Hi all.

It would be really useful if one, before adding a foe, could write a reason for doing so.

To keep those foes organized, you know?

For example: a lager spoiled a game, you look him up in the #aeolus, right mouse press on his nick, select Add Foe, and a small popup window with a line for a text appears, you write a reason and press enter. Next time when you are looking through your foes, you right mouse press on a foe and see a reason for being a foe written under his nick.

But why? You add that one special foe for lags or something else. Some time passes, foes getting added, and now there are many foes in the list. You going through the list, and suddenly, you can't remember why that one special player is in the Foe List.

Reason For Adding A Friend would also be useful, I guess.

Well, you asked.

1. Rampant, unpunished lagers. REHOST 24/7 Self explanatory.

2. Toxicity.

Some examples:

2.1. People blaming others (can take variety of forms, including insults) for their own low performance (happens).

2.2. Some 1+ k nobody treating lower rank players with neglect and disrespect. Usually goes something like this: you have 500 - you are nothing, but I have 1000 so I am the SUPREME COMMANDER.

2.3. Russian language in the mixed nationalities teams. LOL

2.4. "GIVE ME AN ENGINEER" text marker. To who? Leads to toxic reaction, therefore toxic.

2.5. Add your own example.

3. Lobby Kicks - yes, this one, THE ONE.

People, who should not have the right to host games, are hosting games.

What?

Some players create a lobby with Insufficient information in the lobby name.
For example: some host is convinced that all Australia players lag (NOT TRUE), does he write "ONLY EU" in the lobby name? No. So what? So, this: a player from Australia joins that lobby and waits, sometimes the host kicks him instantly (best scenario), sometimes the host waits till the lobby is full and only then kicks the Aussie.
Result: how would you feel when you have wasted your time just to get kicked with reason: SORRY (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). LOL

One more example, because this point is THE ONE.

No "NO GRAYS" in the lobby name, grays join that lobby, they wait, they get kicked. But why they got kicked? Because some idiot host did not add "NO GRAYS" to the lobby name! Result? People are left with that special feeling of their wasted time. Real nice.

And now...

4. CPU Snobs - this one is also HUGE.

Before I proceed to this one, to remove all prejudice, my CPU Score is 264. So I know what am I writing about.

Anyway... What's a CPU Snob? Well, CPU Snobs basically are people who are obsessed with the size of other player's CPU. You can compare them to dogs sniffing other dog's rears.

So what? Well, CPU Snobs are the number one TOXICITY source in the FAF.
More details, please. Okay.

4.1. Lobby name has no CPU limit. Player joins, waits, gets kicked, usual reasons: SORRY ; CPU ; SLOW - three separate reasons.

4.2. PLAYER WITH CPU 251 (FOR EXAMPLE) JOINS A LOBBY WITH NO CPU LIMIT, HE WAITS, THE HOST DOES NOT KICK, LOBBY GETS FULL, SOME OTHER PLAYER ASKS THE HOST TO KICK THE PLAYER WITH 251 CPU, THE SMART HOST KICKS THE PLAYER WITH 251 CPU.

DO YOU SEE THE SHIRE AMOUNT OF SHIT THAT IS PLAGUING THE FAF?

Some will say: what can be done, people are people?
True, just leave everything as it is ;D

In the cases of CPU the FAF itself is cultivating the DISCRIMINATING atmosphere, by providing the numerical CPU Score.
But we want to play without slow people - lame ass excuse.
CPU Score is seen as some smart innovative feature, lol.
Removing it is no solution, but tweaking it in a way that it does not cultivate CPU Snobbing is the way to go, developers may think otherwise, up to them.

Now, I might have missed something, but I think it is more than enough to get a clear picture of where the FAF is at regarding casual players.

Thank you all, friends and foes, it is fun playing the current best RTS with you.

Thank you Chris Taylor.

Need dat Seton's queue...
;D

@zeldafanboy

Super!

