I mainly play Aeon and build spreadsheets to analyse the fairness across units/factions. My opinions are only that, opinions, yet I shall when relevant or possible attempt to corroborate them with facts or figures. Now for my thoughts about your post @FunkOff . By the way, thank you for numbering your points.

1. Aurora dying to air is a weakness but their counteracting strength is their hover. This principle also holds true for Zthuee's as they hover and die to bombers in one shot. In regards to the Aurora speed, being slow is necessary otherwise (assuming perfect micro and unit control) the Aurora will kill all T1 + ACU without ever taking damage. I said all T1 full knowing T1 mobile artillery outranges the Aurora. Typically by microing forwards and backwards at the edge of the T1 mobile artillery range you can avoid their shots. I however understand as players performing that level of micro is hard and we often lose many Aurora to a few T1 mobile artillery. Each T1 mobile artillery has at minimum 45 damage per shot (Zthuee). Zthuee fires 5 shots. 3 hits will reduce Aurora to 135 hp. 4 shots will kill the Aurora with 40 overkill. Increasing Aurora HP by 15 will not solve the "problem". Medusa does 200 damage per shot. Aurora HP would need to be >200 to survive. I am mostly sure this level of HP increase is imbalanced.
2. Fervor is great at killing point defence or other structures and terrible against units. This is by design. Aeon are the best at doing one job, but try and make their units do anything other than that one job and they become the worst. Fervor has 22.4 more damage per second than the next most damaging T1 mobile artillery and this reflects the Aeon design philosophy nicely.
3. The Beacon frigate. I'm still analysing that unit so I'll forgo commenting on it except to say it has a very complex role in the Aeon navy as it is distinctly different from the other faction's frigates.
4. The shard. Currently has 45 muzzle velocity, the same as the Thistle and 15 greater than frigate anti air. Thinking simply, the shard is an overpriced water travelling Thistle that moves quicker. Both the Thistle and Shard are inferior (vastly) to air interceptors. If required I can post statistical proof later. If you want air cover, build interceptors as the other T1 alternatives can't compete. However if you are desperate you can build ground or naval anti air. Next is where it gets complicated. Assuming you are still reading at this point you may notice several things. Down the bottom is an example naval fleet consisting of 5 Beacon Class frigates, 2 Shards and 6 Thunderhead class frigates. The Aeon fleet is almost equal to the UEF fleet but has 1870 less HP but 5 anti-torpedo launchers. Is this balanced? Is having one less frigate worth 5 anti-torpedoes? You decide. Is the Shard balanced as part of navy? Yes. Is it useful? No. Should it hit more often? Yes because there are less of them compared to frigates and quality is required to counteract quantity.
5. Shimmer stun time is a point of potential imbalance. I shall now point out a myriad of different factors to consider when deciding if the Shimmer is indeed imbalanced. Shimmer stuns for 2 seconds. Medusa stuns for 3.5 seconds. These values were measured in-game not taken from the unit database. With stun duration, we have to factor in stun frequency and stun area. Medusa has 2 radius while Shimmer has 4. Medusa hits target every 6 seconds while Shimmer without micro (meaning without hover bomb) hits every 10 seconds. The Shimmer in the unit data has a fire cycle of 5 seconds but a flight path of 10 seconds, resulting in a 10 second fire cycle. Compounding this data the Medusa stuns for 1.75x longer, fires 1.67x faster and hits 0.25x more area (<-simple geometry). Assuming simple multiplication can deduce effectiveness, the Medusa is 0.73x more effective than the Shimmer at stunning if units can't die. But units die, thus reducing their effectiveness. HP per mass the Medusa is 2x more efficient, has 0.683x more HP and T1 interceptors deal 1.8x the damage of T1 tanks for 0.935x the mass cost on average. Additionally the Medusa costs 0.34x more mass and 0.0735x more energy. To calculate an adjusted effectiveness rating the standard effectiveness should be multiplied by survivability (HP ratio) and divided by cost (using mass ratio for simplicity's sake). This yields the formula: 1.75 x 1.67 x 0.25 x 0.683 / 0.34 = 1.467. At this point I expect the reader is drowning in values and simple calculations if they are still reading at all! To summarise, the Medusa is 1.467 times stronger at stunning stuff than the Shimmer. Perhaps the balance team could consider increasing the 2 second Shimmer stun too 2 x 1.467. Or 2.5 seconds!
