Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-23T05:14:48+02:00

galacticfear wrote:
I skimmed through this thread, and I don't have much to say other than that the czar beam vs asf is a non-issue now, if you lose asf to it, its because you suck. And also that the "give all factions to each player from the start" is a killer argument vs unit mix, there is no counter argument so don't even try. You cannot support one without supporting both ideas.

Indeed now it's a non issue. We lost LION to the CZAR fix haha. (Seriously what happened to him ? its kinda weird).

Anyway, you would notice that my simple response

Then make it simple.
Give all tech straight to anyone.

got not much loving. Funnily enough, It's like they want it in the butt, but not full length. just the tip of the stick for the teasing. Can't say I'm surprised though.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 23 Sep 2014, 05:14

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T21:58:41+02:00

If this were ever implemented it would kill Setons forever for me. I avoid Setons now for many reasons but one of them is navy mixing. For once in many years I agree completely with Cyth's sentiments (Thats V for the newer players)

I would love to see Setons return to its honorable past where there is no navy mixing of any kind (others can help but use same faction)

Also I would like to live in a world where Galactic moves from the middle of nowhere forever and gets a decent connection (we can all wish) whats the crack ehhh??? Oh by the way Flo is a dad now in case you are wondering

Statistics: Posted by Casimus — 22 Sep 2014, 21:58

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T19:19:57+02:00

I skimmed through this thread, and I don't have much to say other than that the czar beam vs asf is a non-issue now, if you lose asf to it, its because you suck. And also that the "give all factions to each player from the start" is a killer argument vs unit mix, there is no counter argument so don't even try. You cannot support one without supporting both ideas.

Statistics: Posted by galacticfear — 22 Sep 2014, 19:19

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T15:51:00+02:00

Blackster wrote:
Sorry, that's just not true. When I told you about the Yolo-sat issue were rather surprised and told me to talk to others about it. It was in Aeolus and I remember it very vividly. Shortly after I opened a thread here the "public" got to know about it, discussed it, and a little later a "fix" was presented. Pls dont make it look like the open discussion of this issue was irrelvenat for the changes introduced. That would have been a hell of a coincidence.

Don't be thick, the whole Satellite VS Nuke issue has been debated since the game's release, and I have been asking for a change for more than 6 years now! The discussion in Aeolus happened because that time, I realised I finally knew enough to attempt a fix. None of the other modders have ever been bothered enough to make an effort. With that on the table I had to find out if the general opinion was that the current state of affairs was good or bad (Conclusion that I saw: It's a bad thing, but a 50/50 split on getting rid of collision entirely). It's nothing to do with it being *discovered*, it's about the fact that a fix was finally on the table.

Blackster wrote:
That's your opinion. Not sure why you present it here as abosulte fact (at least it seems like it to me). Again, maybe people have different thoughts about it and that's ok as well. While some argue that the Czar beam is ok and feels right (I mean, come on, a "feeling" is one of the most subjective things), still the same people ignore e.g. the Ahwassa bomb issue i presented earlier. Why? Inconsistent approach imho.

The Ahwassa bomb hitting planes is NOT the problem with that scenario. There are two problems with it. 1: The same as the Czar, the planes follow behind in a clumped mess directly lined up with the bomb. That's dumb pathfinding, but it also can't be fixed (That I could find anyway). 2: The bomb does not damage the bomber when it hits planes. This IS a problem IMO, but the reason it's like that is because otherwise it would hurt itself whenever it bombed a bubble shield. So it becomes a question of balance, of the lesser of two evils, and the current state is IMO for the best. The negative connotations of a rare and fairly skilled manual drop killing ASFs are far more acceptable than the Ahwassa being totally useless against shielded bases. Yes, it's a problem, but the only possible solutions end up worse than what we have now.

Blackster wrote:
Pls, pls, pls stop this. DId you talk to them? Did they tell you what they intended? Is it written clearly in the blueprints? It may LOOK LIKE they wanted to go for smthg, but afaik (I may be wrong, correct me pls if I am) all they wanted was in the game as it was (i can give u a link where the procuder said: its all done as we wanted it to be, nothing half baked). And even IF they intended it - their intentions may be good, but the outcome isn't neccessarily (why patch otherwise?). I don't care what was intended and what was not (see prior post of mine). Pls stop pointing to that "argument" - it's constantly used in a very selective and incoherent way.

