New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements
-
Why is everyone going nuts on the hidden global rating? For most of its existence Starcraft 2 has hidden it.
Sure, they show it now, but hiding it can only be considered sensible if they did it.
-
Yeah, most other games don't even have rating for custom games, at best you get a casual queue (not ranked) with a hidden rating.
-
@shape-of-bennis said
Not a problem, g@p can be included as well. Even if they call it gaijyp or shayit
By swapping the 'i' and the 'y' in "gaijyp" and directly harassing someone in the community like this is really not cool. It's not productive and it's completely uncalled for.
-
It's called unintented laff like most of this thread
-
Just a word for the PC election, FTX from my pov you are divising the player database. I see you like a mini trump, but working more. Does your work compensate for the lack of tact and the feeling that you are not governing for all the players? Maybe for some but not for me.
Penguin morax and others, you want to beat trump and his incredible groupies? You guys need to ally and make a common application!For the rating part, that made me want to participate here,
Would it be possible without a lot of devlopement / work, to create few categories / labels.
"eco maps" "casual teamgame map" "naval map" "spam map" "uncategorize map" "generated map" or whatever.
Then review the 200 most popular map, sort them in those categories, erase the rest of the maps, and force people do get the map approve and classify by the map team before being uploaded.
Then outpout multiple global rating based on map categories. -
All I’m really interested in saying on this is that several assumptions about the breadth and success of matchmaker had been built into talking about the notion of doing anything with global rating. I’ve had this conversation dozens of times in the past and people can go look them up as they like.
Namely, the idea was to convert custom games into the casual party game/mod area of FAF.
Now current plan will likely involve global becoming some conglomerate rating monstrosity that takes into account matchmaker ratings while still having global games impact themselves.
-
@th3-11 said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
For the rating part, that made me want to participate here,
Would it be possible without a lot of devlopement / work, to create few categories / labels.
"eco maps" "casual teamgame map" "naval map" "spam map" "uncategorize map" "generated map" or whatever.
Then review the 200 most popular map, sort them in those categories, erase the rest of the maps, and force people do get the map approve and classify by the map team before being uploaded.
Then outpout multiple global rating based on map categories.This would never happen as the current Creative Councillor is explicitly against any sort of opt-in map vault. It would be an absurdly terrible new player experience since you’re creating however many dozens of new ratings where people can be 0/0s, and the system itself is going to be even more unintuitive for anyone that wasn’t involved in developing it.
-
@valki said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
Why is everyone going nuts on the hidden global rating? For most of its existence Starcraft 2 has hidden it.
Sure, they show it now, but hiding it can only be considered sensible if they did it.
Nearly every single multiplayer game in existence has some sort of progression shown for players, it’s game design 101 we’re talking about here. Removing global rating leaves FAF with exactly nothing showing progression for anyone who doesn’t want to do TMM or ladder which is 90% of the player base. We’re having a hard time keeping 2v2 TMM going, adding a 3v3 and 4v4 version of it won’t make it any better.
Also come on, they literally undid that decision to hide global rating in SC2 and you’re trying to use that to help your argument?
-
That's why global rating would be replaced with more matchmaker queues or the new division system. It's just stupid and irresponsible to act like it was ever going to be deleted and replaced with nothing.
-
@Mize @Exselsior and everyone, in reply to Penguin's post about me wanting to get rid of global rating:
To make things clear, I do not really like the global rating system and think it has a lot less representation of skill than others at hand. A year ago and before, I did not know if TMM would actually exist and give a way for people to play competitively in scenarios where it was more than 1v1. We have 2v2 now, 3v3 soon, hopefully 4v4. To me, this is wonderful as it gives a way to compare team ratings when faced with being placed on a random map from a pool rather selecting one. We all know at this point that global rating can reach 2k+ by simply playing one map over and over, so there is no reason to argue its efficacy.
