T1 pgens aren't essential for T2 arty, it's a 4% reload discount which ends up being a 1.19x effectiveness for fully capped arty, coming to a profit of only 62 mass which is a negligible 2.8% of the total 2200 mass cost of the setup (unitdb).
This marginal adjacency is eclipsed by the idea that sparkies shouldn't build any eco structures so that there is no chance of them not being a combat unit.

As Deribus mentioned, I think reducing the size without changing the stats would make it too powerful in firebases, since you can basically stack 4+ instead of 3 shields to defend a T2 PD and they are high HP and low cost compared to UEF/Cybran.

Shield	HP	Mass	HP/Mass
Cybran ED2	7000	460	15.22
Cybran T2 ED1	4000	160	25.00
Sera T2	13000	700	18.57
UEF T2	9000	600	15.00
Aeon T2	11000	480	22.92

Here's the overlap possible for a PD with the current shields:

I don't think being unable to upgrade the shield is a huge drawback, it just requires you to ctrl-k the shield and reclaim the small wreck before building the very cheap T3 shield. It requires some APM but definitely isn't impossible if you're defending something important that requires your attention with shields.

For the size complaint, I'm not sure what you want to shield. It can shield adjacent structures pretty well. Not entirely but almost everything:

For this pgen specific case I'd rather opt for a tiny increase in shield size instead of making the structure smaller.

I've been testing your size idea with the "Create entities" dialog (its in the hotkeys, you use the hotkey while a unit is selected and you can change its blueprint values. Spawn a new copy of the unit to make sure you get all the changes. Requires cheats):
4x4 size is just way too OP, since you get ~8 overlapping shields instead of 3:

5x5 size is enough to cover a pgen but its still a small shield so its not reaching towards diagonals:

It also still increases the coverage from 3 to 4-6 shields:

Decreasing the size even by 1 seems to bring more problems than solutions.

All in all, I understand why you dislike the shield but I think its strengths in HP and cost make it above average for firebases and protecting most directly adjacent things like T3 shields, pgens, factories, or engineers. The T3 shield is also very strong because it's super cheap and the 2nd most powerful, while giving sufficient radius imo: I've seen Aeon T3 shields easily protect air grids, artillery, or game enders from artillery barrages when a sufficient number are built (and number of shields is the most mass-efficient way of defending, so having a cheap shield helps a huge amount - natural regen is nearly worthless while recharge from 0 is extremely strong).

Shield	Shield HP	Mass	BT	HP/Mass
Sera T3	21000	3600	5841	5.83
UEF T3	17000	3300	4988	5.15
Aeon T3	18000	2400	4097	7.50
Cybran ED5	16500	4260	7100	3.87
Cybran T3 ED4	13000	2460	3515	5.28

SMD missing and having to fire a second time is unacceptable. In that game the SMD firing twice actually lost the game.

Maudlin is correct that assistance costs vary by shield, since it is based off of regen rate, repair cost, and RegenAssistMult.
Documentation on github repo:

--- How much buildpower is required to provide 1x of the shield's regen rate.
--- The cost of assisting a shield is repairCostRate / RegenAssistMult,
--- where repairCostRate is determined by Unit:UpdateConsumptionValues
---@field RegenAssistMult? number

These are the buildpower and mass efficiencies considering that repair cost is 0.75x the unit cost and RegenAssistMult is 60 for all shields.

Shield	AssistRegen/BP	AssistRegen/Mass
Sera T3	2.80	6.06
UEF T3	2.18	4.40
Aeon T3	2.50	5.69
Cybran ED5	2.33	5.19
Cybran T3 ED4	2.17	4.13
Cybran ED3	1.87	4.35
Cybran ED2	1.47	3.29
Cybran T2 ED1	0.75	4.38
Sera T2	2.55	6.07
UEF T2	2.00	5.11
Aeon T2	2.30	6.07

Considering that defending a T3 Aeon artillery costs at least 165 mass/s, and a Mavor at least 550 mass/s, it is well worth economically to spam out multiple shields (they cost around 3.4k mass each) instead of assisting one, although it is riskier because the enemy can retarget the artillery, let all your shields get up, and then come down all together in the next few artillery shots as the overspill and splash damage take effect. Good for game enders that you need to protect at all costs but also need income to build.

