Air Leverage - Improving Air Gameplay (Mod v6 out now!)

[KD7BCH]

I feel the test and design process is sound. The feedback process is where we need improvement.

Only those players who have actually played the mod should be providing "mod feedback".

Discussion about what the problems are in air has taken place year over year without result that have eliminated the ASF swarm issue 5 years running. My conclusion is this is due to the way in which those changes were incorporated under the previous stewardship of FAF.

Regardless, not all of these changes can be expected to be implemented by the stock game unless players actually play the mod, find the gameplay superior and lobby for it.

We aren't asking for that yet either.

We are asking for some limited cooperation, and testing.
We are asking the trolls to move on or get involved, and not just claim they will, or STFU because we don't need their approval to mod. (why is this even our job when explicitly not allowed by the rules of the forum?)
We are asking the moderators to actually do their job and permit a discussion by those interested in advancing the mod and thereby the air game.

In terms of how players stack on rank, the vast majority of players are ranked under 1K. Average is about 750. There are so few high ranking players close above 1500 as to be a group of anomalies. The law of large numbers dictates you develop for that group not for the previous few.

A second point on rank is while it makes very little difference in terms of what can be seen in unit interactions. With players of high skill using the fewest number of units to accomplish their goals as effectively as possible won't display the same kind of interaction we'd see with a more varied group.

[quark036]

Actually KD7BCH, if you look at the data, the vast majority of games played are by people between 700 and 1700 ranking, with the most games being played around the 1100 ranking.

Edit: Here is the link: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10098&hilit=statistics&start=10

[KD7BCH]

Actually KD7BCH, if you look at the data, the vast majority of games played are by people between 700 and 1700 ranking, with the most games being played around the 1100 ranking.

Edit: Here is the link: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10098&hilit=statistics&start=10

That is total number of games played, as you play more games you get better, however the number of players rated 1700 is a pittance compared to the number of players rated 700, which has over 700 active players, and there are fewer than 50 rated 1700. As discussed before by categorizing those rated below 1000 noobs, that effectively boxes up almost 80% of the player base.

More games played tends to strongly correlate with higher rating, however the vaunted rating system doesn't not factory that only the deviation of estimated rating is higher with fewer games.

Less than 1% of the community is rated 1750+ which means that most players aren't make sense?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10098&hilit=statistics

[Reaper Zwei]

Actually KD7BCH, if you look at the data, the vast majority of games played are by people between 700 and 1700 ranking, with the most games being played around the 1100 ranking.

Edit: Here is the link: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10098&hilit=statistics&start=10

That is total number of games played, as you play more games you get better, however the number of players rated 1700 is a pittance compared to the number of players rated 700, which has over 700 active players, and there are fewer than 50 rated 1700. As discussed before by categorizing those rated below 1000 noobs, that effectively boxes up almost 80% of the player base.

More games played tends to strongly correlate with higher rating, however the vaunted rating system doesn't not factory that only the deviation of estimated rating is higher with fewer games.

Less than 1% of the community is rated 1750+ which means that most players aren't make sense?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10098&hilit=statistics

Correlation is not causation which is why higher game count isn't factored into rating.
Lower level players can come up with interesting ideas its just that they don't always have full understanding of the games mechanics and how to take advantage of them as well as higher level players do.

[quark036]

I'm saying we shouldn't be balancing towards under 700 gameplay, because looking at what faf is made up of, the vast majority of games are centered around 1100 or 1200 ranking.

[yeager]

This is very true, it would be nice if the scoring was changed so it is harder for people to be below 0 rank, when you get in the negatives I'm sure it's super depressing for players who understand rating

[KD7BCH]

I'm saying we shouldn't be balancing towards under 700 gameplay, because looking at what faf is made up of, the vast majority of games are centered around 1100 or 1200 ranking.

All depends on if you are looking at global or ladder. The data I'm looking at show a wide range of number of games played with only a weak bell curve based around a midpoint which isn't representative of number of players but number of games played at a certain rating.

Total number of games played for high ranked player is larger, it just is, which skews the data. Not that there is a point but the reason is it is far easier for players in that range to get into a game, and that overlaps with where players of higher rank were when they were on their way up as the system learned them.

Looking at the trend in the data, as players play more games the overall rating tends to increase to a point. This is not a correlation for an individual player but only the group as a whole.

For some players this levels off very soon, for others it levels off later on how else do you attribute the higher number of games concentrated in higher rating of players?

The overall community average rating is much lower than this midpoint of 1100 and 1200.

Regardless of how many games are played 67% of the community are rated below 950. So only 32% of players are rated over 950. Either way you slice it there is a small group of poorly rated and a small group of exceptionally rated and a very large mass of mid-range players. About 75-80% of our playerbase is rated between 500-1500 and most games played were by players while in this range as well.

