Waiting
Developers Iteration III of 2023
@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
That sentence is a logical fallacy, come on. On top of that, we both know what you're saying is wrong too
How is that a logical fallacy?
You wrote:
"*The following units lose their mobile factory capabilities:
Megalith (Cybran Megabot)
CZAR (Aeon Experimental Carrier)"*
What was the reason for this change? Frequency of usage? If so, what is the threshold value? Will Mantis lose the ability to assist? t2 Gunships ability to transport for rarely used? Would like to understand.
I am primarily puzzled that a change was mentioned without any reason given whatsoever iirc.
In my experience the idea of the exps being a mobile factory is very appealing to new players. Its a cool concept, but in practice completely useless as it is. Perhaps there is a way in order to make the feature actually viable. Perhaps by making the production of units free and lowering the build time?
Also didnt i read somewhere there was work done allowing the fatboy to produce untis while on the move? I mean in that case, it will definitely be used more often
@stormlantern said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
In my experience the idea of the exps being a mobile factory is very appealing to new players. Its a cool concept, but in practice completely useless as it is. Perhaps there is a way in order to make the feature actually viable. Perhaps by making the production of units free and lowering the build time?
You can now build while moving. That makes it a lot more viable.
@ninrai said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
How is that a logical fallacy?
You wrote:
"The following units lose their mobile factory capabilities:
Megalith (Cybran Megabot)
CZAR (Aeon Experimental Carrier)"What was the reason for this change? Frequency of usage? If so, what is the threshold value? Will Mantis lose the ability to assist? t2 Gunships ability to transport for rarely used? Would like to understand.
I am primarily puzzled that a change was mentioned without any reason given whatsoever iirc.
@azath0th said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
@jip just by following your ideas we can remove half of units’ abilities because no one uses them every game…
A slippery slope fallacy (SSF), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a fallacious argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.
@Azath0th wrote almost a text book example of the above. And you ( @Ninrai ) are pretty close to it too, why make all those weird examples? It is completely out of context, based on the assumption of someone else. You could've just asked me to elaborate and I would have, as I will do now too.
The mobile factory part of the Megalith and the CZAR are temporarily removed. You ( @Ninrai ) didn't quote the next sentence. Allow me to do that for you:
@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
We hope to include them in the future. At the moment they are not within reach to be finished any time soon.
There you go. They are removed because their implementations are unfinished. I'd like to give users one, common and expectable user experience. That means I want all mobile factories to work the same. I can already see the questions coming where people ask me why the Fatboy can build on the move but the CZAR can't. Will you be there to answer it for them?
In the past years that I've played FAF I've never seen a serious use of the mobile factory aspect of the Megalith or the CZAR. I'm also still waiting for the replays of @Azath0th where he shows that it is a critical balance change because without it, he would've lost a game.
Until then, I'm removing their mobile factory components for the sake of consistency towards the user.
A work of art is never finished, merely abandoned
@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
We hope to include them in the future. At the moment they are not within reach to be finished any time soon.
Things would be clearer if you explained things a little more to begin with. This mechanic was working before, now it was removed with you saying eventually it ll be included once again when "finished". Not stating what this "finished state" is nor providing the explanation you just gave now leads to confusion imo.
You also wrote you "hope" to include them again. That is not the same as "we will include it back again", so I wonder what you mean.
It would also be much nicer if people would find back to a more benevolent tone when they have questions or concerns about development. Lately it felt like people are up in arms all the time. It feels like people treat the developers/balance team as a hostile force that must be kept from ruining FAF. It makes for a very unpleasant work environment.
We are all on the same page here in the sense that we all want to make FAF the best it can be. It can be that you don't understand why something is happening, or even that there is a disagreement on which change is good, but please keep in mind, that there is probably a good reason why something was decided.
It's much nicer to ask for more info instead of making everything a power struggle. If a post makes wild claims with minimal reasoning, for example saying that feature X is crucial and it's removal will be rUiNIng FAF, then that post will likely be answered in a similar style. It makes it easier on everyone if the conversation starts more relaxed.
I feel like I am sounding a bit condescending, because I am spelling out the obvious here, but it's really been bugging me, and I don't know why everyone's been so hostile lately.
@blackyps said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
and I don't know why everyone's been so hostile lately.
I have to agree and was going to post something similar myself, so thanks for doing it.
Misunderstandings can always happen but it would be good sometimes to take a moment and realize "I didn't read this properly" rather than pointing fingers and saying "you didn't explain this properly".
Or, when in doubt, just ask for an explanation, like Jip said.
