@tagada said in Split matchmaker into mapgen and regular map queues:

There is currently no 3vs3 queue since that format is essentially dead. Nearly nobody plays it and there are no maps for it.
If it would be just a map problem then the mapgen 3vs3 would solve that. The question is would enough people play it?

Try it?

2v2 is basically dead anyway.

Coincidentally, I wonder how much effect mapgen vs known maps has on rating. Using a dedicated queue (+ rating) might be worthwhile anyway.

@brutus5000 said in Open the FAF wiki:

@blodir said in Open the FAF wiki:

There's a massive difference between having to ask someone for an account and being able to register asynchronously. Seriously.

The history / experience of the old wiki proves you wrong. Seriously.

I mean it's of course possible that people won't contribute either way. The faf wiki specifically has 0 momentum behind it. Very few people ever use the faf wiki for anything as far as I know (I think there's some mapping guides there?). People don't want to contribute if they feel like nobody will care about their contributions. So yea anyway multiple reasons of course and there's no guarantee that being open will make people want to contribute on its own, but being closed is definitely a big impediment.

Thanks for the mod suggestions, I will take a look and pick.

@serpentor their has always been an in game changelog but if you want to read afterwards their one located patchnotes.faforever.com that you can use for all balance update.

For the love of god, please make it optional if for what ever reason this gets implemented. The amount of stuff that this can make go wrong is just stupid. This will literally fuck up 100% time at the beginning of the game, and even later on. To the point it might be even game losing considering the way it will waste resources by starting to automatically produce something that's not needed, only cuz it was close to another factory....

Server must add this function first, then client will implement it

I don't understand it either. You would have to talk to him directly to hear his reasoning

@jip said in Suggestions & Recommendations:

We can look into it again when we find the time for it.

😄

@Jip
Any update specifically with the Radar Range rings?

If it can't be done with the game engine as you mentioned, perhaps there is another way?

~ Stryker

lol - if only we had that level of control. We don't see anything about the transport process.

@melanol
No need for that. Forum already have dark theme integrated.
You can find it at the bottom of the settings page.

More game modes, more gooder.
I'm interested in where this goes.

~Stryker

Is it just me or do the notes on players randomly delete themselves?

I make notes on players often yet I never see one.
It's as If I never wrote them in the first place.

~ Stryker

Just quadruple the number of active players on FAF. Adding more and more complexity to the matchmaking code isn't going to help.

It’s a solution to deal with the flaws of the idea that Thomas posted about while still allowing for the intention of the OP.

oh, I get it now. We're talking about control groups. Interesting issue.

please correct me if I misremember but doesn't holding shift prevent you from getting kicked out of build mode?

I find it very annoying to try to cancel all of the orders to make mass fabs around a T3 mex when that order gets issued by accident on multiple engineers.

But I like how the system currently works in terms of queuing up orders to make mass storages.

One possible fix would be: if you use ctrl-shift-RMB to delete an order to make some building somewhere, could you automatically have the system delete ALL other queued up orders to make the same exact building on the same exact square?

Is that something that could be created as a UI mod, if the devs don't want to put it into the base game? (Or at least, so we could test this feature before adding it to the base game)

@femtozetta this leads to the fact that the game becomes a hunt for the commander, and not a war of tanks.

I think we can try. there will always be a choice. why not change it?