Why FAF has been progressing slowly (renamed)

[keyser]

Basically there is always 2 group in a community that have opposite view about the topic balance and their comprehension about the meaning of the concept adaptation

The first with the claim new balance change meta and force player to change continually with the perspective it will bring new game styles

The second with the claim learn basic and build up your strategy upon continually repeat same mechanism till you got better.

It is obvious that the first group is willing to disturb well know strategy in order for them to not learn the basic and thus with the disturbance factor hoping to win quickly. Basically they don t want to adapt and argue that the game is stacked because group two not ready/willing to adapt to something new.
The second in contrary want to build up something while testing what is rewarding what is not thus becoming better with games played and are not really happy when new balance tweak the strategies they have already learned and tested.

If faf want to bring new players that will remain low skills for a long time and make older player leave strategy one

If faf want to consolidate and get better players strategy two. But it forces new players to learn ...

Not to mention that for competitive game play strategy one does not fit at all. Imagine every month chess got new unit and change the way how the piece move ...

nice caricatural way of seeing this. You either fall into one of this 2 categories. No middle ground at all.

tbh I think we have an highly conservative balance on this game already. If we wanted to have this "dynamic balance", you would have to learn everything everytime, ie : it's not first land, 2 pgen, 2 mexx... Now it's 1st air facto (5 bomber and then 1 engie) then 2 land facto. We can definitely make a game where building engie in early become really risky/borderline useless to promote early aggression. Though we are not.

If you want another comparison, Equilibrium does change the game way more than we do. And yet (aside for edge cases) we can still play it without having to re-learn everything, or whatever excuses. It feels extremely similar in terms of gameplay, and that's why it is now rated.

So we are ready to listen to you, but you have to understand that you shouldn't over dramatize the current situation.

[dstojkov]

nice caricatural way of seeing this. You either fall into one of this 2 categories. No middle ground at all.

In every balance change you always have players who agree and other who don t. This is not caricatural at all. Thus though there is the group that don t express itself ...

I have nothing about new way of play even new units !!!

But in this case this is another featured mod ...


I wish me changes that buff what is weak so I it don t have to relearn what I have already learned to do but open a new possible strategy.
I was all about to buff what was UP in 3599 not to nerf all what was too rewarded we would have then all the old player till sitting there and contribute

[Morax]

Speed2 I didn't say he had to be top 10 ladder but he should at least be something.

I asked: what has he done and what evidence does he have that the changes need to happen?

I don't want the game to go without change but I want active players to go along with them AND react to what people say.

You are taking an extreme example and putting words in my mouth. Opinions are fine but they are only worth as much as the people who back them up.

"I don't like playing the game because it doesn't change enough" is a meaningless example.

[Morax]

Hey voodoo, why don't you come play some team games then tell me you want to allow them to speak?

I bet you last less than a full game before you want to rage quit... Seriously, get some experience with the current state of FaF before you publicly say all opinions matter.

[biass]

As an advocate for tied forum/faf accounts
can you stop?

[jackherer]

Damn i initiate a 12 pages topic with some decent talk. Just ping me on client if you want me to bring back some life to the forum again

[Franck83]

If we could have channeled all the power, time and talk invested in these balance and FAF political threads into creative process.... we would already have at least 2 new generations of graphic engines designed from scratch for FA .

[Scruffy]

Please stick to the topic. This thread isn't about balance and Scruffy does not want to clean up the mess.

[dstojkov]

If we could have channeled all the power, time and talk invested in these balance and FAF political threads into creative process.... we would already have at least 2 new generations of graphic engines designed from scratch for FA .

Well this is the consequence of a global patch. It is now too late to change that. But what can be done is to have multiple featured mod that fit better players play style or level/experience but for that you need several ladders

the idea is to provide a progressing level of difficulty for instance the beginner play style is bunkering per default a balance oriented bunkering could be here a good thing. On the other hand this is a too boring play style for expert they want more action and possibility for making stress or snipe

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

If you were someone I encountered in ladder and team games often I would respect your opinion, but part of my decision to commit less time to making content for this game is because of a bad player base.

Respecting opinions of people because they spend a lot of time playing SupCom is the dumbest attitude I've seen for a long while

I don't think SupCom is fun because I like to be good at RTS I play. Being good at SupCom (among many other things) means knowing how tree groups work and how to reclaim them, when to click rocks really fast and how to use factory attack move. All those features look like odd quirky design choices of an ageing game to me and I certainly felt like wasting my time when learning them.

Every RTS ever had good players leaving. But maybe FAF could have an easier time growing new ones. I might of course be the only one who stopped playing because of such things but I doubt it.