@maudlin27 said in Connection issues never been this bad:

Unfortunately FAF is still suffering from DDOS attacks which are causing issues - see the announcements for further details. A solution is being worked on, but will take time:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/6680/ddos-update

Well, I am grateful that there are people working on it. After all FAF is a "community project" of people loving the game and help to ensure we all can still have fun and enjoy it. There is no monetary motivation behind it. As long as this community has awesome people like this, I am hopeful we can get through this tough time.

Hey Guys, I understand that there were some DDOS attacks by some idiots on the FAF Servers and that the new client should hopefully solve this but it still needs some work I think because I cant remember a time having connection issues this bad.

Came back to faf some weeks ago (you know, family, life etc. makes it difficult to play it regularly) and I tried to have some random Team and custom team games in the evenings but I managed to play maybe 3 games in a week of trying. In most games someone drops within the first 3min and the game gets restarted. Every time waiting another 10 min until the game fills up, balancing etc. just to re again after the first minutes.

Quite frankly, this is killing the game. If we can't find a stable way of playing team games again this will cause the playerbase to die out. No one want's to spend the little free time he has trying over and over to get into a game just to be canceled after a few min again.

Just sharing my experience and hope there will be a stable way of playing soon again. Or has anyone some solution? should we all just focus on 1on1's or something instead or 2v2 custom maps?

why would we want to attract StarCraft 2 players anyway. FAF is completely different and being a guy who played Warcraft 3 and Sc2 extensively I wouldn't go back to it.

They are welcome to try FAF but I wouldn't change anything in FAF to get it closer to the gameplay of SC2.

I would support the idea to make engi (and therefore tech sharing) impossible. I don't know another RTS game where you can do that as casually as in SupCom.

This would make Team Games more interesting since it would require some thinking about the team composition before starting the Match and would benefit Teams that ACTUALLY play and support each other instead of just handing each other the tech.

At least give the option in custom games to deactivate engi trade while leaving in ranked. might be worth a try.

@exselsior
Well, one of the problems seems to be that we lose new players too quickly. by creating a less competitive 'safe zone' for newer players in form of a ladder it would help keeping these players longer and give them a chance get more familiar with the game and learn to love it.

Right now the learning curve for new players seems too steep and it's frustrating to get blown away by a 10min spam rush or 20min nuke while being called noob. no wonder newer players leave and don't come back.

since this game is old and most players already play it for years even the skill gap to a mid range rated player is huge. So I think creating an artificial more noob friendly area by automated ladders for specific maps or limited rating range would go a long way.

The way I understood it so far from the comments paying core developers for additional features is very expensive and brings future problems or dependencys. I said giving better tools to map developers and paying the license of these tools for instance.

adding additional ladder options aren't that difficult or costly to implement I imagine. maybe something like an arranged team ladder or some noobs friendly ladder with build timer and with the option to be unranked. just ideas...

if there is no option to improve the connection or lag issues through further investments that's of course a pitty because that is THE major issue with the multiplayer in this game I think. everyone is bothered by the restarts you have to do sometimes because someone drops early in the game no? would be great to find some solution or work around to this problem

Spending money on developpers, casters etc. seems to be problematic and "marketing" the game is not a very efficient use of the money.

I would suggest the money should be spent to just optimize the game. better tools for map developers, a few ladder options more and some nice servers to reduce the lag and disconnection issues. Just anything that makes the CURRENT playerbase happy.

let's face it, the period we have in our life where we enjoy playing a game like this is limited. And FAF did already an amazing job as a community to keep this game alive. But I dont think the goal should be to re-promote the game to try to catch up to games with larger player bases. I dont see any way that could be successful nor is it necessary.

Just use the money to optimize the game itself further (technically and if possible with new features) but let's not try to go down a "game publisher" kind of way.

@ftxcommando Sup Com 2 was exactly trying this no? Easier economy and more big robots. It didn't work out so well.

Marketing doesn't have the aspiration of being "realistic" so people dont get disappointed. The goal of Marketing ist to get people interested and try it out. Watching the sup com trailer (the best RTS Trailer of all times imo) again it does a decent job showing that the game is about base building and (very) large battles with some cool units and even nukes. If you ask me it already attracts the people who are less into Starcraft 2 and more into big scale Macro heavy RTS games.

I think considering that there are not many new RTS games around this game just needs a bit more visibility, easier accessibility for new players and a "modern" reward system and it would do well gaining more players.

@azraeel said in What would be an efficient use of FAF's funds to improve FAF?:

Game has fundamentals issues and its hard to have retention unless you are dedicated to improving or you play purely for fun and eventually people who play purely for fun go away.

I think a lot of people also play pvp a few times then just quit because toxicity and just generally ass maps/players on global.

I don't think most play ladder Because it's not pushed enough to the front. If anything we need to start making matchmaker more of a focus and push global into a arcade type style like SC2 does.

So paying many to promote FAF is a huge waste of money when nobody is dedicated to actually dealing with core issues that just make players not want to come back.

Everything money wise for tournaments, promotion etc could be a lot more if we had a more dedicated fan base instead of people who just play with 0 interaction. I think that stems from a toxic mentality and an inability to actually change major components of the game and not only the game but how even the client is structured and etc.

I kind of agree on many aspects. Marketing without improving the accessibility to the game and the motivation to come back is not an efficient use of the money.

If you want more people to stay or come back you have to consider your audience. Generation Z is not so eager to get into steep learning curves and has a low frustration tolerance. So basically you need to "dumb" it down a bit for players new to the game and make a reward system where they can gain coins or rank or something to keep them motivated.

Specifically I would suggest the following:

• An optional Ladder which is unranked so people can just fool around while learning the game and try new stuff without being punished losing rating points.

