Posts made by ANALyzeNoob

Thanks! I just uninstalled citrix and now I can play again. It seems weird it kept me from playing even if it wasn't open but simply installed on my pc.

So after all of this, the game suddenly started to crash whenever I try to join or host a lobby. Not sure what exactly caused it. I have attached the log which notes an access violation. Any ideas on how to fix that? I have already tried uninstalling and reinstalling the game.

game_22007354.log

@mostlostnoob

Based on the link to that other forum post I deleted the game music files. I also changed the sound quality to 16 bit 44.1k hz just incase that would help rather than 48k hz.

I have attached a recent game log.

Unfortunately, another issue that seems to have just popped up now, is that for some reason I am not able to save new templates or make new changes to my hotkeys. I can save a template and then I have it for the rest of that game, but then the next game it is gone again. It seems to be the same for hotkey changes.

de6c7956-34e0-4a35-97d5-56f8338e3b95-game_21335293.log

Thank you very much for the quick response! I tried making those changes and have not had any unhandled exception crashes in the few games i have tried yet, but am still having the issue where it basically crashes when i try to exit the game. It is just annoying in that I have to keep task manager open on another screen to force it to end the task, but at least the game seems playable now.

I just got a new pc and have had issues with faf. Have only tried a few games but it gives an unhandled exception frequently, and it seems to do so even on solo games when i tried to set up my settings, crashing every single time i try to close the game.

b7cd491f-97b4-434d-858e-8aa7da0d8a07-game_21299866.log

Thank you in advance!

Or else to just look at roughly ten minute sections of the game with the scaling being appropriate for that section.

@comradestryker Yeah I guess I don't care near as much about those things. Maybe it would be possible to have the best of both worlds, and have the wreck available as soon as the animation begins. Then you get all of the benefit of the dynamic animations, AND you can issue your commands without delay. I dunno, maybe that is impossible. If it's impossible I would just prefer immediate wrecks, because I'm never thinking "oh look at that pretty animation as the building is destroyed." I'm feeling frustrated about having to wait for it to finish because I'm playing a competitive real time strategy game...

Edit: even if there is a game limitation such that you cannot begin reclaiming until after the animation completes, perhaps it could still allow the order to be queued up? This is usually the main issue, not the 1-2 second delay in being able to construct the building...except when you are trying to build new shields in an arty war.

@jip I guess it must be just for sera extractors, but you also have the same kind of issue when you destroy other buildings. e.g. you ctrl k a bunch of factories adjacent to mexes and want to give a reclaim order on the wreck and then build storages around the mex.

So just generally speaking, it would be nice if all buildings in general became wrecks faster just so you can give reclaim orders and new build orders faster.

This is a pretty counter-intuitive game mechanic, but pretty much everyone learns about it if they are trying to get better. It's one of those "spend apm, gain a slight advantage" kind of things which i dont really love as it doesn't add anything to the game strategy-wise, but just forces higher apm to maximize your play. I don't really mind it either though, and don't think there is much of a good solution without changing game mechanics significantly. However, just reducing the upgrade cost vs the straight build cost for mexes I wouldn't mind either.

One thing that REALLY DOES bug me, is the time for the animation of the mex ctrl-k that you have to wait for before you can place the t3 mex order. Can we speed that up? It's only like 2 seconds or something, but then when the game is lagging it feels like i'm wasting A LOT of time staring at my mex waiting to be able to give the build order, but it's not long enough to justify looking away and doing something else.

I also would like an anchor/hold position toggle button.
I sometimes will use a select all navy units hotkey to send in everything to attack and when that selects the sonar it is a problem. Selection priority wouldn't have anything to do with that, and I prefer the select all key rather than zooming out and selecting all units.

And I actually would love a toggle button that you can use hold position ANY unit, including land units.

Sometimes you want to send all your land units in for an attack, but would like to keep a small group in a specific location to defend against drops.

