Alternate method if you don't want to mess with game prefs:

Make a new sandbox game, pick a big map with lots of space

(optional: turn on cheats, set speed to +4 or variable. Just use cheats to get lots of mass and energy, don't use cheats to place buildings)

Build all of your templates

End the match

On the new computer:

Play the replay file

Step in to your own point of view

Select each of the things you built and choose "make template"

End the replay

You will have the templates saved, they will be there the next time you start playing

This is also an easy way to share templates between different players

@mr-rashy-pants

Open the FAF Client

Go to the "Hamburger Button" at top left - what is a hamburger button? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_button

Select "show game.prefs file"

@jip How much would it cost to pay someone to figure out which bits to flip in the engine file to fix this nonsense forever?

Is there a way to change the amount? Right now it cuts off around 80%. Can that be boosted to 200%? Then it would never trip.

Please just put this into the game, it would help in team games a lot (people can overflow to teammates and won't have to worry about teammates overflowing to them to break tree reclaim orders)

We don't need the computer to handhold us to protect us from accidentally reclaiming things too fast

I had a lot of fun playing 1v1 on Setons Clutch and Sirgis. It's overwhelming to have so much going on but it's the same way for the other player. It's a different kind of experience than playing on a small map where you can control everything more optimally but it's not a bad experience.

If someone tries to ctrl-k more than half of their mass in a team game, change the order to "ctrl-k the acu only and nothing else"

Maybe make an exception if there's only a tiny number of units selected, like if someone ctrl-k two monkeylords to reclaim them you don't want that to be interpreted as a "throw"

@indexlibrorum said in T2 Bombers:

You weren't under 'constant T2 bomber attack', you were an overextended 3k HP com without AA in a game where your teammate was just airsniped and where you—10 minutes in—haven't scouted the enemy team even once.

If you don't scout, danger can be anywhere. Not even the forums are safe.

@Kilatamoro wrote: "Now do"

c'mon man, you have to make more effort than that if you're going to troll people

telling people "Now do [X]" is the laziest form of bad-faith argumentation

@kilatamoro said in Why do so many things have friendly fire disabled?:

Even with splash damage. It's like people with bad micro don't want it to be enabled. It would add more realism and start requiring occasional micro.

Example: I fly above friendly cruisers with splash with my ASFs with impunity while we both murder enemy torpedo bombers. Enabling FF would mean I have to intercept them earlier.

Reason 1: for some units, friendly fire creates problems even in a 1v1 setting. It's not fun if people have to do things like disable their cruisers from firing and then turn them back on again later. And if you forget to turn them back on, that's a problem. Or you might have to manually target your T2 PDs to make sure they don't do splash damage when a bunch of LABs try to run by.

Reason 2: the exact same thing, but it's even worse in multiplayer games, because you not only have to do that for your OWN units, you also have to do that for your allies, and you need your allies to do that for you. It would be very frustrating to have an ally's cruisers shoot down my own planes and then we're both mad at each other ("why didn't you turn off your cruisers and turn them back on again" "why did you fly there, why didn't you ping me first")

Reason 3: friendly fire creates a lot of opportunities for mischief, like intentionally killing allied units in a team game. That's why TMLs don't do friendly fire any more. People used to use TMLs to assassinate teammate ACUs.

=

One way to address this, without turning friendly fire back on, would be to reduce the damage that splash does to enemy units when friendly units are around. Every time a flak fired, the game would ask "is there at least one friendly plane in the splash zone?" and if the answer is "no" it would do full damage and if the answer is "yes" it might do half damage.

That would take away the potentially-unfair advantage of fighting over flak

But I don't know how eager people are for that -- I think most people don't want a fix for this

@keul

This might be a dumb question: do you mean it's slow FOR the first 5-6 minutes, or do you mean it runs at normal speed for the first 5 minutes and THEN it gets slow after that?

It would be helpful if you list the UI mods you're using, the SIM mods that you're using, and the map. For example, is this just a skirmish game on a multiplayer map or are you playing a special "scenario" map like survival? That would help other people to try to recreate your situation to see if their computer also slows down.

