Upcoming Elections

Talk about general things concerning Forged Alliance Forever.

Moderators: FtXCommando, Ze Dogfather

Re: Upcoming Elections

Postby Katharsas » 21 Apr 2019, 18:57

ACCURACY wrote:
Katharsas wrote:The unconstructive whining, bashing and generally condescending attitude of some people in this thread is absolutely disgusting. Do you even recognize how you come across?


as if its non deserved


You are a good example by the way.

It is never necessary to show this kind of attitute in any discussion. Its perfectly possible to put forward criticism in a polite way without throwing shit at others or throwing a childish tantrum like "everything is shit just trash anything that exists". If people are so frustrated with their life that they cannot contain their anger they should just try to make a trip into nature and do something nice that fills them with some joy and then come back to the discussion.
Katharsas
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 29 May 2015, 21:44
Has liked: 21 times
Been liked: 26 times
FAF User Name: Katharsas

Re: Upcoming Elections

Postby noovd » 21 Apr 2019, 19:54

The main problem I see throughout this discussion is caused by a lack of a metric to evaluate the success of balance changes. I suppose there are multiple metrics which could be emplyed:
1. Monitoring changes in the active playerbase.
2. Addition of a rating system for player experience, players could rate their fun experience after each game.
...

Of course each metric has its own biases and is also influeced by balance unrelated factors, but combining different metrics should hopefully reduce the biases and make it more meaningful.
noovd
Crusader
 
Posts: 19
Joined: 11 Jun 2012, 23:15
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time
FAF User Name: noovd

Re: Upcoming Elections

Postby QuestionMarkNoob » 21 Apr 2019, 20:59

Dunstklinge wrote:Plenty of games have similar problems to FAF


Except that the “problem” you feel faf has is 90% imagined.

Dunstklinge wrote:Plenty of games are still growing finely


And that is supposed to support your argument? Do those games not get patched or get minimal patches? How can you claim this is related to your point and not 873 other variables?

Dunstklinge wrote:Plenty of games do not lose their long-time player base because they joined the game because they liked it in the first place


Yes, games lose their old players and get new ones. Isn’t that kind of normal? Also don’t you think old players also quit the game because of other reasons? Like the game getting stale after thousands of matches? Is it worth it to stop the game from evolving just for a chance that some older players might not stop playing, even though balance mods are openly available?

Dunstklinge wrote:You made the claim that games need balance patches. There are plenty of examples that disprove this. Saying that there are games that die doesn't change that.


Mind showing some of your examples?

Dunstklinge wrote:Every oldschool player has a different idea about where the game should evolve. Picking one path pisses more of them off than staying where they are. You always have to choose some group of people to piss off, and not doing patches is generally the way to piss off the least amount of oldschool players.

Ah good point so you piss off a portion of the player base, which as you said always happens and then you just stop doing patches?????? What kind of suggestion is this???? How can you claim that releasing no patches at all pisses off the LEAST amount of people? Where are you getting this fact from?

Dunstklinge wrote:Also, bhedit existing doesn't change the fact that the majority of replays, tournamets, team games and the entire ladder does not use it.


Yeah, and that has many reasons. One of which is that it has been unrated for 2 years. Don’t you think that might have a slight impact to why this is the case? Why not start using it now, since it clearly fits your needs, and bring it back instead of suggesting that we should stop making balance patches for regular faf?

Dunstklinge wrote:Its pretty much insignificant to the issue.


No, it is not. If you want the old balance, play bhedit, no one will stop you. If you were really this dedicated to the old balance you would have done it ages ago.

Bhedit is literally the solution to your problem. And yet you don’t use it and rather complain about how balance patches are ruining the game.

Dunstklinge wrote:You might want to share the flaws you identified, or else i can only make wild asumptions about how you might have interpreted it or where you struggle to understand it. The next paragraph might clear that up though.


As anyone ever would have realised, my statement is, that the causal mechanism you assume is overly simple and doesn’t leave room for any form of other opinions or other variables.

Dunstklinge wrote:"We" is this thread.

Ah, so you speak for the entire thread?

Dunstklinge wrote:Also, you seem to be misinterpreting heavens position, so let me break it down for you: he joined the game years ago when he liked it, saw dozens of balance changes, many of which he disagreed with, slowly move faf into a direction he doesnt like. (i.e more patches = stop liking the game).


Yeah, and that is one side of the story. The other is that he wants to throw out every member of the balance team because he doesn’t like the direction. How nice of you that you don’t mention that, even though it was the prominent point I was referring to. So much for “misinterpreting heavens position”

Dunstklinge wrote:At some point he realized that the faf of today is different enough from the faf he used to like that he stopped playing it.


