Because it is an addiction.
Why would you have left FAF?
@fiercelv At least it doesn't use any of the predatory marketing tactics, like dailies, loot boxes. Well, there is that pathetic attempt at achievements, but no one cares about them.
@wainan Getting your butt whipped enough should be a call to the senses of any player who likes to win, and he should change his strategy. Watch and study the replay asking certain questions as to what was done, what were the consequences, why the winning player won (and why the losing player lost). This is the only way to improve. If players do this they will improve the most. That requires critical thinking skill and impulses to employ it for this purpose. That's the type of player who should learn to watch and analyze replays.
Example: Player likes to jump to t2 for whatever reason, and undervalues t1 units. This player is a lot like the chess player who undervalues pawns or certain pieces. He should learn the many ways t1 is underestimated by reviewing games where the winning opponent whipped his teching aspirations with t1 "spam".
Example: Player likes to turtle up and eschews map control (usually until he can overwhelm with tech superiority). Now it is a turtle match, and he should review how such a strategy can work or be broken in his own games until he learns to defeat it, or even to improve it (I've seen it work when done just right against the right opponent, or under the right circumstances). He'll be humiliated by the turtle until he learns how to crack it. Watching a replay where he learned what was strong about the turtle (his shell) and where he was weak (trapped in that shell) w
Many more examples of what to notice in one's games and the way to approach replay study. Also many players don't watch casts attentively so as to learn from them. Watch a cast with an active mind. They should play plenty of 1v1 matches also. That forces you to take all responsibility, cover all contingencies, command all types of units in all battlespaces. That's where the true skill lies anyway. When beaten, study the opponent's play and learn what he did right, and conversely ask what one could have done better. Did he take over the map? Did I notice or did I lack intel? I have done this enough that I don't even need to replay certain types of games (win or lose) because I can say outright what happened. I see proof of this when I play the same opponent again, I correct my deficit, and I do better and I can tell it is for that reason I ascertained (someone is active around the map, I have early t2 radar, I am doing better, what a surprise).
All this hand-holding stuff is out of question for long-term growth. It's the wrong focus. This is an academy of warriors. But for the casual gamer, decent guides and some webspace devoted to their issues and play interests would be good. But the cutoff from someone who is purely a casual to a true enjoyer of battle is too sharp to overcome with rose petals. ==
Here's a good video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2KbEQAzuN8
Here's a good website:
https://supcom.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Strategies
There is plenty more where that came from.
If a player can't benefit from things like this, then they are outside of the Mystery of the Infinite War. If they are within the Mystery of the Infinite War, then this won't be enough. Their thirst for victory and their rancor at defeat will be their guide to further improvement.
This guy, The Green Squier [sic] is a great example of good tutorials that are on youboob these days. his link as follows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c-tUPtIfgs
Here's a good one from the same author:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzYdv1S5XLk
You are using a client in Java environment in year 2024 and are you surprised that users leave or don't even try to start? Be serious.
I find that the answer to why someone would stop something overlaps with the answer to another question: What is missing that, if present, would make it more enjoyable? One thing that is missing is the achievements board on the personal profile. It is even worse that it shows but also doesn't function, as I can imagine a lot of them would have lit up by now just from my recent two months back after a 9 year hiatus. I can imagine that if my crusty and bloodyminded self could like it then a kid or any adult with an even sweeter temperament and even more sensation-craving child or any adult novice would drool over it a lot more with that function working. The fact that seeing it not working pains me as much as it does tells me that a lot of people who have left, might have stayed, if only that worked. Focus more on QoL changes as well and you will see expansion. Remember, in FAF world, expansion is essential. Even if we can't expand numerically and "control more of the map" as far as people joining go, we can keep more and make the turtle stronger by enhancing the quality it has for those who, after even 9 years, never really left. That's an aesthetic thing, but think about all the aesthetics that go into the game, and which were there in some ways at the TA stage, and have only gotten better. Aesthetics is desirable not only in the game content, but also in the experience of interfacing with the gaming platform. You have to put more life into it to give it more life in this way. So fix that eyesore and I bet you'll see improvements in retention and joinership.