6. Transports are a factional thing that are designed to give the faction uniqueness and compensate for general imbalance due to factional gimmicks.
7. The Aeon T3 bomber is imbalanced (weak). Here are the facts explaining why. Currently the ratio between damage and payload radius is: Damage = 4500-(Radius*250). I shall assume this ratio has been tested to be “balanced”. Each T3 bomber follows this rule except Aeon, why? Subsequent question. Why are the AA ‘goodies’ on the UEF T3 bomber stronger than the Cybran T3 bomber? If the answer is because Cybran has stealth, why don’t Aeon or Seraphim have AA? What ‘buff’ counteracts this imbalance? Next topic. Each T3 bomber has a different set of stats which makes them more or less suited to fulfilling a particular role. First a table indicating the relationship between Mass Extractors and T3 bombers. Next the radius for each bomber. Cybran=7, UEF=6, Seraphim=5, Aeon=4. The Aeon bomber is just as good at killing Mass Extractors as the Seraphim Bomber yet has 1 less radius. Imbalance. You may say “the Aeon bomber has more damage to compensate for this” and this is wrong. The Aeon bomber only has 200 not 250 extra damage over the Seraphim bomber and doesn’t follow the “balanced” ratio! Imbalance. Solution is to add 50 damage to the Aeon Bomber. Just do it.
   Now onto the goodies (T3 bomber anti-air). Seraphim and Aeon don’t have goodies like UEF (their anti-air) or Cybran (anti-air + Stealth). Aeon is the closest to Cybran with only 100 more hp. Does having 100 more HP justify no anti-air or Stealth? No. People may say “but Aeon deals a whopping 700 more damage” but they also forgot that it has 3 less radius. Remember we are assuming the ratio for radius too damage is correct, so clearly the Aeon bomber is underpowered (provided the ratio is balanced). Now for Seraphim. They have 200 more HP than Cybran and 100 less than UEF and STILL don’t have anti-air! How can you justify giving the UEF T3 bomber AA and not the Seraphim bomber! UEF favouritism I see… However if the Aeon T3 bomber was to get tracking on their bomb, I would expect the bomber price to increase drastically, or the tracking to be negligible/non-existent.
8. Ah, the Aeon T2 Shield Generator. I'll start by putting forth the premise that the most efficient/best shield will have the best shield density per mass ratio. To save my readers brain cells I'll just tell you what these ratios are, but you can work them out yourself. Side note: Shields are a factional distinction, just like building HP. I've also included the HP of the Shield structure into my calculations as technically it counts as damage absorption, which is the purpose of a shield. Best T2: Cybran > Aeon > UEF > Seraphim.
   Best T3: Aeon > Cybran > UEF > Seraphim.
   Additional side note: UEF T3 Shield Generator recharge time is faster than everything except Cybran ED1: T2 Shield Generator. Also the Seraphim have the largest+strongest shield, but least efficient.
9. Galactic Colossus. A reasonable unit with a software error in it's tractor claws. The Galactic Colossus tractor arm in-game only activates once per 12ish seconds when tested (GC idle against Percival’s moving towards it). In the unit data (https://github.com/FAForever/fa/blob/develop/units/UAL0401/UAL0401_unit.bp), each of the two claws is supposed to have a fire rate of 0.15shots/second which is about 6.6 seconds per activation per claw. Why the major discrepancy between what actually happens and what is supposed to happen? Conclusion, a software error. Can this please be fixed to make the Galactic Colossus more consistent?

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.
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/739/guide-creating-a-basic-balance-mod-with-a-merge-blueprint

That mod idea about not having move commands get converted into a patrol, can that be made please! I'd 100% use that mod always.

