Thoughts on the Ranked Map Pool

[Amphok]

all maps should

Go Away.

i know thank you

[SpinDrah]

That's because you play Isis. The part when I said feel empathyu for me here, is when you have a situation i.e map you don't liek and you draw it five times in a row - empathy, look it up.

Just because the status quo suits you - doesn't means it suits everyone.

How does the status quo suit me? look at what i said i wan't a smaller pool, with custom maps, and cycled every few months

Yeah I would Love to see a smaller Pool, Say 10 to 16 maps? with a few Custom maps in it? and a cycle of about every 3 months?

as far as your opinion on maps I don't agree with all of them, Like any map with water is an Aeon map so get rid of it? OK then get rid of Crag Dunes as it is a UEF/Sera map.

I also gave reasons why some of the maps you want to get rid of should be kept, you don't really think because you don't like it, it should be removed, do you?

it seems like people don't even read my text, they just see that i didn't agree with them 100% so im Completely wrong.

Anyways I think i should cool it from this forum, People don't seem to ever agree with me, all I seem to be able to do is get people mad at me, and i don't want that.

[uberge3k]

I still stand by Varga being bomber broken - by that I mean, first bomber led strategies and their connotations have a stupidly high percentage chance of winning. It might be easy for seasoned players to contest that strat on there, but for a lot of the newer players, it's not.

And once again, we get to the crux of the matter: bomber first is only "broken" when a pro goes bomber first against a noob. Nevermind the fact that the noob will lose regardless of what tactic the pro uses. And no, the "well the noob won't even have a chance to play!!!" argument won't hold water - when I was a clueless noob playing against TAG_PEBBLE, he would effortlessly kill every single one of my expanding engineers with a furious series of expertly micro'd LABs. Frustrating? Yes. But that's the price you pay when you're a noob and you go toe to toe with the top players of the game.

Fortunately for us, this problem will self-correct as more new players come to FAF and thus provide more matchup opportunities for similar skill levels. Remember that currently, the system will match you up with anyone else who happens to be searching at the time - this will not be the case in RC1.

The truth is it's obvious there are problems with the map pool right now. How do I know? About 1/2 games with a newbie, they quit as soon as the map comes up. There isn't any long term penalty for them doing so as the ladder's going to be reset + some of them just don't seem to care. I drew Roanoke this morning, the player insta-quit. I searched again and got Snoey Triangle and he fought it out. It's clearly a sign that newer players aren't having that much fun on the ladder.

So? You can't please everyone. There will always be people who do this, even on GPGNet, as it's quite likely that their reasons for playing will differ from yours. For one example, Nemir, one of the most respected players on GPGNet, was well known for simply quitting games that he didn't find interesting (be that playing a very highly rated player or a very low rated player or even a specific map that he detested). Not everyone plays for the sole purpose of increasing their magical rating number.

The reason why we should be catering to these players is because they are going to leave if the pool is too intimidating - players like you and I would play even if the ladder map pool consisted entirely of maps with only 8 mexes & no reclaim on them.

Noobs won't play if they don't have even matchups, but if they don't play it guarantees that there won't be even matchups. It's a chicken and egg problem and changing the map pool won't fix it.

Thankfully, as I'd mentioned above, this is a self-correcting problem as FAF will continue to grow.

[uberge3k]

1. It's not a case of "noob vs pro", you shouldn't try and make this a black and white issue. We have a spectrum of players that needs to be catered to. Let's avoid bomber balance discussion, suffice to say we disagree on that one.

So, you can say "this map is broken because bombers are OP", and then ignore any criticism of the "bombers are OP" statement? That is disingenuous at best.

That said, if two players of near or equal skill play on that map, the one who goes bomber first has the highest likelihood of winning. That's a very significant indicator that the map favours one particular strategy over another.

You said yourself:

It might be easy for seasoned players to contest that strat on there, but for a lot of the newer players, it's not.

Furthermore, the replays you posted proved exactly the opposite; that in high level games, bomber first did not make a measurable impact. The facts simply do not support your opinion.

2. You're argument of comparing bombers to LABs does not even begin to hold water. Every player, regardless of skill level can rush LABs. LAB rushing does't simulate a sovereign debt crisis if you do it wrong.