2 Aeon T3 artillery one shot a shield and it is impossible to assist to prevent that currently.

Assisting works at full speed if you're stalling but that's a hard to fix engine bug/performance heavy Lua fix.

[Does assisting] speed up getting a collapsed shield back up?

No it does not. That is determined by the shield recharge time which will be added to the UI soon.

Aeon used to have t2 shields that couldn't be upgraded (unless my memory fails me) but that was patched as a balance decision.

The balance team does approve of letting them be upgradeable but there is simply no animation for doing so.

The cost of the TML isn't just 800 mass:

• mass cost: TML (800 mass) + missile (250) + some way to kill tmd, let's say 4 (easily countered) T1 bombers (360) = 1410 mass (unitdb) which affords 5 TMD.
• You need to get an extremely valuable central map position to be able to force out 6 TMD per enemy base. You then have to get T2 engineers to that position. Taking all that time + having to get the engis there (early HQ instead of eco) gets your opponent a T2 mex.
• You also have to build a TML instead of a T2 mex which gives your opponent extra mass to build TMD while you load the TML.

Decapitation was added as a rated victory condition server-side and has an implementation in the game lua awaiting in this PR: https://github.com/FAForever/fa/pull/6667
It would make ACU snipes still have a place in stopping ACU usage or ending the game fully but it wouldn't put people out of games as a "cheap" win by destroying a team's apm (or give an unfair loss by giving enemy 2k bases). I hope you can host and enjoy the victory condition when it comes out.

Balance-wise, my opinion is that 7 min T2 air snipe is incredibly greedy and has an unreliable outcome unless its explicitly to snipe some T1 + ACU pushing guy. It would be easily countered with a playstyle (I won't use "meta" here because imo higher level players do actually do these things, at minimum in response to scouting snipes) that has heavier emphasis on scouting, inties, raiding, and early T2 land tech.

I already worked this out, among other options, see: https://github.com/FAForever/fa/pull/5971
In summary it adds 2 new lobby settings: disconnection share conditions and disconnection ACU share conditions.

• Disconnection share sets the share condition for a player after they disconnect. I would expect it to be the same as the share condition or fullshare, but all the other share conditions are available too.
  • To prevent abuse, when the disconnect share condition is applied depends on how the ACU is shared in Assassination.
    In non-assassination, it defaults to fullshare because I find it very unlikely that people can disconnect to avoid death in other victory conditions.
• ACU sharing determines what happens to an ACU after the player disconnects:
  • Explode: Like normal, the ACU explodes 10 seconds after the player disconnects.
    • It is an instantaneous condition, so if the ACU took damage in the last 2 minutes (to prevent abuse) the disconnect share condition is not applied (no abusing disconnect to fullshare a base in a normally noshare game).
  • Recall: Similar to Explode with the 2 minute timer, but the ACU recalls and doesn't damage anything.
  • Delayed Recall: Disconnected ACUs are shared to allies for 2 minutes or until 5 minutes pass in the game. The DC share condition is applied when the ACU recalls or dies.
    This is the competitive option in my opinion, which gives some time to stabilize and use the ACU, but limits the use time since there were concerns about having two ACUs being OP.
  • Permanent share: Disconnected ACUs are shared to allies permanently, and the DC share condition is applied when the ACU dies. This is prone to double gun ACU abuse or just easily saving the ACU for way later tele/com bomb, but it is the option that maintains the current game state the best, so if people don't find multi-ACU oppressive they can use this option.

