G2 - https://replay.faforever.com/27084307 You had 1 t3 sera shield barely covering your scathis and it seemed like it was already damaged. You got dropped 2 ahwassas dealing 8k crash + 1.1k initial bomb damage = 18.2k dmg. Then there's 9900x2=19800 remaining delayed damage on the bombs. Didn't watch czar replay. I think you're more complaining that ahwassa has too high alpha strike than anything related to suiciding them. If you ever talked about bombing and then ctrl k for the wreck to fly under a shield and kill it to let the bomb deal 9900 dmg that would be about the crash damage. For mitigating crash damage: shields absorb crash damage up to 20% of their max hp (ahwassa 8k -> 3800 when going through sera t3 shield, shield bar takes 4200 dmg), and you can spam shields around your target to reduce the chance of the remaining crash damage's splash reaching your target. The reason ahwassa can have the high alpha strike is because it's bad against shield spam since it has a long reload and you need to micro well to fire on time with that reload. It's also a bomber and the most expensive air t4 but also lowest hp. So you should spam T3 shields in a line parallel to the bombing path to stop ahwassas easily.

Beetle’s 1100 is an aoe so if we’re talking theoretical max damage that aoe could be packed with say 35 units, meaning abut 40k damage for just 190 mass. Hence why realistic scenarios and likely practical results are much more valuable to assessing things than theoretical best case scenarios

This is in the context of the typical lane-based land teamgames, which is a great situation for snipers because of high available apm, reduced effectiveness of T1/T2, and smaller areas to cover so less unit speed required. I think vs Aeon/Sera they ruin the entire land domain and turn it into a static t2 shield + mobile arty + sniper war because they beat every T3 land unit and Ythotha/GC. Against Cybran they're overpowered and force Cybran to give up nearly everything and rush Megalith, although I'm still developing my playstyle as Cybran against snipers so that's not my final opinion. Mobile arty and static shields seem too weak and slow to build for Cybran, especially vs Seraphim. Firebeetles require a lot of precise sacrifices to get through to the snipers so idk if it's a possible solution to hold them off until Megalith finishes. Also when I play, after Mega finishes it usually just dies to GC or Ythotha + army/2nd T4 (bricks are so bad vs GC claw DPS/Ythotha splash now they cant help mega win and survive to snowball megas), so it's not even a proper solution. Monkeylord is simply bad against snipers. Against UEF they're good and the only way to stop percies besides ACU/PD, but they don't scale nearly as much as vs Cybran because UEF has spearheads to keep the sniper count down and limit apm, ravagers to just kill snipers for 2k mass, and fatboy at 28k mass to make snipers unusable. They're super vulnerable to air so it can happen that your entire army gets wiped in 1 air attack because of a smaller air loss compared to what is needed to wipe armies of other compositions. Usually this means you don't infinitely scale snipers and try to go T4s+othuum/harb just for the safety, even though snipers are better. They're kinda optional to play in 1-1.8k teamgames because othuum/harb + shields can begin to kill ACUs and othuum/harb drops are easy to get through and they deal devastating damage. This is like a general trend of later game efficient choices being played rarer because people are too bad to keep the game even for that long.

@Caliber Would much rather to fix or to balance out MML's and TMD's bit better then novax since those units dont really do much at all. Less so for TMD but still requires balance. xD Novax is a late stage game ender and to be honest... it is pretty bad one since you need multiple of it to start doing anything. Memes be memes.

Introduce a new approach to automatically disable maintenance of units #5822: This is an energy throttle order that you can issue to units to make them turn on/off based on energy. It would give pause icons to fabs and give players full control over throttling. Unfortunately it was left unfinished with Jip working on many projects, then leaving the game team, and nobody picking it back up. There were also some changes concerning stored energy. Fabs still toggle off at 80% and on at 90% storage but now there is a 105k storage limit above which fabs wont turn off, and a 108k storage limit where fabs are forced to turn on. It's mainly for overcharge but if people know about this they can cope with fab behavior by building a pgen-storage 2x2 for 16 storages and rather efficient energy. There were also some logic changes to make fabs aggressively use energy overflow from allies when on lower max storage. I disagree with @deribus's eco analyses. The problem players have with fabs is that they can never use up their storage. For example, if you have 100k storage and try to up RAS (only 175k energy) you lose out on a few seconds of a few fabs instead of using up storage. Basically you're forced to float energy with the fab behavior. This is due to the assumption that you need to store energy for OC combined with no existing implementation of adjusting your energy throttle parameters (which goes into my next point). Desyncs aren't a reason you can't have user-adjustable or permanently saved settings for fab throttling. To implement that it's as simple as writing a sim callback that sets the parameter for your army's ai brain, which is no different from toggle resource sharing or adjusting diplomatic status or toggling auto OC and so on for nearly every UI feature we have. The only difficulties I foresee is if you're playing with union control then you have to determine permissions for adjusting throttling, and writing the UI to show how much energy youre throttling and syncing it between players switching armies or on the same army.