And every player, regardless of skill level, can rush bombers. If your sarcastic comment was meant to insinuate that "you can crash your eco if you mess up bomber first" (because I guess airfac-pgen-pgen-pgen-bomber is rocket science?), then you should check your facts again as it is just as easy to stall your eco by investing too heavily in LABs.

3. As I said, we are not discussing bomber balance, which is a topic you do love to debate - this map's required reading is bomber rushing - that's not just knowing how to do it, but having the sufficient knowledge of eco on how to do it without crashing your economy, having the sufficient micro vs macro skills to keep expanding at the same time, not just knowing but practising BR countering and T1 AA micro. All of that is presuming you can even i]see[/i] the map. If Palms or Blasted is SupCom 101, Varga's a PhD. Now that's not a bad thing, I like the idea of having such a difficult map in ranked but it leads to me to my next point...

So you can use bomber balance as evidence for your point, but no one can question the topic of bomber balance as it relates to the current topic. What?

Furthermore, bomber first and its counters requires no more effort on the part of the player than early LAB rushing, and early ACU rush, a ghetto, or any one of a dozen other interesting strats. Are those broken too? By your logic, they should be.

4. There are so many maps in ranked right now, "noobs" are simply not going to play it - so they won't get better. I don't expect everyone to agree with me - but one common sentiment is that there are too many maps in ranked. If we want Varga in there, give it some more focus. As I suggested, maybe just cut the current pool in half and rotate it weekly - as it stands now Automatch is one big random button, I could draw a pro who's going to bomber rush me on Theta, I could draw a newb who's going to quit as soon as the game loads, I could draw someone better enough than me to be a challenge but on a map I play poorly, or I could draw a newbie on a map I love so I end up steamrolling him.

Isn't that the very definition of how Ranked should work?

If you don't like the possibility of getting a map you don't like or don't know, or if you don't want the possibility of getting someone far better than yourself, then you should play custom games. And yes, noobs who wish to increase their rating can host games too; and soon their rating won't even be displayed in the lobby, rendering your point moot.

There's nothing wrong with ranked being a challenge, but it shouldn't be utterly merciless. (No pun intended)

That is what happens when you play online; there is a high likelyhood of losing. And how do you define "merciless"? It's going to be different for every player, and if the possibility of losing isn't desirable, then I'm sorry but you shouldn't be playing online.

5. I'm curious as to why "noobs" have to pay any kind of price? I understand that you're in the top 1% of players, these kinds of struggles don't make much sense to you, but for the other 99% of the players out there, simply saying "get better noob" doesn't cut it. For players like necrowizard having the odd game in between raising his son, or AngryMuffin who plays to take the edge off whilst he's working two jobs to keep his family afloat after his wife got sick, it's just plain callous that you would use your power and influence to perpetuate a status quo that directly benefits you and your TAG Street cronies.

1. "noobs" are not "paying some kind of price" as you seem to imply. I was a noob just like any other, and only improved my skill because I wanted to. If a player doesn't want to improve, then I'm sorry, but I don't see why we should make the game less interesting for everyone else just so he has a slightly better time in the 10 games he'll play before moving onto the next game. Anyone who wants to improve can do so quite easily.
2. Are you implying that myself or the other "TAG Street Cronies" don't have jobs? You would be sadly mistaken. We're just as busy as anyone else; myself and other high level players have simply put more time and dedication into the game over its lifetime than most (you do know that ROCK has been playing RTS' at the very highest level for over 10 years, yes?). It's preposterous to think that Joe Newcommer should be able to effectively compete against someone like ROCK right away. In fact, it proves how deep FA is as a strategy game, with there not being such "blue shell" tactics to bring everyone down to the same level.
3. The "status quo" directly benefits you and anyone else just as much as it does me, which is to say, not at all. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason. I suggest you drop it.

FAF (balance) is done by pro and for pro !
...
You don't have to know what unit is good : The goal is to make them all useful so you can't make mistake by building a SCU or a t2 missile launcher.
And finally, a lot of tutorials will come to help newcomers.
The goal is really to please (and bring) new players, not "pros"...
[edit] FAF Global Ranking is not fun, I'm kicked because I'm a noob !