I don't need to talk to them, it's absolutely obvious. Balance of probability is the best way to approach anything in life, you've got to take everything into account and come out one way or the other. I don't need proof of what they intended beyond the fact that it's at exactly the right height. Their intentions WERE good: Keep the physics engine in action. The RESULT of their intentions (A permanent nuke-counter) were NOT good. Some people, like you it appears, are incapable of separating such things.

Blackster wrote:
Yet another one who misses the point of the original post. I did not discuss the end of tech sharing in general. Neither did anyone mention banning someone for sharing. It's really hard to get a constructive discussion going for so many don't even refer to what was said initially. Frustrating, really.

OK then, addressing the original point:

No, I don't consider tech sharing or mixing an issue
Yes, a mod can be made which does what you want
No, such a mod does not currently exist
No, I will not make such a mod for you

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 22 Sep 2014, 15:51

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T14:57:24+02:00

IceDreamer wrote:
This thread has gone stupid. It's not about the 'problematic' things having become public recently that they've been fixed, it's that my own confidence in my modding abilities, and that of others, has been bolstered over the past 12 months or so.

Sorry, that's just not true. When I told you about the Yolo-sat issue were rather surprised and told me to talk to others about it. It was in Aeolus and I remember it very vividly. Shortly after I opened a thread here the "public" got to know about it, discussed it, and a little later a "fix" was presented. Pls dont make it look like the open discussion of this issue was irrelvenat for the changes introduced. That would have been a hell of a coincidence.

IceDreamer wrote:
Czar Amour - The simulated physics engine is what make the game unique. Having planes hit by that beam is absolutely acceptable and within the realms of the game's feel.

That's your opinion. Not sure why you present it here as abosulte fact (at least it seems like it to me). Again, maybe people have different thoughts about it and that's ok as well. While some argue that the Czar beam is ok and feels right (I mean, come on, a "feeling" is one of the most subjective things), still the same people ignore e.g. the Ahwassa bomb issue i presented earlier. Why? Inconsistent approach imho.

IceDreamer wrote:
Having the planes on an attack order automatically clump and fly on a path which takes them through that beam every time is NOT acceptable, not part of the game's feel.

Again: an Ahwassa explosion so near the the bomber without any damage is ok? How can that "feel" right?

IceDreamer wrote:
Satellite - I've taken the same approach here. The Satellite is at exactly the right height for a Nuke to hit it. QED: The developers intended the physics engine to come into play once more. They intended for nukes to be able to impact that unit, to continue with the feel of the game.

Pls, pls, pls stop this. DId you talk to them? Did they tell you what they intended? Is it written clearly in the blueprints? It may LOOK LIKE they wanted to go for smthg, but afaik (I may be wrong, correct me pls if I am) all they wanted was in the game as it was (i can give u a link where the procuder said: its all done as we wanted it to be, nothing half baked). And even IF they intended it - their intentions may be good, but the outcome isn't neccessarily (why patch otherwise?). I don't care what was intended and what was not (see prior post of mine). Pls stop pointing to that "argument" - it's constantly used in a very selective and incoherent way.

IceDreamer wrote:
This game should never be about rock/paper/scissors, nor about what's fair, nor even about what's fun. It's about what feels right, about how the game works and about the things which continually set it apart from other RTS games.

Lacking words to respond to this. So much mumble jumble, it's dazzling.

IceDreamer wrote:
Sharing armies is a good feature, an action that one team can take which, if the opponent doesn't respond accordingly, will net them a large advantage. That's not unfair play; that's CLEVER play. Clever play, using all the techs and mixing things up to create an unbeatable army is not something to be frowned upon or banned, it's something to be analysed by another clever player and responded to. Spamming the 3599 Restorer can't be compared to this. Such a method of winning didn't *abuse* an intentional feature (Mixed armies will cover each others weaknesses to create a stronger whole) it *abused* an UNintentionally powerful unit (This unit will beat everything, all the time, and cannot be stopped by any defence. Spam this more to win).

