Forged Alliance Forever

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-02-03T13:43:18+02:00

As the example of WWPC i would expect the forum poster to explain it so i would have 0 question and could consider joining based on the information of the post. I should not be required to ask questions(as iam generally a bit afraid of new forums.).

Your Wiki site is a really good idea and has helped me alot - especially with buildings, build order etc.
i would also expect the wiki site to explain me things about the rankings, leaderboards - The go to site for my numerous questions.

Hmm i dont think a video is needed because FaF is VERY easy to pick up and just play. Its just a bit lacking when i want to know more and want dive deeper into the game.

Another example i can give. I wanted to know about the ratings and rankings as i found them very confusing. I went to the wiki site and it explained it but was not clear and seemed so far away from the game I had a hard time connecting it.
What i would REALLY REALLY want is that both on the Wiki and Forum the explanations is easy to understand and as close to the game as possible.
It sounds like iam dumb or dont want to understand, buts its really difficult to understand the "mechanics" behind the curtains and after the initial "Automatch". If you understand what i mean.

Its getting a bit complicated :/

Statistics: Posted by Icaroz — 03 Feb 2016, 13:43

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-02-03T13:24:36+02:00

question: where did you expect to find the info you were after, and was it where you expected (but hard to understand) or did you have to hunt hard for it?

if a 3-4 min video popped up explaining faf when you first opened it would you watch it, or close it straight away?

Statistics: Posted by arkitect — 03 Feb 2016, 13:24

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-02-03T12:47:35+02:00

Iam a completely new player to Faf and i just created my account on the forum today. I can speak for myself and my friend who started with me.
Its super hard to understand many of the aspect of FaF. The Rating, rankings, leaderboards, tourneys etc.. The Wiki gives alot of explanation but its REALLY hard to understand when you come from 0 knowledge.
About the tournes - i would like to sign up but i dont know how they work. i tried to read everything but it still dont make sense to me and i could imagine many other new players would agree.

I need more clear and basic information on how things work.
For example WWPC me and my friend are very interested in joining, but we have not. Where can we see our league? who to play? who shall setup up the games etc.. Its just too hard to understand so we dont sign up.

Its a great game and hope to help make it better.
If you haven any questions about how we(new players) see the game, please ask!

Statistics: Posted by Icaroz — 03 Feb 2016, 12:47

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-20T23:43:56+02:00

Softly just wondering on the count of overall games per bracket. Does it include the games say a player of rating 1800 played when they were lower, maybe as a 900, in the 1800? Because if so that's going to horribly scew the graph to the upper limit anyway. A player who's been around for a while will probably have a higher rating after learning some tricks.

Statistics: Posted by Comrade_Shamrock — 20 Jan 2016, 23:43

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-20T13:45:06+02:00

While the modal rating bracket is 900 (the most common rating bracket) players at slightly higher ratings tend to play more games. The result of this is that the most games are played by the 1200 rating bracket.

If I was to sample players based on activity I would most likely get a 1200 ranked player. For this reason I don't think its unhelpful to classify average joes as less than around 1500, since 800 - 1500 is a pretty cutoff for getting the most active groups of players overall.

Here's where I posted my stats: viewtopic.php?t=10098&start=10#p101808

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 20 Jan 2016, 13:45

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-20T10:53:28+02:00

The plan is to run fewer (not weekly) team-based and well advertised tournaments. The hope is that team games will attract a wider audience and the time between each one will allow the advertising to reach the greatest number of people. Hopefully these two things will help make my initiative more successful than previous ones.

Statistics: Posted by Matrixmage — 20 Jan 2016, 10:53

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-18T02:14:32+02:00

theeggroll wrote:
For proof, just look at WWPC thread. The U1100 bracket is continually very dead, with only about 2 signs ups each week. The U1500 and U1900 brackets have double to triple that many sign ups each period.

While it is true that some lower tank tournaments exist, these are all for 1v1's. In my probably anecdotal experience, far more players (especially lower ranked ones) play team games as opposed to 1v1 games.

It is (was) also 2v2 WWPC tourney hosted from my and tokyto, what was U1100

But it was death zone, especialy on low and hight rating, none want to play 2v2 team game, what can be pretty intense on teamplay.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 18 Jan 2016, 02:14

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-17T23:57:21+02:00

Average joes is a term coined by Gyle. It's not our fault it means what it means

Statistics: Posted by Blodir — 17 Jan 2016, 23:57

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-17T23:51:14+02:00

Comrade_Shamrock wrote:
speed2 wrote:So this name was always about how good you perform and not about this statisticial average.

What does average mean? Not your special definition but the actual word. Now please think how this relates to average joes.

You really did shoot yourself in the foot there speed. Saying that a term which contains the term "average" isn't about the average is kind of broken logic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

speed2 wrote:
To the point where you want to call newbies average joes I have to disagree. Yes if you look into statistics average rating of all players is under 1000 but that doesnt have to do much with this term. Average joes were always players that already learn something more. Stopped doing most of the common mistakes and were better at reaction to whats going on on the map. So this name was always about how good you perform and not about this statisticial average. Anyway even if you really want to, it would be super hard to do something like this, when everyone is used to that.

I'm not sure if it was ever my plan to specifically start calling the u1000 players "average joe's". It was more that calling ~1500 players "average joe's" is pretty damn disheartening to the real average rank of players, the u1000's.

