Player Councilor Election 2021
-
@archsimkat said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
I would like to start off by saying I have respect for each of the applicants as players, as individuals, and as members of the FAF community. Having serious and healthy competition for councillor positions is a good thing—elections give the incumbent councillor an additional incentive to do the best job he can do, aspiring councillors can contribute to prove their worth to the community, and the community as a whole only benefits as a result. With that in mind, I’d like point out what I think are issues with the applicants’ platforms.
Arch, this may singlehandedly be the top reason as to why I am running: give a chance for at least some good debate and historical viewing. I do not believe this takes place as well without an official election, so in the end we will at the very least get to see some good details on thought process and ideas generated. Win or lose, this will serve as a good direction for the position.
@Morax, it seems to me your bid for player councillor was well thought out, so I am glad you spent the time to write this up. Since, in my eyes, this is basically a contest between you and FtXCommando.
You want LotS to feature a second unrelated tournament for lower rated players. By all means, go ahead and organise this—which, by the way, you can do even if you aren’t player councillor—but I just don’t see the point. It’s basically just a rating restricted tournament like any other. It doesn’t affect the main tournament, and since the coverage of LotS doesn’t even feature all the games from the main tournament, I can hardly see this changing too much from a viewer perspective.
Hmmm.... I think you and I are seeing this differently and am unable to really think of how to explain it better than what I wrote.
I would REALLY like to discuss with Legend of the Stars (the guy who funded and started the whole idea) on how to better incorporate this. He does not appear to have an account on this forum, so it will be difficult to get in touch as he is rarely online. For me, I think it makes sense to have some official recognition in tournaments as the experience and thrill is something that motivates players to improve. My idea would simply be two, separate brackets running in parallel to get the thrill of "being part of the whole thing." I know you might say "well, not really because they are not playing in the top brackets," so I will counter and say that as that may be, it gives a glimmer of "hope" for those who know they are not ready for the top bracket. If you look at the tourney history, most of the lower-rated players just get squashed out within the first round or two, and rarely does someone make it to the actual tournament.
An example of why it is nice to be in a tourney that is not the "top tier," was way back in 2015 when a person named Greenio used to hose these "Average Joe's" that had good visibility as it was casted by Speed2, Blodir, and ExoticRetard. I was kind of a "nobody" back then and once these guys started talking about stuff it made me feel a lot better about improving and playing the game.
Will this work for everyone and will it spawn motivation for people to improve to the top level? I do not know, but from my perspective it can only help.
So I ask you please join me in celebrating the idea as something that is part of the event rather "separate" as that gives it a negative association.
Regarding the matchmaker, you were a part of the ladder team, and then left of your own volition. Are you trying to impose your vision of the matchmaker via an election instead of trying to collaborate with the rest of us on the ladder team?
I do not believe that there was much collaboration in the team matchmaker. I pointed out issues with maps and in advance knew the community with have issues with some. This has been proven as of recent with the surge of complaints , including JaggedAppliance, who has offered to help you with future ones.
Certain things like not knowing to check map versions with the author before release became apparent, and I even wrote this message board post about it here: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1488/complaint-about-tmm-and-ladder-pool-rating-brackets/27
I do not understand what is so difficult about testing a map with an author beforehand to show it works. One of you (ftx or yourself) could have loaded the map up with someone, spend five minutes tops, and see there is an issue beforehand. I am fighting for people like @GrunttiNoob who waited patiently to see his map in the pool. It became apparent that he had created "a confusing amount of versions of the map," but when I asked him what they did to ensure they used the right one, he stated that neither of you reached out to him about the issue.
You do reply to my questions and suggestions in time, but it does not seem to be taking effect. I think FTX and you are kind of resistant to take feedback so that is why I am against your running the pools.
As someone who knows how to create maps and debug, I think it would be a lot easier to run the check on quality before entering a pool. I offered to help with this but you were never really showing maps beforehand, just posted the pool and it went in. It would be a lot more effective to discuss "potential maps" beforehand with the team rather do a "post analysis."
