Reduce Paragon output 10k/1M m/E -> 4k/400k m/E

[lL1l1]

Description of the proposed changes

Reduce Paragon's max output so that it cannot simultaneously defend itself against land, air, and artillery while also making Salvations to kill enemy infrastructure. This ability made it far more powerful than other game enders and essentially unbeatable even if the enemy had nearly full map control, which is not the case for other game enders.

Paragon: T4 Experimental Resource Generator (XAB1401):

• Max mass output: 10k -> 4k
• Max energy output: 1000k -> 400k

Discord balance thread.

Testing done on the proposed changes

Simple number change that doesn't need changing.
The balance implications cannot be sandboxed either.

Theory for thought:
Mavor deals around 600 mass/s of damage to assisted shields, so the Paragon will have 3.4k mass left over for salvations in a game ender war. This means a salvation can be built every 59.6s, so the Paragon guaranteed wins in 2 minutes when 2 salvations are built. This compares to 21.1s previously, so Paragon won in ~42s.
Yolona requires 19.2 SMD to defend if it has full 145 T3 engis of assistance to maximize its fire rate, which costs 288 mass/s. Really insignificant cost. The main cost will be in building SMD 4 minutes early for them to load. Yolona also doesn't easily get 145 engis so it's not as high of a requirement in reality.

Anecdotes:
People often do not max out the Paragon instantly, or even at all before the game ends. They may reach around 3000 mass/s immediately, and then increase spending over time if their engineer building infrastructure isn't dead. This means that they do not need to reach the full output to win the game.

The most ridiculously economic game with RAS SACU being spammed into water could have a player reach 3k income. This would give them a fighting chance against a 4k income Paragon. More realistically a team could reach 1.5k income together in the late game. Overall, the nerfed Paragon should be able to defensively match the offensive power of a map-control-based team, even if overbuilding unnecessary defenses reduces the Paragon user's efficiency. The nerf does mean that the Paragon user will no longer be able to simultaneously build Salvations to kill enemy infrastructure; they will have to invest most of their income into defenses and have a "fair" fight before having resources to build Salvations.

Checklist

- [ ] Changes are annotated, including comments where useful

• Changes are documented in a changelog snippet according to the guidelines.
• Request 2-3 reviewers from the list of reviewers and their areas of knowledge.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Reduced maximum resource output for Paragon T4 Experimental Resource Generator: energy output capacity decreased from 1000k to 400k, mass output capacity decreased from 10k to 4k.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR reduces the Paragon T4 Experimental Resource Generator (XAB1401) unit's economy limits: maximum energy output decreases from 1,000,000 to 400,000 and maximum mass output decreases from 10,000 to 4,000. A changelog entry documents these balance changes.

Changes

XAB1401 Economy Balance Adjustment

Layer / File(s)	Summary
XAB1401 unit economy limits adjustment changelog/snippets/balance.7131.md, units/XAB1401/XAB1401_unit.bp	The unit's Economy.MaxEnergy and Economy.MaxMass are reduced by 60%, with a changelog entry documenting the balance changes for PR #7131.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Suggested reviewers

• Rhaelya

Poem

A rabbit hops through balance sheets so fine, 🐰
The XAB1401 now restrained by design,
Four thousand mass, four hundred thousand spark,
More measured power, perfectly stark!

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description check	✅ Passed	The description includes a clear explanation of proposed changes, detailed reasoning, testing notes, and addresses all required checklist items except annotated code comments.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely summarizes the main change: reducing Paragon output from 10k/1M to 4k/400k mass/energy, which directly matches the changeset's objective.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[SkratFAF]

I disagree with this suggestion.

