Posts made by Anachronism_

@jip
I think that change, in combination with a lobby option that would let custom games adjust the required percent of votes for forced recall (with 100% being an option), sounds like a reasonable compromise.

https://github.com/yaniv-aknin/fafdata

https://github.com/yaniv-aknin/fafalytics
"Boxplot of Actions Per Minute (APM) bucketed by the player's FAF rating. This plot analyses about half a million 1v1 ladder game replays."

"Lineplot showing the APM over time of Tagada"

"Scatter plot showing the coordinates of ~all player commands issued during a game on Open Palms... Every dot represents a command given by the blue or orange players. The size of the dot is the number of units instructed with this command... the X-axis is reversed in this chart"

"Boxplot showing the area of the map covered by commands after 5 minutes of playing, bucketed by player rating. We can see top players cover more of the map with their activity."

Maybe it would be better to have a visual that is more like a bunch of janus firebombs burning on the ground spread around the area of effect. Also, maybe it would be better to have a bunch of individual projectiles that do damage over time like the janus does instead of having just 1 cloud, so that it would be more effective against large structures/T4's. An alternative idea would be to have it have a longer period of damage with a higher total damage to add a greater element of area denial and structure damage (the damage radius could be reduced to balance this).

@thecodemander

So now theres also a wiki page too. Do you understand what is meant by the term fragmentation?

I do understand.

If I have a vague issue there are literally so many places I have to search before I can even confirm that it has been talked about in any capacity. If we are expecting people to go through every one of those resources

You don't have to search each of those places or go through each of those resources. You can use any one of them without knowing about or searching through the others.

I swear to god people are not reading my point. The fragmentation and the process to get attention to random issues is the issue. At the moment vague issues are being tolerated (and we can disagree if these are increasing or decreasing in number) but a lot are being tolerated because they are not in a state where we can collate all the information that might help us figure out what the common ground is because there is no central, easy to use, visible way where all this information can exist with less barriers.

You don't seem to realize that some people are getting your point but disagree with some of your conclusions. It would be great if there was some centralized resource issue tracker with all the bells and whistles we could want, but we don't have that atm. Making/getting something like that might be worthwhile, but that would have to be investigated, and it might not even be worth the opportunity cost in the end.

As I have also said many times now, I have been trying to get visibility on this issue for a really long time. Acting caustically has worked apparently a little too well looking at this thread, I could've saved a lot of time by doing this in the first place. This is also part of the problem: why is it necessary that it must be done in a negative and inflammatory way to get a decent level of engagement?

It's not necessary to be inflammatory or negative. You say you have been trying to get visibility for a while, but what detailed non-toxic forum posts did you previously make for this issue? I don't recall seeing any...

Are you memeing or did you not read any of what I have written multiple times now? The individual bugs that could be reported as a bug are NOT AT ALL what I'm talking about. At the moment this is the process that exists, but these are issues that aren't yet in a position to make it that far because of their nature. My view is we should do more to help get current jank issues to that stage because then we can make things better.

People can still describe the issue and give logs. Even if it is vague and they think it doesn't show up in the logs, descriptions can help and reporting it and including logs might still be helpful. Alternatively or additionally, more people can make forum posts for issues they think should be given more attention. I'm not saying the current situation is optimal or great or efficient, but it's what we've got, and unless someone shares or creates a superior/realistic/worthwhile alternative, it's what we'll presumably keep doing for now. If you have a superior solution that can be enacted quickly with little cost or dev time, you are welcome to share it.

@thecodemander

There is literally a wiki page on reporting technical issues, a wiki page on connection issues and solutions, a forums section on support for client and account issues, and a tech support Discord forum.

I think each of those resources can get lead users to the help they need in most reasonably solvable cases. If you think they should be improved in some way, you're welcome to volunteer and try to help out.

Bringing something to light on the forums can get high exposure and prompt change, but it doesn't have to be inflammatory to do so. Many changes have been made as a result of non-toxic forum discussions.

Acting caustically to FAF's contributors because other people triggered you is not helpful or fair. Personally, I think I've observed significantly more mentions of connection and client issues in recent months compared to a year or two ago. However, if the affected people won't make actual bug reports with logs, it makes trying to solve the problems harder, slower, and less likely to happen. So, if you really want to get the problems fixed faster, I suggest you get more of the affected users to submit bug reports with logs, and you could volunteer to help out as well if you want.

Just to clarify some things:

@TheCodemander The way you have communicated and worded things can sometimes come off as caustic/derogatory/hostile, even if you didn't mean to come across that way. I would suggest using less inflamatory/crticial/insulting/controversial word choice if you don't want to come across that way. Many others communicate issues and disagreement without sounding like that.

@MazorNoob When he referred to the stability of the old client, I believe he was referring to prior versions of the current client, not the python client.

@thecodemander said in What is the biggest issue that plagues FAF in your opinion?:

@sheikah If I sent you logs every time client malfunctions, I'm pretty sure I'd get banned for spamming.

Edit: The most repeatable screwup behaviour I have right now is it outright hanging. Especially when trying to close the thing. Only way to get it to go away is pkill -9 java

You don't have to do it every time or never. Even just making a bug report with a log once in a while is much more helpful than doing nothing.

There are ~13,245,017 games on the replay vault.
Of the ~7,196,303 that showed up in the duration-refined results, 5,746,418 were 5+ minutes and 1,449,885 were 5 minutes or less. 932,939 results showed up when the duration was set to 60+.