Irrc there are also some other reasons he mentioned in his video. I am sure those totally didn’t have a major impact on him quitting the game as well, right? Like most of his friends quitting it, or having a large amount of games played already?

Dunstklinge wrote:He knows other people that feel the same way, so he knows he is not the only one.


He literally said, that everyone feels that way. I don’t care what you interpret, I care about what he SAIS.

Dunstklinge wrote:He gets emotional because he spent thousands of hours in this game and now its gone, so the remarks he made were a little harsh. We've all been there. Im sure you can muster up a little empathy.


I like the guy, but I cannot muster up empathy when “reverting to 2016 balance” and “throwing out the balance team” are being discussed. The old balance isn’t gone btw.

Dunstklinge wrote:Besides, he gave a suggestion: roll back to 2016. If the game continues to head into a direction you dislike, then a complete 180 is the only solution that seems feasable. It seems extreme to you because you like where the game is right now, but when you dislike the entire direction of the last 2 years, then this is the only feasable solution.


The only feasible solution for YOU*

I mean if you dislike the entire direction of the last 2 years then yes, a 180 turn is the best option. But don’t expect everyone to agree with that move and think that everyone has the same opinion as you. Because that is not the case, yet it is exactly what happened here and the argument you are currently defending.

Dunstklinge wrote:You like the direction faf is going, and you think oldschool players who dislike it should just go away.


I never said that. I said that this is what usually happens in an online game. That’s how it goes. Old players leave, new players come. Older players don't have to go away, they can play a balance mod if they really dislike the balance that much. Though balance is only ONE reason out of many. "I quit the game because of balance" is like a quarter of the story.

Dunstklinge wrote: Thats fine. But please stand to that opinion.


Stand to the opinion you think I have and you just made up?

Dunstklinge wrote: Dont pretend like the other position isnt valid.


I never claimed the other position isn’t valid, it is hard for any position to be invalid. I claimed that many of its paradigms and its causality is flawed and that there is a rather simple solution available.
QuestionMarkNoob
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 15:55
Has liked: 47 times
Been liked: 24 times

Re: Upcoming Elections

Postby Morax » 21 Apr 2019, 22:12

Heaven, why don't you host games that are not 1k+? I always wondered how you could stand playing games with such a high deficit in rating. I know that doesn't equate to skill, but farms always gets a 1.5k+ filled fine.

Also, just check a player's game replay history if you don't know them - especially the high rated ones - and ensure it's not purely from gap games.

I sympathize with you fully in that I can't stand how global rating is so, well, "global," but just be a little more about getting a good game then max viewers.

I miss ya, buddy, hope you come back and we can late night canis, etc. Etc.

Be well, bud.
Maps and Modifications Councilor

M&M Discord Channel

Come join us and help create content with the artists of FAF.
User avatar
Morax
Councillor - Maps and Mods
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 25 Jul 2014, 18:00
Has liked: 1139 times
Been liked: 649 times
FAF User Name: Morax

Re: Upcoming Elections

Postby Gorton » 09 May 2019, 01:10

"who is this guy, he didnt play gpg or what?" - RA_ZLO

*FAF Moderator*
Gorton
Councillor - Moderation
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: 16 Apr 2013, 21:57
Location: United Kingdom
Has liked: 1067 times
Been liked: 454 times
FAF User Name: Gorton

Re: Upcoming Elections

Postby armacham01 » 22 May 2019, 00:29

FtXCommando wrote:the general player on FAF is an 800 rated astro crater/dual gap player. In order to appeal to said player, are people going to be arguing about the need to allow cheaper t2 stage to make 5x5s easier or is the general debate instead going to hover around whether we need to introduce a t4 mex to make the late game more fun?


Balance decisions should be 100% about 1v1 games. Team games should not come into it at all.

The goal should be to keep high-level 1v1 games fun and to encourage high-level 1v1 players to use diverse strategies. You don't need to worry about how balance affects people who are not as good, because we are just trying to catch up with the good players, and if we increase our skills to be more like the good players, we are better able to use any strategy that is available to them.

Balance for teamgames can be adjusted by the mapmakers. They can give more mexes, change the terrain, etc. in order to shape gameplay in team games. The community is definitely able to tweak multiplayer maps for balance reasons. But I do not expect that mapmakers would re-do all of the 1v1 maps to accommodate bad balance decisions that are made without regard for 1v1 games. It just won't happen.

Also, it is easy enough to make a mod to change balance. If players on team games want a slightly different balance, who is to say that the balance changes they want for Dual Gap are the same as the changes they want for Astro Craters or Seton's? If the team game players really want a different balance for their specific team games, they can make map-specific balance mods. But we can't use balance mods to fix 1v1 ladder.