Yes, if your Paragon is ready and you have enough build power both to defend it and to build new game-enders, then you will win. But that simply means you already had the upper hand, or your opponents played poorly. Let’s compare Paragon and Mavor at the time of construction. Paragon is 1.5x more expensive of energy, and slightly more expensive of mass and build time. You also need to make up plenty of BP in advance to use Paragon, otherwise it’s useless. And BP costs money too. All things being equal, when Mavor is ready, the Paragon will only be 80–90% complete, and you’ll find it very difficult to finish building it, as all your resources and BP will be tied up in maintaining the shields. What’s more, once the enemy has finished building the Mavor, they free up a lot of resources and can start producing Novax, Strats and other units to finally kill the unfinished Paragon.

You write that "Mavor deals around 600 mass/s of damage to assisted shields, so the Paragon will have 3.4k mass left over for salvations in a game ender war" That would be true if you had a single shield that covered both Paragon and Salvation. But there are no such shields in the game, and no one is forcing Mavor to fire at Paragon. So it turns out that you need to spend resources to maintain shields both where you have Paragon and where you plan to build Salvation. You can also destroy the Air Grid using Mavor whilst the enemy is building their first Salvation, so that you can then use strats

Paragon is the most expensive game-ender, requiring more skill than any other, and also requiring more teamwork to be used effectively. On maps like Astrocrater, Paragon isn’t effective at all, as there’s simply no space to use it effectively (on this map, you’re most likely to see a game-ender). On Seton, the most effective game-ender is Scathis so its radius covers almost half of the opponent's entire map .On most MapGen maps, Yolo will be more effective as it handles bases scattered across the map better than any other unit.

What’s more, by nerfing Paragon, you’ll be removing another game-ender from the game: Salvation. Since it’s useless without Paragon, it’s far inferior to other game-enders

What I find even harder to understand is why you’re suggesting nerf Paragon by 60% straight away. A 20% nerf would have been understandable

To be honest, I don’t understand why balance team focus on Paragon. There are so many units and features in the game that need tweaking. Mercy, CZAR, Absolver, Sera subs, Cybran stealth, Rembo SACU. They need rebalancing far more than Paragon, which is rarely built anyway.

[lL1l1]

@SkratFAF

When mavor is ready the paragon will be incomplete and all your resources will be tied up in shields and the Mavor will fund novax/strats to kill the Paragon.

You can sacrifice a bit of map control/units to get the extra 25k mass and then you will recover that mass quite quickly. You can do the same to get extra engineer buildpower. You can also reclaim your eco to finish off the para in a completely even, highly optimized game. Other enders can't do reclaim eco because they don't give eco. Only Yolona can sacrifice extra map control/units since it can kill units. All this makes it viable to finish Para very much in time for Mavor fire and before there are so many novaxes they break the shield or enough strats are built.

So it turns out that you need to spend resources to maintain shields both where you have Paragon and where you plan to build Salvation.

You can build Salvation next to the para under the same shield. Multiple shield locations doesn't duplicate the resource expenditure, it only duplicates the 50 engi + t3 shield infrastructure requirement, and you should have plenty of engis, especially considering the aforementioned recoverable sacrifices and that you can build stuff under stealth which wont be shot any time soon unless they already have a novax or two.

On maps like Astrocrater, Paragon isn’t effective at all, as there’s simply no space to use it effectively (on this map, you’re most likely to see a game-ender).

T3 arty is better than any ender on any maps that put bases in range of arty, such as astro and most mapgens. So I disagree that you're most likely to see a game ender on astro.

On Seton, the most effective game-ender is Scathis so its radius covers almost half of the opponent's entire map. On most MapGen maps, Yolo will be more effective as it handles bases scattered across the map better than any other unit.

Scathis is not the best on Setons because it is only good at killing air grids and fails to kill assisted + shielded SMD/enders/arty/power so it will just lose if enemy makes their own ender. Any gains from killing grids quickly are counteracted by the immense delay of massing up air to kill shielded targets. Paragon is far more versatile since it can defend itself against air/land/enders and the size + naval nature of Setons gives plenty of time to finish Para slightly slower than other enders.

