@nflanders
There is a lot you don't know about.
FAF was bought free (money exchanged against making all source code open source) by a successful businessman who also ran it at cost of multiple thousands of euros per month (imho not offering not much more money as what we achieve now with 200€ a month). He has contacts to the game industry. He had the money. Money wasn't an issue back then. Lack of interest on the sellers side was and still is.
There was an unconfirmed rumor that there was one developer who had the source code but was legally not allowed to have it (contractors or ex-employees are not allowed to keep it) and as such he feared to give it away until we earned the rights. But as I said it was a rumor.
Why would you have left FAF?
"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
@nflanders said in Why would you have left FAF?:
Please tell me in which topic can I ask a question about modding (lua scripts)? I did not find...
My main reason for leaving is that I'm terrible and I get frustrated and I wonder if it's a good use of my time to play a game that I'm not very good at. But that's my issue and not something that anyone needs to do anything to solve.
However, I will say that a couple of years ago I was playing a little more often than usual, spending a little more time researching things that I can improve upon, having discussions here on the forum, and I ended up pulling away from it because of the way the topic of player improvement was discussed. I didn't really agree with the general ideology. It seems to me that the prevailing goal of those who are in a position to advise players on how to improve their game is to generate as many high-rated players as possible. I understand where this comes from - those players who have high ratings struggle to find games with other high-rated players, making the game less enjoyable for them. But if this is a discussion on player retention, might I suggest that the goal should be to raise the GENERAL level of play. When I was discussing my own abilities with some high-rated players, it was suggested that I start playing 6 hours a day with some real pros so that I can get my rating up to 2k+. Other than the fact that I don't have 6 hours a day to play FAF, I think there was an assumption that it was that important to me to be a 2k+ rated player, or that I'm even capable of being a 2k+ rated player. It was suggested that 2k+ rated players are just like the rest of us, they just practice more. I know from being a musician and an occasional purveyor of guitar lessons that some people have a natural affinity for some things and some people don't, and while working on things that one struggles with is important regardless of talent, some people just don't rise above a certain level no matter how much they work at it. Anyway, I got the feeling that because my goal wasn't to be a 2k+ rated player, not to mention that I don't feel like I have the talent to be, that I was a lost cause and not worth helping. Also, I find the tutorials in the FAF application to be similarly designed to generate the most high-rated players, instead of teaching basic concepts and skills that will, for example, help a 100 rated player be a 500 rated player. It just seems like that isn't much of a priority. I feel like the tutorials could be a great opportunity to help low-rated players while allowing the higher-rated players to spend their time finding people that have the potential to get to their level, but as it stands now, those tutorials are much too fast, much too confusing, much to involved. The first tutorial immediately gets into a rather complicated build order in the first 30 seconds. We need something much simpler.
@zappazapper FWIW, I'm relatively new (2-3 months?), and only seek a 'midrange' of skill (in 1v1 matches, mostly).
I absolutely love discussing what 'lifted' me to the dizzy-heights of 'utterly mediocre' - especially given that a TON of it is really, really quick stuff anyone can apply without hours of practice daily!
If you ever fancy messaging me on discord, here, or ingame, I'd be very happy to play some games or just go over everything I've learned to basically beat sub-600 rating players easily.
If you're already above 600 rating in 1v1, and it's un-fun for you... We must just disagree on 'fun'. I can undertand a player that never wins feeling frustrated, but at around 800-900, I meet loads of players better or worse than me, and have lots of fun in match-making matches!
(And FWIW, it kinda bothers me that so much winning power here lies in knowing certain hotkeys, 'tricks', and maybe even some mods to help; so I really want lower-end players to know all these things that make winning easier.)
