@Strife custom games can be ranked as well, idk what you’re saying

@waffelzNoob said in Sera navy is just too Oppressive:

10 UEF subs dealt 5325 damage to 1 atlantis.
10 Sera subs dealt 10804 damage to 1 atlantis.
33 UEF subs (mass equiv) killed an atlantis with 14 of them surviving
33 sera subs (mass equiv) killed an atlantis with 29 of them surviving

20 Seraphim subs beat 20 UEF subs with 11 remaining in "normal" scenario, 10 remaining when they were teleported into eachother.

https://replay.faforever.com/24761824

this guy delivering the numbers thanks!

but yes that does prove the opressiveness of sera subs

Hello everyone,

I actually thought I had finished my work on the project for the time being, but no.

Yesterday evening CDRMV contacted me and shared another new function with me. We have added this function to the #3 variant and now we believe (hope) that this mod can be submitted to the FAF team as a proposal. @Jip I ask you to take over 🙂 thank you in advance.

Here are a few little things that were missing in the variants.

Icons:
fdffe547-2394-4bac-b0ff-aa0003b107dc-image.png6be141f3-2dae-4aa8-bbb2-cbaae64a709d-image.png

The construction time and the buttons for stop and pause have been added.
efd549d5-6c73-4d2a-ba85-4e875789d8df-image.png

Here is the construction effect
4ef89268-f0f7-4985-93ae-c71f401271d8-image.png

a2e34a35-b03d-45fc-b7ca-9836d51cea52-image.png

Here is a small excerpt from the script for those who want to use the effect in other units.
fb394607-f3f6-4aa4-a163-7d69cc41f800-image.png
OnStartBuild
self.MercuryPool = import("/lua/EffectUtilitiesAeon.lua").CreateMercuryPoolOnBone(self, self.Army, 'Pool', 1.5,1.5,1.5, 0.1)

OnStopBuild
self.MercuryPool:Destroy()

I have added the effect to my unitpack. So thanks again to CDRMV.
0a561452-210a-4340-9288-f8cac10c4738-image.png

That should be it for now. I would be pleased if a result is written here about the possible proposal.

@Kilatamoro said in You guys ever thought if moving to a new engine?:

@Defiant Why would anyone want this? It's about the feeling of the game, not 3D models and unit names. We can get free from copyright.

Reasonable.

Games similar to FAF are out there now. A more direct FAF clone might still risk Square Enix, so we could give them license accountability.

@Nomander said in Another Novax conversation:

Sat is already rebuildable. This is because it can block nukes (intentional) or get RNG hit by artillery (consequence of the simulation).

Wow, I didn't know that. TY-

The problem with SMD shooting down sats is that it begins to compete with nuke in terms of what its defense is, and you might as well have a nuke instead of a sat if you must avoid SMD.
Ok so make it super cheap to rebuild: now it blocks nukes easily and drains SMD quickly
Ok so make it build slowly but cheap, it's basically an SMD missile: how are you ever going to get 36k mass killed - 3.6k per sat downed with this unit that takes forever to even rebuild. You can't even assist your own arty because every enemy target will have an SMD.

From my view, your second two scenarios (super cheap vs slowly built); are minor issues- because you can correct them just by adjusting cost.

But I think your first point about SMD having (2) jobs in "what the point of its defense is"; makes sense but is multi-purposing an SMD really that bad?

And in my proposed scenario;

OBVIOUSLY the player does NOT need build the SMD if they don't want it to shoot down the SAT. Plus, if an SMD shoot down toggle exists the player does NOT need to use it.

My contention is, and I think still stands reasonably in light of your objections, that SATs do not have an effective, appropriate counter- for players when they want it. This is not balanced. This is a hole. This needs fixing.

@ZLO said in Question about repair:

If you ctrl+k destro in water then you only get 40,5% of mass from it.
However if that is cybran destro and you walk with it on land then you will get 81% of mass

Both numbers should be lower since t2 units leave less reclaim than t1

Thank you, magge. I appreciate your time and effort. I'll be trying the fix in §2 over the next few whenevers, and we'll see what happens. 🙂

In steam FA you can ctrl + right click to issue a formation order instantly but FAF removed that with an engine patch, and now you only have the option of holding right click to begin issuing a formation move order. You can also formation attack move by holding alt alongside right click.

Formation move is useful if you don't have the apm to keep your army in formation while moving across the map (this is not that often) but you need to because you have different speed units or need shields (snipers). You can also use formation move in place to quickly get your units into formation with a desired orientation. Some sandboxing shows it can be better than normal move orders when attacking because while it does make your units move slower, it guarantees way less bumping, so overall more units get into range faster and stay in range.

Спасибо игроку Tarnow11 за донат в 2.000₽! Призовой фонд турнира увеличен до 39.000₽, также благодаря нему у нас появилась секретная награда!

Thanks to player Tarnow11 for donating 2.000₽! The tournament prize pool has been increased to 39,000₽ and thanks to him we have a secret prize!

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

Try to change your default browser and try to log in again. If still does not work: check if security is blocking anything.

Thanks Nomander! It is working now.

Firstly, I like the AI. For someone that likes to play vs AI rather than pvp, I appreciate the work you do.

It would be great to have a setting to turn down the strat bomber hover spam. Or the ability to scale the amount of APM to a more human-like amount. I get flooded with 50+ strat bombers, each hovering out of range, flicking bombs forward. No shields can protect you and AA cant kill them fast enough. By itself, it is a minor issue, but the AI being able to focus on that while doing micro on everything else on the battlefield can make it hard to deal with.