On most mapgens Paragon has less time because of faster land attacks and higher eco that is spread out and harder to kill but it is still able to defend itself and build itself in new places. The only thing brings Yolona above Para on mapgen is that you can't immediately counter it with shields like you can arty, but you have to invest into tons of SMD 5 minutes before the Yolo finishes. This applies to Yolona on any map vs any matchup though. Para is the best out of all other enders in other situations by far because again it can defend itself and deal any damage.

Paragon can win an extremely lost position on both map types, which no other ender can do. It also just wins ender war if it survives 2 minutes. The problems are that 1. it can do these things simultaneously with 10k income, and 2. 10k income is completely unbeatable because it very quickly out-masses any attack you could build against the Para.

[Robogear]

I don't think Paragon needs a nerf. There are far more annoying things that should be addressed first: Mercies, the unreasonably cheap Cybran Stealth, the unreasonably cheap UEF ACU regen, the T2 Seraphim fleet vs. UEF, the T3 Aeon fleet vs. UEF, and so on... the list is long.

And what about Paragon? Typically, in the vast majority of my games, when the game is going smoothly and both teams are simultaneously building a game-ender, we're the Paragon, and the enemy is any other. Even with equal resource income on both teams, Paragon will come online later, sometimes significantly, because you need to prepare in advance and spend mass on defending against the enemy game-ender. Yolo? Would you be so kind as to spend another 75,000 mass on anti-nukes and mass on charging them? Mavor? Prepare a million engineers for assists in advance (but you'll have to build them anyway to implement Paragon). And while you're busy doing these things, the enemy often already has a second game ender, while you're just starting to implement your Paragon. And then it's a 50/50 situation. You can't say for sure what will happen. That's the point.

Of course, Paragon is potentially the strongest game ender. If you build it first and the enemy hasn't even responded yet, you're 90% certain to win. But that's how it should be, right?

[SkratFAF]

@lL1l1

You can sacrifice a bit of map control/units to get the extra 25k mass and then you will recover that mass quite quickly. You can do the same to get extra engineer buildpower. You can also reclaim your eco to finish off the para in a completely even, highly optimized game. Other enders can't do reclaim eco because they don't give eco. Only Yolona can sacrifice extra map control/units since it can kill units. All this makes it viable to finish Para very much in time for Mavor fire and before there are so many novaxes they break the shield or enough strats are built.

This is exactly what I see most often in games. A team building Paragon sacrifices map control in order to finish building it. And it is precisely because of this that strats come in to destroy it. The most important thing is timing. Even after completing the Paragon, you won’t be able to build several Salvation, GC, and CZARs instantly. Meanwhile, Mavor is already firing at you and may target the SMD, Air Grid, and any other targets instead of the Paragon. And it is at this very moment that the Paragon most often goes down

You can build Salvation next to the para under the same shield. Multiple shield locations doesn't duplicate the resource expenditure, it only duplicates the 50 engi + t3 shield infrastructure requirement, and you should have plenty of engis, especially considering the aforementioned recoverable sacrifices and that you can build stuff under stealth which wont be shot any time soon unless they already have a novax or two.

Building anything else under a single shield with a Paragon is very risky, as it leaves less space for shields, moreover, if the Paragon does manage to snipe, everything nearby will die too. I’ve hardly ever seen anyone do that. I agree that having units stationed in different locations doesn’t require any extra resources. But they do require a lot of extra BP. 50+ T3 engineers and a few T3 shields add up to about 20k mass. And you need to build them at the same time as the Paragon so you can start producing Salvation straight away, which further increases the Paragon’s build time.

T3 arty is better than any ender on any maps that put bases in range of arty, such as astro and most mapgens. So I disagree that you're most likely to see a game ender on astro.

You’re more likely to see a game-ender on AstroCrator than on Mapgen. I agree that T3 artillery is the strongest unit on this map, but when people build a game-ender, it’s anything but the Paragon. I’m sure the Paragon isn’t the most popular game-ender on DualGap either, and that says a lot.

