Well the pattern I see here is that lots of noobs or low level thinkers come in here and shit-post about this or that needing to be changed and everyone seems to get a default approach of trashing any post that comes through (because statistically that is a good guess without even reading the post).

Then when people actually raise good points the normal crowd does it's hatchet job and theres more counter-argument than there should be so it stalls or appears on a numerical post basis to be unpopular. Gonna take some special kinds of insight to work around that so hopefully you'll see what I'm talking about and act smartly.

"eco progression in faf is something that is not intuitive, noobs frequently ring t1 MeX with storages or forget to ring t3 mex because it’s not clear that this is unholy inefficient"
Well this is somewhat true I suppose, but I wouldn't say that it means there is a "balance problem" to fix. Noobs just need to pay some attention and learn the most efficient path is:
build T1 mex--->upgrade safe T1 mexes--->cap T2 mexes--->upgrade capped T2 mexes.

So I don't think we really need to do much about mex storage adjacency. If anything, we could easily increase t1 storage adjacency so that a fully capped t1 mex gives 4 mass total. It would still be significantly less efficient than upgrading the mex to t2, so it doesn't really matter, but would be just a bit less punishing for noobs.

I don't think storage adjacency is OP, but I have had a small lingering feeling that storages could be a tiny bit more beneficial for t2 mexes, and slightly less beneficial for t3 mexes. It would make eco upgrade choices a little less of a big decision, since in many games a t3 mex is a very expensive investment with a large payoff if you make it work. Maybe something like 10 mass for a capped t2 mex, and 25 mass for a capped t3 (compared to 9 vs 27) would smooth the economy upgrade path sufficiently. (maybe some cost adjustments would be justified as well) But I must emphasize I'm quite uncertain if smoothing economy upgrades would be an improvement, or how to best approach it. Maybe it makes the game a lot more strategic and interesting to have t3 mexes a very expensive and very effective upgrade, and a more linear or smoothed out upgrade path would be more boring.

How about increasing the damage to it's secondary weapons? Make it a walking sam launcher and/or increasing the bolter's to 500 dps?

i like the deploying engineer idea or merging them based on tech level using a mass to merge inefficiency ratio so 5 t1 engys become a t2 and 12 t1 engys become a t3 engineer to discourage blatantly spamming t1 engys and expecting a 100% conversion ratio with no penalties

I would suggest changing the number for format to something like "10.0k" and then "100k". That would cover things up to 1M games.

looks like someone already made that comment https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1027/the-scu-rebalance/29

I would like to use this opportunity to sign in aswell

@Emperor_Penguin said in [UI] Show number of units in bay (Carriers etc):

If carriers could show units in them like air transports do, that would be great.

Could be , also like air transpoorts, , put each type (wing) of planes in a diferent place when take off
?

You get a nifty badge which apparently brings the boys to the yard..

Aeon destros are very nice, though - I skeert of Aeon navy.

Usually if I can spam enough frigates I don't particularly care too much if my opponent has gone HQ, unless he/she is aeon. I often skip over t2 entirely because them destros are so nice.

Where kibran is concerned - the T2 naval AA game is just too weak and torpcucking is a problem much more so than other factions, who have shields, hoverflak and less overkilly cruisers.

I have a middlin' 34" ultrawide and stream at native 2560x1080p using the NVENC encoder. At the maximum twitch bitrate, it uses <1Mbit/s and any scaling issues are avoided. Yes, people with 4:3 aspect ratio screens are going to get black bars, but that's their problem. I don't stream for money and can't be arsed about subs and bits and whatnot, but it's something to keep in mind if you have a commercial interest in it.

I specifically got a 1080p monitor because I wanted to dual-screen with my old 27"er, but it turns out the setup is just too wide for the nook where I sit. I /should/ have gone for 1280 or more vertical pixels in hindsight, but I can live with it. Needless to say, I could never return to a smaller screen size for FAF, the increased viewport is just so much nicer and improves your situational awareness.

One problem I did have was that the default UI layout is not workable for me - the resource bars at the top left are basically out of your ocular angle and you don't even see it flashing red. MovableUI mod sorted that out for me, I now place my stuff towards the center of the screen and it works well. Even though the mod has some issues, I couldn't go without it even on a smaller screen I think.

Oh - I'm using a GTX970 for playing and encoding and it's powerful enough even at the highest quality settings I can configure. My bottleneck is my processor really - I only have 4c/4t and would recommend at least 4c/8t for creating a quality stream with overlays and allsorts.