@nuggets said in Username rules updates:
@firv said in Username rules updates:
Real question though, Why can you rename yourself anyway? How else are you susposed to identify someone?
Better question, why do you need to identify someone outside of a moderation setting?
Its nice to know who you are playing with, some people you want to avoid, some people you want to play with more often.
@maudlin27 said in Optional Split Teams Option for TMM:
I quite like the idea, but my main concern would be the potential for abuse that would be hard to detect (e.g. you're on VC with your group, and one of you gets put on the enemy team, and decides to feed your group info)
you can already do this right now just by queueing up as two seperate groups. So this change would not change anything for that regard
it would be amazing if i could just queue up wiht 4 friends and we get either a 3 v 3 with an other rando or a 4 v 4 with 3 randoms. Now we queue up as a group of 3 and a group of 2 and sometimes only 1 group gets a game and the other are just stuck there waiting
I never understood the the idea of: The game is pretty much in the bag so just quit now coz anything beyond this point is a waste of time.
I guess your goal while playing FAF is not to have fun, but only to win? And if you lose you don't have fun?
Just because you are losing doesn't mean you can't have fun. And if you arent having fun while you are winning but haven't won yet, then you need to look to yourself and ask yourself why aren't you having fun
TML com is not rare, it is however quite expensive and requires alot of power. TML launcher is alot cheaper
So real question though. Did cybran really need a buff on land?
@ftxcommando said in Adjust Recall:
Fun comes from having a chance at winning. If that wasn’t necessary, we wouldn’t have every 5th dude under 800 rating complaining about smurfs that ruin their game. Likewise when the chance of losing is gone there isn’t anything engaging in the game anymore. The people complaining about this have gone through the motions of how to end these games hundreds upon hundreds of times. It’s like complaining at chess GMs for resigning early when there is a CHANCE that someone makes an obvious blunder. That’s why people would rather move on to a new game where both exist again.
If fun comes from chance of winning then 50% of the games you play arent fun?
Why does the game become less fun when your chances of winning are getting lower?
@willowisppsi said in The Billy Nuke needs to be nerfed:
5 - Tele Billy is insane.
Tele billy is only insane if you have zero shields on your grid. 1 T3 shield stops a billy completly
T1 is always good at swarming t2/t1. And looking at the replay thats exactly what happenend. besides he spend alot more mass into hover then you did in navy, so its no wonder he pushed back. But if you instead of battleships made frigates, you could have pushed all those floaty arties back. Aeon destroyers are just not good at handeling spam, because they have high damage low RoF.
@caliber said in The Billy Nuke needs to be nerfed:
I agree that billy is too strong, one shoting 30-40 or more bricks/percy ect is insane.
bricks should never get billied, as cybran has the perfect counter. Sure you lose maybe your first group, but after that you should have a loyalist or 5 in your army and be pretty much imune against billy
@Deribus said in T2 torpedo turrets are awful:
@IndexLibrorum said in T2 torpedo turrets are awful:
T2 torps being outranged only by (missle) cruisers would make more sense.
This is already the case for UEF and Sera. Their destroyers have equal range to T2 torpedo defence because they have missile cruisers for long range damage. Aeon and Cybran don't have missile cruisers so they have longer range destroyers.
i get why thus destroyers dont outrange torp defence, but surely that woudl then beat the use of torp defense, what do you build it for then?
Aeon can still beat torp defense with floaty, cybran is just fucked I guess XD
it would be amazing if i could just queue up wiht 4 friends and we get either a 3 v 3 with an other rando or a 4 v 4 with 3 randoms. Now we queue up as a group of 3 and a group of 2 and sometimes only 1 group gets a game and the other are just stuck there waiting
@waffelzNoob said in Sera navy is just too Oppressive:
10 UEF subs dealt 5325 damage to 1 atlantis.
10 Sera subs dealt 10804 damage to 1 atlantis.
33 UEF subs (mass equiv) killed an atlantis with 14 of them surviving
33 sera subs (mass equiv) killed an atlantis with 29 of them surviving20 Seraphim subs beat 20 UEF subs with 11 remaining in "normal" scenario, 10 remaining when they were teleported into eachother.
this guy delivering the numbers thanks!
but yes that does prove the opressiveness of sera subs
@maudlin27 said in Optional Split Teams Option for TMM:
@Firv said in Optional Split Teams Option for TMM:
you can already do this right now just by queueing up as two seperate groups. So this change would not change anything for that regard
To not change anything means assuming the two separate groups will always be assigned to the same game which won't always be the case. The change would make things much easier and more reliable for someone seeking to do this. Whether that makes it a big enough issue to outweigh the benefits I dont know, but it clearly makes it easier and increases the risk of such behaviour.
you underestimate the player pool. When i queue up 4 with people we often do groups of 2. 9 out of 10 times we get a match against each other
@maudlin27 said in Optional Split Teams Option for TMM:
I quite like the idea, but my main concern would be the potential for abuse that would be hard to detect (e.g. you're on VC with your group, and one of you gets put on the enemy team, and decides to feed your group info)
you can already do this right now just by queueing up as two seperate groups. So this change would not change anything for that regard
now do mass equivelant t1 subs vs atlantis, esp sera subs
@phong said in The Billy Nuke needs to be nerfed:
My biggest complaint about the billy is it's insane range. It is too safe compared to other end-game upgrades, and less fun than it could be as a consequence. I propose making the projectile around 20% slower, thus a bit less useful against armies unless the player takes on a bit of risk by closing in. I wish effective use of it encouraged transport play more.
The counters to it should remain unit spread or mixing build power into the army rather than mobile shields in my opinion, because they require more attention.
You say its less safe, but all other coms are waaaaay more tanky then UEF com when it has billy, if it has teleport and billy its even weaker coz it has no defensive upgrades at that point. So in that aspect it is decently balanced
@caliber said in The Billy Nuke needs to be nerfed:
I agree that billy is too strong, one shoting 30-40 or more bricks/percy ect is insane.
bricks should never get billied, as cybran has the perfect counter. Sure you lose maybe your first group, but after that you should have a loyalist or 5 in your army and be pretty much imune against billy
@willowisppsi said in The Billy Nuke needs to be nerfed:
5 - Tele Billy is insane.
Tele billy is only insane if you have zero shields on your grid. 1 T3 shield stops a billy completly
@kilatamoro said in Why do so many things have friendly fire disabled?:
mselves from other RTS games in that it is a
and in a simulation you still want stuff to be fun.
If flak would do as much damage to your enemies as it would do to your own planes. Why would you ever build flak?
You've build flak and your air player be like, yeah I cant help you you got flak in your base, I will kill my own planes helping you.
Yeah that is so much fun