Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team

nah

I actually read this, and all I have to say is:

Are you ok?

Is this actually some joke?

Seems like he is mad due to the negative response to some suggestions he made a while ago like this one. The result of this feedback was too rename all his issues to “bla” and close them. The interesting part is that bois are going to get bp, hp, and damage nerfs next month so its not like the issue of boi balance was ignored.

Okay so, I am going to have a field day right now.

1. "This has become very clear over time in their "balance" patches that create new imbalances, lessen strategic diversity, ruin map designs and reduce units to obsolescence (I.e. Fire Beetle)."

-- This is coming from a man who plays 2 maps primarily. Dual gap and Valhalla I think it is called. So when you complain that it ruins map designs I am assuming your referring to these two maps where since the recent nuke changes any relatively gh level dual gapper is moaning as they're only winning strategy is gone.
-- Fire beetles are by far not obsolete. 1 T2 transport with 1 mobile stealth gen and 5 fire beetles can wipe an air grid. They can be used to clear large armies of units. They can be used as a fast attack and wipe upgrading mexes. Hell you can use them in your army to snipe acu's

2. . "Having become increasingly stale and uninteresting, as viable strategies to create advantages and counterplay keep disappearing."

-- So the fact you can no longer nuke someone at min 15 is not uninteresting. Hmm maybe use your brain and create some new plays so they it is not stale.

3. " With their unlimited term in office and no stated manifesto, the current group have no reason to hurry along completing their process of "balancing the game" and consequently use their position to prevent much needed changes and improvements they either don't understand or don't see how those changes would improve things for themselves."

-- The balance patches both nerf and improve units so that different strategies work and the balance changes to keep things interesting. "Prevent much needed changes". Like what I am yet to see one good post relating to a major balance change that is needed. Paragon too op, we must nerf it is far from a good post. If your opponent is beating you by making a paragon then you have probably about 15 mins or so from pre-setup to full completion with build power to make your counter.

4. "You may say they are good players because they have high ratings. OK, but where do these ratings come from."

-- Do you really want to start with argument. Your a 2200 dual gapper who plays 2/3 maps, occasionally tmm where you are really low skilled for your rating on other maps. On dual gap your a 2200 on other maps probably a 1700/1800.
The people on the balance team have been around for years, they have consistently been some of the highest rated players.
Such as TheWheelie (consistently above 2400), Tagada (consistently above 2400), Jagged (one of the strongest 1v1 players for years on the roll), Turin (consistently 2000 + if not higher). Tex (above 2200 consistently for years), Swkoll and Arch (both consistently 2000 for years).

So you believe that arguable the top players. 1v1, 2v2, 4v4, and big team games are not to be believed because of their rating. But a 2200 dual gapper could be.
Their ratings come from all sorts of games, 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 6v6, setons, team games, mapgens, phantom and all other sorts of game modes.
I would much rather have these people on the balance team than some community elected 1500 dual gapper because he got a lot of votes.

If you really wants to start the "where does their rating come from" argument then be my guest but you are a prime example of being overrated on any map that isn't Dual Gap, Astro Crater or Valhalla.

5. "As an example, many maps have specific ideas behind them based on the range of T1, T2 and T3 navy units and why should map makers have to redo their maps because the balance team decided to change ranges on navy vessels' weapons?"

-- You do not even play these navy maps so how you can understand the range difference of navy units is beyond me. The latest balance change only changes Aeon Frigate range, Cybran Frigate range and Aeon Destroyer range.

6. "Another example were t1 bombers being sterilized for 5 years because the first bomber on 5x5 maps was "too strong" which not only affects the first bomber but also every subsequent bomber. At the same time they weakened the bomber, they also buffed the T1 mobile AA reducing T1 bombers’ utility even further."

-- No your just clearly shit at using t1 bombers if you believe this is the fact.

7. "It only reverted when a new leader of the team took over with no explanation whatsoever. Why did we have to live with that mistake for 5 years and still do with the many others?"

-- Tagada took over the team as Jagged did not have the time to commit to leading the team. This was known in the community and those that are discussing balance changes. This was a mutual choice and was decided upon by the team for the best interest of faf.

8. "We need an alternative to this current feudal system."

-- So you want people elected based on their loyalty to one person.

9. "We need a superior balancing system to the current opinions-based one. Competing candidates with their own ideas should lay out what they intend to change with fixed terms of say 6-12 months to implement them."

-- If you make good balance threads they are discussed by the balance team it is not all opinions. The community and team discuss the current areas.

10. "This would also weed out those who only want the power to decide what to change for their own benefit"

-- So based on this you also cant have any dual gapper who wants to make changes to dual gap strategy such as nukes as this is for their own benefit.