The biggest issue I have with your application actually is with your history of withholding prize money. When Blodir and Nexus won the Shared Army Tournament 2 tourney in 2019, you withheld the prize money—that you had you had already pledged to donate. The fallout, where FtXCommando can be seen cleaning after the mess you caused, can be seen here:
This occurred again for the Dark Heart Tourney, once again the fallout can be seen below.
So a little history here: During that dark heart tourney was my first time encountering massive resistance to some of my rules for 'anti-smurfing.' It came with some kind of less-than-ideal support as you can see in biass' reply that he stated
"people are now having to spend hundreds of hours playing through a half broken system just because you cannot handle social interaction outside of your comfort zone or out of some form of smurf paranoia."
What the hell is that?? Sure, maybe my requirement was a little over the top but good lord. We have a standard with moderation now where threads are kept clean of this kind of harshness because it is really discouraging to people trying to host something.
Now, you may think the thread was not that brutal, but conversations in private and everything else got really frustrating. Rather than bother wasting everyone's time I decided to sideline this. I don't think FTX posting a meme was constructive, either, and just derailed the thread further.
As for the refusal to give @Blodir and Nexus money for their tourney in the 2v2 shared armies: I admit this was a fault. I talked to Blodir for awhile yesterday and was not aware that we never settled this issue from back then.
Blodir and I were a bit at arms with each other over "bashing mappers" via stream and other issues. I gave him several warnings leading up to that point and said "please do not participate in my events until you fix this." He said he is forgetful in remembering these things so perhaps what happened is that I did remember and he did not, so in frustration I decided to him in the wallet.
Was this the right move? Maybe, maybe not. Read on to hear my final reply to what you wrote below.
Not only that, this is clearly a recurring problem that is still ongoing because you also tried to take back the money you had already committed to Swkoll weeks in advance for the Spring Invitational in 2021, after the tournament was already underway. Will people have to be afraid of what they say around you? Can the community trust you to be responsible with the funds for tournaments and show matches?
In short, yes, I was disappointed with how things went this event and some structure. But, in the end I did not withhold the funds. After thinking about it and talking to Swkoll, I realized that was not the correct thing to do. I want to aspire to be like Legend of The Stars and selflessly donate going forward, let the players run things as they please and just enjoy things. I may not agree with everything in terms of "trashing," but hey, I get heated during games myself and it would be criminal to not think this happens with other players.
As far as tourney funds and show matches, yes I think you could trust me with that. If I were to abuse handing out funds from the FAF patreon or other donors that would be grounds for expulsion from the position as player councilor in my opinion.
In stating this, I do hope you look at the other events I helped run, the work I have done for the community, and realize I have 8+ years of that to hold up my "ethos" as FTX likes to use to describe it. These mistakes I made were certainly not good on my part, but things happen. If you can find it in yourself to forgive me for those, and see that I bettered my thinking after Swkoll it would be greatly appreciated.
Blodir said he does not trust me fully again - yet - but it bettered our understanding to resolve problems. I cannot convince anyone in text here, but do hope over time that is healed and we are on good terms again.
Thanks for your positive words above in regards to my application.
-
@stormlantern said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
Only Morax's pitch seems to make any sense and can compete with FTX's rationale. But since I have personally experienced Morax to display bouts of childish behaviour when it comes to losing his own games, resulting in him repeatably blaming me of being a smurf and threatening to get me banned, with absolutely 0 evidence or even the slightest reason to suspect me, makes me not at all inclined to give him any real influence. He might have good ideas but as far as FAF concerned he seems somewhat emotionally unstable, unreliable and incoherent. Also FTX did way more and better than can be reasonably expected of a role like this, so why change a winning team?
Stormlantern I am sorry but you used the "draw bug" against me during ladder matches even after I gave you a kind warning. I made a thread about it here to check and it does seem to at the least be EXTREMELY frowned upon: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1501/make-the-draw-bug-a-bannable-offense/44
When I discussed this with you, you did not reply to me, and each game we played you never wrote back to me when I typed "hf gl," or "gg."
