Make friendly nuke launches sound different from enemy nuke launches. Or just make friendly nuke launches without sound.

If someone builds t3-t4 arty, and it gets sniped, and 80% of the mass stays in the spot in almost indestructyble way. Then this person probably has build power (and build power to build build power), to throw up another one close by very-very fast. This means that killing gameenders would become much less efficient, and game would become much more turtly. Less fighting outside bases, and more t3 arty-gameender building in bases. And I dont think it is good thing.
It is true that it is hard to estimate the hp of a wreck, and even to understand sometimes, what unit left the wreck. But the actual mechanic that wreck's hp is related to units hp is quite solid (and not filled with exceptions, like some other mechanics) and easy to remember. Players are mostly concerned with wrecks from their direct opponent or one next to him. Players are mostly concerned with wreckes on battlefield they have created themselves. And that gives the possibility to remember more or less what got killed there.
So I would say that making game hugely more turtly or adding exceptions right and left does not seem a good idea. Rather keep it as it is?

Suggestion do load nukesubs automaticly. If basicly everybody builds nukesubs for nukes (and not for other things), why do we need to start loading manually every time? Tml's, antinukes, nukes on land etc. load automaticly. But with nukesubs, we need to keep eye on factory, to see when it is ready, sometimes find the nukesub in the middle of other things, and start loading manually, every nukesub. Seems like artificial difficulty, that should be easy to change.

Aurora not only have half the hp of other tanks, but also tends to miss a lot and cant shoot much upwards-downwards. And needs scauting or radar to use its range. And huge amount of micro. Depends of the map, but on big open landmap, I think most players are unable to use Auroras effectively. New players even less.

Aeon also has worst t1 frigat and quite useless aa boat. T1 mobile aa on land has slightly more health and dps than tanks (not to mention t2...), but Shard (t1 aa boat), is so far from the same comparison with frigats.

Not so much of a problem, but Aeon t1 arty is the only one that can shoot only in front side. So you cant run around and shoot as easily as with other nations. Can be a problem for kiteing, to follow Auroras...

So getting over the beginning, t1 stage, of the game when playing with aeon can be quite difficult. I think this is what most people dont like. Aeon has best destroyer, useless t3 gunship, bad t2 fighter, no fighter bomber, etc. Those are factional differencis, you can compensate with other units. But t1 is hard to avoid.

I dont really see why people would not like to play against Aeon. Might be, that if someone actually chooses Aeon, it might mean that he knows what he is doing and has very good micro.?

Democracys tend to be more stable than dictatorships. And hugely more effective. And as @Eternal well said, stability at the cost of everything else, is not the objective. And of course, meritocratical systems tend to be hugely more effective too.

Concerning antinuke. I agree with words of @archsimkat. But I point out, that not having mobile antinuke, seems to make many massheavy maps totally turtle type (some DualCap, Astro?). Once your army or navy value is bigger then value of nukes neccessaire to destroy that army or navy (so that army/navy cant dodge those nukes). It forces the games to go into "build big gun, everything else does not matter" style. Having mobile antinuke could add lots of possibilitys and gameplay. And reduce turtle-eco-build-big-gun, type of games.

I am not talking antinuke on nukesub, but maybe new unit that could go on land and water. More expensive than static one of course, but maybe reduce the price of static anti nuke a little?

Whatever you do, do not reduce the number of colors. People actively choose colors to not have similar colors side by side. Having three similar colors in 16 player game is not a big problem, if one is in left, another in mid, and last one in right. But having only 16 colors, means that last one can end up with very similar color to his neighbor. And that is a problem.

Also many players have their favorite color. And if that is not available, they choose similar colors. This makes it much easyer to memorise/remember players in 16 player games. Of course this is quite irrelevant in 2v2, but it helps a lot in 16 player games.

Also there is probably some other, personal reasons for some players. They chose a color, or similar color, that they see better or are more used to or like better etc. This does not mean, that they will deliberatly put two very similar colors side by side, but only that they have some choice. And playing a game rather than looking at tv is something to do with wanting to have choices, maybe.

And it is not like those games do not exist. 16 player survival was very popular lately, and some 8v8 maps are regularly played. too.

On the "color naming problem". People use names, half the name, first 3-4 lettres of the name. Or the spot of the player, if available. No need to invent special very long names for colors. People dont use those today and probably wont use those in the future.

I think no need for more screenshots?

There is also a very easy and not fun way to adress those problems that you pointed out.
Rise the hp and reduce the range of Aurora. Makeing it similar to other t1 tanks. Same range, and (more or less) same hp. Keep the hover to go over water and dodge, keep the fireing problems related to elevation and slow speed. It will still be faction specific unit.
Not sure if this is good idea, but it might make low-to-medium level players use it as they use other nations... Also almost no balancing to do, and easy to learn for players.

