I think the main argument against split teams is an emotional one, that it makes TMM feel less like a "ranked game" and more like a custom game.

However, it may be one of the few, ways to significantly reduce waiting times without sacrificing game quality. Especially because players are likely to queue together with people of a similar rank.

Yes, that's right, but it's possible anyway. this makes it maybe easier. I don't think it will be such a big problem. I would outweigh the benefits over potential misuse.

To get straight to the point, in addition to the standard option of queuing together as a team (Team Match Maker), please add another option that also allows you to queue as a group, but you won't necessarily be matched on the same team, just in the same game.

The problem with the current TMM is, it's difficult to get games once you have 3 or 4 people above a certain rating. This has led to us almost not playing TMM at all once we are 3 or 4 although we would like to.

We usually fine about not being on the same team if we could find a game instead. So if there's an option you can click on, like "allow Split Teams" or something, that you can activate if you have problems finding a game, that would be a game changer!

And suggestions like queuing individually isn't a good alternative, because one person will not be matched and left alone.

Hope this feature will finds its way into the TMM, as it would currently be the biggest improvement for FAF to me.

Constructive ideas or contributions are welcome.

Hello,
I would like to give a big compliment to the balance team!

With a few exceptions, I think most changes that have being made in the last years to SupCom are absolutely correct and very well thought out. And especially with this patch!

In my opinion, every change makes sense.

But above all, I love the new shield discharge feature. Great idea, great work!

@clyf said in Some thoughts and suggestions about the Fatboy:

It's referring to A. the window in which the Fatboy can be built and B. the window in which using the Fatboy is viable, respectively.

Yes, exactly, that's what I wanted to say.

I think that the way the Fatboy is designed, it would be a good choice to have it available earlier in the game.

@waffelznoob said in Some thoughts and suggestions about the Fatboy:

T2 arty is too strong in general tbh

I'm not against further adjustments either. But I didn't want to go into that any further since, as already noted, there are other posts out there about this topic.

@sladow-noob said in Some thoughts and suggestions about the Fatboy:

Not a big fan of opening yet another thread cuz there are two already which mention a lot of problems. Also I wanna note that the Fatboy is going to be a balance topic in the next meetings anyway so there's a very high change it gets changed anyway

Then new contributions about possible adjustments are even more important.

I have of course read the other posts and thought that it is a new aspect worth discussing.

I think most people here would agree that the Fatboy, as it currently is, has some problems compared to the other Experimentals.

Therefore I want to describe what in my opinion the problem with the Fatboy is and where I see a solution. Of course, this is just my point of view and constructive criticism is welcome.

What makes the fatboy special?

Unlike other Exps, the Fatboy is a siege unit. So the fatboy has no immediate impact and needs time to get this impact in a game.

That's why it doesn't make sense to rush a Fatboy because even if you do (and sacrifice your eco to do it) it can't finish the game.

That in and of itself is not a problem. It's just an option that UEF doesn't have to end a game quickly compared to the other factions.

So what's the problem?

What's critical about Fatboy is that it's also easy to counter.

And here we can also find the reason why it is too difficult to balance the Fatboy properly. If there are effective counters, the opponents (if they are not losing the game anyway) have the opportunity to build the counters. And since the Fatboy is a siege unit, you give the enemy all the time to do this. (Arty, TMLs, Air Snipe, etc.). So the Fatboy becomes useless.

On the other hand, if you remove the counter or weaken them, the Fatboy will be overpowered very quickly because, well.... no usefull counter.

So it seems like an impossible balancing act between absolutely OP and absolutely useless.

And what is the solution?

But there is another way to balance units. And this is actually already known and often used in the game. It's time!

Basically, most units (some units are affected more and some less) only have a limited time window in which they can be used meaningfully before they get countered by other units.

The Fatboy can obviously also be countered (there has to be this option!).

But, as one of the more expensive Exps, it can only appear on the battlefield at a time when players have strong Eco and BP to build the counters quite easily and the game is already in the hot final phase.

So if you also add that the Fatboy moves slowly and need some time to get value, the earliest point in time at which you can build the Fatboy typically is already behind the point where it would still have been useful.

You can compare the Fatboy a little with T2 MMLs, which you can only build when Ravanger and Sniper Bots are already on the field.

