Ok, there's a lot wrong here. Randomness is always a good thing in games so games aren't always ending in the same result using the same methods.
RTS and FPS are apples and tissues, they have no business being compared and many FPS have many random factors involved, the less there are the easier it is to cheat the system in some way (devices are made for CoD that can cancel recoil, introduction of predictable recoil just makes this even easier and even so not using said device.)
Having a false random is a terrible idea, you can clearly see where your shots are landing with an RTS, the old "my bullets went right through the enemy" thing you get on an FPS becomes a problem very quickly.
There are no recoil weapons in any game, usually they are called lasers, see TF2 memes on that with the Heavy. This does happen in that game's cheaters too.
A spread pattern is great for RTS they way a shotgun is in close quarters, you aren't going to be dealing with 1 enemy ever in a proper RTS match AoE & unpredictable shot patterns FTW here on both sides (randomly).
I personally would like to see a spread pattern added to more units if anything like Strategic Bombers than to turn one into a no skill weapon that anyone can use (see new guns introduced to CoD for this that the majority of players use due to imbalance(s)).
As with fighting one unit only, using only artillery should not happen an if you are talking about the Fixed t3 or t4 installations, remember that is a half-full map range scout and target = no lose situation = no fun for anyone but the first to build one.
Randomness working is almost equivalant to luck if it isn't already and pulling off a lucky play or shot just feels satisfying in any game doesn't it?
I am sorry if i misunderstood anything written above due to any kind of language barriers but this is how I feel on the subject regardless.

Hamburger menu in the top right, settings, pagination, set whatever you'd prefer

That's a good idea. Friendly could be a slightly different color than unfriendly. I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to implement. The engine already knows how to test whether a projectile is friendly or not (when it is looking at whether to impart friendly fire damage).

A lot of it is already obvious, based on the direction the projectiles are traveling, but that would mean shots from unexpected angles would stand out on the display. That might help you to notice something that you need to react to even if you don't have the unit in your vision/radar.

We should look for ways to use subtle (or bold) differences in color to convey information to players. Any time there is ambiguity about what we're seeing on the screen, we should consider whether it's possible to give cues to the user through varying colors.

E.g. have a different color for the shield bar if the shield is up or down. If the shield is down and it is recharging, showing a different color would be a simple way to communicate that.

@KaletheQuick said in Units with same icons - Tanks and bots mostly:

So on the 'purity' note there.

What is the functional difference between bots and tanks? Like, make a big ol venn diagram of everything, and ask, what real useful information is conveyed by the clipped diamond bot icon over the tank icon? I really like the icon scheme but legged walkers don't share any useful tactical group together, same with tanks. I would think an ideal icon system convey's at glance something meaninfgul, and the center icon does, direct fire, artillery, AA, that's good. But the outer shape diamond and clipped diamond just inform you if the unit has legs or 'other' Would it be better (and too annoying a change to make now) to have the diamond be fast attack units (and usually lower HP), like LABs, blaze, yenzyne, titan, and loyalist, and the 'tank' clipped diamond just mean heavy/slower unit, like t1 tanks, obsidian, ilshavoh, Brick and percy? Maybe a clipped navy semicircle for hover?

I think air has is good, with the delta, wide delta, and rhombus conveying information about how the unit moves.

Of course now I'm just remixing the available shapes in my head and trying to imagine what the unit would be. Get that wide delta with the sniper dash through it, or missile line. lol.

Its the difference/indicates High DPS & Low HP units. Through for Mantis and LAB its also imagine or well my personal belief next level counter intel, counter intel.

@keyser said in Different icon for drone engineers:

@ZeRen said in Different icon for drone engineers:

I wonder what FAF devs think about, for example different icon for ACU and SACU, so ACU cant hide in that cancer

allowed?

talked to balance team about it. We had some example of different possible icons, they would prefer something that is way different than current icon for sacu.
I might do a "tourney" to grab the best looking icon at some point.

well...😀 I already using one😁

ACU:
icon_acu_z_rest.png

SACU:
Screenshot from 2020-11-22 19-38-53.png

I think it would be cool to have a "select next unit in transport" button that cycles through individual units in a transport and allows you to make individual drops more easily. Currently, you have to click on one or a few of the unit icons to select them, drop them where you want to, and repeat. Could have it so that pressing the hotkey multiple times selects a few units in a row so you aren't limited to one unit at a time.

