Posts made by Gibsaw

"Uh, Oh. please stop searching..."

Generally speaking, I know what I'm doing when I press "join".

Can we lose this and just de-queue and join the game? Or at least make it a "confirm"? rather than having to go to another tab and leave the queue.

@sladow-noob said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

and the first point simply proves for me that you apparently didn't read anything

Ummm. No... I read it.. and I don't agree.. I routinely see most telesnipes dying achieving nothing...

But that wasn't really my point. I didn't say "balance sucks" or "change XY". My point is a bit of frustration with change for the sake of change. I DO follow the "reasons" but they're often debatable. One person's OP is another's "part of the game".

Things that were fine, get adjusted or outright removed, such as UEF teleport now being basically pointless replacing the tech upgrade. i.e. T3 tele was the UEF's point of difference for teleporters...

You know that classic gag about someone attempting to adjust a kitchen table by shortening a leg... and by the time they've finished it's a coffee fable?

That's where my comment about reverting to vanilla is coming from... It's ending up further and further from the original game...

@jip

well, I thought I did give some examples... I could comprehensively go through and bitch, but I'm mainly voicing a little frustration with tweaking of things that were well understood and ok.

For example in this particular patch, changed the ASF hp and dps to change the dynamic at T1 and T2, and if I read it correctly - nerfed the Janus, which was never a particularly tough plane.

One other commentor made the point that a lot of the changes seem "anti-snipe", and that seems a reasonable comment. There's a bunch of threats - from fire-beetles to mercies... that have been nerfed - when they had their costs, risks and counters.

... If I had to request anything, I'd love to see the com make less bizarrely suicidal pathing decisions when being mobbed.

@shadysocks said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

@storm said in Pending Balance Changes Feedback Thread:

PD everywhere

You don't even need PD everywhere. 3 tac missiles will do

Not sure I agree with this... TAC will generally miss a com on the move, and from that moment you hear "commander under attack"...

... it's a big ask to select, aim, launch and hit with TAC missiles before you die...

Some of the changes defy logic.

UEF was never a great tele incursion com under any circumstances... It was always incredibly risky to tele in with no stealth or shield. The billy replaced your ticket home... and was always easily countered with anti-tac.

The UEF teleporter being at the cost of any tech upgrade is ludicrous. It now might as well not exist, compared with cybran and seraphim.

Not saying there hasn't been good work done... Things like performance improvements to air battles... com upgrades being queueable, SACU presets, and mobile T3 AA - but there's been an awful lot of "fiddling" that has made things that were sorta-the-point of some factions pointless.

UEF are tough'ish and can build.
SERA are real tough but expensive.
Cyran are cheap but fragile.
AEON had unusual advantages like range vs hp.

I feel like the game is being ruined because of a few people have some pet peeves about ways they've lost.

stuff that was risky as hell, but could work well...

• tele-snipe didn't need nerfing... It generally results in the cybran com dying.
• put UEF's com upgrades back the way they were. (see above)
• bring back T1 com transports... It's not "OP".. ONE inty can end your game..

I'm at the point of feeling this entire "balance patch" needs to be reverted. In fact, I'd even go as far as saying to mostly revert the balance to vanilla FA and start again.

Yep.. me too..

Client Version: 2023.3.0
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No redirect uris provided
at com.faforever.client.login.OAuthValuesReceiver.receiveValues(OAuthValuesReceiver.java:55)
at com.faforever.client.login.LoginController.onLoginButtonClicked(LoginController.java:272)
at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:77)
at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)

@leonpie said in How come you don't play ladder?:

<snip>...stopped playing because to me the game was only about make the live of the opponent miserable

Yeah, I feel ya... This is the reason I stopped playing quake. When the true winning strategy is to deny your opponent the ability to even meaningfully participate, it feels pointless.

@blackyps I didn't mean it "missed a match by accident"... I meant it missed a cycle. (i.e. could not find a match)

As I said - I've watched people abandon 26 person queue because it won't match an 8 player game for many cycles. I know there's criteria for a match... but it's not discernable to the user.

The idea for shortening (or eliminating) the cycle would:

• permit one (or more) games to launch quickly if a queue change made one or more matches work.
• allow it to loosen it's criteria quicker. (I assume this happens after a while?)

I know I frequently abandon the queue for a custom game for these reasons.. I can't be alone.

Perhaps we need a casual queue - or some adjustable ranges... I certainly wouldn't mind losing if it meant I actually got a game.

Anyway, those are some thoughts.

I do play ladder.... but not 1v1, as I'm simply not good enough.

However, there are also some practical matters that the devs could look at, that might encourage the queues to fill again.

• I am finding that in the 4v4, it seems often take 20+ players before you get a "match". I've seen a 20+ player queue miss cycle after cycle after cycle, and dwindle to zero without a match.
• I could be wrong, but it feels like it can only launch one match per cycle.
• 90 seconds for the ladder to cycle is way too long for the number of cycles it seems to miss.
• It would be good to know where you are in the queue. Am I even in consideration for a match, yet?

I actually see no reason to wait the 90 seconds to indicate a possible match. If it's "missing" because it can't match, then surely the trigger for it trying again, should be people joining. (maybe with a short client refresh like 30 seconds - or possibly a push?)

• It should attempt a match as soon as the minimum number is satisfied.
• If it can't match, then it should try again, every time someone joins.
• If there's no match, then it should say why. I have no idea what the criteria are, but I know I'm waiting cycle after cycle after cycle.

I don't have the bandwidth right now to get familiar with this codebase, but I hope that's some food for thought.

I'd second this... making it movable.

It pretty much halts all access to the menus.

It would be nice if the dialog that pops up when there is a network issue was not a modal, immovable thing that blocks access to the menus... i.e. It would be good if it could be moved or even minimised.

Also, it's worth mentioning that it's not really clear who's having an issue, whether we should wait or start ejecting/quitting.. i.e. are hosts ACTUALLY uncontactable or simply out of sync etc.. Any help there would be good.