From a different perspective: what if interceptors are easier to produce, perhaps faster (yes, strategic bomber I am on to you) and higher fuel capacity to allow them to be more capable against tech 2 units?
The opponent can of course do the same and make additional interceptors too.
It is replaced with the Context Based Template feature. Primarily because of performance reasons, but secondary it is also more feature rich and less 'accident' prone. It's by default assigned to the tab key. Try hovering over a deposit and hit tab, then try again with a tech 2 engineer and hit tab twice!
@Phoenix_NZ What is the spec, both CPU and GPU of the user with issues?
Do you run the campaign with any mods enabled? If so, try turning those off. In other cases, please try and see if you can make a recording of the behavior. Also observe your task manager. Is the resource usage spiking, as an example?
Unless it does not work, you should be able to unpause any pause you initiated immediately. If you miss clicked, you can correct it as usual.
if a guy needs to afk for 30s+ a player may still unpause after 10s, being annoying, and wasting a minimum of 2-3 timeouts or more
Maybe I'm sleepy, but I don't get it? Wasn't this more of an issue before?
Can you define what makes it bad in your experience?
@goblinsly2 said in CPU performance tests:
Do you have any data on performance ? I am on 5600x and get severe lagging when playing with 11 M28's on 20x20 maps. After about an hour, depending on unit limitations, it will go down to -5. Mainly im interested on effect of x3d, to figure out if 5700x3d would be a worthy upgrade for me
This game is not made for 11 AIs of any kind. The Lua thread that AIs run on is single threaded. No matter how good your CPU is, you'll never be able to run 11 AIs.
My reference was to typical pvp games, campaign maps and/or games with 1 - 3 AIs.
I am not sure.
I managed to implement a rejoin-like functionality. It allows a player to attempt to rejoin the lobby after X seconds when the lobby did not manage to connect to all peers. It is similar to a player rejoining a custom lobby. See also #6479.
However, I noticed that the lobby implementation is brittle. The rejoin tends to fail by... crashing the game. And I'm not doing anything special there - when I exit the lobby it occasionally crashes. Maybe that is because I run multiple instances on the same machine, I do not know. At the moment it is disabled.
If we do want to take this road then I feel we need much more statistics. Grafana (a tool to see how many lobbies there are, etc) recently got back up with thanks to Sheikah and Brutus. We'd need to expand that to track other lobby-related statistics . One of them is the local status of a player. And when a player attempts to rejoin. And whether that succeeded.
All co-op maps are interesting of course! But beyond that, you could try out Rainmakers Survival, see also:
It is on the vault. It's a map I made, so do take this me promoting my own things 
.
@BlackRedDead said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:
Tho in that case, it needs an exception procedure for players being dropped out in the meantime! (to not await their unpause signals anymore!)
And hence, my case that everything gets complicated.
I appreciate your input, but it appears to me that you do not understand the code base and its limitations. We do not have access to how it works internally - there's two globals exposed to the user side of Lua that allows a user to (un)pause the game. We can add additional logic on top of that, such as a small delay. But we can not mess with how the signals are sent over the interwebs. That's all in the binary and it is definitely not something we should mess with.
I also do not believe that people will 'abuse' this. It feels really dark and pessimistic. A small delay in a pause exists in other games too. Besides, any form of abuse can be reported. And if individuals really want to stop or break the game out of spite then there's easier ways to do that .
@RudePlayer said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:
Something to be said about this, and all moderation actions/rules, which I know may not be part of this discussion at hand but, can we please stop with manipulating the ban hammer for everything. (...)
All of your suggestions already happen. They're just not transparent to the average user. Moderators have a backlog of everything a user did that is relevant to the moderators. There's a lot of thought that go into some reports, up to the point that there's even a Discord channel between the moderators and some game team members to discuss whether something is a bug that is being (intentionally) (ab)used or not.
If anything, try to become a moderator. You'll see (and help maintain) the nuance that you request.
@Nuggets said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:
Not to mention "oh misclick"
You can unpause your own pause just fine. I mentioned this - the delay only applies when you try to unpause a pause that is initiated by another user. Unrelated, the other quote of me is in my opinion a little bit of a clown reaction. That's okay, but to what purpose?
All the discussions about turning pausing into a vote - it is fundamentally not how the game works with pauses. Every user can pause the game. And every user can unpause it. The comparison with Recall is not correct - Recall fundamentally works different. They're not comparable.
It feels to me a lot of people are just thinking in problems. We won't ever get to a solution like that, even if the solution means that the original problem is not perceived as much as a problem and therefore does not require any changes.
@TheVVheelboy said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:
The only problem is the potential abuse. So unless you make it so there is definite pause limit per team, it can go wrong. Not per player, but per team
The game does not work this way. It works on a per-player basis. There's a lobby option to limit the number of pauses. You can use that to prevent it from being infinite.
