supcom campaign branch is enabled when playing campaign on the steam version and it being enabled gets saved to the game prefs for some reason.

He mentioned that it's anything he contributed "after this post", and to "treat it as unsupported and remove it where practical." I don't think he meant anything bad, just asking for people to take care of the maintenance/cleanup.

@Sheppy said:

I feel like too often there is clearly "one best option" in the selection and that takes away choice. I don't know how to best fix that, only thing I can say is that in most other games I think a lot more about my selection.

Some roguelikes bias rolls towards what your "build" is. I think combining that with general purpose upgrades (eco) would make picks more interesting.
You could even track what units the player has built recently to determine the build.

Also printer is 1.5k 4.7k games and plays terribly according to his own replay (that he even thinks matters for the nerfs done) so I shouldn't waste more time here and I wouldn't recommend for anyone else to do so either.

@Printer
Reads like AI stylized your post.

1. not an argument
2. Post replay where transports matter. AoE vs units outside engi clumps, like shields or mex storages, is irrelevant because its unrealistically apm heavy.
3. yes that's the point. Second sentence doesn't make sense.
4. Wrong because it's 3750e/s avg
5. Wrong number. Also not an argument.
6. You need to build power anyway to use the unit, this forces you to do it before it is finished instead of after.

E nerf makes arty a more viable counter without affecting total mass cost.
AoE/retargeting nerfs fix the most annoying/toxic things which were killing fab capped mex, stalled shield arrays, and engi clumps.
All of this was explained in the changelog snippet and you should address those ideas instead of just listing the (wrong) numbers then baselessly saying they're wrong.

@DommyMommyDostya

You still need a really high number of novaxes to one shot shields through assistance with the increased burst DPS.

A setup of 2 Dukes with adjacency has 1960 DPS and deals 15680 dmg + 6 aoe every 8s, while costing 76k * 2 + 3240 * 6 = 171k mass and producing 2500 * 6 - 1400 * 2 = 15k excess energy.
For just that mass you'd have 5.3 novaxes not counting the 20k/s avg. energy drain.
If you count the energy in terms of pgen-storage infinite grid mass cost (best case scenario) then it's 32k + (3240+200*8)/(2500 * (1 + 0.0625 * 16)) 35630 mass total per novax or 4.8 novaxes.
If you subtract the excess energy from the duke cost (lets say you used it in advance for mass fabs) then the cost goes down to 171k - 15k * 324/250 = 152k, which is equivalent to 4.3 novaxes w/ grid pgen energy.

Also not to mention if you add some engineers the novaxes can't actually break through your shields because they still take time to deal damage. Against 7 novaxes (3 arties equivalent) you'd need 9-22 additional engis to survive the burst damage, on top of the 19-24 engis to survive the avg dps.
Meanwhile 3 dukes one shot all shields and you can't stop it, but the avg dps needs 33-42 engis to out-assist (vs 28-46 to survive the novax volley).
Additionally the engi assist costs are up for a balance pass eventually so that it's more fair across factions, since that mechanic has never been touched.

It's definitely possible but it's not easy. The biggest hurdle would be the game's performance stopping you from doing general-purpose machine learning approaches. I think on zulip someone reverse engineered a basic simulation of the game but I'm not knowledgeable on the matter.

There's some work towards build-order infrastructure:
@seraphim-noob has worked on a build order recorder mod ("BO Logger" by Seraphim-Noob). The description says the data is for use in a BO analyzer which I found on his github here: https://github.com/TimMasalme/Bo-Analyzer
@sheppy has a website with build orders in text form manually input from players. https://fa-companion.services.atlantishq.de/maps

In my personal opinion build orders are solvable almost analytically. Your context would be mass costs and mass-seconds (for travel time). The target builds would be a sequential list of builds to achieve at what timing, since splitting focus between 100% the target or eco should always be the fastest way to build something. Once a target is achieved you can add its impact on mass/energy production to your economy's state and continue ecoing to the timing of the next target.

ok, thanks for letting me know.

@Nuggets said:

Everyone is responsible for activating / deactivating their own mods)

Actually we can update the init file in the game repo to mark a mod as deprecated so that the mod doesn't even get loaded into the game. I did this in my PR that implements feedback for the chat rework.
Also any mod author reading should know that the deprecation status is based on version number, so you can update your mod and then people can load it again.

That mod overwrites the entire chat.lua file, so it's unfixable and 4z0t has to rewrite it or game team has to integrate it.

