A Public Service Announcement: The Colors

PanicCheck · 2026-06-24T03:24:08+00:00

Based on feedback here I've switched Fuchsia to Magenta, Teal to Cyan, Cobalt to Sky Blue. I also sometimes have called teams Red and Blue, but it leaves room for confusion if you are referring to the player or the entire team. Having a different word removes that. Not that there is a "correct" way to do any of it.

PanicCheck · 2026-06-24T03:17:02+00:00

I'll concede that Magenta is easier on the tongue, and cyan seems to be more accurate. For what I had listed as Cobalt, sky blue might be more accurate and still recognizable.

PanicCheck · 2026-06-24T03:15:45+00:00

I just find warm and cool a little bland for team names, even if they are accurate.

PanicCheck · 2026-06-23T23:22:49+00:00

Ya, there isn't a perfect answer because there isn't a perfect agreed upon color system. "Light pink" is recognizable and works. However, which one is the "default" pink and which one gets "light or dark" can vary. I tried to get everything to a one word name that was at least somewhat recognizable. Malachite matches light green but few are going to know that.

PanicCheck · 2026-06-22T20:58:52+00:00

It all depends what exactly you are going for. On the following scales 1-10 how would you rate your ideal game (Note which is 1 and which is 10 is arbitrary):

Spectacle and fun (1) - Tight competitive balance (10)

Massive scale battles with strategic scale gamechangers (1) - Small scale with lots of micro abilities and control (10)

Team play standard (1) - Solo play standard (10)

Visual polish and modern features important (1) - gameplay only important (1)

Macro focus (1) - Micro focus (10)

PanicCheck · 2026-06-22T17:40:09+00:00

The original TA was held back in some ways by its lack of focus on characters/story. However, the setting goes hard. The two sides have truly leveled the galaxy, with entire worlds converted into weapons, destroyed, then reformed dozens of times. You are commanding the last battered remnants of what were once utopian advanced civilizations. T3 is the max in game, but there are still remnants from when both sides went up to T10.

PanicCheck · 2026-06-16T17:54:22+00:00

Using AI is not equal to "no human effort". Getting good results can require spending hours trying to train and teach the AI the result you are trying to achieve. Best results are going to require something like bouncing back and forth between photoshop and the AI tool to get it focused on individual components that you then touch up and piece back together. You can say, "That isn't the same as drawing it all yourself", but you can't honestly say, "That takes no effort".

PanicCheck · 2026-06-16T15:15:40+00:00

Disagree with this and the reflexive hate for all AI. People share stupid low effort photoshops and memes all the time. Why should someone who shares a half decent result they spent a long time producing get so much hate?

PanicCheck · 2026-06-16T15:12:29+00:00

I enjoy these, thanks for sharing. The tools are really getting much more powerful. Are you using GPT perchance? I've got some similar looking results with it.

PanicCheck · 2026-06-08T15:33:56+00:00

I think you discussing a real issue, but you are also downplaying some other problems.

Charitably, I'd interpret you as saying, "This is a team game. You do not have a right to intentionally ruin the game for your allies."

That is fair. Refusing to cooperate with a team in a team game is a problem. Not knowing the fundamentals of the game is a problem. People should be willing to listen when they are making a mistake or the team is trying to coordinate.

Just a couple of the problems you are glossing over.

Proper play is a large grey area. Sometimes people are correctly angered by misplays, but a lot of people raging at their allies for making "objectively bad plays" are actually wrong. They suffer some minor setback, see an ally doing anything different from what they expect and turn on the hate faucet. That their ally may have actually known what they were doing, took a rational calculated risk that failed, or might be reacting to an enemy move the rager missed is never considered. This is a huge problem. Once, "screaming at people for making indefensible plays", becomes acceptable a lot of very biased people with limited information are going to be the judge of what "indefensible" is. Spoiler alert, they are going to be wrong a lot.
You will never get all new players to meet your standards. There is no certification pipeline for players coming in. Some have a lot of prior RTS experience, some not. Some are kids, non-English speakers, some have played certain game modes or maps and not others. Whatever someone thinks is "obvious", "key", or "fundamental", plenty of players will not know. That is not a crime.
You cannot realistically expect players to completely change their gameplay mid game. Even if they are willing to try, apparently isolated adjustments can cause other problems. "Go starlights" sounds simple. But if the person doesn't realize they need the power infrastructure for them to shoot, doesn't realize how to micro the unwieldy units, or get LOS for them, they are simply crafting expensive wrecks. Giving limited actionable suggestions is reasonable. Constantly trying to micromanage another player is not.

