If someone could make a mod that maa can fire in transports it certainly would be fun. If this would be a serious considered balance patch one nerf could be tech level that can fire

While I'm ok with Cybran gaining a shield disruptor unit (per my post a long time ago in this thread), I really dont like the idea of also removing the absolver from the game, which seems to be the current plan. FYI for those viewing this thread, there's a discord thread which discusses this aspect (the Absolver removal, as opposed to Cybran gaining a shield disruptor unit) further: https://discord.com/channels/197033481883222026/1205788137742274600

Don't think making them weaker vs strats will have the desired effect. You will then rely more on asf to counter/defend against strats. I am guessing the reason for this post is to address asf not really caring if they fly over sams.

Congratulations to Team SigmaMaleCryptoTrader! A huge congratulations to Team SigmaMaleCryptoTrader (Hybrid, Vindex, and Blast_Chilled) for winning the tournament—a well-deserved victory! I’d also like to express my gratitude to the TD team and everyone who helped organize the event. Without their support, it would have been overwhelming, but the tournament turned out fantastic! It went so well that we might considering turning this into a series?!—so stay tuned for the 2025 tournament schedule! With the renewed enthusiasm within our TD team, next year looks very promising! Don’t forget, we’ve got more action coming with the Double Allied Tournament 3 next week and LOTS next month, so stay sharp and get ready for more epic battles! Finally, I’m excited to announce that Blast_Chilled has been named the MVP of the tournament for some truly remarkable plays! Thank you to all participants and viewers for making this a memorable event—we look forward to seeing you in the next one!

@melanol Non factor. It's a transportable luggage unit with a script to add and remove ammo when added to storage. Payload and range can be whatever you want on either launch platform. Could even make the warheads able to self-destruct and transportable by ACU/SACU/engineer for a bit of ground-and-pound. @Fichom I felt that an idea to rework nuke subs fit perfectly in in thread titled "Nuke Sub Rework".

Mass fabs are more efficient; however: There is not always space to make them Planning where to build them requires apm and time investment, whereas for RAS SACUs you can just hit the repeat button and forget about it. If mass fabs didn't require space and I could build an infinite number by pushing a single button once, then I wouldn't care that Seraphim have no RAS SACUs. And yes, I know about templates, but sometimes it is even difficult to find space for templates. And again, that takes time—not a single mouse click like the repeat build button for SACUs. On space-limited maps, Sera is at an incontrovertible and distinct disadvantage when it comes to very late game eco. Keep in mind RAS SACUs can also protect themselves from t3 artillery by building and/or assisting shields and/or moving underwater. They can also run from incoming mobile threats. Mass fabs can do none of those things.

I have received my prize (WM Indie license). Thanks again for hosting and organising!

@sylph_ Originally, the tracking was quite good. As I recall, the strength of the tracking is determined primarily by the projectile's turn rate (in degrees/sec), so simply reducing the turn rate to a very small number can produce interesting effects. For example, in a mod, I once made submarine cruise missiles track moving targets, but with a low turn rate. As such, they were useless against frigates, but effective against carriers and battleships, but a battleship could still dodge the missiles when microed to dodge or stop/accelerate repeatedly. I think modifying MMLs to have limited tracking like this during the terminal phase - a lower turn rate of maybe 2 or 3 deg/sec - could make them more effective against large and slow-moving units, whilst still ineffective against small/fast units. As an aside, an interesting note about limited tracking like this is that missiles which miss will tend to hit behind and to the side of the target. Increasing the missile damage radius could also help ensure that missiles which fail to impact the intended target nonetheless hit something else behind it.

Was it also intended for a "boosted" shield to show an inaccurate bar of it's shield hp?

