@deribus Thanks for the detailed answer.
As an official structure, do you have certain indicators that you focus on when assessing the work of a project, in addition to the technical part?
For example, average online, the number of investments attracted, the number of user complaints...
It’s difficult to work without understanding what is progress and what is regression for FAF.
Thank you for your attention.
What the fuck are these questions even. Especially from someone who seems to not have a single game of FAF played ever.
What is this, an effin shareholder audit?
@sylph_ The problem with what you wrote is the transfer of balance from single player to multiplayer. If you do this, then you will get exactly what you wrote.
for example, a T2 fighter cannot shoot down a T3 bomber. If you didn't have time to build a fighter, then you lost.
or your ally has lost the air, you cannot do anything against Avasa or the king.
or your enemy beat the Moor in 30 minutes, you in 35. Most likely you will lose. and you can’t do anything else either. wasted time.
@endranii For real, a new account and basically only trolls this thread with these questions and has no games played. Seems legit.
@Broker I have no idea what you're trying to say but no FTX isn't alone in the game. Sometimes you'll lose to a strat rush though not often unless you're playing clown games, just like sometimes you'll lose to someone rushing gun on acu or rushing a monkey or whatever.
It's a team game. You win some, you lose some. If you're on average better than your opponent you'll on average win more. I think this is something someone said from another game, but imo it applies to FAF as well - 20% of games are lost from the start, 20% are won from the start, the other 60% is up to your level of play vs your opponents.
Strats have been nerfed so brutally I don't even use them anymore and find vastly more success forcing air snowballs via t3 gunships. Which also goes into why washer needs to be strong, sera has no t3 gunship for incremental t3 stage value and therefore operates in the extremes of complete destruction following a total air win or minimal damage if air is contested.
In fact I might go so far as the say strats became kinda bad unless you are facing someone two tiers below you in game skill. Only reason they are so prevalent in dual gap is because:
if you don’t want to change anything, then why these questions like proposals, discussions of balance, why are players leaving us?
let everything remain as it is. as you personally want. it's your right.
How is balance being discussed the sign of a dead game? This thread was made during the highest peak of players FAF had. Players leave for a variety of reasons, the biggest for FAF currently being the legion of connection issues/crashes cropping up during the last few months alongside more viable TA-like competitors existing.
Beyond that, FAF still needs to redo the onboarding test to see if signing up is still a disasterclass experience for the average user or not. Last time it was done, we had like half the test group fail to manage to get passed steamlinking. Dudes thinking balance is some problem for the game are delusional, the problems FAF has always had with regards for players isn't retention related, it's funnel related. Much of the players that manage to get through the current funnels are already too invested to face retention crybaby moments about balance, especially since they're irrelevant until they're hundreds of games in to comprehend the meta.
@ftxcommando you are not interested in any proposals other than your own.
It’s not clear then why these discussions are needed at all. other players have already written to you about this.
I'm sure that if I go into the game in five years, nothing will change.
I think you'll like it.
but others get bored.
There are 7 billion people living on earth, and how many do you have? this is a rhetorical question.
I think the discussion can end. bye
Nothing will change about the game in the next 5 years. Man, when was the last time you played steam or vanilla?
@ftxcommando said in Why would you have left FAF?:
Nah, you can make a game completely random. Can't tryhard RPS.
It always absolutely astonishes me that the same players win RPS tournaments from one year to the next!
I used to only imagine that 'professional' RPS games rely on some underlying community preconceptions about rock being aggressive, paper being defensive, and scissors being 'tricksy'; but having read about it a little, it seems that body-language 'tells' are probably more important. 
(Sorry for the digression - I agree with your point completely - the only way a game developer can cater to less-skilled players, IMO, is by introducing random elements. Game developers either cater to the best players, or make their game a dice roll!)
@broker said in Why would you have left FAF?:
the transfer of balance from single player to multiplayer
I assume you mean the balance from 1v1s, to team games?
(I absolutely don't mean to tell anyone how they 'should' play the game, and what I say in this post is simply trying to impart a bit of wisdom that has let me, personally, enjoy competitive videogames a little more, with a lot less frustration.)
I've always preferred 1v1 gaming. I had a brief stint of playing league of legends for a while, and it's ok for a shout, but at the end of the day, while I am delighted to lose when I've been outplayed, I absolutely cannot STAND losing because of something I was unable to control - it sucks all enjoyment out of a game for me.
I actually see this same dislike voiced often by gamers that play team games. I recognise that there must be some 'pull' that makes it worth weathering all those awful losses to RNG... But to be honest the only reasons I can usually see are "I like playing with my friends", "I like the free RNG wins more than I hate the free RNG losses", and a supcome-specific "I like a greater chance of someone building an experimental/lategame stuff".
I totally understand the motivation behind all of those reasons - except perhaps that third one - only because I've seen players quite able to force most of their 1v1 matches into T4, making me feel that the game is rather well designed to allow viable options for all types. Regarding the first 2 reasons - I encourage players that are at all annoyed to just play good 1v1 videogames. Playing team games competitively, for me, seems like an exercise in frustration, and the incredible rage in teamgame communities solidifies my thinking in this direction.
All that being said, I honestly don't see how FaF developers could 'cater to' casual players at all. Team games will still be won by the more skilled players, and weak players playing teamgames will still be losing... Granted, they'll get the odd 'free win' here and there, but thankfully FaF's efforts to balance teams seems to reduce that as much as possible - and I don't see a lot of players complaining about the automatic team balance not being accurate enough.
Still, if I better understood what it was, specifically, that you wanted from the game / devs, I could perhaps answer you better. I thought I understood you, and was answering accordingly, but I'm sorry if I was wrong. x
I really want FAF to become a commercial project... It's a pity that these are just dreams.....
Although there may be a chance that IP SupCom now belongs to Embracer Group. A Nordic Games is a subsidiary of Embracer Group and publisher of SC:FA.
You could ask them for money in exchange for some obligations. @Deribus as you wrote, you would find use for additional funds.
Perhaps there are good negotiators in the FAF structure... Past negotiations with Nordic Games were, in my opinion, extremely mediocre...
@broker said in Why would you have left FAF?:
single player it is company.
I don't understand what you're saying here...
'it is company?' - does that mean single player has company from the enemy players in a 1v1?
or?
What do you mean by 'it is company'?
(I'm sure a language barrier is a problem here)