P.S. If you guys ever actually DO fix it (fingers crossed, the world is in hunger games mode, but just dangle the right carrot in front of the right NEET and even he'll probably do it for some choice compliments and a digital or electronic item), PLEASE make it as retroactive possible! Have it run a tally of all games already on record and use all their data to update profiles so everyone can enjoy the benefit. It takes time, and people can wait (they're already waiting whether they know it or not), but it happens sooner the sooner it gets done. Imagine over time growing a plant. You water it a little every day. Demonstrate your... affinity with the game, with gamesmanship, and with the spirit of bloodsport itself by bestowing trophies for excellence and determination, and you will see more people desiring to achieve it within the game, and more people who already do doing it more.
I look at it this way. Your intuition to include it in the first place was either well to the purpose or not. If not, why was it done in the first place? If it was, then the motive to do it to completion is manifest in proportion to the difficulty of the work. Maybe....
Have a fundraiser for it...
"Do you want this fixed? Donate the needed funds for me to take time away from other things and get it done."
And if the people here want it, they get it that way. That's crowdsourcing. So croudsource it.
@fiercelv said in Why would you have left FAF?:
Because it is an addiction.
I am totally addicted to Supreme Commander - Forged Alliance (Forever).
Seriously, quitting FAF is hard.
The Honorable Recall
Here's a current frustration of mine, and a suggestion for a solution...
I'm not very good at this game, partly because I'm not particularly good at video games in general, and because I developed bad habits specifically with SupCom, as I wasn't aware of FAF, only played Vanilla, and got addicted to being able to pause the game and treat it like a turn-based game. I have at various times forced myself to play against human opponents but quickly got consistently beaten by low ranked players, resulting in a sub-zero rating and enough frustration to cause me to put the game down many times.
Recently I've started playing again, and while I don't think I'll ever be able to play according to the widely-agreed upon META, I have changed a few things that I do so that I can play more strategically... so that I can focus more on growth of my economy, my production, and my tech level, and focus less on where my tanks are. I've been playing against DilliDalli and M27 and have developed a way of playing that has resulted in more success than I've ever had against those AIs, and that I've developed muscle memory for, to the point where I no longer need to pause the game in the first couple of minutes to keep up with the requirements of setting things up properly. I feel as though I have a better understanding of the true nature of the game and what is required in order to improve and be more successful, and now I would like to start playing human opponents again.
Problem is, that I've been sitting here waiting for the Matchmaker to give me a game for the last 3 hours. This isn't a fault of the Matchmaker - this is the fault of my -45 1v1 rating. People who have been as bad as me usually don't stick around for continued punishment and frustration, and rightly so, players who are better than me don't want to waste their time playing someone with a -45 rating.
This isn't a complaint about the Matchmaker - I am happy to keep waiting for a game - but I do have a suggestion that might help people in my situation - allow AI to be an opponent for very low rated players so they have a chance to demonstrate that they have improved. I won't be able to reliably get matched unless my rating increases, and I can't increase my rating without getting matched. There should be some sort of "release valve" at the bottom of the 1v1 ladder to help returning players who feel they have improved to resurrect their ratings, and maybe one of the better AI mods could serve as this release valve.
@zappazapper
May I ask what timezone you're in aka. when you are searching?
For AIs in MatchMaker:
There has been a discussion on the FAF discord which I recommend checking out. It was quite a while back (prob a few months) so I can't remember any details about it sadly.
Besides that if you can beat M27 consistantly in 1v1s, you should be able to beat ~700 rated players as well, so I don't think your "skill" is a problem. I suggest to look for some other players to play with, if you search together the average rank is the only metric the system cares for so you can probably get more matches. Ofc it's not the ideal solution (as a bigger playerbase would fix quite everything), but it's the one I can give you
Required rating for participation in balance talks when?
@sladow-noob I'm in Toronto. I just tried turning on the Matchmaker this morning. I understand that there are times of the day that are more ideal than others to find games, and now might not be one of those times. But I'm sitting here looking at the "IN QUEUE" number go up to 5 or 6 at times, so obviously someone is playing. Again, I'm not suggesting that the Matchmaker is unfairly keeping me from playing. What I'm suggesting is that one of the things that causes ME to stay away from the game at times is the frustration due to lack of success, so anyone who is an appropriate opponent for my rating, as judged by the Matchmaker, is possibly also frustrated enough to not bother playing. I understand that a similar problem of high-rated players also finding it hard to be matched up also exists - in that case, I'm sure those players would agree that an AI that is a worthy opponent for a +2000 rated player doesn't currently exist, so the discussion on whether AI should be allowed in rated games in that context is moot. But as you suggest, M27 certainly should be a worthy opponent for anyone with a sub-zero rating, and could function as a way to get ratings up enough to generate some attention from the Matchmaker. Just my two cents, in the context of a discussion about "player retention".
