Addressing the Decline of 1v1: A Proposal for a More Balanced FAF Experience
-
@TheWeakie
excuses cuz u should queue 1v1 more!
-
Hey everyone,
I want to bring up something that’s been bothering me (and I’m sure I’m not alone): the constant push for new players to jump into 1v1s way too early.
Let’s be honest — 1v1 is the hardest mode in FAF. It demands precise builds, perfect micro, tight macro, and deep map knowledge. These are things that take time to develop. Yet we keep acting like it’s the ideal starting point. In reality, for most new players, it’s a miserable experience. And if you’ve ever watched a sub-800 1v1 replay, you know what I mean.
People sit in custom lobbies, playing teamgames like dual gap or TMM, and yeah, they might not be great, but at least they’re learning without getting absolutely obliterated in 5 minutes.
After thinking about it, I believe we need a systemic shift. Not more pressure to play 1v1, but actual protection from it.
Here’s my proposal:
Lock ranked 1v1 behind a basic teamgame threshold.
Let’s say:
• You need 50 global games played before ranked 1v1 unlocks
• Optional booster: If you hit 1100+ global, you can skip the last 10
• Exceptions can be reviewed manually by a balance councilor under strict criteriaI know this might sound counterintuitive to the “git gud” crowd, but hear me out. This would:
• Allow new players to develop basic eco, build awareness, and unit control in a more forgiving environment
• Prevent the ranked 1v1 ladder from being filled with clueless new players who don’t even scout
• Make 1v1 games actually competitive again, not 10-minute stomps with no mex grabbing or factory timing
• Improve retention by not throwing people into the meat grinder on day oneLet’s stop treating 1v1 like a rite of passage, and start treating it like what it is: the endgame.
After all, you wouldn’t hand a bronze StarCraft player a keyboard and say “go play Code S GSL.” So why are we doing the same in FAF?
Curious to hear serious feedback on this. I know it might ruffle the feathers of the 1v1 purists, but it’s time we rethink what “learning FAF” really means.
Additions:
According to FAFDB analytics, over 73% of players below 900 global have never played a single 1v1. And maybe that’s a good thing. It’s not a stat to lament — it’s a sign that new players are gravitating toward the modes where they can actually improve without ragequitting after two games.
Even Tagada once said in a cast, “Teamgames are where players go to plateau. 1v1 is where you learn to play the game.” But maybe that’s exactly why we shouldn’t throw new players into it until they’re ready.
-
@waffelzNoob said in Addressing the Decline of 1v1: A Proposal for a More Balanced FAF Experience:
Hey everyone,
I want to bring up something that’s been bothering me (and I’m sure I’m not alone): the constant push for new players to jump into 1v1s way too early.
Let’s be honest — 1v1 is the hardest mode in FAF. It demands precise builds, perfect micro, tight macro, and deep map knowledge. These are things that take time to develop. Yet we keep acting like it’s the ideal starting point. In reality, for most new players, it’s a miserable experience. And if you’ve ever watched a sub-800 1v1 replay, you know what I mean.
People sit in custom lobbies, playing teamgames like dual gap or TMM, and yeah, they might not be great, but at least they’re learning without getting absolutely obliterated in 5 minutes.
After thinking about it, I believe we need a systemic shift. Not more pressure to play 1v1, but actual protection from it.
Here’s my proposal:
Lock ranked 1v1 behind a basic teamgame threshold.
Let’s say:
• You need 50 global games played before ranked 1v1 unlocks
• Optional booster: If you hit 1100+ global, you can skip the last 10
• Exceptions can be reviewed manually by a balance councilor under strict criteriaI know this might sound counterintuitive to the “git gud” crowd, but hear me out. This would:
• Allow new players to develop basic eco, build awareness, and unit control in a more forgiving environment
• Prevent the ranked 1v1 ladder from being filled with clueless new players who don’t even scout
• Make 1v1 games actually competitive again, not 10-minute stomps with no mex grabbing or factory timing
• Improve retention by not throwing people into the meat grinder on day oneLet’s stop treating 1v1 like a rite of passage, and start treating it like what it is: the endgame.
