I didnt know that. Thanks!

@Nuggets said:

Yeah that i agree with. Its kinda stupid it doesnt show because you can just open your log and see who voted what

I should know this but, which log? You're talking about the non-ingame file in replay folder right?

Fair enough. What about suggestion [B]- letting the team know who's voting yes/no ? I've made the mistake a few times, agreeing with the vote, thinking key players wanted to recall- and later finding out they didn't. I can think of (1) 2k rated Russian player didn't want to recall but didn't answer chat queries, and atleast (2) other instances similar.

...I suppose pausing the game to poll the team in chat is simple enough to. Yes, its not a critical feature- just nice to have.

Recall is a kinda immersive way to end the game, and great way for teammates to vote instead of just quit. However, what does the community/admin team think about:

A. Recall only affecting ACUs who vote "Yes" when the majority vote "Yes".
At first, recall is a survey of how viable the game looks to the team. Great way of saying "things are bad, do you agree"? After that, it becomes a forced quit, and when votes are not unanimous it means some players loose their choice. Could it be adjusted so, when a majority vote "Yes", only those player's ACU Recall?

In a fullshared game: this means the person(s) who chose to stay now have the quitter's units and bases.

B. Recall voting corresponds to the voter; ie It shows who voted Yes or No
When judging if recall is a good idea or not, its good to know who's voted/how they voted. If a skilled player thinks its over, vs a non-skilled player; it would be useful to know.

Some might say, people should just discuss. Anon voting prompts discussion- but the fact is until recall is confirmed or the game is paused, there's no time to discuss. Besides, writing a novel as to why the game should continue/should not isn't feasible (would anyone care to read it anyway?)

Is the intention of the seraphim t4 bomber to be Kamikaze as soon as bomb is dropped?

IF it is not, consider what Open Red Alert(another run community RTS) devs did with the YAK attack plane. When ever it was "suicide-d" in mid air, there would be a random 'jerk' introduced into the flight path of the plane. This meant it was no longer following a straight trajectory, but in about a 45 degree spread, would go anywhere but exactly straight.

2 games recently:

1. Player made (2) donuts, and by sheer patience, audacity & skill managed to get them to enemy game ender(s) but, because the shield absorbed the damage that incredible accomplishment was ineffective.

2. Player made (2) Awassas' and by sheer 2-clicks got them to sail through and kill game ender with bomb they dropped in their death throes.

I can confirm it 'sucks to suck' but just seems tragic 2-clicks is rewarded, patience & audacity are not so much.

Replays below:
G1 - https://replay.faforever.com/27083227
G2 - https://replay.faforever.com/27084307

So just to be clear- that just means I can't see pings outside of that limit?

We've all had that teammate who uses pings, and pings, and pings, and pings.

Would it be possible to make a menu option for ping limit? Options could be: "unlimited", 5 , 15, 30, 60 seconds or so, per ping or note type. So you could ping all 4 but then stfu.

I know there's a limit of 1-2 seconds at the moment but, is this possible?

...if this exists already. I am sorry, I didn't know despite imperfect looking.

Suggestion 1: Enable the same Foe Mute to all chat windows - including lobby, and in game.(assuming its possible, having to re-mute them in game is a pain, and there's no lobby mute ATM)

Suggestion 2: Instead of (or as an alternative to) banning players for saying things- provide the moderation tool to global mute them.(Punishment fits the crime, player base disappears less)

#----Suggestion 1 - Rationale - Extend the Foe mute to games & lobbies----#

Lately FAF faces dwindling population- which makes game wait time longer, and personal vendettas all the more stinging. For example:

.... you waited hours in lobby and then stupid Printer did-that-thing/made-that-mistake/let-you-down- and now the game quality isn't fun. However, the worst thing is- getting insults on top of that pain Printer caused! ...and guess what he feels the same! So words fly and ..and then there's less players and a loop forms- but with different people.

Now you could just play GAP, and well that's a perfect community of course- way chiller- but what if you NEVER had to see that Printer guy's chats?