Long way back to opening post. Glad to see you are championing FAF in a positive way. It is good to see someone address the toxicity issue as it has gotten rather bad because of some bad apples (I won't name names).
One of my FAF friends got traumatized from 1v1 toxicity so I had to make a mod to destroy chat so he could feel comfortable playing again. This is just in game and not on the message boards.
This forum post left a bad taste in my mouth yet I hope for a positive outcome.
Disclaimers: 1. I just want my friend to feel comfortable playing socially again. 2. I don't care about politics.

@FunkOff I systematically disagree with almost every single point you made in your original post.

1. T1 UEF tank. Highest HP, lowest DPS, slightly below average speed, highest cost, 1 rank vet adds extra acu shot to kill, etc... Lots of differences between the T1 tanks. However when used the sum total of their differences balance out resulting in no faction having a distinct advantage. E.g. yes the striker may be very very very slightly inferior to other t1 tanks, but UEF T1 factory has 500+ more hp for no additional cost making t1 arty take longer to kill it. Little things like this make the T1 phase balanced.
2. T1 UEF bomber has a different play style to a basic bomber (like the Sinnve). Just use it in a way that capitalises on it's AOE plus high damage. If units dodge it reliably, rejoice because you know the enemy is burning APM which you aren't.
3. T2 UEF static arty is the second cheapest, not most expensive. T2 UEF PD is most expensive but the best all rounder, with highest HP, second lowest DPS, tied best AOE, good high fire arc and quick fire cycle. This makes it the best all rounder T2 PD in the game. If you desire a more specialised PD, play another faction. Aeon for alpha damage + slow fire cycle, cybran for cheap fast lazers and seraphim for... honestly not sure.
4. Rhino never kill mongoose if mongoose are microed. They have too much range and speed. Pillars cost 68% of the mass of a Rhino so they obviously lose 1v1. FtXCommando also illustrated what advantages Pillars have over Rhino.
5. Janus may not be fantastic at sniping eco structures like other factions fighter/bombers but that doesn't mean they suck. Like the UEF T1 bomber it is about using them for the right job. E.g. Abuse their AOE and high DPS to swathe large chunks out of your opponents land army for instance.
6. T3 UEF land is almost a timebomb and possibly the strongest lategame. Percival is borderline OP and a fantastic unit! Titans are shielded raid lords of destruction. T3 UEF air is the same as all the others. T3 air (excluding Shocker) is about as perfectly balanced as possible.
7. Sure the T1 UEF frigate might not be the best (like cybran) but it has jamming. T2 UEF destroyer might not be the best (like aeon) but you have the shield boat. T3 UEF navy more than makes up for any inefficiency in the earlier stages and is very powerful.

At the end of the day, it really comes down to how you use the pieces of the UEF army. Each unit can be viewed as a tool designed for a specific job. Use it for the wrong job and it's effectiveness drops.

To all those like myself who thought the Aeon sacrifice system deposited 100% of the units mass into the build project, prepare to have your preconceptions shattered.
Here are the results of my meticulous sandbox testing. What you do with this knowledge is up to you.

General disclaimer. All test were conducted 2 or more times. Most only two times.

Tests using unupgraded SACUs (except for sacrifice). Note: Mass of sacrifice upgrade (150 mass) not included in calculations. Also HP values rounded down to the nearest hundred.
GC (27500 mass): 90000/99999 HP for 27300 mass of SACU (#14)
Paragon (250200 mass): 2100/5000 HP for 251550 mass of SACU (#129)
CZAR (45000 mass): 30700/40000 HP for 44850 mass of SACU (#23)
Tempest (22000 mass): 46200/60000 HP for 21450 mass of SACU (#11)
Salvation (202500 mass): 4700/10000 HP for 202800 mass of SACU (#104)