The solution would therefore be to move the earliest time at which you can build the Fatboy forward and optional move the latest point in time at which it can still be used backwards, so that there is a time window where the fatboy actually is usefull.

And to get the Fatboy earlier, costs obviously need to be reduced significantly. Ideally the mass cost of an ML and maybe slightly below.

This way the Fatboy can be on the field much earlier and would actually have the time it needs to get his value. (And as a bonus, UEF would finally have a reasonable counter to sniper bots.)

Of course, the fatboy should also be nerfed accordingly, by lowering his DPS. However, I wouldn't reduce the HP any further.

Further adjustments can be made as suggested by @ComradeStryker here and here to extend the usefulness of the Fatboy and give him more time later on.

But I think the most important factor will be to move the time from which you can have the fatboy significantly forward.

Summary

Currently, the Fatboy arrives on the field as one of the later Exps. If you consider the fact that the Fatboy moves slowly and takes a long time to get his value, it becomes obvious why the Fatboy hardly ever has a decisive influence on a game. There is simply no real time window for it because the moment the fatboy could be built it is already obsolete.

So the solution is to move the time from where you realistically can get a fatboy and the point from which it loses its use in such a way that there is an actual time window in which the unit can have a decisive influence on the game.

This means that the costs should be reduced and, if necessary, further options could be consider to extend the usefulness of the fatboy.

@snowy801 said in Reworked Mercy, how do you like it?:

I only used it a few times but it seems to have no utility whatsoever.

Either it does damage faster, or it does more damage total. Right now you just walk out of the cloud and receive like 100 damage dealt.

I would agree with that, right now I don't see any real use case for the mercy.

But I like the idea of FTXCommander making the mercy a kind of EMP weapon, dealing no damage but stunn units up to T3 for short period within a small area.

This would certainly bring in some interesting new possibilities.

And we could also get rid of the effect of the poison gas cloud and maybe change it by the effect of the chrono dampener impulse.

Yeah, it feels so natural as if it has always been this way. @Jip Thanks for your work!

I hope in the next patch the CZAR gets the ability too, because the undock animation is just super cool and I would love to see how the fighter jets stream out of the czar from time to time!

Something you have never seen in games without building while moving.

Great Work!

@SpikeyNoob I like that the visual effect of the "projectile" has been changed back to the original one. Would it be possible to make the fog bluish as well? So that it matches the color of the projectile?

I guess it will look quite good together.

I Like this Change. Not because a change is required, but simply because it's cool! Please implement.

And I don't think making it continuous fire isn't that big of a problem as due to slow Muzzle velocity the over kill on T1 and T2 units will still be there and a buff against T1 and T2 units isn't necessarily a bad thing considering the price and how bad it ist against a bunch of T1 spam and almost in general.

@sladow-noob You can have 10 - 11 Parashield (and if you include energy costs much more). I would argue even with OC killing the Parashield they will do a better job. Simply because of the amount of Parashield you can have.

Hello,

@SpikeyNoob Here some feedback to the new UEF bubble shield upgrade.

First of all I love the idea of making the bubble shield as an alternative option to the personal shield. I can see a lot of fun for UEF players to go Rambo with a bubble shield ACU and a couple of percy's. I would really love to see such game play!

but right now the shield is just ridiculously weak compared to the cost. Below is a comparison of all mobile shields.

I think the bubble shield upgrade is most comparable to the Athanah mobile shield. Same size and similar amount of HP (9k vs 10k). But more than 4 times less HP/mass and if you also include the energy costs, the bubble shield is just so bad in terms of bang for bug.

I really see no reason why the upgrade is so much more expensive, especially since the other mobile shields have less than half the recharge time and are much faster and you can have as many as you want.

Even the SACU bubble shield is more than twice as good in terms of HP/mass with a shield HP of 52k!

So I would say give the bubble shield at least the same HP as the personal shield, i.e. 19k. The recharge time should be still at 90s because every arty shell typically hits and the shield will be down pretty quickly.

@sladow-noob said in Mercy Change - Not ready yet:

T1 bombers are still insanely effective against stuff like that. Ofc you can argue that flak will oneshot them - same for mercies though. Besides that you can produce t1 bombers much faster than mercies.