After all, you wouldn’t hand a bronze StarCraft player a keyboard and say “go play Code S GSL.” So why are we doing the same in FAF?
Curious to hear serious feedback on this. I know it might ruffle the feathers of the 1v1 purists, but it’s time we rethink what “learning FAF” really means.
Additions:
According to FAFDB analytics, over 73% of players below 900 global have never played a single 1v1. And maybe that’s a good thing. It’s not a stat to lament — it’s a sign that new players are gravitating toward the modes where they can actually improve without ragequitting after two games.
Even Tagada once said in a cast, “Teamgames are where players go to plateau. 1v1 is where you learn to play the game.” But maybe that’s exactly why we shouldn’t throw new players into it until they’re ready.
This is clearly AI. Please keep the discussion serious and productive.
-
Hey everyone,
I want to bring up something that’s been bothering me (and I’m sure I’m not alone): the almost complete lack of respect for Astrocrater maps.
Let’s be honest — Astrocrater is the true core of high-level FAF. It teaches optimized base layouts, super-efficient eco scaling, and demands synchronized teamwork in ways that 1v1 simply can’t replicate. But nowadays, people avoid it like it’s homework.
They sit in custom lobbies all day, spamming 5x5 clown fiestas and unranked ladder maps, and then wonder why they can’t finish a nuke before minute 20 and blame T1 landspam.After thinking about it, I believe we need a systemic solution — not just encouragement, but a structural incentive.
Here’s my proposal:
Make Astrocrater games mandatory for new players (and especially smurfs) before they can access 1v1 or non-team TMM.
Let’s say:
• 150 ranked Astrocrater games minimum before ladder unlocks, 3 Crater games for every global one
• Optional booster: if you finish a Paragon before min 20 without stalling, you can skip the last 5 games
• Exceptions can be reviewed manually by a Crater Councilor but should follow strict guidelines. To speed up this development, I volunteer Zwaffel for crater councilor teamlead.I know this sounds harsh, but hear me out. This would:
• Teach basic scaling, adjacencies, and hotkey management before someone becomes a solo liability
• Improve the overall quality of FAF matches (no more teammates forgetting power or second air)
• Double the Astrocrater scene without needing to have to host a lobby myself
• Reduce the load on the moderation team (because reports from crater games are discarded by default)Let’s treat Astrocrater not as an optional map, but as a rite of passage.
After all, you wouldn’t let someone into a 1v1 if they can’t even make a grid-aligned base without spilling over onto the territory of their allies, right?
Curious to hear serious feedback on this. I’m aware it might ruffle some feathers, but I think it’s time we consider more radical steps if we want FAF to grow in a healthy, symmetrical, team-based direction.
Additions:
According to FAFDB analytics, over 1% of players below 900 global have never played a single AstroCrater match. That’s not just a statistic — that’s a galactic oversight.
Even Tagada once said in a cast, ‘1v1 is where you learn to click fast. Crater is where you learn to win.’ But nobody listened.
-
You wont revive 1v1 by forcing players to play it. Instead you should think about making it more interesting. For me I will never queue 1v1 because I do not see the point of playing a random map and most likely getting a map I do not enjoy. It has nothing to do with the map pool, its just that I dont enjoy most of those maps.
The only way I would play (pretty sure others think the same) is if I could somehow select the map or select x maps (although most maps I enjoy are not even in the pool) -
I don't know if there is any correlation between playing 1v1 and improving at the game either. There's plenty of low rated ladder players that stay at the same rating forever. With the new map pool system, the low rated and high rated players have totally different maps and gameplay types, so they can't even watch high rated replays to learn how to improve.
Ladder also has no chance of living when the client won't provide any indication that people in your rating bracket are searching. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of nobody searching because they believe nobody is searching.