Yet another one who misses the point of the original post. I did not discuss the end of tech sharing in general. Neither did anyone mention banning someone for sharing. It's really hard to get a constructive discussion going for so many don't even refer to what was said initially. Frustrating, really.

Statistics: Posted by --- — 22 Sep 2014, 14:57

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T13:36:01+02:00

Then make it simple.
Give all tech straight to anyone.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 22 Sep 2014, 13:36

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T13:14:52+02:00

This thread has gone stupid. It's not about the 'problematic' things having become public recently that they've been fixed, it's that my own confidence in my modding abilities, and that of others, has been bolstered over the past 12 months or so.

Czar Amour - The simulated physics engine is what make the game unique. Having planes hit by that beam is absolutely acceptable and within the realms of the game's feel. Having the planes on an attack order automatically clump and fly on a path which takes them through that beam every time is NOT acceptable, not part of the game's feel. That's the only reason something was done. Ideal solution: Alter the path taken by ASFs. This was attempted. Only once proven impossible was another, less attractive solution sought, which attempts to solve the broken issue while still keeping the game's feel intact: Armour.

Satellite - I've taken the same approach here. The Satellite is at exactly the right height for a Nuke to hit it. QED: The developers intended the physics engine to come into play once more. They intended for nukes to be able to impact that unit, to continue with the feel of the game. Problem: The Satellite did not die, leading to abuse of the feature. Solution: Keep the feel of the game intact while solving all abusive possibilities of the unit by making it die to the impact.

This game should never be about rock/paper/scissors, nor about what's fair, nor even about what's fun. It's about what feels right, about how the game works and about the things which continually set it apart from other RTS games. Sharing armies is a good feature, an action that one team can take which, if the opponent doesn't respond accordingly, will net them a large advantage. That's not unfair play; that's CLEVER play. Clever play, using all the techs and mixing things up to create an unbeatable army is not something to be frowned upon or banned, it's something to be analysed by another clever player and responded to. Spamming the 3599 Restorer can't be compared to this. Such a method of winning didn't *abuse* an intentional feature (Mixed armies will cover each others weaknesses to create a stronger whole) it *abused* an UNintentionally powerful unit (This unit will beat everything, all the time, and cannot be stopped by any defence. Spam this more to win).

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 22 Sep 2014, 13:14

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T12:47:49+02:00

Who are you to talk to me like I'm some shitty little kid? This is some comedy right here.

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 22 Sep 2014, 12:47

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T12:17:24+02:00

_VODKA_ wrote:
-_V_- wrote:Yeah and you gonna teach me how we used to do it (properly) for years. Yeah yeah

First, I was just making a point for conversation purposes. The point being that if you really need tech from another faction there's a problem. This is something everyone can agree on I suppose, and is relevant to the discussion.

On this , we agree.

If you want to go into that fine. Let's do it. Just explain the facts that you seem to know everything about. Why could you go up against late game ASF spam without engineering stations? At any given time in the past? You don't explain anything, you're just going the ad hominem route, which is unfortunately common on these forums. I love re-discovering FA but I regret visiting these forums. Gaspowered forums used to be good for acquiring information, and gather information I did, but here there's just people like you shitting all over anyone who reeks of sub 2000 rating.

And just for satisfying my curiosity, when dod you start playing Supcom?

Forget about it. Its not the point of the topic anyway, and I can't be arsed to go into details. Rude or not, when someone knows better on something, listen. Let's move on and back to the share topic.

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 22 Sep 2014, 12:17

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T11:11:13+02:00

-_V_- wrote:
Yeah and you gonna teach me how we used to do it (properly) for years. Yeah yeah

First, I was just making a point for conversation purposes. The point being that if you really need tech from another faction there's a problem. This is something everyone can agree on I suppose, and is relevant to the discussion.

