Okay, it's now just "x doesn't know y????" Over and over again. I think the initial proposal has been adequately discussed.

Locked

Nah, requires people to know what these ranks mean.

It was removed because backend changes over the years meant that tool didn't work anymore, and nobody wanted to make (and maintain!) a new version of it.

На какой карте?

If you do this I will make another moderator hunt you down

I was able to watch the replay, but it does not appear to be the correct one. There were no arty built on hills that game

That replay doesn't seem to work, do you happen to have a local copy?

I too blame Jip

Not a bug, expected behavior. See discussion here https://forum.faforever.com/topic/6556/t2-arty-s-are-a-bit-broken/

Best place to give coop feedback is on the coop Discord server: https://discord.gg/ayzAVr9JUV
That said Prothyon-16 is an old mission and I don't expect any non-critical changes to be made to it.

Yes, most (maybe all, can't think of any that don't) custom campaign missions restrict tech and come with large assaults upon every map expansion. It's unlikely that anyone, even 2k+ rated players will complete it first try because they won't know what to expect.

with only 29 people who bothered to complete that mission

This isn't true. Leaderboards have always been a little shaky on working properly, and even when they do they get reset every now and then. I don't know when the last reset was. I'm 1500 and I've done Prothyon-16 a few times solo and some more times with newbies taking up eco which is arguably even harder.

there should be a warning on this mission like only for real try hards or 2k plus.
are they all like that or are there any chilled ones?

That warning might as well be on all the custom missions. No, none of them are chill. I'm frankly amused you have this question from playing Prothyon-16 because that's probably the easiest one. You can always lower the difficulty if you want a chiller game.

@eezyville said in You guys ever thought if moving to a new engine?:

Would that random negative Redditor be even more proud of himself for shitting on another person's dream?

Hello that was me XD

I've never seen it as shitting on someone's dream, and I'm sorry you took it that way. It was meant to be an explanation of why it hasn't been done and why I don't think it's a good idea.

That's functionally a complete remake of the game. We have not the time, resources, manpower, skills, or legal rights to make such a thing.

Other than those few hurdles yeah let's do it.

No

The behavior of engineers on patrol depends on how much mass you have in storage. As long as you're under 80% full they will go reclaim. If your storage crosses 80% they'll shift over to assisting any factories nearby, since you don't need the reclaim anyway.

TMD is fine as is.

I could see an argument for making TML or its missiles more expensive, but even that's iffy

Will this block regeneration of old seeds or will the (version) number of the old seed be able to handle it just fine?

I don't Soul Ripper enough to comment on its advantages over Wailers, but none of the experientals are efficient if you look at alternatives

	DPS	HP
Soul Ripper	1,738	75,000
19 Wailers	4,773	112,100
Ahwassa	2,565	52,000
13 Strats	4,875	50,700
Monkeylord	4,520	45,000
16 Bricks	5,124	120,000
3 Tempests	3,669	180,000
8 Omens	4,320	384,000

That's not to say you should never make experimentals, it's just to point out that looking at the DPS or HP per mass is not a particularly useful metric.

@thewreck said in Adjustment to the reclaim rates:

This is a terrible idea the only ones up voting this to no surprise is the moderators.

@dorset said in Please show rating changes in replay vault:

Is this just another example of the moderators changing something for no good reason and then defending that decision with their life?

Moderation team had no input on this decision

For convenience, here is a list of problems the reduction in rename frequency is meant to address:

• In-game communication
• Tournament player recognition
• Player reputation

In addition, there are some benefits specifically on the moderation side of things. I wanted to stress the ones above because it seems like there has been a focus on the benefits on the other side of the moderation curtain, which was not the intent.

• Ease of reporting the correct player
• Reduce impersonation (of moderators or otherwise)
• Reduce the frequency of inappropriate usernames
• Make it harder to evade moderation action by rapid username changing

Again, I want to stress that these last 4 were never the primary reasons for this change, just additional benefits.

