Wrecks for finished experimental units appear again , see also: https://github.com/FAForever/fa/releases/tag/3802

Sat scaling is the main thing that really makes them hard to manage. What if they had a power drain as a limiting factor-? This isn't a major change, just a response to scaling. Won't break the unit, won't make it unviable, just respond to scaling issue.

The only times I can think of were myself or friends have used a Salem on land was to transfer them from one pond to another, impromptu point defense, or early siege tactics with some kind of backup. Direct assaults with these have never been good. Perhaps if the torpedo launcher doubled as a short range rocket on land, but that's just getting weird.

While I'm ok with Cybran gaining a shield disruptor unit (per my post a long time ago in this thread), I really dont like the idea of also removing the absolver from the game, which seems to be the current plan. FYI for those viewing this thread, there's a discord thread which discusses this aspect (the Absolver removal, as opposed to Cybran gaining a shield disruptor unit) further: https://discord.com/channels/197033481883222026/1205788137742274600

Back when I used to play gap games and someone's com was out front too long I would just start moving engies to their base, get out ahead of it.

Well done! Changes sound sensible, I highly approve of you trying to increase faction diversity, and carefully agree with your stance on the balance team consisting of mostly 2k's. We'll have to see if these changes play well.

@thomashiatt said in This idea will make you angry (don't read it): Most 1v1 games you ma The second half of the idea is (soft) requiring a T2 pgen for T2 mex upgrades as well.

What if, when replacing an upgrade, you didn't immediately lose the old upgrade, only losing it when the new upgrade is complete. This would make switching and having to cancel the upgrade less punishing.

@indexlibrorum wait a minute isnt the whole point of the balance team that they are pros and arguing for the balance changes from the top looking down

Losing mass in storage is false depth, nobody is making attacks on the notion of how far “up” your mass storages are to gauge whether it makes putting extra resources into the attack worth it or not. If it has zero impact on player attacking decisions, it serves nothing besides some “wouldnt it be cool” factor. You need entirely new ui elements that make it clear what mass is in storage to make that reasonable.

Gotcha; And ye, since the Aeon Gunships are so brutally strong, the mercy just feels weak in comparison so I'd say that's a main reason for it. Remove / Nerf the Gunship and the mercy suddenly becomes more viable.

I use Blazes in early T2 for their range, and Obsidians to punch upward at stronger stuff. If you're falling behind and in a pinch, Obsidians can get work done.

@madmax said in Deribus' Patent Pending Fatboy Rework: [image: 1704017007992-91c59cd8-4651-4d2c-85e7-4005fa86f431-image-resized.png] i see no problems here Obviously the front turrets should be low arc, the back turrets should be high arc. NO CLIPPING PROBLEM THEN

@maudlin27 there are plenty of other important stats other than just cost. There are range and reload time which matter a lot. Nomad Scarab has lower range and lower fire rate meaning it can't completely replace static TMD.

@funkoff Don't even know what LOTS is.

@mazornoob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread: @sladow-noob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread: There are reasons for every balance change What was the reason for giving 90% of units and buildings 15% more vision radius across the board? This was a good change and was needed.

@ftxcommando I like this idea.

Instead of inventing a new mechanic you can just make planes deal a high damage, but long duration, damage over time. Then a smaller number of planes can still land lethal shots on a large number of planes before dying, and the larger the number of planes the more shots will be wasted overkill damage. It should make micro more forgiving across the board as well. Only downside is that there's probably some performance cost to DoT.