I think this was one of my favorite factory models. While there are some inconsistencies, the model effectively conveyed the visual weight HQs should have, as they are one of the most important units you can build.

Let me explain in more detail why this feature is not yet suitable to be ranked. This earned me a lot of flack on one of your streams for some reason; maybe a FAF lobby was simply the wrong place to talk about this. No offense taken, obviously.

• No indication of who is controlling your units (critical).
• There is a bug that causes all of your engineers to be labeled 'idle' when switching armies. I am not sure if this has been fixed by now.
• The UI lies to you. The game indicates that you are playing against player x. This does not necessarily have to be the case however, you could also be playing against player y, or even against players x, y, z. This is not game-breaking, but it would obviously make more sense if player names were hidden entirely.
• Essentially, most of what Dorset mentioned.

If you want to decrease the chance of it getting forgotten, you can make an issue on GitHub. Again, keeping it ranked to spread awareness of the issues with the feature should not be the modus operandi here. It cannot be compared to shared armies either, as that setting looks to be feature-complete.

@Syndicus Exselsior and I would like to team up, would that be possible?

I think this could happen faster if this was actually brought some attention instead.

Your point is valid, but I philosophically disagree with keeping it ranked as a means to raise awareness of the problem.

I believe SSB2 or some variations of it allow players to change armies by simply clicking on the respective names (at least when cheating is enabled). This is a good feature and perhaps something to consider.

To clarify, Terarii substituting for Nuggets on my team was:

• Approved by the TD
• Approved by the other team

In fact, Seraphim's team actively made the decision that Terarii would substitute for Nuggets. This was not my decision, nor my team's, and Seraphim's team could have chosen someone else. They didn't, because they believed Terarii would underperform. All three parties agreed on Terarii substituting.

I agree it should be unranked as long as there is no proper UI to support the feature (e.g., you have no way of knowing who is controlling your units). Additionally, being forced to use the cheat menu or the console to switch perspectives might not be a problem for players who know their way around the game, but it is not acceptable for newer or casual players.

Navy:

• Cybran: Very good overall; perhaps the T2 HQ and Support factories could be differentiated more.
• Aeon: Looks a bit too bulky; will take time to get used to.
• Seraphim: Good, apart from the bulky floating device added to the HQs, which blocks a lot of the (well‑crafted) model when viewing from the front.
• UEF: Very good.

Air:

• Cybran: Good.
• Aeon: Too many smaller elements that don't fit the clean Aeon aesthetic. I prefer the old engiemod HQs or the ones on Steam.
• Seraphim: Very good.
• UEF: Very good, with the small nitpick that the bridge of the T3 HQ looks out of place.

Land:

• Cybran: Improved over the previous version. The T2 HQ looks a bit busy, and the outward tilt of the spikes could be increased slightly on both HQs.
• Aeon: I think the engiemod version looked significantly better and was more fitting. Also, all factories are too tall.
• Seraphim: Very good.
• UEF: Very good. LOD 1 is significantly darker, which makes it look broken.

I don't want to pay too much attention to the other channels, so the captains-only channel worked out fine for me - but I get why you don't like it. As for the average time it took to get a response, I think not running both the Prince and King tourneys concurrently would likely help the situation.

In terms of the Seton's tourney, said organiser barely asked for any help, made a lot of things last minute, and blamed us for not helping. I just think it should be mentioned as its a good example for the sub rule aswell.

Okay let's go over this just to clear things up and give my perspective on things.

Syndicus has been criticized a lot for his tournament management, and I feel like most of what I have read on Discord and the forums so far has not been entirely fair. First of all, as we all know, there were massive connection problems for the entire duration of the tourney (two days). This obviously made managing the tourney much harder, more annoying, and exponentially increased the amount of time he had to sink into organizational tasks. Were mistakes made along the way? I wholeheartedly agree - e. g. the management of the Challonge was suboptimal. But considering the circumstances, the connection problems were 90% of the reason the tourney ended up being scuffed, and most subsequent issues (like the substitution controversy, which I will touch on later) were also caused by them.

In my interactions with him, he always responded quickly to my requests and was generally easy to talk to. This is about as much as anyone can expect from a TD, given the constant inflow of information he had to deal with from two tourneys. Perhaps the King and Price tourneys could be held on different weekends in the future. This would also make tournament coverage by Twitch streamers more thorough as a side benefit.

Another thing that did not make things easier was the trolling in the Discord channels. I personally don't care about players making fun of each other, but reporting false results to the TD is, in my opinion, not acceptable. Managing two tourneys is difficult enough already, let's not make it even more difficult for the person with the most thankless job in the tourney, right?

The recent King of Setons 2025 tournament had an issue that we'd evaluate as "lacking competitive integrity", at the least.

Let's go over this one last time and provide some more context.

The first substitute for my team was Protect, who replaced PANTS because he was not available on Sunday. Protect was lower rated than PANTS at the time of the tourney and had barely played in 2025, so I think he was an acceptable replacement. They are very similar players in terms of skill level in any case. Since the tourney on Sunday also lasted hours longer than usual, Protect had to leave as well because he had a flight to catch. Naturally, this was very unfortunate, and there was a debate about who should replace him. For the sake of fairness, and since the rules were ambiguous, I gave our opponents the option to choose our substitute for us. I am not entirely sure anymore if this is exactly how it happened, but what is certain is that my team let the opposing team (Team Rival) choose our substituting player, which I think is very forthcoming. The other team ended up choosing Terarii over VIP because they thought Terarii would play badly. Team Rival ended up losing the two final games in very close matches.

Was everything about this optimal? No. But given that we even let our opponents choose a substituting player for us (something I've never heard of happening before), I think calling it "lacking competitive integrity" isn't fair either.

To clarify, Terarii substituting for Nuggets on my team was:

• Approved by the TD
• Approved by the other team

In fact, Seraphim's team actively made the decision that Terarii would substitute for Nuggets. This was not my decision, nor my team's, and Seraphim's team could have chosen someone else. They didn't, because they believed Terarii would underperform. All three parties agreed on Terarii substituting.

Signing up

I think this was one of my favorite factory models. While there are some inconsistencies, the model effectively conveyed the visual weight HQs should have, as they are one of the most important units you can build.

Let me explain in more detail why this feature is not yet suitable to be ranked. This earned me a lot of flack on one of your streams for some reason; maybe a FAF lobby was simply the wrong place to talk about this. No offense taken, obviously.

• No indication of who is controlling your units (critical).
• There is a bug that causes all of your engineers to be labeled 'idle' when switching armies. I am not sure if this has been fixed by now.
• The UI lies to you. The game indicates that you are playing against player x. This does not necessarily have to be the case however, you could also be playing against player y, or even against players x, y, z. This is not game-breaking, but it would obviously make more sense if player names were hidden entirely.
• Essentially, most of what Dorset mentioned.

If you want to decrease the chance of it getting forgotten, you can make an issue on GitHub. Again, keeping it ranked to spread awareness of the issues with the feature should not be the modus operandi here. It cannot be compared to shared armies either, as that setting looks to be feature-complete.

I think this could happen faster if this was actually brought some attention instead.

Your point is valid, but I philosophically disagree with keeping it ranked as a means to raise awareness of the problem.

I believe SSB2 or some variations of it allow players to change armies by simply clicking on the respective names (at least when cheating is enabled). This is a good feature and perhaps something to consider.

I agree it should be unranked as long as there is no proper UI to support the feature (e.g., you have no way of knowing who is controlling your units). Additionally, being forced to use the cheat menu or the console to switch perspectives might not be a problem for players who know their way around the game, but it is not acceptable for newer or casual players.

Signing up