@manimal_ said in SACUs and Factories Upgrades seem to be bugged:

Historicaly , the buildings gain 1 "Tower" per Tech level :

1 "Tower" = T1 (the initial look of a factory)
2 "Towers" = T2
3 "Towers" = T3

No they didn't

Screenshot from Vanilla FA (no mods)

They look exactly like the support factories (aside from my chosen color)

@techniki You are not supposed to close the game, just press the reconnect button in the lower right of the faf client

once you close the game or someone ejects you, then you can't rejoin anymore.

@hoschmosch said in Connection issues never been this bad:

Then do me a favor and just take a look at any random forum thread discussing criticism of FAF . Afterward, reconsider your statement.

I literally read all forum posts every day, so I don't need to reconsider, thanks.
If someone states things aren't working and are understanding and don't flame the mods/admins for not doing anything about it, then they have been met with respect, though it is sometimes hard to keep that up, when people are unable to read the message right above their own question in discord, which would have answered their question. But it is also disrespectful to not want to put in any amount of effort and then expect to get 5 pages of answers.

@hoschmosch said in Connection issues never been this bad:

the admins claim to know what to do, but their precious time prevents them from investing that time in their own project and the community

They know what to do and they are investing time, you probably just underestimate of how much time it takes to fix these issues. Also people that want to help out for just this issue aren't such a great help either, since learning how the system works will take a good amount of time (also from the existing admins), so quickly helping out is also not a feasible option. (when you start out as a sysadmin and you only intend to keep the job for ~6 month, nobody will bother with telling you anything and will just tell you to sort some cables)

@hoschmosch said in Connection issues never been this bad:

an admin who invests more time in constantly giving us long-winded statements

However everyone is damanding long winded statements from the admins themselves. Everyone is asking what's going on, why it's not working and how long it takes and when a moderator without the technical know-how answers they are unsatisfied.

@hoschmosch said in Connection issues never been this bad:

Considering that the quality has been in the gutter for about a year

How do you come to this view?
I see people play every day and aside from the ddos attacks it was pretty stable
ofc there are disconnection problems (as brutus mentioned above), but those take time to fix, since it requires completely rewriting the ice adapter.

@hoschmosch said in Connection issues never been this bad:

In the first place, it is evidence that I don't care as little as those who could solve it.

You do realize that brutus (the guy with the skills) is not participating in this discussion?
He cares and is working on it, while you are trying to make his work look bad and useless in some random effort to get him to give up on the project, since apparently you don't give a single fuck about FAF and want it to close down for good. (at least it seems that way from how you tell every admin to quit, since they are doing a terrible job).
How you can believe that you care more than him is beyond me.

@immortal-d said in Visible Attack-Move Reclaim Range:

If not, then I suggest adding a ring around the target point of Attack Move, showing the reclaim range.

You can do that with advanced camera stuff (ui mod) and it is already part of the next version.
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/4705/upcoming-developers-patch/2

You have to hold ctrl (or maybe shift? can't remember) for it to show the rings.

@immortal-d said in Visible Attack-Move Reclaim Range:

For example, dragging the Order through tree groups will often result in moving through those trees en route to the final target point

I believe this is only for attack move out of factory, which only reclaims things at the end of the attack move, not on the way.

@immortal-d said in Visible Attack-Move Reclaim Range:

dditionally, the reclaim range of Attack Move is many times greater than Patrol or manual reclaim, almost ridiculously so.

That is also only the case with factory attack move which has double the range, due to an engine bug (so also hard to fix).

@immortal-d said in Visible Attack-Move Reclaim Range:

Dragging a long Attack Move through rocks works fine

That's how the normal attack move works. It should walk to the target point and reclaim anything that gets in range (and sometimes some more).

@monstratus said in Why would you have left FAF?:

It still seems to me that if those who did not survive the match did not receive points, it would be fair...

You fail to notice that the rating system isn't a one-way route to judge how people play. It also influences the way people play, since ultimately the goal of the game is not to win, but to gain as much rating as possible compared to everyone else.

So your suggestion would encourage turtle play, with minimal chances of your com to die, optimally winning after all your teammates are dead, encourage teamkilling, discourage literally any play that could put your com in danger. Nobody would tele snipe or com drop in a hope to win the game, because they wouldn't get rating anyway, so they would still "loose".

The rating system should properly encourage any playstyle that increases your teams chances of winning and the only reliable way to do that is to only rate wins/losses and play enough games with diverse teams, for noise (like stronger teammates that carry you) to average out.

Is there a reason to actually link both steam and GOG?
Or could that be disabled? So you could only link one of those to your FAF account.

@manimal_ said in SACUs and Factories Upgrades seem to be bugged:

it is hard to my old eyes... tiny icons with even tinyer Tech marks... d'oh !
And It's getting worse by zoom out

If your having trouble distinguishing icons/tech levels i recommend an icon mod.

