Suggestions & Recommendations

---

Good afternoon.

I wanted to write this post to offer some upgrades in Quality-of-Life changes to the UI of FAF.

• First (the most important one) - Showcase the range of teammates' intel structures and units.
• Second - Allow reclaiming from a higher distance/zoom level.
• Third - More disperse options.
• Lastly - Add missing hotkeys for structures and upgrades.

---

Unable to see ally's intel structure and intel unit ranges.

In the current way of how FAF works, (if you have your intel ranges active), you will see your radar, omni, counterintel, and sonar ranges. However, you cannot see your teammates' intel rings.

This is detrimental to teamwork! If you do not own the intel structure or unit, then you cannot know exactly what is covered, risking runbys / teleports and more in areas you thought were covered by radar, omni, or sonar.
Then you wouldn't have to ask your teammate, guess or manually check where their range is.

This should be in the game by default.

---

Increase the zoom Level at which reclaim is possible.

When you go to reclaim, most of the time, you have to zoom in quite close to the battlefield to issue a reclaim order.
The option to manually reclaim from a certain zoom distance should be given to the player rather than being enforced by the game.

How it currently works in FAF:

Here, you can see how close we are to a rock, yet the player is still unable to reclaim it.
Below is how close you actually need to be to reclaim that rock.

It is difficult to showcase through images, but a player needs to zoom in quite a bit more to reclaim.

The point is, you can clearly see the reclaim yet you cannot give the order which makes you lose time in needing to zoom in further. You don't want the UI to make the player feel as if they are able to give an order (The rock is clearly big enough and visible) when they cannot (but not reclaimable).

For small rocks, it is not an issue since you must zoom in to be precise. However, for larger rocks, it would be preferable if you could manually reclaim them from the same range that you could see them or any range the player prefers.

---

More Disperse Options

Currently, there is a mod that is amazing for scouting or moving multiple units to multiple different waypoints.
This mod can already allow the player to disperse assist engineers over multiple structures and units.

However, there is no disperse attack, disperse build, or disperse reclaim orders which could all be added into the base game.

The disperse attack order would allow finer control over attack orders such as multi-target bombing.
Currently, you can do it with the built-in option Spread Attack, however, it clutters the screen with multiple orders which scale exceptionally per unit and per order given which limits the way you can retarget or micro your attack orders.

This is also an issue for performance similar to how the mod "Spread Move" acted when giving large orders with multiple units. Possible crashes were likely.

How Spread Attack works:

How Disperse Attack would work:

---

It would be a great addition to the game to have a disperse build option, especially when a player dies in a no-share game and a player must rebuild the base.

How FAF currently works:

How Disperse Build would work:

---

Similar to how to disperse build, and disperse attack would work, disperse reclaim.

How it currently works:

How Disperse Reclaim would work:

---

Hotkeys

Some hotkeys are missing, more specifically for the Aeon Scry (Eye of Rhianne), and ACU upgrades.
For example, the most common upgrade, the Gun upgrade.

This would be a convenient change, so the player doesn't have to click multiple times, to get to the gun upgrade or to not mistake the left or right arm tabs.

There are hotkeys for literally, every other ability, yet, there is no Aeon Eye scry hotkey.

As you can see, there is no such hotkey.

---

Summary

• Showcase team's intel ranges
• Increase zoom level for reclaim as an option for the player
• Disperse attack, build, reclaim
• Hotkeys for Eye + Upgrades

---

All in all, just some quality of life changes.

---

~ Stryker

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 7 (The Ravager)

---

Hey, everyone. It's been a while.

I wanted to take a quick break so I didn't spam the forums with my posts, and to give you all some time to look over previous posts.
But, after 2 weeks, I will now post my next iteration. The Ravager.

Contrary to the title, this post is more of a suggestion rather than a problem & solution. However, I already had this written, and it felt wrong to leave it out of the series - Hence why it shares the same title and format as my previous posts.

Anywho, on to it!

---

-Disclaimer-

These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.

---

Problem: The Ravager (UEF T3 Point Defense), detailed version:

Many of you may not know what I'm about to show you, as the game itself nor the client database ever mentions this; there's not so much as even a hint of it but, here you go: The Ravager requires energy to reload.

Not to fire, only to reload. It imitates artillery structures, needing 50 Energy to replenish the next volley.

Image shows the Energy consumption of a Ravager.

Granted, it only uses 50 Energy to reload, but the cost is there, nonetheless. This also means it will not fire, or take longer to fire if you are power stalling.
No, this does not mean you can cap the structure with power generators to make it shoot faster.

With this information in mind, we can continue:

---

This idea was suggested to me by @Jip, so credit goes to them. We both shared similar views and agreed that things could be altered to better represent the Ravager.

The following is their idea but with my offering of a slight twist.

---

For quite some time, we've felt that the UEF's T3 PD is lacking in its ability to whittle down enemies. Not in the sense of its damage output, but in its fire rate. It's a minigun that only shoots for 4 seconds?!

The idea here was to change the Ravager so, that instead of firing a short burst, it would fire continuously - even when changing targets. However, only for a portion of the damage. Essentially keeping the damage (per second) it would normally deal the same, but instead, being able to keep the barrage ongoing for longer.

To help balance this change, @Jip also recommended that the Ravager should have a longer spin-up time. This way it won't shoot as soon as it currently does.

Having the structure fire continuously may make some of you skeptical at first, but here is my twist on this: Instead of having the structure use energy to reload - it should cost energy to fire. This way, it becomes more taxing the longer the Ravager fires.

