The king is dead, long live the king

The "hate for Dual Gap" is irrelevant here.

You have (again) failed to provide an argument for why this should be a core balance change rather than just a mod. Hives are balanced just fine on virtually every other map. Nerfing them so they're balanced on Dual Gap would come at the expense of those maps.

Hives were considered very OP in Phantom. You know what people did? They wrote a mod that gave hives to all factions. Problem solved.

@Tagada said in Weak Overcharge:

I really wish we would have a few guys that would be responsible for deleting all the stupid posts

Ask and you shall receive.

All posts that did not actively contribute to the conversation and/or contained personal attacks have been deleted. Keep it civil, keep it on topic.

What about massively increasing their death explosion radius and damage? That way they're a lot more dangerous to chill in your base, and if you keep them clustered together they'll chain

@Arkansas said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:

How about just removing RAS from ACUs all together.

Do you mean SACUs?

Increase the volatility of a RAS ACU (lower hit points, bigger bang, makes it less useful in its other roles)

This what I suggested as a first step, but I disagree with lower hitpoints.

Upgrades universally improve upon the unit's capabilities. RAS reducing HP would be unintuitive for new players.

Remove RAS preset

@archsimkat said in The Last Thread about RAS SACU Balance:

I feel like an easy change to nerf RAS bois just would be to remove all SACU presets.

Not a fan of this approach either. Making something clunkier to use just makes the game more frustrating, instead of making a well thought out balance change that improves the game as a whole.

@keyser said in T1 sub rebalance:

one player didn't bother making subs, while the other one, used his own subs for a long time and was able to deal quite a lot of damage through out the game.

I actually went through that replay tracking the first sub with a stopwatch. Jagged's first sub spends no less than 7 minutes and 12 seconds actively firing at something, and it dies with around 1100 mass killed.

At 360 mass per sub, extrapolating that means it would take an average of 2 minutes and 21 seconds of constant firing for a T1 sub to do its own mass worth in damage. I can't think of a single other combat unit that would have to survive in combat for that long to recoup its worth.

So first of all that's Seraphim.

Anyway, what color is it supposed to be and what are your graphics settings? It looks pale purple to me but I agree it's pretty faint.

@KaletheQuick said in Global ranking not accurate -- is there a way to reset?:

@lafindumonde If you want help tanking your rank I am definitely available! I have rank tanking experience.

Do you now?

FAF Rules:

You will not manipulate your rating in any way.

There has been a lot of discussion in the the last thread about RAS SACU balance about reclaim, especially dead land armies in the T2 through T4 stages.

The core of the issue is that a failed assault at that point in the game leaves an enormous mass gift on your enemy's doorstep. This discourages aggressive tactics, and encourages strategies like nukes and T3 artillery, which in a worst case die quickly only for you to reclaim 81% of the mass back.

There are countless ways to address this, but first I think there should be some guidelines to agree on:

• Map reclaim should experience minimal, if any change. This includes unit wrecks like on Seton's. Most maps are already tuned with a specific amount of reclaim in mind, and updating hundreds of maps is unrealistic.
• Players should be rewarded for fighting for and securing reclaim fields, but not to the point of becoming more important than mexes or creating an endless snowball.
• Reclaim at the T1 land stage is relatively healthy, and should be looked at as an approximate goal.

If you disagree with any (or all) of these don't hesitate to say so. I'm happy to change or refine these.

With that out of the way, what are some ways to nerf reclaim?

• Reduce reclaim speed. This has been done before but could be done again. I don't think this is the proper approach though, since the limiting factors for reclaim are typically the amount and the travel time, not the engineering capacity to grab it all. It also impacts map reclaim just as much as anything else.
• Reduce reclaim value by tier. This is perhaps the simplest and most brute force method, but that doesn't mean it's the least effective. It would however impact map reclaim unless some kind of exceptions were coded in. As an aside, it could be interesting if T4s did their death damage a split-second after the wreck spawned, reducing the reclaim value.
• Introduce a reclaim decay system. Make higher tier unit wrecks slowly reduce their reclaim value over time. This would encourage players to grab reclaim as quickly as possible. Again, exceptions would have to be made for map reclaim.

What are some other ideas? What do you think about those above?

Community ideas:

@KaletheQuick said in Reclaim:

• reduce wreck HP by tech level
• add 'wreck' option to target priorities

@arma473 said in Reclaim:

• buildings should still leave 81%
• Add "better reclaim view" and "unit selection cost" to the base game of FAF
• Instead of reducing reclaim by tier, determine the % reclaim left after a unit's death based on the ratio of energy cost to mass cost.

@Doge20031 what about the Nvidia Fix UI mod?

Arma for The Giver 2021

Please have an actual discussion with defenses of your points instead of pointing fingers at each other and saying "you're strawmanning" "no you are"

If this continues I'll have no choice but to lock the thread

Would it be possible to look up the storage savings from the various proposed solutions?

I think if we end up deleting replays (which I'm in favor of) we should have a poll on it first, since this is in my opinion a big change.

@Tagada said in The SCU Rebalance:

The BP of the gateway was already increased (although obviously not as much as you suggested) to bring the SCU production time in line with that of t3 units. The BP of the Gateway is 180 compared to that of t3 land HQ which is 90. [Basic SACU and T3 land build time is similar] but it's much harder to assist the Gateways compared to factories.

I'd buff the build speed of Gateways even further. Even with the buff they're even less build power/mass efficient than T3 land factories, and given the higher cost of SACUs they don't suffer rolloff time issues nearly as hard. For these two reasons it's still easier and more efficient to assist gateways than factories.

I'm in favor of encouraging building more gateways instead of the 50 engineers/10 hives assisting one that we see all too often.

@Swisscow if that fixes it then it is indeed the Nvidia driver issue. I recommend you either download the Nvidia fix mod or roll back your drivers.

@Swisscow have you tried running d3d_windowscursor in the console?

There was a leagues system that I believe @FtXCommando has been working on reimplementing. I could be completely wrong but either way he'd have more info

@FurudeRika said in The SCU Rebalance:

you might have been building one of the useless presets where the SCU had OC but not range (sensors)

Well, today I learned Sensors gives more gun range (for some reason)

Since UEF already has percies they are not rly in need of another slow, longrange combat unit,the idea is to make it sth different.

Sniper bots are a lot more of slow longrange combat units than Percies are