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:

• improved pathing instead of all this bumping into each other
• sub depth not fixed
• radar and sonar shadows (no more hiding radar behind a cliff)
• no free intel from mex/factory upgrades
• possibly some different intel models such as deployed drones with limited lifespan
• modular units without the clunky upgrade system (e.g. in game unit designer)
• better damage models
• better unit AI (e.g. auto dodging, raid mode): for those of us who don't think the game is about unit micro

T1 ACU can build T1 radar.

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:

• launch the nuke
• continue other activity (move, build, etc.)

What seems to happen:

• stops other order
• does not always launch

Replay: https://replay.faforever.com/19459562

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.

There's nothing wrong with Aurora: they're (almost) a T1 sniper.

But Aeon needs a T1 tank: something with enough HP that it can survive 1-on-1 vs any other T1 tank much of the time in close quarters. Perhaps a new unit with the speed of the Aurora but the range of other tanks, with similar DPS but 20% more cost and 30% more HP.

Given a new tank, one could even try balancing the Aurora more like other snipers: lower DPS but a little more speed. (Currently DPS must approx. match other tanks for balance to work with smaller numbers, but then Aurora get too powerful in large groups due to range, except vs bombers...)

If the unit count really can't be increased, there is another option, though many would consider it heresy: turn the Flare into a T1 sniper/LAB hybrid and the Aurora into standard medium (or less-standard heavy) tank.

Another possible option on battleship balance: make them less effective direct fire (unit-vs-unit) weapons, thus only really useful for bombardment. Keep T2 destros (+ UEF T3 destro) as the navy mainstay. This could perhaps be achieved via damage classes (reduced damage, with bonus vs structures)?

That might also help reduce splash vs subs without affecting splash vs harms.

Honestly though, SC navy would need a lot of work (and probably a lot more units) to be properly balanced IMO.

Signing up (humble 1300)

@melanol said in Every ranked 1v1 map is generated?:

Can I have a less stressful life please?

This is stressful? Maybe yeah, because playing is stressful, but no more so than known maps because your opponent is in the exact same position of figuring the new map out.

The proper solution would be to create an intel entity which drops from the aircraft, every few seconds, and if it lands in water, becomes a short term sonar buoy. The code for that too, is already in the game - it's used in the Aeon Eye of Rhianne, which creates a vision entity. This would be an adaptation of that.

That might actually work okay. Can such a temporary entity be targetted by subs/ships?

And what about stealth? Should there be stealth subs which only show up in vision radius or is that too insidious? Would they be visible to scout planes anyway due to vision + radar?

Perhaps a better alternative:

• all water-based sonar are actually short-range omni + long range sonar
• all subs (even all underwater units?) automatically stealth when not moving
• (maybe) no underwater vision; enemy units are only visible as sonar icons: this could make nuke subs a key part of T3 navy

No worries, watching the casts is probably more fun than playing! Looking forward to the event.

There are already weird problems with walls, like units sometimes shooting the wall behind a PD before shooting the PD. (Maybe it got fixed by tweaking the size of hit boxes.) Adding another size of wall sounds problematic.

Also, T2 walled PD could make gun ACU push vs PD too hard.

This has happened to me a few times now:

1. Search for a ladder match
2. Get a match
3. Spend so long downloading the map (or a FAF update) that the game fails to launch (before people give up)

Yes, a large part of this is my slow internet connection, but in my opinion it makes sense to force all maps to be downloaded and the FAF version to be updated before searching for ladder matches can start.

So Farms is saying air is boring because it has few units? Sure, more faction diversity might be interesting... well, Aeon already has swifties, mercies and restorers.

Back to navy, bias said:

Submarines are entirely boring units, they have no real solid mechanics associated with them

So make them interesting. Add a "stealth" button like the Selen and let them lurk, maybe, then try luring your opponent's ships to your subs.

But it's kind of hard to make "hide and seek" tactics work given the pace of the game, plus the way target locks work through the fog of war.

Why do we have different icons for bots vs tanks? In most cases, bots are considerably faster with much less armour:

• T1: LABs are a bit faster than tanks with much less HP
• Exception: Mantis icon was changed to a tank
• T2: Mongoose, Hoplite are on average slightly faster than T2 tanks with less than half the HP
• Exception: Ilshavoh icon is a bot

T3 is also a bit weird:

• Othuum is a tank and Harbinger is a bot though both have similar speed and HP (when including shield)
• Brick and Percival are "siege bots"

Suggestions:

• Change Harbinger icon to tank?
• Change Ilshavoh icon to tank or even siege bot? (It's the slowest T2 direct-fire unit, with good range and armour.)

Motivation: didn't zoom in and thought my opponent was building Mongeese when they were in fact Ilshavoh. Yeah, wrong faction; guess I'm getting old. But the point remains: 2/3 of T2 bot units are low-HP range-support units while the last is a direct-fire "tank".