Also, if we were going to elect a balance counselor, only active ladder players with decent rating should be allowed to vote. I think 1700 1v1 ladder rating would be a good cutoff point. Basically, if you're not very good at FAF (myself included) (a) you probably don't have good insights into how balance changes would make the game better or worse (b) if your reason for wanting balance changes is so you can have more success at the game, then really you should be focused on improving yourself and adapting to the game, not adapting the game to fit your shortcomings.

Also, the idea of having just a single balance counselor is frightening, if that person has the power to single-handedly implement balance changes. All balance patches should have to be approved by some sort of committee following a time-consuming formal process that gives the community a chance to give feedback. If we were going to have an elected balance counselor, would that mean they could single-handedly make changes? And if they are not going to have that power (if it is too easy for the FAF administration to prevent them from making changes) then is the election kind of a sham? We would be allowing the community to elect a balance counselor who did not actually have real power to decide balance. Based on all that, I am fine with balance counselor not being an elected position.

If you want technical help with making a balance mod, feel free to PM me. I made a stupid balance mod that no one uses (not even me) and I would be glad to explain which .lua files you need to put in your mod and how to edit the .lua files to make changes to things like mass cost, e cost, and build time.

I am interested in the concept of a "Seton's Mod" that would change the balance in a way to promote more varied gameplay. For example, in higher-rated games, people don't make much T2 arty because T2 navy is so much better. Perhaps if T2 arty cost 40% less, people would make more of it. Perhaps that would make the games more interesting because we would see a greater variety of strategies used. Whatever T4 units don't usually get used on Seton's, let's buff them. Whatever T4 is used a lot, let's make it slightly weaker. I am thinking that it is better to change the balance by way of changing COST, rather than ABILITIES, because players are not going to want to use a mod that makes it harder to understand what is happening on their screen. As long as you are only changing the cost of units, players can still maintain their visceral-level understanding of which units can beat up which other units (whether or not they are going to lose a fight). My interest in this is not very strong, but I would be happy to help any high-level Seton's player to make a balance mod if they wanted to try something like this.

If you believe that FAF needs balance changes just because change itself can keep things interesting, I don't completely disagree with you. I disagree with changing the global balance for that reason, but I think people could have a lot of fun by using balance mods to inject more variety into their team games.

It might be fun to have a second 1v1 ladder, parallel to the first. This ladder would have "seasons" lasting 1-2 months each. Each season, there would be a new balance mod that is applied only to the seasonal ladder games (although you could host custom games with the balance mod, if you wanted, because it's just a mod like any other). For example, Season 1 might have all air units cost 25% less. Then for the next month, anyone could play 1v1 ladder matches on this special seasonal ladder, and the gameplay would be very different. I think a month would be long enough for the development of new meta around the changes (the goal would be to make the changes significant enough that there would be new meta, but not enough to completely take away the use of the disfavored strategies, because you want the game to continue to be diverse and fresh). So there would be a contest (inherent in the framework of the ladder itself) each month to see who can get the highest score under the crazy new rules. By having these wild balance changes every month, it would feel like a fresh new game, for people who want that, without taking away the opportunity to play vanilla 1v1 ladder (so if you are diligently working to improve your FAF gameplay, you don't feel like your efforts are stolen from you because the balance keeps changing in crazy ways).

Every season, your seasonal score reverts to whatever your vanilla 1v1 ladder score is except there would be some cutoff, e.g. if your 1v1 score is over 1200, your seasonal score reverts to 1200. That way we avoid the problem of matchmaking great players against completely terrible players, but we still create a level playing field for decent players to compete to see who can get to the top of this new ladder.

If FAF was being developed by a for-profit studio, this might look like: while maintaining the vanilla 1v1 ladder and without screwing up team games, every month we would have the option to play with wild new balance changes that are not going to last, 1-2 new units per faction that are season-specific, plus some graphical changes intended to only last for the season (but if they're nice, incorporate them into the base game), and some rewards (even if it's mostly things like: "Season 1 badge, I won 20 ladder games this season").

We could make a lot of interesting changes even without having access to the source code. Imagine if the change for season 2 is that units keep teleporting in to your starting location, for free (reinforcements). So in addition to the units you make, you know you are going to have lots of units to work with during the course of the game (and if you lose your starting location, your opponent has to deal with these new units, so he might build a point defense deathtrap there). And then, give built-in teleporters to most T3 land units. The theme would be "teleportation" rather than "cheap air" and you can see how this would suddenly turn the meta inside out on most maps. And maybe some hostile civs also teleport in to the map over time. This might require making not only a balance patch, but also to revise existing ladder maps with scripting to make special versions for the seasonal ladder. (And of course, you should try to make it possible to play team games with the same seasonal theme, as a way to keep team games fresh and to give people an alternative way of learning/practicing the new season's mechanic so people don't feel left out if they can't handle their business on the ladder.)