To help in further balancing this, I recommend having the Ravager's fire stream be more inaccurate. Implying a stronger recoil effect which causes its projectiles to have a chance to miss.

---

However, I believe the reason it feels like it doesn't whittle enemies, is because of its awkward firing cycle and animation. The Ravager's animation has it firing 75 energy projectiles in its short 4-second fire cycle. Only 15 of those projectiles actually deal damage (every 5th projectile).

Image shows Ravager animation and projectile fire cycle.

To help mitigate this, the projectile count should be increased. So, instead of 15 projectiles dealing the damage, every other shot could be simulated to deal damage, increasing it from 15 to 25, or even more, projectiles fired.

I reckon that with all the amazing work the FAF team has done and put into this game to optimize its performance, a few more projectiles shouldn't be a problem.

With it still shooting the actual projectiles so far apart, there is still a chance for a unit to dodge the projectiles that deal the damage. Not just the one projectile, but the following projectiles that have been fired, too - as the Ravager hasn't updated its projectile arc to hit the target. So, it could still be outmicro'd.

However, the reason the current projectile count is an issue, is that a unit could avoid the damaging projectile but still be hit by the animation projectiles. They would collide with it yet it would not take damage.

---

How it would affect gameplay:

The Ravager shooting continuously would now mimic the Seraphim's T2 PD. Basically a beam of energy bullets rather than a static beam. Only differences being that the Ravager would be slightly more inaccurate and it would still have projectile travel time - meaning the projectiles could still be dodged.

Having more inaccuracy would also benefit your opponent as the Ravager will not be as precise but, increasing the projectile amount would help the Ravager instead - so a middle ground could be useful here.

On another note, this would make it far more devastating against spam (T1 / T2), but the swivel time could be toned down to help counter-balance. However, I believe the change to the damage of the Ravager would already suffice. It wouldn't hit nearly as hard as it currently does, instead tickling down the enemy units - again, dealing the same damage it would normally deal, just over a longer period of time and spread out over more projectiles.

---

Problem: (The Ravager TL:DR)

Improving the Ravager whilst still keeping it balanced.

Proposed Solution:

Lower the damage of each projectile

Increase firing time to be continuous, keeping the overall DPS the same.

Increase the number of projectiles fired (to match or closely resemble its firing animation.)
Projectiles fired per volley: 15 -> 25 (or more).

Increase spin-up time:
2 seconds - > 3 seconds?

Remove reload energy cost.

Add energy cost to fire:
12.5 energy per second to run.
(This way it still matches the current in-game cost.
It fires for 4 seconds for a cost of 50 E. 50/4 = 12.5)

---

Thank you for your time in reading this.
I encourage you all to offer your suggestions.
I appreciate the feedback.
Sneak Peek at Part 8: Static Shields

For now, see you on the battlefield!

---

~ Stryker

I'm a fan of a lot of the changes you've mentioned and where you're aiming them to go.
I also like some cool features and QoL changes you've made.

Beetle 'rework', navy and anti-navy changes, GC HP drain - all that sounds cool.
Transport speed based on unit numbers - that is interesting and something I look forward to.

Hoverbombing?
T2/T3 mex advantages?
Bigger Fatboy?!
Frigates and Battleships with anti-sub weaponry?!

So much! Where do I start?!

Though, before I get ahead of myself, I'll have to take a deep look at the mod.
That all being said:

---

I am saddened by the Flak you are throwing at the Balance team, though.
They rework units and structures to better fit the overall sense of the game.

For some, changes are -at first- questionable, but given time,
we can start to understand why those changes were made.
All changes are made for the betterment of the 'health' of the game.

If I may also say, the Balance team has been quite transparent with all the changes they've made lately.
What they're aiming to change, how they're changing it, and most importantly - Why they're aiming to change what they're changing.

The other day, @TheWheelie took 2 or 3 hours out of his time to walk us through the Balance Changes and each individual reason for them.
@SpikeyNoob has been very informative about the changes, too.
And the work that @Jip has made. Oh my - where can one start?!

And the entire FAF community is basically run by volunteers. We'd be wise to keep that in mind.
I mean, can we imagine if the devs walked out? The Balance Team? The Promotional Team? etc.

FAF would die out in a week, tops.
There would be no one to maintain the servers; firstly.
No one to update the client, no one to fix bugs, no one to adjust overpowered or underused units and structures, and no one to promote the game.

We only have one FAF... we should take care of it, no?

---

~ Stryker

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 1 (The ACU Bubble Shield)

---

-About Me-

After debating whether or not to post, and after my buddies finally encouraged me to do so, here I am. Hi, my name is ComradeStryker, or Stryker for short, and we need to talk about the UEF.

To start off, I would like to share some quick info on myself. I am currently a 1,400-rated player with over 1,000 ranked games with the UEF faction alone. I've been told I have around 1,800 matches played if we include unranked games. Now, I am aware that there are players who have played significantly more games, but I just want to lay out that I do have a bit of experience with the UEF faction.

I would like to address several areas that I believe would significantly improve the UEF faction from its current iteration. Rather than addressing these concerns in one large post, I have decided to split these into multiple small posts. This will be part 1.

Just a quick note, I use Advanced Strategic Icons, in case someone is wondering about the weird icons I have.

This was originally planned to be one significantly large post, but I doubt many of you would want to read almost 8,000 words all at once. So, if anything ends abruptly, I apologize, as my decision to split this article up was made at the last minute, so, I couldn't iron out everything.
All information was gathered from in-game statistics and cross-referenced with the unit database.