@Emperor_Penguin , thank you for writing your post on my stance as it now gives myself and others a reason to remember to read through our applications and - if you can actually do it well - the entire thread. I stated the following in my application:
Sure, that is more in regards to resets, not abolishment, but after seeing the disdain generated from resetting a rating that has only existed for 6 months, I would never dream of eliminating one that has existed for 8+ years.
The reason I supported any kind of removal is because the devs (specifically @BlackYps ) pointed out that a league / division system is being worked out. The trueskill rating system is not very easy to understand for many people, so this will help eliminate confusion and hopefully be accepted going forward.
Source: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/311/graphic-artist-wanted
And he also posted somewhere in this nearly 300+ response thread, but hell if I can find it easily again haha. Maybe BlackYps can just confirm that after I post this again.
So, no, I do not in current believe removing Global Rating is a good idea. I personally do not like it, but is enjoyed by many and would mean a crippling blow to my stance on supporting the player base.
I hope this clarifies things for everyone concerned and those who brought this post to my attention this morning.
-
@FtXCommando wrote:
Ethos:
Your ethos can be broken up to three central facets. First you point to your time as M&M Councillor as well as the time you have invested into the variety of these duties. I have no qualms with what you have said related to these details. However, none of it is relevant as this is the Player Councillor election and not the Creative Councillor election. All this facet of your ethos is good for is evidence that you have consistency on FAF and will not just peace out as soon as you meet the slightest level of pushback.
One of the main, top responsibilities of the Player Council is to make map pools, ensure they are good and in working order.
My experience in map making and working as M&M not only shows that I have thorough knowledge of how to work in the dev environment zulip, and process/request changes, but it also shows I know how to debug, fix, evaluate maps far better than yourself.
I could fix maps and edit the map pool, recognize version errors far better than yourself who has to outsource that to others. This would leave me more time to pay attention to other areas of need.
In defense of Gruntti not getting his map in the pool, you or arch had trouble figuring out which version of the map to use because he made a good 50+. Neither of you reached out to him to inform him why this is an issue, so I took the the message board to fight for his disappointment: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1488/complaint-about-tmm-and-ladder-pool-rating-brackets/26
-
@Dragun101 in regards to your question about "what does it take to say 'No'"?
For you specifically, I was new at M&M modification usage allowance and wanted to set up some protocol, get to know you and others working on the mod. A good portion of people simply just take something and don't credit people, which I believe is a bad practice.
In general, though, it is a mix of experience/feeling and rationale. I could not tell you case by case why I said no without digging through all the archives, some of which are deleted and gone forever.
I hope this answers your question well enough.
-
@thomashiatt As I said, TMM is already nearly dead, and is effectively dead at most of the times I can play which is really unfortunate because I do like TMM. Adding more matchmaker queues is not a viable option. People are going to want their custom games.
This is my issue with removing global rating, the people wanting to do it are clearly out of touch and/or only get to play at peak times and are coming up with compromises that only work for a % of the player base.
The issue is that there are competitive as well as casual global games. There’s a competitive Seton’s scene, and please don’t give me some bullshit about Seton’s bad because you don’t like it or whatever. There’s a more general competitive high level team game scene on various maps, and trying to replace that with a 4v4 TMM just sounds rough for tons of reasons. People aren’t as willing to sit in a queue for as long as they’ll sit in a lobby where they can talk to a specific subset of players for their game they’re waiting on for instance. They’ll want specific maps and we’ll have more map list drama like we have with Ladder. Manual balance to help incorporate larger rating differences in off hours isn’t possible.
We already have an unranked global scene. Any modded game. Any survival game. Maps like Thermo. We have plenty of players that only do that. We need something for those that don’t fall into those categories, the unranked global and the ladder warriors.
If people had actual ideas on how to replace it that fill the role of global rating without being global rating then I’d be less against it, but all the ideas I hear are, well, shit.
