New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements

@emperor_penguin said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

@dragun101
With that sort of logic, you could say that we shouldn't have ladder or TMM at all.
Ladder/TMM options gives the advantage of convenience as well as not having to deal with things like hosting, bad hosts, various custom/global rating-related problems, etc. It also allows players to join the queues for every available option that they feel like playing at the time, as opposed to only joining one custom lobby and hoping it fills quickly. My TMM proposal would give users the ability to do what is almost equivalent to automatically joining every lobby they're interested in simultaneously and then leaving the extras once one is full from people doing that. With users queueing like that, the result would be much faster waiting times than we often get for custom lobbies.

Because ladder is not meant to be a curation for a competitive enviroment. Its not meant to be a one click join custom game lobby.

@morax said:

Askaholic is becoming Answeraholic as of recent with this PC election...

Lmao

@FtXCommando @Morax @Emperor_Penguin You probably all know me as someone who makes a lot of suggestions that are lets say misguided at least in the majority opinion. I'm trying to better explain my reasoning and invisible modesty in newer topics, but not the point now.

The point is community interaction by the Player Councillor. You are free to assume I was wrong in these topics, I would like to invite you to provide a good example of how you would respond to these misguided nooby topics.

@valki said in Aeon T1 PD under construction cannot be hit sometimes:

[Picture removed]
Replay: https://replay.faforever.com/14230328

I have seen this in game quite a few times, where sometimes units waste all their firepower at an unbuilt Aeon PD. Possibly also other structures.

It was easy to reproduce.

It seems the Aeon PD is underneath the ground, units target it and hit the ground instead.

It does NOT affect UEF, Cybran or Seraphim PD. Also tested this in the same replay.

I was not satisfied by the PC's dismissive reply, problem still exists.

@valki said in missiles subject to TMD should ignore shields:

FAF lacks a skill-sensitive siege option, where a player with significantly less economy than its opponent can break its defenses.

MML counter shields fine, but this is in a macro view where MML is cost effective vs TMD. If the defending player has much more eco, then the shields offer him enough time to use his superior eco to spam up cost ineffective TMD and defend the base.

I want a player with less eco to destroy a firebase without TMD quickly, so he has a chance to get ahead purely through superior tactics.

[...]

Sure, bad suggestion, but I was disappointed that the interesting thought behind it - even if it was never worth implementing - was just not picked up. (did not get a bad PC reply here)

@valki said in (A)RAS: reduce nearby building consumption to zero:

I suggest that RAS will reduce the mass consumption costs of nearby buildings to zero. ARAS reduces mass and energy consumption of nearby buildings to zero. Units and in particular engineers derive no benefit. SCU's provide a 50% reduction instead of a 100% reduction.

[...]

I'm by no means a FAF or balance expert, but thought this might be an interesting idea. I cannot really defend or speak on its impact on balance or the metagame.

I was somewhat depressed when I posted this, dealing with lifechanging injury, but still. This was a helpfully intended suggestion that was completely dismissed and nitpicked. Almost quit right there, though in hindsight it doesn't look so bad.

I was wrong, I invite you to tell me nicely

@Valki, my dude, these are balance topics. None of the forum posts you linked are really relevant to FtX or the PC election at all. Also, tbh it's kind of ridiculous to say that "I was not satisfied by the PC's dismissive reply" when he was the only person to even bother replying and giving you an explanation at all.

Honestly no idea what to say if these are the examples of my asshole behavior.

And wtf, I’m an asshole when I respond and when I don’t respond? I didn’t respond to the TMD thread because it just wasn’t an idea worth discussing to me, it breaks way too many of the interactions in the game and converts cruisers into absurdly OP units.

@archsimkat said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

@Valki, my dude, these are balance topics. None of the forum posts you linked are really relevant to FtX or the PC election at all. Also, tbh it's kind of ridiculous to say that "I was not satisfied by the PC's dismissive reply" when he was the only person to even bother replying and giving you an explanation at all.

These were well-intentioned but misguided posts by me, I consider the tone relevant. I will not debate whether this response is better than no response. This is more an opportunity for @morax and @Emperor_Penguin.

I hope you can appreciate I am somewhat humiliating myself for this purpose.

@ftxcommando said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

Honestly no idea what to say if these are the examples of my asshole behavior.

And wtf, I’m an asshole when I respond and when I don’t respond? I didn’t respond to the TMD thread because it just wasn’t an idea worth discussing to me, it breaks way too many of the interactions in the game and converts cruisers into absurdly OP units.

I'm not calling you an asshole, I genuinely respect you also because you do take the time to explain like in our PM discussions. Not getting what I want does not mean I think you are an asshole. (Note I did not bring up our ongoing discussion about rating)

However, I would like (not need) a Player Councillor who deals with this in a better way, having to get through needless nitpicking can be needlessly discouraging. I am interested in what the others would say.

Okay @Valki I am going to reply to part 1 of your post there to take the "this is how I would respond to you should you make this discussion" road.

In regards to the Aeon t1 pd hit box issue while under construction, let us say it is an issue for simplicity (I did not watch the replay yet - sorry!). This issue would be communicated to the devs/game code manager @keyser and his team. I would not mind doing it initially, but my preferred method would be to also introduce you to HOW the issues are managed.

To understand that, you must at least in some way know project management for software engineering and for that I give you the "FAF Github Repository:"

https://github.com/FAForever

For this particular issue, it likely would fall under "fa" which stand for Forged Alliance Game Lua Code. It might be more of a "hitbox / model issue," but less us assume it is a code issue for now. To address this, you must make a report here:

https://github.com/FAForever/fa

So, Valki, next time you find this issue, you can log it there, and it will be reviewed by someone on the team.

IMPORTANT: we have maybe 7 TOTAL software-capable workers on FAF, and of which that is maybe 1-2 people for the Forged Alliance Game code. If you look at the "issues log" here: https://github.com/FAForever/fa/issues you will notice there are in current as of my writing 348 other issues.

So, yes, I would discuss with you how to get this issues noticed and fixed properly rather the message board, but also ask you understand that the 1-2 people working on the game LUA code are quite busy, doing this for free, and therefore it will take quite some time.

I hope that helps answer you in how I would engage with yourself and others about the issues, hope it is to your and others' liking.

For the second part, will get to that later. I am heading off to dinner now and to watch a nice game of ice canes warriors battling to get a giant, silver bowl with names inscribed on it.

@Valki @Morax that would be useless because, from what I've heard, the aeon t1 pd issue has been known for a long time and previous balance councillors have tried to tackle the issue but found it impossible to solve, since it's one of those things rooted in the engine that we would need to modify the engine source code to solve.

@archsimkat said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

@Valki @Morax that would be useless because, from what I've heard, the aeon t1 pd issue has been known for a long time and previous balance councillors have tried to tackle the issue but found it impossible to solve, since it's one of those things rooted in the engine that we would need to modify the engine source code to solve.

Yes, but I was explaining to him how to go about discussing and getting the issue in queue to track for resolution. I never said it can be solved.

This really turned into a “how to respond to forum threads” discussion huh

@ftxcommando said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

This really turned into a “how to respond to forum threads” discussion huh

It did... no one is asking any good questions since the reset. I’m going to just reply to your response sooner to make it more interesting I guess...

To answer @Valki’s post, here are some examples of how I might respond to the issues he presented:

1. Aeon T1 PD under construction cannot be hit sometimes:
   I believe this phenomenon with targeting partially constructed aeon structures might have something to do with the hitbox or the aimbone needing some adjustments (but I’m not sure if it is realistic to resolve this particular phenomenon, as I think it’s been known for a while without success at resolving it). However, game bugs can be reported here: https://github.com/FAForever/fa/issues by submitting a new issue (with an explanation, a replay with a specified time/location that the bug occurs, and a screenshot of the bug occurring), but please make sure it’s not already reported as an issue first (our unpaid volunteer programmers are swamped, and creating duplicate issues slows them down even further (you can search the other issues on the linked page to check if there is already an issue created for this problem) – there is already a backlog of 348 open issues, and it can take a very long time to resolve them).
2. missiles subject to TMD should ignore shields:
   Having missiles ignore shields is an interesting idea, but making that change would theoretically require a lot of other things to be rebalanced (such as missile cruisers, tml structures, tmd, shields, arty, etc). While this is technically possible, I believe that it is unlikely to happen, in-part due to the sheer extensiveness of the quantity of changes that would need to be made to do this in a way that is desirable for the overall community. So, if you want to make mml’s have more interesting dynamics where they can break TMD-less firebases faster, perhaps giving them more alpha damage (more damage per missile, but with a longer reload time, for balance) might be a more mml-specific way to accomplish that. Honestly though, a lot of people are already happy with the way mml’s function atm, and they are already used a lot, so I don’t know if many people would want to change them in either way... Any thoughts?
3. (A)RAS: reduce nearby building consumption to zero:
   Your ideas for RAS/ARAS are interesting. Reducing the mass/energy costs of nearby structures to zero could provide some really strong benefits though (such as with hives), and for that to be balanced, it would probably require an extremely high cost. Changing RAS/ARAS to reduce nearby costs by some percent (like adjacency bonuses give) might be a balanced approach. However, to make changes like these, someone would actually have to code them, and the balance team would have to approve them. My advice would be that if you feel very strongly about this idea, you might want to look into making a mod with a balanced version of these changes and then you could play it with your friends and go from there. However, even if you did that, most new ideas that change the game by this much never get incorporated into the main official version of FAF, but could make for some fun modded games (that can be played on FAF) : )
   If you want to look into modding, you could learn some basic information at these links and in the FAF Discord (you may need to get the modder role from the roles-selection channel to see some relevant channels):
   https://wiki.faforever.com/index.php?title=Modding https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SlI4FkKVCP_E8dE1GfxhM5QDkwuAKGAUnkC2iDUaZAA/edit

Am I the only now who thinks that this responses are actually kinda pathetic? And are only made here and now considering they can directly profit from them as they make for nice PR stunts during the elections?

How is it that before the whole election you wouldn't even think about answering those questions. Hell you could have answered those so long ago but do it only now when it's clear that you will profit from it.

So, why only now, why didn't you actually try to make this a better place before you set your sights at becoming the PC?

@randomwheelchair said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

Am I the only now who thinks that this responses are actually kinda pathetic? And are only made here and now considering they can directly profit from them as they make for nice PR stunts during the elections?

How is it that before the whole election you wouldn't even think about answering those questions. Hell you could have answered those so long ago but do it only now when it's clear that you will profit from it.

So, why only now, why didn't you actually try to make this a better place before you set your sights at becoming the PC?

I was about to say, now that these responses have been baited out in the open, can the candidates explain why they never bothered to post them in the first place.

I’d also say for a group of dudes talking about their ability to have better communication and transparency with the balance team (still trying to understand the logic of removing me for someone else for better communication with petric) you guys got a strange idea of what ideas petric would even entertain reading. Reality is neither of the last two ideas would get considered and the first is an issue that is about as old as FAF.

@randomwheelchair @FtXCommando
To answer your statements/questions:
I have done a lot of things to make FAF a better place (ie: improving the map generator, making maps, making mapping utilities, making new props, answering other questions, training noobs, working on code, etc), and it is obviously not realistic nor my job to respond to every random question asked on FAF.

I responded to Valki now (rather than earlier) because he directly invited me by name to respond to those posts yesterday (and not earlier)... I generally try to respond when someone basically asks me a question and @'s me, as I think that's the decent thing to do...

I imagine Morax feels similarly on the above, but I don't want to speak for him here.

Personally, I question the value of FTX's choice to shoot down most new ideas very readily. I think that policy makes negative associations with the FAF experience, contributes to a negative atmosphere, and discourages participation. I don't believe that attitude is good for fostering a collaborative and friendly atmosphere. There are many occasions in which I think the way FTX responds to people is worse than if he didn't respond at all.

Sadly none of that experience matters for answering these questions (and half of it doesn’t even matter for the position, like who cares that you make map props?)

“question FtX choice of shooting down most ideas” as though I’m the one deciding what ideas get into the game.

