be a standard high-skill strat bomber on Setons. A handicap in build time could lower this time.)

Potential alternative handicaps aside from build time/resource generation:

• Health and damage bonuses/penalties
• Vision and radar bonuses/penalties
• Deflection chance (For every hit received, 1 in X chance it does no damage.)
• Starting with pre-built bases

In closing, I encourage people to consider the idea in the above idea not as a replacement for game quality indicator, but as an alternative option that hosts may select in custom games or may be used in TMM.

Looking at the new balance changes to wrecks, I think the balance team might like an idea I've had for awhile.

Essentially, wreck value is too high and wreck hp is too low. Generally, in t1 land battles, most wrecks are destroyed by T1 artillery firing and damaging them when attempting to shoot nearby units. This results in only a tiny proportion of wrecks being reclaimed.
However, this also means the individual varation is quite high. In some battles, you'll get lucky and have most of the reclaim, but in others there won't be any left at all.

Amusingly, this has always been why naval wrecks were OP: They sink to the bottom of the ocean where stray bullets cannot damage them, so that mass is never simply destroyed.

The solution to this is obvious: buff wreck hp and nerf wreck value.

I think, on average, wrecks spawn with twice as much hp as the unit had when it was alive. Increasing this to 5x or 10x will greatly reduce how much wrecks are destroyed by incidental fire (and make it harder to kill them on purpose). Obviously, this should be paired with a reduction in default wreck value from 81 percent to maybe 30 or 40 percent, as more wrecks will survive longer.

And of course, nerfs to wreck value can change the calculation of rebuild value, and how some maps with many wrecks are played.

@veteranashe If I were a programmer, I would have known to say that.

I agree with the Mercy being a stun weapon. That's a cool idea.

Alternatively, maybe it could just do incredible damage, like 30,000, but only against shields. Similar to the rarely used t3 hover unit.

I wonder if there's a way to compensate for increased game difficulty and higher average player skill. (Trust me, faf is tougher to play and people are better at it now versus 10 years ago)