@sylph_ no I'm more than a sub-600 player. I'm a sub-zero player. I played vanilla against the computer for years, developed many bad habits that are hard to break, like pausing the game to give me time to react, and now that I'm older and more responsible in my real life, I just don't have the time to spend to really do what I have to do to improve. I'm generally not that good at video games to begin with and I'm even worse at this one, but I really enjoy it, at least I enjoy the idea of it, but when I play it's often very frustrating and because I'm trying to be more responsible in my real life, it's hard to justify playing a game that makes me want to break my TV. But like I said, that's my own situation and it's not FAF's job to change to suit me. I'm talking about player retention in general, and why some new or low-rated players might not stick around long. The hardest part for me is finding things I can do to improve on small aspects of the game. Trying to improve my reclaim skills, for example, is hard to do in-game because there's a billion other things I have to worry about just to stay alive long enough. I always tell myself I'm going to do more reclaim but I always end up getting behind on something else and then I get stomped. So that's why I suggested the tutorials should be really dumbed down and simplified so that you can have the opportunity to focus on something like reclaim in a situation where you can build that skill and then use them in more complex situations. I've tried I don't know how many times to do that first tutorial on the FAF application and I just don't understand how anyone is supposed to memorize a build-order like that, and there isn't even much explanation as to why we're supposed to build those particular units in that particular order, and build these structures in this particular order, and use this engineer to build this and the next one to reclaim. I could memorize how to beat that tutorial and then never come away with anything I could use on a different map. The tutorials seem to assume that the player already understands more than a new player would, or they seem to be designed by high-rated players and targeted at mid-level players. To use another music analogy, the best guitarists are not always the best guitar teachers.
@zappazapper said in Why would you have left FAF?:
no I'm more than a sub-600 player. I'm a sub-zero player. I played vanilla against the computer for years, developed many bad habits that are hard to break, like pausing the game to give me time to react, and now that I'm older and more responsible in my real life, I just don't have the time to spend to really do what I have to do to improve. I'm generally not that good at video games to begin with and I'm even worse at this one, but I really enjoy it, at least I enjoy the idea of it
I totally get where you're coming from, especially when you mentioned the 'training' on discord being geared towards making more grandmasters, rather than getting players to an 'average' rating.
FWIW I'm also middle-aged (over 40 now, yikes!), and feel my reactions faltering (more in games like streetfighter than supreme commander, but it's always there!)
I play maybe 8 matches a week. I know this is quite a lot for players at this level of commitment, but bear in mind I've only been playing FaF for a few months (I played the original game in 2007 a little - but not as much as I've played FaF, now!)
I am generally much better at videogames than my other hobbies like dancing and papercrafts though, though - I'm aware that there's a 'natural' element to it all.
With all that said, we should totally chat in the game ('Sylph_') or discord ('Sylph'). I didn't do any ingame tutorials, I tried the advised build-orders in the discord training sticky-threads, but gave up on them, preferring simpler stuff!
I'd be elated to play matches, go over old games or share all the things that helped me the most though. I honestly think that there are things anyone can visit:
- with the UI (keybinding with commands like : "copy orders" or "select nearest onscreen idle MEX' -> 'upgrade structure" - are really good for building bases or scaling economy without spending much attention at crucial moments, not to mention the (far) more well-documented 'spread move' and 'set target priority' commands),
- outside of a match (factory queue templates - so that pressing tab-leftclick makes a new factory spam a big, versatile combat army),
- that don't require a large mental stack during a match (easy-to-remember build orders like: factory, 2power, 2MEX, 2power, 2MEX, 2power, factory - (a palindrome!) done before anything happens), and
- habits that can make complicated-sounding issues really simple (like how I have 'select idle engineer' bound to tilde, so I can just spam "tilde -> alt+rightclick" around the map to sort out reclaim in seconds.)
These kinds of things are certainly not going to be winning us tournaments, they result in having antiair units even when enemy don't build air, sub-optimal reclaim paths, queuing energy storage even when it wasn't needed, and so on.
But they are 'enough' to play a solid ladder game - with many of the important parts quite automatic or effortless; easily enough to be taking matches off ratings that are apparently more than 75% of the community!
I'd happily go over more detail over personal messages to you, or anyone else, who wants to listen to me waffle. I might even make a youtube tutorial with a focus on getting to 'average'.
Perhaps most importantly, I'd watch replays or live games and give feedback at this low level of play. Bear in mind, I'm no pro - I remember very clearly (just a few months back) when I was losing to everyone and had no idea of how to get an edge - which might just put me in a better position to help raise the lower ranks than 'pro' players - sometimes when they've been good for ages, people take for granted the millions of things they're learned! I aren't good, and have only been learning a few months, so I know very well exactly what the 'big' jumps have been down to!
