You need to restart the client I believe.
Hamburger menu => Settings (second from bottom) => Language (third from bottom) => English (third from bottom)
Ctrl+click on "small guy" icon on scoreboard asks for engi already. The same with asking power and mass. Shift+click gives unit, or in case of power/mass, gives 25%.
Most of on screen messages I have seen are easy to understand/universel: ACU, nuke, antinuke, mavor, tml, eco, yellow ping for assist, blue for move and red for attack... People use multiple pings for more precision: Blue ping on unit (group) you want to be moved, followed by blue ping in place you want it to be moved to.
Official FAF language is english. I am not native english speaker, but as most players I respect to use of english ingame. Even when there are players from my nationality ingame, I speak english. As almost all other players (ecxept russians somtimes). And I dont use my langauage to make worst teams for other nationalitys. Or to bully them. Or to insult them.
@fiercelv If I may try to help:
"GIVE ME AN ENGINEER" (or other) text markers have color on top of them, showing who made them. So you know who want engie etc.
"Rampant, unpunished lagers. REHOST 24/7 Self explanatory." And "Lobby Kicks" / "CPU Snobs". Those are two sides of the same problem. Might want to learn how to use f11 ingame, to determine who is lagging, or is it you. And what type of maps and player count your computer can handle. Smaller maps and less players and smaller unit limit of course are easyer on CPU. If necessary you can pick smaller maps, and also tell in lobby, that you have played/ you know you can handle this type of map. Lieing of course can make joining later much harder.
Also you can ask joining lobby, if your score is a problem. Some players/ greys too ask that.
You can host your own games.
And you can choose games you join. If host is bad, as you described. Remember him and dont join any more. And if host is good, remember him and join his games. Same applys to accepting toxic players in your own games. This can be quite effective way. Especially if lots of people would acknowledge theyr impact on game. I have seen bad hosts later wait for hours and never getting game full.
@ftxcommando So on tournament, they all use Seraphim?
@ftxcommando Thanks for the data. The original idea that Aeon is less used seems correct, with element, that Seraphim is not much used too. Even at high rated level, Aeon still seems to be less used. Even less than Sera. This can be proof, that Aeon is weaker. Althought information is not sufficient to say with certitude, why Aeon is less used.
Personally, I never heard anyone chose nation because of aesthetics, and what I learned about players, I think even less, that they dont chose Aeon because it is too strong.
Totally agree, that it is easy to micro a group of Auroras against enemy tank-group, when there are no othe units/buildings in the game. And even more, if enemy kills his units in most favorable way for you.
But if you move your units forward, enemy might push his units too, and if you do not react perfectly fast, he will get in range and crush (if small amount of units). And if you kite, enemy probably will pull back his units, even if second later might try to follow your units outside of range. And if you move forward... Micro continues. This is micro for both sides, but mistakes are much more expensive for Aeon. And so precision needs to be more important, and so it is harder than for other nations. Also other nations have t1 arty that can shoot in all directions while maneuvering.
Still, it is "so easy". But it starts to get less easy when you have a big open map, with many-many tank-groups, that all need "only little attention", all the time. While mouving back one group might mean that another one gets encircled or you lose a strategic position. While you need to scaut to not get cut off. While you need to pay for landscauts, and avoid them getting far in front. While you need to manage eco in large space and not only win air, but have active air control, to kill bombers before they drop bombs. etc.
The fact that low/mid rated players have other issues also, does not enter in consideration on this subject, as they have those problems with all nations. But the need to avoid enemy tanks and planes getting close all the time, in all places, they have this problem only with Aeon.
On t1 sniper level... If Aeon gets more or less equal t1 tank to other nations, I dont really see why one nation should have t1 sniper, while other nations do not.
But I have some difficulties to believe, that Aeon is less played/liked than other nations, only because it is too strong...