I have noticed sometimes, especially with air units, they not only fail to respond to move commands but actually go in the opposite direction. Is it known what causes this or if there is a solution, besides literally always shift-g moving your air units?

See replay 19263189 at about 8:50. If you view from my perspective and hold shift to see the orders, I clearly give a move command to the north, but my inties fly in the opposite direction.

@jip said in Engineer Always-reclaim:

You're asking me to:

Take a share of my time to implement your feature.
Take a share of my future time to maintain your feature.

It's not mine. I was considering how it might be helpful for lower skill players and providing some pros and cons on their behalf. Just read my first post:

@corvathranoob said in Engineer Always-reclaim:

So I don't really have an opinion whether it's a good idea to do this or not, but don't think it matters much anyway because it is pretty easy to attack move some engies instead so this gives very little advantage or help to noobs anyway.

@jip said in Engineer Always-reclaim:

Your response is insulting.

@rezy-noob said in Engineer Always-reclaim:

watch your language,@CorvathraNoob

I think it is more insulting to be trolled when you're trying to contribute to the conversation and bring up points of view that other people may not have considered, than anything I said.

I know English is not everyone's first language here, so I will clarify what I said.

I did NOT say Jip was stupid. I said I DIDN'T think he was because we both clearly knew the proposed change would save more than two clicks a game. So, since he was NOT stupid, he must have been trolling.

I chose my words very carefully to show how egregious his derisive and contemptuous response to my argument was. I would say "please read my words more carefully next time," but the point is moot because I won't be contributing any more thoughts because I'm done with being trolled and insulted.

@jip said in Engineer Always-reclaim:

You're right: it is probably three: you want to move them to the reclaim field first. And if you use any hotkeys (I'd recommend trying that out) then it is two again.

Yeah, now it's obvious you're just trolling. Thanks.

@jip said in Engineer Always-reclaim:

The OP specifically doesn't want attack move:
4# engi will not move to far in enemy territory!

You are 100% wrong. The main complaint is the mundane micro of issuing the order. You can very obviously prevent engies from going "too far into enemy territory" by not setting the reclaim order "too far into enemy territory." Further, this is why I said to issue the attack move directly underneath the engi.

@ghnaf said in Engineer Always-reclaim:

Yes, i know attacke-move and i use it ofc. It´s just about less clicks in many situations.

@jip said in Engineer Always-reclaim:

The alternative is to just attack move an engineer. That way you control what happens. And it is just two clicks.

Ok, multiply two clicks times many different engis or groups of engis, times many times per game. Spoiler alert, it's much larger than two.

@jip said in Engineer Always-reclaim:

Then come back and tell us how it worked out while the engineers were reclaiming that T2 PD you wanted to rebuild.

Every single time I see someone do this I cringe because the build time is almost never as important as the mass forgone. You gain HALF the mass and build time, while losing the 80% mass reclaim value. I actively and intentionally reclaim dead t2 pd before rebuilding them, so I would love this feature.

So I don't really have an opinion whether it's a good idea to do this or not, but don't think it matters much anyway because it is pretty easy to attack move some engies instead so this gives very little advantage or help to noobs anyway.

But from a technical perspective, could it be done by just automatically issuing an attack move order directly underneath idle engis? (and maybe have this order time out or only get implemented once a minute or something, so if there is nothing around to reclaim the engi doesn't continuously get new orders?)
You could make the argument it is helpful for some noobs but worse for better players because they want to know when their engis go idle and would be better off disabling the toggleable ability.

But in that case you could have the best of both worlds. It makes life a bit easier for noobs, but doesn't reduce the skill ceiling either. Otherwise, we'd have to accept the argument that attack moving engis AT ALL reduces the skill ceiling of the game and makes it worse, because manual reclaiming requires more clicking...and we all know the faster you click the more skilled you are, right? Sure, but just like including both attack moving engies and manual reclaim is perfectly fine, ADDING a less effective, easy option doesn't remove the skill ceiling. It is perfectly fine to allow some automation of tasks as long as there are also ways to do things more efficiently by micromanaging more.