So 4v4 means 8 minutes of real time needs to pass for game to be ranked? Including pauses? Why not to have some game time necessaire too. In noob games no one really looks at real time and people take time to react, then they discuss about f11, then they discuss who is lagging, why is lagging, then they pause (or not) and try to fix it etc. game with only one minut of game time and no shots fired can be rated. I do not know the raisoning behind this rule, but it seems that those games should better not be rated. Maybe 8 minutes of real time and 4 minutes of game time? Or only 5 minutes of game time necessaire for game to be ranked?

@bogdganku There is UI mod called "ACU Self Destruct Confirm". Personnally I never tried it.

@MinDept FAF has very old game engine that heavily charges on one cpu thread. So basicly disabling core number 0 for FAF(and leaving it for system) on your cpu should give you slightly better performance. There have also been discussions about that, and how to do it, in the past, if you can find those in Forum "search" maybe.

@wikingest said in A small rework/ buff to sera t1 sub to rebalance their navy:

I just ran a fast sandbox, and it seems that they are broken again. 1 Sera destro barely wins against 2 subhunters, but in bigger groups they get wrecked by subhunters. Althought maybe less than in the past...

@FemtoZetta My first post. As you can see, it never was about only 1 destro vs 2 subs.

@MazorNoob I was unable to get the same results as you. #19148471 Even if I spread out the subhunters, and totally mismicro, sending one in before other, Sera destro is left with 7.5% health. When subs are not mismicroed, destro has about 2% health left.

@Tagada When I wrote the comment (7 Oct 2022), all destroyers lost to subs massvise, when in big quantitys. Then they stopped losing to subs a part UEF of course. And now Seraphim destroyers lose to t2 submarines in big quantitys again.

@MazorNoob "I'm pretty sure last time I tested phim destroyer versus 2 sub hunters, it killed both with 30% of its health remaining. It actually did better than Cybran destroyer, which was left at around 25%." Destroyer having 30% of health left, is a symptom of winning against subs. Today I believe it is much less.

@Jip Can you help us out of toxicity here? Do you know anything about changes affecting destroyers vs submarines, from 7 oct 2022 to today? Concerning all factions and maybe Seraphime faction more than others? Or maybe you know who knows about it?

@wikingest said in A small rework/ buff to sera t1 sub to rebalance their navy:

I dont know, when it started, but at 7 Oct 2022, all destros lost to subs in big quantitys. As I brought out
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/4951/torp-bombers-are-too-strong-vs-subs/8?_=1675259960008
After that it got fixed someday, without much talk. Might have been something about torp defences fireing in opposite direction? So I checked it, and Sera destros did just fine against subs. Probably when @MazorNoob checked also. It was kind of big thing, who would not have noticed it, all destros losing to subs? And those who did the fixing and all. I dont see much to prove here. No need to look for replays, rather how could someone not know?
And so today Sera destros lose against t2 subs in big quantitys again...

I dont know, when it started, but at 7 Oct 2022, all destros lost to subs in big quantitys. As I brought out
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/4951/torp-bombers-are-too-strong-vs-subs/8?_=1675259960008
After that it got fixed someday, without much talk. Might have been something about torp defences fireing in opposite direction? So I checked it, and Sera destros did just fine against subs. Probably when @MazorNoob checked also. It was kind of big thing, who would not have noticed it, all destros losing to subs? And those who did the fixing and all. I dont see much to prove here. No need to look for replays, rather how could someone not know?

And so today Sera destros lose against t2 subs in big quantitys again...

@FemtoZetta Thats exactly what I said. I would recommend to read my comments first. Sera destros used to largely win against subs, and now they are losing. So it must be broken. Or have you seen a balance change that made Sera t2 navy depend entirely from air? Was there a balance decision to make sera destros weaker than subs lately?

So you recognise that you lied once more. And now you pretend, that unit statistics are different in sandbox? And we are supposed to believe it?

@ftxcommando said in A small rework/ buff to sera t1 sub to rebalance their navy:

They’ve never been good against t2 subs

Yes they were good, I had similar results as @MazorNoob.

@ftxcommando said in A small rework/ buff to sera t1 sub to rebalance their navy:

no torp defense

Yeah, I thought this was a lie. Sera destroyers surface to have more dps and range. And if they would not surface, Aeon destroyers would hard crush them.

Sera destros were quite good against subs, and I dont remember balance change, that states that one faction on t2 navy needs to solely count on air.