All that being said, I know you weren't asking for training, you were commenting on what might improve player retention, and I think you're hitting a very important point - I've seen players online feeling utterly un-motivated after losing games with no idea of what the problem is, or even why they are getting matched against people with whom they can't compete. You're quite right, accessibility to the 'basic' game is very important for its longevity - and I think it's pretty important that the players winning matches against these newcomers or struggling players are often using hundreds of little UI and control edges that can add up to a monumental advantage.
It's my belief that all these little 'tricks' need to be better spread among the non-pro playerbase - they make a massive difference.
I would leave this game for the same reason most veterans would leave, massive, drastic changes to the core gameplay. Its the exact reason I left Star craft 2. every year the game changes completely. instead of doing things to help raise the skill ceiling, you nerf or strengthen units. So players who have a good understanding of economic and tactical gameplay get nerfed, and slower players get their hand held because it now takes longer for them to die.
@prophet Name one change in the past 3 years that required relearning core gameplay mechanics
E storage adjacency buff and t3 mass fab rework (both impact optimal scaling depending on situation)
Honestly I don't think that's enough of a change for core gameplay mechanics.
I would say the older changes such as these effects core gameplay
E storage for overcharge
T1 to t2 mass fab
Engie mod
Creation of T3 maa
The only change that has been mentioned that I think would count as actually having to relearn core gameplay is engy mod and that was more than 3 years ago. E storage and mass fab changes are relatively speaking so trivial that for anyone even remotely competent at the game it would take little to no effort at all to account for. And if you’re not somewhat competent they’re not big enough changes to matter whatsoever for you anyway.
@exselsior said in Why would you have left FAF?:
The only change that has been mentioned that I think would count as actually having to relearn core gameplay is engy mod and that was more than 3 years ago. E storage and mass fab changes are relatively speaking so trivial that for anyone even remotely competent at the game it would take little to no effort at all to account for. And if you’re not somewhat competent they’re not big enough changes to matter whatsoever for you anyway.
Not just more than 3, that was like 9 or 10 years ago (2013-2014)
@zappazapper said in Why would you have left FAF?:
I didn't really agree with the general ideology. It seems to me that the prevailing goal of those who are in a position to advise players on how to improve their game is to generate as many high-rated players as possible. I understand where this comes from - those players who have high ratings struggle to find games with other high-rated players, making the game less enjoyable for them.
I'm sorry to hear you didn't get a great experience when asking for help. May I ask whether it was a random guy on the FAF-forum, Discord or client or if it was an "official" trainer?
Cuz I'm honest, we trainers don't have a guide we have to follow. Each one of us has an individual teaching-style and different methodes. E.g. I do aim to bring people into the 1500+ rank, but that's not because I simply want them to be high ranked, but because I cannot say how deep I should explain e.g. the t1 stage in 1v1s so the player becomes roughly a 1200 ranked dude. However when someone is dm'ing me for training, I always give them a warning that my goal is to bring them into the higher bracket.
That's why we have more lower ranked trainers as well. E.g. if someone is a regular 1200 ranked trainer, he simply can't bring you up to 1800 or even 2000 as you mentioned. He can explain the stuff and bring you onto his level.
Overall if a trainer doesn't match your expectations, please don't hesitate to either ask in the training-channel where everyone can answer (normal "low" ranked users as well) or to look for a different trainer. It's not a shame to switch if their style doesn't fit you.
Thank you for your detailed explanation though, I'll keep it in mind when following the discussions on the Discord.
Required rating for participation in balance talks when?
@zappazapper If you're just trying to get from 0 to 750 or 1k, I think my guide should get you there. It explains the things that I found surprising when I shifted from playing against the AI to playing against humans. The beginner parts of the guide are only a few pages long (parts 1-3).
If you read through the beginner part of the guide, and make an effort to learn how to spam t1 tanks for the first 10 minutes of a match, you can learn fundamentals like map control, scouting, and raiding, and you can get far enough into the match that you can do fun stuff like making t2 mexes or making a t2 air snipe, or however you want to play it.
For most people who are stuck at zero rating, they fall behind early in the match and then their opponents don't have to make smart choices, they can just do whatever and they will still win simply from inertia from having a big eco advantage.