@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.

Might be a client bug. The icon appears in the vault screen for me:

I like how the design specifically addresses gameplay issues like tml/nukes/smd/arty/omni/acus while keeping in line with the simplicity and readability (small size) of the original artwork. The configurable icon generator is also nice for people who don't like certain colors or are colorblind.

The shape of the faction-specific ACU icons is really nice (better than redux), but I don't like the faction-colored outline since that colored part blends in with player colors due to how much space the colored outline takes up, and how the outline's shape is different per-faction.
It would be cool to see your attempt at SACU icons with presets accounted for.

The AA icon lacks a black outline on the light blue part so it blends in with the green and aqua player colors. I also confused its shape for air staging.

The gallery doesn't show the tech markers, but it should, I got confused with the HQ icons before I downloaded and ran the generator myself.
Also after viewing the dds files the preview images are way off: AA has an outline around the central shape, TML/SML/SMD/arty/power do not have outlines around the central shape. HQs also do not appear in the dds files.

I've encountered that issue too so now I click the game tile and then click join game on the right side game preview.
I'm not sure what's the ideal UI solution. A one-click join can still change the tile your mouse is over in the time between deciding and clicking. You could lock the position of the tile your mouse is hovered over and use animations to move tiles around during sorting updates.
In terms of clicking the UI seems fine because you must double click on the same tile for it to join, which means there's not really any space to filter out different clicks like if you double clicked around the time that tiles switched places.

Although that's a wild guess since I've never seen missing/broken particle textures myself outside of the recent hydrocarbon/mex texture bug.

Maybe it's missing red/black-striped textures like what people experience with maps? Would have to verify steam files if the textures are corrupted.

From what I've read shield spillover was added because artillery and strat snipes were impossible to use because strats would have to break through too much shield HP and arty would just get outregenerated/outrecharged by shield spam. Armies were also quite strong with shield spam just regenerating infinite hp easily, especially in the low DPS naval domain.
Just one historical source I quickly found: https://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=7603

@CoffinNoob said:

It would be good to know the exact mechanics.

https://wiki.faforever.com/en/Infrastructure/Rating-System

@CoffinNoob said:

gauge how getting high numbers of game can be useful

Only the first ~10 games are useful as they calibrate your rating from 1500+/-1500 to your actual skill +/- 300.

Yes it deals a max of 8k damage and shields can block the crash damage once by up to 20% of the max shield HP. I don't see how you're connecting this to what I said regarding the design of your balance idea.

You would have to make crash damage reliable so it isn't frustrating to use, but that's difficult because it's a normal AoE that is blocked by well-placed shields. If you make it ignore shields then there is an issue with crashing near the outside of a shield and dealing full damage through it. I don't think there is a way to make shields absorb the damage up to a limit and without allowing overlapping shields to stack the absorption amount.

Also if we're talking about killing bases (since we're talking about crash damage it has to be a game-ending move), Ahwassa really struggles with enemy buildpower spamming shields because it has such low DPS. I get that Czar isn't that good vs surface targets but you're comparing the wrong situation.

The target priorities are making it try to aim at the tanks behind it. I don't think there is an easy way we devs can fix it. Players can fix it by changing the target priorities by using ui mods, the "prioritize unit type" hotkey, or right click the attack order button to enable snipe priorities (acu is at the top in that priority list).

FAF uses the desired shooter cap to decide who gets to fire on what, which is engine behavior where once a weapon locks on to a target, it adds towards the cap, and weapons can't target entities whose shooter cap is full. The issue is that the weapon takes up the cap while it is targeting, so if it misses or is reloading then its still taking up the cap. We fixed these issues with TMDs; try using DisableWhileReloading = true (used by tmd) or TargetResetWhenReady = true (used by antitorps) in the weapon blueprint.