The current pre-release of the client ("pioneer" in the version) is only compatible to itself. So you can only play with other testers. Please be aware!

Subcategories

  • 357 Topics
    9k Posts
    N
    Game version 3822 (19th of May 2025) This patch summary will be focused on balance and gameplay changes. The full patchnotes can be found here. The hotfixes 3823 and 3824 are also included. If you wish to discuss changes with the balance team you can respond in this topic, make a topic on this forum, make a thread on the Discord balance suggestions forum, or discuss it in the Discord balance discussion channel. The balance team is open to new members, please see the membership page for the variety of ways you can contribute (it is not only high-level game knowledge!) and the application process. Summary: Balance: Land: Othuum Buff Aeon ACU Sensors Nerf Aeon Sniper Buff/Fix Navy: UEF Cooper and Valiant Buff Cybran Cruiser TMD Buff Solace Nerf/Buff/Fix Tempest retargeting Fix Other: Seraphim transports landing on plateaus Fix T3 artillery balance (relative to Aeon) Teleport minimum time Nerf TML and TMD Changes: Seraphim/UEF nerf, TMD Fix Minor gameplay changes: Mass fabricators can now use overflow Increased Paragon update rate; can OC using Paragon energy Air staging detaches aircraft on death. Transfer of units in factories Features: Decapitation Rated Victory Condition Disconnect Share Options Preparation Drawing Balance Changes The changes are focused on making units more viable or fixing a few long-standing issues. Land: (#6728) Improve Othuum's ranged capabilities and pathfinding so that it can better compete with higher range units, particularly Harbingers. Some DPS is shifted from the short ranged weapons to the long range weapon. The muzzle velocity is slightly reduced to encourage occasional dodging. To improve pathfinding the Othuums hitbox is made shorter, this reduces how often Othuums in larger formations bump into the rear of the Othuum in front of them. Othuum: T3 Siege Tank (XSL0303): Thau Cannon: Reload time: 4.0 -> 3.4 seconds (DPS 156 -> 184) Muzzle velocity: 40 -> 36 Aire-au Bolters (x2): Damage: 64 -> 57 (DPS 256 -> 228) Collision Size Z: 2.3 -> 2.0 Collision offset Z: 0 -> 0.2 (#6745) Reduce the Aeon ACU sensor upgrade's omni radius to make fire beetles a more viable option against Aeon, and to allow more counterplay for cloaked units in general. Aeon ACU (UAL0001) Sensor System: Omni radius: 80 -> 36 (#6771) Fix the Aeon sniper missing when walking towards/away from the target due to insufficient turret pitch speed to compensate the walk animation. Sprite Striker: T3 Sniper Bot (XAL0305) Turret pitch speed: 30 -> 50 Navy: (#6690) The UEF T2 navy stage has been rather weak with their destroyer often losing to other destroyers. To address this, the DPS, speed, and turn rate are increased at the cost of HP. The speed and turn rate should allow the destroyer to take better fights, and the increased damage with reduced HP should encourage more proactive usage while also making shield boats more synergistic. UEF Destroyer "Valiant" (UES0201): Max speed, acceleration, and braking: 5.0 -> 5.5 Turn rate: 50 -> 55 Gauss cannon damage: 275 -> 305 (DPS 275 -> 305) HP: 8000 -> 7200 (#6414) Adjust the Cooper's stats to compensate for previous changes to its hitbox, which allowed torpedoes to hit it more reliably. This also serves as an additional buff to the Cooper, as it was one of the primary reasons UEF navy underperformed. UEF naval gameplay now relies less on building as few Coopers as you can get away with, and overbuilding them is less punishing. The Cooper is made slightly