That is the kind of thing I would look at if someone wanted a plan for how to drive community interest without spending a stupidly large amount of money. Then every time there was a new "season," there would be an accompanying opportunity to drive social media engagement (basically you get people to discuss the wild new season on streams, in reddit, etc. and then people come to play the game for a reason other than "I saw some Gyle casts" -- Gyle is great but we could be doing more to drive growth). You get people to come back to FAF for the chance to play this wild new season because every game, by nature, is going to have people stop playing, for whatever reason. Instead of trying to trap people 100% of the time, if they come back every two months for a wild new ladder experience, that would be better than just losing them for eight months or three years.

Basically I am suggesting that, if we want to grow FAF, following this model would be a very effective way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmuy9fyNUjY

There should be no limit to the number of wacky ideas we can come up with for themes. All you need to do is start with a gameplay mechanic (air units, teleportation, etc.), then make it CRAZY.

But first we might need to establish a way to get revenue from people playing the game (so that more FAF players = more revenue). Otherwise, we're not going to have any money to spend on that kind of thing. Perhaps there would be enough additional community engagement to solicit enough donations to cover the cost of each new season, but I doubt it. Perhaps: "You can have your own custom non-offensive avatar in Aeolus if you give us $10/year." Or: "If you are a premium FAFer, games you host always appear at the top of the custom games lobby, non-premium hosts go to the bottom." If you are a premium FAFer, there is a star next to your name on the scoreboard when you are playing the game. So your opponent in ladder will know that you are premium and they are not. That way we can use peer pressure to encourage people to pay their share. If you are a premium FAFer, you can start playing the seasonal 1v1 ladder 1 day earlier than everyone else. Things that won't break the game, and won't stop people from playing if they don't donate, but drive enough revenue to maintain operations and pay for the kind of new content that might encourage players to join or return.
armacham01
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 177
Joined: 09 Feb 2019, 09:01
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 85 times
FAF User Name: arma473

Re: Upcoming Elections

Postby FtXCommando » 22 May 2019, 02:37

If balance was done purely for ladder we’d still have bubbleboat meta and it would never be touched because it’s never a huge problem in ladder. This game has many aspects and some are not covered in the quantity necessary to make an evaluation when you only look at 1v1 gameplay.

Balance does not just involve raising the skill ceiling but also preventing the skill floor from rising any further unnecessarily. Preferably, it should lower it.

I fail to see your differentiation between ladder and teamgame maps. I don’t really see why ladder maps would be more difficult to adjust to improve gameplay?

Having 5000000 balance mods for each map does nothing but alienate the community into 50000000 fractal pieces that never associate with one another and eventually the game dies out as no new blood is going to learn 6 quintillion different balance metas to play FAF.

Not a fan of the voting idea because, as stated before, the high rated parts of FAF are quite cliquish and it will devolve into a popularity contest with everyone deadset on their vote choice before the election starts. It makes even less sense than letting balance team or a universal vote decide it imo.

The Council is if anything, too decentralized. There will always be a person at the top to handle the vision of the balance team and take the criticism for changes. Having multiple people ‘responsible’ only leads to deflection, infighting, and feuds. If a Balance Councillor is incapable of adequately performing his duties, the Council can step in and have him resign for an inability to properly perform his functions.

Seton mod already exists -> gala mod

A second 1v1 ladder is a very bad idea when we barely have the players to run a single one and there’s no basis to expect such a service to even see use by players. Other than that, testing gameplay changes are done by hosting with the fafdevelop gametype which tends to include the latest balance changes.


While I’m sure some people might love having this random stat change thing, it would require:
1) Enough people interested in it
2) A cross-section of those interested that enjoy ladder (which tends to attract more competitive and ‘serious’ players that would dislike the ‘casual’ random stat changed ladder)
3) Some sort of interest in high level players to actually engage with it theoretically (which tend to revolve around minor stat changes rather than entirely creating a new game that they have zero context for (ie teleporting units around the map everywhere))
4) Not so popular that it basically destroys the usage of OG ladder.

Basically I would consider this a fad that would take an immense amount of manpower just to program let alone upkeep (which would involve like 4 Councillors in constant communication with one another judging by your explanation) for what will basically be some streamers playing it for views and some new players that don’t even understand the original game let alone why the randomized changes change anything.
Are you upset? Are you happy? Are you a FAF Player? Come to the PC Discord and share your thoughts and build the community!

https://discord.gg/Y2dGU8X
User avatar
FtXCommando
Councillor - Players
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: 09 Jan 2017, 18:44
Has liked: 208 times
Been liked: 519 times
FAF User Name: FtXCommando

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest