Evan_ 1453

Signing up Evan_ 1448

Evan_ 1466

@Sainse said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:

@Evan_ said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:

In fact if you use up the hp on your shield it will recharge to 8k hp in 75 seconds which is over 100 hp per second. That is much more effective hp and regen than Seraphim's nano, which by the way is more expensive.

It’s incorrect approach. You may get 100 hp/s while recharging, but you don’t get it while not recharging. Meanwhile regen upgrade works all the time. You cannot compare them this way.

Yes this is a good point, and while it is strong when recharge does happen, you are right that they can't be compared that way. In fact another disadvantage is that being hit temporarily stops shield regen, which I did not mention.

I still believe shield is a viable and affordable upgrade, cheaper and more upfront hp than nano, that allows Aeon ACUs a good degree of survival when pushing. And stacking the extra range on top makes Aeon combat ACU very effective.

@AYAHUASCA_Dest said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:

@Evan_ U You need a lot of energy to upgrade everything and finally use it in combat. Meanwhile, your enemy has already built GUN, T2, and some PDT2 to protect the area.

You don't need every upgrade to use it though, Aeon first stage range and speed gun has the same functionality as other factions gun upgrade but is 3k energy cheaper and you can stagger the cost. Other factions ACUs get just gun and walk towards their opponent all the time often. Getting T2, gun, and some T2 pd is quite expensive early on, and certainly not something you can do while under fire from an opposing gun ACU. At the very least they will have to get it on their side of the map rather than in the center where they can lock down resources.

Aeon does indeed have weaknesses, I don't find them to be stronger than other factions, but they certainly aren't bad, and I see them regularly enough in 1v1, 3v3, and casts to say that players aren't abandoning them as you say.

Evan_ 1471 signing up!

@AYAHUASCA_Dest said in AEONS are GARBAGE!:

obsolete faction for combat. This is mainly because they can't have T2 upgrades on their combat ACU, they're useless in terms of frontline construction power, and they take an eternity to regenerate their HP.

I have to disagree here as Aeon combat ACUs are really good and situationally even the best. Aeon have the longest range gun ACU (which is huge), their upgrades are spread out which helps with storing energy to buy them, and the vision upgrade is very good for situational awareness. Yes the lack of hp regen is a weakness but Aeon can make up for it by taking less damage, and with their 8k shield which is quite affordable.

In fact if you use up the hp on your shield it will recharge to 8k hp in 75 seconds which is over 100 hp per second. That is much more effective hp and regen than Seraphim's nano, which by the way is more expensive. Granted you can't always get this effect, and shield doesn't benefit from vet, and draws power, but it is still quite strong and affordable. Add in Aeon's mobile shields which are very good, and a skilled Aeon player is extremely difficult to kill with normal units.

IMO the main weakness of Aeon ACUs is that you can't have ARAS and a high hp upgrade at the same time, the most you will get is T3 or chrono for a measly +2k hp. Also they don't have much in the way of tele-shenanigans. But I wouldn't call these glaring weaknesses.

Evan_ 1515 signing up!

Evan_ 1535

Ah ok, thanks that is nice to hear.

I have noticed numerous times that someone in a lobby or in a game will not show up when I search their name in chat. They are connected to FAF but not in Aeolus. I myself have sometimes tabbed back in to find I am not in Aeolus and have to reconnect. Occasionally even when starting the client.

Reconnecting to aeolus is easy and pretty much instant. However, if I don't manually check and find out I am disconnected then I won't rejoin. Usually I am open to joining games on good maps if someone pings me, Stuff like that can't happen without being in chat. Additionally it now looks like there are fewer people on FAF than there reallly is if you go by the number of people in chat. This can be demoralising if you see fewer people online including your friends, even if they are clearly playing games.

Earlier tonight at the end of a game someone really new to the game expressed sadness about not playing well. I was going to message him to join the discord so Grimplex or some other boss can help him ascend. Maybe he would try it or maybe he wouldn't, who knows. But this couldn't happen since he wasn't in chat, and I knew he was online because he joined another lobby. Anyways if anyone happens to see ReginaldVonCluck you can let him know that he doesn't have to dig his way out of -200 rating on his own.

I think a conversation on some measures to automatically connect people to aeolus is worthwhile. Maybe a few people are off of chat on purpose but there I do not believe that can be more than a tiny fraction. Of course if there is some other factor at play then I would appreciate learning about that as well.

I imagine the reason most people play is that it's comfortable. People don't like their plans disrupted, and having to adjust on the fly. DG has very little you can do in the way of raiding or bombing to stop people from getting their builds up. Even if you aren't doing well there is 5+ other people on the team and territorial gains/losses in mid often don't amount to much.

Other maps have much more excitement and fun but there is also the potential to get stomped quickly if you make a mistake. And games there often don't go up to the big T4/Arty fights that people like. A match doesn't have to have T4, T3, or even T2 to be exciting and have a lot of depth. However, there is just something fun about slowly growing your economy until you can build a nuke or arty, even if no one could have even tried to stop you from getting it.

