Supreme commander Killer or simple jack Tropical thunder here

You can't balance around casual players because casual players play in non-optimal ways.

The Scathis was the counter to units in other factions (mavor 12000 damage every 8 seconds, salvation 220*36=7920 damage every 3.1!!! seconds etc.). Those other units didn't change, so if it ever gets to late game Cybran vs others, the Cybrans are screwed now, as they have no ability to hit anywhere on the map with artillery. It quite simply makes Cybran unplayable on 40x40 maps.

On the SCU resource production front, here's a table showing why Seraphim are getting screwed over:

Totals include RAS for UEF, Cybran and Aeon. If my math is wrong please correct me, as I pieced it together from the patch notes and existing values from the supcom wikia.

The extra Seraphim line shows the effect of increasing mass and energy production to 3 and 300 respectively.
As it currently stands, Seraphim SCUs take 70% longer to pay off their cost, and cost 1025 mass per mass production compared with 590 for the other factions. Bumping production up to 3 mass/300 energy puts it back to parity.

Easy solution here (and one often used in a lot of differnt game genres) is to build a 'competative' mode. It's not so much a different balance as it is a reworked balance. Casual players will not use hotkeys, will not use advanced tactics as they will not be able to execute them (properly), so the balance there should be on tank x should do y damage in comparison to bot z.

In the competative mode you can build in some kind of balance where the balance is evolved more around strategic decisions rather than individual unit balance.

But really remember; if what you state is true about not being able to balance for the general public, then you can never ever build a game mainstream, as it is the mainstream public that generates the bulk of the real life resources (money) to continue a franchise/game/workforce/patches etc.

How would this even be accomplished? Player A beats player B by spamming air, but player B mostly neglected AA, does that mean air should be nerfed? How would you determine what changes to make when it is the players fault that they lose, and not necessarily evident of some kind of imbalance?

you can stay on a game only for so long ...

No, my point is that we should entirely throw out balance for the sake of engagement and fun.

I don't understand... if the game isn't balanced, that means one, or a few strategies are dominant. Every game turns into the same thing and many units are left by the wayside never to be used. How is that fun?

If the game's balance plays to the lore, then that would be fun to me, as the story would explain to me why X works against Y.

But the problem with saying that it would make particular tactics dominant is that, that always happens, people always complain that a particular tactic is overpowered.

And by extension the fact that it is dominant, and is dominant in an intended way is just what makes it fun, people can play around that a particular set of units is powerful, especially if the game is more defensively oriented without resorting to map crossing artillery or nukes.

These are the kinds of games played by the usual player, not the kind that would build the meta around it.

Competitive players vs casual players. and as usual the competitive players are the ones who ruin the game for themselves and then whine on the forums.

Its impossible Casual players like FA(F)
Its a game to other kind players ,PA players wont and never will like or understood FA(F)

Casual simply means non-competative. Think games between friends, or people who don't spend hours getting a high degree of skill. There's nothing impossible about it.

Casual is not the exact opposite of professional (or not even semi-pro). Casual means you're playing without the need to be the best constantly. If you have a spectrum ranging from 0 (not playing at all) to 10 (professional, fulltime occupation), casual means 1 through 7 where 8, 9 and 10 would be the people who play competative, try to go pro, play it because they want to be better besides having fun.

I don't understand why you think it's mutually exclusive.

so you WERE the one working on nomads! why didn't you say yes when I first asked???

DUDE I FUKING LOVE THAT MOD!!!

there is no mod that I prefer on FAF

I fought diligently and I keep fighting today, to have it as ranked. It would make me so happy.

It provides a lot of solutions, we could hope to rework the balance and put seraphim back into the game. I'm a firm believer that the odd number was what was missing in the race balance.

It will be integrated when it's finished.

I'm not sure if the Nomads will get finished. Brute is tired of FA, I'm tired of FA, I think Pip and Dill are the only ones that are still interested in the game, though I haven't heard anything from them about the Nomads. The thing about the "fifth faction" is that, in my opinion, were forced to be a very standardized and in-line faction because all four of FA's other factions were standardized and in-line. I wanted the Nomads to be this super-unique faction with interesting things like intelligence interplaying with skirmishing weapons, unique 'blitzkrieg' type gameplay and a really cool end-game unit that allowed the Nomads to ultramobilize their army and perform surgical strikes all across the map.

But because FA is about slow, decisive and sharp engagements... They were just smacked into line repeatedly until they looked like a semi-interesting mix of the Aeon and Seraphim with more dakka and less armor. I don't remember who said it, please make yourself known if you're here, so I can hug you, but it was something along the lines of "I find it hard to believe the Infinite War had been raging for over a hundred years, let alone a thousand. Units are fragile and very costly to lose in Supreme Commander, whereas in TA, if you weren't losing units, you weren't doing damage. You had grey areas in front lines, constant fighting over resources, with flanking and raiding being seamlessly integrated into normal attacks. Compare that to Supreme Commander, where front lines are determined by who has bases where and whether or not you have long-range support/air superiority."

I don't think balance and engagement are mutually exclusive, I think that it's when people stress balance instead of stressing engagement (which is what is happening here), you have to zoom out and look at whether or not all that hard work going into balance will result in a fun game. TA was one of the most unbalanced RTS I've ever played, and still one of the most fun. Meanwhile, FA was one of the most balanced RTSes I've ever played, and one of the least fun. They aren't mutually exclusive, no, but they're an inverse relationship.

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...ropical-thunder-here.54015/page-3#post-828727

Still don't see why but whatever.

I don't see why you think so. They ARE unique, they don't have TP!!! that's crazily different! TelePortation is one of the strongest weapons!

obviously to balance THAT out you get to make different and new mechanisms.

the other upgrades and the shuttle advantages were one thing (thought the space missiles are the worst investment int he game and should be replaced with something like vision, which would really fill a good role for the ship).

All in all, seeing the egg concept, don't you think you inspired Mavor?