Does it happen on steam version of the game?
Rename your game.prefs file to e.g. game.backup and try again the FAF version.

If UTC isn't clear enough (perhaps the most universal human readable time indication) then we can always use unix timestamps so everyone has the same second all the time: 1773759478

Also some previous discussions:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/3801/rating-degradation
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/5596/proposal-degradation-of-rating-over-time/
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/2767/rating-sigma-should-increase-over-time/

Isn't it fun to discover all the debugging done was basically needless, as the client wasn't even designed to get you the game files via offline mode.

Oh wait, you've been trying to offline play this whole time. Perhaps the client doesn't even trigger the "check files for update needs" thing that way

Folder permissions have stumped me and other before, even when you tried to manually fix them. Try to fiddle further with those.
e.g. some individual steps that can be tried:

• Remove C:\ProgramData\FAForever, let it get created again
• Create FAForever\bin yourself
• Run client as administrator (normally one shouldn't, but eh)
• Try the py client: https://github.com/FAForever/client

Change the value in game.prefs file.

@magge said in supreme commander forged alliance game not utilizing gpu.:

@Giebmasse You mean this "Minimum frametime" setting, right?

I played around with it, and noticed/saw/felt no difference with 240 FPS on a 240 HZ monitor. Perhaps when FPS are much lower it will be noticeable, but was too lazy to test that.

Yup that, it was quite choppy for me on the default 16 / 60 fps setting, seemingly same for OP.

There is also the somewhat new fps limit settings in the in-game settings, worth turning that up, defaults to 60 fps which can show off as laggy behavior.
Other than that usually some bad mod or driver/overlay issue then next in turn.

https://discord.com/channels/197033481883222026/197078254681587712/1413952423827079249

I think this thread has run its course, or rather derailed.

With smaller amount of players the other solutions could've utilized a peer-server-peer type of communication, with the scale of FAF this is not possible without huge expenses/other reworks, so a more demanding solution is required. It isn't always so black and white.

@Skrat said in New account in FAF:

@Giebmasse Im agree with Nuggets. Im not sure why faf privacy is being quoted here. Nobody is asking for personal information.

User requests account deletion as per GDPR and our privacy policy.
Account is deleted.
You are then later asking for moderators to restore erased account data and make it public with some kind of announcement.

https://faforever.com/privacy

May I then correct your memory if you wish to bring it back up and by doing so also claim incorrect things.

Initial:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/7653/username-rules-updates?page=1

After feedback:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/7653/username-rules-updates/201?page=11

@Tersto said in Change the handling of Reports - When is a report valid?:

@Giebmasse said in Change the handling of Reports - When is a report valid?:

We even ask that only players participating in the game generally should report events from games. Big part of the responsibility of "is this reporteable" is up to the participating players who are most closely affected by potential events. The moderation team does not crawl through replays for fun, we have plenty to do otherwise already. Circumstances where a non-participant report of a ctrl-k event in a game would have to be something special for us not to just discard it.

The fact that FAF doesn't have a big playerbase means, that high rated players constantly play against or with the same players. If someone really wants to get another player banned, I'm sure he could search through enough replays to eventually find a reportable offence for almost everyone that happened a long time ago. This can be abused to get people banned before or in tournaments so you don't have to play against them or also just if you don't like them.
Therefore I suggest a timelimit of how old a reported "offence" is allowed to be. Maybe 1-2 month? Serious offences like cheating should be excluded, however I don't see an issue to apply this timelimit to most other FAF rules e.g. base ctrl k, griefing, exploits...
Because if it really was an issue, that was affecting someone in a negative way, then it would have been reported in a timely manner.

I'll be direct, this is not really a problem, we don't need to be chasing ghosts.
Sure, theoretically if you stretch the scenarios as far as possible and assume reports are processed blindfolded or completely isolated from any other data points we take into account when processing reports.

We've had people thrawling through reports just trying to cause problems for another user, this is easily spotted and dealt with accordingly.

Basically in any case if a report is not made by a game participant and in a timely manner, faint warning bells are ringing in the background when checking the report for its validity and if the reporter had any malicious intent.

We even ask that only players participating in the game generally should report events from games. Big part of the responsibility of "is this reporteable" is up to the participating players who are most closely affected by potential events. The moderation team does not crawl through replays for fun, we have plenty to do otherwise already. Circumstances where a non-participant report of a ctrl-k event in a game would have to be something special for us not to just discard it.

That being said, this is not be something carved in stone. There are events serious enough to not matter who reports, is it reported or if it was the neighbours cat who saw it, the mod team will take action. Easy example for such being clear cheating.

Appreciate the proposal draft. Also a bit shame seeing it as we've tried to address the mentioned problems as well as can be done with the means we have. Several of the mentioned key points are already in place too while we are also currently working on improving parts highlighted in the proposal, as mentioned by previous responses of moderation team members (perhaps these should be communicated better in some way?).

I would prefer a solution oriented approach, no beating around the bushes, so I'll perhaps be a bit more direct:
Do we have such a widespread problem or challenge on our hands that require this level of change?

• From the team's POV, the experienced abrasions recently, which probably ignited this proposal, has been from a specific player segment in the community. Segment being higher rated players, most often playing in closer groups as well.
• While this segment represents a small portion of the total volume of reports and actions we process, I'd question if there is a problem as wide-spread as the proposal actions would suggest is needed to be made.

