maps veto for ladder
-
There isn’t really a priority list like that, we aren’t that organized, but for me it’s mostly that I want to finish the big projects like matchmaker that I’ve been working on for years. Also I tend to work on the things that bother me when I’m playing (like random bugs and stuff) and a lack of map veto hasn’t ever been one of those things.
-
@askaholic said in maps veto for ladder:
There isn’t really a priority list like that, we aren’t that organized, but for me it’s mostly that I want to finish the big projects like matchmaker that I’ve been working on for years. Also I tend to work on the things that bother me when I’m playing (like random bugs and stuff) and a lack of map veto hasn’t ever been one of those things.
So yeah, it's not "politics" so much as only caring about your own preferences and ignoring the issues that are extremely important to many others. No surprise there.
-
@sheikah said in maps veto for ladder:
Just remember that in terms of the actual user base and what people use FAF for those who play ladder are a pretty small percentage of the user base. They are often the most vocal so it can be easy to forget how small they actually are. The other priorities largely benefit and affect the entire player base.
Did you ever consider WHY many people don't play ladder? Given how frequently complaints about the map pool and veto option comes up, you might take the hint that it's driving away a lot of people and CAUSING the small percentage of the user base.
-
@corvathranoob said in maps veto for ladder:
@askaholic said in maps veto for ladder:
There isn’t really a priority list like that, we aren’t that organized, but for me it’s mostly that I want to finish the big projects like matchmaker that I’ve been working on for years. Also I tend to work on the things that bother me when I’m playing (like random bugs and stuff) and a lack of map veto hasn’t ever been one of those things.
So yeah, it's not "politics" so much as only caring about your own preferences and ignoring the issues that are extremely important to many others. No surprise there.
I'm sorry, but we're not being paid.
-
It's not politics. Just because you want something, doesn't mean thats what the majority of people want.
But more specifically: Developers appear because they want to implement something they want. Rarely what other people want.There was an open poll about what is desired the most a few years ago. https://feedback.userreport.com/7a3715db-9cd2-49ec-bebd-b5cfd752647b/#ideas/popular
Number 1 by far was fix connectivity issues. We did that as good as possible with the ICE adapter which took 2-3 years.
Number 2 was TMM which also took like forever was finally finished end of last year.
Number 3 (following 2 very close) was Galactic War which is still waaay ahead from being even beta.Ladder Map Veto didn't even make it into the list back then even though it existed at some point and was removed (long before I started as a developer here).
-
@jip Of course, but it doesn't make any sense for someone to say "Map veto is really not on anyone’s radar at the moment because there are so many much higher priority things to work on." I was pointing out how it is clearly on the radar. Why can't people just be honest and say "I don't care about that, nor do any of the other developers."
Instead, we get an attitude of "hey you need to be more gracious for all the work I'm doing for you," when the truth is, as Askaholic has conceded, it isn't really focused on the benefit of others. Maybe we just get lucky. Let's dispense with this notion that the developers are sacrosanct and cannot be criticized for any reason simply because they are contributing without pay, especially if their contributions aren't what other people really care about. The implication of "there are so many much higher priority things to work on" makes it sound like it's not their own personal choice of what to work on and is based on what the community wants, which is clearly disingenuous.@Brutus5000 Let's not claim that no one cares about or has suggested a map veto, simply because it wasn't in the feedback forum. What's the point of, LITERALLY THIS FORUM?! "Oh, doesn't count because it's wasn't on, ok it was, but for some reason was removed from the feedback forum poll a few years ago."
So the question is how many people would like to have a map veto option? Do we have any relatively recent survey data?I know I mentioned map veto at least twice just on the new forum alone, back in about April and again maybe 1.5 months ago (which is pretty recent so of course I wouldn't expect much to have started since then if it was the only instance of this request) but it's my impression this has been talked about for a long time. In any case, the point about prioritization is that you change the order that you complete different tasks based on how important they are, which is why I asked if it was possible to consider bumping this up the priority list (which would be possible if a developer cares about doing work which benefits the community generally rather than just what they want). How long a task has been in the works is irrelevant.