I'm also unsure of how balanced ASF vs AI ASF combat is. I've often outnumbered their ASF while having vehicle AA below, and my ASFs get decimated while the AI ASF are barely touched.

Caused by: java.nio.file.AccessDeniedException

Your security software is blocking access, or you do not have permission to access certain files, so FAF can not update properly.

@IndexLibrorum i must have been mistaken then, was sure i got blocked from unpausing a few times. That's one problem less ig.

Before making a somewhat lenghty explanation as to what i think the problem is, i'd like to make sure i'm not starting from a wrong assumption: in ladder (and even custom unless people decide to change the setting) everyone has 3 pauses, right? If not, what's the current system like?

@Strydxr said in Proposal for [Challenge Accounts] | Feedback Wanted!:

Also, Challenge accounts don't have to be given out willy nilly, they can have a vetting process done by either mods or a chosen committee, which may help with keeping track of them.

This is one part the moderation team think is critical for this kind of account to work. If we wouldn't limit the accounts to a very low number and allowed whatever challenge, it would just be smurfing with extra steps. And the consequences of that wouldn't weigh up to the potentional benefits.

In any case, I've read all of the responses to this thread and I'm waiting for some free time to properly collate them all and discuss it with the moderation team. I hope to soon be able to share a more fleshed out concept, or maybe even an announcement for a trial run (if our internal discussion concludes with us thinking this could work).

@deVasto Thank you A LOT. That works!

@JaggedAppliance
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on some points.

I think it's fine to work on some feature without the intention to include it. It could just be an experiment. It could be because it doesn't work out the way you think it would for the user. Or because you're not happy with the implementation of it for the future maintainer. I do this type of experimentation a lot and it helps me with learning and exploring what is possible. Even if some of it never ends up in the product directly. it's not obvious in my mind that if I spent time on something that it also means that I want to see it become part of the product in question.

As an example, initially I had a focus on better graphics. I had a great proof of concept, but I was unable to make an implementation that did not have a terrible experience for everyone involved. I dropped it at the time. Years later with the hard work and effort of @BlackYps we now have the shaders. And the map generator and editor support for the new shaders too. It's a good user experience because of some automation he included into the map editor. Now it's a great time to include it. For those that are interested, see also his work on GitHub here and here.

@JaggedAppliance said in Another dumb idea from Dorset:

I'm not sure what the point was about the cybran nano. Just that that was game design happening? This is getting silly now but yes it's related to game design, but again it doesn't make anyone a game designer if they were involved.

I did not make this claim. It certainly was not the intention. I tried to make the claim that the decision is about game design - not that the people making the decision are game designers because of it. How people perceive a game is all about game design. And this made an impact on their perception of the game for some users. Interestingly enough, just like it did for you.

I find it interesting that you write that you do not understand why I brought it up. And you conclude the same paragraph with that it was a bad change that damaged the identity of Cybran. That is why I brought it up! And that identity is perceived, it is in my opinion related to the design of the game. Just like the majority of changes are except those that are purely technical (same user experience, but better code structure or better performing code).

I think we have a different definition of game design, and specifically where game design starts and ends. In my opinion, even some mod authors can be characterized as game designers. They introduce new mechanics, new rule sets, sometimes even entirely new genres (looking at you Dota). But just because you are a mod author does not imply that you are also a (good) game designer. Just like people who are good at the game also does not imply that they are a (good) game designer. But in my opinion we definitely need people that look at the game from the perspective of a game designer. Which is also why I think the teams should be merged - just like they were initially if my history is correct.

Statutes are whatever. Let's be honest, it was probably written in thirty seconds. It reads like that anyway.

I agree with you that it feels like these statutes can use some work. But I disagree with dismissing them. Without the intention to patronize you, but statutes exist to help the community understand what a team is doing here, and how the team is supposed to work. It originates from this proposal that comes with this document that was approved during a general meeting of the association. To quote the document at the end:

The detailed responsibilities of each team are intentionally not specified here so they can be changed without requiring a GM. Instead the teams have the duty to define their area of responsibilities and write them down somewhere public.

Which is what the statutes are. The team can update them as they see fit. Take for example the status of the DevOps, Game and Promotion teams. They're much more informative about how the team operates, even if some roles are vacant at the moment. Back to the statutes of the balance team - for now it's all we have to work with to understand the role of the balance team.

I appreciate you sharing your approach as balance team lead.

And I agree that describing the average mod author as both passionate and (to be) crazy (with their ideas) is probably a great description, in a good way 🙂 .

I also agree that it's important to guard the game from ideas that just don't work. To come back to my earlier post - I'd like to express that even if something should not be in the game, it can still be interesting to just explore the idea with the mod author/contributor instead of just getting a 'no'.

The mod author is clearly passionate about FAForever in some fashion by spending so much time and effort. The conversation does not have to take hours, something as simple as just having a decent conversation (over voice) about the idea together can be sufficient. It can be meaningful for both parties, even if it is just about discussing the context of it and why it was declined.

Which brings me back to my first paragraph of this post. To me, these conversations can be more meaningful then the changes becoming part of the product. And that conversation can bring in a new team member in the future. It certainly worked that way for me. The reason I am here is because @Uveso spent some effort on my first mods and/or pull requests to help streamline them. His open and friendly attitude is what made this place feel accessible. Thanks for that 🙂 .