• BO advantages can be massive and can be caused through BO whoring or just dumb luck (both players improvise BO, but one happens to get a good BO by chance, or happens to win the rock-paper-scissor mechanics BOs can have in 1v1: aggressive vs greed vs passive)

• "Minor" (non-)interactions like a lab finding an engineer VS missing it, a bomber only barely grazing past ur scout's radar range and proceeding to do game-winning damage, an interceptor losing a 1v1 to another interceptor, a transport only barely (not) landing, or a proxy that went unscouted for a little too long, can cause massive impacts on the game. This makes earlygame sometimes come down to pure luck

I enjoy 1v1 once it gets past minute 5-8 with even odds. Sadly this occurs very rarely and it can be seen from the fact that tons of the semi-competent ladder replays are around 15 minutes in duration (and this is ignoring time added by players continuing to play in a lost position)

@mach said in How come you don't play ladder?:

teamgames provide stability for game to get played to its fuller potential unless you are a pro that can do all of this solo while having fun doing it, it kind of seems you need to have "minimum mastery over the game" to be able to enjoy 1v1, and it seems pretty high

i agree with this too. im ~2k in 1v1 and I can only play close to full potential on 10km. Playing 15km or larger makes me feel like I'm doing a terrible job at everything. It also increases the odds of these minor interactions with potentially massive results that i was talking about earlier.
That's just personal preference though, and i do not suggest removing >10km maps from ladder.

@giebmasse said in Username rules updates:

Are homophobic, racist, political, or otherwise offensive

Can I have a mod statement about IndexLibrorum's use of words in the Discord server? Shouldn't rules regarding homophobia, racism, or otherwise offensive words be consistent in anything FAF-related?

I hear @Strydxr received a warning for a man in a gif lip-reading the n-word. That is, the man supposedly said, or looked like he was saying the n-word in the gif, but the n-word itself was not mentioned anywhere.

Yet... this is okay?

The apostrophes do not remove the meaning from the words.
There's more instances of this, by the way.

Delete this message if you like for whatever reason. Just apprehend your moderators first. I've also not seen or heard anyone but the moderator team complain about renames by the way. Most people think it's pretty funny, so the other changes are just taking away the fun that can be had with renames.

I used to enjoy watching upsets in ladder and seeing if someone had gained a large amount of rating since last checked. I have no idea where between 1700-1900 these two players place. The leagues tell me next to nothing.

I think I heard this change was made to reduce complaints regarding "odd" rating changes, but this just isn't it

Cybran engineers/acus with T3 build suite have the ED4 shield available to them, which can be upgraded to ED5, but either one of them are awful.
Aeon 18k HP 2400 mass
UEF 17k HP 3300 mass
Sera 21k HP 3600 mass
Cybran 16.5k HP 4260 mass (or 13k HP 2460 mass)

This is either way too weak for its mass cost or way too expensive for its shield HP. To keep in line with cybran shielding being weaker (like in T2), I'd suggest making ED5 the main blueprint for T3 buildpower and reducing the build costs for ED5.

this is the simple solution, alternatively you could rework all of cybran shield's phases because as it stands now, upgrading them is a massive scam

Chrono Dampener was nerfed recently, but I don't think it was enough. I couldn't even tell you what was changed about it because it's still broken.

The issue with Chrono is not directly the frequency or duration of the stun, but the fact that the stun will bring units to an immediate standstill. After the stun expires, the unit movement speed will be 0, and it has to reaccelerate to its max speed, which can take a second or two. Sadly at this point the next stun will have hit, bringing the movement speed back down to 0.

So, not only does Chrono stun units, it also significantly slows them down. This makes chrono extremely powerful (basically unkillable) when the ACU is retreating. I believe the best two fixes would be, in order of preference:

• Allow units to keep their momentum after being stunned
• Reduce the frequency, but increase the duration of stuns to allow units to get back to their maximum speed, and maintain it for a longer period of time

lotta text that i aint reading but i very very much prefer the old factory looks, especially HQs
if it is not possible to make them look like that with better shading/animations, then i'd prefer there be no shading/animations and we keep the old models

@TheCodemander I don't think you could've missed my point harder. Well done.

mapgen only 1v1 will just make people bored of mapgen too. after a dozen games u start to realise mapgen isn't all that diverse either

Can a downvote button be implemented?

@h-master I consider Dual Gap an interesting and dynamic map in the sense that many different strategies can lead to victory. As opposed to most other maps, Dual Gap does not have a defined meta. Ask a group of random Dual Gap players their favourite playstyle, and you'll be surprised with the variety in their responses that aren't simply ecoing up. If the players co-operate, they can easily beat the "stale Dual Gap eco meta" with quick T2 air plays into the main bases. Furthermore, strat rush, nuke rush, notha rush and t3 arty rush are examples of more strategies that can be found on Dual Gap. Not only this, but standard land pushes through middle (which can be done in many different ways) have shown to be exceedingly successful, along with attempting to attain naval domination and destroying the turtle bases from the sea.

Compare this to the generic t1/t2 spam + gun ACU gameplay you'll find on the more generally "accepted" teamgame maps, like Wonder, Canis, Hilly Plateau, and Pyramid. You'll find that Dual Gap is infinitely more interesting than whatever else everyone plays.

