@kdrafa91 beam deals 4x less damage to them

@FtXCommando As I said, I understand some are attached to the more interesting dynamics this flaw of the UI created but it also created some shitty dynamics as well. Gameplay depth should rely on players' choices, and the game should properly convey all the information needed to inform those choices.

Gameplay depth should not rely on noticing damage values or 3d model variations. It's a RTS not a "spot the difference" game.

If the original devs had included units that don't have associated icons, I'd have to concede that this was an intended mechanic, but they never did. Instead they went with stealth, cloak or jamming when they wanted gameplay elements revolving around intel gathering. That's because hiding icons (and thus information down into the detailed 3d level) runs counter to the goal and usefulness of the continuous zoom feature which defines this game to a much greater extent than the stuff you mentioned in your post. And when those aforementioned abilities trip you up, it doesn't feel like it's the game screwing you instead of your opponent.

Land is like 75%+ of the units made in the game, no faction can “excel at land” without being meta defining. Likewise your analysis of one faction being good at air, one good at navy, and one good at land, even if we were to assume your takes are right, would make this game completely boring. It would be defined by the faction and map you rolled at 0:00 and at that point you might as well as quit the game. Also, what the hell does that make Seraphim good at? Space?

Every faction has comparative advantages at different points, UEF has a strong t2 air stage except against Aeon who no faction can compete against assuming equal prioritization on t2 air. So now your gameplay is ‘t focused on leveraging a total air win but rather low cost yet mass efficient engagements that force an overinvestment into air you never intended to fight. Instead you put your win condition elsewhere.

@ZLO said in Question about repair:

If you ctrl+k destro in water then you only get 40,5% of mass from it.
However if that is cybran destro and you walk with it on land then you will get 81% of mass

Both numbers should be lower since t2 units leave less reclaim than t1

@waffelzNoob said in Sera navy is just too Oppressive:

10 UEF subs dealt 5325 damage to 1 atlantis.
10 Sera subs dealt 10804 damage to 1 atlantis.
33 UEF subs (mass equiv) killed an atlantis with 14 of them surviving
33 sera subs (mass equiv) killed an atlantis with 29 of them surviving

20 Seraphim subs beat 20 UEF subs with 11 remaining in "normal" scenario, 10 remaining when they were teleported into eachother.

https://replay.faforever.com/24761824

this guy delivering the numbers thanks!

but yes that does prove the opressiveness of sera subs

Hello everyone,

I actually thought I had finished my work on the project for the time being, but no.

Yesterday evening CDRMV contacted me and shared another new function with me. We have added this function to the #3 variant and now we believe (hope) that this mod can be submitted to the FAF team as a proposal. @Jip I ask you to take over 🙂 thank you in advance.

Here are a few little things that were missing in the variants.

Icons:
fdffe547-2394-4bac-b0ff-aa0003b107dc-image.png6be141f3-2dae-4aa8-bbb2-cbaae64a709d-image.png

The construction time and the buttons for stop and pause have been added.
efd549d5-6c73-4d2a-ba85-4e875789d8df-image.png

Here is the construction effect
4ef89268-f0f7-4985-93ae-c71f401271d8-image.png

a2e34a35-b03d-45fc-b7ca-9836d51cea52-image.png

Here is a small excerpt from the script for those who want to use the effect in other units.
fb394607-f3f6-4aa4-a163-7d69cc41f800-image.png
OnStartBuild
self.MercuryPool = import("/lua/EffectUtilitiesAeon.lua").CreateMercuryPoolOnBone(self, self.Army, 'Pool', 1.5,1.5,1.5, 0.1)

OnStopBuild
self.MercuryPool:Destroy()

I have added the effect to my unitpack. So thanks again to CDRMV.
0a561452-210a-4340-9288-f8cac10c4738-image.png

That should be it for now. I would be pleased if a result is written here about the possible proposal.

@Nomander said in Another Novax conversation:

Sat is already rebuildable. This is because it can block nukes (intentional) or get RNG hit by artillery (consequence of the simulation).

Wow, I didn't know that. TY-

The problem with SMD shooting down sats is that it begins to compete with nuke in terms of what its defense is, and you might as well have a nuke instead of a sat if you must avoid SMD.
Ok so make it super cheap to rebuild: now it blocks nukes easily and drains SMD quickly
Ok so make it build slowly but cheap, it's basically an SMD missile: how are you ever going to get 36k mass killed - 3.6k per sat downed with this unit that takes forever to even rebuild. You can't even assist your own arty because every enemy target will have an SMD.

From my view, your second two scenarios (super cheap vs slowly built); are minor issues- because you can correct them just by adjusting cost.

But I think your first point about SMD having (2) jobs in "what the point of its defense is"; makes sense but is multi-purposing an SMD really that bad?

And in my proposed scenario;

OBVIOUSLY the player does NOT need build the SMD if they don't want it to shoot down the SAT. Plus, if an SMD shoot down toggle exists the player does NOT need to use it.

My contention is, and I think still stands reasonably in light of your objections, that SATs do not have an effective, appropriate counter- for players when they want it. This is not balanced. This is a hole. This needs fixing.