larger to prevent it from becoming too effective against Exodus in the early Tech 2 naval stage. Its SonarRadius was smaller than its WaterVisionRadius, rendering this stat pointless, the sonar radius is increased so the Cooper can now spot other naval units more effectively. Cooper: T2 Torpedo Boat (XES0102): Angler Torpedo Reload Time: 3.3 seconds -> 3.2 seconds (DPS 97 -> 100) Economy Energy Cost: 6480 --> 6000 Mass Cost: 810 --> 750 Build Time: 3240 --> 3000 Intel Sonar Radius: 36 --> 72 Hitbox size: Size X (Width): 0.75 --> 0.8 Size Y (Height): 0.925 --> 1.0 Size Z (Length): 2.0 --> 2.2 (#6744) Cybran navy's missile deflector TMD has been underperforming. The buff enables it to defend against missile cruisers of other factions. Since deflectors ignore missile HP, they are given less fire rate and range than the gun TMD of UEF and Seraphim. Cybran cruiser (URS0202) and carrier (URS0303) Missile Deflectors: Reload time: 4/2.5 seconds -> 1.9 seconds Range: 20/26 -> 44 Max target height: 8/10 -> infinite (#6522, #6785) In #5725 the number of child projectiles for the Solace was accidentally increased from 2 to 3 resulting in massively increased total damage. This change is reversed only partially as the Solace was underused with the lower damage. In addition, the damage is now properly split from the main projectile to the child projectile, which comes into play when the main projectile falls on top of an enemy. Solace: T3 Torpedo Bomber (XAA0306): Damage per volley: 6000 -> 5000 Number of child projectiles per torpedo: 3 -> 2 Main projectile damage: 400 -> 1000 Child projectile damage: 400 -> 500 (#6790) The Aeon Tempest: Experimental Battleship (UAS0401) can now be retargeted while its cannon is charging without triggering a full 12.5 second reload. Other: (#6755) Fix seraphim t1 and t2 transports being unable to drop units on small plateaus. (#6481, #6482) Rebalance cost, damage, reload, and accuracy stats of T3 static artillery to make them more equal against heavily shielded targets. Costs are now spread evenly across 70-79k mass to fit the varied DPS amounts of different artilleries. Overall they're more expensive, aside from Cybran. Accuracy and DPS are adjusted so that artilleries have similar performance for their new costs against heavily shielded late-game targets. Damage is adjusted to even out performance against different T3 shields and give UEF some diversity from Seraphim. Aeon Emissary (UAB2302): Mass cost: 73200 -> 79000 (+7.9%) Energy cost: 1372500 -> 1481000 (+7.9%) Build time: 120000 -> 129500 (+7.9%) Firing Randomness: 0.35 DPS with 4 T3 pgens: 1000 UEF Duke (UEB2302): Mass cost: 72000 -> 76000 (+5.6%) Energy cost: 1350000 -> 1424000 (+5.5%) Build time: 115000 -> 121400 (+5.6%) Firing Randomness: 0.525 -> 0.467 DPS with 4 T3 pgens: 917 -> 980 (+6.9%) Damage: 5500 -> 7840 Base Reload: 10s -> 13.3s Seraphim Hovatham (XSB2302): Mass cost: 70800 -> 73000 (+3.1%) Energy cost: 1327500 -> 1369000 (+3.1%) Build time: 110000 -> 113400 (+3.1%) Firing Randomness: 0.675 -> 0.560 DPS with 4 T3 pgens: 833 -> 935 (+12.3%) Damage: 5000 -> 5800 Base Reload: 10s -> 10.4s Cybran Disruptor (URB2302): Mass cost: 69600 -> 70000 (+0.6%) Energy cost: 1305000 -> 1313000 (+0.6%) Build time: 105000 -> 105600 (+0.6%) Firing Randomness: 0.75 -> 0.646 DPS with 4 T3 pgens: 804 -> 844 (+5.0%) Damage: 3700 -> 3800 Base Reload: 7.7s -> 7.5s The DPS isn't increased as much as other artillery due to the large accuracy buff and the large splash. (#6623) While the introduction of variable teleport speeds and costs was an overall positive change for the balance of the game, shorter-ranged jumps have become too