Tests for RAS SACUs (not preset) with sacrifice. Note: Mass of sacrifice upgrade (150 mass) not included in calculations. Also HP values rounded down to the nearest hundred.
GC (27500 mass): 25500/99999 HP for 25800 mass of SACU (#4)
Paragon (250200 mass): 600/5000 HP for 251550 mass of SACU (#39)
CZAR (45000 mass): 9300/40000 HP for 45150 mass of SACU (#7)
Tempest (22000 mass): 12500/60000 HP for 19350 mass of SACU (#3)
Salvation (202500 mass): 1400/10000 HP for 206400 mass of SACU (#32)

Tests for RAS preset SACUs with sacrifice. Note: Mass of sacrifice upgrade (150 mass) not included in calculations. Also HP values rounded down to the nearest hundred.
GC (27500 mass): 84400/99999 HP & 99999/99999 HP for 25800 mass & 32250 mass of SACUs respectively (#4 & #5)
Paragon (250200 mass): 2700/5000 HP for 251550 mass of SACU (#39)
CZAR (45000 mass): 36100/40000 HP for 45150 mass of SACU (#7)
Tempest (22000 mass): 47500/60000 HP & 60000/60000 HP for 19350 mass & 25800 mass of SACUs respectively (#3 & #4)
Salvation (202500 mass): 6200/10000 HP for 206400 mass of SACU (#32)

Tests using T3 engineers as sacrifices. Note: HP values rounded down to the nearest hundred.
GC (27500 mass): 24200/99999 HP for 27768 mass of T3 engineers (#89)
Paragon (250200 mass): 500/5000 HP for 250224 mass of T3 engineers (#802) = 202680 mass worth of reclaim from wrecks alone.
CZAR (45000 mass): 7400/40000 HP for 45240 mass of T3 engineers (#145)
Tempest (22000 mass): 11300/60000 HP for 22152 mass of T3 engineers (#71)
Salvation (202500 mass): /10000 HP for *** mass of T3 engineers (#) <- Test not conducted. Got bored.

My general conclusion. NEVER use the sacrifice system unless you literally have no other choice. Its better to ctrl+k and reclaim the wrecks.
Have fun out there.

• The visual aspects make the ability more intuitive. The aspect where the stun times are shorter at the edge will mean higher tech units (with have longer range on average) become more effective against chrono, while low tech units will be completely shut down. Chrono mostly (in my experience) isn't gotten at T1, or T3 so I suspect this change will weaken chrono.
• Perhaps have stun time remain 2.5 seconds but only get's triggered "on contact" with the "chrono wave"?

@FtXCommando I thought Percival's were rather strong, and hard to lose the game with?
@Emperor_Penguin Your idea is honestly quite appealing, but consuming the full value of the unit would be OP like @RandomWheelchair said. A compromise of getting only a % of the wreck mass may compensate for the GC being (as I understand it) more expensive compared to the Ythotha and performing worse.
It would be nice if that idea was seriously considered, instead of being dismissed completely out of hand.

I build spreadsheets to analyse the fairness across units/factions. My opinions are only that, opinions, yet I shall when relevant or possible attempt to corroborate them with facts or figures.

Shimmer stun time is a point of potential imbalance. I shall now point out a myriad of different factors to consider when deciding if the Shimmer is indeed imbalanced using the Medusa as the ‘baseline’ for a balanced unit. Shimmer stuns for 2 seconds. Medusa stuns for 3.5 seconds. These values were measured in-game not taken from the unit database. With stun duration, we have to factor in stun frequency and stun area. Medusa has 2 radius while Shimmer has 4. Medusa hits target every 6 seconds while Shimmer without micro (meaning without hover bomb) hits every 10 seconds. The Shimmer in the unit data has a fire cycle of 5 seconds but a flight path of 10 seconds, resulting in a 10 second fire cycle. Compounding this data the Medusa stuns for 1.75x longer, fires 1.67x faster and hits 0.25x more area (<-simple geometry). Assuming simple multiplication can deduce effectiveness, the Medusa is 0.73x more effective than the Shimmer at stunning if units can't die. But units die, thus reducing their effectiveness. HP per mass the Medusa is 2x more efficient, has 0.683x more HP and T1 interceptors deal 1.8x the damage of T1 tanks for 0.935x the mass cost on average. Additionally the Medusa costs 0.34x more mass and 0.0735x more energy. To summarise, the Medusa is more “tanky” for a reduced cost. To calculate an adjusted effectiveness rating the standard effectiveness should be multiplied by survivability (HP ratio) and divided by cost (using mass ratio for simplicity's sake). This yields the formula: 1.75 x 1.67 x 0.25 x 0.683 / 0.34 = 1.467. At this point I expect the reader is drowning in values and simple calculations if they are still reading at all! To summarise, the Medusa is 1.467 times stronger at stunning stuff than the Shimmer. Perhaps the balance team could consider increasing the 2 second Shimmer stun too 2 x 1.467. Or 3 seconds! However, in patch 3704 Chrono Dampener stun duration was decreased from 3.5 seconds to 2.5 seconds because the longer stun duration caused units to lose their move orders. In order to not lose move orders, I suggest the Shimmer stun time be increased from 2 seconds to 2.5 seconds (not 3 seconds) to preserve move orders of affected units.