If you want to go into that fine. Let's do it. Just explain the facts that you seem to know everything about. Why could you go up against late game ASF spam without engineering stations? At any given time in the past? You don't explain anything, you're just going the ad hominem route, which is unfortunately common on these forums. I love re-discovering FA but I regret visiting these forums. Gaspowered forums used to be good for acquiring information, and gather information I did, but here there's just people like you shitting all over anyone who reeks of sub 2000 rating.

And just for satisfying my curiosity, when dod you start playing Supcom?

Statistics: Posted by Col_Walter_Kurtz — 22 Sep 2014, 11:11

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T09:30:12+02:00

_VODKA_ wrote:
-_V_- wrote:
In previous times, as Seraphim or Aeon you could not keep up with ASF spam against a player with engineering stations. You NEEDED Cybran of UEF tech. IMO that was worse than the mixing of units problem.

Irrelevant, and off topic, but that is absolute bullshit.

I almost never used those engineering stations, nor do the good air players. Maybe you should ask around.
It's quite the opposite. I always have a good laugh when i see my opponent do that, exceptional circumstances put aside of course (such as drastic unit share crap).
It is actually a very common mistake among noobs.

Long before Engy mod, and quite possibly long before you even heard of a game called FA, the rate at which you could spam ASF's with hive support couldn't be matched by a player without engineering stations. I won't throw around numbers of how they were nerfed in the past - it's too long ago to care and I'm just sharing an experience - but they were nerfed and the game was very different as a whole. Your assumption that everything has always been the way it was in FAF is quite amusing.

Yeah and you gonna teach me how we used to do it (properly) for years. Yeah yeah

Statistics: Posted by -_V_- — 22 Sep 2014, 09:30

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T02:56:01+02:00

Lowering the altitude the CZAR "flies" at would just fix it, instead of providing a workaround.

Statistics: Posted by E8400-CV — 22 Sep 2014, 02:56

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T00:56:44+02:00

E8400-CV wrote:
My point is simple: there are multiple awful things in this game [...] another being the CZAR roasting ASF. However, one is fixed and the other is defended.

With the special armor it got better, but nowhere near enough.

Ok hate me if you want, but what the f*** are you talking about. You are telling me that the elite of Setons players cannot micro ASF around a CZAR beam!? See i agree with the special amor thing, now a little mistake is no punished that hard anymore which is ok. But on the other hand: One little mistake decides almost all even airengagements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1mNG-5 ... 7IwhkIeSRQ
Is that so hard?

But i get caught offtopic maybe Gorton should snip everything behind the second page.

Statistics: Posted by ColonelSheppard — 22 Sep 2014, 00:56

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-22T00:18:49+02:00

My point is simple: there are multiple awful things in this game, one of which was the sat behaviour, another being the CZAR roasting ASF. However, one is fixed and the other is defended.

With the special armor it got better, but nowhere near enough.

Statistics: Posted by E8400-CV — 22 Sep 2014, 00:18

Re: Restrict share function (e.g. on Setons) - worth a mod??

2014-09-21T14:36:19+02:00

E8400-CV wrote:
Gorton wrote:[...]

You hit the nail on the head when you say "I do not think it is important what was meant to be a feature or not."
This is entirely correct.
sats blocking nukes was awful.
smd missile hitting your plane, also awful.

The reasoning that it's not bad because ingame collisions are intended isn't the argument of anyone talking here.
It doesn't matter what's meant to be a feature : What matters is : Does it make the game better or worse?

Sats blocking nukes, worse.
Bomber micro, makes bombers more useful, which is good.
Tech Sharing: A consequence of giving units to allies, which is a good feature.

We get one casted high-level game where a Yolo is blocked by a sat and that idiotic stuff is fixed. We could do exactly the same with the CZAR: hit 300 ASF with beam = explode. Would make the game better. Would also require better micro of CZAR, which is good. Or is it not all of a sudden this time!?!?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I think it's easy and more effective (they get more hits in) to make the ASFs fly around the CZAR instead of through it because of the simple attack order. Besides, the ASFs do have special armor vs the CZAR now, so they won't get instapopped anymore.

Statistics: Posted by Aurion — 21 Sep 2014, 14:36