Satellite isn't unbalanced, it's just annoying to play against. If you simply target T3 mexes with it it basically does less damage in mass/s than the equivalent production in mass fabs (if the t3 mex are rebuilt eventually), and it eventually falls off as things become shielded, until an entire T3 arty has to be built to give it opportunities to hit stuff again (not guaranteed).

@Caliber said in Another Novax conversation:

Arty has an energy cost to fire.

Give Novax a large energy cost to fire weapon?

That way spamming lots of them can cripple your E reserves and stall.

This is a mere (hidden) cost increase to the satellite, since satellites practically never get rebuilt, so they cannot re-use the energy for the old dead satellite.

@Blade_Walker said in Another Novax conversation:

So what if your nukes (not SMD) had a toggle to detonate in proximity to a novax ( could even work for any air Experimental?) Double the build cost and maybe time for a replacement Satellite.

I like this idea in terms of economic costs: 16.5k launcher + 12k missile + at least 6280 mass in pgens (34.78k total) vs 36k novax + at least 10k per rebuilt satellite
This is way better than the SMD idea where sats basically die for free (7.5k smd + 3.6k missile + 2k pgen = 13.1k total)

In terms of gameplay design it is a bit of an awkward solution with the targeting but at least both sides get something useful out of their investment if the nuke isn't used to intercept the sat so there's never useless mass wasted. Also balancewise imo it would be a poor, unsatisfying decision to make a nuke and use it on a sat that will kill its mass in 5 minutes instead of using the nuke to kill some poor player without smd (way faster mass killed/time).

I like @Deribus's solution of vet also giving HP proportional to the personal shield HP.

It's a simple, mildly consistent solution that avoids the issues of how to deal with shield recharge/shield regen and you can even ignore (S)ACU shield upgrades since they don't come with the unit by default and are already balanced with vet HP.

It was only reduced from 10000 to 8000 compared to the Steam version. On top of that, shields can reduce crash damage by 20% of their own max HP (basically this means Czars/Ahwassas crashes can only kill 3600 HP SMD through shields).
@Kilatamoro is correct in that it's like a normal AoE that gets absorbed by shields. I did write some code where crash splash damage ignores shields, since it is reduced by shield max HP already, but the issue is that if the unit crashes right outside a shield it deals 8000 damage straight through the shield, which isn't fixable.

Vault has v1.0 because v1.1 was removed for some reason, but you can still download it from the original forum post: https://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=17047

@phong The reason I said it might become useless is because lower velocity is not a stat that changes with equal effect on higher and lower levels of gameplay, because the effectiveness of the change is related to the player's ability to counter billy in the first place. It would make people who play well against billy play even better, but have little effect on people who don't play well against billy. Like your example with hitting armies at range relies on the army having scouts and regularly paying attention to dodge the billy (every 30s as long as the army is alive). Lower velocity would help people who do that but have little effect on people who don't.

I don't like straight up buffing the cost in response to a velocity nerf because a cost change has a very different effect across skill levels compared to the velocity in my mind, not because I think that a lower velocity + cheaper cost doesn't compensate each other at high level.

Should you decide to be a bit more charitable though, I would rather you imagine a changed billy being effective and cost-efficient at ~2x gun range against skilled opponents and falling off gradually beyond that, to the point where getting your army hit at max range is cause for ridicule.

In a similar idea, I think reducing the max range is a good direction. Billy currently has TML range, but that doesn't make sense for two reasons:

1. TML pressures eco by targeting single targets in the backline, while Billy's targets are frontline armies.
2. TML is static and fragile, while ACUs are mobile (especially with transports or even tele) and durable.
   Reducing the max range would make the ACU more vulnerable to land/air, make it easier to scout/keep intel over, would make the ACU's target more obvious, and would limit its power on smaller maps (TML covers an entire 10km map edge to edge but not corner to corner).
   