I think it would be a good change to have the cost of a new t3 mex and the cost of a t2 mex plus a t3 mex upgrade be equal. Having high apm is already very beneficial in FAF without this added bonus. We don't need to further handicap low apm players with an additional ~700 mass penalty per t3 mex compared to their higher apm counterparts.

@tobi__

@henter8480
Yes
https://github.com/FAForever/Neroxis-Map-Generator#neroxis-map-generator-for-supreme-commander-forged-alliance

@jip

I do think it's a reasonable assumption that most of the severe laggers would not figure out and go through the technical hassles and rule breaking that it would take to spoof their data for this.

Also, I think you might've missed or misunderstood part of what I meant when I said:

Alternatively, perhaps a system could be created that takes the extant in-game measurements for lagginess (for both connection and sim speed) and logs roughly how much each player contributes to lag in each game, and then have that data automatically reported back to the server at the end of each game.

Altenratively or additionally, perhaps stuff related to ICE could be utilized in some way to provide some additional data on which combinations of players are too likely to lag too much and or who tends to lag a lot from a connectivity perspective.

If the relevant data would be autoamatically reported to the server by everyone in a match (or at least by multiple people) comparably to how win/loss is reported, then that should offer some resilience against individual tampering. I'm not saying it would be perfect, but hey, if that sort of system is good enough that we already use it for reporting wins and losses, it seems like it should be good enough for this as well.

You would assign these commands by writing code in the script file for your map that is located in your map's folder. You could open it with a program such as Notepad++. You can read about how to code in lua online, you can ask questions in the mapping and modding channels of the FAF Discord, and you can look at other maps' script files to see what they did (I mentioned the Tower Defense Survival map before as that has some relevant example usage that you could look at).

Here are some things you can use. You'll probably want to use IssuePatrol to multiple different locations btw. Note that you'll need to actually specify values or properly defined variables (ie: make a table of units rather than just writing TableOfUnits without setting that equal to something beforehand).

IssuePatrol(TableOfUnits, {X, Y, Z})

IssueMove(TableOfUnits, {X, Y, Z})

Platoon = ArmyBrain:MakePlatoon('','')

ArmyBrain:AssignUnitsToPlatoon(Platoon, TableOfUnits, 'Attack', 'None')

Platoon:AggressiveMoveToLocation({X, Y, Z})

You can look at my Tower Defense Survival map on the vault to see actual examples of some of these in use.

@Rezy-Noob

You cite potential technical hurdles. If the technical hurdles can't be solved, then maybe we should leave the system as-is, but if they can be solved, maybe we should change it.

Selfish is defined as showing or arising from an excessive concern with oneself and a lack of concern for others.

If one person makes the experience a lot worse for several other people for a slight personal benefit, does that not meet the definition of selfishness?

Is it not more selfish for that one person to significantly worsen the TMM experience for many others than for those many others to want that person to be limited to select TMM queues and custom games?

@Jip

I understand that you personally have not been experiencing much lag in TMM games, but you presumably get matched with higher rated players in general, who seem less likely to play games where they lag a lot on average. I believe this problem is more pronounced at lower ratings, as I have noticed disproportionately more lag in lower-rated games compared to higher-rated games on average. Either way, there are players who consistently lag a lot and significantly worsen the TMM experience for others, sometimes resulting in numerous people leaving the TMM queues or dealing with bad TMM experiences due to the lag.

I'm not suggesting limitations be applied to all queues, but it seems like there should be at least some queues with some minimum requirements if the technical side of that can be handled reasonably enough.

Regarding how to handle the technical limitations, why not use the new metric that has been created for calculating players' lagginess across games? Even if people can find workarounds to spoof their scores, I imagine the vast majority of the severe laggers won't do that, and the ones who do could be moderated against. That would presumably require a lower level of moderation than if we moderated as you suggested but didn't use the new metric to filter out most of the severe laggers.

Alternatively, perhaps a system could be created that takes the extant in-game measurements for lagginess (for both connection and sim speed) and logs roughly how much each player contributes to lag in each game, and then have that data automatically reported back to the server at the end of each game.

Altenratively or additionally, perhaps stuff related to ICE could be utilized in some way to provide some additional data on which combinations of players are too likely to lag too much and or who tends to lag a lot from a connectivity perspective.

Also, as a side note, I think a lot of the severe laggers are not intentionally trying to ruin the games with their lag, but just trying to play. So, the rule you quoted doesn't seem like it would apply to most of them anyway... perhaps the rules could be changed to address this issue though...

If the technical details could reasonably be handled well enough, I think it could be a good thing for FAF to have some (but not all) matchmaker queues have minimum requirements to help avoid lag. It could improve the matchmaker experience and consequently improve user retention as well. Maybe it would even be reasonable to have some 5v5+ queues with some reasonable minimum requirements enabled to help avoid lag.

@freedom_

In the current 1.5k+ 3v3 map pool, 1/3 of the maps are 15x15, 1/3 are 13.75x13.75 and 1/3 are 12.5x12.5. Is your issue with the 15x15 maps specifically, or is it the relatively narrow range of map sizes, or the lack of 10x10's at your rating, or something else?

@plasma_wolf
There have been zero 20x20 maps in the 3v3 matchmaker. Thus far, the maps in it have all ranged from 10-15 km. You can look at the map pool here