An automated tournament system would be significantly better than ladder since they could take place at known times throughout the day, on known maps, and be significantly more fun and interesting. It would work about the same as ladder from the user side, join the bracket, pick your faction, when it's time for your match it puts you in the game. I'd think this would be fairly simple to implement relative to the generalized multi-queue, multi-player, matchmaking system we have. It would also save an unlimited number of tournament director hours while also significantly improving the player experience and allowing for all kinds of tournaments to happen on a daily basis.
None of these things will ever happen and everyone should just quit playing this game.
-
Hey bud,
I support your wish in reviving 1v1 more than anyone else in faf, but here are some problems that need to be resolved before jumping to revive 1v1:Lack of notifications of possible game. For example:"someone around your rating is in q"
No map vetos.this is the bare minimum to even start approaching the problem of reviving 1v1
I also feel the same way as thomas and None of these things will ever happen and everyone should just quit playing this game.
-
Forcing people to play 1v1 games they might hate before they can play games they might like is a great way to make people give up on FAF, decreasing the playerbase, and in the long term resulting in fewer people playing 1v1.
Rating already helps address your proposed benefits. Someone never scouts, has a terrible build order, and is a liability as a teammate? They'll have a low rating. 1v1 also requires a very different playstyle to TMM or gap or astro so it's not like forcing someone to play 1v1 would automatically make them better at the gamemode they want to play. In 1v1 (at the lower ratings you're discussing) the game's almost always decided by who can spam the most t1 tanks. In teamgames focusing on this risks being left far behind in eco if the enemy team combines forces to repel your t1 spam, as well as there being few mexes to contest on maps like astro.
-
As much as waffelz post sounds like mocking, it has some points. 1v1 was miserable for me, there is too much to handle at once and no pointers. Maybe some sort of "training" could help new players. Like campaign missions, but isolated, with a script to guide players and let them develop basic skills (e.g. explanation on how bp relates to energy and mass, practice to balance eco, examples with multiple engies draining resources, explanation on different energy to mass ratios for different buildings). As usual, i know the main limit here is someone willing to create this stuff.
I disagree with making 1v1 mandatory, or to make anything else mandatory. I would suggest once again to limit the pull that astro/gap have on new players (new players get kicked from more experienced lobbies, get demolished in ladder, and the only place where they feel welcome is astro/gap lobbies. Not only because they are generally more tolerant, but basically because they are just more. It's a self-sustaining issue imo. We should encourage small custom games (like 2v2-4v4) rather than 5v5+ shitfests where game knowledge is absent and impossible to learn. Even i struggle in 6v6, and i have almost 2k games, fuck sake, everything seems random.
Another thing that could help would be a fast reset feature, where you can try a BO and reset the game without restarting the lobby, or having to yolona your base. The same feature even in multiplayer games could help beginners (and not just beginners) to train more effectively and in a less frustrating way (think about trying your start 20 times, but with an insta reset rather than quit>create lobby>load>start>load>play>repeat). Yes, yes i know, either "game engine issue" or "yeah but who is gonna work on that? It would take so much time". I can't offer a concrete solution sadly. I think that if we had the tools to make this possible it would bring huge improvements.
-
@Crofis maybe something hosted automatically by a bot?
Have a bot host your average teamgame map or mapgen (or both).
Its a huge difference to tmm, because you know the map and the players before the game. Not sure how well players would use this, but in my mind it should work fairly decentlyOn the technical side ofc, i have no clur + the fact that someone also has to do it...
-
First, let's look at these statistics ( https://forum.faforever.com/topic/9118/faf-statistics-megathread-2-statistics-boogaloo?_=1752673169738 ), which can be used to come to the following conclusions:
- Most FAF players have a rating below 1000. Even if they all play 1x1, you won't notice it.
- Most beginners play less than 10 games. This means that the game is difficult or not interesting for them. 1x1 is a hard and specific mode. It will only scare new players away from the FAF.
I was on the training team and talked a lot with the newcomers. Most of them want quiet games where they can safely up the economy. Many people have been playing mod games, survival and cooperative missions for years without even playing global games. There's no way you can make ladder interesting to them.