-
@corvathranoob I don't think it is a matter of not caring, it is a matter of "I've invested months (or years - adapter took three years!) into this project at the moment and I want to see it through".
-
I'm not talking the idea down. I'm just explaining why it is not a priority.
-
@CorvathraNoob I don’t understand how you think being toxic towards people is going to make them want to implement a feature for you.
-
@askaholic LOL, saying your response was disingenuous isn't toxicity. I personally find dishonesty far more toxic than simply speaking the truth. Anyway, you already made it perfectly clear that you weren't going to do anything that you didn't already want to do anyway.
-
@corvathranoob I'm not going to say that I or anyone else doesn't care about what's best for the community because that would be disingenuous.
There are so many ways to contribute to FAF (although I don't consider raging on the forums to be one of them) and everyone has their own priorities. For instance I personally consider match confirmation a much more important feature to work on because not having it literally causes people to not be able to play the game.
-
It seems I didn't get such a good ally xD. Pls @CorvathraNoob respect this guys' work.. as they said they ain't getting paid, so it's far from naive that they are working on what they are interested in or even better on what they have already dedicated years for.
But the question is: Would you (@Askaholic , @Brutus5000 , @Jip , @Sheikah , @Reckless_Charger ....) agree to integrate this map veto feature in ladder if, let's assume, it was already developed and ready to implement?
If your answer is affirmative, there's no hurry! I would personally dedicate time on it, but I have no knowledge on how to do it for FAF client (although I did study coding stuff like C++ and matlab), let's say that I would take lessons by you experienced developers or just donate, as I already want to do, maybe an aimed donation to some devs of 50-100 bucks to implement the map veto, but of course depends on the time it takes and on if the whole community would accept it.
To finish, In my opinion ladder or 1v1 is the purest form of playing this game and the best way of learning its mechanics and micro+macro, so please let's not say "most of the people play teamgames, let's not improve the ladder experience" otherwise we will just decrease the ladder players and find ourselves with a ton of onlyastrogap players
-
Assuming regular quality criteria are respected (aka implement our feedback on Github), there is no reason to decline it.
More important is discussion upfront how a solution should look like, so the developer is not turned down after work is done.
-
@corvathranoob said
So yeah, it's not "politics" so much as only caring about your own preferences and ignoring the issues that are extremely important to many others. No surprise there.
Askaholic gave you two reasons and you latched onto the second one and completely ignored the first one. Also it is just a reality that people tend to work on stuff that personally bothers them, or that they find interesting. You may not like it, but this is just the reality of voluntary projects.
Let's dispense with this notion that the developers are sacrosanct and cannot be criticized for any reason simply because they are contributing without pay, especially if their contributions aren't what other people really care about.
Nobody said any of this. Jip just stated that we don't get paid. You added all of the above yourself.
"Oh, doesn't count because it's wasn't on, ok it was, but for some reason was removed from the feedback forum poll a few years ago."
No. The map veto feature was removed from the client. No suggestions were removed from the feedback site.
Why do you just dismiss that the site clearly shows that many people found other features more important?LOL, saying your response was disingenuous isn't toxicity. I personally find dishonesty far more toxic than simply speaking the truth.
You didn't speak the truth. You misrepresented the arguments given. I don't say that you did this on purpose, but if you are convinced from the start that the devs are shitheads, so much that it impairs your ability to see statements for what they are, then this discussion is pointless.
To move the actual topic forward:
One of the reasons that the map veto is not implemented yet is that it is a complicated feature. It needs changes in the client and the server and the details are not yet fleshed out.
I encourage everyone to work on making a fleshed out concept that describes the map veto in detail.
