Experimental changes on 2026.06.25 Feedback
-
My Impressions which I already voiced on discord for summary:
- the whole SACUs rebalance is a lot of fun and adds alot of variety, I love it and I really look forward to having it in the mainline FAF-balance
- the Sera-SACU base combat has a Intel-Icon which is confusing, I didnt know that the Upgrade also gives Gun-Range and probably most people don't, so the icon for it should be changed to display gunrange & intel in one Icon for both the Upgrade and the preset
- Sera OC has too high alpha, but many people already noticed that, personally do like the idea of "energy infrastructure" for OC "surviving" an SACU death, while the max dmg certainly needs a lower Cap, I wonder if increased energy cost of OC would be a good idea aswell
- SACUs are too strong in general, but I really, really like the ACU T3-QG progression path, I would prefer if you don't nerf it out of existence and similary the viability of SACUs into the later T4 stage was also pretty neat
Semi-related:
- Ravengers can always be dodged obviously, but the small, high-hp SACUs are a whole new level of missed DPS for this Unit, maybe consider increasing projectile speed or size long term?
-
Together with banani, I conducted a survey on the proposed balance changes amongst the Lots 2025 participants (as they are the strongest players in our community, with extensive experience and a high level of understanding of the game).
Out of 16 players, 9 voted, whilst the rest voted abstain or did not respond. I have attached the survey results below. I hope the balance team will examine them carefully.
If you have any doubts about the survey results, you can ask the Lots 2025 members directly how they voted.
-
This is not really useful at all if they dont say what is bad about them. They could all have different ideas about what is bad...
-
@Nuggets Bad is bad. It wasn't my goal to offer an alternative balance for each point. I've gathered the opinions of different pro players. Most people think it's better not to change snipers and sacu at all than to change it like that. Because it will destroy the balance at the t3 stage.
The other proposed changes are interesting and no one objects to them.
Sorry for my English. I use translator
-
@Nuggets Bad is bad. It wasn't my goal to offer an alternative balance for each point. I've gathered the opinions of different pro players. Most people think it's better not to change snipers and sacu at all than to change it like that. Because it will destroy the balance at the t3 stage.
The other proposed changes are interesting and no one objects to them.
I literally didn't answer it because i couldn't voice my intent with a question like this.
I think that the sniper change isn't needed at all but i don't think there is anyone that disagrees with a more balanced sacu considering they are almost never build in any serious (tournament) environment. Rebalancing sacu's has literally been on the balance agenda for 5+ years at this point and everyone always wanted it to happen. Just because the current proposal of nomander is not well balanced doesn't mean that the idea for rebalancing it is wrong. It just means that the current iteration is bad.
This is why the questions you asked are pretty irrelevant because you only ask about the current iteration (which is on fafdevelop, a testing mode, for a reason) and not about people's opinion about the big picture.
-
@Skrat Bad is bad is a meaningless statement.
It matters "why" something is bad. Have you even followed the discussion. E.g. the consensus for SACUs on fafdev state already is, that they are too strong.
So even if you were to provide replays to show why something is "bad" - which you didnt - it wouldnt mean anything because adjustments are already on the way.
How about you play some fafdev games when lobbies are up again and the new changes are in and then give some valuable input as what and why you think certain things work and certain things don't.
-
@KnownSniper Yes, in the survey, I specifically asked about the proposed Nomander iteration of changes. The survey format does not include lengthy comments.
In the description of the survey, I left links to the discussion in discord and on the forum. For more detailed comments.
I 100% agree with your opinion about snipers and sacu. Snipers are not needed in rebalancing. Sacu needs rebalancing, but the proposed version is bad.
-
@Sheppy I've been following the discussion on discord and on the forum and leaving reactions under some comments. You can easily see them. The survey was created on the day of publication, but it took a long time to get the answers.
Bad is bad is a completely normal statement. You don't have to play 100 games and write 1,000 words of explanation to say that increasing hp only for UEF ACU alone to 1 million is a bad decision.
-
Bad is a normal statement, you are correct. But just saying bad is also not helpful. If this was a vote made by the balance team to "all of faf" then you could argue its a yes or no. But when adjusting balance on fafdevelop just saying bad is not relevant. Bad can mean many aspects, its not some universal thing.
One player could argue that bad regarding sacu is the fact that they are cheaper, the other could mean with their bad that the adjacency buff is too strong. We will never know unless these people clarify.The only thing the vote told us is that something needs to change. For all we know substracting 100 hp from all support commanders is enough to make it good in the eyes of the players who voted.
I'm not trying to shittalk here or anything. Im just saying if we could get the reason for WHY its bad, it would be 1000x more helpful. Even if its just 1 sentence
-
@Nuggets Unfortunately, our community is not the most active. None of the surveyed knew or were interested in these changes until I wrote to them about it. And even among the active players with lower ratings, with whom I was discussing this, almost no one knew about these changes.
Therefore my main goal was manage to convince the balance team that it was not possible to release changes in such an iteration. Before they are added to the game. Because the reaction to unsuccessful balance edits in FAF is very long and weaky or too strong units can remain unchanged for years.
I didn't see the point in asking specific suggestions from the interviewed players separately, as I left all the links to the discussions in the survey description. And anyone who wants to can write a detailed comment here or in the discord.
I am grateful to Nomander and the Balance team for their work, especially for fixing a lot of bugs and working on improving the FAF. And as I wrote above. I like and support their proposed changes to GC, CZAR and beetles
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login