It's true that some players don't want unbalanced games, or even play with newcomers. The second behavior is unwanted, but the first one is the sole purpose of the global ranking : To help making balanced games (because balanced games are more fun for everyone !).
But if you've got trouble, there is a really simple solution for that : Host your own games.
Or play with other newcomers. Also, some better players, if you ask them, are willing to show and help you to learn how to play !

I'm glad you brought that up, because it applies just as much in reverse. Bomber first should be a viable strat, and not be useless and a mistake to make it.

So if players are going to get kicked for having too low a rating in team games, we actively encourage them to take up ranked. But if ranked is so skewed towards the pros (as you yourself admit to believing it should be), how are they ever going to get better? This leads on to my next point.

No. I said that ranked currently has pros playing, and the current ranked implementation allows pros to be matched up with noobs, thus creating a relatively high possibility of a pro playing a noob.

However, the fastest way to improve is by playing against the best. I learned more in 1 month of getting my posterior repeatedly handed to me by LordVader_, Remmy, and ROCK then I learned in over a year of playing ranked by myself.

Therefore, your argument seems to actually be "noobs won't win points in ranked if they play only pros". Well, first of all, ratings will soon be changed so that new players will not have their rating displayed. Given how TrueSkill works, they only need to win a few games to get accurately rated, and since you yourself use the number of noobs you play in ranked as evidence, it seems likely (in fact, I know it is the case) that they'll eventually get an appropriate match.

Lastly, new players can always host their own games.

This is a massive assumption to risk the future of FAF on, don't you think? Who says that FAF is going to continue to grow? We don't even know if GPGnet is down for good or not. It could be back up on Monday. The recent influx of players is low hanging fruit - it would be very unwise to believe that this growth is going to continue unabated. The recent gains in the player base are fragile and reversible. Not only that, but FAF just absorbed the largest FA community, what growth potential do you really see for a community run server for a game that's pushing five years old? It's cynical but true. If we look after the players we have now more will come, but if we ignore them, not only will newer players move to Steam or back tp GPGnet, but the existing gains we have made will be lost. I doubt we should be betting on your hubris.

FAF will get a lot of advertising soon, once we are at RC1, so your entire premise is flawed.

Therefore I'm going to turn it back onto you: I doubt we should be betting on your hubris.

I'd say even less play to spend five minutes getting bomber rushed and then another five waiting for the game to end.

What do they play for then? If you are playing against someone like Voodoo or Zock, then you're obviously trying to improve your game. If you aren't trying to improve and don't want a challenge, then you should stick to custom or AI games.

FAF won't grow if we don't help the newer players. As it stands, the system is heavily skewed against them. They get kicked and berated for being noobs in team games, and they have no opportunity to grow in a ranked match system that clearly the favours the 1% (of players at the top of the leaderboards).

This post may contain traces of satire

You just sad two paragraphs ago that you don't think FAF will continue to grow. Now, when it suits your point, you think it will?

I've already answered your points previously:

- New players are already being helped as much as they can. Unfortunately, there are limits to this, as you must want to improve. We can't make you want to do so.
- Rating will soon be changed in such a way as to render your "noobs will get kicked" thread moot.
- You really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder and extremely high opinions of yourself. I would recommend reevaluating the way you communicate to avoid future problems.

[uberge3k]

I'm not arguing in the face of established wisdom - the burden of proof is on you to prove that bombers not OP.

This is incorrect. The established wisdom is not, in fact, that bombers are OP. You simply seem to think that they are, and have decided that it is "established wisdom".

Counter-factual. The fact is in those replays is that the players did go bomber first. You're cherry-picking. All play in those games stem from the opening. You can't simply choose to conveniently ignore it.

You are the one who "cherry-picked" 5 replays to prove your point that bombers are OP. They failed to accomplish this goal. Furthermore, just because someone used a unit does not mean that it is OP. Otherwise you would have an ironclad argument that T1 tanks need nerfing.

It was a joke Uber, try not to take everything personally.

Really, stall your eco through overinvesting in LABs? You insist on this fallacious comparison? LABs do not fly, nor can they ignore terrain. All but one unit built from the T1 Land factory can target them, and only one is arguably inferior to it. It is a faulty comparison at the very best & intentionally misleading at worst.

