Hey,
today, for the first time ever, I saw that an older chat from a few days ago showed up when opening a tab to pm someone. A mod told me a longer time ago that no chats are being saved. Has this changed or is there an issue on my end (I also saw pop ups in Aeolus as if someone pmed me - those were my own messages though).

Which messages are saved for how long and how has access to those?

Mz bad, it was a t2 then.
I could swear it happens with t3 pgens as well. If air player acu dies while pgen was almost done, and then it blows up, air is basically lost.
Maybe someone can explain eventually what the reason behind losing all resources put into the structure is.
If only specific units/structures are effected it would be nice if someone could provide a list of the affected ones.

@Jip
I don't have a replay with a t4 at hand (maybe my memory is off and it was structures only?).
Here is an example of #22913645. At ~ 8:50 my base is transferred and an unfinished t3 pgen blows up.
I think it would be better if all structures and units being build would be transferred without blowing up.

Why do unfinished elements get destroyed in FS games when a player receives the base from a former player who is no longer in the game?
A 99 % finished t4/t3 pgen just blows up. Is it possible to just get it similar to a paused upgrading mex which does not blow up?

Thanks. Maybe it also could be added what kind of map one gets (gras/green, snow/white, alien etc.).
I find some colors harsh on the eyes.

1. "Biome" only has the option "RANDOM" - why have a drop down menu then?
2. Some of the options are unclear. What does "resource generator" mean (basic, low_mex, water_mex)?
   --> many of the terrain generator options are unclear ("flooded, valley, little_mountain, mountain_range)
3. What is prop generator (high_reclaim vs large_battle, what is "basic"?)

It feels like there is very limited information/no examples/images gives, so players have to painstakingly try out all the options to make sense of them. Frustrating.

Easiest to understand elements are the sliders. Helpful. Option to use map names is great too.

4. I don't understand why no water slider will be added back in (how can I ensure I get random maps without water?).
5. If there is a list of terrain options could we just click those we want to be included when going random (to exclude others)?

@katharsas said in Why does everything suck so much right now?:

Take a rest @Jip if you need it.

I agree. Jip is one of the best things that has happened to FAF with all the improvements (other contributors not withstanding). One of the benefits of @Jip is that he is very approachable and listens without constantly making snarky, hostile and dismissive comments like others here do. I don't always have to agree with him to see value in that. It's probably really best not to feed the haters and trolls too much. @Jip, if you decide to leave at some point because your sanity is more important to you than arguing with immature people here, then that's the right decision. I hope you can still get something positive out of FAF for the time being. Thanks for your efforts and contributions, they have made a big difference for the better and did not go unnoticed.

@Jip
I looked at the threads on the individual changes - in almost all the cases the design changes were out criticized or it was pointed out how the changes look ok but still make it harder to distinguish compared to the old models.
Iirc the changes were introduced without a big discussion on the forum or elsewhere. Then the team received a lot of backlash. Subsequently forum threads were opened with said feedback and ever since development stopped? Felt short-sided to me.
I got used to the new models - by zooming out more often, which makes any model irrelevant kinda, which I think is a bad direction to take. I still think the visual changes are making it harder to distinguish HQs and non-HQs.

I wonder: would you do it all over again the same way or would you choose a different approach (if so, how?). Is the HQ re-development concluded at this point?

Thank you!

Hi,
I noticed how t3 arties and other units/buildings are facing south when under construction resulting in them having to slowly turn north when completed when wanting to shoot at enemy units. Iirc this had been changed so the turrets face the center/nearest enemy unit in the past. Was that change reverted? Especially with t3 arties this extra rotation time can make a difference in arty wars (same with t4s when under attack from another t4 coming from the north).
Do I misremember? If not, what is the reason for reverting?

Thank you, I found something on Discord and will work through it.

Recently, the ASI mod stopped working (prolly due to some patch). Is there any way of making the mod work again? Thanks.

@Deribus
I appreciate the work you put in. Looks better than the version before. Overall, i just don't like the effect in general - looks like the green jelly army from Lord of the Rings or a massive toxic wasteland. I didnt mind the effect for arties, prolly bc it was on a small scale, but this now looks more like the result of a scud storm than enlightened higher power alien Aeon tech. Eyesore.
In this case, I d opt for something new. RK4000 has shown that many cool effects are possible - maybe there is something that aligns well with Aeon? Even changing the color prolly will make it look better.

@blackyps said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

It would also be much nicer if people would find back to a more benevolent tone when they have questions or concerns about development.

I d say people in general would do well with some self-reflection. I sought clarification and the response, in tone, was not exactly super friendly ("weird examples", "Allow me to do that for you", "Will you be there to answer it for them?"). You also gloss over the issue and take the role of the tone police.
Unfortunately, I think a rather hostile way of interacting has a long history on FAF forums and beyond, especially when members of various FAF groups are not exactly welcoming no matter what/how people ask (you know who you are).
My point was: neither in the change log nor here has the Mega/Czar change been explained sufficiently initially. I read most, if not every change log, so you guys putting in effort in communicating changes is greatly appreciated.

@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

We hope to include them in the future. At the moment they are not within reach to be finished any time soon.

Things would be clearer if you explained things a little more to begin with. This mechanic was working before, now it was removed with you saying eventually it ll be included once again when "finished". Not stating what this "finished state" is nor providing the explanation you just gave now leads to confusion imo.
You also wrote you "hope" to include them again. That is not the same as "we will include it back again", so I wonder what you mean.

The green effect looks bad. Is this a placeholder or is it the final version for the time being?

@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

That sentence is a logical fallacy, come on. On top of that, we both know what you're saying is wrong too

How is that a logical fallacy?

You wrote:
"*The following units lose their mobile factory capabilities:

Megalith (Cybran Megabot)
CZAR (Aeon Experimental Carrier)"*

What was the reason for this change? Frequency of usage? If so, what is the threshold value? Will Mantis lose the ability to assist? t2 Gunships ability to transport for rarely used? Would like to understand.
I am primarily puzzled that a change was mentioned without any reason given whatsoever iirc.

@phong said in New version of the map generator has been released:

Oh I was operating under the mistaken assumption that you didn't like the changes personally, but it's so comforting to know you are looking out for the rest of us with your Objective opinions based on your vast experience with eye tracking. We really are fortunate to have you here, to protect us from our own ignorance.

This is exactly the kind of petulant silly take reflective of the circle-jerk - proving my point exactly. Criticism is met with snarky remarks without any substance. Why even bother then?
When someone presents themselves as a spokesperson for an anonymous group, putting words in my mouth on top, its just pure cringe.
I take from this that it is best to just ignore questions you direct at me for they are stated in bad faith anyway.

@phong
I am not here to "win" an argument. Ever since the team changed the HQs and only later claimed "there is no way we will revert the change - but we are open for SuGgEsTiOnS" with the usual people here cheering for it, it's clear that the imo circle-jerk mentality here is hard to overcome. Echo chamber deluxe. I accepted it and simply voice my opinion.
Ofc trolls like the guy above cannot handle that and give snarky dumb immature takes - revealing a significant lack of understanding of my criticism to begin with.
The color contrast of the map has been significantly altered (have a look at a color wheel). I have conducted too many eye-tracking reaction time experiments to not conclude the reaction time for grasping what is going on on the map will have been increased bc of this change.

THIS is the substance: usability. In fact, I think I am one of the few on here addressing that over "awww, so shiny pretty looking now :D" (= what you call "packaging"?).
Kinda similar to the HQ change.

@xiaomao
When you open with "my man" you know its gonna be hyperbolic cringe. well done