Balance suggestions

[FtXCommando]

t1 torp launchers are fine, they don't need a buff

for cybran acu, do it like gala in his balance mod:

Cybran stealth 350/5250 -> 800/12000 (like gun but 50% e, since it has e drain too) new hp +3000 build time 500-> 800 (like gun)

The aim was to give Cybran a better option for a t2 stage combat acu, as the health was really a limiting factor for mid pushes. Also good for combination with torp in the sea.

Yeah but you're giving Cybran stealth + more hp than UEF get for nano + a cheaper price than UEF. That would be imbal. The stealth upgrade itself is worth as much as nano regen so if Cybran is getting the equivalent of a nano upgrade then it should cost the same 24k e that UEF pays.

[Farmsletje]

t1 torp launchers are fine, they don't need a buff

obsidians are fine, they don't need a buff

#JustOneliners

[Mel_Gibson]

they perform really bad versus frigs

#JustOneliners

[Yolo-]

yeah i didn't think about uef nano, but that upgrade seems kind of weak anyways, T2 upgrade same cost but you get same hp and t2 tech, T2 upgrade just seems better
also not sure if i would call stealth upgrade equivalent to nano, but yeah maybe increase e cost of stealth upgrade then or change uef nano

t1 torp launchers are fine, they don't need a buff

obsidians are fine, they don't need a buff

#JustOneliners

lol, bh already said it would make navy turtleshit, i just wanted to say it again since icedreamer said all are very good suggestions, and t1 torp def buff is definitly not a good suggestion
Why would you want to buff torp def when they already have a bigger range than frigs and can be placed behind naval fac to be protected from frigs, which makes it hard for frigs to kill them. This just seems like a lame excuse to being less punished by making no or very late navy units.

[Farmsletje]

they perform really bad versus frigs

#JustOneliners

c u c k e d :(

yeah i didn't think about uef nano, but that upgrade seems kind of weak anyways, T2 upgrade same cost but you get same hp and t2 tech, T2 upgrade just seems better
also not sure if i would call stealth upgrade equivalent to nano, but yeah maybe increase e cost of stealth upgrade then or change uef nano

t1 torp launchers are fine, they don't need a buff

obsidians are fine, they don't need a buff

#JustOneliners

lol, bh already said it would make navy turtleshit, i just wanted to say it again since icedreamer said all are very good suggestions, and t1 torp def buff is definitly not a good suggestion
Why would you want to buff torp def when they already have a bigger range than frigs and can be placed behind naval fac to be protected from frigs, which makes it hard for frigs to kill them. This just seems like a lame excuse to being less punished by making no or very late navy units.

Fyi, uef nano is super good.. outside setons.. I remember complaints about uef nano being too OP.
I don't mind you disagreeing with me or anything, but please try to think outside of a setons mindset only.

And yeah, cause bh's post was 100% serious.. xD
I don't know if you ever simulated 2 frigs vs 1 torp def? Turns out the frigs easily kill the static D in a mass to mass ratio, which should NEVER be the case for obvious reasons. You can hide some torp defense behind factories. So..? You hide t1 pd's behind walls. You hide units behind facs too. Just because you're able to do that doesn't mean it gets OP. Also because navy is fast the range isn't really an issue.

All in all t1 torps are incredibly weak and useless on almost every map. The only downside to buffing it is that it would make very early frig crushes on setons harder, but things like that don't happen on any other map.

[FtXCommando]

T2 upgrade isn't as effective for combat really due to the regen. Generally gun upgrade and T2 kind of have an anti-synergy as it forces you to spend additional mass to take advantage of the T2 suite rather than putting that mass into tanks which synergize more with a gun acu push. But that's just how I look at it.

Obviously it's going to change with the circumstances of maps.

[PhilipJFry]

Mass Fabricators are actually something we want to change in the next patch.
Those are the numbers i came up with for now in case someone wants to give some feedback on them.

T2 Fab
Mass Cost 100 -> 150
T3 Fab
Mass Cost 3000 -> 2000
Build Time 4988 -> 5000
E drain 3500 -> 2500
Mass gain 12 -> 16

Spoiler: show

frig rush isn't very common on setons because it is fairly easy to defend your production with torp defense while the frigs cannot deal too much damage elsewhere

edit: ty for pointing out the mistake - was looking in the wrong line in my table

[Farmsletje]

Isn't the e drain already 150 for t2 fabs?

[PhilipJFry]

In my opinon t2 is a very potent upgrade suited for combat because it allows you to go for tac missile on uef/sera and it also gives you the ability to scale up your production on the front line by spamming t1 facs.
Nano/T2 for UEF seem to be in a decent spot if you ask me since both are useful and usable.

[FtXCommando]

Mass Fabricators are actually something we want to change in the next patch.
Those are the numbers i came up with for now in case someone wants to give some feedback on them.

T2 Fab
Mass Cost 100 -> 150
E drain 100 -> 150
T3 Fab
Mass Cost 3000 -> 2000
Build Time 4988 -> 5000
E drain 3500 -> 2500
Mass gain 12 -> 16

You just moved the irrelevant unit from the T3 mass fab to the T2 mass fab. Why bother making the weaker T2 mass fab when the T3 mass fab is both more efficient in mass, energy, and hp? What is the downside to making T3 mass fab rather than T2 mass fabs?

Also yeah, I'm not arguing that you'd have to be an idiot to make T2 suite over nano. I'm just basically saying that nano is fairly strong as it is performs just as optimally if not more so than the T2 upgrade in many situations.