Para is the best out of all other enders in other situations by far because again it can defend itself and deal any damage. Paragon can win an extremely lost position on both map types, which no other ender can do. It also just wins ender war if it survives 2 minutes. The problems are that 1. it can do these things simultaneously with 10k income, and 2. 10k income is completely unbeatable because it very quickly out-masses any attack you could build against the Para.

Paragon cannot defend itself or deal damage. It simply provides you with resources unlike, for example, Yolo. Yes, Paragon can turn a losing position around (other game-enders can do this too, but Paragon is more effective—I agree). But that’s precisely the point! You’re taking a risk by choosing the most expensive game-ender, sacrificing map control and enduring enemy attacks until Paragon has reached its full potential. And if you’ve managed to do that (which requires far more skill than control of the Mavor), then you’ll have earned your victory. But I more often see Paragon getting killed within those two minutes. If you nerf it by 60%, there’ll be no point in even trying to build a Paragon

I’m sure there’s a way to compile statistics on the most common game-enders and the most effective ones in terms of win rate, and I’m sure Paragon won’t be in 1st place.

P.S.: I’m grateful to you for thinking of ways to make FAF better, for giving up your free time, and for fixing so many bugs. I’m just giving my opinion on this suggestion.

[GodFuper]

It seems to me that we did not correctly implement the very concept of Paragon.

Right now, the main problem in team games is that only the owner can use Paragon. This is not right - we are playing a team game (ladder is an exception to the rule).
We need to make sure that paragon immediately provides resources. Then the surplus will be transferred to the allies.

My suggestion:
Let the same 4k mass/500k energy be given out, but immediately. We can do less, but implement the addition of energy or mass storage facilities to increase the resources you need.

[lL1l1]

@Robogear

I don't think Paragon needs a nerf. There are far more annoying things that should be addressed first: Mercies, the unreasonably cheap Cybran Stealth, the unreasonably cheap UEF ACU regen, the T2 Seraphim fleet vs. UEF, the T3 Aeon vs. UEF, and so on... the list is long.

Feel free to open these discussions on discord or the forum.

And what about Paragon? Typically, in the vast majority of my games, when the game is going smoothly and both teams are simultaneously building a game-ender, we're the Paragon, and the enemy is any other. Even with equal resource income on both teams, Paragon will come online later, sometimes significantly, because you need to prepare in advance and spend mass on defending against the enemy game-ender. Yolo? Would you be so kind as to spend another 75,000 mass on anti-nukes and mass on charging them? Mavor? Prepare a million engineers for assists in advance (but you'll have to build them anyway to implement Paragon). And while you're busy doing these things, the enemy often already has a second game ender, while you're just starting to implement your Paragon. And then it's a 50/50 situation. You can't say for sure what will happen. That's the point.

Yolona is pretty much overpowered in ender wars with how much mass needs to be spent how early compared to scathis/mavor. It is also far cheaper than other enders if you can pause the air grid to build it, although you do need ~35k mass of engineers to use it at its max strength. I would say that is the only reason it even has a window of opportunity to kill Para.

