In order to provide some structure to balance threads and make things easier on the OP, the participants, and moderators themselves, I've decided to create a benchmark for threads. This benchmark should be followed in order for a thread to not be removed due to a lack of material to warrant any sort of meaningful discussion. Why is this necessary? Because currently a lot of the balance forum is reading more like a general tips & gameplay subforum where basic stats or unit relations need to be explained to people. This is meant to flush out a lot of the low effort posting around here. People that repeatedly break the rules here may face a general forum ban.
Some Sort of Ethos
No you do not need to be 2k in ladder and global with 1000 games while somehow managing to play every map on the vault. However, it is beneficial to explain things like what kind of games you prefer to play, the maps you tend to play, even just something about what direction you want FAF to move towards gameplay wise. This is mainly intended as a way for you to be able to identify your own bias as a poster and allow posters from other areas of experience to input their own viewpoint. For example, I'm pretty much entirely a teamgame player and first and foremost most of my ideas/criticisms are going to revolve around how they impact 2v2-4v4 games.
Identify a Problem
This should be either a problem in base FAF or FAF Beta (please identify which and please do not include sim mod issues here). For example, explain how t2 torps are somewhat overtuned in naval combat and a slight nerf would enable healthier gameplay.
Showcase the Problem
There are several methods to doing this and it isn't expected for someone to utilize all of them as certain methods are easier for certain things. I will rank them by their levels of respectability as an argument/rationale with the easiest/least respectable ones being first.
A) Utilize general stat review to showcase the inefficiency of something relative to something pertinent. Generally you should utilize this as a complement to some sort of actual game scenario as a way to explain a situation. Would not recommend relying on this for your entire post.
B) Sandbox testing in which the replay is both posted and the general breakdown of what it was you were testing is explained. This can be strong or weak depending on the thing you wish to test. For example, if one wished to showcase a LAB could reliably beat tanks due to low muzzle velocity it is easy to show in sandbox. If one wants to show that full LABS are a viable unit mix against full tanks, it is not.
C) Real game data in which you are able to showcase that a unit is either over or undertuned. Of course real game data has many considerations to take into account, but that's why it's difficult yet a strong argument. An example of this situation being powerful is looking at how notha interactions worked in teamgames with a single notha being able to destroy bases due to their quick reload rate. Or how t2 transports required a speed nerf because even with proper scouting it was just immensely difficult to properly counter them with interceptors.
D) A modified real game WITH your solution. Not only does this not involve addressing the issue and giving the balance team concrete, practical ideas, but it also removes hypothetical theorizing about whether the change would result in the necessary gameplay change without harming other things. Of course, it's a small sample size but it's still the best proof regardless.
Find a Solution
Look into the unit. Look at the values it has. Find some sort of statistic change that could accomplish addressing your problem with as minimal indirect harm to other elements of FAF. Yes, minimal. There are very few things that can be done that would not involve harming some sort of game situation.
Justify the Solution
Do not just say "do x." Explain why you would need to adjust this stat. Why this stat or stats specifically? What is the intended result of the solution? Are there any possible indirect problems?
This should give not only threads a reason to be read by members of the balance team, but it should also improve the general discourse between people on the subforum. If there is a flaw in someone's argument segment, it will be much easier to pinpoint it and address it constructively rather than the flailing around going around now.
To repeat, threads that do not meet the structure of this post (from this point on) are liable to be removed.
Showcase the Problem, Part D. biass and Dragun101 created a thread on how to make a sim mod to showcase your solution in a real game.
You should make a rule prohibiting this sort of ad hominem nonsense that makes no attempt to address the information provided.
"I'm assuming OP just lost a game and is mad because he thinks he lost to the balance."