@arma473

Teleport doesn't need a nerf, you just need to build t1 pd on your SMD and layer your shields properly.

You need 2-3 SACU just to attempt a tele-snipe on an SMD and that alone is a 50k + investment on Sera only. Aeon would need 4 SACU.

Removing the ability to convert or upgrade SACU and having only certain presets, is restrictive and doesn't add to gameplay, it only reduces it.

If you want different movespeed then incorporate it into certain upgrades, and if you want to avoid OP stuff, then shove upgrades into the same compartment so they can't be upgraded together.

@Kweef_Chief_Noob If you're sacu are sitting in your base, reclaim doesn't matter, because if you manage to be in a position to kill several SACU in the enemy main base you've already won the game.

Increasing mass cost of SACU would also nerf them into oblivion.

A straight 10 mass 1000 power is better. As it is, RAS Sacu are horribly inefficient compared to fabs.

@Resistance On the maps where RAS sacu were a problem, you could just build t3 fabs at back of your base with sufficient sam coverage and gaps/shielding that bombers are not effective. The only difference is that eventually you will run out of space for fabs, but then if you're going over 500 income you're wasting your time anyway.

What's the point of having access to T3 technology if that engineer takes 3 years to build a unit.

Literally we're just promoting stale Hive gameplay where you sit at one point in your base and build 50 hives and make a game ender. This will kill any sort of proxy T4 gameplay that you get in team maps where naval /water is near the enemy base.

The reason engineering suite doesn't get upgraded is because HP etc are more important for most SACU, rather than an extra bit of BP.

I fear that all of the above will just increase the problems that changes are meant to be resolving. But I guess this is all yet to be seen once this is released as the new version so that a significant portion of games are playing on that balance patch.

@Freedom_ All that proves is that your opponent was incapable of bombing you with the 6k mass advantage, and that they'd rather run random t2 units into your com on a mass feeding frenzy.

For reference 6k mass in bombers will get you 16k dmg each pass.

@Deribus Usually when using Yotha in a land fight rather than as a suicide unit, I would either have it at the very front and supported by sniper bots or, at the back heavily shielded.

When Yotha is going to die you should push it to front as much as possible as close to enemy units as possible, and then in the space it creates you can fire with your sniper bots without enemy being able to come into range.

Sera have the strongest mobile shields by a mile, so absolutely dominate the range t3 game, so Yotha is a good space maker for sera range units like sniper bots or mobile artillery.

Seraphim have the strongest land units in the game, and the only faction that comes close is cybran because of megalith spam, but the critical mass of megalith required is unrealistic in a normal game.

This is all kind of irrelevant though, since you will never see huge t3 armies in a normal game, because its so much easier to defend than it is to attack, and game enders are so cheap, that the viability of large land armies quickly diminishes.

@advena Wagner basically is everything the t2 floaties are but worse, and missing the ability to properly damage navy. Blazes are much better at raiding than a wagner.

The stealth is pretty irrelevant.

@techmind_ If its 2gC v 2 Yotha, the yotha walk into the gc and damage the GC more than the ally Yotha. Its not rocket science.

@ThomasHiatt that would make Yotha overpowered. You can imagine you barely reach enemy base and it blows up, now irrelevant of that fact their whole base explodes because the death effect is now a shield avoiding nuke.

@techmind_

When am I ever going to be in a game where you have spent 300k mass on GC?

I think at that point you could have just built a Yolona then 1 shot them all.

Anyway, you bring up several points in your post that are some what disjointed.

As to ahwassa:

Ahwassa is also a very good counter. If enemy is building 10 GC then you would outrageously win air. You could get by on 2 Ahwassa. Although for killing single targets its more efficient just to use normal bombers.

As to the TLDR

Now you've changed from 10GC to 3 GC and 12k in ASF. if that was the case then you could coutner 3 GC with 15k ASF and the other 56k in bombers. For reference you get 250 dmg a pass on t1 bomber which is roughly 2.7 dmg per mass. So for 56K mass you get about 150k frontload damage. Meaning you would kill 1.5GC per pass. So you can kill 3 GC in 2 passes, this would be 620 or so t1 bombers. Or you could use 100 Notha which is roughly 40k mass. Or 30 Sintha which is about 60k mass.