Can you post a game log? It sounds like a UI mod issue.

https://wiki.faforever.com/Development/Missions/Mission-Scripting#video

@Fichom said:

And here's my document that outlines how adjacency bonuses stack up (or don't) with additional engineering: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UT6xJbBYUu3jX1YIlK_v4Ma9IqMjEWQNNcrg_rI47gI/edit?tab=t.0

It's not really useful to think of mass discount adjacency as a discount on unit costs because it doesn't cause the unit to scale its per mass effectiveness in the same way as a reduced unit cost. Trying to calculate that reduced unit cost alongside adjacency is not useful for the same reason.
It's better to think of mass discount adjacency as a bonus mass income that is greater than the bonus income from storages but is affected by mass stalls, requires building an expensive adjacent structure, and locks up the bonus income in that structure's expenditure.

Steam page says they're expecting to release in a year, so for that reason I think currently they're just in alpha and aren't going to really take many players because bugs/incompletion etc.
Kickstarter page stretch goals shows that they're getting a nice amount of money though, and their updates page says they expect to reach 700k-1M USD. I'd expect the numbers to actually lower when they're done with the game then.

Imo the actual reason FAF would lose players atm is major technical issues like connections and desyncs.

"All factions FAF BlackOps Nomads" + "Low Commander Tech-Ras Upgrade Costs incl BO" would spawn in all ACUs and let you instantly build their tech upgrades for free.

Click on the player's name in the scoreboard. If you're using the supreme score board mod then you'll need the updated version "Supreme Score Board2HC" to shift-click to switch armies.

Here's a prototype script for aeon smd I made where each projectile gets assigned to the shooter cap. A weapon won't target something if its shooter cap is reached, but it will shoot continuously once it has targeted. Adding the projectile to the cap instead of the weapon basically keeps track of how many projectiles are in the air instead of how many shooters there are. This works better than normal but it still fails for nukes that take more than 1 shot to kill like Yolona since the projectile is removed as a shooter once it impacts. I suppose you could work around that by spawning dummy entities taking up the shooter cap every time the high HP nuke projectile takes damage. That workaround would also work for non-projectile weapons in general.

---@class UAB4302 : AStructureUnit
UAB4302 = ClassUnit(AStructureUnit) {
    Weapons = {
        ---@class UAB4302_MissileRack : AAMSaintWeapon
        ---@field unit UAB4302
        MissileRack = ClassWeapon(AAMSaintWeapon) {
            ---@param self UAB4302_MissileRack
            ---@param muzzle Bone
            ---@return Projectile
            CreateProjectileAtMuzzle = function(self, muzzle)
                local proj = AAMSaintWeapon.CreateProjectileAtMuzzle(self, muzzle)
                LOG('self target', self:GetCurrentTarget())
                local target = self:GetCurrentTarget()
                if target then
                    target:AddShooter(proj)
                    LOG('target shooters:', target:ReachedMaxShooters())
                end

                return proj
            end,
            RackSalvoFiringState = State(AAMSaintWeapon.RackSalvoFiringState) {
                Main = function(self)
                    local target = self:GetCurrentTarget()
                    if target then
                        target:RemoveShooter(self.unit)
                        LOG('maxed?', target:ReachedMaxShooters())
                        if target:ReachedMaxShooters() then self:ResetTarget() ChangeState(self, self.RackSalvoFireReadyState) return end
                    end

                    AAMSaintWeapon.RackSalvoFiringState.Main(self)
                end
            },
        },
    },
}

Use Unit:AlterArmor to change the damage amount.
Hook the OnGotTarget, and OnLostTarget functions of the unit weapon to adjust the damage resistance when needed. Janus example

I got some evidence in the discord discussion after throwing out a 10% cost nerf idea and saying this:

I think I was just throwing out a number [10% cost nerf] to reason about if I was to look at it from nugget's/farm's perspective, but it came off a bit too much like a decision on a change. It was kind of a random number without thought behind it. Personally I'm still not convinced of such a change because like you [maudlin] say there's a lot of different maps that have to be balanced for and maybe setons is just an unbalanced map for this specific scenario, which is unfortunate for its legacy.
More specifically I'm not convinced because:

• Nuggets/farms have the argument that invasion is too slow so a cost nerf is needed.
  • their evidence is "I've seen games where it's optimal but they didn't do it"
  • no replays where it's optimal but wasn't done
  • no replays where this optimal move was done and the enemy invasion was equal mass but simply couldn't win, particularly when not vs para/yolo
  • they themselves use house rules to not have any recent experience using or playing against the strategy
  • they both say its true on mapgen as well but there are no replays and no explanations why. I also checked nuggets' replays and saw that he often plays drawn out/setons-like naval mapgens and such types of maps that aren't relatable to the average mapgen player, so taking that into account lowers my confidence.
• ftx says its purely a para/yolo problem, so a cost nerf is not needed.

