Forged Alliance Forever Forged Alliance Forever Forums 2017-11-15T12:32:49+02:00 /feed.php?f=2&t=15399 2017-11-15T12:32:49+02:00 2017-11-15T12:32:49+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156555#p156555 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>
I sense the end of this thread, looks like everything that was on topic was said (or lost among the tree groups)

Statistics: Posted by speed2 — 15 Nov 2017, 12:32


]]>
2017-11-15T12:26:28+02:00 2017-11-15T12:26:28+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156554#p156554 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>
ZLO_RD wrote:
and removeing collisions between engies and trees is also a weird move, it will allow for new kind of BS build orders with insane of amount tree reclaim AND for counter-builds with a goal of rushing scouts in and breaking tree groups. Breaking enemy trees is already a thing and even became part of metagame on setons (and maybe on open zeta), and if you make tree group reclaiming easyer people will rely on it, and breaking enemy trees would be even more effective cause of it.

I would remove tree collisions for all units. So breaking tree groups isn't longer a thing neither for me nor my opponent.

(Have you played test games without engie collision? What would be the big impact? Sure, clumps of engies would be much more vulnerable to e.g. bombers.)

Statistics: Posted by PsychoBoB — 15 Nov 2017, 12:26


]]>
2017-11-15T12:13:53+02:00 2017-11-15T12:13:53+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156553#p156553 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>
PsychoBoB wrote:
I know it was discussed already but why not make treegroups unbreakable with deactivating collisions? Would this work automatically for all maps?

(BTW no collisions would be nice for engies too. I know discussed and rejectet as well but this would made some parts of the game simpler too without changing the overall mechanics. I think one of the arguments where that it looks weird but planes behave similar and there it's accepted... ;) )


some maps have singular trees, or mix of singular and groups. You will have to change map to fix that.

in this context, no collisions means, no collisions between engies and trees, just making that clear, cause removeing collision between engies would be a pretty big change.

and removeing collisions between engies and trees is also a weird move, it will allow for new kind of BS build orders with insane of amount tree reclaim AND for counter-builds with a goal of rushing scouts in and breaking tree groups. Breaking enemy trees is already a thing and even became part of metagame on setons (and maybe on open zeta), and if you make tree group reclaiming easyer people will rely on it, and breaking enemy trees would be even more effective cause of it.

Statistics: Posted by ZLO_RD — 15 Nov 2017, 12:13


]]>
2017-11-15T11:55:12+02:00 2017-11-15T11:55:12+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156552#p156552 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>
(BTW no collisions would be nice for engies too. I know discussed and rejectet as well but this would made some parts of the game simpler too without changing the overall mechanics. I think one of the arguments where that it looks weird but planes behave similar and there it's accepted... ;) )

Statistics: Posted by PsychoBoB — 15 Nov 2017, 11:55


]]>
2017-11-15T11:26:07+02:00 2017-11-15T11:26:07+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156551#p156551 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>
It's just a hell of a lot of boring ass work.

Statistics: Posted by JoonasTo — 15 Nov 2017, 11:26


]]>
2017-11-15T09:59:57+02:00 2017-11-15T09:59:57+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156546#p156546 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]> Statistics: Posted by FtXCommando — 15 Nov 2017, 09:59


]]>
2017-11-15T09:05:35+02:00 2017-11-15T09:05:35+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156544#p156544 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]> Statistics: Posted by ZLO_RD — 15 Nov 2017, 09:05


]]>
2017-11-15T01:01:41+02:00 2017-11-15T01:01:41+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156536#p156536 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>
SpoCk0nd0pe wrote:
There are some trees which do not come in groups. You simply have to memorise this. There is no visual indication as to when this is the case.

it's fairly easy to recognize a tree group from a not tree group by recognizing when you cursor turn into a cursor to issue reclaim order, or when the order is moved a little bit from where you gave it.
You can even recognize the tree groups zoom out by setting your ctrl-shift to show reclaim at 10 minimum (does show up tree groups)


Spoiler: show
On a side note, as you are 1000 rated player, i advice you to focus less on reclaim issue like this, and learn managing your eco in a better way. Like not power stalling (seeing the power stall coming), not wasting mass (seeing the sudden mass incoming), having a better map awareness, predicting your opponent with better scouting, managing your army in a better way (knowing when to split your army to inflict more damage with raid, or to avoid/take the fight), and having some more longer term plan (going T2 land pretty fast, trying some droping tryhard play, skipping T2 land, multi-tasking and setting your opponent on fire with T2 gunships.....)
This will help your improve more easily, when you will learn this, you will then thing about the perfect number of pgen depending of the reclaim nearby your starting points, and how to effectively spend your time between reclaiming (manual reclaim) and the rest.

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 15 Nov 2017, 01:01


]]>
2017-11-15T00:51:29+02:00 2017-11-15T00:51:29+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156535#p156535 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>
Some explanations on my experiences with the SupCom mechanics:
Spoiler: show
There are some things I tried but failed fairly often. Take Williamson's for example. It is a map where every unit early on counts, so I tried to improve my early build. To save a pgen, I tried manual reclaim of tree groups. The problem is threefold:

There are some trees which do not come in groups. You simply have to memorise this. There is no visual indication as to when this is the case.

If you want to reclaim those groups efficiently, you need to do it manually. This opens up a new set of problems.
There is no indication how big the tree group is and where it's centre is. Sometimes a move command will break the group because a tree standing a mile away belongs to it, making the engie waste valuable travel time on just a single tree.

Queuing up the move and reclaim orders, switching hotkeys every time is not something I really enjoy. If you use the button for reclaim or move, you give the command by left clicking while I am used to reclaim bigger rocks by right clicking. So after managing to change from move to reclaim fast enough and give a couple of commands (not messing up already), I then manage to screw up not knowing if my reclaim is still active. This is especially problematic if the mouse is still hovering over the last tree group, showing the reclaim icon either way. But if you now left click to deselect the unit, you give a reclaim command deleting the queue.

