@caliber

The TMD effect... now that's something I didn't think about.
It does look cool, I'll give it that.

My only concern with that is the impact effects.
Those have a blueish hue to them, as the original fire effect is blue.
Did you adjust those as well?

~ Stryker

I'm not actually bothered I just found it amusing

@mazornoob in early-mid game beatle is greate when dealing with t2 spam where there is no ACU near

600 was always the intended amount of damage. Why it's 600 and not 79*20 is... complicated, but there's a thread in the Discord Balance Discussion about it.

@strife said in Mercy Change - Not ready yet:

@SpikeyNoob I like that the visual effect of the "projectile" has been changed back to the original one. Would it be possible to make the fog bluish as well? So that it matches the color of the projectile?

I guess it will look quite good together.

Or, perhaps, changing the color of the projectile to be green like the fog?

I guess the idea is that cybran have other advantages, like destroyers that can fight on water or land much like said hover units can.
Of course, it's not as good in practice as hover tanks or artillery (most of the time), but that's the idea, I believe.

That 'destroyers walk on land', combined with UEF getting naval jamming and cybran getting naval stealth, are, I suspect, the reason those factions don't get hover units/engineers. I believe that it's all supposed to balance out in the long run.

I'm not a terribly experienced player, so my struggles against jamming and stealth when it comes to destroyer+frigate combat might be simply a sign of my low skill; but I imagine that's the idea behind no hover T1 / flak. If I really, really wanted hover stuff in T1, I'd pick aeon or seraphim, and if I wanted the intel (and by extention, naval range) I'd pick cybran or UEF.

As it stands, I only pick random. I'd be very interested to watch replays/games where the lack of hover units hamstrings cybran, because I've not seen it so far, but totally believe that it happens, and would love to see examples to prepare me.
Do you have examples?

I agree that the buildtime/mass and energy/buildtime ratios should be changed to match as they are uniquely worse for seemingly no reason, but I would rather have the Rhino actually do 100 DPS instead of making it cheaper

@melanol

Non factor. It's a transportable luggage unit with a script to add and remove ammo when added to storage. Payload and range can be whatever you want on either launch platform. Could even make the warheads able to self-destruct and transportable by ACU/SACU/engineer for a bit of ground-and-pound.

@Fichom

I felt that an idea to rework nuke subs fit perfectly in in thread titled "Nuke Sub Rework".

excuse me its not in beta its main balance

Since tomorrow is the release of the patch on faf i will be doing a stream going over all the changes + insights in what's currently planned for the next one.

It wll be on 15/07 19:00 CET

I like the idea of letting the Fattie be able to build structures, build units on the move, and a slight bump to HP and speed.

I would add a teleportation alert. Something like "Quantum shift detected".

I was also not happy with the cost of the additional 5 meters, but then I remembered that I use Aeon ACU as a mobile defensive overcharge turret hiding under shields late game dealing up to 15k damage to land units from 35 units away (colossus is 40), and... whatever, let it be. Additional testing will show if that's the proper cost.

I like the idea of subs being low-HP high damage units, but the dynamics of water play are not like land Vs Air.

High damage subs that could push an enemy navy out sounds good on paper, because most subs can not effectively do anything about land. The hard counter to subs would be torpedo bombers. The counter to that being cruisers. Under this dynamic, a Seraphim navy would be pretty dangerous, sub rush to push the enemy navy out, cruisers to shoot down torpedo bombers, and long range tactical missiles to bombard land targets. Of course, the exchange rate of using suicide torpedo bombers against cruisers is better for torpedo bombers, torpedo bombers are cheaper.

If torpedo turrets had more HP or torpedo defense, it could change the dynamic of high-damage subs pushing someone out of the water, at least until destroyers show up and out-range the torpedo turrets.

The dynamic of water is interestingly complex, but I would like to see subs have a clear purpose.

@xiaomao got it, thanks for clarifying.

Cybran has the worst transport capacity and Fire Beetles don't even take up as much space as a T1 unit anymore, putting a Deciever on a transport makes its capacity even smaller. So usually for a drop to have any punch you have to load another T2 transport and fly it alongside which is a lot of investment.

Strat bombers are fine in my opinion. For one it is very easy to snipe them either if there is only one or 20 it takes some very high level play to keep them from getting picked off.The main thing they will target in the late game will be smds or game enders. The change I would like to see that would consequently nerf strat bombers would be another nerf to nuke. Also regarding early strats the exact same thing will happen if no one on your team rushes t3 land. there will be some type of t3 unit being dropped everywhere and will kill absolutely everything