I usually join all three, or only 1v1 or only 4v4.
Probably the worst point about 2v2 is that you can have unbalanced teams (e.g. 1200 + 1800 vs two 1500) which can be quite significant; with 4v4 it's usually less of an issue simply due to having more players.
The concern I have is that several quite different units have the same icon and mostly the same appearance. Is it possible to use a different icon for each upgrade path?
Heck, you could remove the base SACU and all upgrade options and just make the various "upgrade paths" completely different units (without upgrades). It would likely be simpler to use and I think wouldn't lose much (does anybody ever convert a rambo boy into an engineer boy on the front line, or similar)?
@thomashiatt said in Do you think Sanctuary will replace FAF?:
There's not a single thing I would like to see in FAF that involves changing the source code
Really? There are loads of things (balance and taste dependent) which could potentially be better:
Can we get it off ladder please? Nearly everyone I play on it tells me it's a boring map and I strongly agree.
Added feature : preselection of mex when selection engineer and hovering the cursor over a mass spot
I don't like this so much. Is there an option to turn it off? It can require an extra click when doing the "assist mex" thing to build storages.
Several times recently I've been matched against a 0-rated player on ladder. I'm ~1200. I get that a 0-rated player is more unknown than known noob but all the same it doesn't make for interesting games.
Shouldn't there be a hard cap on the maximum rating difference when matching? A 300 difference is already a strong predictor; a 600 difference is an almost-certain predictor, and beyond that you can safely bet that no 2k player would want to be matched against someone my level, so 600-700 difference seems like a sensible hard cap?
Sometimes when clicking to launch the billy nuke it doesn't fire. This may be when the ACU is building.
What I expect:
What seems to happen:
IMO map veto isn't really required (with good choice of maps), but...
@ftxcommando said in How do I block horrible maps:
Glaciers sucks at high level
Glaciers simply sucks. Too much mass for 1v1. Like many of the GPG maps its seems to be designed for more than two teams and doesn't really translate to 1v1 — perhaps with smaller fewer expansions it would be better. It's also ugly. The main thing to get out of it for lower level players is learning early air control and drops on large maps.
Success! Thanks Jip.
As if it wasn't already bad enough for the winner to call gg, my opponent topped that by calling gg while I was still trying to micro the ACU. Bad form, hashbrownies.
But well played for taking advantage of the chaos caused by my allies attempting to OC a monkeylord with BOTH their ACUs. (I'll admit, they did succeed in killing the ML at least. No idea why they allowed their opponent to hold so much territory for so long in a 2v1 position either.)
@Nomander said in T4 mobile anti-air:
Make flak instead of T3 MAA for dealing with gunships. You will need a lot because gunships cost 1500 mass while flak costs 160. T3 MAA should be reserved for kiting T4 air/killing strats since it's weaker than flak.
I guess this is the meta I was missing; thanks. There's definitely still a gap for MAA which is decently survivable at the T4 stage and can deal with both gunships and T4 air though.
In the T1/T2/T3 stage, air serves a number of useful purposes: scouting, transportation, bombing weakly defended targets, high-mobility gunships able to chase down raiders. And interceptors.
In the late T3/T4 stage, one team tends to build a huge ball of ASF able to shut down the opponent's air, even over the opponent's mobile land armies. Worse, if one team gets air supremacy and 20+ T3 gunships or a T4 gunship, they can shut down most land pushes.
This changes the game to the point that land pushes are hard, turning the game into a T4 arty war.
Suggestion: add a T4 mobile land AA unit to each faction, somewhere around the cost of a spider or GC. Make it strong enough to beat all T4 air and able to kill massed gunships quickly using AOE weapons.
This should make multiple-T4-pushes more effective and reduce the incentive to make 100+ ASF.
A simpler alternative would be to buff T3 MAA, but I think this has more downsides.
Sometimes when clicking to launch the billy nuke it doesn't fire. This may be when the ACU is building.
What I expect:
What seems to happen:
That sucks brutally, ACUs don’t need to be nerfed in t3 stage.
Right. I wonder about adding a second level range upgrade? But it's still a nerf vs T2 PD.
I'm with Ftx in that ACUs in team games kill a lot of early action and in that auto-OC is worth keeping.
But I don't think auto-OC is too powerful, at the early T2 stage when there isn't a huge amount of power. If you think it is, send a few T1 units ahead of the T2 to use up that stored E.
Ultimately I don't see a solution to the strong-ACUs-in-teamgames problem other than paper-thin armour on ACUs. Or maybe making snipes more balanced (yes, that Mercy vs T2 bombers for snipes balance issue).
What if T1 subs have cloak but no stealth and no sonar; also T1 scout planes have no sonar? Makes subs vs mexes & engies strong without affecting subs vs navy. Also means moving sub loses to lurking sub every time (if they engage at all).
It would likely skew ratings, e.g. someone might only play 5x5. This would make it harder to compare people by looking at their ladder ratings.
@thomashiatt said in Smol ACU Adjustment:
Auto OC is some stupid ability FAF added, so it's much easier to argue for it's removal than things in the game from the start. It has horrible anti-synergy with the new variable energy overcharge system (which I still think is the worst thing ever done to the game).
Give me the ability to OC while still following the last move order and I won't complain about removing auto-OC. As is, it is useful for retreats.
IMO frequent lack of T2 usage comes down to dynamics that have very little to do with the T2 units themselves:
T2 land is not useless, but mex upgrades and map size are the real reasons T2 land has little use.
So, nerf mass-storage adjacency bonus for more T2 tanks?
The other option is to look at energy cost for OC. OCing an Ilshovah already requires more than one Estor.