@snowy801 Yep seraph destros also tilt me to no end sometimes

Would it be possible to spread attack the spearhead and it would spread its three misses among the targets?

@maudlin27 said in Gun Upgrade Nerf: The problem is that your main counter is T2 PD (and aeon Guncoms if you're not Aeon), which is likely what the enemy has if they didn't go guncom. This is absolutely true, but what I'm arguing is that this typically takes more resources than the guncom, and at best leaves both sides at a standstill or at worst lets the Guncom go attack a teammate. T2 upgrade also provides far more general utility - e.g. if you're near the frontline you can build radar without needing an engineer; if the enemy tries attacking with bombers you can quickly get T1 AA. You can reclaim faster (I've yet to test it properly in sandbox but if you micro it quickly I reckon you can get DPS signfiicantly better than your base gun reclaiming enemy T1 units); in some niche cases you can even capture the enemy T1 PD. You get more health and regen, and if you decide to retreat your ACU from the frontline you can use it as a useful builder (while getting any future upgrades faster). You also mention the cost of T2 PD + T2 upgrade for defending guncom, but this neglects a number of points: 1 - the utility provided by T2 upgrade more generally (see above) 2 - the cost of all the extra PGens the guncom needed to get before they could start their upgrade. Mass for these is needed much sooner than the mass for the T2 PD, hence costs more (since your mass income increases at a significant rate early game) - i.e. what % of your income * time does T2 upgrade and T2 PD require cumulatively vs more T1 PGens and Gun upgrade? It's not a case of comparing absolute mass costs since you're getting them at different times. The answer also varies depending on the map. 3 - T2 PD will usually be got if getting a T2 upgrade even if the enemy isnt going guncom assuming the map has some sort of choke point/high value location, since it also helps defend against T1 arti (that can outrange T1 PD). The extra utility will take quite a while to create an advantage if you have to immediately put it to work on defense, by the time enough PD is up, the player with Gun may almost be done on a T2 HQ for tech, something both players are probably going for anyways. Being able to get up radar is nice, but by that point you'll usually have several engineers there. Those Pgens still work to scale the economy after the upgrade is done, it isn't as if they stop benefitting after theit initial role. Besides which one of my main points is that the energy curve can be softened by frontloading e-storage while the ACU walks to the front. And in regards to point 2, The economy really doesn't scale at all if you're upgrading and then immediately placing down PD. It's not like you'll upgrade a mex when you need to quickly build defenses against a guncom. For point 3, even if you are going to get PD later that doesn't eliminate it's cost. It would be as if I said the same thing but for the Pgens. You also mention it's in a good spot 1v1 but not team games, but your changes would hurt it in 1v1 more than teamgames - when I go guncom in 1v1 I find it really hard to make it work, as I've got fewer tanks (due to more PGens) and am really vulnerable to a T1 arti attack (assuming I'm upgrading away from my base - if my ACU has to sit in my base I've probably just lost the game anyway on smaller maps). Making it take much longer to upgrade drastically increases the disadvantages on 1v1, and (given your stated aim) actually has slightly less impact on a teamgame (since teamgames are usually on larger maps, hence you could build fewer PGens since the upgrade is spread over a longer time but not have to worry as much about T1 Arti forcing you to cancel the upgrade compared with 1v1). Actually you typically have way more space and resources per player on ladder on most maps, with the exception being 20x20 ladder where gun isn't used often anyways, and some 5x5 where one player getting it can be a game-ender. Gun and other ACU upgrades are something you typically get later, as units can have much more of an impact. And the ACU needs to be more generalist. I'm not denying Gun won't be slightly worse in Ladder with the changes (which by the way can be decreased if necessary), and that it won't come slightly later, but for 400 more mass it is still one of the most mass efficient things you can build, and absolutely takes at least as much of an investment to stop. @ftxcommando said in Gun Upgrade Nerf: No, a gun ACU dies to like 15 t2 tanks no problem if it overextends. Or at least gets into such low hp it is basically incapacitated if it has somewhere to retreat to unless it gets an hp upgrade or farms several vets. Even more so if you include shields to waste initial OCs since people arent (or shouldn't be) running around with +1000 overflow at min 10-11. My point isn't that a Gun ACU is immune to everything, not the least of which 4 times the investment in an HQ and 15 T2 tanks. In my second post I was arguing (admittedly not worded very well) that a unit advantage can overcome a veterancy/hp disadvantage. However in a fight between gun ACUs, this advantage is reduced significantly unless you have nearly twice as many tanks. Gun upgrade rush min 5 is only going to be countered by gun upgrade or t2 upgrade yeah, nature of clustered teamgames because you have nowhere to emphasize a unit advantage and so generally stacking utility upgrades on the ACU is the best move to gain or hold ground. Gun is more expensive than T2 and should generally require 5 more pgens, this translates to about 70% of the cost of a t2 pd alongside a later upgrade finish. Even if the extra pgens needed was 100% of the cost of a PD, I would consider it advantageous, as once the upgrade finishes, the energy is going towards something else. I'd also say clustered teamgames already are disgustingly static but that's mostly because of how the t3 stage plays and there being essentially no counterplay against a ball of snipers aside from spending the 12k mass to set up a t2 arty firebase or a t4 like a fatboy or a mega. Nerfing gun just pushes the game forward into static play earlier in those games. I agree with the first point but not the latter, I believe that the cheap Gun Upgrade is one of the main things stopping units from contributing and unit advantages from being significant in the early game. Not that teamgames will magically be perfect after, but I think it's a start.