I mean at this point you could also just kill the GC with a t3 mix of sniper bots and shield bots. Or you could use OC Sacu. There's lots of choices for Seraphim.

Spamming all mass on only GC is very dumb, and you won't ever see that in a game, you will see mixed armies, such as GC with mobile shields, flacks, and some sniper bots, or Harbs.

As it currently stands a Yotha can already kill 2 GC with some support of T3 mobile shields. And Yotha is much better than a GC at killing t3 clumps. So this may inadvertantly cause Yotha based t3 armies to dominate at the earl T4 stage.

@Deribus none of those help in the Mid game (T2 stage)

Essentially for Cybran navy if enemy pushes you out at t2 stage you have no answer. Other factions can get by spamming enough random floaty balls that they can stall out, and sometimes even push back enough to get a fac up for frig spam which then buys time for t2.

Well IceDreamer the original game (vanilla) had far better balance in many key areas than FAF, but the game style is completely different so its very hard to compare. Balance choices for convenience caused more problems while also providing many solutions to problems vanilla had.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

I think Static AA is fine as is. Mobile AA is better at dealing with Air clumps, while Static is more generalist. Also you can build static AA anywhere with a T2 engineer. Mobile AA requires a T2 Land factory investment, and then either a secondary factory or transportation if you are on any map with island and not having the advtage of being a hover faction.

If a replay was posted for analysis it would probably show this.

I think in team games , specific faction balance is not so much of a problem, because of engi sharing, but is definitely an issue in say ladder where the pool is limited and you can end up with some very unfair matchups due to certain maps heavily favouring certain factions.

I think having t1 mma hover for Aeon would make them to strong as the big counter to aeon hover spam on island maps for Cybran/Uef is bombers until sufficient frigs are up.

Just make traitor / etc mods override the "give option" by employing the same logic as the "auto give" mod, but running first. I assume if you are hooking two mods on the same LUA portion, then one will override the other, or their will be some sequence in which is processed first?

Hell, you could also just create a hashtable that logs all units on construction and death, and player ownership and use that to get around it.

Shouldn't be an issue processing wise so long as you don't go around creating memory leaks.

@tatsu

I don't doubt the ability of our AI coders, what I doubt is the ability of any coder no matter how proficient to make an AI that is capable within the SC engine of coming even close to even a 1200 rated player.

AI is simply to bulky at the moment code wise and you either end up with an incredibly specific AI for a specific map, or an incredibly generalist AI, that is weak at everything and easily exploited.

All games face this problem. Which is why most strategy games give insane cheats to AI to offset their inefficiency/stupidity.

OpenAI - or Modern AI techniques avoid all of this, because they function on a stastitical model, which can become very accurate through reptition and therefore are uniquely situated in that they are self training, and not overly bulky when it comes to hogging processing power or requiring huge logic trees.

Thread clearly doesn't meet the guidelines. I suggest you go find my last Dual Gap game, where I built 100 Wagner, so you can go provide a replay of wagner being useless. I am currently unable to retrieve said replay ID.

Wagner have too low hp to safely cross any mildly sized naval army, and have terrible torps to boot. Stealth is laughable.

@JusticeForMantis Honestly, Aeon destroyers are super easy to micro, and failing to micro them is not punishing at all, as they have a relatively high fire rate compared to Bships.

Its total bull. Subs can literally do nothing against aeon destroyers.

Aeon destroyers can kill t3 Subhunters in a single volley, when yoiu have like 3 - 5 destroyers.

Seems fair?

I can understand Battleships, but really destroyers killing subs just pushes them to irrelevancy, maybe nerf some destroyers AOE?

There is no reason ever, to build that many Yotha.

I think adding such a feature will just cause more confusion and will give yotha a significant buff against other T4, and will promote poorer gameplay.