For Mavor you say that you need engis that play right into Para's strength, and then say that there's so much time for the Para to work that a second ender is built, which is quite wrong.
Let's say that both teams put 1k m/s into the ender because they have tons of reclaim or were fighting for a long time and turned off production (for comparison optimal build orders are like 700-800 m/s, but they leave you extremely vulnerable to strats/land/navy). The 2nd Mavor will finish in 225 seconds. Paragon is 25s delayed due to cost, then needs X time to build engis, and then can spend 4.4k m/s (since we have 1k income + 4k para income) on salvations. The first salvation finishes in 46s, which slows down the 2nd Mavor by 400-550 m/s their income. Then the 2nd salvation takes another 46s and the first Mavor dies because you need 801-1103 m/s to assist shields. So at 25 + X + 46 = 71 + X seconds the 2nd mavor is slowed 40-55%. To spend 4.4k on Salvation you need 67 engineers, which for a 20-fac air grid will take ~46 seconds. Mavor can't kill air grid or else 50 engis on shield assist will contribute to salvation. So around 71 + 46 = 117 seconds into the 2nd Mavor's progress it is slowed by 40-55%. It has 108s progress remaining, which turns into 180s with the T3 Sera shield consuming 40% of mass (best case scenario). That leaves plenty of time for 2nd and 3rd salvation to be built. It also gives time for any calculation errors from engi move speed or APM issues. I also was favorable to the Mavor because I didn't include its minimum 15s aim time, projectile travel time, 1st salvation assist engis, or engi travel time to 2nd Mavor. Salvation has double the aim speed and starts at a better angle so maybe like 4s aim time.
Overall, you're ~120 seconds short on progress to ur 2nd Mavor before 2nd Salv finishes, so I think there's no way you can afford it vs a Paragon that is well-played. This is all calculated using 4k income instead of 10k, so right now it is even easier for Paragon.

In terms of anecdotes, you are the first one I have seen say that you can make 2nd Mavor before Para.

Of course, Paragon is potentially the strongest game ender. If you build it first and the enemy hasn't even responded yet, you're 90% certain to win. But that's how it should be, right?

If you have 40 engis sitting around or made in 30s from your air grid (less time if you have for example 10 engis existing), you can start spending 1k m/s on the Para. In just 25 seconds you have closed the cost gap between Mavor/Scathis and Paragon. I think even if you had Novax over their base or Eye on their build location you'd still lose on responsive timing because of engi build/move time. Only a heavily buildorder-based map like medium-high rated dualgap could really put Mavor in a good time window.

[lL1l1]

@SkratFAF

This is exactly what I see most often in games. A team building Paragon sacrifices map control in order to finish building it. And it is precisely because of this that strats come in to destroy it. The most important thing is timing.

If the enemy has a Mavor they do not have the ASF to protect their strats. The Paragon user would just suicide their ASF to kill the strats and then Salvations/CZARs/SAMs would stop any future strat attacks, even though the Para user lost their ASF.

If they do not have a Mavor, and actually took map control, then any game ender can be stratted, Paragon just requires ~10% more sacrifice which is a small trade for its extreme power. This can be easily compensated by delaying para to build ~10% more SAMs, which are efficient against strats due to their splash radius, so the extra few strats from delayed para won't matter.

If the enemy has all of Mavor, ASF, and strats, then perhaps the Paragon was just built as a desperation move, since it is the only thing that can win that type of game. That desperate team must have a lot less mass before the Para is finished, so of course they lose. I'm interested in how you think Mavor and Paragon compare as ender choices for a winning team. I would say that the Paragon is a safer decision strategically but it will take more time to end the game. That's the type of decision higher-rated players take because they have the skill to keep their advantage while their investments pay off and give even more advantage in the future.

Even after completing the Paragon, you won’t be able to build several Salvation, GC, and CZARs instantly. Meanwhile, Mavor is already firing at you and may target the SMD, Air Grid, and any other targets instead of the Paragon. And it is at this very moment that the Paragon most often goes down

See the calculations I responded to @Robogear with. If you shoot at anything other than the Para, it builds progress on Salvations, and so your Mavor dies eventually. SMD is a new target in this conversation. I think every ender and even T3 arty should have an SMD under the ender's assisted shield. SMD also has enough time to load while the ender finishes, so that is not a problem.

Building anything else under a single shield with a Paragon is very risky, as it leaves less space for shields, moreover, if the Paragon does manage to snipe, everything nearby will die too. I’ve hardly ever seen anyone do that. I agree that having units stationed in different locations doesn’t require any extra resources. But they do require a lot of extra BP. 50+ T3 engineers and a few T3 shields add up to about 20k mass. And you need to build them at the same time as the Paragon so you can start producing Salvation straight away, which further increases the Paragon’s build time.

