The Mazer bug after teleport usually happens when the ACU teleports too close to its target

If you aim at something further away, the mazer will turn on. Then you can aim at stuff closer to you.

While it might seem like a cool idea, it's neither feasible from the code perspective nor balance one. You can't have units that can go under your naval force and suddenly submerge and obliterate your cruisers/destroyers.

cheaper nuke subs make total obsolete whole setons naval battles
t1 spam and other sh*t
which is based

I'll bite.

The perfect addition to this proposal would be to allow Napalm to stick to units
and make them keep burning even after they leave the AoE.

Improved fire effects, overall! More realistic, no?!

~ Stryker

OK, thanks for info!

@dragun101 said in Tactical missile launchers:

You meant in front in the front half tmd defensive circle?

Yes

What if T1 subs have cloak but no stealth and no sonar; also T1 scout planes have no sonar? Makes subs vs mexes & engies strong without affecting subs vs navy. Also means moving sub loses to lurking sub every time (if they engage at all).

Hey, it's your number one fan from Brittany. Please unban me from stream chat. Either that or I'm shadow banned on twitch already.

idk if off topic, but, I always find it weird that any missile weapons don't just retarget the enemy and instead self destruct, if anywhere, this should be at least done on cybran cruisers to make their aa less trash in comparison to others, so far nanodart was changed from what it used to be (slow moving missile that speeds up over time) to be more in line with what other cruisers have (immediately fast moving missile) simply because of how bad it originally was even disregarding overkill, and is now about as good as other cruisers at it, but it lost what it originally was

so if it could change its target mid-flight, being slow moving again but able to retarget might in fact make it more unique of weapon, letting cruisers create a "cloud" of damage above them that anything flying through would get wrecked by, like a flying swarm of mines, instead of just another boring missile weapon that instantly gets full speed and charges directly at initial target like all the others, but of course idk how sim speed would like having so many missiles in the air at same time, looking for targets

for uef and aeon I instead suggest, like you said, simply making them target properly like tmd does, to not overkill, but idk if that can even work for units with different hps instead of homogeneous ones (tactical missiles) that are all same hp

@thewheelie said in AOE hitting above a submerged unit should deal 50% dmg:

What does something like a unit getting nerfed has to do with this? Almost all of these changes happened for balance reasons and not for gameplay reasons and are thus irrelevant to the discussion. Blocking nukes with random air units was too strong so it was nerfed, crashing novax to block nukes was too strong so it was nerfed, crashing air t4's were too strong so it was nerfed. Groundfiring subs is not too strong so it isn't nerfed. Also most of these changes didn't even remove the mechanic.

the reason groundfiring submarines seems it is not too strong is because so far this feature has always existed to "balance" submarines, so we never even saw submarines without it, they would more likely be overpowered without it, which is why they have to be rebalanced once this "feature" is fixed, instead of keeping nonsensical mechanic so as to not have to balance them

I completely don't get the argument that it's not worth to preserve something if it only tends to be used in higher level plays. A higher skill ceiling is completely acceptable as long as it doesn't affect the skill floor, which groundfiring subs doesn't do. Almost every game in existence have a numerous amount of top lvl features that the vast majority of players will never use or use properly. Why do you think that is?

I don't think I am a "high rated" player but I see groundfiring submarines happen all the time when there are any built in first place at point battleships are around (they mostly aren't, probably exactly because this counter exists so why bother with them), mostly it happens with harms

another thing is that harms itself is also being balanced around this for some reason, it even had its underwater depth raised specifically so it can get hit by battleships no matter where it is placed (it used to sink to the bottom of ocean before, making groundfiring unreliable), speaking of backwards balancing

I'm not saying harms should be op, but it should be rebalanced in other ways without being able to get hit by battleship surface cannons to offset its opness

blocking nukes with air units and crashing novax did get removed, you literally can't block a nuke with air units now because it goes through them, and novax has a random trajectory making intentionally dropping it on anything specific effectively impossible

loyalist deflecting billy is also impossible now (thus removed), crashing air units also can't go through shields anymore (removed), all these mechanics were removed, not merely units rebalanced

I don't mind any of those mechanics being removed btw, except for loyalists billy deflect (it is a tactical missile and that's what they deflect) and nerfed t4 air crash damage (should be balanced with random trajectory like novax was instead imo), because those make no sense, just like balancing submarines around surface weapon groundfire

and I know bugs with the game sometimes get turned into real features, but I don't see groundfiring submarines as one such feature, or why, for example, similar feature of loyalist deflecting billy is at the same time considered unacceptable in comparison and got removed unlike this one

the value you get out of groundfiring submarines is too massive in comparison to other options for dealing with them, especially harms

@chenbro101 said in Why are base SACU's getting a health nerf?:

The cybran nano upgrade is a waste unless you stick them in water for navy reclaim. Tying the health to this overpriced upgrade means that they go from being cost efficient vs t3 units to something that is inferior to them. Unless the build cost is also reduced.

Nano upgrade on Aoen and Cybran right now only makes sense vs a limited number of T1-T3 units. Very hard to stop if you dont have much to throw at it. Just not very good vs EXPs or large armies of Percies f.ex.
The main issue is though that you need a certain amount of HP (which sera SACU gets with its version of the Nano upgrade) to make it relevant.
Might be an idea to think about whether Cybran and Aoen should get some base HP increase with their Nano upgrade. At current they have a lot more regen from the nano but little HP gain from it.

@thomashiatt don't worry, aeon has the Paragon.

@evildrew in a 0 rating average game your logic makes sense, but anyone with 1500+ rating and atleast some game and player knowledge would be able to counter any tele with ease. You just cannot assume that a defending player is always zoomed into his mexes with minimap closed and no intel whatsoever.

@vinyl117 said in The worst experimental in the game: the bug:

@azraeel You mean a unique ability that belong to the cybran gunship in the base game anyway?

its doesnt anymore 😄

in my opinion it should be even more in other direction: enemy nukes shouldn't be announced at all unless/when you have intel over them

it's just another broken thing in intel system, giving you free info, similar to knowing when enemy destroys/upgrades a building you scouted 10 minutes ago even if you didn't have any intel over it at the time, because the icon changed color, it makes no sense

and if they moved any slower there would be enough time to reclaim the base before the nuke arrives (yes I already do this on expensive buildings sometimes)

as a counter to no warning given, I suggest nukes should be targettable by anti air fire until they reach space (novax altitude), so air can destroy them until then, once they are in space though, only smd should be able to stop them, even once they start descending to target (hp rebalancing would be needed obviously)

Don't think making them weaker vs strats will have the desired effect. You will then rely more on asf to counter/defend against strats.
I am guessing the reason for this post is to address asf not really caring if they fly over sams.

@zeldafanboy said in Fix cybran T3 shielding:

Its actually insane that there was no downside to nesting shields into shields in base FAF, that sounds like an unplayable game

You don't need to go as far as base game, go back a few years in FAF and a double/triple stack of UEF T2 shields would not even break to a GC taking a walk into them.

That was tbing of og TA. And removed in Supcom (you can see however the remnants of that in Aeon Unit Line Up)

@rezy-noob said in Extensive Navy Redesign and Rebalancing suggestions - My vision:

is there any need to rebalance navy? no.

Yes there definitely is but its not what Evildrew is suggesting. I'd prefer like Mach said there be some AoE and less relevance on frigates as the only t1 gameplay and buffer for t2 and t3.