@Tagada I disagree about Aurora being to strong if Aeon MAA didn't die in one bomb.
You view games from ~2400 rating.
I view games from ~1100 rating.
We have different viewpoints of the same game.

Disadvantages of Aurora that would remain if MAA was buffed.

Still dies to one T1 bomber bomb. Still can't raid as effectively as other T1 tanks. Still can't storm PD as effectively as other T1 tanks.

Benefits if Aeon T1 MAA HP was 260.

Would not die to one bomb anymore (mostly). Theoretically could soak more dmg from T1 tanks (lol).

Hay, you know what, why not make the Aeon MAA extra range (3 units) meme actually useful? Increase by some amount (e.g. 5 units) so it is more effective against bombers but still dies in one hit if you forgot radar. Try this idea.

Also T1 bombers are primarily used (from watching replays and my experience) to kill engineers. Can a change be made to their default target priorities have engi's (or units) > structures?

"eco progression in faf is something that is not intuitive, noobs frequently ring t1 MeX with storages or forget to ring t3 mex because it’s not clear that this is unholy inefficient"
Well this is somewhat true I suppose, but I wouldn't say that it means there is a "balance problem" to fix. Noobs just need to pay some attention and learn the most efficient path is:
build T1 mex--->upgrade safe T1 mexes--->cap T2 mexes--->upgrade capped T2 mexes.

So I don't think we really need to do much about mex storage adjacency. If anything, we could easily increase t1 storage adjacency so that a fully capped t1 mex gives 4 mass total. It would still be significantly less efficient than upgrading the mex to t2, so it doesn't really matter, but would be just a bit less punishing for noobs.

I don't think storage adjacency is OP, but I have had a small lingering feeling that storages could be a tiny bit more beneficial for t2 mexes, and slightly less beneficial for t3 mexes. It would make eco upgrade choices a little less of a big decision, since in many games a t3 mex is a very expensive investment with a large payoff if you make it work. Maybe something like 10 mass for a capped t2 mex, and 25 mass for a capped t3 (compared to 9 vs 27) would smooth the economy upgrade path sufficiently. (maybe some cost adjustments would be justified as well) But I must emphasize I'm quite uncertain if smoothing economy upgrades would be an improvement, or how to best approach it. Maybe it makes the game a lot more strategic and interesting to have t3 mexes a very expensive and very effective upgrade, and a more linear or smoothed out upgrade path would be more boring.

Adjacency matters when you are dealing with low amounts of resources and you need to be most efficient resource wise and not time/ BP/ scaling wise. I submit my every single BO on low mass maps where I put my t1 pgens around my t1 air factory/s.

buffing the uef frigate would be game breaking in combination with uefs shield boat and late game t3 ships / hover units

looks like someone already made that comment https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1027/the-scu-rebalance/29

@dragun101
"Now I get it my opinion vs someone like Tagada is basically meaningless. But if you told me "Your invalid", (SIC) I am not gonna bother posting let alone be willing to help to try and fix something. Especially bugs or help in balance patches."
Dragun, I'm not saying that you're invalid or only players with a high rating can contribute to the game, but we can distinguish between helping with balance, and coding. I appreciate all useful contributions people make to FAF.
Unfortunately, most people don't know what they don't know, yet apparently many received enough participation trophies during their childhood to make them think they know a whole lot more than they do. I hardly ever play ladder, so I know my own opinion on balance for ladder at ~1300 rating is completely worthless, so I have never offered any suggestions for ladder because I'm not an overconfident, arrogant prick.
@Tagada
I would say that balance decisions should ultimately be decided by 2k+ players, and so I would also be perfectly fine with voting myself out of having any opinion at all on the subject. My only concern is that limiting it to 2k plus might narrow it too much. At this moment I see 11 2k+ ladder players, and 29 for global, slightly more if you round up, but also not counting overlap for players 2k+ on both. My thinking is that some of the differences at the top are likely due to build orders, apm, etc. so players a bit under rating may understand the mechanics and balance well enough to still provide useful ideas regarding balance. I don't know where would be best to make a cutoff though. It seemed to me that at 1500 you'll at least weed out most of the complete garbage posts, but maybe 1800 is optimal. In any case, I would much rather prohibit those ignorant garbage posts than be able to offer my own opinion on balance.

@Tagada I have looked at the unit bp's the aeon one and sera have defined target bones of the turret and barrel where as the uef and cybran one's don't they just use the default centre so this should be an easy fix

It is indeed the only AA that dies to all bombers (except Aeon) in one pass. And seeing your entire army, including AA, dying in one bomber suicide raid is quite demoralizing sometimes ^^
A little +10 HP to bring it to 260HP and resist the sera bomber (and help a little against UEF and cybran) would be good quality of life improvement.

I thought about that too, but it would either make it too powerful against bases and stuff or kind of mess up with its behavior if it was firing tac missiles. Although depending on how powerful the rocket is it could make a difference without being too op, I guess

I think that's a good idea to give it +50. It's the kind of subtul buff where you can clearly see the consequences ( the ability to 2-hit sera pgen and mexes). It's clear, and doesn't break much balance imo, mostly cause few people will actually make use of that in games (air players in teamgames, high rated player with good knowledge of the game).

Now, does it NEED a buff right now ? I don't know. Yes the unit feels weaker than other bombers, but Aeon is generally considered to have too many good things going for them atm, so idk if the balance team would be able to justify another aeon buff.

Besides, I have the feeling that the value of 3450 damage was exactly set to avoid the Shocker to 2 hit seraphim T3 Mex and Power. I guess that's part of "seraphim have tanky buildings" in general.

@Deribus said in missiles subject to TMD should ignore shields:

Moved to Balance Discussion

@Valki if you believe TMLs/MMLs are underpowered, provide a replay as an example

I do not believe they are underpowered, and this was a suggestion to significantly change a game dynamic, not a balance discussion. If anything, this suggestion if adopted would un-balance the game and require balancing to fix later on.

I think we would get a faster and more dynamic game when TML/MML ignore shields.

I agree with thomas. It completely brakes early game balance and engi hp is not a sacrifice, as the engi does anyway from a single bomb or two acu shots. The increase in bp is just straight OP: get pd up super fast, get expansion facs up fast, get air fac up fast for earlier first Bomber, sounds ludacrious. If you want to fiddle with engis, make them able to merge once a T2 hq is unlocked; merge into higher tier so called support engineer: who doesnt have higher tech blueprints but less pathing cancer.

Good points on speed balance, Tagada + Ftx

I use it in serious games ... HP boost

Lol. In general one doesn't build such upgrades to counter an ML, but I guess it can work.