Let's try to keep hostilities for when we are playing, shall we?
I'm not being hostile. I'm being criticizing. You are giving us an incomplete and uncomfortable to use feature for one that was working. And you also remove it from units because it haven't fit your code vision. Megalith will not be able to reclaim battlefield and czar won't be able to produce support air forces until you decide to complete it.
“Be a yardstick of quality. Some people aren’t used to an environment where excellence is expected.”
— Steve Jobs.
My UI Mods
@blackyps said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
It would also be much nicer if people would find back to a more benevolent tone when they have questions or concerns about development.
I d say people in general would do well with some self-reflection. I sought clarification and the response, in tone, was not exactly super friendly ("weird examples", "Allow me to do that for you", "Will you be there to answer it for them?"). You also gloss over the issue and take the role of the tone police.
Unfortunately, I think a rather hostile way of interacting has a long history on FAF forums and beyond, especially when members of various FAF groups are not exactly welcoming no matter what/how people ask (you know who you are).
My point was: neither in the change log nor here has the Mega/Czar change been explained sufficiently initially. I read most, if not every change log, so you guys putting in effort in communicating changes is greatly appreciated.
Honestly I’d rather just convert the mega into having the ability to reclaim over building, extremely dumb to have to lay eggs one at a time as it walks across a line (which 9/10 times would be perpendicular to the direction you actually want mega to face) and the reclaim was the real use of it anyway. Also don’t really like ideas about units just dumping out of it, just a copy of fatboy when that’s already the t4 it most associates with.
I have tested most of the new implementations and they are gorgeous. The Distribute Orders and the loading-into-transport stuff is incredible and has a great positive impact with many QoL features.
The mobile factories look very promising, and this is how it should have been done in the first place 20 years ago -> produce while moving IMO. My suggestion would be to add an icon to the "main unit" that hints that you can select the "building-entity" to produce units or even link it directly to it, if possible.
The wiki links in the options menu are fantastic, those short videos and explanations are superb.
I am really used to automatically selecting the building unit when I hover over an empty mex- or power plant spot. Hopefully, I will see this feature again, because having to press an additional key to have it feels odd (to me).
The same goes for the blueprints for the buildings, they are great and are a nice QoL, but when I have only engineers selected, and I hover over a building, it would be nice to see the most used template already selected, instead pressing a key to get the blueprint selected.
Currently, when I select mixed tier 1-2-3 engineers, it only allows T1 buildings, even when T3 or T2 engineer is in the mix.
The Engineer Filter stuff is another good QoL - Would it possible, if I had selected a bunch of mixed tier engineers, to show me the highest available tier in the building menu bar instead the other way?
With this mechanic, when I build a T3 building, the lower tier engs should automatically assist it. I would guess there were some engine related issues to not have it that way which felt much more natural?
@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
he following units lose their mobile factory capabilities:
Megalith (Cybran Megabot)
CZAR (Aeon Experimental Carrier)We hope to include them in the future. At the moment they are not within reach to be finished any time soon.
What are the obstacles to not finalizing them as well for the incoming patch - Have you encountered different technical obstacles which need to get solved first or because it is simply very time-consuming to code that stuff? 
@magge said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
The mobile factories look very promising, and this is how it should have been done in the first place 20 years ago -> produce while moving IMO. My suggestion would be to add an icon to the "main unit" that hints that you can select the "building-entity" to produce units or even link it directly to it, if possible.
I tried to create a similar toggle / button that the UEF ACUs have with their drones. After spending a few hours I couldn't figure out why that implementation works and I dropped the idea for another time. Ideally this exists, of course.
Similarly that there would be a toggle to allow an aircraft carrier to immediately pump out the unit instead of the unit ending up in the cargo of the carrier. That too was not intuitive to add at a first glance and was dropped for another time too.
@magge said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
I am really used to automatically selecting the building unit when I hover over an empty mex- or power plant spot. Hopefully, I will see this feature again, because having to press an additional key to have it feels odd (to me).
I understand, but I'm afraid it generates a significant amount of (memory) garbage that may negatively impact your framerate. For a UI mod this is fine, and someone can re-implement it as a UI mod. But the base game should be a stable, consistent experience that allows for smooth gameplay. Specifically referring to frame stutters when the garbage collector kicks in. The only way to tackle those is to reduce the amount of garbage that is created, and this specific function was a prime target.
Assigning the alternative to tab feels natural to me. Hover over the mass deposit, hit tab and you're done for a tech 1 extractor A nice bonus is that you can queue a point defense or anti air turret right after by tab'ing the ground.
