@LordVladimer on the one hand I understand your frustration because I have an unwritten list of weak players who I know will play poorly as always but on the other hand they shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity to find a game. The best way in such a situation that I can recommend to you are two versions: version 1: quick snipe the best player from the opposing team - this should make the game easier even with weak teammates on your side version 2: ignore your teammates and focus on eco as quickly as possible. thanks to this when they die you will take over their bases as a result of which you will have incomparably large resources compared to the opposing team which will make it easier for you to defeat them with, for example, a quick experiment or something like that

@Skrat hi, I hope I have not misunderstood the questions ^^ I once built a map for 3x3. But it is only 15x15 in size. But maybe it fits into the idea. Unfortunately I'm not a PVP player ^^ adaptiv Falconstone [image: 1747158328567-b7d1bb81-6b0c-42ce-a287-a19e19159bd6-image.png]

@Nuggets said in FAF - what's next ? what is needed?: FEATURES NEEDED (Some tweaks to make game more intresting): h) Upgradable Hydrocarbon Power Plant - as standard feature in the game. Maybe. Main problem here is balance + animation. Main problem with it is the fact it enables you to scale power without scaling tech. You enable loads of air cancer strategies when t2 and t3 air don't need that.

Yes

I'd probably not have the feature like that. Would prefer a wreck / tombstone over just a message

NVM i found another way

Add 3v3 to the website leaderboards

I don't think this would be a good thing. I have an extremely powerful computer but recently (over the last few months) noticed I was getting in-game crashes after going years with none. The crashes would occur anytime I was zooming in or out really quickly. The game would just freeze and after some messing around turning anti aliasing off is what worked and I haven't had crashes for a few days now. I know it maybe seems like it's not related to this thread but it feels like it is because I sthnk the overload of rendering when zooming so quick is what was causing the system crashes. Strange that it would all the sudden start happening but nonetheless it proves the point that draw distances are important. I'd love to be able to see reclaim and such as I'm zoomed out more but with this game it just seems like you got to take what you get.

You can right click their ground stations with a variety of different weaponry.

firewall? new java settinsg? its same, bit i ant fix: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/8853/can-t-join-any-ladder-games/7

No

I think it is an engine issue.

Im a noob and so my point of view is I like this little ......whats the word....quirk. Imo it still costs apm to be able to take advantage of this so its a skill thing when it comes down to it. How many times I will be watching a scout, have to return to my acu/army to micro and then guess the timing of the crashed scout to switch back real quick in order to catch a glimpse. I do like the ideas and conversations about realism so the idea of slowing the wrecked scout down (and speeding naval wrecks up?) is intriguing but to me its one of the many nice little quirks about this game that have kinda become meta at this point if that makes sense.

@Arran If I recal restorers were the OP meta. No mobile T3 AA, high unit health, etc.

@Paradox_of_War In the games ive played Ie at the c.1k rating level 1v1 is basically just t1 tank spam managing multiple fronts at once; 3v3 is much more focused on ecoing earlier and managing your ‘lane’, and often can have a dedicated air slot. 2v2 usually has multiple ‘lanes’ to manage and requires t1 spam to fight them, and won’t lend itself to a dedicated air slot. overall 2v2 feels closer to 1v1 in terms of the playstyle required than it does to 3v3 So someone who plays well at 2v2 might play badly at 3v3 and vice versa, to such an extent that I think it would be unhelpful to merge 2v2 rating with 3v3. I don’t have the same objections for 3v3 and 4v4 being merged as they play much more similarly to each other than 2v2 does to 3v3

I am not sure. I managed to implement a rejoin-like functionality. It allows a player to attempt to rejoin the lobby after X seconds when the lobby did not manage to connect to all peers. It is similar to a player rejoining a custom lobby. See also #6479. However, I noticed that the lobby implementation is brittle. The rejoin tends to fail by... crashing the game. And I'm not doing anything special there - when I exit the lobby it occasionally crashes. Maybe that is because I run multiple instances on the same machine, I do not know. At the moment it is disabled. If we do want to take this road then I feel we need much more statistics. Grafana (a tool to see how many lobbies there are, etc) recently got back up with thanks to Sheikah and Brutus. We'd need to expand that to track other lobby-related statistics . One of them is the local status of a player. And when a player attempts to rejoin. And whether that succeeded.