Building everything for Paragon under the same shield is as risky as it is for any other game ender. Paragon can just be less risky than other enders by building itself in extra places, which is quite unfair from the perspective of people trying to stop the Paragon.
50 engis is not hard to get when you already need 40 to spend mass on the Paragon. Mavor also needs a similar amount of engis to spend mass on. So in reality you just need like 20 more engis than other enders so that you can defend your Para. You can also just build 1 T3 shield and assist it. I'm not sure why you need multiple, unless you're facing T3 arty or have unreclaimed fabs/pgens in range of your shields (and even then, Mavor shooting at those needs micro and lucky accuracy to kill your assisted shield).

Paragon cannot defend itself or deal damage. It simply provides you with resources unlike, for example, Yolo. Yes, Paragon can turn a losing position around (other game-enders can do this too, but Paragon is more effective—I agree). But that’s precisely the point! You’re taking a risk by choosing the most expensive game-ender, sacrificing map control and enduring enemy attacks until Paragon has reached its full potential. And if you’ve managed to do that (which requires far more skill than control of the Mavor), then you’ll have earned your victory. But I more often see Paragon getting killed within those two minutes. If you nerf it by 60%, there’ll be no point in even trying to build a Paragon

About skill, FTXCommando thinks it is the opposite. Dumping 10k mass/s will win you the game no matter what you do without thought, while Mavor, Scathis, and Yolona require careful evaluation of how you use your game ender, like if you can break through SMD with Yolo (or else u deal 0 damage) or if the shots you're taking with your artillery are on actually valuable targets.
For strategic skill that is a valid argument to me. I do see that Paragon requires higher mechanical skill with managing your buildpower and getting your teammates to give you buildpower. But since high skill tournament players have no such mechanical issue, that simplistic strategic decisionmaking makes Paragon less impressive to use.
At 4k mass/s I'd say that there is still a decent amount of mechanical skill, and while less than before, the strategic skill would be enhanced because you would have to choose correctly on how much you invest into salvations and how much you invest into defenses for whatever units the enemy makes. 4k mass/s in GCs (7s per GC) beats all land, Tempests (6.3s) beats all navy, Czars (12s) would be the most difficult because ASF are the main air unit but they are still quite good at AA unlike other air T4s, and 4k in SAMs (5 sams per second) is an impenetrable air fortress. It is definitely not a useless amount of mass, you just have to be smarter than making 10k of salvation, czar, gc, sams, tempests all at the same time.

For turning a lost position around, I don't think Scathis or Mavor can do this because they are not good at defeating units. Yolona can nuke land armies. All three can destroy air grids but as I said before, all game enders can be strat sniped if the enemy doesn't make their own ender. Scathis I would say actually lowers your chance of winning because it cannot beat an enemy ender. An enemy can make another ender while behind and kill Scathis then kill your eco, while you two will be roughly equal on units because you both made enders.

I’m sure there’s a way to compile statistics on the most common game-enders and the most effective ones in terms of win rate, and I’m sure Paragon won’t be in 1st place.

Statistics will be biased towards lower skill players, as there's more of them. They'll also be biased towards what is favored on popular maps. There's also a huge amount of ways to twist statistics to fit your needs. For example a "chance to win vs game time" can show that Paragon is a better decision than any other ender, even in a losing position.

P.S.: I’m grateful to you for thinking of ways to make FAF better, for giving up your free time, and for fixing so many bugs. I’m just giving my opinion on this suggestion.

Rhaelya, Sainse, and I are quite happy that this is getting a lot of attention. Although this specific discussion may not end how you want, it is very welcome.

[lL1l1]

@GodFuper

My suggestion: Let the same 4k mass/500k energy be given out, but immediately. We can do less, but implement the addition of energy or mass storage facilities to increase the resources you need.

