Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team
-
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).
-
The possibility of forking FAF is one of the best things about FAF. If somehow the community self-destructs, it can be born anew.
Asking wild mobs to adjust RTS balance through democratic votes is nonsensical. It would destroy any possibility of proper competitive matches. People would have to just learn how to exploit every new meta. Since every balance would be broken, we would get more and more balance changes to try to fix the brokenness, but without a coherent vision, it would just be random inexperienced mobs, every fix is likely to make things worse.
If you lock the top people out of having a say in FAF balance through "term limits" you can't expect them to sit back and quietly watch everything burn. Especially if you kick them all out at the same time.
-
A bad job is a bad job, arma473. Just because they have a high rating doesn't excuse them from poor choices. There are no excuses here. Change is due now.
-
@mr_blastman A bad job? What makes u someone who is able to claim changes are a bad job?
-
I think the balance team is overly conservative and too biased towards how balance impacts high-level play compared to how they impact most players. However, I think the balance team puts more thought into things than a lot of people realize. Part of the problem is that the balance team appears like this black box with seemingly sudden changes that can appear quite detached from what the general community thinks the focus should be. There should be more transparency. FWIW, while I still disagree with a number of the balance team's perspectives, after being able to view their discussion channel, my understanding of and respect for their thought-processes increased. Additionally, I think the situation would be greatly improved by the addition of several active lower/mid-rated non-voting members to the balance team. They could help guide the team's focus to better consider regular players' perspectives and concerns, while also helping out and connecting the balance team with the community more.
PS: FAF has been growing for years and is continuing to do so. With a relatively recent average of something like 5,000+ games per day, I'd expect it to continue to exist for many more years, even if good new games come out.
PPS: It would be nice if we could figure out some system for an alternative balance mod that doesn't have the practical disadvantages that regular mods do of getting people to join them. For example, if we could have a balance mod that is presented to players more like how featured mods are, but without the backend issues, that could be a helpful solution to the conservative versus progressive balance divide.
-
@spikeynoob said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
@mr_blastman A bad job? What makes u someone who is able to claim changes are a bad job?
- No concrete suggestions or ideas
- Plays one map
- Not even good at it
He’s built for a career in criticism
-
@spikeynoob said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
@mr_blastman A bad job? What makes u someone who is able to claim changes are a bad job?
My vote is just as qualified as anyone else. That's why everyone gets one vote.
-
@ftxcommando said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
@spikeynoob said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
@mr_blastman A bad job? What makes u someone who is able to claim changes are a bad job?
- No concrete suggestions or ideas
- Plays one map
- Not even good at it
He’s built for a career in criticism
Exactly, why not make suggestions then have them discussed rather than making baseless claims of a poor job being done. It would accomplish way more than complaining here.
@penguin_ said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
Additionally, I think the situation would be greatly improved by the addition of several active lower/mid-rated non-voting members to the balance team. They could help guide the team's focus to better consider regular players' perspectives and concerns, while also helping out and connecting the balance team with the community more.
I feel like a lot of this is accomplished from forum threads. Things like the bubble shield fix or the addition of UEF jamming on spy planes and strats was added directly from @ComradeStryker's posts (afaik ftx also had a bubble shield post so maybe im attributing idea to the wrong person) on the topic. Not that im opposed to the idea of adding more members.
-
The point of this thread is not individual balance changes, as mentioned by the OP, but the need for balance councilor changes.
Reading comprehension is hard, but I understand that real life is complicated, beyond the computer screen.
Have a nice day!
-
Speaking of votes and deciding how various aspects of FAF should be run, the FAF Association's annual general meeting is happening within a few weeks, and I'd like to encourage those who care about FAF and want to influence its future to consider joining. Click here to learn more.
pfp credit to gieb
-
Reading comprehension is hard so let's see if your inductive reasoning ability rotted away with age.
Reality: FAF provides player with the democratic ability to play and create whatever maps they want to.
Reality: With this ability, players converge to playing heavily passive maps with simple meta
Proposal: Have a balance team that is democratically voted
Outcome: The passive, simple maps become the new frame of reference and as balance is fixed to make them "better" you get new simple, passive maps and the cycle continues anew.
-
@penguin_ said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
Speaking of votes and deciding how various aspects of FAF should be run, the FAF Association's annual general meeting is happening within a few weeks, and I'd like to encourage those who care about FAF and want to influence its future to consider joining. Click here to learn more.
Should be stated it's very pointedly NOT the job of the Board nor the Association to micromanage teams. They have their own independent statutes governing how they operate that were agreed upon by the people doing the work and the Board in turn.
In fact this exact scenario and your attempt to bring the Board in as a solution is the exact doomsday situation that made half the people in the Association worried about it existing when it was first being proposed.
-
I actually wasn't trying to bring the Board into this..... I was trying to encourage people to participate in the Association and thinking some might draft some proposals as well.....
pfp credit to gieb
-
@lord_asmodeus said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
-- Fire beetles are by far not obsolete.
Beetles mentioned
1 T2 transport with 1 mobile stealth gen and 5 fire beetles can wipe an air grid.
3 T2 transports of Medusas are about as expensive, as hard to get to the enemy air grid as 1 transport, need less micro, can target T2+ mexes as well as pgens and out-DPS beetles mass-for-mass after 2 volleys.
They can be used to clear large armies of units.
Why not just make more rhinos so you have a bigger army? They shoot all the time and need way less micro.
They can be used as a fast attack and wipe upgrading mexes.
Mantis also can for a fraction of the cost, and they don't kill themselves on a T1 mex.
Hell you can use them in your army to snipe acu's
If you made enough beetles to make it through, you could've made more rhinos to the same effect.
-
3 transports are easier to see
Medusas provide more reaction time (means you can stop chain pgen explosion)
Cybran can't win a war of attrition against pillar or blaze spam with rhinos due to mobile shields existing. Beetles force ACUs to stop pushing and trade efficiently with both of these units by getting under shields and into clumps.
Ah, beetle drops are also significantly less telegraphed because nobody is going to see the beetles in your base, just a t2 transport which can exist for a billion other reasons.
-
@penguin_ said in Title: A Time For Change: FAF Community Balance Team:
thinking some might draft some proposals as well.....
Proposals like what? Changing how balance team gets appointed?
-
Transports can stack on top of each other. It doesn't matter if you have 1, 3 or 5, it's about as easy to maneuver them around enemy vision. I made beetle drops with T1 transports, I know. Actually it's better since only 1 transport needs mobile stealth.
Since you're not reaching a T3 air grid if you get scouted along the way, you actually get more of a drop since you can drop stealthed and medusas will start firing once they get in range. And of course you can just start killing mexes in 3 different places, something a single transport of beetles can't really do. -
Beetles aren't intended to kill mexes, of course medusas are better. The post you quoted was primarily talking about air grids which I have seen plenty of successful beetle snipes on even in late t3 air stage. Medusa drops are going to fail because they miss decent dps in initial volleys and the first 5 seconds are absolutely imperative in making those sort of drops work. Beetles give near zero time to react and the lack of experience with how to notice they're happening just adds to their efficiency in that.
Even with all of that, 2 beetles going around killing loose t2 mexes in a large 2v2 map is way harder to notice and stop than a random group of mantis.
-
Alright, I suppose beetles are better specifically at ambushing air grids, if nothing else. I still can't imagine a map where a T2 mex would be raidable by 2 beetles (implying no radar) and where at the same time 8 mantis or a corsair wouldn't do the same job better.
Regarding stopping ACU pushes, T2 PDs can do the same thing more reliably and without killing themselves.