I'll let Korbah talk about rating if he wants regarding his mod but I don't see the point of rating having anything to do with mod development. In terms of testing however it is always good to have different populations contributing to the samples. When the high ranking players feel it is to their benefit to contribute as they've been invited to the mod will be there. Development continues either way.

Having said all this, show me where it is written anywhere in this thread that development is being geared for a certain rank level so we can correct that misconception that you are purporting.

[quark036]

I feel the test and design process is sound. The feedback process is where we need improvement.

Only those players who have actually played the mod should be providing "mod feedback".

Discussion about what the problems are in air has taken place year over year without result that have eliminated the ASF swarm issue 5 years running. My conclusion is this is due to the way in which those changes were incorporated under the previous stewardship of FAF.

Regardless, not all of these changes can be expected to be implemented by the stock game unless players actually play the mod, find the gameplay superior and lobby for it.

We aren't asking for that yet either.

We are asking for some limited cooperation, and testing.
We are asking the trolls to move on or get involved, and not just claim they will, or STFU because we don't need their approval to mod. (why is this even our job when explicitly not allowed by the rules of the forum?)
We are asking the moderators to actually do their job and permit a discussion by those interested in advancing the mod and thereby the air game.

In terms of how players stack on rank, the vast majority of players are ranked under 1K. Average is about 750. There are so few high ranking players close above 1500 as to be a group of anomalies. The law of large numbers dictates you develop for that group not for the previous few.

A second point on rank is while it makes very little difference in terms of what can be seen in unit interactions. With players of high skill using the fewest number of units to accomplish their goals as effectively as possible won't display the same kind of interaction we'd see with a more varied group.

Actually, you were the one who first suggested it in this post, specifically where you say "you develop for that group [about 750] not for the previous few, so we were just refuting that.

[KD7BCH]

I feel the test and design process is sound. The feedback process is where we need improvement.

Only those players who have actually played the mod should be providing "mod feedback".

Discussion about what the problems are in air has taken place year over year without result that have eliminated the ASF swarm issue 5 years running. My conclusion is this is due to the way in which those changes were incorporated under the previous stewardship of FAF.

Regardless, not all of these changes can be expected to be implemented by the stock game unless players actually play the mod, find the gameplay superior and lobby for it.

We aren't asking for that yet either.

We are asking for some limited cooperation, and testing.
We are asking the trolls to move on or get involved, and not just claim they will, or STFU because we don't need their approval to mod. (why is this even our job when explicitly not allowed by the rules of the forum?)
We are asking the moderators to actually do their job and permit a discussion by those interested in advancing the mod and thereby the air game.

In terms of how players stack on rank, the vast majority of players are ranked under 1K. Average is about 750. There are so few high ranking players close above 1500 as to be a group of anomalies. The law of large numbers dictates you develop for that group not for the previous few.

A second point on rank is while it makes very little difference in terms of what can be seen in unit interactions. With players of high skill using the fewest number of units to accomplish their goals as effectively as possible won't display the same kind of interaction we'd see with a more varied group.

Actually, you were the one who first suggested it in this post, specifically where you say "you develop for that group [about 750] not for the previous few, so we were just refuting that.

I poorly communicated that. Allow me to clear it up.

I am not Korbah and he is developing the mod. At this point in time I am not developing shit.

Were I do develop anything, it would be where the greatest number of players could take advantage of it, and not on the extreme ends.

I contribute to the discussion because I believe that more T2 AIR would benefit the overall game.

Statistically there are more 750 rated players or players +/- 200 from 750 than any other group, while more games may have been played over the course of FA in the higher ranked ranges this can be attributed to players on their ascent being in those ranges longer than in the range of 300-600.

Were a team to try to develop at for players at 750 or at 1000/1100 I don't see that to be substantially different, but then I don't see any difference for developing for any rank since the core game is the core game and it plays the same for any rank, you get, no special bonus or attribute because you have a higher rank.

Statistically there are about 100+ players 1600/1700 or above, and thousands rated below 1000. To develop for the small group in any sample size and exclude the largest group is just poor practice in any development. So while I am not advocating for and I don't believe Korbah is developing with rank in mind, I would absolutely advise against developing for the extremes in any group because you piss of the masses and then the whole mass moves onto other things while the few you designed for stick around but when they run out of players to match against they move on too, i.e. it isn't sustainable to develop that way.

That doesn't mean input from those rated higher should be invalidated and I am not saying that, it makes no sense to develop for a particular rating and that is what I'm saying. If you were going to develop for a articular rating you'd develop for the midpoint not the extremes.

[yeager]

Unless the players ARE 1000 rank ish, in which case they will probably enjoy it, and that is 90% of the population