These change some icons and make higher tech icons larger

These make icons somewhat larger (50%/100% size increase)

This is probably intentional, as you need the old versions to watch older replays
So once a player watches an older replay, the client keeps that version around in case the player wants to watch another one of those replays

@clyf said in How exactly do we expect low rated players to play the game?:

A. introducing additional metrics into the score calculation a la TrueSkill 2

I think that's off the table (ftx also often rants about how this would be a bad idea), because players play the rating system and whichever metric you use to calculate their rating, the players will try to maximize that and any metric aside from win/loss will inevitably warp the game and might even cause toxicity within the team. (kills/eco/quick win/score, all of these will lead to certain kinds of abuse)

@clyf said in How exactly do we expect low rated players to play the game?:

B. modifying the score calculation function to something other than a linear sum

While good in theory (as I already mentioned in my response to sylph_), I don't believe there is a mathematically sound solution to this, as it is very opinion based.

I think the problem is also that in custom games the your contribution-rating ratio is very "random" since there is no control how/where you got that rating and how it compares to what you are playing now.
And in ladder the sample sizes are quite low, since there aren't that many games played and almost no high level players queue ladder/tmm.

Sidenote:
@clyf said in How exactly do we expect low rated players to play the game?:

A metric is a quantifiable measure of the system, but in practice does not (and cannot) account for every element of a system. Win/lose, kills:deaths, the number given by the TrueSkill system--none of these account for everything that can happen, yet all are metrics.

I guess me calling these metrics is wrong
Mathematically the metric we want is the players ability to play the game and cooperate with their team well, because that directly influences the games outcome.
But we can't measure that directly so we approximate this by using other "metrics" and any "metric" where A > B (in the skill metric) and A <= B (in the the approximation metric) is just a wrong metric to me.
For win/loss you could probably argue that this is also the case for certain games, but it will average out given enough games. So a player that consistently wins more games than he looses is better than his opponents were, while a player that consistenly has a high kda is not necessarily better than his opponents were.
(Just so you understand where I'm coming from. We should probably cut this discussion here and accept we have different definitions/assumptions)

Adding Jamming to more UEF units would be nice to increase faction diversity, but the stats should be adjusted, because just adding jamming would make those units kinda op. All Cybran units have less hp for a reason and the cybran strat even deals 250 damage less than the others (UEF strat also deals 100 damage more than others)

@linikratyo Does the file C:\ProgramData\FAForever\bin\init_coop.lua exist?
if so it seems to be a permission issue, if not, have you launched a coop mission from the FAF launcher first?

@rama said in Lobby Crashing Bot Back?:

-Being stuck in game, must force reboot computer to escape.

If alt-tabbing still shows the preview window you could try using windows-key+tab instead and use the "new desktop" option at the top.
Then you can switch to the new desktop leaving the game on the old desktop and you can then open a task manager and close it without having to reboot your PC.
This doesn't always work, but it's more likely to work than regular alt+tab

@naterollerskate The sim is a single thread, so it's all about your cpu's single core performance. (which is mostly clock speed, since I don't believe supcom would use any advanced instructions)
Memory(RAM) performance also plays a role, but not to the extend of raw cpu speed.
Problems you can still have are other programs that are hogging resources, so multiple cores are useful for giving supcom a whole core to itself or simply closing other programs that might be resource intensive (like web browsers) and to prevent your AV from running scans while you play can also prevent sudden sim speed drops.
Aside from that there is no general magic that you can do that will make the game run generally faster, that hasn't already been done.

@blackyps said in Punish bad lobbies:

The matchmaker is the place where we carry out the vision how forged alliance should be played for the optimal rts experience. That's why balance is adjusted around the matchmaker, there are leaderboards for the queues, the maps in the pool are picked in an effort to provide a reasonable broad range of playing scenarios and that are of high quality.

@ftxcommando said in Punish bad lobbies:

Why don’t you extend this argument to balance then? Matchmaker isn’t a slave to some “popular will” just as balance isn’t. They exist in a window of creating the expected FAF experience.

These arguments are competitive vs casual environment, which doesn't have to necessarily translate to matchmaker vs custom games.
Why can't you have "casual" queues, these can be marked as "no-share for quicker games" or something and a "casual" tag would also explain them being exempt from balance considerations.
It's just how LOL sometimes has a featured gamemode queue (don't know how it currently works but a few years ago it was like this), where you can queue for some map with wildly different settings or an ARAM queue a gamemode mostly played in custom game, that got so popular for it's simplicity that it got made into a queue. Nobody there is expecting the game to be balanced around those modes. (Astro is basically ARAM for FAF)

@ftxcommando said in Punish bad lobbies:

So the matchmakers do carry a responsibility in telling people what is fun because it becomes the game situations and dynamics in which balance is centered around.

yes the matchmaker should have the responsibility to show new players the fun in the game. That is not where you intend the fun to be, but where your players see the fun. That's why you want different queues for different kinds of players.