Also on this matter the people in the balance team do not play dual gap so it is hardly for their own benefit when they nerf dual gap strategies that have been around for years.
Learn a new strategy.

11. In relation to your issue on ras bois.

-- If you want a change to them why dont we go back to 2016 balance, that will solve the issue.

Overall totally one of the biggest piece of bullshit I have seen on this forum since the Nine2 councillor issue.

I wonder if a lot of confusion/anger about balance would get resolved if some sort of FAQ post about how unit balance and maps relate to one another. For unit balance to be coherent, you need to set up a consistent frame of reference for these units to interact. For FAF, that used to just be the 1v1 pool and a few teamgame maps. Nowadays, since the matchmaker exists, you have a catalog of maps that are considered decent gameplay and can be used to talk about unit balance. across several sizes of games.

Obviously big communities for other stuff exist in custom games, but these maps spawned organically out of conditions of FAF balance and there is no real responsibility for FAF to ensure these maps stay at their current level of "enjoyability" or whatever you want to say. The maps can be adjusted to fit the balance just as the balance is adjusted to fit maps. It is unrealistic to expect unit balance to accommodate specific, niche communities in custom games.

Like this t1 bomber stuff, what is this based on? I can only assume it isn't based on anything in the matchmakers because they are pretty much always getting decent utility in games unless you just rally them into the enemy base.

This also gets into why a public vote is just stupid as well. Everybody begins using their own games as the frame of reference and working to make their map the default state rather than anything agreed upon by a larger group of people to be a healthy environment for FAF gameplay. That's why balance team is a peer selected group, same as why the matchmaker team that selects the maps is also peer selected.

Lots of people have lots of ideas about balance. But what we don't see happening is a single coherent balance mod (a la BHEdit or Equilibrium) gaining real traction. Everyone is free to make a mod with 1 or 10 or 100 balance changes in it and see if the community is interested in playing.

It is true that such games would be deranked. If people in the community who normally play ranked games are interested enough in the new balance to play deranked games, that would suggest there is a real need for different balance or at least a ranked balance option. If you can get 200 people to play 400 unranked matches using the "EvilDrewBalance" mod, that would suggest that the balance team or other admins should look at whitelisting the "EvilDrewBalance" mod for ranked play.

If you can't get people to play with alternate balance, that suggests there is no need for alternative balance options.

Also, I would be interested in some kind of comprehensive survey of FAF players as to whether they think balance is getting worse or better over time. It's not really scientific, you're asking people about their opinions and memories, but it would be useful to know whether the community is happy or sad or whatever with the balance changes over the last 5+ years. Even if the balance team is convinced that the community is "wrong" to be unhappy, it's important to gauge how people feel.

Balance mods will never see play because of the size of FAF. It's an answer intentionally built to be a nonsolution and mostly just a way for balance team to farm code changes they don't need to implement themselves.

The game is kinda uninteresting since 99% of the time you just follow the same linear path through 3 the tech levels. Maybe you decide if you want to get T2 air or T2 land first on some maps. You decide which tech levels you are going to be aggressive vs defensive on, and if neither player messes up too bad you go to the next one. The balance seems to be flattening the power curve so that every faction competes pretty evenly on every tech level, land units get more normalized (blazes and obsidians have been buffed, rhinos buffed, pillars nerfed, selen was made into a lab, aurora made more tank like, jesters useless, zthuee nerfed), strengths are nerfed and weaknesses buffed. It makes the game more "balanced", but also more boring. It is especially boring when there's over a year from one patch to the next. The changes brought with patches are almost never things that you change your gameplay around, the patches are instead designed to make your existing gameplay "more balanced."

At the time many of these changes seemed good, and I was in favor of many of them, but I'd rather go back to having steeper power curves and each faction having some unique overpowered stuff, even if it's sometimes frustrating it's also more fun. Could also just be that I played the game too much and look too favorably at the past. I never have to be feel fear of xerxes amassing a hidden jester snipe, and I never get to feel the risk and adrenaline rush of using a pre-OC nerf ACU to take out a dozen percies on the frontlines, or the power of your first Harb coming out prior to the T3 nerfs.

The linearity of the game is pretty much baked into the design, so is not really a balance issue, but since SACUs are not really viable at the moment they are free to be radically changed in ways that could make the game less linear. Everything I have seen regarding SACU changes indicates they will be placed linearly between T3 and T4 though.

Two things I wanna say:

You can't argue "Reeee unit X is completely bullshit!" while playing lower ranked lobbies. Reminds me of the one discussion where Aeon Gun, Auroras and Mercies should get a buff since lower ranks are simply not able to use them yet. Sadly many players follow that idea to have those mid-ranked-oriented balance patches and don't realise how fucking stupid that is.