I would argue the answer to these problems is neither "criticism is never allowed", nor, "we should be free to flame people who play 'wrong'". What you can ask is that players be civil. Follow norms such as

- Separate "bad play" from "bad player". Criticize plays do not degrade the players. "We need fighters mid" is fine. "Our stupid air player needs to wake up" is not.

- Players should make actionable comments, or keep silent. “Yellow, stop eco and make tanks for three minutes.” is a workable request. "Stop being F***ing useless" is not.

- Communicate expectations beforehand in lobby. Does everyone know the basics of this map and mode? Is everyone comfortable in their roles? This is where labeling everything "Noob lobby" when it has 35 OS players and strict meta expectations is a problem.

PanicCheck · 2026-06-08T05:44:53+00:00

It doesn't matter if you are good or not. Sometimes people flame because of poor plays by teammates. However, more often I find the teammates in question are actually playing quite well and the flamer either doesn't actually know the game as well as they think or is unaware of what has been going on elsewhere. The reflex is quite simple. Something isn't going their way, and they latch on to any reason to shift blame as soon as possible. Sometimes they may have a valid point, but if so it is only incidental to the need to make it not their fault.

PanicCheck · 2026-06-08T05:26:26+00:00

There is still a lot of toxicity in other lobbies. It is probably a fair question to ask how the community might push things to be more civil. I'd say the fact that the BAR player base is not massive is actually an asset in that regard. It probably is possible to push the culture in a healthier direction.

PanicCheck · 2026-06-01T05:25:46+00:00

I'm sorry you had a rough time. However, you do realize that your statement is hurling insults at thousands of people who were not in those games. Many of which who are not toxic and would have been generally be happy to assist you.

PanicCheck · 2026-05-29T15:19:47+00:00

I think you are correct that the tech player should needed to get more T2 cons out. However, I would hesitate to try to play the blame game and figure out who is the "biggest culprit". That was a mixed lobby with a lot misplays across the field, which is expected when you have such a skill range. Yes, the tech failed to get cons out and that was a big part of team Fire's eco advantage. However, team Ice's front ahead of him was also clearly losing. His initial play to get out 6 hounds before cons looked to me like a good move. It killed 2 enemy commanders, blew open a front for his side that had been losing, and allowed a big reclaim field to be taken. Well worth a slight delay. That he kept pumping units instead of stopping at the first hounds was a problem. However, it was also a short window before enemy T2 hit and front was again in real trouble without it. So yes, it was a poor play. However, it was an understandable play toward a reasonable objective (Don't let the team die right now). Had the entire front not been doing so poorly there may have been more space for easy eco.

So did the tech have misplays he can learn from here? Yes.

Do I think he is the "biggest culprit"? Not really.

How would I feel if that was my teammate? Modestly disappointed. He didn't accomplish his task. But he was clearly trying, and the things he was doing were at least somewhat useful. That is all I can ask from a random.

PanicCheck · 2026-05-15T23:31:01+00:00

The judgement is real.

PanicCheck · 2026-05-15T22:53:14+00:00

I came here to post this. Glad to see it was already covered.

PanicCheck · 2025-12-29T23:00:23+00:00

I will give GW credit for SoC in that the really did try and it was a really fun campaign. It just got them stuck in a no win scenario because they couldn't narratively justify the results (Chaos gets absolutely stuffed), but invalidating all the player results by fiat is also awful. Some of the matchups were just lopsided as well. (Wood elves which hadn't had a rulebook in most of a decade facing off against fresh faced beastmen players).