---

-Disclaimer-

These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.

Now, to get started!

---

-The Armored Command Unit (ACU)-

Problem: Bubble Shield Upgrade, detailed version:

FtXCommando has already pointed out this issue and I'm here to reinforce it. The UEF's Bubble Shield upgrade is absurdly power-hungry as it costs nearly as much power as a Cybran ACU's Laser upgrade! We're talking about a 50,000 power difference (450,000 to 500,000). This is a huge issue, as the purpose of this upgrade is to allow the Commander to remain on the front lines for an extended period of time and for it to push with some unit support.

The upgrade itself is meant to be used during the early stages of T3, but because of its power cost, it never gets used as such. The issue is that you need seven, I say again, SEVEN T3 power generators (pgens)(-13,465 E/s) to have this upgrade passively building without powerstalling! Don't even think about assisting the upgrade unless you want your descendants to keep paying the power cost. Just for context, adding in a T1 engineer to assist the Commander with this upgrade will cost you an additional -661 E/s.

Now, these seven T3 pgens are needed if your Commander has the T3 Engineering Suite upgrade as it provides 100 Build Power (BP) for the ACU. Roughly halve that amount if you have the T2 Suite - still needing about three T3 pgens (-5,788 E/s) to compensate for the upgrade's power. This number seems like a more reasonable power consumption cost if it were a T3 Engineering ACU. Constructing the pgens needed for that upgrade to be usable at its most advantageous time would mean you would have to focus solely on your economy, never mind actually playing the game (building land, air, navy, and structures). It would be made even more difficult to obtain this upgrade if you're trying to manage an entire base, army, and its economy on top of that.

(This is also a second upgrade, needing the previous upgrade to unlock)

The power cost should, at the very least, be reduced by half. The Bubble Shield's HP could be altered if need be, but I would say to still offer a large HP boost compared to the first shield upgrade (which provides an extra 19,000 HP) to still make it a lucrative upgrade.

---

Now, let's talk about the bubble shield itself. The bubble isn't nearly as big enough as it should be, as only a handful of units can fit underneath it. This is noticeable when the ACU and an escort of units enter combat. The units tend to strafe out of the shield constantly, especially if you're micro-managing (microing) your ACU, which you will be considering you're on the offensive.

Another factor here is the speed of the ACU and that of the units accompanying it. Every unit is faster than the ACU. Yes, even the Percival. This causes even more issues as when you order them to move to a destination, the units will leave the Commander behind.

Image: Shows land units not slowing down for the ACU

A formation move would help keep all units moving together, but most of the time, it would place the Commander at the far back of the formation or at either side. Even if the ACU was in the middle or at the front, the spacing between units in a formation is too large leaving the majority of them outside of the shield cover.

Image: Formation 1 - ACU is placed at the back

Image: Formation 2 - ACU is placed on either end

On top of that, even with a smaller number of units, giving them a formation-move order, then updating or changing that move order will result in the units cluttering around into a pathfinding-wreck, leaving them vulnerable to attacks as they have likely moved out of the ACU's shield cover during that time.

You may have thought that assisting the ACU may work, as units tend to circle around the assisted unit or structure, this is true. However, in this case, it becomes difficult to move the ACU as it bumps into the units constantly, as they do not change direction as quickly as the ACU does as there is a small delay (between the order given to the ACU and the units assisting the ACU to react). This becomes increasingly more difficult to manage as the size of the formation grows.

Image: Based on the track marks, you can see that the units are going mayhem. (These units were given an order to assist the ACU. Giving a formation-move order when needing to change directions during combat would have all units bumping into each other, similarly to this assist order

Adjusting the size of the shield to encompass a larger army would help alleviate most, if not all of these issues.

---

Problem: (Bubble Shield Upgrade TL:DR)

The ACU's Bubble Shield upgrade is very expensive in energy and the shield size is not large enough.

Proposed Solution:

Reduce the power cost: 450,000 -> 225,000
Increasing the shield size to allow the accommodation of a larger army to tag along with the ACU would be of benefit: 16 -> 18-20?

---

Thanks for your time!
Again, I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
I appreciate the feedback.

I will be posting the next parts over the course of the next few days.
Sneak peek at part 2: The Billy Nuke

For now, see you on the battlefield!

~ Stryker

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 2 (The ACU Billy Nuke)

---

Welcome back!

In this post, I would like to bring some attention to the UEF's Billy Nuke Upgrade.
And, to save some time, let's just head straight into it.

---

-Disclaimer-

These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.

---

-The Armored Command Unit (ACU)-

Problem: Billy Nuke Upgrade, detailed version:

For a while, I've felt that the UEF's Tactical Nuke could have used an update. Don't just take my word, however - I've gone around and asked players (of varying skills) what their thoughts of this upgrade are and this is what they had to say:

"Currently, the upgrade is a meme that you only use in team games." - Oblii
"I never use it, tbh." - Strdxr
"...it's super easy to counter." - Xeigho
"Every Billy Nuke you build is that fewer Titans." - snowy801
"I think it's lackluster... Needs to do more damage in a bigger area and have more health." - Hyp3r2001
"It's a good meme, that's it." - SpikeyNoob
"It's just the 3-4 T3 pgens that are a bit outrageous." - Xayo
"Too expensive to use..." - Prohibitorum
"...I almost never ever get it as its rarely worth the risk..." - Hot-Soup
"Too Expensive... by the time you can afford it, it's already too late." - Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
"... If opponent has brain... billy is completely unusable" - Grimplex

The Tactical Nuke is a bewildering upgrade. Currently deals 12,252 damage, which is enough to wipe out any Tier 1-3 land unit, however, it has a few large issues, causing it to really not be seen outside of team games. I believe the reason for its rare use is because of its overall high risk with low-impact on the game.

