I’m not sure. I had invested heavily in range, fire rate, and damage. The tanks were firing flawlessly—no misfires, and the shells were reaching their targets and exploding (these are slow-firing tanks, not ones that shoot a million rounds a second). Yet, damage was registering on one player but not the other. A couple of minutes later, damage stopped registering on the second player as well.
You can see this start at the 50:50 mark of the match.

A new version of SWLandWarTMRebalance (v55) is available.

There are many small, specific fixes—honestly, I’ve already forgotten most of them...
Nevertheless, here are the main changes added since my last comment here:

• The ACU Overcharge has been reworked. Its cooldown has been reduced to 8–10 seconds, depending on the faction and the commander's combat potential. In automatic mode, Overcharge deals 12,500 damage to a single target, whereas in manual mode, it deals 4,000 damage within a radius of 6 units.
• The Twister MK2 and MK3 received dome shields with capacities of 500 and 1000.
• The price of heavy T2 turrets has been increased to an average of 3,500, depending on their functionality. Small dome shields have also been added for heavy T1 turrets. However, their damage output has been reduced, making these turrets more defensive than offensive.
• T3 Mass Extractors can no longer be built from scratch by engineers or ACUs. The only way to obtain one is to build an intermediate Mass Extractor and upgrade it. This change prevents players from skipping the economic upgrade phase and introduces an element of risk (as intermediate extractors are prone to exploding).

log where tanks not damage (problem start at 50:50 game time)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NzI_xxYk50Srlkfv2PClB0HKuwcY5TGa/view?usp=sharing

@Nuggets said:

its unfortunately an engine limitation that some units cant shoot that far with range buffs. With mobile arty you will see this almost immediatly with a range buff. I expect static arty to not be much different.

I think you know more than I do, but I’ll ask out of curiosity. Is this due to the limitations of the projectile blueprint?

Unfortunately, I can't share the battle log right now—I'm not at home and am using a different device. However, if you're interested in the nonsense we get up to, here is the replay.

https://replay.faforever.com/27714707

Hello! After playing a few games on the new patch, I noticed the following:

1. The "Same rarity" setting for cards isn't working. This might depend on the class or the cards players choose during the game... but even a reroll changes the slot rarity, whereas the slot rarity shouldn't change. The "same cards for everyone" option isn't working either. I haven't received any official feedback, but I suspect this is the case—the difference in stats between us was simply too large.

2.Towards the end of the match (about an hour in), my tanks stopped dealing damage to Tier 3 artillery, and shortly after, to enemy engineers as well. They would fire, and the shell would land and explode (causing area-of-effect damage), yet no damage was actually dealt. I’m not sure if this affected all units... but eventually, the same thing happened to another player. So now, my tanks are unable to kill units belonging to two different players...

3. Cybran T3 artillery has started behaving strangely with the range bonus. Sometimes it fires, sometimes it doesn't...

@Nuggets said:

Anyway it will be fixed as soon as a i merge the experimental version with the default version.

Still, could you apply the changes to this mod as well? I like the current version as it is—except, of course, for the fact that cards of the same rarity don't work with the reroll.

Its true, rerols enabled.
Got it, thanks a lot for the answer

The translator must have gotten it wrong.
It specifically refers to cards of different rarities.
For instance, one player said they got one yellow card, I got three in a match, and another said they got five.

Hi there!
I’m writing about the Roguelike mod. Yesterday, we played a few games with the "Same Rarity" option enabled; afterwards, the guys shared what drops they’d received, and it turned out that the yellow cards had dropped differently for everyone...

I tried out the experimental mod in the sandbox a few times. In my view, the bonuses and penalties look good; you can use them to offset negative effects and, on paper, end up with no negative modifiers for your doctrine. Or you can make a trade-off, sacrificing one thing for another. You can apply this to specific units to boost their strengths.

However, there are still a couple of points that left me a bit puzzled.

In any case, the available cards sometimes force you to choose a card with better stats rather than one that aligns with a specific doctrine.
For example, you might get a legendary card that boosts turret damage and range, and it would be far more powerful than a card tied to your chosen doctrine (such as one for ground forces).