Let’s get the achievement page working and working consistently. Let’s get more stats about players available, like w/l and number of time played per map and similar stats for factions. Let’s get more avatars available for lower rated people to show off things they’ve done. Actually do some of these and then come talk about removing global rating. Stop with the “well make a queue for everything and it’ll be okay” bs, because it’s bs for many people.
-
@morax I completely agree global rating isn’t perfect and I am certainly apart of the people who thinks ladder rating means a lot more. Thanks for being reasonable on not removing global rating though
-
@exselsior You can queue for multiple queues as is now with 1v1 and 2v2. So at the very least it won't be worse, and if more people go to the matchmaker and multi queue it might get better.
-
@valki Yup that’s what I usually do
-
How is it dead? There’s bare minimum
double the 2v2 games on FAF now. Used to be 1k 2v2 games a month, now it’s 2k just from the matchmaker. Certainly far more since some custom 2v2s are still hosted.Adjusting for population, 2v2 has moved up into either being the 3rd or 4th most popular game size.
-
You queue for it at 8pm PST and come back and talk to me about how dead it is. I’m glad it’s being more used now. I only have a short period of time when I’m off work where I can maybe get a game, and it’ll be likely to be with much lower rated people.
-
Things can’t operate off of magic; if you consider 2v2 dead you logically also consider 1v1 dead. They are both close to the same quantity of games per month when you adjust for the fact a 2v2 needs double the players. This leaves dual gap and sentons as the only two segments of pvp FAF not dead.
This doesn’t mean that 2v2 doesn’t suffer from high player count variance issues, but that’s generally what one has to expect as queues increase in size.
In a way that is sorta intentional, people that want to play really badly are softly encouraged to queue up as a smaller and smaller party to enter more and more queues. This then encourages more and more inoculation to smaller game sizes which often have the largest strategic variety. The hope is that this stops general “ladder anxiety” attached to feeling yourself more responsible for the game as less players exist. There will always be hardcore players that strictly prefer one game mode over another and the hope is that these players form the bedrock for a queue. 2v2 is still quite new and generally has had few people interested in it as a game mode. It would be the longest term project to build up of all the potential queues FAF has, I’d say.
-
@ftxcommando said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
Things can’t operate off of magic; if you consider 2v2 dead you logically also consider 1v1 dead.
1v1 Is close to dead for me unless I play weekends. At which point I have to decide if on that short period of time do I want to join the generally higher quality custom games or play ladder. This is my own issue, not FAFs problem and not super related to the discussion at hand, but yes to a large degree ladder is also dead for me.
Don't get me wrong, regardless of how much I personally get to enjoy TMM I love the idea and I love it's a thing. I am grateful to all the people who put their free time into making it happen. I'm glad it's starting to see more popularity, and hell maybe it'll be better for me now if its popularity has increased significantly in the past couple weeks - I've been traveling and not playing for a bit.
The problem is that all of this is tangential and you're ignoring every other argument against removing global rating. Yes, Gap and Seton's are behemoths when it comes to popularity, but they're far from the only maps played where removing global rating is a negative.
To be blunt, and this I think is the crux of my issue: I've yet to hear a single argument that wasn't either entirely bs or true but not really an actual reason for removing visible global rating
If you think Global rating is useless, then ignore it and enjoy your life. If you think it's inaccurate in certain situations, like I do, then take literally 30s to look at their ladder rating and a quick overview of their replays. There you go. All you have to do. If I'm hosting a Seton's and see a 1900 rated global player that I don't really recognize and I look at their replays and see Dual Gap the entire time, it doesn't take a genius to realize that that 1900 will get crushed by a 1500 rated Setoner on Seton's. Seriously, what actual harm is global rating being visible doing outside of certain people being mad that someone they perceive as being worse than them having a higher rating than them? I've already given several reasons why having it visible makes sense.
And no, I don't want a Seton's queue or a map specific queue, that's a downgrade in every possible way. I would much, much rather the lobby sim than deal with sitting in a queue for the same amount of time. Not to mention having a queue for every scenario is just silly.