Your work?

@wikingest said in Why would you have left FAF?:

Ctrl+click on "small guy" icon on scoreboard asks for engi already. The same with asking power and mass. Shift+click gives unit, or in case of power/mass, gives 25%.

I did not know that! This is so counter-intuitive, imagine a noob figuring this out on his own.

Other case, if information like this was added to the loading screen tips.

Hi ALL!

This post is addressed ONLY to people in charge of FAF balancing.

Look:

Map: Dual Gap

Is this balance?

Is mindless spam skill? NO, IT IS NOT.

UNIT CAP much? Large unit caps encourage people to mindlessly spam units without any penalty for neglecting (!) how much they build. If the game lags on ANY machine when huge quantities of ASF fight each other, this means it wasn't meant to be played like this, and remember, Supreme Commander is from 2007 (!!!).

Force unit cap for ranked games.

"Good CPU's only" LOL GL

@zeldafanboy said in 150€ King of Crazyrush Tournament:

@fiercelv

Yes, I made the artwork for Javi I'm recently part of the FAF news team

It's really good, like REALLY GOOD. Perfection.
Totally keeping it.

All Welcome = ALL Welcome, ALL, LOL

@arma473
Found it, Gameplay tab in the Options.

@ftxcommando said in Premade Teams in the upcoming TMM 4 v 4 Queue:

Nexus premade with Tagada, enemy team is random of Yudi, Farm, Turbo, or idk EcoNoob

Tagada and Nexus aren’t guaranteed a win.

Also, it is obvious that premades introduce inaccuracy to the system. But it’s incredibly not fun to not be able to play with your friends, this is why plenty of games allow for premade in competitive matchmaking. FAF does not have the playerbase to put premade against premade so you can’t do that, but lots of people would also not play any matchmaker if they couldn’t play with their friends.

Also, parties allow you to control for the type of game you want. For example, if Nexus and Tagada only want high quality top level 2v2s, they queue together and have no risk of the more likely situation of being matched with an 800 against one another which neither wants to play. Parties allow both of them to artificially select against this and allows random 2000s or another premade team of 2000s to match against them.

And yes, this extends to new players. Some guy wants to introduce FAF to his friend? Queue up as a party for matchmakers. Some trainer wants to help somebody? Queue up for a matchmaker? Some new player made a friend in matchmaker? Queue up and play some more with your friend.

Your examples are purely focused on the short term of dudes gaining rating for being “better as a team” without looking at the fact this means

1. they are actually playing the matchmaker
2. they gain rating and therefore will play better players anyway, likely making them better players in the long term

I like your answer, you ain't fooling around.

I have some thoughts.

"dudes gaining rating for being “better as a team” " against not a team (!) - key point in the problem. Rating for what? For beating random players?

Sure, you mentioned the high level matchmaking, I understand, 2 k+ you can't go wrong, but I am more concerned about the average players. Some of those "better as a team" dudes won't come even close to the high level matchmaking, but they still gonna get matched at that average level against common players, rating aside, they gonna win in an unfair game, loosing in a unfair challenge is NOT FUN.

There is a lot of players in FAF (in games in general, especially in RTS) who are obsessed with the rating, they will exploit this "Friends want to play together" approach and just "farm" on those unsuspecting casual players. We all know what coordinated teamwork can accomplish in Supreme Commander. And again, loosing because you got matched against a clan is not fair. Someone be like: well, life's not fair. I know, but in this case you can make it fair.

My general idea is separate 4v4 Pemade Team and 4v4 Random Team queues and corresponding ratings: 4v4 team rating (not to be confused with clan rating, which is non existent) and 4v4 solo rating. <--- Edited this paragraph.

/ / / / /

FAF is about competition after all, people do care about their rating, to variable extent, but still, they do care, so there is no place for inaccuracies regarding one's rating. People, who reached their rating fairly should be far above those, who were "farming" rating on some random players.