• An automated "noob" friendly Dual Gap (I know, I know, but people love it) bot that creates a game noobs (definition: < 50 games and 800 Rating maybe) can join anytime and just start playing as soon as it's full (auto balance). As rules you can put 10min build up time and ban nukes, that shoud keep them entertained for hours while getting the hang of the game and learn to love it.

• How about making new "Skins" as reward for playing x amount of games or reaching a rating? Can be just a new ACU skin for the start and later maybe from other units as well. I know, this is probably the most difficult one to implement but also something that could motivate a lot of players to play more or come back to the game to earn new skins or whatever.

@arkangel_ Thank you! Very helpful.

I like the Idea of a mapgen ladder. Also I have no problem with includint AI as a possible opponent in the lower ranks (let's say below 500?). On chess sites you can also play vs AI of different difficulties which are considered to have a certain rating (Elo).

Of course you can set up your own game vs the AI but the element of randomness with the mapgen and the match getting rated sounds pretty appealing to me. It would also help newbies getting some expierience without getting crushed from more experienced players and avoid some frustration.

Another thing could be a 10min build up timer for games in lower ratings so you can focus on your bo without getting harassed.

Well okay, here is a replay:

https://replay.faforever.com/19344508

It's not a strong game of me but the fact that my main opponent (dark blue) has faster a stronger eco and also me being behind everyone in eco before the 30min mark kind of shows my problem I think.

mainly team games, since in custom maps like dual gap the eco difference doesnt get so big or at least it doesnt show so significantly.

Thx for your replys!

Despite over 2'000 games and some amount of research on the topic (including watching replays) I am embarassed to say that I still suck in building up my Economy. I seem to be especially slow during the phase going from t2 to t3.

I just can't put my finger on it. I am getting my T2 mexes about the same speed like everyone else but then suddenly I find myself still at 100ish mass income while others have 300+.

Can I get some advise on this topic? Is there a specific timing to "Eco up" that I am missing or should I have just constantly some workers upgrading mexes while starving mass or what? it seems to be the main factor why I can't improve past the 1'000 rating.

To give you an Idea what I do or what I tried:

I try to upgrade my mexes 1 by one. I build mass storages around my t2 mexes before going to t3 (that's correct right?). But in that phase of the game I am already in fights and feel like I cant cut production. So should I constantly just "starve" mass and have slow production or stop producing at a certain time to focus on eco or what?

Once I have all my t3 mexes it get's better. I make t3 mass fabricators, get RAS and RAS Acu and all the good stuff but I ALWAYS fall behind in during the transition from T2 to T3. I feel like everyone elses mexes just upgrade faster thatn mine and I fall behind.

Bonus Question: Is it a "no-go" or at leas ill advised to go t3 tech before having a t3 economy? I mean in general, not if you play a specific strategy.

Thanks in advance for the replys

well, as a complete layman regarding programming I am at awe of what you guys do and achieve with this game. It makes me question my carreer choices just because I would love to understand all the thechnical stuff that is going on to make this game work as it does and how you guys improve it.

THANK YOU!! And please keep up the great work!

It happend to me in a game. Just looked up the stats: T3 HQ of Cybran Land Factory is 4.95k. Damage of an Aeon TML is 6'k. It actually does one-shot a t3 HQ

To me they are fine and great fun but maybe a bit too strong. It shouldnt be able to kill a T3 HQ in 1 shot, thtat's just silly and destroys the whole BO and investment of a player just because of a missed TMD.

@exselsior said in Ythotha, time for a change:

It's the land unit equivalent of fall damage from air experimentals. The difference is that I'm pretty sure a single t2 shield with some assistance negates storm damage. Could be mistaken though I feel like that doesn't come up much. It's much easier to stop it before it gets to close to something important than an air exp is if things are relatively equal.

That is a possible explanation but the air t4's are MUCH more expensive and come therefore much later in the game. They are also arguably easier to kill since by that time you should have large amounts of ASF's which can bring them down quickly if focused. That a much cheaper t4 land experimental has that feature (and only 1 faction of the 4) makes to me no sense.

@rezy-noob said in Ythotha, time for a change:

don't you feel like nerfing a unit because it's "broken" in a very specific game scenario is a bit weird?

To be honest, no because in this case the Ythotha is the ONLY t4 that deals large amount of area damage AFTER it dies. That gives the Seraphim player an uncountrable advantage which makes it imbalanced in my view. it's already a decent t4 unit but having the colussus death has a (too?) strong impact in team games imo.

There seems to be a lot of love for Ythotha. Dont get me wrong, I like it as well, I just think the "killing everything in the area it dies" feature is too stong in the 4v4 ladder.

And I dont agree that it's easy to kill with just some micro. usually it doesnt attack alone, it has also an army and t3 mobile shields with it. it has also a pretty good range which gives it a micro and safety advantage as well.

I don't say it's broken, but maybe needs a nerf regarding to the 4v4 ladder games.

@xiaomao said in Ythotha, time for a change:

Comparing Ythota to friggin ML is bullshit. Considering they have 2 massively different roles. One is assault bot that you wanna micro, the second one is more of a stealthy surprise. Btw there is only like 1k difference in mass between GC(27.5K) and Ythotha while monke is what? 19K mass?

I don't see why their roles should be "massiveley" different. They are both basically "bunker busters". The Monkey by being able to be on the field earlier -> cheaper, the chicken with his collosus death even destroys armies and bases when he dies. so they are both extremely effective in that role imo.

I just find the area dmg of the dead chicken in team games too strong. you can basically charge in and you can't really lose. Either your chicken kills the monkey and t3 army or the area dmg of the dead chicken kills the rest of the army or even the base. The cost to benefit is too stong in favor of the seraphim. Cybran doesnt have sniper bots. so if you dont have air or 2 monkeys, it's really hard to fend of.