He could let you down, he could screw up etc etc, but you'd never have to see his dumb comments ever again. No, I don't mean ban that guy- but what about a permanent mute tied to the Foe system? Just foe & forget!

#---Suggestion 2 Rationale: Globally Mute instead of Ban for Verbal Abuse---#

Because of diminishing player numbers and a steep learning curve- loosing players and experienced ones, is against the intent of FAF. It will not be "Forged Alliance FOREVER" if people keep getting voted off the island.

This actually hurts people who have nothing to do with the flame-out; -> because less players; -> less lobbies launching; -> less Forged Alliance. Less 'Forever'.

Secondly, mute them, instead of ban them. This fits a bit with the appropriateness of the ancient idea of 'an eye for an eye', system. Someone who's verbally abusive may still be a decent competitor- but no need for their comments. Let them play- muted- and the community doesn't loose the invested time and benefit of that player's participation.

Lastly, bad words are not the same as bad behavior. I've been banned for reclaiming allied units, bombing allied units, and I've seen people banned for exploits. That happened 'on the map', and should be punished 'on the map'. But words happen in the chat box, and maybe that suggests they should be dealt with in the chat box too. Mute, dont ban.

---ty for reading
Just my opinion. Again if these are not feasible or have been discussed and declined- never mind. Also I think many people who may say 'hateful' words and things don't actually hate what they reference- but might just be having a bad day.

Having spent years on some other old games, I think the best feature faf has implemented is the rating and group game % quality system. Its not perfect, but OpenRA (where I spent alot of time) didn't have it and what brutal, high-school clicky, and pointless experience that made it. Teams would only be balanced if everyone knew everyone, the host was kind, and people weren't smurfing. So for for that reason maybe 1/20 group games were quality... Personally that's the #1 appreciated feature for me.

Printer 1431

Weather alert where I live, might have to work after all. Please remove

Printer 1472 Sign-Up (if work doesnt stop me)

@Nomander said in Another Novax conversation:

Sat is already rebuildable. This is because it can block nukes (intentional) or get RNG hit by artillery (consequence of the simulation).

Wow, I didn't know that. TY-

The problem with SMD shooting down sats is that it begins to compete with nuke in terms of what its defense is, and you might as well have a nuke instead of a sat if you must avoid SMD.
Ok so make it super cheap to rebuild: now it blocks nukes easily and drains SMD quickly
Ok so make it build slowly but cheap, it's basically an SMD missile: how are you ever going to get 36k mass killed - 3.6k per sat downed with this unit that takes forever to even rebuild. You can't even assist your own arty because every enemy target will have an SMD.

From my view, your second two scenarios (super cheap vs slowly built); are minor issues- because you can correct them just by adjusting cost.

But I think your first point about SMD having (2) jobs in "what the point of its defense is"; makes sense but is multi-purposing an SMD really that bad?

And in my proposed scenario;

• OBVIOUSLY the player does NOT need build the SMD if they don't want it to shoot down the SAT.
• Plus, if an SMD shoot down toggle exists the player does NOT need to use it.

My contention is, and I think still stands reasonably in light of your objections, that SATs do not have an effective, appropriate counter- for players when they want it. This is not balanced. This is a hole. This needs fixing.

@Nomander said in Another Novax conversation:

@Printer said in Another Novax conversation:

And that's why .... ....a normally "disabled" player toggle, on the smd to target the sats.

This is such a powerful counter it's basically removing sats from the game. Every suggestion for the laser sat has been to remove it, that's why I recommend coming up with an actual rework so that Novax isn't a 36k mass artillery piece. Balance team agrees on that direction afaik, so it isn't unrealistic to rework it.

But a powerful counter is a simple one. Simple isn't bad. Having a simple APM counter, to a simple APM unit; is elegant.
I also didnt mean an SMD-shootdown would = the sat dead and Novax center useless.
My suggestion hinged also on making the SAT re-build-able at the Novax center. Also, since an SMD missle costs 3.6k mass (and the launcher is 7.5k mass) so, the SAT might need to get a lower mass cost to compensate.