Feel free to add yourself https://jsonblob.com/1029400916503314432

tldr; I'm not too fond of having two versions where one is low-res and one is hi-res. This is a hi-res re-work of Two Step Shuffle. I used it to experiment with. You can view it in the video in the previous post or just enjoy these screenshots: [image: preview-revamped-1.png] [image: preview-revamped-3.png] [image: preview-revamped-4.png] This is some of the work that needs to be done in order to make two versions of a map. World Machine Miss match World machine itself can render at a lower resolution without a problem. But, we do not want to introduce features that are present in a higher resolution, but look odd in a lower resolution. For example: a cliff that is slightly offset in the lower resolution, causing the according map-wide assets to miss-match the heightmap. As an example in Kaali: [image: 1626462004357-93215a47-9978-4f6e-8e84-d38d5d6b88b2-image.png] High-res version based on a low-res heightmap from the top [image: 1626462049733-76720a10-0736-47bc-ae7c-c537bd8bfe01-image.png] High-res version based on a low-res heightmap from the side They no longer match. Typically this isn't an issue because you're not viewing the map from such an angle. But I suspect cinematic shots will be more common because you installed the high-res versions of the textures. scaling One solution would be to just use the high-res version and resize it. [image: 1626462624744-3942582e-4166-489b-ae09-71cd2ada24de-image.png] original 16k (340mb) version [image: 1626462739873-4bffb205-f001-4e01-9540-1c40810187ea-image.png] 4k (22mb) version of 16k albedo texture The high-contrast you'd expect / want is gone. The erosion was processed at a resolution of 16k, creating small pathways that can not be captured in 4k. Therefore they get 'merged together', reducing the overall contrast / sharpness even further than just being in 4k. To mitigate this you can create a version with more contrast by default, but at that resolution it just takes a lot more time (RAM). Detail Another issue is that there are just less pixels in a 4k (or 2k) version of a texture. A solution is to make the texture more transparent to use the stratum layers to compensate for the loss of detail. Luckily, this can be tuned in World Machine using a parameter in the automation script. Sadly, this adds more complexity and it hurts the maintenance and flexibility of the template as adding or removing parts requires not just changing the template, but also the automation script. Automation pipeline I made an (extensive) automation pipeline so that I do not need to touch Gimp or Photoshop for anything. The idea is that I do as much in World Machine as is reasonable. This would need to be refactored / adjusted to make two maps instead of one. Once that is set in place I do not expect it to be much more effort, but it makes the entire workflow more complex and that is typically not something good. Decals I anticipate over 95% of the players to be playing on the low-res version. This version should still look decent. In order to compensate for that there would need to be more-than-required number of manually placed decals. Even though they can look brilliant, it is very time consuming (Archsimkats Valley took roughly 40 hours to make - majority of the time clicking decals) but more importantly: it is uninteresting work. At some point you cap and don't learn anything from doing it. There's more than just these points, but for the sake of time I'm leaving it at this. Point being is that the overall pipeline gets significantly more complicated and the time investment increases by a lot and I'm just not sure if it is worth it. Just 'dumping' a 4k version is not an option, as I have an intended experience that I want people to feel when they play a map. And last - where could I host the hi-res versions of the decals? We're quickly talking about gigabytes of data.

I think this topic has served its purpose. Considering that both the balance lead and the game lead has objections I see no reason to keep it going. Can a moderator lock this topic? For those that came in after, here's a tldr: If manual reclaim matters, then it is only in the first few minutes of the game. At that point there is nothing better to do with your apm / attention. At any other point during the game you need to use your apm / attention to make decisions on the battlefield. As the higher rated players show, the current features that are available (patrol / attack move / attack move from factory) are reliable and sufficient to automate the task. There's no need for an additional, fourth option as it won't solve any actual problem that isn't solved by all the features that are already available.

If anything, this and similar topics have taught me that there is a lot to know about which navals suck. For example, I have been reluctant, a few years ago, to build Aeon Destroyers because I never felt destroyers were very good when I played a lot of UEF. New or low-ranked players might complain less about navies when we know not to build 10 Aeon cruisers or 10 UEF destroyers. I feel all this could somehow be communicated better to players, maybe with tooltips - just a wall of text players will find in the client could help.

With thanks to @KolmarEye for helping out with a graphical bug. It appears that a map can end up being partially downloaded / unzipped. Causing you to miss assets, causing a graphical bug. This bug makes it really hard to play one of these maps. To solve this issue: Uninstall the map in question via the vault Install the map in question via the vault. Let it finish as it can take a long time: each map is about 200mb! Then, once finished, it should it all be good. If this isn't the case, please contact me.

I agree that practicing apm in FAF is of questionable usefulness. I'm mostly certain my apm is generally higher when I'm playing well compared to at least a few different 2k players, all of whom would wipe the floor with me regardless of how well I was playing. The main time apm really becomes an issue is in large full share team games when teammates start dying. Even then it's not so much apm as it is how quickly you can think to make good decisions and movements. My apm has actually gone down when I'm in the situation of taking over multiple bases because my game sense or whatever just wasn't up to the task of managing three different bases made by other people with three different factions fighting on every front. The exception to this is if you're doing highly optimized manual reclaim dependent builds, then yeah you can need good apm and clicking accuracy. Look at Yudi for instance. But for the vast majority of players in the vast majority of situations you'd be better off not doing that anyway.