• This would mess with reclaiming engineers, which in theory is fine because you don't do that much reclaim denial late game, it would go against the flow of how players think.
• It would also fill up mass storages and create a weird situation where the Para dies but the entire enemy team has half a Para's worth of mass in their storage. Para at 10k income replicating itself is already a problem in terms of map control + units trying to fight game enders, so I would not enjoy that amount of stored mass.
• The production amount is a good feedback signal for how well a player is utilizing their Paragon. Setting it to a fixed output would remove that satisfying feedback.

[lL1l1]

I think it is important for people to think about what they can do with 4k mass/s. Paragon would have a lower absolute maximum power, but I don't think that 10k m/s is something that people do reach or even need to reach to have a successful game with their Paragon.
I think it would work similar to other enders where it works in stages instead of doing everything at once and ending the game too fast. First you have to defend against units/enders that the enemy makes (easy with 4k m/s), then you can build your artillery or nukes to kill their bases.
Other enders are similar. First you kill air grids and arty, then you kill land production, then you kill SMDs, and then you kill power/ACUs and load nukes to finish off the game.

[Isocinetic]

It would also fill up mass storages and create a weird situation where the Para dies but the entire enemy team has half a Para's worth of mass in their storage

Not much of a problem. Para is very volatile so it leaves wrecks less often than other enders. It would be a similar situations to having 120k scathis wreck, albeit in different form. Also RarePleasure's idea of ramp up Para income would mitigate this since players will have enough time to adapt for more gradual overflow.

There may be similar minor issues now (Para owner gives their entire eco to team members -> they cannot spend it right away) but that's not much of an issue since they have way more mass than they would have alternatively. So they're in better position anyway.

This would mess with reclaiming engineers, which in theory is fine because you don't do that much reclaim denial late game, it would go against the flow of how players think.

"How players think" is a pure skill issue, the only problem is when there is overflow goes on and off and it disrupts reclaim for non-para owner.

The production amount is a good feedback signal for how well a player is utilizing their Paragon.

True.

I think it is important for people to think about what they can do with 4k mass/s.

They may need to switch from max Para output (whether it's 10k or 4k) to a lesser output if assisting/building vs other ender. The argument is that so much lower peak for Para utilization will not be enough to compensate for utilization lows in ender wars.

Statistics will be biased towards lower skill players

You can use cut off games with <1700-2000 rating avg if you want. That would give a pretty good overview.

[GodFuper]

@lL1l1

My suggestion: Let the same 4k mass/500k energy be given out, but immediately. We can do less, but implement the addition of energy or mass storage facilities to increase the resources you need.

* This would mess with reclaiming engineers, which in theory is fine because you don't do that much reclaim denial late game, it would go against the flow of how players think.

* It would also fill up mass storages and create a weird situation where the Para dies but the entire enemy team has half a Para's worth of mass in their storage. Para at 10k income replicating itself is already a problem in terms of map control + units trying to fight game enders, so I would not enjoy that amount of stored mass.

* The production amount is a good feedback signal for how well a player is utilizing their Paragon. Setting it to a fixed output would remove that satisfying feedback.

OK, then I'll come up with an idea that can solve all your arguments.
Currently, the minimum generation of mass and energy is 20 and 1000, respectively. Change them to:
1 option:
minMass = 1000
minEnergy = 100000
maxMass = 4000
maxEnergy = 400000

Option 2:
minMass = 2000
minEnergy = 200000
maxMass = 4000
maxEnergy = 400000

Option 3:
minMass = 3000
minEnergy = 300000
maxMass = 4000
maxEnergy = 400000

This solves the problem at the initial stage, when you have little "buildpower".
This is a compromise for engineers.
A compromise so that you can, under certain conditions, increase the power of paragon in the late game and if you have a lot of "buildpower".

You suggest you are currently making a strong nerf "Paragon" after 15 years of work. We need a rebalance, not killing game ender out of the blue.
My idea is at least a buff for weak players and a nerf for strong players, not just nerf.