This is great to know. Thank you deletethis, Maudlin and Nomander!

I’m trying to understand how efficient it is to assist shields, versus building additional ones. I could do sandbox experiments but figure some of you have these answers already.

Does assisting a shield cost only energy?

Does it just repair the shield under fire, or also speed up getting a collapsed shield back up?

Are there aspects on factional diversity or T2 versus T3 shields that change how wise it is to assist shields?

Curious to hear some advanced players’ thoughts on this.

For Cybran SACUs: short-distance area teleport?

May or may not be a good idea, but what’s more Cybran than 4 Bricks and a SACU suddenly appearing next to your air grid because you didn’t spot them activating the teleport ability.

Wait so what explains the Chinese text? Just curious.

Awesome, great job guys.

Is it just me, or has there been a change that now one can't see the whole map reveal itself once the game is over?

Perhaps one of my mods? Normally, you'd see also the opponent's base, but not anymore for me.I also noticed a weird message recorded in the replay. When checking the chat of the replays (for example #22108577), it says for both players:

Is trying to change armyocus from 2 to -1 via SetFocusArmy!

Consistently top-notch troubleshooting advice from @MostLostNoob . I wish every game I play/software I use had someone giving such detailed guidance to fixing issues. Really nice to have volunteers like you (and many others) who make FAF a better experience for everyone.

You fool, what have you done? Now that you’ve brought these units into the real world, it’s only a matter of time until ISIS gets its hands on a Megalith.

Good example of what happens when FAF players don’t play the campaign first and don’t learn the lessons Dr. Brackman had to offer.

First the bad news: compared to Astro/Dual Gap, 1v1 ladder will always require you to pay attention to more things at once, including micro. (Conversely, if you go from 1v1 ladder to Astro, it feels like playing soccer in a tight hallway.)

The good news: mastering the basics of the game can shut down these kinds of micro battles. Let me explain: I sometimes lose 1v1 games for the reasons you describe - unable to defend against getting stung in ten places at once. In those games, it feels my micro is inadequate, but here is what actually happens: I messed up my first two minutes (long power stall, or not enough factories, or slow to capture mexes). Now my opponent has 1. ten tanks more than me and can attack everywhere, and 2. I never got to push my opponent, so he can peacefully expand and focus his attention on attacking me. So: you’ll be surprised how much less micro you need once your macro is 25% better.

Now, if you still find the 1v1 experience too intense, try team matchmaker (TMM). Often the micro is a lot easier since you have only one or two lanes to fight in. I actually find the TMM macro much more demanding because, to play well, I feel I have to check what everyone else is doing and whether I should push my opponent or help allies defend instead. But I think most TMM players just do their thing and find it easier than 1v1.

If I was you, I’d just submit one of your 1v1 games to the FAF Discord channel “replays” and ask what two things you could do better. Lots of great players will give you clear, simple advice that will get you a long way.

I know what you mean. However, small maps help learning the basic build orders and concepts, which then make you better at larger maps.

There was a time when 20x20 maps were in the pool also for fairly low-rated players. At first it seemed nice because you had time to build up. Then after 8 minutes you would get swarmed and realize you actually never had a chance in the first place because of your poor eco game. The larger map just made you feel safer longer because you couldn't see how far you were behind.

Some thoughts to @BlackYps ' point:

Could one option be the map title? As in, have it start with "R' for rotated symmetry and "M" for mirror or something like that?

Another option: perhaps making it create slight color variations in the terrain? Like in "Adaptive Moon" and "Moonlight Pass" where some of the ground is slightly darker. I guess it would have to be just in one area (mirror) or two areas (rotational) though; if it creates lots of areas like that it would just make it confusing.

Sometimes it’s hard to tell where your opponents spawned. If the map requires early drops for expansion, it becomes critical to read the style of symmetry correctly. Could mapgen create some kind of visual cue so it’s clear when it’s a rotational symmetry map?

In more detail: in my view, on some maps, “transport first” early expansion is extremely make-or-break: if I read the map correctly, I seize 50-60% of my “lane” early on (and stomp my weaker opponent as fast as my weakest teammate gets stomped on the other side). But, if I misread the symmetry, my drop is in walking distance of an opposing ACU and the drop ends in disaster.

Yes, I can try to scout better. But if I can easily tell what symmetry we have, the first three minutes become less stressful and swing the game less often. As a result, people have more satisfying TMM experiences, therefore lead more fulfilled lives, and thus world peace becomes more likely thanks to mapgen.

@Sheikah and @StormLantern thanks for explaining. If this spawning pattern is limited to those mapgen maps with rotational symmetry, then I can’t argue with the logic you laid out.

In that case I guess I just prefer maps where the symmetry isn’t rotational unless the rating gap between best and worst player is small. I think it can be demotivating for the weakest players if they get stomped early on. (Especially if you get those types of maps twice in a row.) But I can see how perhaps others might like the change in dynamics that rotationally symmetrical mapgen creates.

Perhaps it’s worth setting a limit on how often in a row you get rotational symmetry mapgen maps (across 2v2/3v3/4v4 TMM)? I admittedly don’t know if that’s easy or hard.

Yeah @Sheikah , that's what I meant, specifically on mapgen maps. Some recent examples of that rotational matching of worst player vs best opposing player:
2v2: https://replay.faforever.com/21972021
3v3: https://replay.faforever.com/21979709
4v4: https://replay.faforever.com/21979376

And just to be clear, I think TMM is amazing, this is just an improvement suggestion!

Hi all,

Would it be possible in Matchmaker to set spawn locations so that the best players on each team face each other? I often see 3v3 with the top player on team A facing off against a weak player on team B, and vice versa. While the teams are still balanced, it makes the game less fun for the weaker players.

EDIT added March 2: I think the issue is specifically on mapgen.

Hi,

I seem to remember admins once asking to report connection problems. Just a random idea: if better visibility into spikes in connection issues would be helpful, how about e.g. a button in the "Replays" tab to report individual games where disconnects occurred?

I’m not familiar with the Coturn you mention, but just in case you missed it, there has been a DDoS attack targeting FAF for a while. It may well be the cause.

I think it's linked to the DDOS issue. Give it time. The dev team here will eventually figure out a solution, or the person behind the attacks may at some point find something meaningful to do with their life.

Throwing in another idea: keep it just one 1v1 ladder, but add a (checked) box “Include mapgen”. Those who don’t like it can uncheck this box. The client can then match by rating, then pick a map based on whether both players allow mapgen.