The Aeon T3 bomber is imbalanced (weak). Here are the facts explaining why. Currently the ratio between damage and payload radius is: Damage = 4500-(Radius*250). I shall assume this ratio has been tested to be “balanced”. Each T3 bomber follows this rule except Aeon, why? Subsequent question. Why are the AA ‘goodies’ on the UEF T3 bomber stronger than the Cybran T3 bomber? If the answer is because Cybran has stealth, why don’t Aeon or Seraphim have AA? What ‘buff’ counteracts this imbalance? Next topic. Each T3 bomber has a different set of stats which makes them more or less suited to fulfilling a particular role. First a table indicating the relationship between Mass Extractors and T3 Bomber bombs required to destroy said T3 Mass Extractor.

Faction	                UEF	Cybran	Aeon	Seraphim
UEF T3 Bomber	        3	2	3	3
Cybran T3 Bomber	4	3	3	3
Aeon T3 Bomber	        3	2	2	3
Seraphim T3 Bomber	3	2	2	3

Next the radius for each bomber. Cybran=7, UEF=6, Seraphim=5, Aeon=4.
From the table we can see that the Aeon T3 Bomber is just as good at killing Mass Extractors as the Seraphim Bomber yet has 1 less radius. Imbalance. You may say “the Aeon bomber has more damage to compensate for this” and this is wrong. The Aeon bomber only has 200 not 250 extra damage over the Seraphim bomber and doesn’t follow the “balanced” ratio! Imbalance. Solution is to add 50 damage to the Aeon Bomber. Just do it.
Now onto the goodies (T3 bomber anti-air). Seraphim and Aeon don’t have goodies like UEF (their anti-air) or Cybran (anti-air + Stealth). Aeon is the closest to Cybran with only 100 more hp. Does having 100 more HP justify no anti-air or Stealth? No. People may say “but Aeon deals a whopping 700 more damage” but they also forgot that it has 3 less radius. Remember we are assuming the ratio for radius too damage is correct, so clearly the Aeon bomber is underpowered (provided the ratio is balanced). Now for Seraphim. They have 200 more HP than Cybran and 100 less than UEF and STILL don’t have anti-air! How can you justify giving the UEF T3 bomber AA and not the Seraphim bomber! UEF favouritism I see… It was suggested in this forum post (https://forum.faforever.com/topic/49/all-the-reasons-aeon-sucks-t1-worst-of-all) to offset the damage and lack of ‘goodies’ imbalance by giving the Aeon T3 Bomber’s bomb target tracking. However if the Aeon T3 Bomber was to get tracking on their bomb, I would expect the bomber price to increase drastically, or the tracking to be negligible/non-existent. That said, this would provide more factional uniqueness, compensate for reduced (imbalanced) bomb damage and offset the lack of goodies.