When you say it is a game with AI, do you have human teammates? If you have any human teammates, the slowdown could be a connection issue which would make it harder to investigate.

You can get it from GOG?

1 - It's a psychological thing, I remember losing my first ranked global match and having a negative rating. I didn't care, but I can see how some people would.

2 - I like where it's at. Roughly speaking, two 500s equal a 1000. I'm not saying this math works in all circumstances, but it's pretty handy if you're trying to balance low-rated games.

Precedence means it comes first compared to non-featured mods

By extra attention, I mean it gets extra attention from the developers/administrators to make sure that they won't break it, and to fix things if they do break it

The first definition of featured is: "Given special prominence, attention, or publicity."

So, yes, featured mods will get special attention. If they're not going to do that for a mod, it should not stay in that list.

@nomander said in SACU Rebalance:

The max return on his investment would be T3 engis + mass fabs or T3 engis + whatever unit actually kills his opponent. The T3 Engis can shift production just as easily as gateway assistance.

My main point is that 1-2 assisted gateways is far better than having 4-10 unassisted gateways.

Mass fab farms are only a better investment if you ignore their vulnerability. They're easy to kill with strat bombers, T3 arty, Novax, Telemazor, etc. Every time you expand the grid, you increase the vulnerability and you'd need to make more shields to protect it.

If you spam SACUs, they're capable of doing things like hiding in the water or building shields as needed.

Even if you want to make a few mass fab farms, it doesn't take long before RAS boys become a better choice. The more farms you have, the more attractive RAS boys are.

Supcom lore waves away logic

Lore is not actually scientific or perfectly logical, but that doesn't mean we should give it zero heed. Being lore-accurate should be a small plus factor to a balance decision and being lore-inaccurate should be a small minus factor.

@nomander said in SACU Rebalance:

What is the point of removing gateway assistance?

1 - to be lore-accurate. They are opening a portal to another planet. How is some t1 engineer with a dinky little engineering beam going to help with that?

2 - it makes it harder to pivot between SACU production and spending resources on other things. There's a reason Yudi likes to make 2 gates + 20 hives. He can quickly spend excess resources on RAS boys to get max return on his investment, and when he wants to make a T4 or something else, he can just pause it all

If players had to make multiple gateways in order to spam RAS boys, they would have to invest more resources to get it going and they'd have a bigger cost to pausing investment in RAS boys (total idleness instead of having hives that could be used to make something quickly)

1 - Take away the ability to upgrade RAS on a SACU. That's something that can only be manufactured in a techworld and shipped through a gate

2 - Take away all ability to assist a gateway. They aren't really "building" much, they're opening a portal to ship items across the universe and drop the really expensive package into a little metal shell.

3 - Then you can make it take less time to gate in a regular SACU (or a combat SACU) compared to a RAS sacu

This would also make it easy to completely separate the upgrade trees for regular SACUs vs RAS SACUs, they would be different unit types with different base costs

For what, 1v1s? Team games? Most people don't want fast-paced team games

Mapmakers could design maps to cause games to be faster-paced. For example, a 5x5 should be faster paced than a 10x10. Or even for 10x10s, you could put the two spawns closer together. You can make transport RNG maps, those have fast-paced openings.

The other obvious way to make things faster-paced would be some kind of a balance mod to do things like increase movement speed, decrease unit health, decrease the cost to make experimentals (even if they get nerfed in terms of HP and damage).

Maybe even have some "experimentals" at lower tech levels so you can go all-in on a strategy faster and with the other side less likely to scout it. Imagine a mini-monkeylord that costs 10,000 mass and would die to a single overcharge but could still wipe out a T2 army. I'm not saying it would make the game better but it should increase the pace.

Also I don't want to sound crude or overly simplistic but if you turn game speed up to +1, everything moves faster.

I would love to see a SIM mod that sets the speed to +1 and have it be whitelisted so it doesn't make games unrated.

Probably the commander was in shallow water. Needed to be deeper in order to avoid splash damage from the shell exploding at the water's surface.