Since this incident, it seems in our matches, and in general, we have started to exchange some discussion so I think things have improved. I don't know why you would not say anything to me beforehand but saying I have "childish behavior" in reaction to your abusive tactics is unjust.
-
I went through the applications and some responses for almost 3 hours on stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpHyXQUIZNU
TL;DW I believe FtxCommando has a proven track record and has put forward by far the strongest platform. Morax's application was also solid and reasonable. Suzuji's application shows that he does not understand what the PC position is actually about and he is promising things which are completely unreasonable in terms of hours. A lot of his commitments are personal ones and they are commitments to things which he has no track record of ever doing before so they are not believable. Francias is the alt account of Feather and has no business even posting on the forums, let alone applying for this position.
-
@morax said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
So a little history here: During that dark heart tourney was my first time encountering massive resistance to some of my rules for 'anti-smurfing.' It came with some kind of less-than-ideal support as you can see in biass' reply that he stated
"people are now having to spend hundreds of hours playing through a half broken system just because you cannot handle social interaction outside of your comfort zone or out of some form of smurf paranoia."
What the hell is that?? Sure, maybe my requirement was a little over the top but good lord. We have a standard with moderation now where threads are kept clean of this kind of harshness because it is really discouraging to people trying to host something.
Now, you may think the thread was not that brutal, but conversations in private and everything else got really frustrating. Rather than bother wasting everyone's time I decided to sideline this. I don't think FTX posting a meme was constructive, either, and just derailed the thread further.
No.
The history is right here: https://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=15335&start=20
First, the quote you gave is not some random statement by biass that was a causal impact for anything. Biass posted this after you posted that I was singlehandedly causing this rule to exist because I made a meme pointing out that it blocked Farmsletje from playing.
On that note, my meme did not derail anything because you made this new rule up and then I made the meme literally 10 minutes later. There was nothing to derail because the train hasn't even left the station. The thread perfectly stayed on the rails because every other response in the thread was a response to your justifications for keeping this rule in place.
- You make the rule
- I make a meme about it
- You say this meme will now be the reason this rule exists out of spite and that if I didn't make the meme then the rule would not be applied because you let rules slide in other tournaments (citing one EcoNoob was part of)
- EcoNoob says your recollection is wrong
- You cancel all your events, not even just this event. This is not tabling an event to have further discussion about a rule. This is just getting frustrated with pushback and lashing out.
What the hell is that?? Sure, maybe my requirement was a little over the top but good lord. We have a standard with moderation now where threads are kept clean of this kind of harshness because it is really discouraging to people trying to host something.
The standard for moderation is me because I'm the one that moderates the Tournament section. There is also nearly no enforcement, I have probably deleted a total of 2 posts and they were both from bennis. Nothing that was posted in that thread would be deleted by me because it's people calling out bad rules.
The reason that threads are clean is because either Swkoll or I spend the time to review tournament formats prior to them being posted so there is rarely any reason for arguments.
-
The PC position is important enough that I’d suggest the conversation be shifted away from discussing previous moderation, and be refocused onto more important things for determining who the next PC is.
And so:
I have read this entire thread, and it seems to me that there are some misunderstandings about the powers of the PC. @FTXCommando, could you post a relatively comprehensive list of all of the “responsibilities of other councillors [that you] do because nobody else wants to do [them]”? Perhaps a better system could be put into place to handle some of them…
@Suzuji , you brought up many good points/ideas for using the PC position to make FAF more inclusive and to better-serve many underrepresented parts of FAF, but you seemed to have misunderstandings regarding the PC position. Could you post an updated application based on the feedback from FTX and others regarding the realities of the PC position?
FTX, a lot of your platform/stance/activity seems to cater to the 1800+ and 1500+ crowds while giving a disproportionately small focus to the wants/needs of the large majority of FAF players. I don’t presently know who I will vote for, but I would like to vote for someone who will give more value/weight/focus for the desires of the majority of FAF players, which is what I thought the PLAYERS’ Councillor was supposed to do…
For perspective, the current focus for things like ladder/TMM map pools, forum attitudes/rhetoric, tournament funding/attention, etc, seems to cater primarily to high-level gameplay for the top 1%-5% of FAF players, while giving much less weight to the 77.1% of players with less than 1000 rating. AFAIK, most FAF players play FAF to have a good time, which generally involves playing a fun game with people in a friendly environment.Giving a lot more weight to the desires of the lower and mid-level players will create a better experience for the thousands upon thousands of noobs and mid-level players rather than catering to the <1% of players who are 1800+ players or even the top 5.2% of 1500+ global FAF players. Having a PC who is focused more on improving the experience of the ‘normal’ FAF player would help FAF to grow more and retain more players.
Some current statistics from today’s leaderboards (using unrounded ratings for players with 10+ rated games):
For 1v1 Ladder:
1221 players with 10+ games = 100%
26 players with 1800+ rating = 2.1%
63 players with 1500+ rating = 5.2%
~941 players with <1000 rating = 77.1%For Global:
8782 players with 10+ games = 100%
83 players with 1800+ rating = 0.9%
342 players with 1500+ rating = 3.9%
~6,053 players with <1000 rating = 68.9%I think the numbers speak for themselves.
Things like ladder/TMM map pools for lower-rated players should be changed to be a lot more like what the bulk of those players would actually like to play, or an additional matchmaker queue option should be added for them. (Currently, the lower-rated players’ map pools seem more like they’re designed as feeder-pools to weed out everyone who doesn’t like the basics of the types of gameplay enjoyed by high-level FAF ladder players and to get them experience with that sort of gameplay. While this isn’t the worst thing that could be done, it’s far from the best, and it doesn’t prioritize regular player preference, fun, playerbase growth, and new player retention anywhere near as much as it should.)
So, I presented a lot of stuff… what’s the point?
TL;DR
The right Player Councillor with the right attitude could have substantial positive impact on the FAF community and community growth, not only by making changes that benefit more of the players, but also by helping to change the atmosphere on FAF (in Discord, forums, etc) to be more friendly and less dismissive/toxic to noobs and to new ideas.
The PC should put a lot more time/effort into improving the experience of ‘normal’ FAF players by:
• Not using a toxic/derogatory attitude/rhetoric on the forums and elsewhere (this is a real problem that discourages participation and creates bad feelings associated with FAF)
• Changing low/mid-rated players’ ladder/TMM map pools to better match what is desired by the players in those brackets
• Actually polling a lot more and taking greater efforts to reach regular FAF players with the polls (this could be as easy as getting weekly or monthly news posts for polls and a polls channel on the FAF Discord)
• Making greater efforts to bridge the big language barriers on FAF (this could largely be done by actively seeking out translators more)
• Having a new channel created on the FAF Discord specifically for discussing ladder/TMM map pools, the maps in them (and their gameplay), and the processes used to determine what maps are put in the pools
• Actively giving more (useful) feedback to map authors when they submit a map for ladder/TMM and it doesn’t make the cut (oftentimes, people submit maps for ladder/TMM and get basically no response from the PC or his team, even after several months… this is obnoxious/frustrating to the mapper and it lowers the odds of the mapper creating good maps for ladder/TMM in the future)
I encourage the candidates to embrace this perspective and to put much greater emphasis on improving the experience of ‘regular’ FAF players, as that would be better for growing FAF and better for getting more votes.
-
Why don't you run for pc emperor, your angle seems to be the right one for the job.
-
The normal FAF player is a 300 rated AI Player that plays for approximately 3-5 hours a month. They do not care what I do here. This entire election is literally irrelevant to them. For the VAST majority of FAF nothing I do here matters whatsoever. They don't care if I host a tournament for them, because they don't read about tournaments. If they did, they wouldn't participate. They don't care about training or getting better. They are here to play against AI or with some friends whether from real life or online.