To start off, the damage fall-off is extraordinarily high. The Billy Nuke deals all of its damage in the inner ring of the reticle; dealing a pitiful 252 damage to anything outside of that inner circle. This makes the upgrade difficult to use, as not only can the missile be destroyed with ease, but if it barely misses its target, it will just tickle it!

A decrease in the damage fall-off needs to be made, as well as a slight increase to its main damage, so, that even if it misses its intended target, the projectile would still have an effect on it. After all, it is a tactical nuclear warhead.

Increasing the damage would help get the most out of the cost of this upgrade as it costs a whopping 5,400 mass! Let's not forget the previous upgrade, too! Plus 1,400 mass! On top of that, you have to build the projectile for an additional 3,000 mass. All totaling 9,800 to fire one projectile.
Almost 10,000 mass and you only get 12,000 damage out of it and we're not counting the mass needed to build the power generators to obtain said upgrade.

Image: Shows where Billy Nuke damage is applied against Brick test subjects.

Image: Shows HP remaining from an enemy unit stationed in the outer ring.

The upgrade and projectiles themselves are already expensive on power, so I believe that by increasing the damage the projectile deals, it would counter-weigh its power cost, making it worth the investment if it manages to land one hit, even if multiple are fired.

Since the Billy Nuke is easy to counter, a small increase in its projectile HP would be of benefit. This would also help counter-balance the upcoming Buff to Tactical Missile Defenses (TMD) as they were buffed to counter cruiser missiles, which offsets the balance against The Billy. Again, it can tank three hits from a TMD with the fourth destroying the projectile. This makes it incredibly punishing to use as any shield will block its damage and it takes only two TMDs to destroy it. Aeon, on the other hand, only needs one TMD as the flare completely deflects the projectile.

Because of this, the projectile should explode upon destruction. However, instead of dealing full damage when destroyed, it would deal a portion of the damage. This would still keep it deadly and would make it viable to use against navies or very shielded targets.

Since we are talking about a nuclear projectile, I would also like to bring some attention to unused audio lines that have been found in the game files. Specifically audio lines numbers 202 & 203. Unfortunately, I cannot link or post them here as the forum does not take .MP3 files, however, audio line 202 warns "Enemy Nuke Inbound" & audio line 203 notifies "Strategic Missile Destroyed".

I believe these two audio lines can be brought back and used in conjunction with this new Billy Nuke change. Considering its new damage output, it will be deadly to unshielded enemy Commanders, bases, and armies. When the projectile is fired, line 202 should be activated to warn enemy players and line 203 can be used to notify the player that the projectile has been destroyed.

(Audio line 202 should be edited to say "Tactical Nuke Inbound".
Line 203 could get annoying if the enemy Commander keeps firing them progressively, so this line could be left out.)

---

Problem: (Billy Nuke Upgrade TL:DR)

Billy Nuke missile lacks HP, projectile damage is low compared to its high-risk and investment costs, and damage fall-off is ridiculously high.

Proposed Solution:

Projectile HP increase: 4 -> 6 (Edit: 5)
Projectile explodes upon expiration.
Direct damage increase: 12,252 -> 15,000 (Edit: ~14,000)
Fall-off area damage increase: 252 -> 10,000 (Edit: 5,000)
Add warning to enemy players when the projectile is fired.

---

Thanks for your time!
I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
I appreciate all the feedback I can get.

I will continue to post the next parts over the course of the next few days.
Sneak peek at part 3: The Parashield

For now, see you on the battlefield!

~ Stryker

Nearly a year ago, I wrote this post.

Since it received considerable positive support, especially from some well-known names;
I wanted to showcase what this rework would look like in-game, so we can all get a better idea of how it would work.

You can see the changes in action here.
And for specific, more detailed changes, here.

I tried matching the stats as best as I could to keep the damage output nearly the same, with, again, a more continuous fire stream.

Looking forward to that red, glowing barrel, @Jip!

---

~ Stryker

@rowey said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@comradestryker can you also add up what sera double nano is as well to get a fair comparison

Sure thing. Here you go!
These are Base stats without any level of veterancy:

Sera Nano: (Stacks with Base ACU Stats)
1,800 Mass
+2,000 HP (Total = 13,500)
+60 Regen (Total = 70 HP/S)

Sera Double Nano: (Stacks with Nano)
5,800 Mass
+20,000 HP (Total = 33,500)
+150 Regen (Total = 220 HP/S)

---

Here are the stats in detail:
(Format: HP / Regen)

---

For reference, here are the other two factions with (First) Nano and 5x Vet:

---

As you can see, for less than the cost of Sera's first nano upgrade (1,650 vs 1,800 mass),
the Cybran ACU obtains:

• Stealth
• 2,000 more HP (15,500 vs 13,500)
• 20 more regen (90 vs 70).
  These values were taken at base ACU Stats without vet, but, they remain somewhat constant per vet level up to max vet.

If I may also add, though, a minor note...
In the same exact time frame that a Sera obtains its first Nano Upgrade, Cybran can obtain both upgrades.