So I'd say it just comes down to whether or not there is a reasonably easy technical solution that doesn't bog the game down much.

@haachamachama said in New changes to the 2v2 TMM:

TMM pairs has always been inconsistent due to the lack of players, so having huge disparity between the players is inevitable

Ya, that's exactly why I thought this was so common that the statement wasn't really true, though eliminating the smaller maps when you have only higher rating players is an improvement.

Just one other thought, it might be slightly better to use an average rating in some situations rather than sharply defined categories. I'm thinking of when you have one team of two 1600s and the other with 1700 and 1490. I would guess all 4 players would prefer to stick with the 1500+ category of maps, because including the 1490 player's range, which includes 500-1000 rating maps, doesn't really seem optimal when basically all the players are quite a bit beyond that. I'm not sure the best way to design a system that avoids that, maybe something about the average or maximum deviation between all players. And maybe it just gets really complicated for minimal benefit so this isn't worth thinking too much about anyway, especially given the aforementioned lack of players...

@haachamachama said in New changes to the 2v2 TMM:

Lower tier, less competitive players will stay on less challenging maps, while higher tier, competitive players will not have to play those maps and keep within the higher brackets.

I don't understand how higher rating players "will not have to play those maps" if you have a 2000 paired with a 200 vs two 1200s. Aren't you then limited exclusively to the lowest skill maps, consistent with Askaholic's comment? Or has there also been some change that entirely prevents teams with large deviations in rating?

@ftxcommando said in Sparky Rationalization:

And all it serves to not be able to build radar and facs with sparkies is needless micro of having to go and pick out the specific t1 engie in a mix near your sparkies because you cant just select all your sparkies and your engie and use a hotkey for fac or radar. It's annoying and tedious and unironically like a third of the reason I don't bother making sparkies.

Yeah, it's just this quality of life improvement that makes it slightly less annoying to use sparkies. And it's the same QOL improvement for sparky drops and not having to bring a t2 engi along like farms pointed out, and then also have to be careful about which engi you select when you want to make the radar and/or factories at your proxy and then make sure your sparkies assist it and hope the t2 engi doesn't die to a couple bombers that a sparky would survive.
It's just something that would save you a few really annoying and seemingly pointless clicks.

@ftxcommando said in Sparky Rationalization:

And the difference would be efficient scaling, if you make t2 engies you're getting more bp for mass. If you make sparkies for scaling you are falling behind and paying a premium for the additional security that the rest of the sparky brings.

This is also 100% true. I think we can agree that giving sparkies this functionality would not make that big of a difference in the game. A small increase in mass cost would be fine as payment for saving the annoying apm.

@ftxcommando said in Kennel and Hives:

It isn't really just the cheap factor that makes hives better. I am absolutely certain that if you made hives and kennels the exact same cost you would still in the vast majority of scenarios make hives because it is simply too much utility to be able to instantly transfer bp to whatever project you deem necessary.

Yeah, that's why I said make them a lot faster too. I think with a significantly faster drone speed it would be worth paying a little bit extra compared to hives. How long does it currently take for drones to move the entire length of hive build range? 10 seconds? (I honestly don't know because the unit database isn't showing hive range so I'm guessing it's about 30, and drones have a speed of 4, anyway the point is it's not super massive) What if that was cut down to 3 seconds? Then you have very close to the same bp flexibility, even if it's not instantaneous, plus a whole lot more flexibility with the unlimited range. Since most of the time you aren't constantly moving that bp back and forth, and if you are it's not traveling that full distance so it's only taking a couple seconds and you aren't losing that much build time anyway. With that price I was also kinda assuming they could fix some of the other issues like reclaim and drones dying on transfer, but if we can't then I'd say maybe 17m per bp since those things matter, but seem rarely impactful to me.