Friends in a team and a proper team (with tag or not) are different things all together.

I don't have anything against people wanting to play with their friends (they should play against other friends (lol)), what I do have against is towards those, who will abuse the mixed queue just to gain personal rating, and going on spreading toxicity in FAF, just as it occasionally happens in common lobbies (premades hosting a game, or joining one and be like: 1, 2, 3, 4 same team).

Loosing is okay, as long as the challenge was fair.

While playing 4v4 TMM I noticed a probable patern that causes recurring matches that end on the "Setting up automatch..." window.

After noticing the patern I checked 3 times before creating this topic, all 3 times produced same results.

The developers should test this, because if this is the case, this cycle causes serious damage to the 4v4 queue.

Description of the patern as follows:

1. Automatched.

2. Supreme Commander launches.

3. I am stuck at the "Setting up automatch..." window, nothing happens, the match doesn't start, maybe someone has suffered an internet connection issue.

4. On the "Setting up automatch..." window I press "Cancel" button and instantly join the 4v4 queue again.

5. I get automatched and see "Match launching" written in green letters in the client, but the Supreme Commander doesn't launch.

Important: most likely at this point other players are stuck at the "Setting up automatch..." window, now (!), if some of them after waiting presses the "Cancel" button and joins the queue, he starts the cycle all over again.

6. After roughly 30 seconds the "Match launching" text disappear and nothing happens.

7. I try to join the 4v4 queue again and get this error message:

Message from server
Can't join a queue while in state JOINING

To fix this I need to close and start the FAF client again.

Also important to note that not pressing the "Cancel" button on the "Setting up automatch..." window but instead waiting for the client to close the window and notify that the automatch failed and joining the queue afterwards doesn't cause any problems.

I figure pressing the "Cancel" button on the "Setting up automatch..." window, joining the queue afterwards and getting automatched causes the issue.

Cycle is repeated if another player on the next automatch does the same actions, chances are that the cycle can be repeated a number of times in a row, resulting in consecutive failed automatches, rendering the 4v4 TMM queue inactive.

@Sheikah

What I meant is a game besides Supreme Commander.
Important to note that playing "not so demanding hardware-wise" games does not cause any issues while being in the queue and getting automatched.
Automatch notification -> ALT + F4

@Blackyps

While writing my previous post, I had thoughts that the general reduction of the pop timer to something less than three minutes would improve the queue.

What is this time bonus you mentioned? How does it work?

Solution to the example 3 sounds super effective.

TMM 4v4 Full Share is super FUN! Great job!

I was so wrong thinking that No Share for TMM 4v4 would be better, not to mention my false assumptions about premade teams abusing the queue...

Regarding the three minute wait time:

The three minute wait time kinda sticks a stick in a spinning wheel of TMM 4v4, because given specific circumstances it sometimes manages to drive people away from the queue.

Here are some examples:

1. There are more than 8 players and less than 16 players in queue, after the three minute wait time eight lucky players get automatched and the rest (less than 8 ) are left to wait again, at this point, quite often, some of those who didn't get automatched leave the queue. The three minute wait time is one of the motivators for leaving in this situation. Doubts that other players will join the queue - another motivator.

2. There are 8 players in queue, wait time expires and nobody gets automatched, and the three minute wait time kicks in, again (!) - often players leave at this point, not wanting to wait that long again (!), considering that there still is a big possibility of not being automatched while having enough players in the queue, again (!). Not to mention the time spent waiting for the eight players to gather in the queue to begin with.

3. There are 20+ players in queue, after the three minute wait time only 8 of them are automatched, and the rest 12+ are forced to wait another three minutes for no reason. At this point the three minute wait time combined with the perplexity caused by the fact that there are still more than 8 players in the queue and they still didn't get automatched drives people away firmly.

I think these examples are the most prominent ones.