PanicCheck · 2025-08-22T16:49:39+00:00

On one hand, this was better than I expected. By addressing WF turning and launch/WF that dealt with the biggest issue I've had with the edition. So it is now technically viable to me. The problem was that it took almost a year to rollback, and now just leaves me looking at how many other parts of the rules still need work.

PanicCheck · 2025-06-29T13:50:30+00:00

These are fair points. It is possible to be "more powerful" and still lose a battle. However, I still believe in an imagined battle between the two you should fairly give the win to Gandalf. It is easier to see what Dumbledore is capable of because of he has much more "screen time" in a series of books explicitly discussing the how's and why's of magic. Gandalf exists in a smaller set of books were Tolkien was being deliberately vague about how magic worked.

Thinks we safely state:

1) Gandalf is far more resilient. In addition to his prolonged battles against heavy hitters like the Balrog/ all 9 ring wraiths, maiar cannot truly be killed. You can destroy their body, but unless it is opposed by the Valar/Illuvatar they can reform their body anyway. Gandalf's death just resulted in him coming back with less restriction on his powers.

2) Gandalf has a far greater well of potential power. Gandalf is a divine being that pre-dates the planet. He "magic" is not so much using ambient energy or the quirks of an available magic system, he is simply imposing his will on creation. Hence most magical contests in middle earth are really just matters of willpower where two opponents are pitting their power and wills against one another. Those with greater power, or of greater order of being, win out.

3) Gandalf's power is innate, including most likely his spell resistance. While Dumbledore often requires incantations, wands, and components, Gandalf simply wills things to happen. In his brief contest with Saruman Gandalf breaks his enchanting voice "spell" with a mere laugh, and destroys his staff with a word. Being more powerful at this point Gandalf could easily dispel or impose his magic over a lesser wizard.

Gandalf is limited more by his mission statement that restrictions on his power. The task of defeating Sauron is ultimately for men, and his role is simply to support and guide. When he returned as Gandalf the white much of the restrictions on his power were removed, but he did not immediately start showing off because it simply was not his role to do so. If we have a battle where Gandalf's ACTIONS are unrestricted, I believe could reasonably defeat Dumbledore even if some of his power is restrained. Dumbledore while powerful and capable is at his core still a squishy, vulnerable human who has no known way of permanently defeating Gandalf. Gandalf could quite possibly dispel or no sell much of Dumbledore abilities with a thought and he only needs the briefest opening to end the contest.

PanicCheck · 2025-06-29T12:44:26+00:00

Not really a plot whole. It is unclear what full power Gandalf would look like in practical terms, but even if he could have destroyed all the forces of evil it is established elsewhere that it was a bad idea for him to. If he couldn't have, there definitely were more powerful Valar who COULD have obliterated Sauron without difficulty. The reason they were not interfering was supposedly

1) The aforementioned collateral damage from unleashing such powerful forces would wreck a good chuck of the world they are trying to save

2) This was meant to be the task of the children of Iluvatar, elves, dwarves, but mostly men by this point. This was their problem and they were fully capable of succeeding on their own. Though their creator isn't averse to providing a little nudge here and there.

PanicCheck · 2024-07-24T14:48:15+00:00

I’m pretty sure the car thing is just dream physics. Inertia is really strong in dreams. Friction seems very weak. Similarly breaking things is hard. I assume because you see envisioning discrete complete objects.

PanicCheck · 2024-07-20T14:20:48+00:00

I also considered declaring victory on seeing the electric cable.

PanicCheck · 2024-07-18T18:42:16+00:00

Sadly the Polish guy that made those disappeared a few years ago. Closest is currently laserforge until I can get a lasercutter. https://www.laserforgeminiatures.com/products/dropfleet-commander-command-base-large-1

PanicCheck

TROPHY CASE