Besides, the player doesn't have to shoot it down. Just has the choice to or not.

@relentless said in Another Novax conversation:

I feel like with the amount of time you've put into this thread you could have created a mod that makes the Novax different to demonstrate your thoughts. I once modified the Novax satellite to consume power similar to a t3 artillery but I wasn't sure how to stop the beam weapon when you ran out of power. Seemed like it would be a good way to stop people stacking them easily.

• You can try it out via the BlackOps mod I think, it allows sats to be shot down
• Power drain is great idea

Perfect balance is checkers. Maybe the fact the pros don't use Novax much maybe means; its not majorly out of balance.

But for the sake of fun and the type of gameplay- I think it needs some upcoming adjustment. Remember:

• Old RAS SCUs?
• Vanilla Telemaeser?
• Vanilla, HARMS with destroyer range, better survivability and dps HARMs?

Those were all "balanced' by the numbers & opportunity cost originally- but because of the type of game-play they generated; they were changed.

Or how about some of the rules we have in the community; like "no building a factory under a dropping transport" - this works amazingly well against drops - but its bannable.

I'm just trying to highlight; from what's been done; its not only about balance & opportunity cost.

Simply put, and to quote another player @Cascade "Sats are Anti-Fun".

And that's why I really think they need a counter. Best of which, in my opinion is a:

• normally "disabled" player toggle
• on the smd to target the sats.

@FtXCommando said in Another Novax conversation:

SMDs have never shot down novaxes. Likewise adding this cost to novax with nothing else immediately puts it into unviable territory. It would make zero sense to be making it over a nuke in nearly all use cases.

No I'm sure they did once, and someone else recently reported the same. But this was before any patching. Like the super old days when a UEF player didn't have the Fletcher betrayal on the Overlord mission. Or I had a different game then you did years ago.

@Nomander said in Another Novax conversation:

A sat only needs 3-4 T3 engis and 40-60m/s of assistance depending on faction T2/T3 shield to be completely countered. ....

At first, what you said on paper is what I saw as well;

• T2 Cybran-TD1 (Weakest) with (3) T3 engineers assisting still breaks in a single Sat- with laser to spare.
• T2 Cybran-TD2 (first upgrade) with (3) T3 engineers it takes (4) shots
• T2 Sera (best) with (3) t3 engies, 1 sat is effectively countered.
  t3 more so ofcourse

Bring in a 2nd Sat, and I was surprised by how fast things died

• T2 Cybran-TD2 - with (3) engies = 1 shots
• T2 Sera - with (3) engies = 3 shots to break
  *t3 Cybran-TD4(Weakest), with (3) engies = 2 shots to break the bubble.
• t3 Sera (strongest) with (3) engies = 5 shots to break

(3) Sats and things die faster- even with a 2nd shield:

• (2) T3 Cybran, with (3) engies each takes (2-4) shot.
• (2) T3 Sera, with (3) engies each, takes (4-8) shots and kills the shields too if so qued.

The results show SATS quickly overcoming a few engies; and it depends if the sats are grouped up and focusing down 1 shield or spreading their damage which is why I saw (4-8) on the t3 Sera.

It's not a perfect test (could use more engineers) but I think the APM considered should be equal on both sides to do a good test. The sat takes a few clicks ONLY- stop/starting shields, re-targetting and building just-in-the-nick-of-time, shouldn't be compared to the relaxing, slow click of UEF sat "micro".

The damage type is entirely different. An artillery shell is likely to wipe out a shield but then not hit it again and has to wait a few key seconds before a 2nd one is inbound. You might be aiming for the SMD and the artillery shell broke the bubbles, but the next shot misses the SMD; and the a new bubble saves things on the 3rd. A sat would not have this problem; and a SAT also:

• gets Vet quickly compared to artillery,
• re-targets very fast
• would be useful vs killing things like mexs, and choking your enemy, while t3 arty is not

Comparing the UEF Sat to Artillery is unfair; they're totally different.

