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

...and this is how it should look like

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.

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of badges to various people might not feel like much, but I'm fairly certain those would almost from the get go be outdated and thus lose their value.

You mean this?

Upon using any of the following, you may be warned once; the second time is a ban from faf for a month; third is for 6 months; Final will be a ban from FAF, indefinitely.
You can appeal these.

This also includes any cheating involving changing rating. Examples include having friends donate rating, multiple accounts to donate rating, etc.

New exploits can and will be added without any prior notice.

Banned exploits:

1. Offmapping in order to hide units in any way.

2. Using terraforming intentionally to block units/mess with pathfinding, also flattening an obstacle to allow units through is not allowed.

3. Using unit interactions to abuse pathfinding e.g moving a unit up or down a cliff, similar to terraforming

4. Blocking or causing the game to slowdown or lag on purpose.

5. Uploading or using a blatant "cheat" map (ie. with tons of wrecks on only one side of the map)

6. Using any modifications to see through the fog of war

7. The bug that allows rebuilding of units that were in production at a cheaper cost.

8. Walking with ACU while upgrading. On purpose, that is. Walking with ACU/Engies and building would fall under this if anyone figures out how to do it.

9. Making invincible units.

10. Causing drops to die by building underneath.

11. Making units regenerate life/shields without a mechanic i.e natural health regen or veterancy

12. Anything else that is breaking the game in some fashion.

13. Glitching to get a Hover ACU.

14. Giving bases to avoid damage by enemy ythotha storm.

15. Any bug that creates mass and energy out of nothing.

16. Creating structures within structures, or their footprint. Adjacent to mex issues are not included in this, as it's an unintended consequence of another change, hopefully fixed soon.

17. Pausing to try and gain some advantage i.e dodging snipes.

18. Don't host rated FFA or rated X v Y games, (uneven games)

19. Don't play on multiple accounts in FAF

20. Using any script to alter information shown to the lobby/client or game

21. Using a mod (or any other way) on a map with random spawns that shows exactly which player has which start point and faction.

22. Using ctrl+K to avoid taking damage on the unit wreck.

23. Intentionally transferring unit control to allies to mess with enemy unit orders, targeting, recharge rates or to gain any other unintended advantage.

24. Transferring Novax satellite ownership and destroying it for resources

25. Building higher tier hives directly using exploits, instead of upgrading them

26. Artificially increasing unit speed by any means

If it's not here, report it. Send a pm to moderation team with a description and a replay.

Please report instances of these exploits via our report form here or contact a moderator.

Changelog:
5th May 2021 - Added point 27, broadened the scope of point 23.
2nd June 2021 - Removed exploit of blocking nukes with Novax, balance team concluded it is balanced with related costs for doing so.
30 Aug 2021 - Reworded 19, game -> FAF

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but additionally to me this just looks like a lot of work and overcomplicating things (maaaybe there is a middleground). Instead of the annual elections of each badge and related energy spent on those, in addition to the managing of them and other created "overhead", I'd rather see the available resources (which are already constrained) be spent on actual work instead of trying to fulfill the ideals of this proposed system.

I'm just trying to be realistic and this seems a lot like micromanaging stuff for a negative net gain in the overall scheme of things.

Converted the acu models to stl's some time ago, grab em here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/osn4xlgmgv3kb1u/AAD34M_FEyADQRkqFPo92CA3a?dl=0

AMD athlon 2 X4 635 is quite a weak CPU for SupCom by todays standards.

Just as an example a comparison to a quite old Intel CPU that plays the game decently still today:

You will end up with a higher CPU score as that is just a fact for that CPU, changing the score manually is against the rules and a punishable offense.

Not an active reddit user myself, but I agree with the points brought up in the first post. Sounds good to me if biass wants to initiate a discussion about these with the current reddit administrators. Moderation team will co-operate when/if necessary.

A really lousy bandage is the gamefiles and some of the bin folder files being hosted here by me: http://95.216.153.185/gamedatafiles/
For some that download has worked faster.

Other ways to improve the downloads would be to have some CDN/cloudflare service or get another server and make some system that redirects user to the closest server based on their geolocation. These both require manhours to do, server admins can probably explain these better and more in-depth regarding pros/cons and required amount of work.

Another alternative is to use something like windows with updates, users sharing update files with others, or something like bittorrent...

Install older nvidia drivers.

Again, if I'd disable 4 of my cores I'd get the same CPU score result (4 vs 8 cores).
Yes, the game itself is not purely single threaded, but single thread performance is the most vital measurement we can do for CPU's as it is most often one thread that is the bottleneck. (If anyone is interested some info about supcom and threads can be found here: http://www.slideshare.net/guest40fc7cd/threading-successes-02-supreme-commander)

So I simply don't understand what you are after with the core count in this case. The score is not perfect and doesn't 100% compare with actual game performance, but that is a given as it is a very simple synthetic test.

About a performance test replay, I believe Marlo worked on a "standardized" replay that could be used for this, does anyone know if it got finished?

@meatontable said in Outsourcing new CPU scores for lobbies:

I'm not happy that definitely slow CPU from 2013 year bits more better CPU from 2017 due to the count of cores....

I don't think you have the right picture of how the CPU test in-game is working. The test that is ran in-game is single threaded, don't know why you are thinking about core counts in this way. A slow older gen 6-core AMD CPU will show up as a slow CPU with the test as it should, it does not gain anything from having a larger core count when compared to e.g. a faster 2-4 core Intel CPU from the same era. You can't compare the CPU score ran manually in a newer lua version to the one used in-game.

Also in case it wasn't clear, lower is better in the FAF CPU test.

@meatontable said in Outsourcing new CPU scores for lobbies:

I'm proposing to multiply the current CPU score by CPU count and divide it by 2.

Wouldn't this skew results of CPU's with many cores even though they are high performance? Like new Ryzen chips, even when they have many cores their single thread performance is also excellent for supcom.

That doesn't look like a laptop, full "K" CPU. Could still be some power saving thing going on?

Haven't noticed orders getting canceled. Sounds a lot like what TA4life was writing in old forums

It isn't really a good thing, in all cases I've seen the power saving mode the laptops are in do not reflect the true performance of the laptop in-game, as in the power saving is much lower clock speed even compared to a potentially throttling laptop. Scores between 350 and even 1750, when the laptop true performance would've been somewhere around 250ish or so.

I've noticed many laptop CPU's stay in their power saving mode when running the newer test (more than before). Would explain some of the spikes.

Here you can see what it does: https://github.com/FAForever/fa/blob/741febf45a165e257db972fc2104484a51dd799d/lua/ui/lobby/lobby.lua#L5228

They offloaded some stuff to other threads mid-development, even if the effect doesn't look too big nowadays I think the game would've been pretty unplayable if they didn't do it.
Some info about it: http://www.slideshare.net/guest40fc7cd/threading-successes-02-supreme-commander

There were some benchmarks that compared single vs multithreaded performance of supcom during the launch era too, running it multi-threaded had quite big advantages. Saw it some time ago but can't find it now.