Just joined recently. A few thoughts.
- When you're rating 0, I've found it takes a very long time to find matches on matchmaking
- For custom games, probably 50% of the games have a lag issue that causes the game to pause for 2m before you can kick someone. I feel like it should be pretty easy to determine that in the lobby with some type of ping test. Also on team games then the game is pretty much ruined. Super annoying.
- Maybe 10% of the games I play on large maps like dual gap (some of the funnest maps) straight up crash after 45m of play. Extremely annoying. (https://forum.faforever.com/topic/7335/game-keeps-crashing-on-dual-gap)
- I feel like a good number of people play with friends from word of mouth, but you can't usually be on the same team as them due to balance issues if they're new. Makes it way less fun.
- You spend a lot of time waiting in lobbies. A lot. Feels unusual for typical games.
Also I think it would be nice to have a simple optional walkthrough of changes with faf compared to the original game for new players
Also after meeting up with some people I learned about all the micro stuff you have to do with your commander in order to remain competitive. Such as move your commander to a spot before selecting to build something so that it's in range. Moving units to dodge artillery. Same for subs. Personally I don't like any aspect of micro stuff, I feel like it should be automated. Why can't the com get just close enough to build something, why is the default to walk right up to it? idk but to me the micro aspects of the game don't add to the fun.
@jfuruness Most RTS games have some form of micro, some more than others. I'd say FAF falls on the less than others side of the spectrum. It's just part of the genre and there's 0% chance the stuff you mentioned will be automated. That said, the build range thing is something that other RTSs manage to do much better. It seems to be one of the game engine's quirks.
@zappazapper said in Why would you have left FAF?:
@sladow-noob But I'm sitting here looking at the "IN QUEUE" number go up to 5 or 6 at times, so obviously someone is playing.
That's not a lot sadly. It's not uncommon that the numbers during primetime are in between 20 and 35.
There was a feature on the old client with "A player in your rating range is searching for a game" which was brought up recently again, but I cannot tell you the current state or its priority. That might fix the problem.
Regarding the AIs: Personally I'd not mind it, but it has some counter arguments which is the reason it's not a simple decision to make and the playerbase is a problem again. From what I remember, player A doesn't want AI, player B wants AI. Solution: Toggle the option "Get AI" on/off with each player. Problem: Playerbase, so if a single player doesn't want an AI, everyone else can't get it if they get matched.
Not saying that you're wrong or that your idea makes no sense, don't get me wrong please as I highly appreciate any feedback, just giving some input here for you (and others) to read as "We're aware of the problem and input is appreciated"
Required rating for participation in balance talks when?
@jfuruness said in Why would you have left FAF?:
Also I think it would be nice to have a simple optional walkthrough of changes with faf compared to the original game for new players
May I ask what exactly you mean? It exists for the most important balance changes, or are you thinking of "What to find where in the client" or "how to setup lobbies" etc.?
Required rating for participation in balance talks when?
@jfuruness said in Why would you have left FAF?:
Also after meeting up with some people I learned about all the micro stuff you have to do with your commander in order to remain competitive. Such as move your commander to a spot before selecting to build something so that it's in range. Moving units to dodge artillery. Same for subs. Personally I don't like any aspect of micro stuff, I feel like it should be automated. Why can't the com get just close enough to build something, why is the default to walk right up to it? idk but to me the micro aspects of the game don't add to the fun.
Some problems lie in the source as FAF does not have the permission for it (at least afaik), so there are functions which cannot be changed without having to recode the entire game.
When talking about micro and macro, every RTS game obviously has both. FAF is by far one of the RTS games which are on the macro side. While it's true that decent micro is needed for the upper ratings, it's not a strict requirenment in lower ranked lobbies. Usually the call "use your ressources efficient (macro) and do not just suicide 30 tanks into some t1 PDs (small micro)" is enough to stay competitive.
Required rating for participation in balance talks when?