SACU Rebalance

Ill try to give a thorough explanation when i got time this weekend (or u can hop on stream to ask)

@theweakie can't wait daddy

Been thinking furthur about the implications of the changes (as presented so far) for Sera SACUs, and I have concluded that the nano repair upgrade would do well to be split into two levels, similar to the ACU version.
As an example, if the first level cost approximately 1000 mass 40 seconds BT and the second cost approximately 2000 mass 120 seconds BT, it would allow player choice between cheaper faster deployed rambos, or full strength comparable to nano+shield rambos, while also maintaing faction coherence.

1000 mass is nothing at that point of the game so everyone would just opt for the stronger nano

@thewheelienoob Except its per unit. So no, a 1000 mass is not nothing.

Yes it is lol, no one's gonna think twice about spending an additional 1k mass (usually produced in 3-4 seconds) for an upgrade that significantly boosts the sACUs performance. And if it isn't a significant boost, why make the distinction?

Seems Like the base unit is kinda of worthless, perhaps we should make the gateway quite cheaper so base units can come into play more?

Not trying to get off topic because I feel it's related so apologies if it leads that way.

I would love it if FAF allowed the option of not having artillery/game enders/novax in a ranked match. That way we could have amazing back and forth battles that would result with such changes to sacu's. I feel like by the time any typical 40-minute plus long match gets to the point where such T3.5 to T4 battles occur at any scale they are overshadowed by multiple t3 artilleries, novax spam and game enders concluding the match. These types of changes that make sacus more viable and allow for the epic battles we all yearn for will be very short-lived because people will always resort to building game enders, artillery and Novax spam so is there really a point in changing anything?

I love the idea of the changes but I just wonder how practical they are considering what typically occurs from the 40-minute mark onward.

I think if everyone is consenting to a ranked match that doesn't include artillery, game enders and novax then it should be allowed as long as land, sea and air and all other units are enabled. I wouldn't want ranked matches that didn't include one or more of the three theaters of war.

Aside from that I think ras sacu should be introduced into Sera... Anytime I'm Sera at the point I want to get ras sacu I end up getting a different engineer off a teammate which isn't the end of the world but we might as well have ras for sera.

These are the thoughts of an under ranked noob with 4,000 games.

@dorset Stop playing astro & gap & huge mapgens and you'll forget last time you've seen t3 arty or game enders. No matter how much rating you have. Play more 3v3. Game enders aren't a problem, astrocrater is.

@sainserow Thank you. Actually pretty much exclusively only play map gen for the last 2,000 or so games. I hit Astro every now and again because I like the arcade aspect of it. I think you're right though playing some 3v3 would be better than the 6v6 + I usually play.

@Rowey scrap the new cybran unit - create cybran shield breaker sacu

also use the shoulder mounted gun ("sam" bone) on the uef sacu as an anti air weapon.

@thewheelienoob said in SACU Rebalance:

1000 mass is nothing at that point of the game so everyone would just opt for the stronger nano

The cost is entirely beside the point, it was just an example.

Alternatively, you increase the cost significantly, and to justify this, amp up the nano massively until you have 50k hp 400 regen SACUs with long range overcharge running around which is also not the best idea. That is why I addressed the insignificance of a low cost because a high cost could be too significant to the point where u have mini t4s running around lol (that would actually decimate actual t4s)

Just to stir some shit up how interested are people in custom presets?

(Is it possible? Probably, but I don't know for sure.)

@cocainediesel I would like that if it is possible.

I'll look into it. It's my understanding that the selection system treating the different presets as different unit types (for double click etc.) is desirable? Or is that just a byproduct of the implementation?

i talk with jip about this idea of custom presets but the issues it that it would require a rewithe to how the current presets are done due to they are hardcoded in the unit blueprints

@cocainediesel that would be cool actually in my opinion. If you could order it straight out of the gate the way you want.

@cocainediesel
Teleport would be an overpowered preset due to very high total adjacency discounts.

Adjustable selection priority is a feature allowed by the implementation, since I don't know of any way to adjust engine selection priority outside blueprints.

I think custom presets are not necessary if the upgrades are all made useful and the presets available become best options for a specific purpose.

Philosophically I think the whole point of a modular upgrade system is to leave identifying the best combination up to the player.

For tele just increase the cost. It'd make it more costly to install after construction, but with custom presets what's the issue? Retrofitting in the field costs more, price for flexibility etc. etc.