---

@veteranashe said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

Where is the nano upgrade at for cybran? Middle?

---

~ Stryker

I'm not colorblind but I seem to have trouble with light red and dark red when they're placed side by side in a match
Same with dark blue and light blue. So, yeah, that would be preferable.

---

~ Stryker

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

---

Hi everyone!

Today I would like to talk about the Kennel and its drones.
In extension, the shoulder drones for both the UEF ACU and SACU.

I won't quite get into specifics on mass efficiency or Build Power efficiency as FtXCommando has already covered Kennels Vs. Hives in one of their previous posts with great detail. So, go view that one, too!

But the main gist will still be tackled.
This one is a little long, so bear with me.

---

-Disclaimer-

These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.

---

-Structures-

Problem: The Kennel (Engineering Station) & Drones, detailed version:

Kennels are a fantastic unit, they produce flying engineer drones that can move anywhere on the map! In terms of Engineering Stations, they are quite similar to the Hive and its variants, so I will focus on its comparison with the Cybran structure.

---

Structure Wreckage Values

To start off, I would like you guys to take a look at the image below:

Image: Shows reclaim values for each tier of engineering station for both Cybran and UEF.

Notice a problem? If you haven't, allow me to assist.

What we are looking at specifically is the wreckages of each Engineering Station. On the top row, we have the Hive and each of its tier's wreckage values. On the bottom row, we have the UEF and its variants.

Notice how the base Kennel's wreckage is worth 446 mass, yet the upgraded variant is worth a little bit less at 405.

Before I go on, I would like to quickly point out that a max upgraded Hive and a max upgraded Kennel are worth the same in terms of mass investment. Both require 1050 mass total.

Now, with this information, the wreckage of the upgraded Kennel should be valued at around 810 to 892 mass. Or, for balance's sake, at least the same as the max upgraded hive; valued at 851 - since you are investing the same amount of mass.

---

Drone HP

If you are unfamiliar, drones are classified as air units. Air units that have 6 HP each - across all Tech stages. This means anything with AA (with the exception of ASF) can shoot at them; and with their low HP, they will be destroyed easily. I'm specifically mentioning this as even a T3 drone has 6 HP. Yes, 6 HP at the T3 & T4 stage.

The drone's range and ability to be used anywhere is severely held back by their HP.
I will explain in more detail further below.

---

Drone Rebuild Time & Cost

It takes almost 40 seconds for a Kennel to rebuild a drone. The Kennel requires 6 mass and 66 energy per second to rebuild it during that timeframe.

Doing the math, that's about 240 mass and 2,640 energy to rebuild a drone. (According to the database, a drone is valued at 250 mass & 2,500 energy.)

So, this is a problem as losing the Build Power for almost 40 seconds is already a huge penalty. Why must the user also pay for the drones each time they are destroyed, as well?

On top of this, the Upgraded Kennel only rebuilds one drone at a time, needing 80 seconds to rebuild both drones. Another issue here is that you cannot even assist the Kennel in rebuilding its drones - so it's a static 40 to 80 seconds at all times!!!

---

Drone Speed & Assist Range

Though this isn't quite an issue as the other problems mentioned, but, I would still like to touch on it.

The assist range of a drone makes swapping between assisting units, structures, factories, and more, quite lengthy and wacky. Currently, its range matches that of a T1 engineer; This makes the drone fumble around needing to re-adjust its heading, height, and the direction it's facing when swapping assist orders, then it has to move as well.

If this was increased to that of a T3, or even just a T2 engineer, it would make the drones a little more viable to use in bases. More than accounting for the awkwardness drones have. As they will swap and start assisting a little bit quicker, not wasting time on the movement.

Below, we are comparing the range of a Kennel's Drone to that of a T3 engineer.

Image: Comparing the range of Drone (Inner dark brown circle) to T3 Engineer (Outside golden circle) with a base as reference.

In theory, it does make up for this 'short range' with its ability to fly; However, then its speed comes into question. Its max speed, as stated by the database is "3-4".

Image: Stats of a Kennel Drone, specifically, focusing on the speed stat.

Its assist-range ability is greatly affected by its speed as it cannot swap between structures as fast as the Hive - which can swap INSTANTLY between anything in its range.

---

Reclaim Action

A hive is able to reclaim incoming Moving units
Let's be real, we've all done it once or twice in games when it's getting tight.

Incoming Experimental? Suck it up and leave its wreckage as a statue to remember this victory!

Image: Standing wreckage of an unlucky GC that attacked a base with Hives as T4 PD

However, drones cannot reclaim units that are moving. I believe this is an engine limitation, but I'm still mentioning it in case anyone can explain why this isn't possible.

---

I can see a few possible solutions to these problems; Option 3 was offered by Oblii (2100), so credit for that idea goes to them.

• Option 1: Make the Kennel drones far cheaper, or even free, to rebuild.
  Lower the rebuild time significantly.

• Option 2: Increase the survivability of the drone.

• Option 3: Increase the HP by a significant amount, but impose restrictions.

---

Option 1:
Decreasing the time needed to rebuild the drones would make it so a player goes less time without needing to rebuild their BP.

Decreasing their cost would make it so the user doesn't need to pay multiple times per drone each time they are destroyed as they are very fragile and quite expensive in numbers. You can easily lose 10 drones, costing you 2,500 mass, and 25,000 energy!

---

Option 2 (A):
An option here is to increase their HP. This will help them significantly.
It will make it more difficult to lose a drone to any form of AA as well as lose them to excess splash / AoE damage.

For example: If your drones are under a shield (specifically near the edges of the shield), and anything with AoE attacks, (Strats, T2 & T3 static and mobile arty, etc.) There is a high chance that damage spills into/through the shield which then destroys the drones.

---

Option 2 (B):
A suggestion that was offered to me was that the drones fly a little higher to prevent splash from hurting them. This can be useful in all Tech stages of drones but would benefit the ACU shoulder drones mostly, especially in the early stages of T1.

---

Option 3 (A):
Increase the HP of the drones significantly to allow them to be used with more confidence. However, to balance this, add a 'leash' - or limit their range - so they cannot fly everywhere.

---

Option 3 (B):
Similar to the previous option, but instead of limiting their range, a fuel bar is imposed. Requiring the drones to refuel at their stations every few minutes.

---

Drone BP:

(This section may be disregarded if the Nerf to the hive goes through.)

I believe their drone's BP should be increased. Compared to the Hive - which can upgrade itself twice, effectively tripling its BP, it's lacking!!

Now, I understand that you need to pay for the flying ability and the range that Drones offer, as they can move anywhere, but sacrificing so much BP for that seems strange. Right now, Kennels cost 550 mass to build and a Hive costs 350 mass to build. Both produce the same BP: 25. The Kennel can be upgraded for 500 mass to double its BP, which now totals 50, and the Hive can upgrade itself twice for 350 mass each time, for a total of 75 BP.

Essentially, both will cost you a total of 1050 mass. However, one provides you with 50 flying BP while the other provides you with 75 static BP. So, you're paying the same mass cost for 33% less BP.

By increasing the BP of the drones just slightly, they will have more of a chance to compete with Cybran Hives. Though you will still lack enough BP to keep Hives as the king of assistance in the immediate area where they operate in. This small increase in BP should balance itself out with the fact that Drones can be destroyed by almost every unit that has anti-air and by the higher drone and structure costs.

---

Suggestions:

I recommend all drones be immune to damage whilst they are docked as any form of (AoE) damage will destroy them.

This can be witnessed on the ACU and SACU Drones as they will be destroyed by damage from another (support) commander's main weapon, T1 mobile artillery, overcharge, T1 bombers, Strats (Their AA capability), etc.

Heck, even an Interceptor can also shoot the drones off of a Commander's back!

AoE damage can also be noticed if a T1 bomber ground fires the area where a drone / or a group of drones are operating in, the AoE will damage and destroy the drones.

---

A quality-of-life suggestion would be that, if we are to take advantage of the drone and its ability to fly, they should be allowed to reclaim wreckages with just a Patrol or Attack-move order. This would encourage drone use outside of just bases.

Though, the HP again, would be an issue.

---

On a separate note, I suggest that the Kennel get its own T3 variant. In the FAF database, the upgraded Kennel is classified as a T3 structure. It would be favorable for the Kennel if you could build the upgraded variant when you have a T3 Engineer or T3 Suite, saving you some time from managing upgrades as these upgrades take longer than Hive upgrades. It'll still cost the same resources and whatnot, but it would also give the Kennel some more compete-ability against the Hive as in typical Cybran fashion, they are more favored.

---

Problem: Kennel Drones / Drones: TL:DR

All drones the UEF has in its arsenal are in need of rebalancing.
The Kennel itself as well as its drones have a few flaws that are in need of re-adjusting.

---

Proposed Solutions:

---

All drones:

Invulnerable whilst docked (Kennel Station, ACU, SACU).
Allow all drones to reclaim like standard engineers (Patrol & Attack Move)

As for what Option 2 (B) says:
Operational elevation increase: 3 -> 8?

For reference, a T1 Interceptor flies at an elevation of 18. This would help avoid random ground splash damage from killing the drone(s). But not too high to where they float above/outside of shields.

---

ACU Drones:

HP increase: 6 - > 51

This would make it so ACU drones take 2 shots from an Intie before dying but still keep their HP low enough so that T1 AA can deal with it with ease. They're already worth quite a lot - as much as a T1 Transport each. Having them with a bit more HP would help in their survivability.

Rebuild time reduction:
It takes longer to rebuild the drone than it is to get the upgrade again.

---

SACU Drones:

HP increase: 6 - > 201
Increase speed of drone: 4 -> 5

In the T3 Stage, even with 200 HP, anything will kill them with ease. But this would help again, with random Splash that hurts them. For example, a Spy Plane or an ASF's crash's damage won't just send them to oblivion.

As for the speed, having it increase would compliment the Kennel drones when they are tasked on a mission, having one slower than the other would be counterintuitive.

Rebuild time reduction:
It takes longer to rebuild the drone than it is to get the upgrade again.

---

Kennel & Drones:

Increase the wreckage value of T3 Kennel: 406 -> 851
Increase the assist range to match a T3 engineer.
Increase speed of drone: 4 -> 5
(Fixes issue with drone fumbling, compliments SACU drone speed change.)

Option 1:
250 Mass -> 50 Mass (Free?)
2,500 Energy -> 500 Energy (Free?)
Rebuild Time: 40 seconds -> 7 seconds
(10 seconds or more would still feel quite long and 5 seconds may be a little short. 7 would be a good middle ground.)
(Edit: 10 seconds seems more reasonable.)

Option 2:
Increase drone HP: 6 -> 151.
This would help in sending drones out to get reclaim or whatnot in the T2 and T3 stages as well as make it slightly more difficult to lose them.

Option 3: (A)
Increase drone HP: 6 -> 501
Max Range ∞ -> 256 (Same range as a TML)

Option 3: (B)
Increase drone HP: 6 -> 501
Fuel Capacity: 10 Minutes

Suggestions:
Allow the blueprint for an upgraded T3 Kennel to be built in the T3 Suite.
Allow passive reclaim via Patrol or attack-move order.

---

My thoughts on option 3 (A & B):

The high HP would make them quite useful for front-line use. With this HP, the drones would be far weaker than gunships, (flak would 3 or 4 shot them) but still enough to make inties and "Swift Winds' (Aeon T2 Combat Fighter) not one-shot them which would increase their utility and enforcing more aggressive actions with drones.

However, I would prefer Option 3 (B), as even without fuel, the drone could still fly around and utilize its range. This can be useful in larger maps like Seton's when you want to send out the drones to reclaim in the middle of the pond(s), risking air and navy fire.

That being said, I still believe Option 1 is the best overall as it doesn't change the fundamentals of the drone itself and how it's used.

Being honest, Option 3 (A) is quite extreme, to me. And imposing range restrictions would make the point of paying for the Kennel's range ability, quite dull. But the huge HP increase would likely make up for the fact.

Though I am slightly opposed on imposing limitations on range; I am still sharing it with you all as it seems like a great idea that could be further expanded upon. With obvious balances, of course.

Having a drone with 500 HP would likely mean a hefty change or nerf elsewhere.

---

Thank you!
I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
I appreciate the feedback.

Next post on Friday!
Edit: Taking a quick break to not spam the forums, haha. I'll post the next update likely next Monday (29th).
Sneak peek at part 7: The Ravager

For now, see you on the battlefield!

~ Stryker

VETTING ENGINEERS

---

Hi, everyone.

Making a separate post this time.

I'm not sure if it's been talked about before as I couldn't find any other posts mentioning this, but if there is, feel free to share it with me.

---

Suggestion (Detailed Version):

With the latest update made to engineers,
-We can now see how much mass & energy each individual unit has reclaimed-
It made me wonder if a vetting system could be implemented for T1, T2, & T3 engineers.

If you are unfamiliar with what I am talking about:

Image shows new reclaim values for engineers.

As you can see, this specific engineer has reclaimed 144 mass and 1442 energy.

---

A T1 engineer costs 52 mass and has anywhere from 120 HP (Aeon) to 150 HP (UEF).
Each vet would increase the HP pool of the unit by 10%, meaning a maximum of 150% can be obtained at Vet 5. So, for example, a UEF engineer would act like so:

Base: 150 HP
1 vet: 165 HP
2 vet: 180 HP
3 vet: 195 HP
4 vet: 210 HP
5 vet: 225 HP

---

How it would affect gameplay:

So, an issue here may be that they will vet too quickly if they reclaim their cost's worth (52 mass). To remedy this, I would suggest that they only vet when they reclaim about three to five times their standard costs PER vet. This way, very early raids against expanding engineers aren't less effective due to a vetting engineer with 50% more HP.

Most things would take care of them with a shot or two - even at full vet. It's a small system but it was just an idea to give T1 engies a tad more longevity, versatility, and utility.

Yes, it would also make them a little more complex but since they themselves cannot directly engage in combat, at least this way, they would still have the vet option available to them.

Obviously, there are also T2 and T3 engies too but, with their mass costs and a floor limit of 3, 4, or 5x on the vet cost, they would be less likely to obtain a vet but, nonetheless, it would still be there.

---

SPARKY (UEF T2 Land Combat Engineer)

This change would also directly affect the Sparky, too. It would benefit even more so from this change as it already vets from combat (Though rare due to its low DPS). Having a 2nd system on what it vets off of would be a perfect buff for it as well, as the unit already doesn't see much use. (There are already a few discussions about this unit and its problems so, I won't dive into them, here.)

---

Suggestion: (TL;DR)

An idea of offering the vet system to T1 - 3 engineers.

Proposed Implementation:

Add the vet system to T1, T2 & T3 engineers based on how much mass they reclaim, however, with a vet cost of 3-5x their base cost per vet level.

---

Again, just an idea. Would be happy to hear some feedback.

---

~ Stryker

This problem doesn't only affect beam weapons, but also projectile weapons.
This effect can partially be seen with the Ravager (T3 PD) and a unit such as a GC.
The Ravager will sometimes aim for the head and when it does, will often overshoot because of it.
I don't think its a problem with the weapons themselves, more so the targeting bone and the unit hitbox, I believe.

@maudlin27 said in Non-Cybran stealth:

All factions already have stealth units

Stealth Fields & T2 Torps Launchers don't really count.

---

~ Stryker

Technically speaking... the game is telling you accurate information - even if it shows you a grey icon.
The icon greys out because that specific building no longer exists.
It was upgraded and hence replaced by a different structure.
I like to think of it kind of like the new structure is giving out a different radar signature.

---

~ Stryker

@Jip

My apologies.
I found the original post which talked about it, but I misunderstood it.

I thought the goal of that post was to make it so all Pgens have the same death animation - so they don't damage each other. I was wrong.

My mistake.
Nevermind.

---

~ Stryker

Being honest, I think the first iteration of the Mercy rework was probably the best or at least better.
Less AoE but more condensed damage.
I believe it was around 1600 total damage at that time but probably should've been a tad less.

Anywho, the current iteration is fine for crowd control and for carpet bombing.
A far more effective area denial, if I may add.
The closest thing to it now is a Janus's ground attack but that unit only deals damage in a "runway" whilst the Mercy has far greater AoE.

---

That being said, I feel like it still lacks a little bit of something.
It had more presense before it's rework, and everyone on the offensive had in the back of their mind, "Build AA".
I think that it could still use more tweaking to be in a better spot.

Maybe @FtXCommando's idea here for a mini-emp effect would be good, as well.
Sounds promising at first glance.

---

~ Stryker

@Jip

I checked out this change on FAF Develop, and the game feels considerably more responsive when it comes to wrecks.
Especially when it comes to land factories!

But, I had one concern regarding death animations.
I believe others have mentioned it before, but, I was unable to find the original post or github commit to link.

My concern was that T1 pgens, and T2 mass fabs still have randomized death animations that cause them damage other wrecks near them.

As an example:
UEF T1 Pgens, and Aeon T2 Mass Fabs

This goes for all T1 pgens, all T2 mass fabs of all factions.
The same does not apply for T2/3 Pgens and T3 Mass Fabs.

Will this be tackled along with the change to death animations or is that a different issue being tackled elsewhere?

---

Regardless, nice work! Looking forward to the release!

---

~ Stryker

@Jip
I'm really excited about this upcoming change to mobile factories!
But, may I ask why this next action was done? >

@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

To be fair, I did reduce the build rate of the mobile factories to make them less broken

I thought the consensus was that all Experimentals had poor BP to begin with...?

Maybe that changes with the new dynamic in mobile factories, so this reasoning may now be outdated.
But a Fatty building a Percy or a Cougar in 35 seconds as opposed to 26 before, plus the rolloff time, it still takes a while.

Same with the Atlantis. The high BP is one of its perks when building ASF or other air units.

---

The Mega should have a much larger BP, so, I'm looking forward to that.
And the Czar being able to build on the move... Can't wait!

---

The Tempest lacks a rolloff time, so it makes spamming units like engies very, very easy.
It seems like it was adjusted, but not by much.

---

I'll have to test out some games when I get a chance.
Maybe my standing would change.

Regardless, awesome work, @Jip
Looks great!

---

~ Stryker

Wasn't the Wagner's torpedo damage increased with the latest balance patch?

---

~ Stryker

I can see many ways TMLs can be adjusted without altering them too much.
The first way, and probably the best way would be:

• (Greatly) Increase the BP of the Structure and the BP cost of the Missile.

This will lower the effectiveness of assisting which slows down each consequent missile.
Not the BP required to build the structure itself, but the BP it has, similar to a Nuke Launcher.

---

Other simple options could be:

• Increasing the BP cost of the projectile.
• Increasing the BP cost of the structure.
• Reduce the BP of the structure so it builds missiles slower.

---

Other more drastic options could be:

• Increasing the resource costs of the structure.
• Increasing the resource costs of the projectile.
• Lowering the speed of the projectile.
• Lowering the damage of the projectile.

---

I imagine as an overall missile theme, you'd want to keep the damage high, so, maybe reducing the damage is not the way to go.

I can see the BP being adjusted though.

---

~ Stryker

@spikeynoob

Do you really think this is balanced?

Honestly, yes. It takes time, resources, and multiple factions to pull off and there are easier methods of achieving the same thing, as I've stated before.

---

Should we really keep strange edge cases that give already powerful units more power that only a few would think to try?

@comradestryker said in Deceiver < Stinger < Atlantis / Czar Do you think this should be a bug or a feature?:
If the issue is that a Czar and Atlantis can be stealthed,
then I would argue the case should be as follows:
If Stealthed aircraft are the issue; then remove Stealth from Cybran T3 aircraft.
If Stealthed subs are the issue; then remove Stealth from Cybran T2 subs.
If Stealthed T4 units are the issue; then remove Stealth from the Monkeylord and Soulripper.

That's the thing... it doesn't give that unit more power. It's just being used in synergy with another unit.
Let's say I pass the ball to a teammate and they score a goal, that is not my goal, that is just an assist.
Ignoring the bad analogy, that is what's going on here.
The Deceiver isn't doing anything different. It's not suddenly giving you +10,000 DPS.
Just like a stealth field doesn't grant, for example, a PD creep more DPS either.
They're just being used in tandem, is all.

---

This of all things to get up in arms over, i would not expect this to be it.

That is fair to say. It feels like it isn't something I would normally argue for, but, I have become fond of this 'bug'.
And for the longest time, I think most of us here if not all, thought it was intentional.
Even if it wasn't, it was quite the play to pull off. Some may say it was even "Tryhard".

I'd argue that it is also not difficult to counter.
A couple of scouts and spyplanes would be more than enough to counter said play.

If you spot a czar being built, then no longer see it on radar, you should be scouting anyway.
If you spot an Atlantis being built, then no longer see it on sonar, send a spy plane or two.
You can also see where the torps are being fired from and would find it easy to ground fire regardless.
You just need one spy plane and 10 torps.
As long as you lock on the torps, they will keep damaging the Atlantis even if you lose the radar signature.

---

That all being said... regardless of the outcome of this;
The FAF team will always have my support.
Yes, even if it goes against my own opinion.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
You guys do too much for the game, so, Thank You.
We may not understand at first why you guys may change something, but we will, eventually.

I just hope my responses weren't read as berating as they weren't meant that way.
Anywho... I think I made my point here, so, I'll leave it at that.

---

~ Stryker