@zeldafanboy The low dps of medusa is also due to stats. It is designed to make up for its lower health and dps with its stun. Emp effects do not work on shields. I'm not saying it should do ridiculous damage to shields, just enough to normalise it. Something like +50%? Overall its not a big buff for emp, just something to equalise it when the stun does not occur due to shields.

Strategic bombers can be used to counter land experimentals. Gunships aren't always better. Fatboys in particular are vulnerable to strats. If the T4 has a lot of t2 mobile flak, strat bombers on split attack could clear out the flak a lot more easily than t3 gunships could.

This is what u get for arguing for the gunship nerf ages ago, now UEF lategame air is just janus spam must be that op broadsword jamming that necessitates nerfing all uef t3 air

I thought all T3 MAA had some AOE? So one on one the won't kill an ASF before it can get away, but if you get a cluster of them together to an ASF cloud they chew out huge chunks of it. Main problem being building enough to reach that level, and then moving them to an ASF cloud as they lose so hard in the mobility department.

The beta has also cybran buffs ...

Honestly that be just super cool tbf

So do I not make the UEF hetzer then? Should it deploy like t3 Arty? I assure you this is CRITICAL.

Nah. Aeon is kinda about that kind of planning, forethought, and single unit specialization. Not to mention the required volatile external storage is a weakness that can be attacked, making your turtling under a paragon alone far less useful.

@sheikah said in Repair units balance: Another thing to consider is that making repair more efficient will just add to the defender's advantage already present. Defenders will be able to get the reclaim from the dead unit and repair their own units easier. So most likely any increase in repair efficiency would need to be balanced with that in mind as well. Repair is already used by defenders on firebases - I see repair most often used to repair a T2 PD that is under attack. Buffing or expanding the mechanic might see attackers start using it too.

@swkoll said in Soul Ripper should have stealth: Guys, is this the first time the balance forum has successfully produced a balance change? Yeah this has to be the first time, i've personally seen a Balance Team member be like "We'll consider it" XD

Neat. Would be fun to see.

I would love to see something like where ships don't stop, they keep steaming in circles or something

To me, getting rid of the large power drain removes depth. As it is now you can build it to take advantage of overflow, you can throttle it when power is more important, and you can decide between saving e costs, and saving/earning more mass. T3 Fab farms are more efficient than SCUs, we don't need to change something to make Mass Fabs compete better than them (even though this idea makes them slightly worse). As for ease and accessibility, I think templates make things easy enough to not need changing as well.

@valki said in Could T1 Interceptors be further differentiated?: I think it adds very little and makes early air openings even harder to balance and deal with. Well, sometimes the little things add flavor and depth. For example, does the fact that the Sera air scout has brief vision on death do all that much? No, but it adds to factional diversity and is a cool feature for little effort. And the changes I am proposing would not make early air harder to balance at all. I am not asking to make the interceptors weaker or stronger than one another, they of course should have equal effectiveness. But how can we make them feel different? The similarity between ASFs has bothered me though, I would like this suggestion if applied to ASFs. I wouldn't be opposed, I really enjoy the privilege as a Cybran player of having the stealth ASF but the other factions don't really get anything to compensate. (Please don't give UEF ASF Jamming though...) @thomashiatt said in Could T1 Interceptors be further differentiated?: The cyclone does have a high alpha and low rate of fire weapon, that's why it's the best interceptor. @mazornoob said in Could T1 Interceptors be further differentiated?: UEF and Sera inties are also a bit better at low count intie fights and killing transports. Cybran and Aeon inties deal 48 damage per volley, so they need 7 volleys (>288 DPS) to kill UEF and Sera inties (295 and 290 HP) and 6 volleys to kill the rest (285 and 280 HP). UEF and Sera inties deal 50 and 51 damage per volley respectively, so they can kill any interceptor in 6 volleys. This also means that C/A inties need 11 volleys to kill a T1 transport and U/S inties need 10 volleys. Well it seems that all inteceptors are already not created equal, albeit by a very tiny degree. I don't want to make them so that microing different factions' inties is in any way different, so I wouldn't touch range, speed, accel or turning radius, firing angle, or DPS. Rather, I'd make small changes to their flavor that don't change combat effectiveness. Stuff like: UEF interceptors have an extra minute of fuel. (6:00 instead of 5:00) Cybran interceptors can land on water instead of having to hover and waste fuel (possible in the engine? If not, then alternatively they could have double fuel recharge when landed) Aeon interceptors have 30 vision radius instead of 28. Seraphim interceptors give 20 energy storage per interceptor, just like engineers give varying levels of mass storage. Also, I was unsure when making this thread as to where it belonged-- "Suggestions" vs. "Balance Discussion". I'm not actually advocating for the balance to change, I want interceptors to be equally effective. They are not OP or UP. I was just wondering if it would be possible to make each faction's interceptor more interesting and unique. One might say that any tweak made is so minor that it won't matter, but I think that is a good argument for making the change. It won't hurt anybody.

Oh yea. Titans are super busted. They fight better at range than loyalists, have 800 extra hp of which 700 regenerates and have the same movement speed. Increase loyalist base movement speed so they actually can compete.