HI all,
I have just had what i think could be a cool idea.
When the system detects a player disconnect for whatever reason, instead of the com exploding in full share games and killing units and engies around it, it would play the teleport effect instead, explosion would be only upon player killed.
What y'all think?
@jip Hi, I have this set up and running however it seems that the offline part doesnt share the same file path for maps as there are only about 10 maps showing for me and non that i have downloaded from faf, any idea whats going on? Thanks.
@Rowey scrap the new cybran unit - create cybran shield breaker sacu
also use the shoulder mounted gun ("sam" bone) on the uef sacu as an anti air weapon.
Does any one else feel like the gun upgrade is op, as in the cost isnt high enough for the extra damage and range and overcharge range it gives the com.
and to be honest im a bit bored with the whole rush gun or die meta, is anybody else the same or is it just me.
I think that just a range upgrade coupled with E storage would suffice as a good enough gun upgrade In my opinion it doesnt need double damage too. or should be more expensive as i see many players getting gun within 6-7 minute now.
Perhaps it could be a game settings option?
this is like comparing percies to labs, high damage and slow rate of fire vs spam = lots of wasted dps,
making frigates would have made all that spam useless.
A few reasons for me
1.1 small maps are very micro intensive and usually result in very short meaningless games, large maps leed to long boring games
rating, i dont play many 1v1s so my 1v1 at the min is not reflective of my true skill and i can say the same for many others, i came across this guy the other day with 3 games rated at 400 but played like a 1400 at least, so you just dont know what caliber of player your going to be up against as its all over the place.
its just not as fun as playing with others, more so if in discord with friends.
you cant blame your teammates for doing random stuff 
As with all things in life, it requires balance, saying large maps are for these people and small maps are for these people I believe not for the best.
another way of looking at this is that small maps require more micro and therefor suite a higher skill, and larger maps require more macro wich is something most players are familiar with.
lower skilled players can manage eco and these sorts of things but do not understand how to best use those units when they have been made, for instance i often see 1k players make rocket bots but then just suicide them in with t1 ect aswell as undertsanding that flares can beat mech marines but if microed the opposite can be true this is not a low level thing.
small maps mean that the loss of every single unit counts and could mean the differance between winning or losing whereas on larger maps there is more room for error.
I believe a map size that would provide the best experiances would be 10-12km
the only differance i can see in skill required for a map would be how much water there is, having a third factor to manage ontop of air and land would increase the challange, even more so with faction diversity, low players would struggle when their opponent spams zues or aeon t1 tanks on a navy based map when they are uef or cybran.
@Rowey scrap the new cybran unit - create cybran shield breaker sacu
also use the shoulder mounted gun ("sam" bone) on the uef sacu as an anti air weapon.
@FtXCommando @Jip @Tagada After reading these posts It seems to me that there are two groups of people
Group 1. People who like Supcom the way it is, and thats what makes it great.
Group 2. People who want to improve supcom so that it can be as good as it can be.
these two groups are abviously polar opposites and will never see eye to eye.
The solution?
Just as a player can choose between FAF, FAF Beta & FAF Develop maybe another option could be FAF classic where all the changes that have been highlighted as controversial can be reversed and therefor preserved for everyone and regular FAF that seeks to improve the experiance.
@Deribus thats interesting, I would have assumed the opposite was true
I have been playing around in sandbox and thought I would compare some units.
It turns out 20 Cybran Gunships is the equivalent in mass but hase no where near the same dps
also the combined hp of 20 gunships is 118,00 compared to the rippers 75000
so my question is, what role does a soul ripper have? if it is completely out performed buy its t3 counterpart?
The picture demonstrates the dps of t3 gunships compared to the week ripper, the gc on the right still has 65000 hp
T3 gunships are more expensive on energy but seeing as having a large air grid also means lots of energy i dont see this as being an issue
I will concede that my earlier point about smaller maps being for more high level players was flawed as was pointed out by @StormLantern
however the only thing I stand by is that when it comes to maps for particular skill levels is the map complexity that has the largest impact.
So I would put farward this argument, the lower level maps should be as plain and as simple as possible, with no terrain or water or reclaim, and as skill level rises so to should the map complexity slowly adding features like plateaus, water and civilian structures to reclaim or capture
@maudlin27 said in What can be done to make 1v1 more popular?:
Interesting, the data looks like almost every rank prefers 10km the most; yet the map pool for lower ranked players is overwhelmingly 5km.
Theres your answer.
10k hits the sweet spot that allows for more varied play compared to 5k and in most cases wont leed to 1hr plus games.
As with all things in life, it requires balance, saying large maps are for these people and small maps are for these people I believe not for the best.
another way of looking at this is that small maps require more micro and therefor suite a higher skill, and larger maps require more macro wich is something most players are familiar with.
lower skilled players can manage eco and these sorts of things but do not understand how to best use those units when they have been made, for instance i often see 1k players make rocket bots but then just suicide them in with t1 ect aswell as undertsanding that flares can beat mech marines but if microed the opposite can be true this is not a low level thing.
small maps mean that the loss of every single unit counts and could mean the differance between winning or losing whereas on larger maps there is more room for error.
I believe a map size that would provide the best experiances would be 10-12km
the only differance i can see in skill required for a map would be how much water there is, having a third factor to manage ontop of air and land would increase the challange, even more so with faction diversity, low players would struggle when their opponent spams zues or aeon t1 tanks on a navy based map when they are uef or cybran.
A few reasons for me
1.1 small maps are very micro intensive and usually result in very short meaningless games, large maps leed to long boring games
rating, i dont play many 1v1s so my 1v1 at the min is not reflective of my true skill and i can say the same for many others, i came across this guy the other day with 3 games rated at 400 but played like a 1400 at least, so you just dont know what caliber of player your going to be up against as its all over the place.
its just not as fun as playing with others, more so if in discord with friends.
you cant blame your teammates for doing random stuff
this is like comparing percies to labs, high damage and slow rate of fire vs spam = lots of wasted dps,
making frigates would have made all that spam useless.
I would like to report a bug that some UEF drones cannot be killed and therefor can go around reclaiming ur base and theres nothing you can do about it.
replay #22643418
you can see in the image that asf fly straight pass and cannot kill them.