bring back high hp uef buildings!!!!!

Hey everyone,

I want to bring up something that’s been bothering me (and I’m sure I’m not alone): the constant push for new players to jump into 1v1s way too early.

Let’s be honest — 1v1 is the hardest mode in FAF. It demands precise builds, perfect micro, tight macro, and deep map knowledge. These are things that take time to develop. Yet we keep acting like it’s the ideal starting point. In reality, for most new players, it’s a miserable experience. And if you’ve ever watched a sub-800 1v1 replay, you know what I mean.

People sit in custom lobbies, playing teamgames like dual gap or TMM, and yeah, they might not be great, but at least they’re learning without getting absolutely obliterated in 5 minutes.

After thinking about it, I believe we need a systemic shift. Not more pressure to play 1v1, but actual protection from it.

Here’s my proposal:

Lock ranked 1v1 behind a basic teamgame threshold.
Let’s say:
• You need 50 global games played before ranked 1v1 unlocks
• Optional booster: If you hit 1100+ global, you can skip the last 10
• Exceptions can be reviewed manually by a balance councilor under strict criteria

I know this might sound counterintuitive to the “git gud” crowd, but hear me out. This would:
• Allow new players to develop basic eco, build awareness, and unit control in a more forgiving environment
• Prevent the ranked 1v1 ladder from being filled with clueless new players who don’t even scout
• Make 1v1 games actually competitive again, not 10-minute stomps with no mex grabbing or factory timing
• Improve retention by not throwing people into the meat grinder on day one

Let’s stop treating 1v1 like a rite of passage, and start treating it like what it is: the endgame.

After all, you wouldn’t hand a bronze StarCraft player a keyboard and say “go play Code S GSL.” So why are we doing the same in FAF?

Curious to hear serious feedback on this. I know it might ruffle the feathers of the 1v1 purists, but it’s time we rethink what “learning FAF” really means.

Additions:

According to FAFDB analytics, over 73% of players below 900 global have never played a single 1v1. And maybe that’s a good thing. It’s not a stat to lament — it’s a sign that new players are gravitating toward the modes where they can actually improve without ragequitting after two games.

Even Tagada once said in a cast, “Teamgames are where players go to plateau. 1v1 is where you learn to play the game.” But maybe that’s exactly why we shouldn’t throw new players into it until they’re ready.

I decided to kick it up a notch from 1.4x, and tried 2.0x (gotta test the waters you know), but lost.
25235283-waffelzNoob.7z (replay was broken)
Tried 1.8x twice, to no avail.
game 1. 25235404-waffelzNoob.7z Pausing the game for a few minutes broke the replay here
game 2. https://replay.faforever.com/25235533

Using 6 spawns probably wasn't wise because it meant the AI would have a ton of income even if I reduced it to its 3 core bases, but oh well. Would've tried 1.7x or 1.6x but only had motivation for one more game so I did it on 1.4x.
https://replay.faforever.com/25235664

@maudlin27 said in M28AI Devlog (v246):

The Radde trophy - awarded for beating a 1.4+ resource (1.0 resource) M28 on a 15km+ mapgen

Current holder - Radde and Microplastic - beating 1.4 resource v239 on a 15km mapgen

could i have the radde trophy i also beat it on mapgen 15km @Radde is eye witness!

So I could request to have my account deleted and come back on a new one a few years down the line?

Please elaborate.

@IndexLibrorum said in Proposal for [Challenge Accounts] | Feedback Wanted!:

In any case, I've read all of the responses to this thread and I'm waiting for some free time to properly collate them all and discuss it with the moderation team. I hope to soon be able to share a more fleshed out concept, or maybe even an announcement for a trial run (if our internal discussion concludes with us thinking this could work).

Any news?

I think you know more than the mods, because if the mods knew of players with multiple accounts, they'd ban them
I only know a few people who used to have alt accounts but those were banned

I'm making a new account to make an instructive "Road to x ladder rating" video series.

Any objections?

signing up with vindex

it's not "dumb", it's an explosive reactor and the gunships happen to fly low enough to be affected by its explosion.
also, increasing their flight height makes flak projectiles take longer to reach them. as a result flak needs to shoot further ahead on their trajectory, making it ever so slightly easier for gunships to dodge flak projectiles. no change comes without consequences

Not sure where to ask this, but is anyone able to explain why my bricks can't see underwater mex on this map? min ~28-29
https://replay.faforever.com/25024094
They can see them just fine on flooded tabula rasa for example

Just thought this was... particular

Bring back 5x5! (But only some of them)

@magge thank you

The problem might not be a lack of structure, but a lack of perceived accessibility and transparency. If people don't know how to appeal decisions, who to contact, or how moderation decisions are reviewed, then in practice, those systems might as well not exist for them. Saying "you can talk to the board" isn't helpful if that process isn’t clearly laid out, regularly reinforced, or seen as responsive. Similarly, internal oversight only matters if there’s external confidence in it.

Rather than setting up a new committee, it might be more effective to focus on improving the visibility and communication of existing systems. For example:
– Publish anonymized summaries of significant or contentious moderation decisions, including explanations of why a particular ruling was made.
– Share regular moderation activity reports publicly, not just to the board.
– Make escalation procedures clearer and more accessible.
– Consider having someone serve as a liaison or ombudsperson—someone neutral that people can approach with concerns that aren’t suited for the appeal system.

None of this requires changing the authority of the moderation team or creating more bureaucracy. It’s just about showing, clearly and consistently, that the systems already in place are being used fairly and responsibly.

is it tomorrow yet

ACU cosmetics and emotes

Hello please stop flooding the tournament thread

@demonstreamer666 https://forum.faforever.com/topic/9092/2025-spring-invitational-open-qualifier/21

I think especially stealth boats are awful because frigates have great aa so even with a scout stream you'll see very little, and only for a split second.
Here's me unable to see cybran navy even with up to 4 air facs spamming scouts, resulting in the crazy situation where I end up having to use a t3 air scout stream:
https://replay.faforever.com/24700304

At some points you may think "why didn't he go in he had more???" or "why did he allow this fight he had less???"

1. For all I know there's a stealth boat hiding 5 destroyers
2. I can't see what he has in totality which is a very important factor in deciding when to fight, and if opponent decides to shift g his army into you you have a limited time window to react, and that time window can just not exist if you can't see the navy