Galactic Colossus. A reasonable unit with a suspected software error in its tractor claws. The Galactic Colossus tractor arm in-game only activates once per 12ish seconds when tested (GC idle against Percival’s moving towards it). In the unit data (https://github.com/FAForever/fa/blob/develop/units/UAL0401/UAL0401_unit.bp), each of the two claws is supposed to have a fire rate of 0.15shots/second which is about 6.6 seconds per activation per claw. Why the major discrepancy between what actually happens and what is supposed to happen? Conclusion, a software error. Can this please be fixed to make the Galactic Colossus more consistent?
If this is in fact, not a software error, please consider halving the activation time for the claws as the Galactic Colossus is more costly compared to the Ythotha (by 1000 more mass) and is less effective against large T3 unit groups because the Galactic Colossus has no AOE damage. If you are curious about this ‘fact’ I suggest you make a ‘test’ game and throw 30 T3 units (direct fire of same unit) at a Galactic Colossus, then repeat for the Ythotha. The Ythotha will have destroyed more T3 units than the Galactic Colossus.

The Novax. Currently it costs exactly half as much as a Duke, has more than half the DPS of the Duke, is 100% accurate, has omni and radar while having unlimited range (via moving). The only reason not to build 2 Novax instead of 1 Duke is the area effect of the Duke. Please apply a very minor increase to the mass cost of the Novax to offset the additional benefits.
Talking about intel and balance Seraphim is lacking. Aeon has the Eye of Rhianne, Cybran has the Soothsayer and UEF have the Novax (despite this being way more expansive). What can the balance team do to balance this? Yes, the Iaselen T3 Spy Plane has Sonar unlike the other Spy Planes, but this is to offset the lack of a T3 Sonar Platform.

Now onto the Percival. Its shots are almost impossible to dodge with T3 land units. Factor in the alpha damage (1450) + greatest range (34) every unit which attempts to tango with the Percival has their actual maximum HP reduced by 1450. This range, plus their high HP, plus high alpha makes them nearly impossible to counter with land units. This statement assumes equal mass investment into both armies and only into direct fire land units, not indirect fire. I can already sense people saying something like “just don’t fight them and attack elsewhere”. Such a statement is true yet also implies two things. One, that Percivals are unbeatable. Two, the non-Percival player is playing on a countdown to win before the UEF player reaches a critical mass of Percival’s. A suggestion to allow counter play by land units would be to reduce the Percival’s speed to ~1.8. This will mitigate the Percival’s range advantage, emphasise the “attack elsewhere” point and make ‘poke’ from Percival’s more easily punished. Movement across the battlefield for Percival’s will admittedly be affected, yet UEF possess the only T3 transport. Perhaps the speed reduction of the Percival will encourage the Continental to be used once again. A less favourable suggestion would be to further reduce the Percival’s muzzle velocity however this forces the opposing player to burn more APM in fights to dodge shots, resulting in a subtle advantage to UEF players.
Fun fact, the average range of the Harbinger, Titan, Loyalist, Percival, Brick and Othuum is 26.125 when including all their land-to-land weapons. The Percival has ~8 extra range on average at the T3 phase. Perhaps this is one reason why Snipers and T3 Mobile Artillery were the main T3 land army composition a few patches ago??

I am exceptionally curious to hear feedback from the balance team and the community.

The Aeon T2 PD, Oblivion has a glorious animation and splash. Every time it fires I watch it arc, hit or miss something, and feel good inside when a nearby unit near the primary target gets taken out! With such glorious AOE I laugh evilly every time someone shift-g's near the Oblivion.

However it seems like at the fringes of the water balloon splash, some units sometimes emerge unscathed. This is mildly frustrating. Despite this minor emotional affliction I take solace seeing the Triad, with its pathetic little shells miss so ofte... It hit. How did it hit that? The shot didn't even come close to connecting! Rage ensues.

It was probably a fluke. Already expecting to be disproven, I pop onto github and quickly compare the AOE's of the Oblivion and Triad. I'm shocked by what I find.
Disillusioned and disheartened I write, "Please change the animation for the Oblivion to better match its radius." Such disappointment cannot be allowed to be perpetuated!

@ctrl-k thank you!