@Caliber the community favourite player Terarii stopped playing because of this!

I really don't see the problem this is solving at a high level of play.
T3 engineers consume 18-20m/s for T4s/nukes/arty, and 24-25m/s (30m/s Scathis) for game enders. So a huge spending of 800m/s requires around 32 engineers in one place to build something meaningful. I don't think 32 engineers is so difficult to manage that we need engineering stations, especially for a one-time thing like an artillery/nuke/game ender rush.

That covers large projects, so now we can look at smaller projects:

Economic structures: Mexes build super fast, so no pathfinding issues there. T3 Pgen/Fab grids are a great option if you have to spend lots of mass (as opposed to T2 fabs), and they average out to 20m/s per engi, which is plenty enough for the time when you will be building them: when you are just building up your eco past T3 mex. And late game when you have a huge eco yet still want to expand it the fab grids you can split into just two or three groups. It'll be safer and is easy to do. Also since eco takes up so much space, you'll need an unbalanced amount of buildrange to make the engi stations good here. PD/Defenses: These things are already very strong and fast to build, removing pathfinding will just make that easy to do on a large scale, which is not a good thing since it buffs a boring and already decent strategy. This also nerfs artillery a massive amount because you can pretty much always near-instantly build a shield anywhere in your base as long as an engineer is nearby. I think artillery is already quite weak and easily countered by proper shielding, so this nerf is unnecessary. Factory assistance: This is one thing where engis can be problematic, because units require a ton of buildpower and engis slowly get into a formation around the factory. It's resolved by the "interrupt pathfinding" hotkey, and you can write a UI mod to run that hotkey when giving an assist order (GAF did this)/the engi comes into range. I personally spam the hotkey all the time when assisting/building so I am biased against engi pathfinding issues ("32 engineers is not hard to manage").

I'll also agree with what FTX said on Discord which is that it makes the game into an all-or-nothing situation because there is no way to run the buildpower away to save it (a nuke would be devastating), but it is also much harder to attack buildpower.

As for engine limitations, yes it isn't possible to filter nukes/SMD, and I don't think you can make it so you can only reclaim allied units.

Pathing stuff like this is really tied into the engine so there's not much we can do. I think you can't even make ACUs path over units because it would automatically apply that 1x1 footprint to all 1x1 units (all t1-t3). So a lot of it is wishful thinking unless you dive deep into reverse engineering.

I think this would be a good thing as I dont believe players consider the known poor pathing in this game to be a positive aspect.

The bad pathing has cemented itself in the game's balance and micro so for some it is a positive aspect just to diversify supcom from other games, even though it has its frustrating moments.

If you limit the number of SACUs a player is allowed to summon from the gates (like in, the command doesn't allow you to risk these "student" commanders too much), you can make them stronger than other units for similar cost.

@crustaceanMODE
Recall should be fixed after the recent patch 3815.

@Nuggets said in Siren and Command missile defense:

In an actual game it seems like the cybran cruiser tml or defelection doesnt exist. It MAYBE useful against 1 early tml or billy but thats it. What is even the point of redirecting missiles in a navy fight? You gonna redirect cruiser missiles at cruisers (while not even catching all), which just get destroyed?

There's more to the game than pure functionality - it is also aesthetically quite pleasing to see in my point of view. It just adds a bit of faction diversity.

If I recall correct it was just a production test to see how the defense would hold up in practice. It's up to the balance team to keep it or not. Just a pull request revert away and then it's back to the old zappers 🙂 .

@arran i dont have much time currently and not really intrested in deep research of other units unless i'll see some really bad stats like vulthoo buildtime, i am not a balance team member after all

(coding veto system rn)

Isn't the sub almost three times faster as well? Move speed is super important in navy battle. I've never seen bricks crush navy at all btw.

@Firv, with other late-game upgrades, you get maybe a few minutes of value before the armies become too big to face, whereas billy you can potentially keep using to good effect almost indefinitely right now, sitting cozy under shields behind percy walls, lobbing rockets across the map. The risk hardly increases as the game progresses, like it does for other com upgrades, since there's not much incentive to get anywhere close to threats in order to use it. In addition, because armies tend to get bigger and less wieldy, the care you have to put into your aim actually goes down as time goes on. Plus, you can pair it with t3 which is a defensive upgrade. The change I suggested wouldn't mean you absolutely must bring the com into knife distance either.

Also, it doesn't impact tele billy at all, because in that scenario you're shooting at helpless and static targets. If you're hunting armies, teleporting is actually worse than airlifting because you can't adjust your destination as the move orders shift around plus your fire rate is shit.

@FreadyFish You are a legend!
I'll try it out VS Ai first then see if I can get people on discord to try it out in my games.
EDIT: Thank you for adding helpful comments as it really helps me understand the code.

Also, add an energy cost to the Satellite that increases as the Satellite gets further from its command centre.

Reason: Teleportation range has been nerfed with a variable energy cost and charge time depending on range. This was because unlimited and unrestricted range was too strong. The Novax Satellite having unlimited range is a similar problem.

Credit for the idea: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/7080/satellite-overperforming/44