Don't worry, it could be worse...

...and this is how it should look like

How the first Novax satellites were transported in the UEF space program

Since Seton's is the holy place I feel the need to comment.

In my opinion "King of Setons" tourney should have no rating limit, you want the kings and not the princes and princesses, the best of the best, right?
Mixing in NOMADS with its own specific balance I feel dilutes the "Seton's" part. A King of Seton's tourney should emphasize on the Seton's gameplay and not who finds the best Nomads balance exploits?

This tourney with the current ruleset being honored with the "King of Setons" title feels a tad questionable.

I sincerely think disabling pings & markers for dead players should not be done. There are so many other avenues to cheat in terms of what the change is trying to "fix" if observers are on, not to mention by having observers on in the first place you knowingly open that box anyway and risk players leaking information about the game.

To be honest this change feels quite absurd to me and I'm amazed it even progressed so far that it is live in fafdevelop now. The pros for the change are almost negligible, meanwhile removing pinging and helping your teammates once dead is a core feature of the game supcom players and the community have used every day for years and years now.

There are blinking lights?

With the current energy crisis better shut them down.

IMO this would be a deal breaker for the change: For some factions you can no longer build across a cliff, this is faction-dependent

Any "normal" player would maybe make the mistake once or twice, building navy facs too close to each other and cause pathfinding issues, after that they know how to space them. I don't think making this idiotproof justifies the huge impact balance-wise it would result in.

Everyone encounters lag in multiplayer games at some point.
Remove the guesswork and witch-hunting of "who is lagging" by storing more persistent connection quality data of the players per game session. Currently we mainly have ping that is easy to look at but often isn't very informative. The connection stat screen has packet loss and shows who is behind in the sim, which people who know how to interpret can much faster and reliably identify the source of the lag. Two usable metrics from this could be aggregated and shown in a more user friendly way (perhaps there is more or even better data available?):

• Who drops most packets during the game session/per X amount of time
• Who is "behind" the longest time

Additionally if those metrics would become more reliable, perhaps users could start to distinguish network lag from sim lag more too, as currently those are easily mixed up with each other in the user base too.

I'm assuming this could be fairly easy if we can access the data, do simple math and pipe it into some added UI element, e.g. in the same view where you have the ping currently per client?

Issues with our email provider have been resolved, and FAF email services are fully restored. We are sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you all for your patience.

Note that previous attempts to register, that did not receive the expected email, will have to register again to get a new email. Other non-registering emails might end up in your spam folder.

This seems a bit complicated, I skimmed the thread but my first thoughts were that it overcomplicates current system, and someone has to maintain that system as well. Micromanaging over a dozen of badges to various people might not feel like much, but I'm fairly certain those would almost from the get go be outdated and thus lose their value.

Add RAS upgrade to all units, the lower the HP, the higher the production/mass cost rate.

Issues with our email provider have been resolved, and FAF email services are fully restored. We are sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you all for your patience.

Note that previous attempts to register, that did not receive the expected email, will have to register again to get a new email. Other non-registering emails might end up in your spam folder.

They boost to almost the same frequency, and as the load is single threaded very short time, the laptop power & thermal constraint doesn't play that big of a role in the test.

@penguin_ said in Weekly Discussion #30 - Discord Reorganization:

4. Remove write-access and ticket functionality for the FAF Association Discord section for users who have been in the server for less than 15 minutes.

New members must already be on the server for 10 min in order to post anywhere or PM someone.

@javi said in New Website Bugs/Feedback:

@magge as others have said, its hard finding a video that's sweet and short for this. I'm not opposed to having a video but I would need someone to create something of good quality and export it into something very tight (8mb tops). Making it a very difficult mission

Just as a benchmark did a little background video for work, 23 sec long in 1920x1080, no problem with H264 even to get it to 1.7 MB, 3 MB and 7 MB for diff quality levels. Depending on the client connection it chooses the best quality level.

Easiest way to sum it is efficiency overall.

Use resources for best returns, have better awareness what to do when and what fights to take, scale & balance your eco better, micro units better etc. The higher the overall efficiency of everything you do, the bigger your advantage, the more options you have and leeway for potential mistakes that could otherwise be game-ending.

3700X - Tad over 120
5800X3D - 95

There is also a previous thread full of CPU scores and CPU's if you search.

@casternumerouno said in Nukes should explode in the air:

Yeah, you are right. It totally slipped my mind that we can just play with SMD too to balance it out. I guess working for 11 hours a day ain't that good for me.

Anyway regarding the other part, I don't think that would be too hard to balance out if we were to tweak the explosion radiuses even at a cost of the middle one being slightly smaller on the ground level if we buffed the damage on the outer sphere. Or even added additional damage radiuses to the explosion if it's possible to have more than just 2.

Or we could just keep the original explosion impact center and radius around it, and just have the visual bits change.

Word of warning, don't assume the ID's will stay there forever, they were already removed before and I had to ask them to be brought back

Try a single player game, do you have issues there? If you do, try the vanilla steam version.
If you don't have issues, it is most likely network related or some mod that is causing issues.

I'd say moderation priority is already quite similar as to how you list it.

We don't actively watch games for people breaking the rules or being "more edgy". For instance in a team game if the players are being a bit edgy but nobody minds and it isn't anything extreme, then so be it. If someone in the game took offense or some behavior was too extreme the players in the game can report it and we take action accordingly.

Public discussions that flow on are watched a bit more closely by moderators, if a moderator sees something against the rules, they intervene more proactively than for in-game things. If you've seen users "get away with things" or think moderation is "outlandishly lax", even with multiple moderators we can't monitor every single word and conversation in all the FAF platforms, so a report/ping/mention by other users to alert moderators is appreciated.

Forums are by nature a bit more formal, so when it comes to moderation, something that could pass in a flowing discussion might not belong as a post.

In regards to what should be moderated/how strict moderation should be, that is heavily tied to manpower resources and what kind of policy overall suits the community. Let's say you wish for really strict moderation, if we don't have the manpower for enforcing it, you'll effectively get moderators logging in/processing reports, "sniping" a few users they see breaking rules, meanwhile several other users can get away with similar level of "infringements". This causes easily uproar and potentially even more problems overall in the community if moderation consistency cannot be upheld. A bigger cliff between what is the largely observed "policy level" by the majority of the users vs. what a fraction of the users get punished for, can quickly degrade overall trust in the rules, moderation, cause "in spite" behavior and in consequence further degrade the experience users have in the community even if the opposite was the intended goal.