Pointing out that sarcasm is counterproductive in what I hope is a serious argument is not "taking things personally". It is stating a fact.

And yes, if you make 5 LABs to raid and no engineers, your eco will stall and you will be behind. That is the point I was making, not the relative strengths of LABs vs bombers.

No you are harping on about one particular example - the strength of the bomber opening on Varga. I've raised the point that faction imbalanced maps also present a disincentive to newer players. The rest of your examples only serve to prove my point.

No. You are the one who continually uses it as an example. Since you are ignoring a good chunk of my argument I am forced to assume that you cannot disprove it.

Early ACU rushes were imbalanced, people complained, they were balanced, in the most current iteration, by increasing the amount of energy needed for Overcharge & you know what? It's still a viable strategy!

Ghetto gunships: People complained, they were adjusted, and they worked fine in 3599, changes were made in 3603 decreasing the energy cost and hey presto, super cheap ghettos again, which imbalanced the game. Once these cost changes were reverted, ghettos went back to being a viable balanced strategy.

So yes Uber, they were broken. Then they were balanced, and they still are viable strategies.

I'm unsure what the history lesson about prior tactics has to do with my point, which was simply that there are many, many early game tactics.

But again! You seek to derail my thread. Start another bomber thread, we can have it out there.

I was not the one who made this about bombers. You were.

Thank you for your advice. These players aren't "noobs", they are just ordinary middling players. Noob is actually considered by most to be an insulting term, so please don't try and dehumanise them Uber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noob

"It can have derogatory connotations, but is also often used for descriptive purposes only, without a value judgment."

If my intention was to be derogatory, there would be zero room for misinterpretation. It is also quite amusing, considering the amount of far more insulting messages that I have deleted or edited from you posts.

So what you are saying is "too bad so sad" ?

I am saying that in the context of an online game, it is impossible to expect a new player to be immediately competitive against someone who has been playing for a very long time.

You seem hell-bent on making this about bombers. I'd please advise you to keep it on topic. My thread is about making the map pool easier for new comers. If you want to make a thread about bombers by all means go ahead. My point is in this thread is I believe it makes it harder for newcomers to learn.

We aren't making the game any more or less interesting. I'm not even suggesting that we remove Varga from pool permanently. I'm suggesting absent replay vault, absent map preference selection, absent even matchmaking that perhaps an idea might be to reduce the size of the pool & that Varga might be a decent candidate due to it's difficulty level.

You are the one who has continually made this about bombers, repeatedly using them in your reasoning.

It's preposterous to think that Joe Newcommer should be able to effectively compete against someone like ROCK right away. In fact, it proves how deep FA is as a strategy game, with there not being such "blue shell" tactics to bring everyone down to the same level.

I never argued that. You are wandering off topic again. Also straw man. Also this is the third time you've mentioned Rock, what does he have to do with this thread? He's more than welcome to voice his opinion.

You indeed did my asserting that bomber first is "no fun because the game is over without a chance to play", something that we have already established only happens when it is a very unevenly matched game.

I have used ROCK and several other top players as examples instead of "generic pro player". I'm not sure why you seem to take issue with this?

I don't know where you are getting that impression from, I haven't insulted you or used derogatory terms to describe you or other players, I in fact attempted to use humour to defuse your obvious tension, but even that was wasted. I haven't even implied that your ability to reason is otherwise impaired or comparable to that of a jellyfish.

Technically you are correct, seeing as I removed the offending posts.

How is this relevant at all? I think you are just name dropping from the sake of it. Well FYI I was trained by Wuped, TLO & the rest of the TFU crew. Yes I can name drop too Uber. What does any of this have anything to do with the topic at hand?

I was relating an anecdote about my personal experience on the subject. Apparently you seem to take issue with my using the names of others.

They do host their own games instead of playing ranked.

And this is a problem?...

I'd say most people play the game for fun. Generally speaking, people play games because they derive enjoyment from them. Well, try to anyway. So I'm essentially translating your statement here as "If they don't like the ladder, too bad",

Correct. It is impossible to appeal to everyone.