All of these I guess you could say they're too low-rated players just going off experience (quite harsh ik but like there might be some errors to look out for, like maybe opps are too bad at defending):

• skrat and spcr (mlgtastic) argue that the ender's cost gets it killed by land
• sainse argues t3 arty would be unbalanced and claims that the timing just isn't possible/doesn't happen as early as nuggets says it is
• maudlin claims the timing isn't an issue

Nuggets and farms responded that searching replays is too tedious compared to the chance of a satisfying balance conclusion, but farms still gave a replay.

From @maudlin27; Rainbow cup game where T4 land push wins vs ender:

FYI this was the game I recalled (T4 land push vs game-ender):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdv1ZoqBvbc

24329811

20x15km map, has AI enemy teams in the corners which complicates things, but has the benefit of being a cash prize tournament so you'd expect teams are going with the strategy they think is best.

Using in-game timestamps (rather than video):

at 29m40 teams are roughly equal on eco (1.1k mass), and they largely remain similar after this for a while (bottom team fluctuates between 1.2k and 1.0k)

The mavor is started by bottom team at some point before 34m (at 34m17 it's 32% done); the top team briefly started a paragon before abandoning it and focusing on building GCs and other units

Mavor completes at 39m

Top team pushes with GCs, bottom team manages to land a nuke on a couple of the GCs (and later the AI also nukes one of top team's GCs). was very close but top-team's push with the GCs wins.

From @knownsniper; public/casual high-rated setons where he plays without eco bar (!!giant blunder!!)

anyway just for you this is an example #27433457

due to a disconnect the replay stops at min 38

https://puu.sh/KQj23/ea24a46581.png

in a completely even position (income is the same total mass generated is the same, also 1 min after this time nory wins top navy so both navies are equal)

but there's this to watch the end https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2822304906?t=05h11m32s

Here's @sainse's local replay that doesn't end early.

My take on the rainbowcup replay is that units showed to be better than Mavor. Nukes hindered the land push a lot but then air came to save the push, although everything was still quite slow. Thankfully Mavor is weak compared to Para/Yolo, particuarly vs units, so it didn't deal complete game-ending damage in the time it took for the land push to win.
It might've been a bad emergency defensive situation for the Mavor because there was Fatboy spam instead of other T4s. If the fatboys were swapped out fully in cost then maybe the mavor would've stayed alive with most of the bases destroyed, and the game would've continued for a while, which is a fair situation imo.
If Para/Yolo were built then they defeat the push easily and the north team would've lost because they had no follow-up with arty or ender (which can potentially defeat a yolo that spent its time nuking units, but they can't win long-term against para's defensive shield and smd capabilities).

For the setons replay I think:

1. Popiska and farms didn't cooperate which led to an ineffective strategy for the team as a whole. They should've either gone farms 2-3 Ahwassa + Popiska 600 ASF or farms should've contributed mass to Paragon. I think the Paragon would've lost but the air attack would've killed the Yolona at minimum and secured future air domination by killing ASF and killing all bp that could've been making SAMs, which allows a followup with more air or a land invasion that skips all the flak setup.
2. Farms delayed his invasion by 3 and a half minutes because he didn't manage his engineers, factories, and transports correctly. This was because he was focused on irrelevant things as seen in the stream recording, doesn't use ferry orders for transports, and had no eco bar while playing. At 5:13:43 in recording or 41:46 in replay he checked his mass bar and he floated 51k mass and overflowed +145 out of 474 income. It was safe to drop engis for invasion at min 38, Yolona started min 41, and nuke landed min 45.
3. It was quite lategame so doing an all-in with a land invasion at that timing was already more risky than usual invasion timings.

What I'm convinced in right now is that paragon output should be nerfed and Yolona cost should be shifted from energy to 225k mass to stop air players having a ridiculous 37k/63k mass advantage (17% cheaper than mavor, 25% cheaper than paragon) compared to other enders when turning off their air grid and going into Yolona. 225k mass with lower energy requirements should put it at a similar timing as before for ender rush eco slot build orders (no air grid to pause). It could be slightly lower at 210k mass since it has to eat through the game's accumulated SMDs, but still it needs a significant shift into costing more mass instead of energy.

A work-in-progress opinion is changing Yolona to cost more time when nuking units. A simple answer would be 1.5x missile BT, 1.5x missile HP, and 1.5x minimum reload time, but with how extremely powerful nukes are there could be changes to SMDs from there, so the Yolona change has to wait for whatever happens in that area.

You can ignore that Paragon/Yolona are quite overpowered compared to Mavor/Scathis if you want.