Posts made by Sir-Prize

@RubberN Here's the installer I have on my PC, definitely only use the small icons. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UAtkRXufjEihQhT61N6kWll9UAeX26CP/view?usp=sharing

@amygdala said in UI mod guide for the improving player:

you can delete all the icons despite a few useful ones

How do I do this? Overall using these icons makes it way easier for me to see various important things (quickly scouting mexes and easily telling the difference between T1 arty and T1 tanks are actually the biggest things for me - dunno why I find the T1 spam so hard to read normally) so I find the mod to be a net positive - playing with small icons removes most of the problems imo. But I would really like to be able to edit or delete some too.

https://pastebin.com/Tz0gHm8k
I regularly get this error when I try to download game info in a replay from the vault, which I sometimes do for various reasons. It's quite rare that this works for me these days. No big deal really, but the functionality has broken for me.

I wanted to expand a little on how we might highlight streamers in the client's News tab, but I'd like to seek feedback - I don't have many strong views but I have a feeling we could annoy people or cause drama if we're not careful (I mean it might happen no matter what lol, all due respect to the FAF community, want to minimise the chance though). Again, this is for slow news weeks, or at least when there's not many different news stories.

Ideally we'd be able to be vet for quality*, checking VODs is pretty helpful here but it's also a BIG JOB to do properly. So if there are a bunch of VODs (you need to switch on Store Past Broadcasts if you're using Twitch, it's not on by default) that helps us to have a quick skim - I assume that's how Tagada curates the OP in this thread - but I doubt we can properly vet a stream because there are only so many hours in a day. At times I suspect we will take advantage of the vetting Tagada has done here, but if streamers have met these requirements and aren't on this list we're open to promoting them if they come to us or we can otherwise be confident they're active and have some quality. Would REALLY prefer it came directly from the streamer though.

I think we'd want to see 3+ unique FAF streams with 5+ hours uptime in the last fortnight or so as an absolute bare minimum for activity too, and it probably needs to be a good bit more than this if the streamer goes inactive or plays other games for large periods within a fortnight.

Really open to suggestion on any of this if anyone cares particularly deeply about ensuring only the best stuff gets promoted, or instead thinks this makes it too hard to build a stream for an already tiny game.

*"Quality" - probably is best defined as streams that could add some kind of value to the FAF community. I can only really think of educational focus (including stream chats helping a new, low rated streamer), high-skill play (which obviously has educational value too), or the stream style being able to build a community - I guess this kind of catches "the next BRNK" or "the next Gyle", both are a bit educational but the thing that makes them successful is their personality/colour commentary and the community around that. If people have other kinds of streams they think we should look at it here let us know.

@Sheikah said in Client v1.4.3 Upcoming Features:

Support generated maps in map pools

Heyooooooo

Heads up that we are promoting active streamers in the client News tab, particularly when we're a little short for stories, so if you're streaming regularly (probably 4-5 minimum recent broadcasts and/or not inactive for many days at a time) and want a mention in the client let us know in #news-post-requests in the FAF Promotion sever here https://discord.gg/8vc6z9dN2G. Ideally there's also a clear value to the viewer, e.g. educational for new players, entertaining/interactive streamer, gameplay with high skill and speed. Non-English language streams are VERY welcome.

We have been picking one or two active streamers to promote based on Twitch activity, which is probably fine. But just in case it somehow causes drama, we'd prefer to do it with the streamer's permission or at their request going forward.

@Auricocorico said in FAF version (GPG, unknown & inactive author map rework):

I recall that the pgen explosion is stronger the closer you are, right ?

Nah, death weapons have a flat damage cutoff at their max range, unlike nukes which have inner/outer ring. And they were already in range of eachother - just quickly tested it.

@Auricocorico said in Change Mantis to T1 tank icon:

I'm quite sad noboby took draguns comment seriously, I think it makes perfect sense. Mantis has been like that since SupCom ... i'm sad this feature is removed to satisfy 3-4 people ....
#mantisarebots !!!!

I made a three paragraph reply two posts above yours dude. I took it seriously out of respect for Dragun, as much as anything, cos he's a good guy. I just don't think his perspective makes sense in this case.

I would also be on board with a T1 Percy/Brick icon, I just don't see the point of having two units in the same faction having the same icon when it can absolutely confuse newer/rustier/worse players either using or fighting the Hunter/Mantis, like I said in my last post. It doesn't really matter which gets used, T1 tank is also fine and consistent with Seraphim T1 MAA having a diamond icon.

And yes @veteranashe I made this thread because someone went LAB/Mantis mix against me and it caused minor confusion (if perhaps also being a little inefficient - I wonder if he pushed once or twice when he shouldn't have because he overestimated his forces). It's not confusing when people go Mech Marine/Striker or Flare/Aurora, which also happens. Regardless, you would want this to be addressed either way before it became a solid choice in the meta, not leave it because it doesn't happen often when it's literally one line of code.

Whatever makes your job easiest tbh. I generally don't have strong opinions about how maps play or look, so long as they're balanced, and definitely no preference about the angle of symmetry.

If you want a second opinion that matters I'd doublecheck with arch or ftx as they run the map pools, so it would be best if they like (and therefore use) your version.

@svenni_badbwoi The main issue I can see can be fixed with moving props in the middle. I'm sure balancing the map could be optimised much better, but in the first instance I think making the props in the centre so they are vertically and horizontally symmetrical would make the map acceptable for use in the matchmaker pools. To avoid seriously changing the gameplay by changing mass values in the middle I guess that means four groups of trucks and the T1 MAA in the centre of the base, and the buildings laid out symmetrically.