powerful as a result. The previous minimum teleport time was set at 15 seconds, which was quite short and did not allow much leeway for counterplay. The changes aims to remedy this issue without nerfing the mechanic excessively. The minimum teleport time and minimum energy usage are both increased, alongside the introduction of a new formula for the distance-based variable teleport time and energy usage calculations. All ACUs, as well as Aeon and Seraphim SACUs Personal Teleporter TeleportDelay: 15 --> 20 TeleportFlatEnergyCost: 75000 --> 100000 Introduce a new formula for teleport time and energy usage. The energy usage per second is similar to before, and the teleport time at longer ranges is also similar to before. (#6738) Various adjustments to TMLs and TMDs to improve their functionality and make it less likely that TML will fly over TMD without being shot down. Tactical Missile Launchers (TMLs) The hitboxes of all tactical missiles are increased slightly, to prevent TMDs from missing them by overshooting. Seraphim and UEF TMLs fly lower. The max speed of the Seraphim TML is reduced because it was too fast compared to other TMLs; for example, it was able to reach its target over 10s faster at longer ranges. Additionally, the terminal speed of the missile as it nears its target is also reduced, so that it serves as a more legitimate balancing factor. Nerf the Seraphim ACU TML's oppressive close range combat potential by reducing its speed. Tactical Missile Defenses (TMDs) Cybran and UEF TMDs no longer run out of beamlength/lifetime, which could previously cause their projectiles to expire before reaching their target. This change should also ensure compatibility with mods that introduce missiles flying at very high altitudes. Unify the MuzzleVelocity stats of all UEF TMDs. Remove unnecessary firing tolerance stats, which theoretically could have caused TMDs to miss. Minor gameplay changes: (#6660) Fix mass fabricators not always using overflowed energy. (#6671) Increase the rate at which the Paragon updates its resource production from every 5 ticks to every 1 tick. This makes the Paragon react faster to high drain, reducing how often resources stall, are overflowed, or completely missed. For example, the Paragon can now refill energy used by overcharge. (#6665, #6743) Air staging now detaches aircraft when killed or ctrl-k'd (to work around an engine bug where aircraft get stuck inside air staging). (#6784) When factories are shared after death or manually, the unbuilt unit inside is rebuilt in the transferred factory. Features: (#6667) Add a new ranked victory condition: Decapitation Unlike Assassination, you do not lose control of your Army when your ACU is destroyed. Instead, you remain in control of your army until all ACUs on your team are destroyed. This makes ACU snipes less impactful: while you lose a strong unit, you still get to keep playing. With thanks to Sheikah for the original Decapitation mod, and thanks to Phong for suggesting its integration on the forums and on Github. (#5971, #6802) Implement options for separate share conditions when a player disconnects and sharing ACUs when a player disconnects. Currently the feature is disabled so that there can be a discussion on how the sharing of ACUs should be implemented and which options for share conditions/ACU sharing should be available. There are discussion posts on the forum and on Discord. (#6726) Introduce the ability to paint on the map (See the original patchnotes for details).
  • 33 Topics
    609 Posts
    D
    ACU and all units increase is physical size as they vet.
  • Include the possibility to OVERCHARGE GUNSHIPS!

