@Nomander Thank you for your feedback and your report. Perhaps you should use the separate mod as a template.

it's not "dumb", it's an explosive reactor and the gunships happen to fly low enough to be affected by its explosion. also, increasing their flight height makes flak projectiles take longer to reach them. as a result flak needs to shoot further ahead on their trajectory, making it ever so slightly easier for gunships to dodge flak projectiles. no change comes without consequences

Ras sacu costs a lot more than 2500 mass in FAF, it’s around 6500 mass

Don't know if this helps but Cybran has t3 TLs and has 2 Experimentals with TLs 1 of which also has TD. Both the Amphibious tank and Brick have TLs. you have t1 and t2 subs with TLs Destroyers and BattleShips also have TLs Destroyers have TD and Walk on land. Cruisers Reflect Tac Missiles. Battleships have TMD Same with ACC. And Nuke subs have TLs. If you have an issue with Torpedoes or Navy Just play Cybran. Cybran is a terrifying force against Navy

@Nomander said in We need to reduce the time a game becomes a ranked game: I think players who abuse that should be punished with rating loss so the time limit should be set lower. No way. A win-win situation

Hello there, @Legendz ! Could you explain bugged Cybran top defence flares? Haven't seen them working wrongly.

@Sainse Using a chain of 10 beetle at a time is toxic in itself, especially when sniping ACU. But you don't necessarily need to add friendly fire to them. I was just pointing out the non logical stats of beetles compared to other units

I didn't know it was cheaper. Considering an early gun at min 6-7 when ppl energy production is around 300-400/s, 3k energy is not negligible: you might make let's say 3-5 pgen more to cover the extra 3k or stall your way through it (losing mass), but i'd imagine that's a solid 200-300 mass advantage for no good reason on an early gun. This would apply if the gun was the same, but then you also have the versatility to split it. Paying less to have more?

@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

@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.