Attackmove behaviour is sometimes erratic. Sometimes the engie just won't pick stuff up. On other times, when I make a mistake because I didn't prepare for mass and overflow, all those commands are lost and the engie will start mowing down trees. Usually it's "go there and reclaim on the way" but sometimes it's "go there and reclaim after you arrive".

Why can't I just reclaim the tree groups by just right clicking them? It's not like I didn't understand why I have to, it's not like I wouldn't have to pay time and focus doing it. To me it just seems needlessly complicated and frustrating the way it is.

Statistics: Posted by SpoCk0nd0pe — 15 Nov 2017, 00:51


]]>
2017-11-14T17:28:26+02:00 2017-11-14T17:28:26+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156504#p156504 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>
SpoCk0nd0pe wrote:
Yes, but there where also a good amount of people heavily defending the idea. I know about the tree group change and I got really excited about it when I read the beta patch notes. I was disappointed the change was cut (and I stopped playing shortly thereafter).

I'm certainly not against reclaim and I'm certainly not against the eco management part of SupCom. Those are core elements of the game. Area commands and removing tree group breaking are simple ease of use features in my eyes.

I would really love more change in that direction. But I think the discussion is getting way too much into the intricacies of pros and cons of the changes I would like to see (and others really don't want to see), derailing the thread. So I will try to stop perpetuating that topic.


Well it's worthwhile to discuss because your concerns and wants are what makes the game development go a certain way.

If people don't want intricacies in reclaim capability (one person's ability to use hot keys, move commands, etc to efficiently grab reclaim without 'breaking') then it greatly affects a lot of things.

In its defense, though, I must tell you that it probably is a lot easier than you think. I got some training from people on how to properly so this; it changed everything for me.

Chances are you haven't pursued advanced hot keys, methods, etc. This is of course an assumption, but most people I talk to about it give me the response "oh, I didn't know about that..."

My problem with your request and support of easier reclaim is that there is some naive thinking going on. People far too often share onions and "facts" with a lack of knowledge for me to take it seriously.

Given that, have you watched speed2 reclaim tutorial or all for training?

It may be a bit dated in some aspects but highly recommended watch: https://youtu.be/_uPjOxCTEng

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 14 Nov 2017, 17:28


]]>
2017-11-14T16:50:32+02:00 2017-11-14T16:50:32+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156503#p156503 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>
biass wrote:
The problem is, I am a perfectionist. I don't want to learn how to do good builds

what

The sentence only makes sense when you quote it whole ;)

biass wrote:
buddy i come in here and defend your right to speak from people and u squander it :(

What?

Had there not be a core of some arguments in that post, I would not have responded to them. But the wrapping of Endranii's post really is just abysmal. It reads like a 13 year old CS:GOler's lulz and roflz. When I work about 20-30 minutes on a post, trying to argue well and someone responses like that I will point out how his post is an abysmal read.

PhilipJFry wrote:
you might remember the thread you made about area commands and the strong opposition to the idea of adding them to the game
a few patches back we also toyed with the idea of removing tree group breaking for engies but that was also not appreciated

Yes, but there where also a good amount of people heavily defending the idea. I know about the tree group change and I got really excited about it when I read the beta patch notes. I was disappointed the change was cut (and I stopped playing shortly thereafter).

I'm certainly not against reclaim and I'm certainly not against the eco management part of SupCom. Those are core elements of the game. Area commands and removing tree group breaking are simple ease of use features in my eyes.

I would really love more change in that direction. But I think the discussion is getting way too much into the intricacies of pros and cons of the changes I would like to see (and others really don't want to see), derailing the thread. So I will try to stop perpetuating that topic.

Statistics: Posted by SpoCk0nd0pe — 14 Nov 2017, 16:50


]]>
2017-11-14T16:01:05+02:00 2017-11-14T16:01:05+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156500#p156500 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>

Statistics: Posted by biass — 14 Nov 2017, 16:01


]]>
2017-11-14T15:38:44+02:00 2017-11-14T15:38:44+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156499#p156499 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>
SpoCk0nd0pe wrote:
The problem is, I am a perfectionist. I don't want to learn how to do good builds without manual small rock reclaim/tree reclaim if I know doing it is the optimal way.
Things like factory attack move are especially punishing for new players because the order is lost when you fail to balance your eco (so you are doubly screwed).



Yeah every game has his own sugar but hey You can still ask Morax/biass to build marvelous maps without reclaim at all ! I am sure they have nothing against that.

Btw ... I am still waiting for my map dstojkov's revenge :lol:

Statistics: Posted by dstojkov — 14 Nov 2017, 15:38


]]>
2017-11-14T08:23:57+02:00 2017-11-14T08:23:57+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156490#p156490 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]>
Tex wrote:
60 APM represent....

*sobs quietly into corner*


Please, talk to me when you max out at 40.

xD

Statistics: Posted by This_Guy — 14 Nov 2017, 08:23


]]>
2017-11-14T04:17:29+02:00 2017-11-14T04:17:29+02:00 /viewtopic.php?t=15399&p=156484#p156484 <![CDATA[Re: Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)]]> "mmmmmmmmmmm im so much more intellectual then these gap peasants *scoffs* *hosts canis 6v6 *"

also


The problem is, I am a perfectionist. I don't want to learn how to do good builds


what
and


Thank you for your constructive manner of arguing.


@Endranii: I won't bother to quote that typerrhea, nobody want's to see text like that a second time.


buddy i come in here and defend your right to speak from people and u squander it :(

Statistics: Posted by biass — 14 Nov 2017, 04:17


]]>