It is also worth highlighting a few steps that could've been taken before this proposal, essentially using the existing "OCR" mechanism in place:

• Contact me, as team lead I'm not hiding nor do I bite, besides our appeal systems and support tickets in place, I can be contacted and discussed with as a next step
• If discussing with me is not enough, the board can also be contacted with if you still feel your issue has not been addressed or you have been treated wrong
  (We realized now these parts were by mistake not clearly documented in the jan 2025 rewrite albeit being in place since the association, we will add this information to the documentation, our bad.)

I would therefore like to ask if we can't solve the experienced abrasions with more pin-point actions, that require less overhead from everyone, rather than this larger suggested committee work in the proposal, of which many parts are already in place with current systems. In other words, can you please elaborate further so we can get to the meat of the issue at hand and perhaps fix it with less work for everyone involved. If there is a need to go into specific cases, feel free to pm or we can setup a channel with the relevant parties.

We have strived to document our rules, policies and how the moderation in FAF works as well as we can, we welcome any input on how we can make this even clearer. Our latest larger effort on this was in the beginning of this year.

• https://forum.faforever.com/topic/8649/improvements-to-appeal-process-and-faf-rules
• https://faforever.com/rules
• https://www.faforever.com/moderation

We've also involved the community when forming new rules/policies or changing older ones, something we don't intend to stop with.

• Example with leaving games https://forum.faforever.com/topic/8372/faf-rules-on-leaving-games-have-your-say/1

As a general comment, the moderation team is currently trying to clear the backlog of reports which came due to DDoS and us being unable to access said reports during that time. Our time spent on this proposal preparation right now would be time away from processing said reports. I hope everyone understands if our answers on this topic are thus more delayed than perhaps expected due to that.

Hi everyone, as we kick off 2025 we wanted to make you aware of some updates related to the appeal process, an update to the FAF rules page, and the publication of a dedicated information page on the reporting and appeal system.

TL;DR: see the bottom of this post.

Improvements to the appeal process

Decisions by the moderation team, such as bans and mutes, can be appealed. This system is designed for requesting a second evaluation of the decision and correct eventual mistakes or miscommunications. We have previously received feedback on the waiting time of the ban appeal system. Due to how this system was organized, appealing short bans often took longer than the ban itself; less than ideal.

In order to improve the appeal process, we have adopted a new way of submitting appeals. Where before you were required to send an email, appeals may now be filed through the FAF discord using an appeal-ticket. You can create such a ticket through the #Moderation-support channel in the FAF discord. When submitting a ticket, we ask you to explain why you believe your ban should be reduced or revoked. Your appeal will then be reviewed by at least two moderators who did not handle the original report.

We have been testing this new system for a few months now, and have been happy to see that appeals get processed much faster. The feedback we’ve received on the new system has also been very positive. To make sure that people who cannot or will not use Discord can file appeals, we will also keep the old email system in place.

We have created a new webpage that explains this process in detail. There you can find detailed instructions on how to file an appeal, as well as an expanded explanation on how the report and appeal system works.

Clarification of existing rules

The FAF rules page is another subject we have received a lot of feedback on. Because of this, we have spent the past months rewriting and reorganizing the page. There have not been any new rules added that were not already moderated previously. The page has been improved by:

• Removing duplicate and/or similar rules
• Improved organization
• Clarifying previously not explicitly stated rules
• Overall update and made rules more clear

While we do not think it is possible to write a rule set that covers all possible scenarios, we have done our best to remove ambiguity as much as possible. Examples of rules that were not explicitly stated include the ban on political discussion in general chat channels (the decision to moderate was announced in a forum post), and the ban on base CTRL-K (which fell under the vague ‘You will not ruin the game intentionally by any means’ rule).

Changes to the rules relating to quitting games

One rule has been changed: the rule relating to leaving games mid-game. As part of our approach to making rules less ambiguous, and given the varying opinions we've heard within the community about leaving games, we have sought the views of the FAF association on what rules to have for people who leave games. The results of these polls have been reflected in the updated rules.

• Previously, leaving games that were not decisively lost was considered a violation of the "do not ruin games" rule.
• Based on the poll results, players will now only be in breach of this rule if they leave within the first 5 minutes of a match or if they frequently leave games (defined broadly as three or more reported incidents per week).

FAQ

Additionally, we have written a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section on the rules specifically and moderation in general. You may find this FAQ, as well as a section explaining how we determine the duration of a penalty, on the report and appeal system webpage.

TL;DR

• Appeals can now be filed faster through Discord using an appeal-ticket system, with reviews handled by at least two moderators. Email appeals remain an option, and the new system has significantly reduced response times.
• The rules page has been rewritten to improve organization, remove ambiguity, and clarify previously implied rules, like bans on political discussion in chat and base CTRL-K actions. No new rules are added.
• The rule on quitting games has been changed following a vote by FAF association members. It is now considered a violation only if a game is left within the first 5 minutes or if frequent quitting occurs (3+ times per week).
• A new FAQ which explains rules, moderation policies, and how penalty durations are determined, is now available on the report and appeal system webpage.

Thank you to the moderation team for the work with the updates and the community in general for the related discussion and feedback.

Apple Vision Pro required for usage?