@FtXCommando Please for the love of FAF, include mapgen
Aeon sucks. Here's why:
Now onto other tiers:
6) The T2 transport sucks. Lowest carrying capacity of all T2 transports. Can only carry two T3 units.
7) The T3 bomber sucks. Trades enormous AOE nerf for minuscule damage buff. As a result, it's no better against structures than Cybran T3 bomber but far, far worse against units and ACUs. Also, Aeon T3 bomber lacks a secondary weapon.
The T2 shield generator sucks. Expensive but with a tiny area of effect. Can barely cover a T2 pgen next to it. Very hard to cover nearby mex with it. Can't be upgraded, either.
Okay here's how we can fix it:
You should make a rule prohibiting this sort of ad hominem nonsense that makes no attempt to address the information provided.
"I'm assuming OP just lost a game and is mad because he thinks he lost to the balance."
See subject. There's little point in putting in a lot of effort into making a new balance thread (see guidlines) unless it's something the balance team actually cares about. It would be nice to see the new balance councilor post some thoughts of his about current balance and areas he might try to improve.
T1 subs from all factions are terrible. We should fix them.
First, let's state plainly why T1 subs are so bad:
Let's buff T1 subs to address these issues:
With these changes, T1 navy should be more balanced and less focused on T1 frigate spam, but not fundamentally changed.
@sinforosa You're just jealous you didn't have this brilliant idea first.
Originally in Supcom, T1 transport could carry ACUs. This was only removed because it was too easy to draw somebody by comm bombing them. (This was way back when ACU death nukes did a full 70k damage against all targets, including other ACUs.)
Given that the nuke problem has otherwise been avoided, we should undo this pointless change. Simplify transport logic and let T1 transports carry ACUs.
Generally speaking, everybody likes the rating system and the game quality indicator as defined by people preferring to keep it or change it than simply play without it. It's not perfect, but it is good. One of the weaknesses of the game quality indicator is that it seems to underweight teams with a large rating difference. For example in 2v2 TMM, a 500 and a 1500 will generally lose against two 1000s significantly more often than the other way around. I propose a novel solution to this problem and a general issue to team balancing: Handicaps and bonuses.
Let's assume that the game intends to balance everybody to 1,000 rating. Players below a rating would be assigned an in-game bonus (perhaps +build speed and +resource generation) to bring them up to the same strength as a 1,000 rating player. Likewise, players rated over 1,000 rating would have a similar penalty to make them about as capable as a 1,000 rating.
This would solve two problems:
1- All games with equal numbers of players on each team would be balanced because, with handicaps/bonuses applied, all players would be approximately equal strength (~1,000 rating).
2- By removing the game quality indicator, the aforementioned issue with high rating differences between same-team players causing the game quality indicator to be inaccurate would be removed.
Here is a suggestion of specific mechanics for the balance/handicap:
Example 1v1 match under handicap system: 800 player fights a 2000 player. 800 player receives (1.05)^2 multiplier (1.1025)bonus to all mass and energy production and all build power. The 200 receives a (0.95)^10 multiplier (0.59874) penalty to all mass and energy production and all build power.
Potential downsides to a handicap system:
Potential alternative handicaps aside from build time/resource generation:
In closing, I encourage people to consider the idea in the above idea not as a replacement for game quality indicator, but as an alternative option that hosts may select in custom games or may be used in TMM.
T2 Mobile Missile Launchers (MMLs) for all factions are terrible. This is bad for gameplay as it makes the most interesting tech level (T2) also the worst for turtling. MMLs should therefore be greatly improved.
First, let's note that MMLs fill a similar role in Tech 2 that T1 mobile artillery fills in Tech 1 and then state clearly why MMLs are so awful:
Now let's talk how to fix these problems:
@speed2 Yes. I made the first several Forged Alliance mods and implementations of the reinforcement script. (If it's coded poorly, that's because I'm not a programmer )
Scratch what I wrote before, my favorite FAF game was when I beat JaggedAppliance 1v1 while he was livestreaming. That was awesome.
Second place is when I beat the legendary Unconquerable in the first Supcom money tournament back in 2007.
Honorary mention was my favorite game was a 5v5 when I was air player as UEF. Not only was I ahead on air, but the other air player tried a failed T2 snipe so I had strats before his ASF and not only crippled him, but two of his mates, too. Easy win. I had just made the switch from Aeon to UEF, too, and the UEF strat bomber is so much better that it's unreal.
Are you not circling your ASF lol
can you photograph it next to a banana for scale?
I think a fair test to show how bad MMLs are follows: Players A and B start a sandbox. Player A gets a 5000 mass firebase. Player B gets 5000 mass in MMLs and mobile shields. (Unlimited pgens as needed for each.) Then each player gets 5000 additional mass for whichever units they prefer. Victor of the resulting battle wins. (Or whoever has highest value remaining in a stalemate.)
This experiment, run sufficiently well, will prove that MMLs are ineffective generally. This owes to their low damage, low health, limited mobility, and extremely limited functionality.
@valki I like this idea. It seems consistent given that strategic missiles avoid shields, too.
@maudlin27 I've said before that the Aeon strat bomb should track targets because it's so bad and is trivially easy to dodge.
I have stated awhile ago that MMLs need a buff, but it doesnt look like the balancers agree, so it's not happening.
@ftxcommando The way I see it, the most important duties of T3 strat bombers are 1) Killing ACUs and 2) killing T2 Mex. The Cybran Strat bomber is actually much better at both of these than any other strategy bomber. It's best against ACUs because of stealth AND undodgeable drops. It's best against T2 mex because high splash allows many opportunities to kill 2, 3, or even 4 mex in a single pass. All I'm suggesting is that the Cybran strat bomber not be the best at EVERYTHING. (It's even the best at the less important tasks of killing land units or minor structures.) Also, an HP nerf would do hardly anything. ASFs have such incredible DPS output that there is little difference between a strat bomber with 500 hp versus a strat bomber with 5000 hp.
Any significant nerf will go after either the stealth, the AoE, or the damage. I like faction diversity, so I would prefer to keep the Cybran strat bomber's biggest strength untouched, meaning the AoE. I would also like to keep the second strength, the stealth, just with a modest nerf. The damage nerf is necessary to balance the extreme OP strength of the AoE. I don't recommend -40%, that's a bit much. Just enough that UEF's T2 mex survive one pass.
Cybran T3 air is by far the superior T3 air. The main advantage is all their T3 planes have cheap or free stealth with no significant disadvantage. I agree with the OP that the cybran strat bomber should be nerfed. I would prefer a small nerf to damage to remove its ability to OHKO T2 mex. Also, the cost of the bomber's stealth should be increased to perhaps 300 or 500 per aircraft. It's kind of stupid that you can cheaply stealth a game-ending swarm of 30 or 50 strat bombers for the cost of one or two pgens.
Looks like a majority wants T1 frigates nerfed and T1 subs buffed. So how about it? I recommended awhile ago just switching their costs so sub is cheaper and frigate costs more.