Here are some questions to get you started: How many maps should you be able to veto? Does it increase with pool size? How does vetoing work with the team matchmakers? How will the UI look like? Will your veto choices be stored? If yes, how?
You don't need coding experience to do this. I still encourage you to work this out together with some devs that can give input on how feasible your ideas would be. -
@blackyps Both of askoholic's two reason's boil down to his own personal preferences. I literally quoted the exact statement and summarized it. I said it was not surprising, since I am fully aware it is on a volunteer basis.
Perhaps you could read the actual COMPLAINT I made: "The implication of "there are so many much higher priority things to work on" makes it sound like it's not their own personal choice of what to work on and is based on what the community wants, which is clearly disingenuous."
"Why can't people just be honest and say "I don't care about that, nor do any of the other developers."""No. The map veto feature was removed from the client. No suggestions were removed from the feedback site."
I was just going off of what Brutus said and assuming it to be true. Guess I'll stop doing that then?
"You didn't speak the truth. You misrepresented the arguments given. "
Not in the slightest."if you are convinced from the start that the devs are shitheads, "
Does my first question show this? Obviously not, so please stop making obviously false statements.@Askaholic " I'm not going to say that I or anyone else doesn't care about what's best for the community because that would be disingenuous."
Can you justify that compared to the point I made?
"In any case, the point about prioritization is that you change the order that you complete different tasks based on how important they are, which is why I asked if it was possible to consider bumping this up the priority list (which would be possible if a developer cares about doing work which benefits the community generally rather than just what they want). How long a task has been in the works is irrelevant." -
Alright, this really is pointless. I'm out
-
@CorvathraNoob, you need to understand the choice you have isn't between 1) the feature they are currently working on, and 2) a feature that you want—rather, it is actually 1) the feature they are currently working on, and 2) nothing at all. In fact, you should be thankful since we are incredibly lucky to have devs actively working on new features such as TMM, divisions, QOL improvements, etc.. If you want to see map vetos, then do it. Go and implement it. Because that's what these other devs you're slinging mud at have done.
-
A good way to drive off devs from the forums, great job Corvathra. Maybe instead of insulting devs and crying about a feature that haven't been yet worked on come up with an actual idea of how the veto system could look like and then consult that idea with the ladder & TMM team & devs.
I would also like to add that you claiming that other things that were/are worked on are lower priority then ladder map veto with no real evidence to support your claim while arguing that all the evidence that suggests otherwise for some reason doesn't represent what players want just makes you look silly. -
We should make a FAQ entry for "I want a new feature in FAF!" and then use CorvathraNoob's posts as an example of how to unsuccessfully avoid being the typical entitled self-centered asshole of which many exist around any volunteer project. Sadly it won't change the next guys attitude because people like that don't read FAQ entries.
-
@tagada "I would also like to add that you claiming that other things that were/are worked on are lower priority then ladder map veto with no real evidence to support your claim while arguing that all the evidence that suggests otherwise for some reason doesn't represent what players want just makes you look silly."
I said it was my impression people have been complaining about ladder maps for a very long time. Is that totally false?! lol. Sorry for not citing my sources and asking others if they had any relevant data to support or disprove that.
To askaholic: "I'm just wondering if there is a reason for the ranking of those priorities?...So if you could provide some explanation for why map veto is less important would be much appreciated."
To Brutus: "So the question is how many people would like to have a map veto option? Do we have any relatively recent survey data?""A good way to drive off devs from the forums, great job Corvathra."
But arch actually agrees that's not the case anyway, as I had already said (so his response is also pointless because I clearly already understood this). "you need to understand the choice you have isn't between 1) the feature they are currently working on, and 2) a feature that you want—rather, it is actually 1) the feature they are currently working on, and 2) nothing at all."
I clearly already knew, as I said: "Anyway, you already made it perfectly clear that you weren't going to do anything that you didn't already want to do anyway."I understand English is not everyone's first language, but please try reading what I say a second time if you don't truly understand it.