    5
    -1 Votes
    5 Posts
    164 Views
    NoRest4TheWickedN
    Just a heads up but there is a mod that gives you the ability to shoot air units but to be honest having overcharge on air is a little worthless. If someone has too many gunships the overcharge is useless. 40 gunships is enough to enter a base and kill the commander long before he gets the second shot off for overcharge.
  • ploblem with login

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    125 Views
    NoRest4TheWickedN
    you won't be able to fix that till FAF updates again. You can still play, it's just limited with some campaign missions and multiplayer is still accessable
  • So I built a lot of kennels

    16
    0 Votes
    16 Posts
    250 Views
    N
    And if I remove the build effects entirely CreateBuildEffects = function() end, then the sim speed issue goes away entirely, 3.8ms while building and zoomed in. So it seems to be an efficiency issue with UEF build effects, and perhaps kennel drones could have their own special version just for lag reasons.
  • Why would you have left FAF?

    791
    7 Votes
    791 Posts
    227k Views
    M
    There have been a long list of characters and stories of events in this community. Sometimes a few pop back in. Let's be nicer to one another,
  • You guys ever thought if moving to a new engine?

    33
    0 Votes
    33 Posts
    2k Views
    R
    @ZOB Just watched a Sanctuary game cast. Feels like Sup Com. Haven't actually played the game, but I don't get your comment. Explain please?
  • Dark Mode

    27
    1 Votes
    27 Posts
    2k Views
    Brutus5000B
    I added both CSS & JS and also retested it after update to 4.3.2. CSS and JS are active, but I see no button to switch it on (forum.faforever.xyz) Don't we somehow need to add the input box with class .theme-switch?
  • Galactic War 2025

    13
    30 Votes
    13 Posts
    180k Views
    A
    Belorussian KGB is watching for you. We wait for this too long. You must do it.
  • Trainer Team 2025 - The Wiki | Part One

    6
    13 Votes
    6 Posts
    1k Views
    StrydxrS
    @Kilatamoro said in Trainer Team 2025 - The Wiki | Part One: The Aeon 1v1 guide is outdated and barely English. Hello Kilatamoro, the Aeon 1v1 Guide is in the training archive section due to it being outdated, and we're unsure if Faction based 1v1 guides are entirely the best way to teach the game mode. But who knows what the future holds for the wiki
  • Main problem of Supreme Commander

    18
    -3 Votes
    18 Posts
    501 Views
    maggeM
    @thinker I have merged your other thread with this main one to keep the discussion organized. Let us keep the conversation respectful, please.
  • This topic is deleted!

    0
    0 Votes
    0 Posts
    9 Views
    No one has replied
  • Decapitation should be a rated victory condition

    Moved
    37
    14 Votes
    37 Posts
    3k Views
    IndexLibrorumI
    Praise dev
  • Avatars shown in lobby

    9
    3 Votes
    9 Posts
    170 Views
    speed2S
    @Nuggets I was just answering why touching the lobby code frowned upon
  • Optional Split Teams Option for TMM

    14
    5 Votes
    14 Posts
    263 Views
    S
    @Strife custom games can be ranked as well, idk what you’re saying
  • About formation move

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    138 Views
    N
    In steam FA you can ctrl + right click to issue a formation order instantly but FAF removed that with an engine patch, and now you only have the option of holding right click to begin issuing a formation move order. You can also formation attack move by holding alt alongside right click. Formation move is useful if you don't have the apm to keep your army in formation while moving across the map (this is not that often) but you need to because you have different speed units or need shields (snipers). You can also use formation move in place to quickly get your units into formation with a desired orientation. Some sandboxing shows it can be better than normal move orders when attacking because while it does make your units move slower, it guarantees way less bumping, so overall more units get into range faster and stay in range.
  • 1 Votes
    2 Posts
    182 Views
    maudlin27M
    If you genuinely think you're being insulted then you can make a report to the mod team, or create a ticket to discuss further with the mod team (e.g. if the report is discarded due to not meeting the reporting requirements involving sufficient evidence of a rule breach and you want to understand this further).
  • Another dumb idea from Dorset