My personal opinion is that TML should at least have a very low HP, so that you need to shield it or it can be taken out by bombers. In fact make it volatile as well.

@deribus said in 1v1 custom games should be unrated:

In my experience custom 1v1s are for practice, meme maps like 1v1 dual gap, or malicious rating manipulation, all of which shouldn't have an impact on a player's global rating.

No offense, but how much of this is actually your experience? I, and many others (when I have time and motivation to play) host custom 1v1 on maps we want to improve on, often maps hosted in the ladder pool. Just because a game is a 'practice game' does not mean it isn't competitive, or isn't a demonstration of who is better. There's also tournaments, which are a large source of 1v1 games.

Intentional rating manipulation certainly exists but IMO isn't worth removing 1v1 over. 1v1 dual gap is at the very least usually more of an overall skill demonstration than 6v6 dual gap.

Custom 1v1 is a great way of "correcting rating". A lower-rated player who keeps getting kicked due to rating can use 1v1 to gain enough points to get into the 1k range where more complex maps are typically hosted. Smilirarly, someone who feels overrated (like me when rusty) can host 1v1, and if my assumptions are correct then I go down to where I should be.

Hi guys, sorry about the increasing gaps between posts. This was a big commitment but I still intend to live up to it. I've put laddering mostly on hold while I search for a job. I'll try to play and post when I can so I don't lose my progress.

Day 12 (May 14): Well it has been a couple days now hasn't it? A few days ago I trained with Tagada, and he showed me some problems I had been overlooking (as well as some problems I hadn't been working to fix hard enough).

It is hard to summarize everything in a short post, and I am sure @Tagada can weigh in if I missed anything, but the few of the main points are as follows:

• My rally points are inneficient, often leading units to the wrong parts of the map or even suiciding them into enemy tanks. Tagada mentioned that rally points should typically be just behind the front lines (where your map control ends). This seems obvious in hindsight but I suppose I had been manually correcting where each unit goes all along, wasting precious time and apm.

• My unit queues have also been suboptimal, as I have found myself not removing labs and t1 transports. In most of my factories I have been building a mix of tanks, engineers, etc which can be somewhat difficult to manage. Tagada suggested having some factories for only tanks and scouts, and some producing engineers. I have tried this, and found it quite a bit more convenient. He suggested having factories assist other factories to copy the unit mixes and rally points. This saves time and allows me to change the mix and rally points for all of them at once.

• I react very slowly to things: Quite often when watching replays I see myself stalling for minutes on end without correcting it, or allowing my opponent to take out my expanding engies for free.. There isn't any magic solution to this other than to try and plan out things to be more effective ahead of time. I have been trying to have more game awareness for a while and will update you guys on the results.

• Eco management and decision making needs some work. Often I find my mistakes and bad decisions compounding on each other. For example, making less build power than I need will cause me to spend less mass than I should, building up a large bar of unneeded resources. With nothing else to put it into I absentmindedly put the mass into mex upgrades when I need tanks. Another basic thing Tagada had to explain to me was how to tech transition. T2 units are generally more efficient than t1 and so once you upgrade you generally want to scale back t1. In my games I found myself upgrading to T2 land while also building new t1 factories to spam tanks. This is a somewhat unfocused and conflicted plan. Tagada explained that I should either push for T2 and not make any new t1 spam factories or I should stay on T1 for slightly longer and try to gain an advantage there before heading to T2.

There are many other points he touched on, which will hopefully be displayed in video format soon. As for today's games, I tried to apply the lessons, however they were somewhat anticlimactic. In game 1, (replay 17038956), my opponent raided me and then after a brief fight overextended with his ACU. I made more of an attempt to catch stalls/overflows (I'm also starting to learn when I stall the most and why). I tried to make more of an effort to protect my engis although I still lost 2 of them to a single selen, which is not exactly optimal, but oh well.

In game 2 (replay 17040925) I pretty much doomed myself from the start. It was on a large 20x20 water mapgen. I went for a first transport which was promptly scouted, locked, and shot down. I got 4 engis off and quickly laid down a factory, however, building a mex first combined with a bad powerstall prevented me from completing it in time, and although I tried to spread out my engis, evidently it was not enough as I stll lost them all in one pass, right before the factory was completed. Combined with losing air the game was lost as long as my opponent didn't make a major blunder. I somehow took the main central island back and won a ton of reclaim, but even with that there was pretty much nothing I could do, and in the end I ctrl-k'ed.

I've decided to dedicate some time to practicing and learning some basic build-orders, as well as doing some sandboxing to figure out where and when I make decisions that lead to stalls or overflows. Fortunately there is tons of new interesting content from various other players, so I have a lot of resources to help me. I'll update you guys on how it goes.

Day 11 (May 12): Played 2 games today, and lost both. Both games seemed to highlight difficulty in defending against raids, even when I had tanks defending.