Also let's look at the last 5 seasons in 1x1 (11-15)
We can see that the number of 1x1 players remains +- at the same level. Therefore, it is irrelevant to talk about the decline of 1x1. Yes, there is a decrease in the number of 1x1 players compared to 2022. But for a variety of reasons known to us, the number of games and players in general has decreased compared to 2022, and not just in 1x1.
I love 1x1 and I want more people to play ladder. But forcing players is a bad idea.
I like Thomas' ideas. We also need more 1x1 game casts. 1x1 can be interesting to comment on. Not everyone can watch tournament streams. And of course we need more tutorial video for 1x1. -
@Nuggets I don't think the problem is with the maps. Most 3x3 map generation is terrible, and almost all of my friends agree with this. But that doesn't stop people from playing 3x3. A 1x1 veto will only help you choose easy maps for yourself.
-
This is some delusional dictatorship attempt: "I love 1v1! Not enough players play 1v1! Force everyone to play 1v1! Because it teaches you... things..."
-
@Nuggets Might be an idea, botted mapgen lobbies so people can join them and not get kicked for being too low. Maybe with a game requirements (like no more than X, or rank lower than Y). I have no idea on the tech side either, but good suggestion!
-
@Crofis said in Addressing the Decline of 1v1: A Proposal for a More Balanced FAF Experience:
@Nuggets Might be an idea, botted mapgen lobbies so people can join them and not get kicked for being too low. Maybe with a game requirements (like no more than X, or rank lower than Y). I have no idea on the tech side either, but good suggestion!
Doesnt have to be just mapgen. I think this would be pretty sick tbh to always see a hosted mapgen and teamgame by a bot which allows those kinds of ratings.
Its easier to use than queue, because it doesnt start automatically, so you can do something else meanwhile. Although it would need an auto kick function if a player doesnt x... -
(one of the last) ladder player opinion: all other gamemodes than 1v1 should be deleted from FAF or at least unranked
1 Teamgames are not fun
Teamgamers are a social crutch of people that are afraid to look themselves in the mirror. They cannot admit they are worse than 1v1 players, they don't know the micro and macro basics. The only fun you can have in this game is outplaying your opponent on syrtis2 1v1 is the only gamemode with real gameplay
Why queue ladder?- every second matters
- every mistake is your own
- you learn
- it is discipline
3 Why keep the trash?
No more astro, no more gap, no setons. No 10 minute lobbies where players disconnect. 1v1 is also connection stability - very low chance of losing cons or w/e
Mapgen should also be nuked from the existence, play on real handmade maps. Use superior tactics, crush the inferior4 Save FAF
Global rating is more inflated than banana. Only ladder rating matters. It reflects personal skill, can't be farmedWanna keep FAF alive? Keep 1v1
Want to boost competitiveness? Focus on 1v1
Stop babysitting players
Let ladder reign supremeIf ladder dies we can quit the game
-
Beginners could benefit from tutorial missions for eco or basic t1 / t2 game play with timed results. StarCraft 2 WoL had such things in the beginning. Examples:
You have X minutes to eco, produce 1k mass for bronze, 2k mass for silver, 3k mass for gold.
You have this base. Build optimal units and destroy the this firebase. 5 mins for bronze, 4 mins for silver, 3 mins for acu.
You have these units and your acu. Kill this base within X minutes with losing as few units as possible...
But I assume nobody got time for scripting this, reading the results and make it usable in the client
-
@Vindex r3al
-
@Haidovic let me rephrase what you're asking for.
1v1 queue is dead, and 3v3 is full of noobs. So to solve both problems we're going to take all the 3v3 noobs and force them to play 1v1. Now 3v3 queue is dead and 1v1 queue is full of noobs who don't even want to be playing 1v1 in the first place.
What did we solve here exactly?
-
Someone trying to do good for the community?
Quick, down vote down vote down vote.
No idea why you have @IndexLibrorum a "GLOBAL MODERATOR" trolling you like this.
I swear he downvotes everything he see on the forums.
You should have to be a certain age to be a mod of anything in my opinion, unless you're actually mature.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login