The Mirror Problem

[ThomasHiatt]

In tournaments, I always picked the faction I believed to be strongest on the map, which was often different from what other players believed. I played Aeon for that month of ladder since the balance team recently reintroduced it to the game and you are encouraged to play one faction through the King of Faction system.

It is very good to have players who only play a single faction because it gives viewers someone to identify with in their factional roleplaying which seems to be common among casual FA fans. Gyle is always roleplaying as loving UEF and hating other factions. It would be a crime to force Swkoll, or anyone, to play non-UEF factions in order to participate in a tournament. That would harm both the caster and viewer experience rather than enhance it. If all the players are always having to play a mishmash of different factions and playstyles then there is nothing for people to identify with. The system proposed by FtX would be removing one of the rare fun and human aspects of tournaments and replacing it with some clinical pro/con analysis, while also preventing the players from playing how they want and prepared for the map because they only get to know their faction right before the game starts. The primary cause of mirror matches seems to be players copying their opponent, not picking the best faction for the map, which is addressed by Keyser's system. In situations where there is only one faction that is obviously very superior on a map that is an issue with balance.

[MrTBSC]

who are these dudes that lose 800 rating because they cant figure out zthuee float or smth lol

please name 5 "faction specialists" that play high level FAF tournaments

right because ballance is already skewed so such specialiced players can´t even exist ... what was the point in giving loyalists a shorttermdash before suiciding? why change beatles again to still be worthless if only slightly less so when they were worthless before ...

what does zthuefloat matter if there comes a map where the opponent with factionvoting would be able to just deny the player to use the faction in the first place if said map favors that faction?

your reply also already gives a very wrong impression to people intrested in participatinng in tournameants
"you want to be in a tournament? YOU BETTER LEARN PLAYING ALL THE FACTIONS!!" .. pretty good way to turn the top 1% into 0,3% .. f*** it why not raise the skillceiling even further so the same 8 people can be seen EVERY tournameant ...

If all the players are always having to play a mishmash of different factions and playstyles then there is nothing for people to identify with.

pretty much this ... as viewers watch more casts they connect specific players to specific factions they can route for or be against ... a player who constantly plays random may as well be considered that .. a random player .. doesn´t matter if he is highskilled ... .. now have 8 or 16 such players in a tournameant that switch factions all the time ... were is the identity there? be it for the viewer AND the player himself ...
opponent veto´s the players chosen mainfaction, he basicaly veto´s the players Identity ..

this is all so incredibly ironic, you ask for factiondiversaty but then you ask a player to play all factions equaly well ...
i have to ask what is factiondivercity worth if a player can not keep the faction he wants to play with that particular playstyle it may provide ...
competitive factionvariety should come naturaly through the way of players gravitating torwards a faction with what it´s coreplaystyle is ...
be that UEF tanking, be it Cybranswarming, Aeon styling or Phimbeatsticking ..
if you go and have players rotate between factions it means splitting your skill between all of them, that´s like asking a fightingame player or a Moba player to learn 8 different Characters each with their own Move or skillset ...
there is a reason players in such a game focus on less than a handfull of these .. for them to be good with all of them you would require a ludicrous timeinvestmeant to learn the smaller details and be able to execute them well ..

learning a faction requires even more time because not only do you have a toolset to work with but especialy with units you have to learn and use all the small details of how they move, how they rotate, what their rate of fire is, how their projectiles are fired ... and that with a mixed composition that may include up to 200 or more units being used at the same time that isn´t limited to just positioning them ..

[BlackYps]

YOU BETTER LEARN PLAYING ALL THE FACTIONS!!

You need to learn only two. You can have one main and one backup faction. There is only one veto.

opponent veto´s the players chosen mainfaction, he basicaly veto´s the players Identity

This is such a stupid argument. Do high level players have no identity as pro FAF players? Why should it be only bound to the faction?
Previously in the thread people only managed to name no more than two players that are known for playing one faction only. This whole argument about fans identifying with their favourite pro because he mains a specific faction seems pretty made up to me. Have never really heard of this in a FAF context before.

Aeon styling or Phimbeatsticking

so what should these playstyles be? Aeon having the roundest units?

that´s like asking a fightingame player or a Moba player to learn 8 different Characters

You do realize that mobas have a veto system for champions right?

you have to learn and use all the small details of how they move, how they rotate, what their rate of fire is

The skill of the current top players is not so high that these details matter. We still have top players with really low apm which shows, that we are not even close to the skill ceiling in this game yet.



On a more relevant topic: I think keysers suggestion that every player has to submit to the TD beforehand what factions he wants to play was a bit forgotten. Can we have some arguments about if and why this is better or worse than ftx's proposal?

[biass]

I think keysers suggestion that every player has to submit to the TD beforehand what factions he wants to play was a bit forgotten. Can we have some arguments about if and why this is better or worse than ftx's proposal?

I was not under the impression that people intentionally "copied" or chose to force a mirror matchup regardless of faction. I understand this is an asinine request, but I would want to see some proof of such occurring before I believed it.

FtX proposes a better solution because it provides an element of strategic play. It's what Keyser outlined as being a bad thing, but I don't see a problem if you can gain an advantage if you analysed the potential scenarios and prepared properly. And if the change is so drastic that playing as UEF instead of Cybran forces you to lose where you might have otherwise won, then there needs to be another discussion happening instead.