Unironically. Watch Farms and Yudi more often. Especially after those patches they often speak about balance and you can ask specific shit. I still get tons of new information / explanation by asking and I'm certainly not one of the most liked players so you are not just getting roasted unless you don't want to understand it 4head. Most recent example being the t3 land vs t3 air impact (yeah okay tbf.. I didn't get his point. But he took his time to explain it)

@sladow-noob said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:

I still get tons of new information

I never get any useful information from them.

@thomashiatt said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:

The linearity of the game is pretty much baked into the design, so is not really a balance issue, but since SACUs are not really viable at the moment they are free to be radically changed in ways that could make the game less linear. Everything I have seen regarding SACU changes indicates they will be placed linearly between T3 and T4 though.

I agree that the game feels really linear, but I do think it's "fixable" with just changing numbers around. However there's a big questionmark in terms of are the players ready for radical change? How drastic changes is the general faf population ready for?

@balanceslave yeah but you don't count. Go back and train some people smh

How is it that a guy who plays valhalla 10000000000 times in a row and thinks all other maps are trash suddenly gives a crap about any of this? Why does the opinion of such a guy matter?

@blodir said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:

I agree that the game feels really linear, but I do think it's "fixable" with just changing numbers around. However there's a big questionmark in terms of are the players ready for radical change? How drastic changes is the general faf population ready for?

A lot can be changed just with numbers since in the past some tech levels for factions were practically intended to be skipped over, but that was considered a problem. Now the balance tries to force you to stay on each tech level for some period of time and the units are normalized accordingly. The fact that there's only 3 tech levels means there isn't much room to play around though. SCUs could be used as a remedy here. A cheaper quantum gate buildable by T2 engies with "T2 Experimental" tier SCUs could make up for power level variations and also make the game less linear.

The FAF community are not ready for radical change, and they shouldn't be, since this whole project is about keeping some old game alive with minor improvements, but mostly the same. It's an open source project, so it's explicitly design by committee and resistant to change by default.

Making significant changes would be difficult and take time, and anyone with the skill and motivation to do it would be far better off making their own game. You cannot make money from FAF, you cannot grow the community through balance changes, only potentially shrink it, you won't gain any respect or notoriety for your work, and The project is 99.9% guaranteed to die at some point soon, either through it's own stagnation, some technical issue, or a better game being released (hasn't happened for 16 years, but it's got to happen someday soon, right?).

The way it is now is the only way it can be, but we can dream about cool ideas and write them on the forum while we wait for someone with ambition to make the next game.

And tbf if someone really wants to play completely different, there is also the Loud-client. Definitely not my favorite... But it clearly doesn't involve the FAF-strategies and focuses on longer games...

I am not a supporter of balance in the opinion of the theme creator and would not like to see him in the balance manager, since he does not play this game professionally and looks more like a sid. But I agree with his wrote.

I also want to draw your attention! Not everything that can change will be for the better. They overthrew Ftx-a from the post of the community manager and now we have a poor quality of tournaments (Yudi loves Russians), tournaments once a year and the same lot, a rainbow stacked in my opinion, and an attempt to rectify the situation SWOKL Seasonal Tournaments. As a result, the ladder is abandoned, like leagues and other things. There is a double-edged sword here.

Give FTX the POWER!

Damn you lot have a lot of spare time

I agree FAF and its balance being run like a black box oligarchy is bad, but it is working for now and what you are proposing would be far worse than current system (all the gappers (90% of playerbase) voting to balance around gap on every change and even asking for new changes based only on gap)

last patch did some unneeded changes for no reason too in my opinion (nerf air crash damage from experimentals for example), the problem with current system is that changes seem to come from nothing, and to outsiders it looks like no one has any say whatsoever about any of the changes except for the few people who are already part of this secret society controlling the balance, we are just expected to accept anything that comes out of the black box without question

like will anything on the feedback thread or anywhere else (that wasn't said by a member of this secret society) ever have any effect on the balance changes at all or is the thread's and balance forums in general's existence just to give us that illusion and let us talk about the now-set-in-stone balance that we cannot do anything about, like it is some kind of natural phenomenon that can't be effected by the likes of us and we can only accept it, and in best case scenario possibly what we say may be heard by one of members of secret society so that they can consider it if they feel like it?

not that I know a better system to replace it with but this is what it looks like from outside

I concur 100% with the OP. Out with the old, in with the new.

Balance changes are bordering on ridiculous now, and we need to fire the entire balance team, immediately. Public elections held quarterly or bi-annually would be optimal, with back to back term limits implemented. I would like to see a two concurrent term maximum limit imposed, with the option of overriding by supermajority vote, should a councilor prove their mettle.

Far too long have nonsensical balance changes persisted. FAF needs a change.

Make it so.

p.s. For clarification a supermajority vote is one that is 67% - 90%(this could be adjusted in this range before making law).