As for velocity accomplishing the balance you describe, I find that the effect would vary. Lower velocity would certainly make predicting army movement harder for the billy user at longer range, but for the billy victim I think whether or not the billy is fired at long range relies too heavily on intel to be able to spot the billy that far away. Basically if everyone uses T1 scouts flying into sams, it doesn't matter how far behind the sams the ACU is for the army, since they'll see the billy with the same warning time every time.

Should you agree that it's cheaper at lower skill and in larger games and consider it a problem, shifting its cost towards mass and away from energy might address that more directly.

I don't have experience abusing massive energy overflow like 10k e/s from the air player like Caliber is talking about. Nevertheless, my intuition says that Billy will take an equal amount of time because low level air players can overflow energy but land players can also float tons of mass, and in the end people will complain about Billy's damage either way.
Also an overflowing air player typically isn't thinking that they need to keep the overflow up so that their team can use it, so in the end the Billy user will want their own pgens and storages.

I've identified the issue, there will be a fix.

I'm not aware of any little arrow to open the map. Typically you enable the minimap using the map options button in the multifunction bar in the top left:

Monkeylord has a target bone on its turret, and as far as I know all surface targeting weapons can target the seabed layer too, so it is not an issue with seabed layer targeting or bones. I thought it was related to LayerChangeOffsetHeight, but changing that doesn't affect the targeting, it only affects how deep in the water the Monkeylord shows up with vision (which would be a good improvement by itself). So it seems to be entirely an engine issue with how weapons target things on the seabed but on the land layer (because if you disable AboveWaterTargetsOnly, then the weapon fires at underwater, seabed-layer targets just fine).

For example, although these two can hit and see each other, they won't do it without an attack command:

Slacking on the job when the commander isn't looking :

I wrote a reply last week and a fix PR but forgot to post lol:

I didn't see arty in that replay, but I found it in #23022644. Unfortunately it is desynced so idk if the replay shows the truth of what happened.

For those who didn't watch the replay it's dualgap and a player built arty up on the cliff next to the bases and the arty can't shoot because the muzzle velocity characteristics don't give a possible firing solution, as you can see in the screenshot there are very few possible firing locations:

Noshake got integrated as a game setting.
Notifications v5.2 was hidden in the vault due to having version naming in the title. You will have to send the mod to your friend manually.

@cocainediesel
Teleport would be an overpowered preset due to very high total adjacency discounts.

Adjustable selection priority is a feature allowed by the implementation, since I don't know of any way to adjust engine selection priority outside blueprints.

I think custom presets are not necessary if the upgrades are all made useful and the presets available become best options for a specific purpose.

Personally contextual keybinds would be great, you could rebind most of your order keys to build units when only factories are selected.

To make future integration easier you can look at the repository code at https://github.com/FAForever/fa and check out the code style of the recently changed files (some things like UI are very old and unchanged).

What is the point of removing gateway assistance?
It's not like rushing any type of SACU is a giant issue like nukes:

• The counter is way easier to build in the form of PD or a T4 or T3 units you already have. On the other hand, SMD is going to take 2.5 minutes to load with assistance, and you can't do anything about it.
• SACU is way less impactful, you don't instantly lose your entire base once an SACU starts attacking if you were unprepared. You also don't lose economically if your opponent makes RAS SACU, you can beat them with mass fabs.
• SACU is way easier to scout because they have to walk to the front where there are less sams blocking spy planes.

Buffing combat SACU cost relative to RAS SACU can be done easily by shifting the costs from the base SACU to the RAS upgrade.

For underwater reclaim, I don't see why it's so unbalanced (especially as to make gateways unassistable), every faction has access to SACUs and should use them underwater when engis can't get to the front and there is lots of reclaim in a dead zone because of shifting frontlines. It creates new decisions around when to build SACU, how to kill the SACU with subs/torps, how to keep them safe, possibilities of building stuff with the SACU, and so on.
UEF SACU will be hurt by the base bp nerf in this rework because of random naval AA killing the engineering drones though.