@amygdala Thank you, but for me, and I found it out just now, it works as follows: select an engie, press shift, and click once the right mouse button. I hope you do not mind when I ask another question: I found out how to use the "spread attack" button again. but: wasn't there a function called "split group"? When i had a large group I could split it in two, all units evenly divided. if I remember correctly. Just as useful as the "Tab"-Function, that shifts through sea, air and land classes.. Answer: It is a Mod: Group split. how do I increase the spacing of build templates? And while I am at it: is there a place where all this features are listed? Where is an explanation of the hotbuild preset and the alternative one. It is not that easy to find. You know, such stuff should be written somewhere for all those that start playing this game and for all that stopped playing for a while. Thanks for all of your energy and the great updated options!

cuz i got more engies for the radar upgrade

@Karateka The new website is already live since a few weeks http://faforever.com/

@FtXCommando said in Reclaim: You don't bring engies with you on tiny raids. They are slow. Raids are fast. You bring engies with you on risky, more thought out attacks into expansions so you can scoop up either battlefield mass or build up a base to sit on. Didn't ignore this element at all, in fact I assume it's a given in competent play. I didn't consider it because it's irrelevant to the topic. The rest of your first paragraphs are just saying what I said before, well, for the most part. Bringing up aspects of opportunity cost and delay are muddying the discussion to pointlessness and begs a specific replay. No one can tell you what any of that would be without seeing specific game conditions. I generally don't think the loss in mass income is that significant, often you can just use the dead t2 mex reclaim to go boost safer t3 mexes instead. Like are you saying 1 percy killing 1 t2 mex is worthwhile or what? You can make an argument for 2 I guess, that's still a massive ask. Exponential economy doesn't really matter. If it required exponential ground to cover, then t3 raids should be totally viable all the time. It doesn't. Exponential economy in fact seems to cover less ground than the initial ground you need to maintain relevancy in the t1/t2 stage. No one cares about losing your t1 mexes at front when you have 8 t3 mexes at home. Firebases are basically what I covered. You have concentrated bp around the relevant areas of your current economy and will have streams of units going to the fronts that should be able to stop or cut off raids. If they can't, you always have air. If air takes too long, emergency pd can come up and finish up the raiding units or force them to stop for your units to finish them off. Defense is strong because reclaim is high and you are guaranteed good returns from enemy units. Lower returns and defense gets the range of snowball reduced. Assuming attack failure. I still don't think a reclaim nerf means you will see more risky attacks that do fail, just as you do not see more risky navy fights because reclaim is 40% in water. Instead you might see some more abuse of titan/loya early on. Percy is just a unit to pick because it's what gains the most extreme benefit from the reclaim reduction. Raiding parties of loya/titan can be used too. I don't really care. By the way, I do think loya/titan raiding groups are viable as they are now. This reclaim reduction will make them MORE viable but the reduction in mass left isn't extreme enough to expect some meta shift. Unless of course a bunch of high rated dudes start doing it because of the reclaim nerf and now everyone has to go do it. Badlands is a bad teamgame map beyond 2v2, it's the definition of 1 note. It's the anti-astro as a 4v4 map. Open palms also sucks above 2v2 because the entire bo is built around cheesing a crush by min 2 since you're basically as close to the enemy as you are on winter duel. The other maps you mentioned as super popular also are meh for 4v4, but they're certainly better than these two. It's great that you're my rating. Maybe join a high rated teamgame then. Don't really understand all these paragraphs about aggro stuff. The value of raids as an aggressive player typically revolve around the structures left behind by the defending player (pd, mexes, factories, whatever). This change really influences nothing on the all in push that you seem to be basing your post on here. The entire point is making minor jabs with t3 land viable. Exponential economy means the value of a single mex is less, meaning that the cost of rebuilding a raided mex may be greater than the delay time in your game ender. Engi has roughly same speed as a Percy, so you can bring them along? Also sending engi to follow a raid is normal. As it can reclaim retreating units that die as well. An engi only need reclaim 50 mass to break even. Defense isn't strong because of reclaim, defense is strong because of the cost efficiency of shielded PD, which is why in many survival maps people don't even bother with reclaim or reclaim itself is disabled and vamp is disabled. Also a macro player here with 0 micro skills. Pointing out how reclaim is inherently advantageous to the attacker It is the attacker who decided where the battle is and therefore where the reclaim fields are, and it is the attacker who will benefit if the attacker isn't making bad choices.

@jip said in Adjust Recall: What if we push that to three or less (alive) players remaining? That way you need all team members to agree with recalling in the 3v3 matchmaker. The suggested adjustment is now live on the release branch.