Might be worth uploading a version 1 like that and working on more finetuning over time?

@Tagada https://www.twitch.tv/voiceoftex/ is pretty active.

I had this recently too and just assumed it was an issue with my buggy laptop having a sticky key on or something. I locked and unlocked my computer with the windows+L key real quick and I didn't have the issue again. Will try and post a recording of it if I see it happen again.

@archsimkat said in 1v1 and 2v2 matchmaker pools for March:

I thought Turtle Rocks would fall into that category to play, at least when compared with a lot of the other options for 1v1s on 20x20s

Just a quick side not that this definitely is a 10km and plays like a 10km. By that I mean transports feel useful but optional, even moreso than other 10km maps like EotS, Vya, Last Oasis, Vulcan's Reach, Twin Rivers. On 20km maps transports are never really optional imo. Also while there should probably be multiple fronts on Turtle Rocks, they're not far from eachother so one can reinforce another one very quickly. On 20km land maps this isn't the case, it's probably their other defining feature. Not that I dislike Turtle Rocks, it's just not a substitute for a 20km if that's what you wanted it for.

Anyway, like I said to you elsewhere I think this is a really good pool overall, that's probably in part because so many of them are well established 1v1 maps, especially in the lower brackets. I think the balance is maybe a little skewed towards high reclaim and mex counts, particularly in the 5km pool, but I think that's mostly a product of the maps that get made.

@Valki said in 1v1 and 2v2 matchmaker pools for March:

Especially in 1v1 it happens often that my opponent leaves immediately when we start out on Badlands. I want to do that too but I am too honest.

1v1 and 2v2 should not be seen as training for teamgames and include the big 4v4 maps for that reason.

After reading this I had to go find the replays that made you post this, because what you're saying doesn't actually make sense. 1v1s on multispawn maps play completely differently to games where those slots are full for a team game. It's not "dishonest" to move out and take mexes, it's what you should do in any game regardless of the spawn count.

Variety is nice, but it's easier to learn the very basic, fundamental principle of the game that you HAVE to expand ASAP if you play on a map where the vast majority of the mexes are clearly on your side and you're supposed to have them. The same is true for 2v2s on 6/8 player maps, you need to learn how to expand no matter what, and the greater percentage of the mass you can realistically defend the easier it is to learn. I think maps like Sweepwing and Regor belong more in the 1300+ pools as they're harder to learn, the mass is far more contestable and you are far more dead if you drop under 50% map control for any period of time.

I personally think having a good chunk of maps with an obvious split of mexes leads to better games, here you can read Petric and Blodir explaining why that's the case better than I could without just paraphrasing them.

@Blodir said in About Neroxis map generator...:

Small map pool = everyone has a build order for all maps => bo no longer has impact on the result of the game
Large map pool = some players have build orders on some maps => better prepped player wins

This was/is why I prefer a small pool, but I'm in a minority and it's obvious small pool kills your level ladder play

Fair enough, a global queue does make some sense when you put it like that. I still slightly worry about splitting player bases and making it harder to fill games overall but in fairness the moment you're not talking about 1v1s I probably should butt out of the conversation due to a total lack of knowledge.

On a (possibly) related note, what's the latest with the ladder divisions/hiding matchmaker ratings?

@harzer99 said in About Neroxis map generator...:

take into consideration that usually only the people say something that want change. To get the opinion of the others we would need to introduce it and get feedback then.

This is exactly what I'm suggesting. I will say that when map pool sizes have changed in the past there's always been some debate among higher level players, although they overwhelmingly preferred larger pools (keyser basically stopped laddering when the pool got big again). The only argument I'm seeing against mapgen is from people who are worried for newbs (rightly, imo) - but no one is suggesting this for newb map pools.

Tbh I don't think I've seen the 1800+ crowd so united behind a ladder idea before, if the 1800+ pool was partly or wholly mapgen for a month I think it would go down very well.

Guess it's not a big deal either way, just might see all the tryhards in the "casual" queue which will be a laugh but people get what they want, that's what matters.

edit - guess the risk is splitting 1v1 player base, especially if the "casual" queue isn't pure mapgen. If it's pure mapgen then the hosting of custom mapgen 1v1s will just move to an automatch feature, which would be an improvement, but if it's not then it might get a bit weird in a three-way split between the two queues and custom games.

@Askaholic said in About Neroxis map generator...:

we can throw up a casual/unrated/global rating queue that incorporates some random maps

Why an entirely new ladder and pool? Genuine question, don't wanna sound unappreciative. It's really great to hear this is being worked on and not just shutting down a good idea just because it's work for you btw, thank you and thanks @Sheikah so much for doing this - this idea about creating a whole new queue seems unnecessary on first glance to me.

To my untrained eye it looks like you are using MANY mods based on the opening - is this the log where you loaded without any UI or sim mods running? If it is, how big in KB/MB is your game.prefs file? I used to have a similar issue that I fixed by purging a bunch of 500 unit templates that were took up literal megabytes of space, and my game became more stable when I purged them.

@LordMaw I had issues with Norton blocking 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 installations from working properly, suggest checking (and maybe temporarily deactivating just for the install) your malware protection.

Bump - Arctic Refuge is imbalanced in favour of the northern spawn(s) due to the trucks on the northern side of the civ base in the middle being worth thousands of mass. The buildings are also slightly weighted to the north as well - when I tested it I got about 3k more mass that was obviously northern in the Civ base than I got out of obviously southern mass. Didn't count stuff in the middle.