@TwitchyMofo said in Another Novax conversation:

@Printer this is why reducing damage to shields would be an effective balance.

btw, I think I was maybe wrong. I was talking about the shield structure- not the shield bubble. And I think its just shield structures are so weak- is why it appears the sats kill them so fast. So I might have been wrong about the 'bonus' damage.

@YraCore said in Another Novax conversation:

@Printer bro 4 stats and you are dead? are you sure?...

4 Sats is close to 1000 dps, it takes a bunch of engineers to overcome that. So you can maybe stop a huge flock of Sats in one place (plot twist, 22 is unstoppable), but they can just move to another spot.

Sats don't have that opportunity cost unlike every other unit. This why I think they're not polished. The devs in vanilla used SMDs to shoot them down (I vaguely still remember being a kid, and having a Novax center and no Novax satellite- and building a few more before I saw what was happening...)-

Anyway, IMO maybe microing around SDM's wouldn't hurt. Hoping there's something cooking on this issue.

Edited after finishing replay

I don't get your expense argument - a T2 shield costs 500-700 mass; you could build 10 of them and it's still a fraction of the novax cost.

It's not just an expense argument. As the Novax moves, if means you need to move around engineers to counter it. Engineers are slower. Note more importantly to your point; a single Novax will ;

• over power and kill a Cybran T2-d1 in 1 shot, (4) Shots if Sera T2 - unassisted
• over power and kill a Cybran T3 in (4) shots, or (6) if Sera T3 - unassisted
• most mex's get surrounded by fabs, so it doesnt need to kill the mex, the fabs do that FOR the SAT
• Novax's do extra damage to shields, so as soon as the shield drops- ITS DEAD

So if you succeeded in shielding your base for 1 sat, you have to get more shields / engineer assist even after shielding. And so you make strongholds where shielding is better. But that only works up to (3) sats. At (4+) sats (around 1000 dps), you're fucked.

In the meantime, you basically get ripped apart on the edges. SATs are practically like the stereotypical American-Sitcom In-Laws. There's no defense, no escape, and they chip, and chip and chirp away at you unstoppably....

Which underlines the point of this thread- balance aside- its a very un-fun unit in its current state.

But, for instance if Sat players had to micro them around SMDs; that would be an elegant counter; already in game.

The SAT layer is a nice idea from futurist stand point (what kind of future wouldn't have intel Sats) but an ammunition based orbital thing- kinda would ruin some of the sense of 'realism' for me. But that's just me.

@Jip said in Another Novax conversation:

Allow SMDs to intercept satellites (manually)

This idea is not new. It's used in LOUD. I like it thematically. It provides the player with an option to immediately counter a satellite if the player thinks it's necessary. For example, countering the laser-based satellite would be a no brainer if you are also being shelled by artillery.

Looking forward to things if this goes up for testing... fingers crossed

@snoog You hit on something I forgot. With (1) sat, an entire team, needs to shield up their base, near, and far mexs to 'counter'.

A typical t3 shield is around 3000 mass and a typical 8 person map has 4-6 close mexes, 1-2 expos, and then whatever far mexes exist. By the time a Novax shows up, there's also probably a main t3 power grid; so conservatively a player has 3-4 places to shield.

That means the first Sat, can require an investment of 12-15k mass, and power drain of 1200-1600 per second; per player.

By the numbers then, to 'counter':

• a Setons team- if they're each only getting (4) more t3 shields, 48-60k mass.,

• a Dual Gap team - assuming there's some over lap, across 7 players, getting (2) that's 42k mass,

• a Random Map team - assuming 5 players getting (3) each, that's 45k mass

ofc, that's plus power drain, cost of engineers going around, and mass to build power. And, that's with NO DAMAGE DONE, and only assuming 2-3 shields a player. So just by existing, a SAT almost immediately pays for itself.

Artillery is slow firing and inaccurate. Bombers can get shot down. Sats cost nothing once built and scale as a flock better than anything else.