If you genuinely think you're being insulted then you can make a report to the mod team, or create a ticket to discuss further with the mod team (e.g. if the report is discarded due to not meeting the reporting requirements involving sufficient evidence of a rule breach and you want to understand this further).

Re Q2, sucks to see the bubble shield nerfed so hard for what already was a unit I'd rarely see. Using mass costs for simplicity, before it was 7600 mass (2100+2000+3500) for a 55k shield [i.e. 7.2 shield per mass] that would (when discharged or down) regenerate at 256 health/s (150 when up).
Now it's 5200 mass (1700+3500) for a 22k shield [i.e. 4.2 shield per mass] that would (when discharged or down) regenerate at 200 health/s (160 when up).

As a comparison, Sera T3 mobile shield although significantly smaller, benefits from far better speed of 4 (2.2 for the SACU), and costs 720 mass for a 10k shield [i.e. 13.9 shield per mass] that when down regenerates at 250 health/s (133 when up).

In terms of potential value from a UEF perspective, a percy gets 5.6 health per mass investment; granted this shield protects from aoe damage, but at the same time it also takes damage faster because it's easier to hit with indirect projectiles (far more so given its size compared to other mobile shields).

Before the shield was so high in health that it could both be used as an alternative for base defences in some scenarios (e.g. I found it made a good tele defence for smd/arti/game enders compared to static shields where a SACU could teleport in and its death explosion could kill the static shields), and was an option for covering slower attacking units with the defensive buff justifying delaying the army a bit. The shield would recharge painfully slowly and coupled with the slow SACU speed it was difficult to get continued value from them (compared to mobile shields).

Now it feels like that's been made even harder - it still has the really slow speed compared to other mobile shields, but no longer has the high health to compensate. It's also (vs single target damage) more efficient to just get percies vs getting a mix of percies and shield SACUs. I presume the intention is therefore for it to no longer be used primarily as a shield unit, but instead as a hybrid combat-shield unit, but also one where the increase in damage spill means it's worse in numbers (with its large shield size harming building it in larger numbers disproportionately compared to the other mobile shields, since it's more likely to overlap with other shields; the bulwark would be a useful counterpoint for where a high shield size can still work, but the bulwark is significantly faster and the shield size so large it doesnt need to be on the frontline). But if it's only intended to be built as a single unit to support an army, it then works out even more inefficient unless the gateway was being built for other SACUs (maybe the wider SACU changes mean it would be). So I expect I can still use it for teledefence (cheaper vs SACU tele, weaker vs tele-laser), but other mobile shield uses for it feel much weaker.

Appreciate you primarily wanted in game testing, whereas I usually approach things from a more theoretical 'if I had the apm to use this unit however I wanted, what use cases can I see for it', since I can then both have my AI apply those use cases, and use them myself as a player occasionally. However I'm really struggling to see how I'd be better off building percies, a gateway, and 1 or more of the bubble shield units vs just building percies (given the shield gives less health than the percy),

Also just checking how things compare at the t2 mobile shield stage re shield health vs combat unit health, t2 mobile shield gives 3k health for 220 mass (while being fast moving and recharging much faster). A pillar gives 1500 health for 198 mass. It's a similar story for othuums - i.e. T2 and T3 mobile shields give significantly more health per mass invested than an equivalent combat unit, compared to the new bubble shield SACU which gives less (so maybe its combat potential makes up for this, but then it's less of a mobile shield than before, when the rationale for the change was that it was being rebalanced with mobile shields in mind?)

Rating manipulation is against FAF rules, so if the game was rated, and it was reported, and the mod reviewing the report thought it indicated manipulation (i.e. deliberately drawing a game that was won to lower your rating) then you could be at risk of a ban, but even in that scenario you could then appeal the ban and explain what happened.

Unless there's a pattern of it happening in other games then I'd have thought it relatively unlikely you'd be banned, and even more unlikely you'd remain banned on appeal, subject to if there's evidence contradicting this.

@Skrat said in New account in FAF:

@snoog I didn't ask questions that required endless discussion. But for some reason, no one can answer them.

Questions you've asked from another skim through them:

1. What could be the moderators' reasons for giving a player permission to create a new account?
2. The more secrecy there is, the more questions there are. Is not it so?
3. Should moderators delete my nickname history upon my request?
4. Can you ask to have your account deleted and come back on a new one a few years down the line?

Most have been answered already.

1. See Jip's first post for potential reasons (If I understood correct then in this situation a player returned who requested to have his account deleted a few years ago. That means he can't restore the old account. The only way to play again would be to create a new account.)
2. We've had seemingly near-endless threads and questions about moderation in spite of there being far more public information about how moderation is undertaken than a couple of years ago.
3. You can ask to have your account deleted.
4. As Jip already said, there's no guarantee but you're free to try.

I doubt you're going to be satisfied with these answers though since you seemed to think no-one had answered your questions.

As for "I'm not asking for more or less bureaucracy. I ask the moderators to be consistent and logical"
Actually you're asking for more bureaucracy, asking the moderators to be inconsistent, and dismissing logic given to you for why they might not want to do what you want (Jip and Giebmasse's posts). You seem to be asking that in the event that the moderators decide to allow someone who deleted their account to use a new account, the moderators make this information public (that's asking for more buraeucracy). It'd also mean an exception is made by the moderators against the normal approach of not making their decisions public and/or discussing specific cases (i.e. for them to be inconsistent).

Locking the thread as I don't think it's appropriate to publicly try and shame people, and I don't see anything positive coming from this thread.