As the meta currently stands, sniper bots incentivize turtle gameplay. Why? The only counter to a ball of sniper bots + mobile shields + flak is a t2 arty base. Sniper bots hardcounter any mobile unit that isn't a sniper. Mobile t3 artillery deals too little damage to kill the shields. Well microed strats can deal with snipers + mobile aeon shields, but getting multiple strats is, depending on the map, not a very realistic option. And no, it's also not realistic to get a fatboy or megalith up in time.

Even then, strats just won't efficiently work against seraphim mobile shields, leaving you with the only option of making a t2 arty base. Being abused so hard to the point where you're forced to make an arty base is in no way fun or fair to play as it is hard to (timely) establish an arty base on some maps.

A small compromise is that aeon snipers can be dealt with by suiciding air units due to the fact the shields are weaker, but snipers + seraphim shields are absolutely broken. It would be nice to see these shields or snipers reworked.

You can watch watch any high level 1v1 vods and realise even some of the best players are CONSTANTLY doing SOMETHING, and obviously still playing far from optimally. If you make the game faster for the sake of "improving" teamgames, you'll ruin 1v1 and potentially 2v2

pro tip: games become faster paced the better your macro is (more mass = more stuff quicker)

@indexlibrorum said in Telemazer - time for change?:

@gabitii How about you learn to scout, instead? The upgrade is time consuming and
very power expensive, so you'll have plenty of time to see people preparing. Add to that the fact that its a high-risk-high-reward strategy and you'll understand why you don't see the strategy used as often as you seem to imply.

"just scout bro" - 1300
it is not high risk, because the base is transferred to teammates. it is even lower risk on large maps, because large maps = more targets = higher odds something is undefended, lower odds of being spotted as you are teleporting, and delayed response because air units need to travel further

and as said before, it is very easy to kill the air grid, of which the damage is not quantifiable by just mass killed in pgens/air factories, but also the amount of time, attention, and apm required to rebuild the airgrid. and for this entire duration, youl'l have no/decreased air production. what do the enemies lose? an acu, and a minute of upgrading.

@thecodemander said in Telemazer - time for change?:

You need at least 4 T3 PGens, though 6-8 is probably more where youre at to make it feasible so thats another 20k mass

this is such terrible logic. what kind of player doesn't have a ton of t3 pgens lategame to begin with? when getting tele, you pause everything but tele, meaning all of the pgens you already had at that point already exist and do not need to be accounted for when calculating tele costs.

@thecodemander said in Telemazer - time for change?:

And Im still not counting the scouting of a tele target

like you wouldn't just have scouted already, because scouting is good, lol

@thecodemander said in Telemazer - time for change?:

So just to be clear youre complaining that something which takes an air grid of power

it does not, because it is a one-time upgrade. it can be done on less t3 pgens, which, again, are structures everyone has in the lategame.

Your comparison to a monkeylord makes no sense because a monkeylord does not have the ability to teleport. Losing one player worth of APM is not a big deal at all, especially in higher rated games.

A notha, TML, and 4 loaded missiles, converts to 5 nothas. it's also really hard to not kill 4 t2 mex with 5 nothas. they are free to reload, help fight air, are not restricted to a maximum range, and they will even 100% consistently kill the mass storages around the mexes, so maybe nothas are the most OP form of aggression in the game. or maybe even t2 arty drops

if you're worried about nothas or t1 bombers bombing tmd, maybe you built t2 mexes too far forward, or you let the opponent build a tml too close to ur base

i only think tml acu is busted, regular tml is very strong but not broken imo

boost t3 artillery fire rate by 100% when adjacent to a hydro

my hq literally almost never dies and when it does its probably game over regardless so i dont get why you're crying so much

also t3 engineers have the same efficiency as t1 engineers, except they have more build range, health, and of course access to t2&t3. please stop spreading misinformation, it could be harmful

would also be nice if deploying units out of a carrier/czar wouldnt cancel the unit in production, nor the build queue as a whole

Why does no other faction have OC sacus??? Fix please!!! Why do aeon and cybran not have tml bois??? Fix please!!! Why can all sacus have a personal shield, but cybran cant???

Balance team, please fix.

I've made a comment on this on someone else's post, but it barely received any traction. This is a pressing enough issue in my opinion that I'm posting it again hoping something will be done. Skip to bold text if you don't want to read all the stats

The stats for each faction's static T3 arty are completely unfair:
Cybran T3 arty: 480 dps 69600 mass
Seraphim T3 arty: 500 dps 70800 mass
UEF T3 arty: 550 dps 72000 mass
Aeon T3 arty: 600 dps 73200 mass

Comparing these values using Cybran T3 arty as the base gives:
Cybran T3 arty: 1.0x dps, 1.0x mass
Seraphim T3 arty: 1.042x dps, 1.017x mass
UEF T3 arty: 1.146x dps, 1.035x mass
Aeon T3 arty: 1.25x dps, 1.052x mass

This means, compared to cybran T3 arty:
Seraphim T3 arty is 2.46% more effective for its cost
UEF T3 arty is 10.7% more effective for its cost
Aeon T3 arty is 18,82% more effective for its cost, and this is ignoring Aeon's doubled alpha damage which is preferable for breaking through shielding.

Considering T3 arty is built in the later stages of the game in teamgames, the only thing factional diversity in these matters can result in is making tech sharing a must. It's completely unnecessary, annoying, and unfair.

I propose making each T3 artillery similar. Mass/damage values may differ, but they should scale proportionally.

the changes you propose are even harder nerfs to tele