FAF Association Board group

Jip

@goblinsly2 said in CPU performance tests:

Do you have any data on performance ? I am on 5600x and get severe lagging when playing with 11 M28's on 20x20 maps. After about an hour, depending on unit limitations, it will go down to -5. Mainly im interested on effect of x3d, to figure out if 5700x3d would be a worthy upgrade for me

This game is not made for 11 AIs of any kind. The Lua thread that AIs run on is single threaded. No matter how good your CPU is, you'll never be able to run 11 AIs.

My reference was to typical pvp games, campaign maps and/or games with 1 - 3 AIs.

Deribus

Sounds like it was a union control game, which is a setting that allows everyone on your team to control your units.

Jip

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.

Jip

All co-op maps are interesting of course! But beyond that, you could try out Rainmakers Survival, see also:

https://gitlab.com/supreme-commander-forged-alliance/maps/rainmakers

It is on the vault. It's a map I made, so do take this me promoting my own things .

Jip

@BlackRedDead said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:

Tho in that case, it needs an exception procedure for players being dropped out in the meantime! (to not await their unpause signals anymore!)

And hence, my case that everything gets complicated.

I appreciate your input, but it appears to me that you do not understand the code base and its limitations. We do not have access to how it works internally - there's two globals exposed to the user side of Lua that allows a user to (un)pause the game. We can add additional logic on top of that, such as a small delay. But we can not mess with how the signals are sent over the interwebs. That's all in the binary and it is definitely not something we should mess with.

I also do not believe that people will 'abuse' this. It feels really dark and pessimistic. A small delay in a pause exists in other games too. Besides, any form of abuse can be reported. And if individuals really want to stop or break the game out of spite then there's easier ways to do that .

Jip

@RudePlayer said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:

Something to be said about this, and all moderation actions/rules, which I know may not be part of this discussion at hand but, can we please stop with manipulating the ban hammer for everything. (...)

All of your suggestions already happen. They're just not transparent to the average user. Moderators have a backlog of everything a user did that is relevant to the moderators. There's a lot of thought that go into some reports, up to the point that there's even a Discord channel between the moderators and some game team members to discuss whether something is a bug that is being (intentionally) (ab)used or not.

If anything, try to become a moderator. You'll see (and help maintain) the nuance that you request.

@Nuggets said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:

Not to mention "oh misclick"

You can unpause your own pause just fine. I mentioned this - the delay only applies when you try to unpause a pause that is initiated by another user. Unrelated, the other quote of me is in my opinion a little bit of a clown reaction. That's okay, but to what purpose?

All the discussions about turning pausing into a vote - it is fundamentally not how the game works with pauses. Every user can pause the game. And every user can unpause it. The comparison with Recall is not correct - Recall fundamentally works different. They're not comparable.

It feels to me a lot of people are just thinking in problems. We won't ever get to a solution like that, even if the solution means that the original problem is not perceived as much as a problem and therefore does not require any changes.

Deribus

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

I am asking why the majority of players for most of the time think playing a game for 15 minutes is more fun than play a game for 60 minutes.

Already answered.

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

in my mind, objectively speaking, playing a game for 60 minutes is in most cases inherently more fun than playing a game for 15 minutes.

in my mind, objectively speaking

objectively

Deribus

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

Call it what you will. Eco is half the game. You don't see "eco players" calling out aggression as "aggression simulator". Or "rush sim" when someone is fulfilling the 15 minute prophecy.

I am calling what I will. But you're the one asking "why don't people let me eco sim?", you can't then flip it into aggressive players having some kind of superiority complex when you are the one questioning the way others prefer to play.

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

Which is the t1 phase, which is "dynamic" as you say. A long game will include way more elements of what the game has to offer than any almost any 15 minute game. Which is to say is more dynamic.

No, a more dynamic game is by definition less stable. A less stable game is less likely to turn into a long game. You can have dynamic, aggressive, games that last a long time because no side is able to gain a decisive advantage. That is different from both sides deliberately deciding to extend the game. That is what leads to less dynamic gameplay.

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

I value my time, just as much as the next person. And I would value watching a 4 hour high quality, bloated service catering to my fandom of that movie, as opposed to many good unrelated and potentially obscure short movies.

And many players, specifically the ones you're asking about, have no interest in a bloated game. They are interested in an action packed (even if shorter) game. You might disagree, but your opponents are under no obligation to play the game you want them to.

Deribus

@Kazbek Has done it

His tool stopped working due to the API restrictions that were added to help protect against DDOS.

Deribus

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

The difference is, they are hoping to play for some eventual epic combat later on.

I'm not interested in "eventual epic combat later on". 5 mantis shooting at each other is functionally gameplay the same as 5 monkeys shooting at each other. Why bother waiting for monkeys to come online if mantis could give me the same gameplay 30 minutes sooner?

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

Just because people prefer long game does not mean they are playing an eco-sim game.

It's not always, but often true. I don't know my Dual Gap slots, but many slots are going to be on full T2 mex before they build a combat unit. Some slots might even get to full T3 mex. That is eco sim.

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

Just because someone is ecoing fast and efficiently does not mean they are not paying attention to the game and what their opponent is doing. The efficient fast eco player is still mindful of the game state and is ready to counter aggression.

Never said they weren't

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

My point again, is why do players want to end a game as fast as possible.

Two reasons. The first is because I intend to play at full capacity. If the skill difference between myself and my opponent is great enough that the game ends quickly, then that's when the game ends. To artificially drag out the game would by definition mean either I, my opponent, or both are deliberately not winning, which is boring.

Let's say at the 15 minute mark I my opponent has 75% map control and vastly more eco than me. I want him to kill me at that point because there is little to no way for me to recover. Sure he can sit and wait for 30 minutes while I get all T3 eco, but in that time he's going to be ecoing too except much faster because of the map control and eco advantages. Even if I have 200 mass income I'm not winning against a 600 mass income opponent. Those extra 30 minutes would be a waste of both people's time. I'd rather be queueing for the next game than technically in a game but waiting to die.

@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:

Is watching a movie for 10 minutes really more enjoyable than watching all the movie?

10 minutes is the whole movie. This isn't a comparison of a 2 hour movie or just a 10 minute clip of the same movie, it's watching 2 hours of a movie that could have been 10 minutes. Have you ever watched the Hobbit trilogy? They tried to extend a book that was shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings books into 3 movies. They accomplished this by filling it with all sorts of garbage and time-wasting nonsense that nobody cares about.

If given the choice of watching a single Lord of the Rings movie or all three Hobbit movies, I would watch Lord of the Rings every time.

FAF Association Board

Posts

Member List