@ftxcommando said in Punish bad lobbies:

As an example, matchmaker basically carried the whole concept of full share being a better game experience than no share down from the 1.8k+/sentons area where it was basically quarantined into the rest of the community.

Then I have no idea how it can be an argument the queue would fail to be used because of a slightly different map version or game settings.

@ftxcommando said in Punish bad lobbies:

Which brings in ANOTHER reason why it would never be implemented: we absolutely cannot have different share conditions implemented in a coherent manner and just for these two random maps.

I agree that it shouldn't be a DG queue right next to the normal matchmaking queues, but having a special area for such a queue solves the problem of explaining to people, that this is a completely different environment and game experience. Maybe simply tagging it "no-share" would be bad and it should rather explain it as "once your ACU dies all your units also die (No-Share)" or something like that.

@blackyps said in Punish bad lobbies:

why do some maps have a specific queue and others don't, where do we draw the line to create a queue for a map

You could ask the same in other games, like LOL where only some featured gamemode has a queue and the others don't. You need to keep the number of queues low to not divide your playerbase, but you should add queues for very popular modes.

@conny_action said in Punish bad lobbies:

but introducing more queues would just makes sense if you can bring 100k new players maybe

Why would you need more players?
The queues wouldn't compete with existing queues, but instead draw on the players from custom games that play this "gamemode" anyway

@endranii it'd still be balanced/symmetric tho?
so if your teammate has a 1v2 slot on the other half of the map, you'll also have a 2v1 against one guy.
Though I also don't think it'll be cool to have that randomly appear in matchmaking.

@sheikah with the current connection issues I also don't think a gap queue will be a good idea.
Launching it in a half dead state will keep players from using it even if it becomes rather stable some time in the future.
But a 4v4 astro queue could be a test project.

@blackyps said in Punish bad lobbies:

People will demand experiments with other maps/other configurations etc

I don't really see much cries for more no-share queues. (at least not to an amount that would be annoying)
So I don't think if it actually fails, you'll see an unbearable amount of requests for other configurations. The settings for these games are pretty clear and there are only really 2-3 maps that are played to that extend.

@blackyps said in Punish bad lobbies:

I haven't really seen a coherent argument for map-specific queues that doesn't fundamentally conflict with the vision of the matchmaker as it is now, and I believe that has less to do with the specific map and is more just that, a fundamental incompatibility.

What is the vision for the matchmaker that makes it fundamentally incompatible with how a large portion of the players play the game?
I don't think the matchmaker should tell players how they are allowed to have fun, by purposefully removing options that a large portion of players find fun.
But it should try to show people where the fun might be for them in an intuitive way.
So someone new to the game should be able to look at the matchmaker page and find a gamemode they'll like and have the simple requirement of hitting a button and waiting for a match instead of searching the custom game section, checking for all the settings what they do, informing themselves which settings are good and then getting kicked because they haven't played enough games.
With Queues for different maps you have everything uniform with all differences laid out directly on the selection screen And if you don't know what "dual gap" is, you only need one game to see the map and see the difference to other maps, while noticing different ingame options might be a harder feat to accomplish.

@phong I don't know why the no-share queue was made and I can only guess on why it was removed, but it always seemed kinda empty anyway.
I think it's good that it was removed, because (unlike a dual gap or astro queue) this mode was competing with other queues (4v4 full-share) for players, since these queues were quite similar. So if you come to a point where there are actually people in queue in both of them, then people will stop queuing for the one they prefer less without knowing the rating distribution and actual likelihood of getting a match, thus segregating the players and reducing the chance and quality of matches.

So the addition of a dual gap queue could be detrimental to the experience if we expect a good portion of the regular queue players to switch over to dual gap instead, but I don't think that will happen.

great idea to tell people to just host themselves and then wonder why there are 5 dual gap lobbys for <1000 with a total of 13 players that now can enjoy the lobby even more.

@neverty
this one just shows a lot of failed map loads from the steam FA folder.
Does the client have read permissions to it?
Is the path correct and the files are all there?

Aside from that I don't see any reason for a crash.
To get rid of the warning you can also change the paths directly in the config file found in
%APPDATA%\Forged Alliance Forever
If it still crashes get the client to crash and then post the most recent client.log again.

what do you compare it to?
Aeon speed+range upgrade costs the same as the other factions guns, so both guncoms are equally good once they have gun and the Aeon com has the bonus of just getting range or just getting speed and being able to harrass the opponent before he can finish his own gun.