@blackyps said in Why would you have left FAF?:
The overarching goal is the open and continued development of the game. There is no single metric to be measured that stands above all
The topic has the title "Why would you have left FAF?". Then why is this topic needed? Can't keep audience. Well, people are leaving FAF, but that doesn’t matter, the main thing is to continue development. I think the topic can be closed.)
If people state certain pain points we can address them to the associated team and ask for prioritization.
"Nerds have a really complicated relationship with change: Change is awesome when WE'RE the ones doing it. As soon as change is coming from outside of us it becomes untrustworthy and it threatens what we think of is the familiar."
– Benno Rice
I don't think he understands you can't force volunteers to do things they don't want nor care about.
@nflanders said in Why would you have left FAF?:
Does FAF have no common goal? By goal, I mean a metric that can be measured, such as the number of players. Or do you not have a common goal and are you just free artists where everyone does what they want?
Correct, FAF has no single metric or collection of metrics that the leadership has agreed on as being the central point of having a FAF project at all.
There are many contributors with many different agendas, some of whom barely interact with each other. The "balance" scene is very different than the "AI development" scene, which overlaps somewhat with the "survival maps" scene, and then there's different kinds of mapmakers, etc.
Everyone is not just a "free artist." There is a leadership structure. People have more freedom the farther they get from the structure. The leadership is most protective of game balance and "vanilla" gameplay. People have more freedom to do whatever they want if they're not trying to mess with the vanilla game.
It's wrong to suggest that there are no goals in common. Even if not everyone thinks 1v1 balance is important, the devs who do work on 1v1 balance do think it is important. Even if not everyone thinks AstroGap matters, there are contributors who care about this and make new AstroGap maps.
We don't need to appoint a "CEO of FAF" to pick out 5 KPIs so he can tell us that 75% of the contributors are doing nothing useful because their contributions don't assist FAF in meeting his favorite KPIs
@snoog said in Why would you have left FAF?:
I don't think he understands you can't force volunteers to do things they don't want nor care about.
Congratulations. After two years of discussions and 500 messages, we finally figured out
Why 90% of new FAF players will be gone after 2 years.
Because the volunteers and management do (in addition to technical support, thank you for that) what they like, but this is not interesting to most players.
As @ftxcommando correctly noted, the main arrival of players comes from casts where people love to watch the spectacle and play astro with a beer in their hand, and they are the majority.
@sylph_ I don’t see any pleasure for myself in this. the balance is still made for combat nerds.
that they would snipe me or something else. build a mavor in 30 minutes or a strategic bobbander in 9 minutes. and I can’t do anything. Why do I need all this?
I want to sit down with beer and whiskey and build a lot of tanks and have a big battle.
but no one plays it. and there is no choice on the main page.
so I'd rather spend my time and money on a good steak and wine.
@nflanders said in Why would you have left FAF?:
Congratulations. After two years of discussions and 500 messages, we finally figured out
Why 90% of new FAF players will be gone after 2 years.
Because the volunteers and management do (in addition to technical support, thank you for that) what they like, but this is not interesting to most players.
As @ftxcommando correctly noted, the main arrival of players comes from casts where people love to watch the spectacle and play astro with a beer in their hand, and they are the majority.
This is a simple reality of a volunteer project like this. There is no solution other than funding magically appearing and being able to hire an actual workforce. As such there is really no reason for any of this discussion to be had.
Imagine how much more FAF would suck if all these people stuck around forever. If you could get rid of 100% of new players then everyone would be happy all the time and you wouldn't even need to do much tech support.
@broker said in Why would you have left FAF?:
@blackyps the game hasn't changed in any way.
At this point you are oversimplifying so much that you are making a fool of yourself.
Relaxed playing with a beer in your hand is just not what is easily possible in RTS. It's ok to want that, and I think that is precisely the reason why RTS will never be a genre for the masses, but FAF is about delivering a good RTS experience, so it will always be stressful to play well.
@thomashiatt not necessary. I understand that labor costs are important. so my suggestions are to minimize them.
@blackyps I suggested making two sets. for different players. In my proposal, labor costs are minimal. I understand it.
And so the game will remain a game of nerds. it's a pity.
although nothing prevents you from doing an experiment.
except for the desire and fear that now no one will play with nerds if there is an alternative)))
I only understood half of what you wrote, but everybody is encouraged to make a mod to produce different gameplay. In fact people already do that. The wars of glory mod changes quite radically how the game gets played. Maybe you should try it out
i dont understand the apporach why a game should be balanced around the capabilities of mediocore players. you are always free to make 1k max lobbies or what ever (sry i dont want to assume anybodys rating or ingame capabilities:P). but why it should be balanced for people who doesnt even understand how to play flowing economy, or who are just playing inefficient and spamming t2 pds by default around mexes and not even reclaiming or that are on their endless eco scale trip (dont forget to build 100 e storage like a pro). to many matches lasts too long because nobody uses hard fighted advantages and instead going for "35 min t4 rush". you are always free to play like this but you cant complain about that you cant keep up like this.
@snoog said in Why would you have left FAF?:
There is no solution other than funding magically appearing and being able to hire an actual workforce.
Is the whole problem a lack of money? Let's hypothetically say visionik appears and provides additional money. And who will manage this money? If it is fxcommando, then we will have a new super-duper rating system, ultra-mega balanced matchmaking and will hold several more tournaments, but this will not increase the popularity of FAF in any way since for the majority of the audience e-sports in FAF is not interesting.
I assume that in the report to shareholders FXcommando will write that stable online in FAF is his achievement as a person developing the FAF brand, without saying that in fact this is an achievement of streamers.
And what will money give in such cases?
@broker said in Why would you have left FAF?:
@blackyps I suggested making two sets. for different players. In my proposal, labor costs are minimal. I understand it.
And so the game will remain a game of nerds. it's a pity.
although nothing prevents you from doing an experiment.
except for the desire and fear that now no one will play with nerds if there is an alternative)))
Son, these are the faf forums. You are, in fact, a nerd.