Why can the death lightening ball target units but not structures (assuming full intel)? Units within range are always hit, while structures within range are only hit apparently at random.

Why make this UI mod? This mod would increase the efficiency of COMBAT SACU's via the veterancy mechanic through a reduction of user APM.

There are two types of Combat SACU's. 1. The type directly produced from the Gateway as a preset. 2. The type manually made via upgrades from a default (unupgraded) SACU.
The second type is usually superior for the following reasons: Immediate resource production, quicker build power available, less mass killed required to vet (this is the main reason for the mod). However the first type is generally easier on the APM (about 8 clicks less per unit).
Having a mod that automatically, or on keybind press, upgrades basic SACU's produced from a gateway into a "preset" configuration would combine the best of both types. Higher efficiency and lower APM.
To state how much more efficient it is to have a non-preset upgraded into a Combat preset, it's about 5 times more efficient. This is because the veterancy is based upon the units build cost when it's spawned in and doesn't factor in upgrade costs. Thus you need significantly less mass killed to vet up SACU's if you bothered to manually upgrade them.

To summarise, this UI mod would allow default SACU's to be easily upgraded into Combat SACU's and thereby benefit from requiring up to ~5 times less mass killed to increase veterancy.

Agreed BlackYps. But there is certainly a difference in my gameplay after a long break. Sometimes I'm much better or worse. Having a larger uncertainty to reflect an extended break would be nice. But having your actual rating change after several months break seems bad.

1. The rank being visible to myself puts pressure on me to keep it. Thus I don't boot up ladder for a quick casual game.
2. Maps that are very build order dependent aren't enjoyable.
3. Not enough map-gen. Although map-gen these days is a bit same-same with what it outputs. Earlier iterations of map gen gave more diversity.
4. Too many rude individuals. Had to make my own mod to disable chat and shared it with friends before a similar mod became available in the vault. Having chat disabled by default in 1v1's should be implemented.
5. Changing the name might take a lot of the mental stress away and make it seem less competitive. Perhaps this is why some games have "ranked" and "unranked". All that's different is what's displayed and what they are called. Perception of what you are playing makes a big difference.

@thomashiatt
A good laugh and exaggeration for sure, but some truth is in there.

I've found Harbs inadequate vs the T3 of other factions in straight up fights. So I tried snipers. But some suicide T1 bombers coordinated with an asylum shield going offline (or just drifting away from the units they are supposed to protect) equals lots of dead snipers. So that didn't work either.
Then Jip broke the GC. Finally I'd found an answer to... well, just about everything on land. I fear the balance team will nerf it, not just in-line, but far past the line, into the ground and then take a dump on its rotting corpse, putting Aeon players who aren't 3000+ rated back to square one.

I actually like the idea of making more of the Aeon faction rely on having a constant energy supply in exchange for a little bit of extra power. Greater rewards coupled with greater risks.

Random note. Make Chicken death ball able to target structures to bring it in-line with the GC.

My feedback.

Sparky: T2 Field Engineer
Nice! Feels much better as a front line supporter. A bit worried the T1 factory blueprint part might be abusable but haven't had those fears confirmed yet.

Ambassador: T3 Strategic Bomber
Feels too strong now.

SR90 Blackbird: T3 Spy Plane
Like how it is unique now.

Loyalist: T3 Siege Assault Bot
The charge ability feels much better now with the change. Weapons staying active really helped make the ability feel worth the APM.
No more redirect on billy nuke was blatant UEF favouritism. Cruiser TDM can stop it, ergo loyalist TMD should to. Alternative: redirected billy nukes become viewed as hostile to TMD on return flight and can be shot down.

Usha-Ah: T3 Sniper Bot & Sprite Striker: T3 Sniper Bot
Nerfed again? They feel like mistakes to even build in the first place now. T3 direct fire unit balls now feel unstoppable by Sniper Bots.

T2 Air Transports
Crash damage increase was nice. Didn't know how much I wanted this change until it was thrust upon me.

Beacon Class: T1 Frigate
Feels too strong now. Perhaps revert build costs but keep range increase.