@cyborg16 There was never question about adding t1 mobile shields. We talked about adding shield on Aurora (personal shield), while reducing range to have similar caracteristics (hp) as other t1 tanks. But with more faction diversity.
"Sure, we could make the Aurora another T1 medium tank and be done with it. Except various people like faction diversity"
Faction diversity is fine, but people not playing one nation (on 1v1) because of that, is less fine.
@valki Not fun why then? If Aurora is overpovered in critical mass or in small map or in narrow passage, and if Aurora is underpowered in big open maps... Then it is one strange balance. Althought we could say that in median, there is perfect balance
Needing so much micro (for example on big open maps), that most players cant use it, can be considered as balance problem too.
Reducing range and adding hp would solve all those problems. But if it is not broken, of course, dont fix it.
@kalethequick "is aurora actually that bad?" This is THE QUESTION. If we could answer that objectively...
I play quite a lot of Aeon on multiplayer. But not because of Aurora. I like other parts of this nation. Aurora losing range and earning hp would not bother me at all, I would rather be glad.
Now personally I dont see myself playing Aeon on big open map on 1v1. As on 1v1 you dont choose the map, I would not use it at all on 1v1. Changeing aurora could change that. (There is still problem with t1 navy, but this is minor compared to Aurora.)
I think changeing Aurora would reduce game's diversity( as nations diversity), and as more people would use Aeon, would add on games diversity( as games played would have more diversity, more Aeon involved) . This is only my opinion. It might apply to some other players, or not.
@kalethequick It seems more for me like "turn off one shortcoming for one nation. Shortcoming that is ruining this nation for most users." I am basing my words on this post and this one https://forum.faforever.com/topic/2673/why-is-aeon-1-disliked-2-inaccessible-and-3-most-unfun-units-but-4-most-fun-units/33
Now if this type of change will end up making even less players use Aeon, then of course, this was a bad idea. I might be wrong.
@Cyborg16 As I said: "very easy and not fun way to adress those problems". In the same time, no law obliges to add more and more complexity all the time. Game is seen as quite complex already. We have sniper gameplay already in t3 level.
@Valki Having shield would certainly add in faction diversity. Making people protect power and avoid stalling. In the same time not makeing nation impossible to use on big open maps.
There is also a very easy and not fun way to adress those problems that you pointed out.
Rise the hp and reduce the range of Aurora. Makeing it similar to other t1 tanks. Same range, and (more or less) same hp. Keep the hover to go over water and dodge, keep the fireing problems related to elevation and slow speed. It will still be faction specific unit.
Not sure if this is good idea, but it might make low-to-medium level players use it as they use other nations... Also almost no balancing to do, and easy to learn for players.
Aurora not only have half the hp of other tanks, but also tends to miss a lot and cant shoot much upwards-downwards. And needs scauting or radar to use its range. And huge amount of micro. Depends of the map, but on big open landmap, I think most players are unable to use Auroras effectively. New players even less.
Aeon also has worst t1 frigat and quite useless aa boat. T1 mobile aa on land has slightly more health and dps than tanks (not to mention t2...), but Shard (t1 aa boat), is so far from the same comparison with frigats.
Not so much of a problem, but Aeon t1 arty is the only one that can shoot only in front side. So you cant run around and shoot as easily as with other nations. Can be a problem for kiteing, to follow Auroras...
So getting over the beginning, t1 stage, of the game when playing with aeon can be quite difficult. I think this is what most people dont like. Aeon has best destroyer, useless t3 gunship, bad t2 fighter, no fighter bomber, etc. Those are factional differencis, you can compensate with other units. But t1 is hard to avoid.
I dont really see why people would not like to play against Aeon. Might be, that if someone actually chooses Aeon, it might mean that he knows what he is doing and has very good micro.?