In game 1 (replay 17014918), a combination of an early powerstall, losing fights, and and investing in the wrong things cost me the game. I have figured out that I tend to overflow mass or hold large amounts in storage a while after a mass stall, this is often due to overcorrecting. I think I need to do less overcorrecting, even if it means mass stalling for slightly longer by not canceling and pausing every project. In the end, I had to keep my ACU involved in combat instead of upgrading, and investing in t2 mexes and t2 land put me far behind in t1 land, resulting in me getting overrun.

Game 2 (replay 17015030) was on Emerald craters, which is quite a tough map to play. Emerald craters is quite spread out, making it difficult to defend expanding engineers. In this game I did not attack as much as I should have, and was not able to defend against raids from bombers and labs. This meant a heavy loss of engineers which snowballed into being outscaled. I also underestimated how important land would be in the game. I think I believed land would not be as important as air. I was able to keep up for a while and take back and hold half the map for a while, however I was never able to make lastind damage on my opponent, and was eventually lost on all fronts.

Today's review is fairly short as I am somewhat tired. I have asked Tagada to train me tomorow, and will update you guys on the results.

@Tex that would be highly appreciated.

Day 10 (May 9th): Some more success today, although admittedly against a lower rated opponent. Today's game (Replay 17002038) took place on a very mass heavy mapgen map, something I could use a lot more experience on. From the start I was trying to follow the advice about what my strategy/win condition. would be. I decided on running a mix of T2 while I quickly scaled my main factory to T3 (not exactly the most original plan I know). I would use this to secure the corners which is where most of the reclaim would be. In the end my opponent somewhat underbuilt on tanks, and didn't scale as quickly, allowing me to catch and cook his ACU. It took a while to outscale him on land as I prioritized building way more engis to reclaim than he did, but eventually it paid off with the win.

I think I played this better than I would have at the start of this journey. I got most of the reclaim on my side, although there were a few gaps. I made an effort to scale up much quicker, and I made an effort to move engis to new reclaim fields before I stalled mass, rather than after. I mostly stayed somewhat balanced, although I had a brief stall while making my first t2 pgen.

I also made the mistake of not assisting my main factory with engineers. Overall I made too little buildpower in my base. I think I tricked my mind into thinking the buildpower would be used in my base, all while my brain went on autopilot sending them to the rock fields.

Overall though, I wasn't really punished for the mistakes I made, and the game ended before I could see any differences in scale. I have been looking for a replay to specifically ask for a critique. I think this game might be it, as I am not used to games that scale up this quickly and I am not sure how the game would have gone from here. I want to see how my analysis of even a short and simple game is different from other players. Would anyone be willing to watch this game (replay 17002038) and tell me what I could improve?

Thanks Tex, this is really good advice actually, a big problem I have been trying to work on is actually figuring out the reason why I lost (or sometimes even the reason why I won), and why a decision was bad, rather than if it was bad or not. As you mentioned, I need to extend this mindset down to the individual decisions I make ingame as well. I have also noticed in certain games that I don't commit to a strategy or win condition, this is another area that I can work on. Many of my wins have simply been my opponent suiciding, but that is starting to change as I face stronger players where I need to take the initiative to win.

Day 9 (May 7th): Today was not very eventful for my ladder career. I drew a game (replay 16979785) on Mirage. I have to say that I likely would have lost if not for my opponent's ACU wandering a bit too far forward.

I think I need to readjust how I raid on certain maps. I often go for one or two lab+scout pairs to attack enemy engis. It is not too big a deal if they get destroyed by a defending tank on my opponent's side of the map, however against enemy labs, especially the strong Aeon labs, I am likely to lose my own lab and immediately have to deal with my opponent's raid, at the least having to retreat an engi and in the worst case losing it. I am checking through the vault to see how other players handle this when playing as UEF. For now I think I will swap out a lab for a tank in some cases.

I also think I tried to expand a bit too quickly. I sent my engis out before grabing the rocks around my base and before I had built enough factories. Because Mirage is a small map, enemy labs can get to engis a bit quicker than I am used to, and as you can surmise from the previous paragraph, I lost my lab and then some engis to enemy raids before I could secure things.

The one thing that I have improved on is the lack of useless attacks where I know they won't work (I wrote a section about this on day 8). My opponent opened with multiple labs and a scout before engis, and his labs are a bit more expensive than mine, so even if I lose an engi to raids it can still be even enough to not force me to launch risky attacks like I tried in the last game.

Aside from that, there is not much to speak of. There are other things that I could have done better, but as mentioned before I am trying to focus on the most important things so I don't try to do everything at once . I have noticed there have been a few gaps here and there in the days where I play and update this thread. I absolutely intend to continue and finish this, so I'll try to play whenever I have free time.

Edit: Also wanted to write that I thoroughly enjoyed reading Exselsior and Crispweed's comments, and welcome more feedback and advice.

Thanks Exselsior, I'll check it out. I'm glad to hear you're back in the game. Let me know if you ever want to ladder.