Statistics: Posted by Matrixmage — 17 Jan 2016, 23:51

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-15T15:44:35+02:00

speed2 wrote:
So this name was always about how good you perform and not about this statisticial average.

What does average mean? Not your special definition but the actual word. Now please think how this relates to average joes.

Statistics: Posted by Comrade_Shamrock — 15 Jan 2016, 15:44

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-15T14:05:25+02:00

You can try to host these tournament, I would recommend to have some nice poster with few words that will need to get posted on what's new page to increase chances of people signing up, since your majority target audiance it the least active when it comes down to tournaments. Catching up Gyle to promote your tourney also not bad.

To the point where you want to call newbies average joes I have to disagree. Yes if you look into statistics average rating of all players is under 1000 but that doesnt have to do much with this term. Average joes were always players that already learn something more. Stopped doing most of the common mistakes and were better at reaction to whats going on on the map. So this name was always about how good you perform and not about this statisticial average. Anyway even if you really want to, it would be super hard to do something like this, when everyone is used to that.

Statistics: Posted by speed2 — 15 Jan 2016, 14:05

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-11T15:24:00+02:00

Had a bunch of ideas for lower rated tourney on different times (GMT +10), hit me up

I think also a proper ladder tab with stats and announcements will help this, i think Downlord has something in his client, or i could try some mockups, dunno

A lot of the lower level players are stuck in a pit of endless gap/thermo and changing this would help change the elitism

Statistics: Posted by biass — 11 Jan 2016, 15:24

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-10T23:45:14+02:00

Mephi wrote:
There were quite some tourneys for low rated players:

u1200 ladder weekly tourney (20 players or so)
u500 ladder weekly tourney (canceled by lack of players)
newbie/trainer tourney

theeggroll wrote:
For proof, just look at WWPC thread. The U1100 bracket is continually very dead, with only about 2 signs ups each week. The U1500 and U1900 brackets have double to triple that many sign ups each period.

While it is true that some lower tank tournaments exist, these are all for 1v1's. In my probably anecdotal experience, far more players (especially lower ranked ones) play team games as opposed to 1v1 games.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kalvirox wrote:
Maybe we should have more group game tournaments... These are all 1v1 tournaments...
Maybe that is a thing we should do... It might encourage more lower level plays to play in tournaments if they can do them with their friends.

That's spot on. As I mentioned above, team games are the kind of tournaments that are most likely to attract the lower ranked crowd. The ability to play in a tournament with a bunch of your friends, as opposed to alone, is what really makes the experience.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

theeggroll wrote:
Well written points, but the biggest problem I've noticed with tournies that low ranked is lack of knowledge and participation. As it is, a HUGE percentage of the community don't go on the forums, nor do they read the what's new page nor do they read the topic in aeolus. This is especially true for newer members of the community who probably just aren't as involved as the rest of us. So the newbie tournies being U1200 (which is above the "high 100's" division you mentioned) is because that's when you start to get people who are actually involved and pay attention to the "news".

I fee like this is a common misconception in many ways. While I do agree that the lower ranks do have more new players, and those new players probably won't pay attention to community stuff, I routinely see u1000 players with 500+ games. By that point it's kind of impossible to have NOT noticed some of the community stuff, so I'm pretty sure that a higher portion of the player-base would be interested in these sorts of things than people tend to think.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

codepants wrote:
What if we added announcements to the loading screen? Kind of like many games put tips or hints at the bottom, what if we put tourny notices, etc? Everybody sees the loading screen, and for those who don't care, it's fairly non-intrusive.

I think that's a really awesome idea. Non-intrusive but still noticeable notifications about this kind of stuff is what it really needs to get going. I can imagine a world where FAF will tailor the notices you get based on your rank. So if you're 900 and there is a u1000 tourny going on, you'll see it. But then if you're a 1500, you won't get that notification, but you will get one for the u1600 tourny.

Statistics: Posted by Matrixmage — 10 Jan 2016, 23:45

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-10T16:41:25+02:00

theeggroll wrote:
As it is, a HUGE percentage of the community don't go on the forums, nor do they read the what's new page nor do they read the topic in aeolus. This is especially true for newer members of the community who probably just aren't as involved as the rest of us.

What if we added announcements to the loading screen? Kind of like many games put tips or hints at the bottom, what if we put tourny notices, etc? Everybody sees the loading screen, and for those who don't care, it's fairly non-intrusive.

Statistics: Posted by codepants — 10 Jan 2016, 16:41

Re: What about the rest of us? (Why we need low-rank tournys

2016-01-10T16:28:05+02:00

Well written points, but the biggest problem I've noticed with tournies that low ranked is lack of knowledge and participation. As it is, a HUGE percentage of the community don't go on the forums, nor do they read the what's new page nor do they read the topic in aeolus. This is especially true for newer members of the community who probably just aren't as involved as the rest of us. So the newbie tournies being U1200 (which is above the "high 100's" division you mentioned) is because that's when you start to get people who are actually involved and pay attention to the "news". For proof, just look at WWPC thread. The U1100 bracket is continually very dead, with only about 2 signs ups each week. The U1500 and U1900 brackets have double to triple that many sign ups each period. And if you want our vocab changed talk to Gyle, its his fault pro is seen at 1500 and joes are seen from anywhere below that up to that.

Statistics: Posted by theeggroll — 10 Jan 2016, 16:28