I go and do what you’re calling shooting down ideas because I know they won’t get considered (through exposure with the people on the balance team) and decide I might as well as give people a rationale for why that won’t happen. You can try to hide it with “oh this would need x and y and maybe then it might get considered” but it doesn’t change any of the realities here. You are definitely on the right track though, there’s no point at all in you responding to these posts when you have no experience or frame of reference with the balance team.

@ftxcommando said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

Sadly none of that experience matters for answering these questions (and half of it doesn’t even matter for the position, like who cares that you make map props?)

I was saying that to answer RandomWheelchair's question:
@randomwheelchair said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

why didn't you actually try to make this a better place before you set your sights at becoming the PC?

My answer basically equated to; I did actually do things to make FAF a better place before I set my sights on PC... Heck, trying to make FAF better is the reason I'm running for PC...

@ftxcommando said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

I shoot down ideas because I know they won’t get considered (through exposure with the people on the balance team) and decide I might as well as give people a rationale for why that won’t happen. You can try to hide it with “oh this would need x and y and maybe it might get considered” but it doesn’t change any of the realities here. You are definitely on the right track though, there’s no point at all in you responding to these posts when you have no experience or frame of reference with the balance team.

This condescending and dismissive attitude is part of the problem... You make many people not even try anymore to suggest or improve things out of negative thoughts/feelings resulting from the way you so often respond.
Perhaps an idea is extremely unlikely to ever be implemented into base FAF; that doesn't mean you need to rudely shoot the person down and discourage them from participating.

By comparison, doing something like mentioning that the person could make their ideas into a mod (and then linking some modding resources) is not condescending and is potentially constructive (and probably doesn't leave the person feeling so badly). Further, I have found many successes in life in trying where others say I can't do X. Your word is not law. Just because you think something will never ever be implemented, does not automatically guarantee that it is so. I think you shouldn't strive to stifle potential innovation.

Nothing in any of my three responses to Valki involved rudely shooting anybody down nor discouraging anybody from participating.

I discouraged you specifically from hypothetically participating because you do not have any real additional credibility as a perspective PC. Nobody on the balance team is close to you and you are not close to any of them. You have no idea how they make decisions nor anything else related to them really. I do. I have a working relationship with every person on the balance team and several go well beyond a working relationship. These ties are what I use to justify my knowledge of what ideas are likely to see the light of day.

You would just be another 1700 rated dude saying his input, but you would have a cool badge attached to it.

To reply to Endranii and FTX, I have made these issues known before, and like many, we gave up because he just writes a book length response telling one you are essentially "dead wrong" or "I do not agree with you."

It would be nice if FTX would poll the community, for instance, to see if they are actually happy with how balance updates work, which you can see per this thread are not really going that well: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1634/opening-the-balancing-blackbox-to-the-public/31

@RandomWheelchair it is only pathetic now because I do not think you really play the game much (as you told me) and do not engage with it as much as daily players. These issues may not bother you as much as other people, so no, it is not pathetic to some.

I really dislike that you make false statements like that, FTX. Aside from my experience creating/balancing several other games, I've participated in numerous FAF balance discussions, including many involving member(s) of the balance team. I've also read a lot of forum posts and discussion messages from members of the balance team specifically explaining their reasoning for making/not making various changes. I consider reading and participating in numerous discussions and posts on FAF balance containing many thousands of messages, including numerous ones from members of the balance team, to be substantial information. To say I have "no idea how they make decisions nor anything else related to them" is just rude, wrong, and insulting...

You say you didn't shoot anybody down or discourage anybody from participating, yet you were rude/condescending/dismissive to me and you responded to Valki in a way that provoked this response from another person (prior to this election)...

@shape-of-bennis said in (A)RAS: reduce nearby building consumption to zero:

Wow ftx you totally smashed the idea.

...

We should have an environment here that rewards people for having ideas and sharing them with us, if they are new and somewhat thought out. Not talk it into the ground with a somewhat condescending tone! Not what a councillor should behave like!
Jk I still love you but its still meh behaviour.

You can say what you want, but you clearly make people feel badly and are discouraging/condescending/dismissive. That is not the type of treatment that I (and many others) would hope for from the PLAYERS' Councilor.