Since there are some unfrequent changes to the gpgnet protocol, old versions would not work with the current FAF lobby server.
Thus you will not find official support for running old versions.

In theory, if you start an older replay, all the files of that replays patch level get installed. But you cannot play online via FAF, but would have to play via LAN or some other solutions. I don't know to which extent this is currently possible.

Download the client, install it and login?
It's all described here: https://www.faforever.com/play

So you have shown us that you can't link your account a second time. We still don't know what the error with the FAF Client is.

@Nuggets said in Bug Report:SMD missing target:

I know its a bug, but apparently its okay and also being ignored or thought to be not fixable = accepted over the years

It is fundamentally not a bug however. It would be a bug in a game like Starcraft II or Wacraft 3 where projectiles are guaranteed to hit (on even terrain), even when they visually completely miss. That's a choice those games made.

A unique selling point of this game is the simulation. A simulation in which things can miss. That the SMD should not be one of those is understandable. Now, it is on top of the base of the target. Next time it is on the outer edge of the SMD. Can it still have a 100% accurate interception rate? No, it can't. Everything is simulated, things can miss or not be on time, that is what being a simulation means.

There's a few approaches to reduce the chance that the event happens:

• 1. Make the hit box of the strategic missile larger. This does have the side effect that, without additional adjustments, the impact effects do not visually touch the strategic missile anymore.
• 2. Make the anti-missile more maneuverable, by for example increasing its turn rate. This allows it to correct itself faster.
• 3. Adjust the trajectory of strategic missiles so that they're more 'linear'. The curve when it navigates towards the terrain is quite significant, it is that curve that can make an anti-missile miss. This can have various, unexpected side effects (!).
• 4. Fire multiple anti-missiles when consuming an ammo. These projectiles can only hit the one strategic missile. This allows them to approach the strategic missile from multiple directions, especially if you randomize their initial trajectory. After testing, messes things up.

These suggestions only reduce the chance of missing. The game is a simulation, there's no guarantee. It already barely happens. And with these chances you reduce the chance even further when the strategic missile is aiming right on top of your SMD, like in the example.

At the end of the day, if you go closer and closer to the limit of the SMD the chance that it fails to intercept increases significantly. You'll still have wasted an anti missile because it can't reach in time. Or perhaps even fired two like in the example.

edit: finally found the word I was looking for. In game design land this is coined as emergent behavior. But in this particular example, the kind that you'd rather not have .

I have to unsubscribe

You have a connection problem. Your request to the API timed out. Maybe firewall issue.

I wonder if this problem has existed since the start or if some change at some point introduced this. I am not aware of this happening in base FA, but it could well be my ignorance

They do have a purpose - they're easy to snipe. They're simple targets that cost a lot, take a long time to return of investment and they have low health. Good candidates to punish your enemy severely with just a few (tech 1) bombers.

You also do not have to click that much, there are in-game options to make capping an extractor a side effect of assisting/upgrading it. If you do not want that side effect, you can also use context based templates. In combination with a recent assembly patch by @Ctrl-K the templates even snap to extractor build sites.

Matchmaker Pools December 2024

@Nomander said in Bug Report:SMD missing target:

SMD missing and having to fire a second time is unacceptable.

In your point of view it is unacceptable, and that is fine. I disagree.

It's been accepted for more than a decade now. And it's already been improved a while ago with #3893. Those changes at least prevents the many-to-many case being in strong favor of the attacker (multiple defense missiles colliding with the same strategic missile). Now that I think about it, it is a similar fix as #6532 but then specifically applied to missiles.

The game is simulated, this is part of it. The balance team can fix it by adjusting the turn rate of the anti missile.