Thanks Zelda, Explosive and Zlo. Explosive I will take you up in that next time I see you online. And Zlo, projectile speed being relative to map not unit - that’s some impressive advanced class stuff. Perhaps one day I’ll also consider getting my PhD in FaF.

unlocked

@arma473 You do realize they are not only for Overcharge, right? If you want to see in what situation I found them useful, try playing Operation Golden Crystals solo: Attacks come from all directions, bombers bomb everything, I build T2 factory and spam Sparkies: I get overcharge, they assist with building, build defenses, and shoot enemy units and don't die fast (1000 HP). Of course, after some time, I build Energy Storages. Here is a replay: https://replay.faforever.com/17891487

There was no budget left for guns, I'd assume

@caliber said in Matchmaker 0_0: Also might it be reasonable to start players of who are new to matchmaking with their global score to begin with? if they have a global score. SOmething like this is acutally happening. The 0 rating for the first game is just a visual bug from the client. If you look up the replay you will see that the 0 rated guy actually had a higher rating.

Closed, requested by OP. Continue: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/4724/ethereal-faf-client-2-0/1

@rowey I did set my profile to public. I'll wait till tomorrow, might be an error because I've tried to get the key too many times. Thanks, I'll let you know if I got the key.

Dead Man Walkin' [image: 1661516483828-dead-man-walkin-resized.jpg]

@Eternal while working on the logo, I started out with a constant font size and after failing to fit the elements together to my satisfaction with that constant font size, I came to this solution. If you could make your suggestion more concrete I'd love to see it, especially how the text fits in with the faf logo and "2022" and how they relate to the ACU's crotch and arms

Thread has somehow devolved into a discussion about what constitutes being "good" and so is closed.

The distribution methods for the files has changed so until that client gets an update you have to use the official client

There is literally a big message "Your lobby is full" at the corner of your screen. I think that one even plays a sound if enabled (not sure though)

@jip amen

@bulliednoob said in What would get you to play maps other than Dual Gap/Astro Crater?: @h-master I consider Dual Gap an interesting and dynamic map in the sense that many different strategies can lead to victory. As opposed to most other maps, Dual Gap does not have a defined meta. Ask a group of random Dual Gap players their favourite playstyle, and you'll be surprised with the variety in their responses that aren't simply ecoing up. If the players co-operate, they can easily beat the "stale Dual Gap eco meta" with quick T2 air plays into the main bases. Furthermore, strat rush, nuke rush, notha rush and t3 arty rush are examples of more strategies that can be found on Dual Gap. Not only this, but standard land pushes through middle (which can be done in many different ways) have shown to be exceedingly successful, along with attempting to attain naval domination and destroying the turtle bases from the sea. Compare this to the generic t1/t2 spam + gun ACU gameplay you'll find on the more generally "accepted" teamgame maps, like Wonder, Canis, Hilly Plateau, and Pyramid. You'll find that Dual Gap is infinitely more interesting than whatever else everyone plays. Thanks for sharing. My view of Gap may have been a bit too turtly. I can understand the appeal it has. It has very different gameplay compared to more open maps, but that's what a lot of people prefer apparently.

Also on orebuilt rhe acu warp in time delay doesn’t exist. For what that matters

What makes a map good is highly subjective. Astro crater has a very simple layout, does not require expanding all around the map, can run at an okay speed on weaker computers, etc. So, some people prefer to play on Astro crater and consider it a good map, while some others think it is an abomination. Many players really enjoy playing on Dual Gap, but many hate it. The same could be said for many other maps. The perspective on what makes a map good can also vary a lot between groups like high-rated ladder players, wonder/hilly/canis/mapgen/etc team game players, Setons players, etc. So, for example, the matchmaker team has its own general set of standards that it uses when evaluating maps, and even then, things like player rating/skill and team size significantly come into play when judging if a map is good for X. Additionally, there are undoubtedly lessons to learn about what makes a good map (for a lot of players' standards) from maps like Dual Gap, Setons, and Astro that have had such lasting popularity, even if some of those lessons strongly conflict with the standards of the matchmaker team/mapping veterans/ladder pros/etc. There are many spectrums that contribute to players' opinions about maps; turtle to snowball, clustered mex distribution to spread out mex distribution, low mex to high mex, low reclaim to high reclaim, flat to mountainous, simple to complex, detailed aesthetics to simple aesthetics that require less processing power, large to small, low player count to high player count, no water to entirely water, etc. While there are strong merits to many of the pros' standards, I have found it funny how big of a discrepancy there is between what most of the 'mapping/ladder pros' think makes a good map and what most players actually want out of a map. Specifically, a lot of players like more eco-heavy/clustered spawn/simple map design with more relaxed gameplay that focuses less on t1 spam-based map control than what the 'pros' generally prefer. Despite that, I have written a mapping checklist that covers a lot of what makes a map good for a lot of people in a way that is theoretically generally compatible with the pros' standards. However, even it would still exclude a lot of popular gameplay. So, make of that what you will, but here is the checklist: proper slope indication (where is passable vs impassable and buildable vs unbuildable is clearly communicated) no technical problems (slots are odd vs even, proper naming/versioning is used, the map/code works properly, there are no broken mexes/hydros, the map folder is <30 mb, and the map is not too laggy) legal (work is not stolen, not used without permission if permission is required, and not used without attribution if attribution is required) proper texturing (textures don't showcase repeating patterns too obviously, are sufficiently blended, have proper albedos/normals/scales, have sufficient variety, and fit a sufficiently cohesive theme) cohesive aesthetics (terrain/texture/decal/prop/marker/unit/lighting/water/skybox usage and placement work cohesively to form an overall map that doesn't make any of its components look too out of place) tolerable aesthetics (map is not too hard on the eyes, not too unpleasant to look at, and doesn't have any sufficiently significant aesthetic mistakes (such as excessive floating trees)) balanced (the map contains no cheats, intends fair balance, does not too heavily favor any factions, and does not confer a much greater level of asymmetric imbalance than Seton’s Clutch does) quantity and placement of mexes/hydros/reclaim supports a variety of each of the following being reasonably viable: strategies, unit compositions, locations of battle, layers of battle (air, surface navy, submersible, land armies, long-range indirect fire), tech levels of battle usage of different slopes/terrain features/water supports a variety of each of the following being reasonably viable: strategies, unit compositions, locations of battle, layers of battle (air, surface navy, submersible, land armies, long-range indirect fire), tech levels of battle PS: I think moreso in terms of percentages/ratios of mexes rather than concrete mex counts, for what is safe vs raidable vs contested.

This also happens with cybran mmls. I agree they should be changed to match AOE

This topic has served its purpose - a moderator can close it now.