Sure but you need just one hit with a mercy. If you use them all at ones and your opponent don't see them, the flaks might be behind the experimental.

@sladow-noob said in Mercy Change - Not ready yet:

Why should it be impossible to fly into your opponent's base? Flying around the map edge with one mercy is way saver than doing it with 5+ Gunships. And since most players build the PGs somewhat close together one mercy is able to kill 15+ PGs in one shot - same with random engies being around while e.g. supporting a navy or air HQ.
Especially in teamgames when rushing t2 air because <1700 ranked games tend to underbuild intis anyway, so there's nothing really to stop 1-2 mercies completely raping your base.

very limited fuel and far too little life to reliably get a mercy into the enemy base. Don't think you will see it except for some rare cases.

@sladow-noob said in Mercy Change - Not ready yet:

That's why Aeon has e.g. Gunships to simply snipe the AA. Or one swiftie to distract them. Or even a torp bomber due to target priority. Also the mercy does have more hp and iirc it even survives one flak volley. Not to mention Cybran t1 is fucked anyway due to the mobile t1 AA and currently is the faction where you stay on t1 the longers.

Yeah, with a bit more live like now I guess, it would be fine.

@sladow-noob said in Mercy Change - Not ready yet:

Those are things which have to be fixed of course, however it's not really a reason against changing the mercies, if that's what you intented. If you simply wanted to mention it,

It just means that someone has to solve the problem if we want to change the mercy in such a way.

@spikeynoob If the current effect is just a placeholder and will be tweaked later on, such that the mercy fire spreads across the floor to create a blue cloud, i could imagine that it would look pretty good. Then I wouldn't be against such a change.

To the shield bug. I think this applies to mobile shields when they are moving a bit forword so that the "center of the damage" get's under the shield. So the damage is also applied inside the shield.

I have no real insight into the code, but perhaps the simplest solution for the bug would be to have many small AoE sources clustering around like the Janus fire has, instead of heaving one big source with a large radius.

Hello folks!

First of all, everything that is in the game should also be allowed to be used. But it really doesn't feel fair if your ACU gets mercied, especially if you had anti air with you.

So I'm absolutely in favor of changing the Mercy. I just don't like the change to the mercy in the current balance patch for the following reasons.

1. It is not true that the Mercy can only be used for ACU snipes

I mean, of course, that's currently the most prominent use for this unit. But in my eyes there are at least two more good use cases for the Mercy.

1. Catch some lonely T2 Mexes.
   One Mercy is enough to kill a T2 Mex (except UEF). This is something Aeon can't do very well with T1 bombers and gunships, as they aren't mass efficient in one passing a single T2 Mex and it's simply too noticeable when multiple radar blobs appear. It would certainly deprive Aeon of an opportunity since they don't have a T2 Bomber alternative.

2. The desperate attempt to stop an experimental at the last moment.
   Here I can also see a justified use case for the Mercy. The only real alternatives Aeon has in the early T3 phase are again T1 bombers and T2 gunships. Even if the gunship has an alpha strike, it must still shoot for at least 30 seconds to get the value of a mercy. Assuming you don't completely dominate Air to build 25+ Restorer or a CZAR, it could be a particularly awkward situation for Aeon to defend an Experimental just with T1 bombers and T2 gunships, since they are significantly more vulnerable to an even not too high number of Flak with shields compared to Corsair, Notha or Broadsword.

2. The new use case might be not so use full

So lets see what Aeon get's in contrast. The new Mercy will be changed to do AoE and damage over time weapon. This means that t2 Mexes can no longer be sniped by a single Mercy and there's really no reason to snipe an experimental anymore (except the Fatboy maybe) since the single targed damage is to low and run out off the AoE with ease.

So I see the new Mercy as a pure single use weapon for larger groups of T1 to T3 units, a bit like the Janus Bomber. However, the Janus is much better, as it is very good at flying into the opponent's base and taking out pgens, engis and other important things. Something that is unthinkable with Mercys.

And even against units themselves, I would always prefer the Janus, since it can bombard the units again and again and not just once creating one AoE from which the units could simply run out.

Also, it doesn't seem a good idea to me at all to use Mercys against units since they usually have AA with them and the Mercy may not even fire ones.