@funkoff So... A unit that is capable to single-shot any strat bomber. 25 of them would be able to single-shot any air experimental. For the modest price of 125 asf's. 25 of them could also kill (with single shot) huge amounts of asf, even when coming from 25 different directions. Not to mention kiteing. And all that with 5 times less health masswise than asf. Making it hugely vulnerable to aa. Basicly unit that counters all other air units easily and loses hugely to aa. Defencive absolute. Both sides will build ~30 of those and then all airplay will stop?
Maybe reduce the ~4000 damage? Also, this range will give advantage for stealth asf's over normal asf's. Also, if those counter asf blobs, how would people kill air experimentals (without big asf groups)?
Donut is called experimental aircraft carrier and it does air staging, and lets not forget, some aircraft building also. Like other aircraft carriers. Donut has quite spectacular plane entering animation, when big group of planes is trying to enter, they form a star.
@kalethequick "There is real life reason behind things needing fuel, yes." This is not what I said, I said some things need more fueling and have less autonomy than others.
"But this is also a setting with teleportation and instantanious transfer of mass as a resource over distances of up to 114 KM." Other parts of game, yes. Considering the shortness of games, even if calculating the "speed variable" that is not same in game/real life, it is not essential to add this to all unit mouvements.
I never spoke about "massive overhaul". Original question was: "Why air units do still have fuel?" So I answered this question: It is more life-like, and adds some personnality to (air)game.
I spoke about reducing t3 planes fuel tanks. This is so subtle and small change, most people wont even notice. (Reducing slightly, not 50 times of course) It would have very minor influance on balance, but will add some extra depth and little micro to game.
I said nothing about AOE. But if you want me to say something, I would point out, that this would be a huge change. It would unbalance so much. You would need to rebalance all aircrafts against asf's, and then eventually all aa against planes, and eventually all other units against aa... You can try some miracle thing, like making asf 5 times more expensive. But this may be too expensive for transport/strat catching and too cheap for inti cleaning up, etc. It can be perfect against inties and unbalanced against aeon t2 fighters etc. It can be perfect against aeon t2 fighter, but ridiculously unbalanced against aa (same health but 5* more expensive) etc. Might need to add effective "formation", like in navy/land, to keep planes spread out. Old asf's would probably be better in beginning of t3, and some tasks, so might be better to keep them, and add second asf-fighter. Something like t1 land has tank and arty.
I have nothing against AOE fighters, just pointing out that, it is huge amount of work and lots of added complexity (multiple asf or microing small wings), on a game already quite complicated.
In real life, planes usually need fuel to stay in air, while boats do not need fuel to stay on water and tanks do not need to stay on land. Also ships can have autonomy for months, and land units for weeks (if not moving fullspeed all the time, of course), but we can hardly say that about planes. So there is totally some logiq about planes needing fuel.
Also, planes needing fuel means that air play is not just copy of land/sea play. Air has its own caracteristics with raids, "sorties", attacks, pullbacks, bases/airstaging/motherships, best places to land and wait etc. Not just moving units forward step by step, like on land games sometimes.
Is t3 fuel tanks too big? Personally I tend to agree. This "beauty" of game is little lost for t3 air play.
Should we have possibility to repair planes? Of course, as we already have airports in form of airstaging and motherships etc. It is possible, that having (mass)free repairing was meant to compensate weakness of planes and force raid-type gameplay for planes (go in, come back), something like in real life. This is not only attackers advantage, you win fight at enemy side, but you have to go back to refuel/repair, leaving enemy with time and massfield. But now, as the planes are made stronger and more microheavy by high rated/experianced palyers, it works something like, you go in, win the fight and stay over enemy base until end of the game (or aa comes and survives fight with air). Dont know if it is good or bad, but in this case maybe make repairing cost some mass too?
The DPS=0 problem seems to be gone. Thanks.
But all other problems seem to be still there.
@shenmue-is-life Maybe you could change your titre, to add problem with actual database? With all discussion going on, I do not know if I should make another thread
@auricocorico I am using the database that shows up in the client. And MazorNoob pointid to it also. Also, you yourself sayd that "units" tab in client is linked to database and up to date.