@waffelzNoob said in 1v1 Ladder:
btw bringing back a !to ladder command and the client notifying you when someone in your range is searching are probably the 2 best ways of bringing back some activity to ladder
Not when chat disconnects are as prevalent as they are, you’re better off with discord pings.
I thought they got buffed last patch to be 2.4 like GC so I edited it. I just manifested by own proposal to buff them I think. So sad.
Percies are slower than chickens and same speed as GCs let alone t3 units. They have zero agency in choosing fights and are horrible at combat because of it. The best usage of percies is keeping anything away from your actual damage dealers, which for UEF is often just spearheads.
HP is overstated, percies have 5.62 hp per mass, harbs have 5.47.
DPS is just wrong with .26 dps per mass for percies and .38 dps per mass for harbs. (Spearhead is .6 btw)
Range is the only real thing there isn’t an answer for, and that’s what GC exists for. If percies are forced to move into harbs, they lose the engagement when both are in range of each other.
It’s way more controversial of a take to consider percy better than harb, percy is a unit that needs buffs even.
If these are the Aeon weaknesses, it contains three of their strengths.
The destro is still the 2nd best destro, of course it’s worse than the best destro but both salem and valiant suck against exodus.
Harbs are absolutely not just good early on, they are the overall highest utility t3 land unit and are good across the entire t3-t4 stage. They are great at drops, at raids, at small number attacks, and at large number attacks. The only unit arguably as useful as harb is brick since it got buffed to just be a strictly better percy, putting percy over harb is completely nuts and not based in reality. Percy is like the 3rd best t3 unit for UEF let alone a unit to put into an argument on strong t3 units.
GCs are the perfect complement to harbs. Harbs suffer late game from not being able to force engagements due to range. A GC not only provides excellent HP tanking but it also forces essentially anything that isn’t a mega/fatboy into a fight when supported by either harbs or potentially snipers. Talking about GC dps just sounds like you aren’t using GCs properly nor do you understand what purpose it serves alongside harbs. You thinking this is how you use it just goes to show how strong it is, because you can just meathead spam GCs and still get completely solid results.
Czars are just really big restos, you’re not supposed to just fly over sams and have it die. I'll admit it isn't a strength tho.
Most players have no idea what they're doing. They aren't picking factions based on what is actually good. I still get 1200 rated players telling me Aeon T2 is bad because they watched a Heaven video 8 years out of date. The faction pick rates have hardly ever adjusted based on meta strength across time. UEF and Cybran have always been the top 2 factions by a large margin, Sera and Aeon have always been the bottom 2. This was true when Cybran was the dominant faction, it was true when UEF was, it was true when Aeon was. Aeon was picked less than UEF when they had all their current advantages + a t2 tank only slower than t1 land scouts + chrono autowinning any engagement prior to t3 + a gun acu that was impossible for 2 factions to counter outside of indirect/air combat + a destro good enough to trade mass efficiently against battlecruisers. Using overall player data is bad data. I could have literally told you Index's results without seeing them just because of paying attention to these trends from years ago, it's always been around 30/30/20/20 as a general rule split. You could remove the UEF t1 tank from the game and it would still be picked more than Aeon.
If you look at 1800+ faction pick rate, you have a more robust view of faction strength or at least you did more in the past but these days basically everybody plays random. So the only area you really have to look at for a statistical sample on faction strength is high rated tournaments where people are invested in winning games.
In generic land teamgames, Aeon and Cybran are probably top 2. In generic navy teamgames, Sera and Aeon. In a teamgame air slot, Aeon and UEF would be my generalist ratings if I had to pick top 2 factions in roles.