    16
    1 Votes
    16 Posts
    569 Views
    JipJ
    @JaggedAppliance I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on some points. I think it's fine to work on some feature without the intention to include it. It could just be an experiment. It could be because it doesn't work out the way you think it would for the user. Or because you're not happy with the implementation of it for the future maintainer. I do this type of experimentation a lot and it helps me with learning and exploring what is possible. Even if some of it never ends up in the product directly. it's not obvious in my mind that if I spent time on something that it also means that I want to see it become part of the product in question. As an example, initially I had a focus on better graphics. I had a great proof of concept, but I was unable to make an implementation that did not have a terrible experience for everyone involved. I dropped it at the time. Years later with the hard work and effort of @BlackYps we now have the shaders. And the map generator and editor support for the new shaders too. It's a good user experience because of some automation he included into the map editor. Now it's a great time to include it. For those that are interested, see also his work on GitHub here and here. @JaggedAppliance said in Another dumb idea from Dorset: I'm not sure what the point was about the cybran nano. Just that that was game design happening? This is getting silly now but yes it's related to game design, but again it doesn't make anyone a game designer if they were involved. I did not make this claim. It certainly was not the intention. I tried to make the claim that the decision is about game design - not that the people making the decision are game designers because of it. How people perceive a game is all about game design. And this made an impact on their perception of the game for some users. Interestingly enough, just like it did for you. I find it interesting that you write that you do not understand why I brought it up. And you conclude the same paragraph with that it was a bad change that damaged the identity of Cybran. That is why I brought it up! And that identity is perceived, it is in my opinion related to the design of the game. Just like the majority of changes are except those that are purely technical (same user experience, but better code structure or better performing code). I think we have a different definition of game design, and specifically where game design starts and ends. In my opinion, even some mod authors can be characterized as game designers. They introduce new mechanics, new rule sets, sometimes even entirely new genres (looking at you Dota). But just because you are a mod author does not imply that you are also a (good) game designer. Just like people who are good at the game also does not imply that they are a (good) game designer. But in my opinion we definitely need people that look at the game from the perspective of a game designer. Which is also why I think the teams should be merged - just like they were initially if my history is correct. Statutes are whatever. Let's be honest, it was probably written in thirty seconds. It reads like that anyway. I agree with you that it feels like these statutes can use some work. But I disagree with dismissing them. Without the intention to patronize you, but statutes exist to help the community understand what a team is doing here, and how the team is supposed to work. It originates from this proposal that comes with this document that was approved during a general meeting of the association. To quote the document at the end: The detailed responsibilities of each team are intentionally not specified here so they can be changed without requiring a GM. Instead the teams have the duty to define their area of responsibilities and write them down somewhere public. Which is what the statutes are. The team can update them as they see fit. Take for example the status of the DevOps, Game and Promotion teams. They're much more informative about how the team operates, even if some roles are vacant at the moment. Back to the statutes of the balance team - for now it's all we have to work with to understand the role of the balance team. I appreciate you sharing your approach as balance team lead. And I agree that describing the average mod author as both passionate and (to be) crazy (with their ideas) is probably a great description, in a good way . I also agree that it's important to guard the game from ideas that just don't work. To come back to my earlier post - I'd like to express that even if something should not be in the game, it can still be interesting to just explore the idea with the mod author/contributor instead of just getting a 'no'. The mod author is clearly passionate about FAForever in some fashion by spending so much time and effort. The conversation does not have to take hours, something as simple as just having a decent conversation (over voice) about the idea together can be sufficient. It can be meaningful for both parties, even if it is just about discussing the context of it and why it was declined. Which brings me back to my first paragraph of this post. To me, these conversations can be more meaningful then the changes becoming part of the product. And that conversation can bring in a new team member in the future. It certainly worked that way for me. The reason I am here is because @Uveso spent some effort on my first mods and/or pull requests to help streamline them. His open and friendly attitude is what made this place feel accessible. Thanks for that .
  • FAF changes summary

    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    225 Views
    UvesoU
    In case you want a really deep dive into all the code-side changes that were made to FAF (there are over 4,500 changes): https://github.com/FAForever/fa/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
  • Personal Trainer Team Meeting | 18/04/25

    1
    3 Votes
    1 Posts
    65 Views
    No one has replied
  • FAF Statistics Megathread

    59
    7 Votes
    59 Posts
    9k Views
    IndexLibrorumI
    @Khal i am currently working on providing new statistics and made a few python scripts do pull info from the API. Contact me on discord and we can have a chat.
  • Im done with billy nukes

    31
    -2 Votes
    31 Posts
    1k Views
    CaliberC
    Deribus is right lets focus on the billy I propose two changes reduce the range by a third meaning the acu will be slightly more exposed in order to use it. if the damage of a normal missile is 6k lets keep it at 6k and make the billy an aoe upgrade to the regular missile. (so at least some t3 units can survive) perhaps a cost reduction could be in order with these changes to match