Vision changes probably make it harder or no longer possible to maneuver a stealth drop behind enemy lines as Cybran. I didn't check that ingame, but it sounds like +20% vision to everything puts an end to that strategy.

(Torpedo dmg increase or not, I don't see wagners working like submarines, currently. I find the comments about wagners necessitaing torpedo bombers to be really misleading, since if the wagners are doing much of any damage, they are vulnerable to the usual air-to-ground solutions that work against hover units. gunships, bombers etc. If wagners are using torpedoes to clean up submarines and the like, then I stand corrected - but I can't see how it'd happen, currently.) @tagada I totally agree with the idea that wagners are simply too different from hover units - it seems that comparisons between wagners and hover units are basically not useful. At the end of the day, the final metric, I think, just has to be whether wagers are: dominating games, used-but-NOT-dominating, or underused. My very personal experience is that they are underused, but it's not an important opinion - I'm not pro and have limited experience, so I defer to the opinions of other players. Ultimately, though, I think it's just important to adjust them based on whether they're overperforming or unused, rather than trying to draw parallels to hover units.

please dont flood my post with incorrect takes

That doesn't answer why. What problem exists that this is attempting to solve? And how would it solve it better than balance changes? So... make these mods and play them as mods. Why push them to default game?

Nuke is bad

@Caliber The Shield recharge time does play a big factor in how the unit plays. This is one reason why Titans were -and still are- incredible at raiding. The only time it can remotely be on the offensive is when the shield is up. Take it out, and the unit practically is out of action for 2 minutes. But 30 seconds does seem a little short. Unless you made another counterbalance; Perhaps a lower max shield HP? ~ Stryker

@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