@magge said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
The same goes for the blueprints for the buildings, they are great and are a nice QoL, but when I have only engineers selected, and I hover over a building, it would be nice to see the most used template already selected, instead pressing a key to get the blueprint selected.
This is not something I thought of. It would be an interesting, alternative way to create some sense of order to the templates. I'll adjust the framework to allow a UI mod to hook in and adjust the order.
The mod could do it through the preference file: just assign a number to each template and you can create an order over time like that.
@magge said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
The Engineer Filter stuff is another good QoL - Would it possible, if I had selected a bunch of mixed tier engineers, to show me the highest available tier in the building menu bar instead the other way?
With this mechanic, when I build a T3 building, the lower tier engs should automatically assist it. I would guess there were some engine related issues to not have it that way which felt much more natural?
The engine doesn't work like that I'm afraid. We have very little control over how the user (e.g., by using the mouse and not through script) assigns order. And what would happen in your example is that the tech 3 engineers would start building the tech 3 power generator while all other (lower tech) engineers remain idle. That is the best situation, the worst is that the game crashes. I've tried toying with this and found it to be unstable. The engine is just not designed for it.
The hotkey exists as an alternative that works the way the engine wants it. I removed it previous patch because I thought people weren't using it, but then I got a few messages so it was re-introduced again.
@magge said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
What are the obstacles to not finalizing them as well for the incoming patch - Have you encountered different technical obstacles which need to get solved first or because it is simply very time-consuming to code that stuff?
The idea of the factory modules is that they are consistent towards the user. Therefore all the factories are at and beyond the 'back side' of the unit. In the case of a CZAR this is difficult: the unit doesn't have a natural 'back side'. The unit doesn't even appear to orientate to where it is moving, like other units do.
In order to help players understand where to click we'd need to adjust the model of the CZAR. It being an iconic unit makes this difficult and time consuming. On top of that I don't have the skillset to do it, so I rely on others that I ask for help.
The Megalith is special in another way. Unlike the other units the Megalith doesn't have a build site but it creates or drops eggs. I like the way that the Superior FAF Experience mod does it, but when asking I wasn't allowed to integrate that approach. So we need to create it from scratch. This is again model and animation work and that is not in my skillset.
@ftxcommando said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
Honestly I’d rather just convert the mega into having the ability to reclaim over building, extremely dumb to have to lay eggs one at a time as it walks across a line (which 9/10 times would be perpendicular to the direction you actually want mega to face) and the reclaim was the real use of it anyway. Also don’t really like ideas about units just dumping out of it, just a copy of fatboy when that’s already the t4 it most associates with.
I honestly didn't know that people used the Megalith to reclaim wrecks. I've never seen it happen, but it surely works. To jump into your suggestion, giving the Megalith a reclaim ability is possible and we can add the effects or an animation to make it look more 'believable'. I'm fine either way.
A work of art is never finished, merely abandoned
@azath0th said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
I'm not being hostile. I'm being criticizing. You are giving us an incomplete and uncomfortable to use feature for one that was working. And you also remove it from units because it haven't fit your code vision. Megalith will not be able to reclaim battlefield and czar won't be able to produce support air forces until you decide to complete it.
Jip has done more for faf that anyone I have personally seen and possibly more than anyone has done, I trust the dude to do it in a timely manner.
@veteranashe It doesnt mean he is allowed to do whatever he wants without agreement
“Be a yardstick of quality. Some people aren’t used to an environment where excellence is expected.”
— Steve Jobs.
My UI Mods
Well that's a very interesting statement because if I recall correctly mobile factories have been talked about quite a bit over the years and recently so I would guess behind the scenes, I don't go on discord, it was planned to do something. If we restrict on what devs do the game would be the same as it was in 2007.
Someone has to make changes in the game.
Very important and interesting changes, thank you for the work done. But I would like to clarify what is the need to update the work of mobile factories in parts, while temporarily removing them from the game for czar and mega. If you don't want to break user experience then why not just wait till everything is ready. I guess this is absolutely wrong approach, you can’t do changes like this because of development status, this is completely players experience breaking. You need to prove your point and make some voting among the players
@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:
I honestly didn't know that people used the Megalith to reclaim wrecks. I've never seen it happen, but it surely works. To jump into your suggestion, giving the Megalith a reclaim ability is possible and we can add the effects or an animation to make it look more 'believable'. I'm fine either way.
It specifically got nerfed in BP because it used to reclaim a GC in like 5 seconds. Reclaim fields were nonexistent with megas. This was like a 2017 change, though.