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.

I agree it's never great and I never get it basically, but there is a use case in holding a hard point under static shields.

@melanol said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 2 (ACU Billy Nuke Upgrade): @comradestryker One launch costs 600k energy and drains 11k per tick, countered by small amounts of TMDs or shield. What is the point of the cooldown? Because every t3 land unit now becomes irrelevant with a single acu upgrade

@sladow-noob Oh, yes, good point. I suppose if it's every ones problem then it's not a problem. Edit: No sarcasm intended, I re-read it and it came out strange.

I like the idea... perhaps a mod can be created so we can test it out?

they would be able to repair eachother which is pretty cool and would slightly make up for their dog ass anti air.

I support this change, the battleship has the nuke launcher so the carrier can get the Tac launcher

The changes by @clyf are released and available on the FAF game type