The people that DO care about the vast majority of actual PC responsibilities are competitively inclined players which coincidentally are higher rated players. And what a coincidence, the people in this thread and the people talking about things like training, tournaments, and things like TrueSkill are focused on that player element. And yes, this element is hugely important. The people that spend the hours investing to get good in this game have a high correlation with the people invested to spend the time on literally every part of FAF that isn't development (though some developers are also quite high rated). This part of my job is not only creating a stronger competitive scene but to literally keep the blood that are constant new volunteers pumping through FAF.
"But FtX what about your ladder choices?" Yeah people don't care about that either in the grand scheme of things. There is a good 7 to 8 years of data about ladder. Activity at lower levels doesn't change when we have them getting 15 maps with a 20% chance of a 20x20. It doesn't change when the pool is 5 maps. It doesn't change when it's 7 or any other number in the sky with any number of 5x5/10x10/20x20. The only time there was any general uptick in ladder participation was during the choice pool under Zep but even that was just a few percentages of more activity.
More rating = more 10x10, more 20x20, less 5x5
Follow that, and you're at the optimum. Map style hardly impacts it. Whether it's Williamson or desert arena, the 400 rated guy isn't gonna reclaim enough and will win the game when the opponent walks into 40 tanks by accident.
And before that paragraph gets misconstrued let me say that this is built on basic map principles. The lower the rating pool, the more strict the map rules must be followed. This is why experimental maps are not given to lower rated players. Likewise, neither are new maps. They strictly get the classic maps that DEFINE good map design for FA which have been played for years if not decades.
So what do I do? I address the larger playerbase through structural adjustments. These involve things like the Division system to remove the misunderstandings about TrueSkill held by players while leading to there being less general reason for trashing on players for a singular game (your high score isn't being visibly lowered anymore). Beyond that, I intend to make a global-rating based matchmaker to overcome the bump of the catch-22 faced by new players in needing experience to play games but every host kicking them. IDEALLY I’d like to work to remove steamlink and stop the absurdly horrible bleeding of players that results in.
Also, FAF does not have a retention problem. Like at all. I fail to see why this meme continues to live on. If anything FAF is an example of retentive success. Doesn't mean you can't improve the new player experience but I also recognize people getting lost searching for El Dorado when I see it.
Once again, I do not plan on changing my behavior and I don't really see any problem with how anything operates on any of the FAF communication mediums. You being a new player does not result in you getting protection from calling a spade a spade.
Don't see a point in a poll every month. If I needed to poll the playerbase for every issue there wouldn't be a point to a Player Councillor, everything would operate through referendum. You elect a person to make the right decisions for FAF. Sometimes that involves polling, sometimes it doesn't.
The solution to me needing to pick up slack from others isn't the creation of new council seats. It's making old council seats do their job or get replaced by someone that will.
-
OMG @FtXCommando can you try harder not to get the point @Emperor_Penguin is making?
@Morax do you care to respond to your view on the points @Emperor_Penguin is making? -
@valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
OMG @FtXCommando can you try harder not to get the point @Emperor_Penguin is making?
Was something missed here?
-
@biass said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
@valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
OMG @FtXCommando can you try harder not to get the point @Emperor_Penguin is making?
Was something missed here?
Sorry, will clarify a bit:
@emperor_penguin made a general point about:
- Low rated players are a massive group
- Low rated players not being given what they like
- Not being interested in low rated player feedback
@FtXCommando responded by, deliberately or not, making a straw man by focusing only on map size. This was not about 5 km vs 20 km maps, this was about just NOT getting what they want. What they want is not measured in kilometers but more complicated. I play at 700 and more people tap out or cheese on Williamsons Bridge (5 km) than Strife of Titan (20 km).
Not only do they not get what they want, there is no way to communicate that via polls or Discord and the bigger problem is obviously that there is no interest in it.
-
valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
Not only do they not get what they want
I'm important to realise that, while "lower rating players" are not ignored, most requests to do something to improve their time here are based on entirely fictional demographics, upon each users's personal experience and observation.