Send me the replay of you killing a cybran hq with a single tml in the latest version

@hotcheese Sounds good to me. That way, when reclaiming wrecks, you can target specific areas instead of collecting piles of trees at the edge.

xD

@Hotcheese another fantastic suggestion ^.^

@jip forgive my ignorance in these matters Jip I lack the understanding and technical skills you have and so i generalize quite a bit when talking about faf, by "they" i just meant those who have the authority to make these changes, no insult was meant.

imho FAF is fine without massfabs, just don't overbuild power, or if you did massively overbuild - you can just reclaim it. imho in BAR there are some things that prevent turtle gameplay, and t1 massfabs are not very efficient and require space and they explode... BAR only has 1mex -> t2 mex -> t3 energy (afus) + massfabs while in FAF you have t1 mex -> t2 mex -> t2 mex with storage -> t3 mex -> massfabs or sacus you go from 2 mass per mex point to 27 while in BAR it is only like from 2 to 8 basically what i want to say is that FAF already has plenty of ecoing opportunities and i would not want it to have another somewhat efficient way of ecoing. Also often FAF maps feel like they have more space, and building explosions feel smaller, while in BAR you have less space and building explosions feel bigger Edit: You can also make an energy storage i kinda like cheaper and bigger energy storage in BAR... but in FAF storage space is also tied to overcharge, so making storages cheaper buffs the overcharge, so you can't do that for no reason Edit: also agree that massfabs in BAR are a big noob trap. Solar+massfab is like 22x less efficient than making mexes

https://forum.faforever.com/topic/3506/why-does-reclaiming-a-building-not-use-the-same-logic-as-building-a-building/5 I based it on this old thread. Well if it could then I don’t really see why it wouldn’t be adjusted, makes no sense for reclaim to work differently than building

Give the Novax upgrade modules that add depth and complexity to a currently very basic and boring experimental. Missile upgrade module. Unlocks 4 missile weapons that rain down hell from space. Costs: 4800 mass, 120k energy. Strategic missile upgrade module. Drops a nuke directly below the novax. Costs: 24600 mass, 600k energy. Per missile: 4800 mass, 115k energy. Double Satellite module. Spawns in a second satellite from the same Novax station. Costs: 12000 mass, 240k energy. Tech 3 build suite upgrade module. Allows the novax to build anything underneath it. Costs: 2400 mass, 48k energy.

Its in a bad state

@Ctrl-K said in T4s partially submerged are invisible when shooting: @speed2 perhaps you could enlighten us how to fix it then instead of showing off your "Fixed in Equilibrium". I dont know, I didnt make the fix, but you should be able to find it in EQ code

If the mod is still being developed, I have a suggestion. Can we build SACU presets on the fly? How this would work: Where the presets are, replace them with the upgrades so all (left, back, right) are all visible simultaneously, next to one another. Select up to one upgrade option from each category. Like buttons, they get greyed out when selected. Once you have selected your desired upgrades, click the icon to build the basic SACU, the one that usually would build an SACU without upgrades. It will add to the build queue a SACU with your selected upgrades. Left clicking the in-progress build icon in the build tray will add duplicates of the same configuration SACU. Right clicking to remove, like with normal factory ques. Each different configuration added to the build queue will have its own icon, which can also be enumerated up or down as desired.

@waffelzNoob youre right its not hard, but we see implementaions for other actions that are also no hard being added all the time to make the gameplay more conveniant (less clicking needed) for the player. As pointed out by saver the back up distance for the fatboy is 30, I dont beleive any one has any concerns with the fatty being 30, the mega is 15, and somehow this would break the mega? Its just a small easy change I wanted to suggest that makes micro more convenient for player thats all.

@Nomander Thanks, and please excuse me, I phrased my question incorrectly. I wasn't asking about AI influence, but rather where the values ​​are displayed when an artillery piece is surrounded by power plants. But you're absolutely right, I can ask that question separately