So right now as it is, the new design of the Mercy seems to me to contradict itself.

3. It's Buggy

When I tested the new Mercy, I noticed that in some cases the damage goes under the shield and can damage units below. I especially noticed that with the Fatboy who gets direct damage despite having shields on and dies with an active shield! in fact, 10 mercys can be enough to kill a Fatboy which is ridiculous.

4. Bad Visual Effect

Since the new Mercy now creates a poisonous fog, the fire animation was replaced as well.

unfortunately, one of the most pleasing visual effects has been replaced by an absolutely unrealistic looking effect. It just looks ugly when the Mercy turns suddenly into a poison ball, just like that.

So you replacing this effekt:

with this one (unfortunately it is not good to show in a picture what it looks like when the mercy suddenly becomes a ball.):

Some could argue that the visual effects are not that important. For me, however, it is and I really prefer to play a also visually nice designed game rather than an unfinished looking one. And I think it would also be good for casters and so getting new players into this game by making the game look as good as possible.

So what would I do differently now?

Basically I see two ways how the mercy cloud be changed.

1. The simple solution.
   Halve or third the damage a ACU gets from the Mercy, so that it's no more difficult to snipe a ACU with Corsairs than with Mercies. Since ASF are now also getting reduced CZAR laser damge, I assume that the change also could done relatively easily with the Mercy and ACU. The Mercy would still have the use cases described above.

2. The more complex solution.
   If you would change the Mercy into an AoE weapon, adjust the visual effect so that the mercy splits up as usual, but then spreads out into an area similar to the salvation. And give the "poisonous fog" also a bluish color and a stun effekt for a short time (fitting the fraction diversity) so that units get at least some damage before they can go out. or just remove the damage over time componenent and make it a single hitting weapon.

I hope this post was helpful and I'm curious what you think about the Mercy change.

Either way, this is an improvement over the icons before and definitely makes it clearer. Happy to see that in the upcoming patch.

Hello,

this is possibly only a purely subjective opinion. However, I noticed that the new snipe icon for the Sera Sniper bots doesn't quite match the other icons.

The others tend to appear grayed out when the ability is disabled and the icon itself glows green when enabled. The background remains grey. With the new snip icon, the background itself begins to glow green. Wouldn't it make more sense to just let the crosshair light up green to bring it more in line with the other icons?

Happy to hear that one of the points is actually going to being implemented. The CZAR should definitely have more fall damage than the Ahwassa.

Hello folks!

I am aware that the Ahwassa will probably be nerfed with the upcoming balance patch due to higher energy costs and a slightly lower damage radius.

A sensible and long overdue change as lategame air always felt too strong for me. With just one Ahwassa on the field most land units (even with mobil AA) could be easily defended.

Therefore I would like to show you three ways how to nerf the Ahwassa without just screwing on the costs ;).

1. Reduce fall damage.
I've never quite understood how fall damage is calculated in combination with shields. But I've often seen an anti nuke (even if it's well defended by many shields) getting killed by the Ahwassa's air chrash damage. In combination with a nuke, everyone knows how that ends. Especially when you consider that the fall damage is exactly the same as that of the CZAR, but it is so much easier to drop an Ahwassa into the base than a CZAR. I always felt it was an unfair advantage to the Ahwassa.

2. Shorter bomb drop range
Another thing I felt always strange was that the Ahwassa was never really countered by SAMs (an air counter unit). Just one Bomb drop on the edge and a quick turn, and an entire SAM bank is killed barely before they fire off one volley which isn't too bad for the Ahwassa. A shorter drop range would make the Ahwassa much more vulnerable to SAMs.

3. Higher turning angle
Similar to the point above, a higher turning angle (after a bomb has been dropped) would cause the Ahwassa to fly further into enemy ground before it can turn back. Alternatively, if it could be implemented, introduce that the Ahwassa cannot rotate about ~1 second after a bomb drop. This would also make the Ahwassa more vulnerable to ground AA and make it easier to catch the Ahwassa with ASF as it can't hide behind its own ASF so well anymore.

I'm not saying that these changes should be inserted in the game, but rather understood as a suggestion how else a nerf could be done. Feel free to give your comments on it.