For example, it's easy to argue that points such as:
Actively giving more (useful) feedback to map authors when they submit a map for ladder/TMM and it doesn’t make the cut
Is not a point made towards improving the experience for new players, but is something that would improve the time here for Emperor_Penguin specifically. Because of course:
- The number of "new" players interested in matchmaking are a minority.
- The number of "new" players who are interested in matchmaking and creating maps for it, are an incredibly small minority all-together (sub 10 people at maximum)
- The number of "new" players who are interested in matchmaking, avoid my current resources made towards helping new creators, submitting to ladder and then getting rejected is almost non existent (sub 3)
It would be good to ask "how do we find, and improve the time for, all these different player demographics?" and then vote for whoever puts forward the best idea.
It shouldn't be about asking: Can you do "X"? X might not be a good solution.
After all, there are plenty of different groups who play everything from phantom to nomads to coop only, and ladder is only but a small group of players. (calling eachother elitist is a moot point if you're only going to focus on ladder boys)
Right now you have three of the same strategy. Which is pretty terrible.
"We're going to improve the matchmaker!"
To which we ask them, how so? and they reply:
"By asking ppl how to fix it!"
Polling people is not an interesting point to make in an election. You don't need to be a PC to make one. You need to choose someone who has the strength and the strategy to represent your needs, and who can deliver them with FAF's constraints (asking for dev or manpower options is entirely moot) or else you'll just end up with nothing.
I personally would have liked to have seen something related to clans. I didn't see anything here of course.
-
I think you already have your answer Valki, Morax offered in his application to interview people about what they want for ladder/map pool.
I think it's a nice idea to actively search for the "complex desires" of ladder players in order to refine your vision of what the player wants. Now unfortunatly, it's very easy to do this for a little group (like the 1800+ who are less then 20-30), but i don't think you can have a general opinion of the almost 900 players under 1000 with this method. It would be very time consuming and i'm pretty sure you'll have so many diverse opinions that you won't conclude easily. Hence the idea of polling. -
@auricocorico I guess I could take that as my answer then, but would still appreciate a direct answer. I'm just growing concerned not only about TMM but also some aspects of the management of it.
When TMM was released me and a friend moved in from Starcraft 2 2v2 (I already played FAF 1v1). If the apparent* popularity drops further our game night might move on from FAF TMM.
The fact that everyone** we talk to ingame/postgame dislikes the same things, and I get called a retard for bringing one of those supported concerns up on Discord... I fear that this might be the cause of TMM's apparent* popularity drop.
*Judging based on our matchmaking experience on Saturday evenings
**"Everyone" so far is about 10 people 600-1100 rated over a number of weeks -
I see a lot of "FtX ignores the lower rated players" but not a lot of specifics, so here are some thoughts and some questions I have so we can maybe see how much merit this statement has.
One aspect I saw mentioned, is that there are almost no tournaments for lower rated players. I think that is a fair observation and we could really use more of these. Morax also recently pointed this out in a separate thread. Luckily Suzuji seems to be very motivated to organize some. And because you don't need to be PC to be a tournament director, I'm looking forward to seeing some tournaments from him regardless how this election goes.
It seems like Emperor_Penguin and the players he knows are very unhappy with the maps in the ladder pool. Can you elaborate why the pool "doesn’t prioritize regular player preference, fun, playerbase growth, and new player retention anywhere near as much as it should"?
Also what exactly do low rated players desire, when talking about mapsize is apparently not it? What are these same things that they all dislike as Valki said? And how do you determine that what you and the people you talked to is representative to the playerbase as a whole? I am about 1k rated myself and I generally like the pool. I think the rating brackets for the pool are a good solution to give lower rated players maps that are easier to play.Polling lower rated people is really difficult because their community interaction is really low. Many don't even read the news. Only a server message to all boosted the poll result numbers significantly and I don't want to have everyone bothered by popups every month.