Also the long three minute wait time indirectly causes more failed automatches.
Because just sitting and waiting is boring, people start other games, and when they're automatched, the Supreme Commander process fails to start because active processes get in conflict over the available resources of the system, what leads to an failed automatch (encountered this with some games while being in the queue, totally not on purpose).

Anyway, hope this information will help the developers to make the 4v4 TMM even more good!

@eternal said in ★ Ethereal FAF Client Highlights ★:

@fiercelv there will be options to hide games messages/games

Nice!

@eternal said in ★ Ethereal FAF Client Highlights ★:

@fiercelv ofc

What about this?

https://forum.faforever.com/topic/3364/visibility-of-a-game-lobby-hosted-by-a-foe?_=1644828214490

Can you make those foe-host lobbies go away?

An option alike "Hide Foe Messages", but instead of messages it will hide foe-host lobbies?

No one seems to be interested in this besides me and that one other person.

Can I still use classic client?
Yeah, real dick move, I know, but I thought we are way past DOWNLORD'S faf client...

@mazornoob said in Visibility Of A Game Lobby Hosted By A Foe:

Or, again, we could just color friends and foes in the games tab. All of the convenience, none of the compulsion.

The idea is no visibility for foe-host lobbies what's so ever, like total black list or ignore.

I get a feeling that the community doesn't like the idea, I won't support this idea any more.

@thomashiatt

Good point.

But it seems logical not to see the foe-host lobbies.

If you don't like something around you, you can try fixing the issue (which I did, by creating this topic (the "try" part, because I can't do the "fix" part myself)), or you be like: nah, I will just look at it differently, no change needed.

I am not forcing the developers to create anything, the idea itself is logical, an logical addition to the client, that is the only reason why this topic even exists.

By the way, isn't it kinda funny, that you can play with your foe-hosts and they can't play with you-host? : )))

I want to be able to filter out only those game lobbies that are hosted by a foe, not lobbies with foes inside as players.

Adding such filter should not be a problem, because there are already filters alike: Show private games and Show modded games.

I really don't care, either I don't see games with foe as a host by help of a filter, or simply just because the host is in my foe list.

Why you should be reminded about existence of a foe by seeing his lobby? For me it seems reasonable not to see those foe-host lobbies.

A host-foe is a specific type of foe, it's not your average lager or some hater, and I will make some examples why:

1. Foe-host can be a premade only player (here we go with the premades again...), which means that he hosts a game to play with his premades against some random players. For what reasons it may be is irrelevant to this topic.

2. Foe-host can be an unjust kicker of players. The lobby name has no "100 games minimum" in the title, players with less than 100 games join and get kicked. Also good example would be kicked while there is no "no specific location" in the title. No CPU limit in the title - same story.

And for those who see someone kicking like this and still playing with that host, you are encouraging this kind of behavior in the host, just letting you know.

3. Foe-host simply can be a person who you don't like, same way as someone might dislike me.

And I ask again: why one should be forced to be reminded of existence of those foe-hosts? Less trash in everyone's life, you know ; )

Hi all!

Yeah, I'm back.

First of all, sorry for the excessive toxicity here and there back in the day...

Now that this is out of the way, let's begin.

Is there a way to make the FAF Client not show game lobbies hosted by foes?

This one is a real party killer for me, here how it goes:
Feeling in the mood to play some Supreme Commander, opening Custom Games tab and I see a lobby hosted by a foe, and that automatically evokes negative emotions - driving away the mood for Supreme Commander action.

Now some of you might think: damn, what is with you and foes?
I can explain: FAF has a huge number of players, lot's of them are cool, decent people and some of them, for me, represent something I really don't like (won't give any examples, we all have our own views on what's good and what's bad). Water is wet.

I don't see a point in seeing a game lobby hosted by someone with who I don't and won't play.

So, is there a way to turn off visibility of lobbies hosted by foes?

If not, do you think that an option should be added to the client?