The current problem is that the only response you can get from balance team is if you go and ask them directly and then if you are lucky (I am not) you may get a response. The patchnotes are great but they are released AFTER the changes are made. The only way to track upcoming balance changes is to look at Github (which I recommend) or when the changes are already merged to faf beta you can see them and test them there. There is a lack of possibilities to discuss and influence or shape some of the changes that are happening. You may say that if I wanna do that I should just join the balance team (which I am considering) but I still feel like there is a lack of medium for high rated players to voice their opinions on the topic of balance where balance team will actually READ them and respond and explain why some changes were made.
I understand why the current balance section is not used - everyone just keeps spamming it, many of those people having no clue about gameplay and balance so I think that there is really a need for such medium to exist. Not sure what format it should have exactly, should it be on discord with Slow mode enabled? A forum thread like suggested where you can only post if given permission or if you are part of the balance team ofc.
Nonetheless I expressed my concerns about some of the changes, a few more made it in in the meanwhile on Git and there is another big question hanging around, Is this balance patch gonna hit before the LOTS (Terrible idea in my opinion) or after?
So many question yet there is no way to get a response unless I go and bother Petric (already did, no response) and Jagged with PM's.

Clantags could be used in the forum as well but not sure it is worth the hassle for the little special clan activity the community has. You can alway adopt to having similar names 😄

@Tagada said in Hotkeys - Taking micro to the next level:

Would be nice to also remove the code that adds the units to a control group that are build by a factory that is in said control group.

This is the biggest issue! Hotkeys are unusable on buildings because of this functionality.

@archsimkat said in In-game scoreboard should list map author:

As title says: the in-game scoreboard should just list the map author.

I will try to add this info in the next version of Supreme Score Board mod. By the way there is a new version (6.0) of this mod which add a new features and fixes. Please rate this mod because previous rating were removed when I uploaded new version.

Seems to be easy doable by UI mod.

IMO running an analysis for past replays is not worth it, partly because of reasons above, partly because a quarter of them desync anyway. Doing it for new replays wouldn't be very hard, but it would require game, client, API and lobby server changes. You're welcome to contribute!

I believe the general point involved is to reduce or eliminate possible means to reasonable identify someone based on hardware or software config is where say a bottleneck might possibly be.

Is a big reason say modded games have such lack of mainstream interests if not mistaken.

One of the best alternative ive ever come across, in idea of course, is to just automate a foe like system to a point and just realize you dont have to manual just add people you have no interest in matching with/playing due to high constant sync/lag issues.

Otherwise to just be able to foe people within match would say be second best alternative to that one, another idea to say help not having to wait.

When a match lobbies and someone is foed they can be highlighted. Helpfully can remember why they are foed of course but again, improvement is the idea, yes?

Thanks

All this talk of overhauling the pathfinding system and I find myself wondering - just because we can do it, does it mean we should? Supcom 2/StarCraft II are held up as paragons of efficient pathfinding, but is their pathfinding necessarily better, beyond a technical level, than what we currently have? Having played both a lot of Supcom FA and Supcom 2, I personally think the way the tanks move in Supcom FA have a higher degree of realism to them. The inefficiencies of the pathfinding system actually lend a weightiness to the units, and make them react in a way that feels more realistic. In Supcom 2, tanks keep their distance between one another as if controlled by a hive mind and move with instantaneous fluidity. Again, it's more of a design decision, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense for my platoon of tanks to move like a shoal of sardines that are schooling. Just my 2 cents.

There’s a lot of work currently going on making trueskill into more of an “under the hood” mechanic. We likely won’t be adjusting anything with it until we stabilize our upcoming division system and are satisfied with how it relates to player trueskill.

@SpicerXD I see, im not sure on that one, other than perhaps some highlighted edge means seems a loss is placed elsewhere.

Given of course a move to the side would be valid as a highlighted edge move at a time, but seems still to opaque to still a possible opaque solution.

Well no sure how to rename