Topics created by Anachronism_

Also don't know if this includes mobile shields.

Yes it does 🙂

I don't see how manual reclaim is breaking the game. With all the scout laming, tree clumps have never been weaker. Most of the time they just break because of lamers and all those clicks are for nothing.

With regards to maps like Wonder where you need to manually reclaim to get the mass in the craters, that is a calculated risk you must take. Some players prefer not to take so much mass but instead shoot the enemy commander. Some prefer to take the damage and keep reclaiming. It is a delicate balancing act between how much you should reclaim vs how much you should fight with com. This decision is skill expression.

Mac users don't play games on their Macs

So it's a waste of time to make games for them

Most game devs don't bother. It's so much extra work to increase sales by less than 1%

That would probably be better done just as general promotion

@hinthunter said in Suggest new FAF Wiki pages:

Maybe one day when it could be automated such labours task.

You just described the reason for the unit db existing.

Maximum reclaim and mexes, hate red maps though , i prefer flatter maps so i dont have to use what little apm i have to see what can and cant hit things aswell as not being able to build things in infuriating places.

i dont know if the map gen already works like this, but maybe there could be shematic presets of proven map patterns which you can modify trough certain variables. Dual Gap Style (sorry), setons style, plateu corners, plateu mids, river, lake whatever. boiled down to its main characteristics which are proven trough 1000s of matches to be a gud map. e.g. its basically canis but looks flat and empty like crater at first. then let map gen do its magic in modifiying it to a new map with the choosen parameters. it would somehow defy the whole point of having a mapgen but in theory the aim would be get new but more predictable outcomes.

ofc the possibility to create maps out of nothing should still be the main feature.

Penalizing higher rated players is a healthier solution than boosting lower rated ones. Otherwise you'll have new players learn stuff that won't be possible anymore without a 10% energy production buff or whatever.

@tagada said in Does anyone want to get/share some data on map win percent compared to map play count?:

Nobody argues that map familiarity doesn't matter, of course, it does. People argue whether BOs, not map familiarity, have a significant impact on player performance

I think a significant portion of the complaints regarding BO's don't actually mean BO's by your definition, but instead mean the general familiarity and knowledge of how to reasonably open on and play the map that players typically get after playing it a few times. I think this is also generally more impactful at lower levels than higher levels on average, as the impact of individual map familiarity can be reduced by increased generalized skill and map reading ability in FAF.

Also, FTX said yes when I asked, "do you really deny the concept that people play a map better by like the 5th time they play it than the 1st, and play it even better by like the 10th time, etc in general?"

That seems like denying at least a significant aspect of the impact of map familiarity, and that question is clearly and directly related to the OP and the purpose of this thread, regardless of what you want to call it

I don't like early raid as i don't have the apm to take care of my build order and take care of that single bomber/lab killing my engi

@arkangel_ Abhor

This was already planned but I have no time untill the mid/end of February when I finish my exams.

@jip said in Adjust Recall:

What if we push that to three or less (alive) players remaining? That way you need all team members to agree with recalling in the 3v3 matchmaker.

The suggested adjustment is now live on the release branch.

Agree with post. It would be nice to just not lose a unit to the commander due to the loss of a player on disconnects. It would be nice to introduce a trend where the ally commander will stay alive and also go into control. Because after the explosion of his coma, you lose the necessary combat units (if any). Also, the value of the bmk is such that in team games, you have the power to stop anything within the limits of balance. Therefore, the situation will be excluded where, after the explosion of the commander, 150 tanks will simply go to your base to kill everything that is possible. Thanks to this, you can also play quite greedily from both sides, making the trajectories of lumps cut to units, which will allow a stronger player to play from the skill, and not aimlessly spend all your advantage to save the rest of the claw-handed territories and calmly deal with t2-t3 mexs.

We use git as storage, imho you just need to setup a workflow that commits to git.

Can't wait to try it. Thanks for your time folx!

@crypteck Replying here was sufficient. I'll direct message the details to you and Deribus. Thanks for volunteering.

Others are still welcome to volunteer (there's a lot to translate).

Just quadruple the number of active players on FAF. Adding more and more complexity to the matchmaking code isn't going to help.

The rating disparity, in 2v2 Im like a 1k so I get matched with other 1k people but I’m more around 1.5k so I just steamroll super hard and I feel really bad for everyone involved. However, 50% of the time I do get a quality match so it’s pretty decent but not like 4v4 where it always feels balanced