I mean it's pretty unambiguous, you oppose balancing the number one complaint of ranked players, you heavily moderate any complaints about it on the forum, and you've demonstrated you are more than willing to completely derail this thread in your zealous quest to silence any dissent on the issue.

1. I oppose making rash changes based on mob mentality and feelings rather than empirical evidence, something no one has bothered to provide.
2. It is my duty as a moderator to remove abusive content, which your posts were. If you would rather not have them deleted, then I would advise against using phrases such as "unique blend of cognitive dissonance and arrogance" or "you're a tool".
3. You are the one who has continually brought this into a bomber debate as you insist upon using it as the basis of your opinions. If you reread the thread you'll notice that several others pointed this out before me.

- New players are already being helped as much as they can. Unfortunately, there are limits to this, as you must want to improve. We can't make you want to do so.

As much as I think Tiptushi's a nice guy, he's also an old clan mate of ROCK's from the TA days. Also you've used the word "noob" at least thirty times in this thread - you're hardly Saint Mother Theresa of the Church of the Newbie.

What does Tiptushi have to do with anything? Nevermind the fact that he wasn't, to my knowledge, even a clan mate of ROCK's?

I've already covered the "noob" portion of the argument. But it is amusing considering the amount of time I have devoted to helping others through writing guides, 1on1 training, volunteering my time to moderating...

And now you make it personal. To be honest I've gotten that distinct impression from you. I mean that is after you said in GPGnet chat, that I wasn't qualified to talk about balance because my rating's too low, after you tried to get me permabanned from Halcyon, after you've phantom moderated a number of my posts, generally poured scorn over every contribution I've tried to make here, tried to bully me in chat and now insist on de-railing my thread. Yes, I'm the one with a chip on my shoulder

The truth is every time I think to myself, yes I should try and engage with Uber more, you consistently reward me with this bullying behaviour. I'm not going to cry about it, but I'm not in the least bit intimidated either. I'm just calling you on it.

1. I never once said that you were "unqualified to discuss balance because of your rating". I suspect you are confusing me with someone else?
2. You should bring up your prior GPGNet offenses with those who were involved. Koecher would be the proper person to speak with as I had no part in "trying to get you permabanned". I would also check what precipitated your ban as I'm pretty sure we don't randomly ban people for kicks.
3. I PM'd you explaining why your posts were removed.
4. What "bullying" behavior are you referring to? To my knowledge, our chat interactions have been fairly limited.
5. As I stated earlier, you seem to be mistaking "participation" with "de-railing".

[uberge3k]

11 Mar 2012 18-29 lastGame.SCFAReplay
(57.78 KiB) Downloaded 2 times

I'll get to your post later. Let me ask you: Does this player look like they are having fun?

His BO was so terribly bad that his loss was virtually guaranteed form the start, bomber or not.

11 Mar 2012 17-49 lastGame.SCFAReplay
(83.74 KiB) Downloaded 1 time
This is me getting bomber rushed. Is this also your idea of fun?

The bomber was countered poorly, but you were still quite even with him. Trying to force a draw was... not a good idea.

Regarding fun: that's something that the very best game designers in the field have been trying to quantify since the dawn of the industry. They still don't have a way to universally define it. I find the vast majority of FA games to be fun. Apparently you do not. Everything else being equal, what makes your opinion worth more than mine?

[SpinDrah]

I have fun "playing every game" i play, I do not always have fun dealing with Rude players.

When I am beat in 10 minutes by a good player it doesn't take away from my fun, It adds to my skill set(If i bother to learn from it). What I try not to do is get all EMO and cry over it because i have found that does not help me learn why I lost.

its so silly to talk about making ranked easy for new players, the Whole idea of ranked play is to RANK the players! Not to make it an easy and fun game for every new player.

If a new player wants an easy funtime game with anther new player he can ask for it in chat, make a game called "Newbs only game for fun" or "new players only game for fun" or "x rated players or lower only fun game"

He can even put stuff like "no first bomber" in the tittle if it is what he wants.

[Isen]

damn god, can anyone do me a resume of all the posts?

[uberge3k]

I think Spin did a pretty good job.

[ToejamS]

I think there should be a word limit per post. You think im going to read all that, think again.