Bulwark: T2 Shield Boat
New change feels good. More relevant in T2 phase.

Hives & Kennels
Hives feel too costly for what you get.
Kennels feel better now as in-base consolidated BP. Rebuild cost on drones however makes them easy to abuse as fast flying engineers going around the map.

T2 Point Defense
Cerberus - Small buff. You needed it.
Oblivion - Small nerf. Still the worst. Missed an opportunity here to give it some love. More AOE?
Uttaushala - Small nerf.
Triad - Very small nerf. Did it need to get relatively (albeit slightly) stronger compared to the others?

All changes not commented on are either good changes or I don't have any particular thoughts about if they are good or bad changes yet.

This issue is an artifact from the days when TMD projectiles didn't have tracking. The Aeon missile would swerve, thus sometimes causing the TMD to miss, but to compensate it also had an extremely low chance of missing. Needless to say this gave Aeon a significant advantage which was OP. But that's the story behind why Aeon missiles are drunk.

Just sandbox 1000 mml shooting at 1000 wall sections. You'll have a few misses on the Evensong. From my testing in the past, no other faction had this issue.

My thoughts:

• Asylum (Aeon T2 mobile shield)
  Good change but my "Aeon main" heart cries.

• Titan and Loyalist
  Good change.
  Titans have been oppressive since their buff. Shame this change also affects Loyalist. Loyalists need some TLC.

• Sniper bots
  Problematic change.
  They already feel like they fall out of mobile shields too easily and die to suicide T1 bombers. Increasing their price simply hurts that more. Perhaps a minor HP increase to cater to the average joe? Still the proposed change will stop snowballs.

• Air Experimentals
  Good change.
  The energy cost increases should help normalise them in the air game.

• Valiant (UEF Destroyer)
  Bad change.
  Yes, the Valiant is jokingly "hot garbage" compared to its factional counterparts. This is offset by the Neptune and its ability to crush T1 and T2. Buff the Valiant and the UEF navy will be OP.

• T3 UEF Air
  Controversial change.
  What do Seraphim and Aeon get? Cybran = Stealth. UEF = Jamming. What about the others?
  Jamming in ASF battles? A very bold idea.
  Energy cost for Jamming on the Ambassador (UEF T3 bomber) should equal the Stealth cost of the Revenant (Cybran T3 bomber). 150 E/s.

• Salem
  Good change.
  All other LABs have 360 degrees attack, so this makes the Salem suck less at that. However, it's still primarily a scout.

• Sparky
  Mixed change.
  Intel structures good, factory bad. Why not just give the Sparky access to a full blueprint if you are giving it access to the factory? How to over buff a unit right here.
  Most powerful backline drops in the game. Mandatory UEF for proxy firebases.

• Kennels
  Mostly bad change.
  Give the drones a leash range if you want to pull them in line with hives. This cost reduction is too strong without a leash. While you're there, give the Novax a leash range of 825 (same as T3 arty).

• Nukes (silos and subs)
  Mixed thoughts.
  Probably good? Never found nukes oppressive to begin with since RAS bois exist. Nerf RAS, then think about a nuke silo nerf. Nuke subs however can use the nerf.

• Mechanics
  ACU and SACU changes good.
  Loyalist change bad.
  Loyalists are already pathetic as is. This change would be fine if accompanied by a range increase to their redirect laser.

Afterthoughts.
Give the Uashavoh (Sera T2 destroyer) a Turret Yaw increase. This unit is supposed to be heavily microed and the Yaw hinders this.
Instead of an 11% HP increase for the Valiant, give it a move speed buff to enhance its "skirmishing" ability. Adds micro and skill cap to the unit.
Snipers. A nerf for them would be to halve all their current stats, including DPS and Mass cost. Everything but physics, range and intel. They wouldn't fit under shields anymore if amassed. Very big nerf. Syke.
Emissary. The worst T3 arty. Buff projectile speed. 120 -> 150. Problem solved. Niche role. Rapid and accurate fringe target destruction. Still trash at base killing.