Example of name inconsistency being a problem

Recently Sladow (trainer team lead at the time) asked me to fix the trainer team avatars.

List of players who have the personal trainer avatar.

List of players who should have the personal trainer avatar

I can’t just compare these two lists because the usernames are different. Autopsy- has the avatar, but is he supposed to? I have to look up the account Autopsy- and then look up his old usernames, and only then can I figure out it’s (probably) Grimplex. It might not even be grimplex, because what if he username traded with someone at some point?

Now say Grimplex didn’t have the avatar but was supposed to. I look up the name Grimplex and there are no results. Okay so he uses a different name at the moment. I look up all accounts which have ever had the username Grimplex and there are multiple results. Now I have to go through account by account to make an educated guess which one of these is actually the person I want to grant the avatar to. Now repeat this for potentially all 14 members of the trainer team.

TheWheiieNoob's post (not to be confused with TheWheLieNoob)

@thewheeiienoob said in Username rules updates:

Identity
The simple solution that's already been proposed is simply to make the unique player ID accessible on player cards or in chats with said player. Basic example pictured, and I'm surprised the mod team has ignored this suggestion as it fixes a lot of problems highlighted.

This has come up multiple times in our internal discussions. Personally I think it's the worst of both worlds. It doesn't solve our main concern in that you have to take extra steps to determine who someone is. If you've gone so far as to pull up the account data it's only one extra click to see their name history. Heck accounts already have IDs, they're just not easy to pull up. Let's say I told you that account 118363 did XYZ. Does that give you any useful information? No, because you have no idea who account 118363 is. Well that's Giebmasse/Viba. You'd have no way of knowing that unless you exhaustively went through accounts one by one until you found a matching ID. Are you expected to now memorize a 6 digit number for each player you might want to identify?

In my opinion (which isn't necessarily held by the rest of the moderation team) adding an ID section like that, especially in the lobby, just adds more visual garbage without actually solving anything.

@thewheeiienoob said in Username rules updates:

For a start, how do you define what each player's identity is? Farms has been TheWheelie for over a year and now TheWeakie, meanwhile pepsi is known by a name he has never used. It's not the mod team's job to make sure player X can recognise player Y, it has too many variables out of the mod team's control.

We don't intend to tell people what their identities are. The rule changes just lower the frequency that you can do so. If Farms wanted to change his name to TheWheelie these changes would not affect that decision, as long as he didn't intend to swap it again within 6 months. Pepsi's name comes from a purposeful misreading of a username he had previously.

@thewheeiienoob said in Username rules updates:

I didn't post any serious response until the mod team declared they'd be going ahead with the changes anyway, despite the negative backlash, so I hope they make the effort to clarify and focus their intention in a future post.

First and foremost I want to admit we fucked up. We should not have made the original post and then same day enforced the new restrictions. That's our bad, we fucked up, and in the future we'll try to provide time for feedback in similar situations.

Second, the up and down votes on the initial post never have and never will dictate moderation policy. For the simple reason that the people most likely people to provide input are the exact people most affected by the change. If we proposed a rule change that all smurfs are going to be unbanned, then we would expect the most feedback to be from people who have gotten banned for smurfing before. It can be used for an incredibly vague idea of community sentiment, but a mere 40 downvotes in a community of thousands is a near useless measure.

General thoughts

When I and some of the other moderators wrote this proposal, we never expected this to become a big deal. I'm honestly trying to avoid the "us vs them" mentality and to understand where this hate is coming from. I've done my best to outline what issues this has been causing and why we've gone in this direction. The responses thus far have mostly been "it's funny" and "why do you even need to know who people are?"

That's the whole reason for usernames is it not? If we truly don't care then we could go the 4chan route and list everyone as "Anonymous", but I don't see anyone proposing that.

Please, I'm genuinely asking, help me understand why a 6 month rename period is unacceptable to the point of having a 157 post thread on it.