Without having any information to be able to react to the other player, most will resort to selecting the safe/meta picks for the map, creating many mirror match-ups and not solving the original problem.

Dawn of War 3 had a similar scenario.
Outside of the 3 faction choices, you also had to choose 3 "elite units" that could be called into the game using a isolated resource.
They were a diverse range, balanced against each-other and generally quite good. But without knowing what the opponent had chosen, you were forced into choosing the meta unit every game or you would be punished.

Player-Faction identity

I also was not aware players were choosing factions because they actually liked them, rather choosing what is the meta choice for the map or other scenario.
I think the lack of being able to identify any players who are "maining" a faction is proof of this.

I agree being able to LARP as a member of a faction is great for the viewing experience, but until players are also LARPing the point is void. Being able to discuss the veto choices of the players and attempt to analyse/predict the strategy behind it is also a worthwhile viewing/casting experience. I would like to think that would force casters to not just provide a low level play-by play of what happens in round, but i'm dreaming

f*** it why not raise the skillceiling even further so the same 8 people can be seen EVERY tournameant ...

LOTS is the end of year tournament that is supposed to showcase the highest level of gameplay on FAF.
Please explain why making the skill ceiling higher for this tournament is bad.

Also: https://www.online-spellcheck.com/

[FtXCommando]

Previously in the thread people only managed to name no more than two players that are known for playing one faction only. This whole argument about fans identifying with their favourite pro because he mains a specific faction seems pretty made up to me. Have never really heard of this in a FAF context before.

Neither have I, kind of the reason I don't even know how to respond to these arguments. I feel like I must have missed half the FAF tournaments or something?

Anyway, player identity is must more focused on maps and a player's style. For example, I know keyser is a dude that plays really well on old GPG navy maps because that was when he wasn't an old geezer and had the time to make BOs! I know Petric performs best on intense macro maps eg ditch or sentons. I know Farm likes to cause chaos midgame in order to compensate for his usual build order disadvantage as he doesn't have as much 1v1 experience as some others.

None of this relates to anyone being "UEF-main" or "Cybran-main" as faction choice is basically done by looking at the map and seeing which faction has the best tools for that map. And so yes, removing a faction will paradoxically create diversity. This isn't some new concept, strictly dominant strategies exist in many games and this is just one way to address it.

On a more relevant topic: I think keysers suggestion that every player has to submit to the TD beforehand what factions he wants to play was a bit forgotten. Can we have some arguments about if and why this is better or worse than ftx's proposal?

Keyser's suggestion addresses the issue of people picking mirror matches for the sake of picking mirror matches. Mine goes a step further to address the issue of so many maps having an optimal faction choice. Not too sure what arguments can be made other than explaining one is too extreme or the other isn't extreme enough to address the problem.

I will say that Skwoll's tourney had much better faction variety results than LotS did, as Thomas said. But I also didn't see much complaining about players mirroring for the sake of mirroring, which makes me think keyser's solution isn't going to result in much.

[Mr-Smith]

I also was not aware players were choosing factions because they actually liked them, rather choosing what is the meta choice for the map or other scenario.

I basically did only play cybran in any ranked game independed of the map. For the only reason that i like cybran.

I personally would not play in a tourney where the opponent could block cybrans.

Also why not add a option to the lobby that allowes to hide the selected faction from all other players in the lobby?

[biass]

ranked game

We are talking about tournament games. If you knew that another faction conferred a considerable advantage on the map, and with hundreds of dollars on the line, would your loyalty remain in place?

[keyser]

Well for example, i had the issue of tagada mimicking my faction during LOTS just for the sake of it.

If you play a map like regor, where all faction can be played equally, but with different gamestyle, then your system is just an hindrance in my opinion.
For example, you know your opponent main cybran because of all the option that faction offers during a game, and he plays sera/uef on 2nd choice. When he plays these 2 factions, he tends to rambo a lot, because since he is not playing his main faction, he he would fall behind otherwise.
Well you ban cybran, and you force him into playing rambo style, something you might have trained a lot against.

While (as i said) there is no point creating veto on regor, because there is no favourite faction for the map. So don't use the excuse that some map have a dominant faction to implement your veto. I just want to make it clear that people are going to use that to prevent opponent to play the way he likes to play. What i see, is that you want to implement a veto to allow people to ban playstyle of their opponent, and "oh btw, it will also likely reduce the chance of getting mirror on map with a dominant faction"

Biass might like that, but i don't like it. And i'm pretty sure that i'm not the only one.

[Mr-Smith]

We are talking about tournament games. If you knew that another faction conferred a considerable advantage on the map, and with hundreds of dollars on the line, would your loyalty remain in place?

I consider any game without simmods / unit restrictions and with fair balanced opponents as ranked this includes most tourney setups.

For me yes always loyal. (cause i suck really hard with the other factions)

and yes, there migth be some maps where hover units are favoured, but so what?

Szenario:
I hate playing vs Aeon on Finns revenge, so I just veto Aeon,
He now got 2 choices: veto Aeon as well to stop me from choosing them, and have the map advantage, or denie my main faction.

First choice, will end in no more games of the dominant faction on its dominant map.
Second choice, will stop me from playing cybran on any map.

Both choices are bad

[Swkoll]

Also why not add a option to the lobby that allowes to hide the selected faction from all other players in the lobby?

I'd like to see this, it prevents most of the forced mirroring while not really interfering with player choice. Bonus points if we could get Random to appear as Random in the in-game scoreboard.