I'd also like to hear some examples of the "toxic/derogatory attitude/rhetoric", because the dictator FtX meme gets hinted at a lot, but so far nobody bothered to explain what egregious things he has apparently done. To me it seems that some people are disgruntled because he denied their proposed changes/maps/ideas. In my experience, everytime this happened was because the ideas or maps were not well thought out (i.e. had negative implications that the proposer didn't think of, or didn't even adress the root problem but merely a symptom), were of low quality or simply not feasible (hello low dev resources).
-
@suzuji said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
As a prominent figure in the FAF community he must avoid gossip or harm the reputation or well-being of other users; in turn, lack of desire to adhere to a good character may bring FAF into disrepute.
Surely you having 10 recorded bans on your name wont have a negative impact on this at all
-
@blackyps said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
Also what exactly do low rated players desire, when talking about mapsize is apparently not it? What are these same things that they all dislike as Valki said? And how do you determine that what you and the people you talked to is representative to the playerbase as a whole? I am about 1k rated myself and I generally like the pool. I think the rating brackets for the pool are a good solution to give lower rated players maps that are easier to play.
Recently:
- People rather having Share Until Death than Full Share
- Spawns on Phenom Spartiate v2 are wrong (or chose poorly)
There was something a while back but it no longer matters and I cannot remember.
-
@valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
Recently:
- People rather having Share Until Death than Full Share
- Spawns on Phenom Spartiate v2 are wrong (or chose poorly)
There was something a while back but it no longer matters and I cannot remember.
I don't think you are supposed to promote less competitive experience, that is also just worse gameplay wise just cuz' few folks are unable to see their own shortcomings. Full share is simply better experience in 2v2 no matter what you might be thinking.
All that share until death does is increase the snowball to one that cannot be stopped which is not something that should be encouraged in game design, loss of half APM is already big enough of a setback for the team that's losing.As for other part I don't see how that directly relates to anything of importance here? It's either just normal human error or just different vision of the ladder team?
Not sure why you would bring that up here in PC election.If anything I feel like these problems you brought up are miniscule and don't matter, which just shows how little there is to complain?
-
valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
People rather having Share Until Death than Full Share
I don't understand here, it was only you who said they rather have this? And maybe penguin. Should the PC change the system because two people asked for it? Even though two plus people said they would rather have fullshare in the same chat?
-
@biass said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
People rather having Share Until Death than Full Share
I don't understand here, it was only you who said they rather have this? And maybe penguin. Should the PC change the system because two people asked for it? Even though two plus people said they would rather have fullshare in the same chat?
I wanted to provide feedback and all I got was shouted at and be dismissed. This made my point a greater one, that legitimate feedback is handled badly.
@randomwheelchair said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
@valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:
Recently:
- People rather having Share Until Death than Full Share
- Spawns on Phenom Spartiate v2 are wrong (or chose poorly)
There was something a while back but it no longer matters and I cannot remember.
[...]
All that share until death does is increase the snowball to one that cannot be stopped which is not something that should be encouraged in game design, loss of half APM is already big enough of a setback for the team that's losing.
[...]Snowball is not bad by definition, games are supposed to end, especially games where you play with a friend. I didn't discuss the reasons at length with others, but our subjective reasons, feel free to judge and discuss among yourselves... I cannot know if I am right, and I am done being shouted at.
- Often, at my level, it feels like "kill 1 ACU = lose game".
- I think because you have 4 noobs, 1 noob dies, giving another noob eco he would never develop. This allows him to build stuff noobs never encounter and cannot deal with.
- Especially obvious when you have a team with a high and low player, bad player dies, good player steamrolls.
- With your friend down, the game is no longer 2v2. You wanted to play 2v2, possibly with a friend. The sooner it ends, the faster you get into a new 2v2 game.
- Alternative: give us something to do after death
-
Nobody is shouting here. People pointed out the drawbacks of share until death and mentioned that some people like full share. So it is unknown what a majority prefers.
What about this is bad handling of feedback?