I’m not sure what form this mod was originally intended to take. However, I think it would be great to somehow encourage the player to focus on a specific playstyle, even if it isn't the most profitable option at the moment compared to others.
For instance, there could be a counter tracking selected cards of a specific type, along with a bonus that scales based on that counter. That way, I’d be inclined to stick to one—or perhaps a few—specific doctrines, even if another doctrine offered a stronger base bonus. As an alternative, the counters could even be tied to specific card classes.

@KnownSniper said:

shits bugged...

In my opinion, everything works well. The author quickly fixes bugs and issues, although I only encountered one problem—and even that was due to a mod compatibility issue.

awesome!

Good day! It’s great to see the mod continuing to evolve, gaining new features, and undergoing balancing.
I’ve been thinking and would like to propose a change regarding activation/deactivation and the adjustment of coefficients.
What do you think about slightly reworking the settings for card types and their associated coefficients?

For example:

Rouglike Air Cards:
-Off
-Halfed
-Normal
-Doubled

Rouglike Navy Cards:
-Off
-Halfed
-Normal
-Doubled

Rouglike ACU Cards:
-Off
-Halfed
-Normal
-Doubled

Rouglike Utility Cards
-Off
-Halfed
-Normal
-Doubled

etc...

I think this will be a perfectly flexible setup for any type of game - from modded ones featuring new units and commanders to turret-less survival games.

@Firv said:

I vote for bigger ACU buffs!

We’ll simply make the Cybran Commander indestructible, and no faction will be able to counter it...

To be honest, I’m not happy about the update—sorry. Boosting turret bonuses makes "PD-creep" and turtling even more significant.
I’ve already struggled with turret ranges in mods, and unfortunately, that issue has only intensified now.
I’m also not a fan of the commander buffs, unfortunately.
Especially if you're playing with mods. Standard commanders already shut down T2 spam thanks to Overcharge... and here they get even stronger... Of course, we need to see how it plays out in practice, but I’m not happy about these new changes—don't get me wrong.

Of course, try to do it, why not?

@Dim-A-miD said:

The fact that approximately 50 objects become obsolete every 10 minutes is normal; it's a necessary element of the game. If you exclude this, you'd end up with C&C – generals. So, some of the game's depth still relies on this approach.

The explanation for this "depth" is as follows: as you advance to the next tech level, new mechanics become available, and objects similar to the previous tech level receive a significant stat boost. This, I believe, is also a significant part of the game's depth.

Initially, advancing between tech levels was quite expensive, enough to build a small army and make it difficult for an opponent who decided to level up first. Nowadays, advancing between tech levels is relatively cheap, in favor of match speed.

Thank you for your reply. Personally, I don't like this aspect. I wouldn't call it the introduction of new features—far from it. New features imply an expanded arsenal, not a narrowing of options for the sake of stronger units.

However, you are explaining things that I resolved in my mod long ago—while retaining the dynamic pace, large-scale battles involving far more than just small groups, and a slow progression to new tech levels.

@Dim-A-miD said:

Although for the subjective experience, it depends on the presentation and mechanics of access.
For example, access restrictions—Quantum Gates required.
It seems like nothing has changed, but there's already a requirement for progress.

I’ve implemented this in a somewhat simplified way. Each faction has one "super-unit" (these are units from Total Mayhem as well as original ones, but with modified stats—including size). To build them, you first have to construct a Quantum Gate (found in the builders' "Experimentals" tab), and then you can build the unit itself from that gate.

Does this add depth to the game? No. You could churn out a thousand tech tiers, with each one simply rendering the previous one obsolete. That way, instead of having 50 units that become irrelevant just 10 minutes into the match, we could have 500. That’s great, right?

In my case, this was the easiest approach to prevent players from "spamming" these units and abandoning standard armies, since the gates themselves are very expensive.

I can say without exaggeration that he is one of the best modders I’ve seen in FAF. Maybe not the best, but certainly one of them. He listens to requests and builds in versatility, which is crucial for configuring other mods, maps, and game modes. Hats off to him!

Honestly, in my opinion, Supreme Commander is easier on my eyes - it doesn't cause them pain (now)