And if there are infinite timeouts and a party decides to do that then I think you can just report them. See also the rules and search for 'Ruining games'. It states:
Ruining games — Do not deliberately ruin games by abusing game mechanics, such as continuously pausing the game or spamming pings.
You probably downloaded the map before this issue was fixed by using Cloudflare. The problem is that a texture is only partially downloaded. And this particular texture covers the entire map. The suggestion of Magge fixes the issue.
@Jip said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:
The suggestions of @snoog may work, but that is not how the engine functions that we have available work. They work on a per-player basis, not on a per-team basis.
@BlackYps I'd personally suggest this solution:
@Jip said in Suggesting rule change: make immediately unpausing after a player asked for a pause against the rules.:
It may be possible to overwrite the global and force a delay before a (different) player can unpause the game after another player paused it. We could make that delay at least 10 seconds. This appears at the moment of writing like a small hook, without complicated logic: If you did not initiate the pause then you have a 10 seconds delay before you can unpause.
That way we do not fight with how the engine functions work and the solution is simple to test and maintain.
Some people do not appear to understand that this topic is a suggestion. And you can disagree with the suggestion without ridiculing it.
I disagree with the suggestion. The data is in the replay, therefore you could extent the replay parsing to detect it that a (different) player immediately unpauses after a pause of another player. Therefore it would not even be difficult to confirm a report. However, I think this is an unhealthy direction. It's not clear that this is 'not okay' and I think therefore players will just get banned and perceive that as random.
The suggestions of @snoog may work, but that is not how the engine functions that we have available work. They work on a per-player basis, not on a per-team basis.
It may be possible to overwrite the global and force a delay before a (different) player can unpause the game after another player paused it. We could make that delay at least 10 seconds. This appears at the moment of writing like a small hook, without complicated logic: If you did not initiate the pause then you have a 10 seconds delay before you can unpause.
When there is a bad actor then you can keep the game 'paused' for 30 seconds on your own. And if you have team mates then you can keep it paused longer. This is not perfect, but neither is the fact that the player that pauses does so for a very long duration .
I can see the value in this.
For example, Grubby who does a lot of casting of Warcraft 3 has a challenge account for literally that: challenges! These challenges originate from his viewers. Take as an example:
These challenges would never work (or be fun) against players of his rating. If you're unfamiliar with Grubby - he's similar to what TheWheelie is to FAForever in terms of rating. Not the best, but pretty close to it. And this content is viewed a lot. It is often also educational as he's often evaluating what is going on.
The suggestion here would not be much different. I'll respond to the details/questions another time.
@Nuggets said in Bug Report:SMD missing target:
I know its a bug, but apparently its okay and also being ignored or thought to be not fixable = accepted over the years
It is fundamentally not a bug however. It would be a bug in a game like Starcraft II or Wacraft 3 where projectiles are guaranteed to hit (on even terrain), even when they visually completely miss. That's a choice those games made.
A unique selling point of this game is the simulation. A simulation in which things can miss. That the SMD should not be one of those is understandable. Now, it is on top of the base of the target. Next time it is on the outer edge of the SMD. Can it still have a 100% accurate interception rate? No, it can't. Everything is simulated, things can miss or not be on time, that is what being a simulation means.
There's a few approaches to reduce the chance that the event happens:
These suggestions only reduce the chance of missing. The game is a simulation, there's no guarantee. It already barely happens. And with these chances you reduce the chance even further when the strategic missile is aiming right on top of your SMD, like in the example.
At the end of the day, if you go closer and closer to the limit of the SMD the chance that it fails to intercept increases significantly. You'll still have wasted an anti missile because it can't reach in time. Or perhaps even fired two like in the example.
edit: finally found the word I was looking for. In game design land this is coined as emergent behavior. But in this particular example, the kind that you'd rather not have .
They do have a purpose - they're easy to snipe. They're simple targets that cost a lot, take a long time to return of investment and they have low health. Good candidates to punish your enemy severely with just a few (tech 1) bombers.
You also do not have to click that much, there are in-game options to make capping an extractor a side effect of assisting/upgrading it. If you do not want that side effect, you can also use context based templates. In combination with a recent assembly patch by @Ctrl-K the templates even snap to extractor build sites.
@Nomander said in Bug Report:SMD missing target:
SMD missing and having to fire a second time is unacceptable.
In your point of view it is unacceptable, and that is fine. I disagree.
It's been accepted for more than a decade now. And it's already been improved a while ago with #3893. Those changes at least prevents the many-to-many case being in strong favor of the attacker (multiple defense missiles colliding with the same strategic missile). Now that I think about it, it is a similar fix as #6532 but then specifically applied to missiles.
The game is simulated, this is part of it. The balance team can fix it by adjusting the turn rate of the anti missile.
That happens - and it's okay. Game is simulated, somethings things miss.