Why would you have left FAF?
-
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
-
@sylph_ no . single player it is company.
-
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... -
Bring downvotes back you cowards.
-
@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)
-
What's rps?
-
rock paper scissors
-
You clearly haven't seen the princess bride then
-
@nflanders said in Why would you have left FAF?:
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...This is the opposite of what all contributors I know want. We have made FAF a non-commercial project on purpose, to make sure it can be free forever and not steered by commercial interests. Thus we also decided a long time ago to not get any commercial funding from ads, campaigns or whatsoever. If you make it a commercial project you will probably loose 75% or more of the volunteers on the project.
He said, "I've been to the year 3000
Not much has changed, but they live underwater
And your great-great-great-granddaughter
Is playin' FAF, playin' FAF" -
@broker said in Why would you have left FAF?:
you are not interested in any proposals other than your own.
Nobody in this thread is interested in any kind of proposal.
This is the "why you left?" thread and not the "what would you do to make it better?" thread.Players are very good at telling you why they don't like your game, but they are notoriously bad at making it better.
That's general game developer advice. "Listen to your players complaints, but not their advice"There might be some good advice mixed in there sure, but in general it's not helpful and will either make the game only better for that one single player or even make it worse for everyone.
@broker said in Why would you have left FAF?:
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.that's just a type of player this game is not trying to attract.
Chess also didn't change for a few years already and people are still playing it. -
I actually never like that example because the game rules of chess itself might not change, but the game still moves forward through externalities. A simple one is just the introduction of bullet chess or ultrabullet. You kinda can't play those sort of time controls over the board, and these days I'd wager there are WAY more blitz and bullet casual chess fans than classical time control enjoyers.
-
@ftxcommando I'd say those new gamemodes are compareable to FAF maps maybe?
And also FAF rules change so it's an unfair comparison anyway.
But that makes FAF still an upgrade from chess so
-
Hard to say what it would compare to, my gut feeling was something closer to having prebuilt bases in ladder games or something to get rid of the early downtime.
-
@brutus5000 said in [Why would you have left FAF?]
it can be free forever
If everything is free, how can my friend and I try your project for free? A friend has seen enough of Yuri’s video and wants to try playing FAF, but to do this he needs to pay 5 times more than the game costs to an intermediary who will buy him this game since it is not sold in Russia. And spend a lot of time searching for an intermediary and corresponding with him (I bought the game 15 years ago and played on GPGnet)
We play, but only inGAF, there is no other option.For us ordinary players, it doesn’t matter whether you are a commercial or non-profit organization, we still have to pay and it doesn’t matter to whom, the fact is that access to the FAF project is paid.
If I have to make a choice, I would rather FAF become a commercial organization and SC:FA become completely free on Steam.
-
Free as in speech, not beer.
-
@nflanders said in Why would you have left FAF?:
@brutus5000 said in [Why would you have left FAF?]
it can be free forever
If everything is free, how can my friend and I try your project for free? A friend has seen enough of Yuri’s video and wants to try playing FAF, but to do this he needs to pay 5 times more than the game costs to an intermediary who will buy him this game since it is not sold in Russia. And spend a lot of time searching for an intermediary and corresponding with him (I bought the game 15 years ago and played on GPGnet)
We play, but only inGAF, there is no other option.For us ordinary players, it doesn’t matter whether you are a commercial or non-profit organization, we still have to pay and it doesn’t matter to whom, the fact is that access to the FAF project is paid.
FAF is a community run project. You can technically use the client without having supreme commander installed. They're entirely separate entities. Blame your government for the increased cost to getting games on Steam.
If I have to make a choice, I would rather FAF become a commercial organization and SC:FA become completely free on Steam.
Well, I'm glad it's not up to you then. FAF would die if it became commercialized and cost money to use. No one would accept being forced to pay some fee for a small online community for a 16 year old game. I've donated hundreds by this point to FAF but I wouldn't pay if it was forced, and I'd guess I'm not alone on that.
Edit: Also, that's quite literally impossible for FAF to do since SC:FA isn't owed by FAF. We have zero control over SC:FA Steam or GOG price, but we require a proper purchase as legal protection for the FAF organization.