If you think Aeon is a bad faction, you're the reason it's bad when you roll it. It's incredibly strong and is ALWAYS an inclusion in your team faction rollout in a tournament because of the generic strength the faction provides. It's extremely difficult to thing of a situation where you're actually making a mistake for going with Aeon. Its weakness is entirely reliant on some snowball t1 stage which is extremely rare to exist in teamgames compared to 1v1.
gg that was the only thing sera air had over aeon on t1 stage
The huge risk being OC’ing them before they can shoot or what? This whole post just sounds like you dunno what you’re talking about
Aeon is the generally best t2 land, best t3 land, best t2 air, best t3 air and basically 2nd best across navy now. You could even argue they have the t1 air advantage since they have like the quickest loading transport and the best lab to put into it alongside an AOE bomber that granted has some micro quirks.
aeon player shaking and crying rn because they no longer have a pillar equivalent faster than a mech marine and a min 5 acu upgrade that makes you the only acu to hard counter gun upgrades and bricks/percies
they might have to actually watch the map as they play instead of interact with the subway surfer on their 2nd monitor, unlucky
@waffelzNoob said in Proposal for [Challenge Accounts] | Feedback Wanted!:
@IndexLibrorum said in Proposal for [Challenge Accounts] | Feedback Wanted!:
This might be a consequence of the rating in the beginning not yet being settled. An account that already has a bit of a 'steady' rating at ~800 would help, I think.
Or at 0 rating, so that <800 can be instructed. And perhaps that trueskill deviation be decreased manually at some points if possible, so that a winstreak doesn't bring the account from e.g. 1200 to 1800 too quickly?
@IndexLibrorum said in Proposal for [Challenge Accounts] | Feedback Wanted!:
Not sure what you mean with 'not play more than one game at a time'. You mean per day, or?
One game per few hours, because if players play what is pretty much a smurf account even twice in a row it may demotivate them from queueing more.
This would mean the content isn't streamable but guide videos are still great for putting out educational contentRating compensation should also be considered so that players won't complain about losing elo in unfair games
This already happens with "road to X" series in chess. People can get to 2000 or 2500 within a day or two. You would need to give the account an adjusted uncertainty and as long as it is roughly around FAF's tau value it shouldn't be changing much more than the change you yourself currently see every game. So for 1v1 it would be like 20-40 rating points a game depending on who they match with.
A pause going for longer than 2-3 minutes with no update on ETA does bother me and I will begin telling the lobby I plan on unpausing the game. At that point you would have been better off telling us to rehost. I don't have the luxury to walk away and do whatever while randomly waiting for you to get back, I have to stare at my 1 or 2 engies (these pauses always seem to happen right at game start for whatever reason).
I imagine somebody is wondering how that applies to "immediate unpausing" and the answer is that if you do unpause, somebody is always bothered by it and pauses again and you go through the dance of using up their unpauses.
In later game situations, if the pause is THAT long the more responsible thing is to give your base and ask for it back when you are back. I have done this before and it's been fine without making everyone twiddle their thumbs.
If a team doesn't show up you have substitutes. Having 9 teams would mean you either have an awkward bracket or you got to tell a team that does show up to not play. Generally people that didn't get drafted should still show up in the case of a need for a substitute.
Hello.
I propose to remove the factory producer and inclination to consummate the unit.
This is not a secret and everyone does it. Therefore, it does not affect the game at all.
It only forces you to click more and pay attention to useless actions.
There will be no need to write and maintain scripts for consummation. The code will become simpler.
You just need to increase the cost of the units and make engie consummate unit. And that's it.
I hope at least this proposal will pass.
There’s less tournaments because nobody feels like investing half their weekends into hosting them every month anymore.
I’m guessing it means you just take the 8 players and put them in a random game at the end?
Ending a tournament with the most lopsided game of the event is pretty disappointing. If the winner of 1700- could actually compete with the winner of 1800+, there was no point to dividing the brackets in the first place.
Might as well as play with one of the senton variants that lower mid reclaim if you’re going to prohibit mid walking.
@skrat said in MapGen 3v3 SHOWDOWN:
@insidiousnoob Where are the screenshots?
or just use
https://faforever.com/leaderboards
if the ratings arent close enough to the rating cap for it to be a concern to use the frozen ratings
If this game where billy did functionally nothing to contribute to the game state being lost is a perfect example of its power, I think that just speaks for itself. There's a reason your analysis is saying "if we factor in that he was air and had spare t3 pgens" he has spare t3 pgens because his team has two players with no opponent and he can do fun stuff rather than actually playing efficiently.