Why would you have left FAF?
-
-
I think there's a key question that needs to be discussed here:
How do experienced players pass on what they know?
It's like experienced drivers being able to teach new drivers. At some point we automate how we drive; we don't think about all those checks of mirrors and the ability to seamlessly change down a gear, indicate, check lanes and talk at the same time. For some people it takes a lot of work just to be able to describe what they do. Other people learn how to describe this and can train new drivers.
In my experience (in ANZ FAF) there are lots of people who can tell you what to do in the moment, but can't describe why or how they decide to do that. The most obvious example of this is when people say "press shift-G and then ...." - when my shift-G may be mapped to something completely different. This doesn't tell me why to build exactly four generators, or why to build that particular unit mix, or how to manage the factories I have or to not power stall.
And the real point is that players build up habits - not just of which units or structures they build but also of how they analyze the map and plan out what to do. A good player will be subconsciously checking the power and mass meters all the time, and will be able to pause all factories to get through a power stall without really having to think. A really good player will never even power stall because they've seen that they're getting close to it and have just built enough power. An ordinary player like me will know to build this many power generators at this point in the game to avoid a power stall, but will still hit the stall at some point and have to consciously work at that point to get through it. A struggling player will hit a power stall and will spend a minute or more trying to deal with it, distracting them from the rest of the game.
How did the great player know to avoid the stall? They probably only vaguely recognise that condition. They could try to describe the things they do - build generators now, pause factories now, restart production now, etc. We need to try to describe how we came to that conclusion - when the power draw went from a minor issue to something to deal with to a major problem that takes their full attention.
So my general advice for players lower than me is:
- keep zooming out and looking at the map.
- build radar coverage, all the time.
- build up habits of unit builds, factory builds, etc to minimise how much you have to think about what you're doing.
- start that T2 mex upgrade by three minutes - no later than four - or you'll struggle.
- watch your team mates and chat. Reinforce them, try to work together. Tell them what you're doing when you can.
- never blame another player for something that happened. No-one likes being told they got it wrong. Just accept it and move on.
- power stalls are much worse than mass stalls. Build a bit more power than you need, all the time.
- don't build fire bases unless you absolutely have to. Go around them when you see them. Long range artillery or experimentals win the fire base battle.
- the 'why did you do that' is more important than the 'how did you do that'.
- accept that you will lose games. Sometimes it's not your fault. Keep playing, keep trying to have fun.
- You can always improve - but it's rarely by doing exactly what you did last time. Try to keep expanding your repertoire of game tactics and play styles.
I hope some of that's useful.
In general we can help new players stay with the game by being welcoming, by being fun to play with, and by helping when we can.
Matr1 said something helpful in a game I was in a while back. I was facing a player much higher rated than I am, and I was struggling. Someone on my team criticised me for not being able to fight back effectively. Matr1 said "Paul's a 900 - don't expect him to play like a 2000." Sometimes my role in the game is to be the ablative shield that slows down their attack for long enough that the other players on my team. That's not exactly fun, because I'm struggling constantly, and I can't balance my economy and my forces as well as a high rated player can. But I still serve a role. Criticising me because I'm not as good as you doesn't help anyone. Supporting me to help me be more effective - either by just being there in game with forces to help defend, or by telling me what I can be doing to help - makes it more likely that I'll improve.
Hope that all helps,
Paul
faf.mabula.net maintainer.
-
My bone-stock addendum to the above:
- Build units
- Use them to engage the enemy
-
@ftxcommando said in Why would you have left FAF?:
Guy holds a push back 15 minutes and uses acu explosion to blow up a key unit push, gets 0 points cuz his ally making epic gc killed everybody
wonderful
Oh, who the F are you talking about.
-
@ftxcommando said in Why would you have left FAF?:
No you don’t. I’ve literally seen you mock people that ask questions about the game or client for years in aeolus. I have never seen you help anybody in a public setting and eventually foed you to stop seeing garbage in aeolus.
If it is within the game I will always help and explain.
I think i foed you for something similar, or either extreme rudeness. I sure havent seen you talking online for years. A good thing it appears, seeing you here.
It's cute that you have upvotes on your posts. Not that it counts for anything.
-
I think the support from the community is fine and ofc there will be flaming people. The whole topic should be on the system, not the operators, cause we can't change them, nor should we.
What I found quite demotivating is the rating display of a negative rating. Maybe 0 should be the bottom line.
-
@taxesaretheft that's probably a two edged changed, since that will cause you to be able to win games and your rating will not change, which can just be as demotivating.
-
Increasing all rating by a flat 1000 would also solve going into the negative. I don't think anyone has legitimately achieve a negative rating of -1000 before.
Although I guess the division system is already on track to hide the real rating a bit better, which is probably a better approach.
-
yeah, that was one of the aims of the division system. With the latest server update we finally have the infrastructure in place to also show the correct divison in the replay info of matchmaker games, so expect this soonTM
-
@misterdumass The point FTXcommando is making is that decisions that increase your teams chance of winning a match should NEVER penalise your rating gained.
They should, ultimately, increase your rating.
Rating is supposed to represent a player's ability to win games.(If elaboration is needed: You implied that any dead commanders should gain no rating - but suiciding an ACU can be the MVP move of an entire match.)
@paulway many of those don't apply to all supreme commander game types - some are even counterproductive. For the sake of those "players lower than me" that you're aiming it at, is it worth a quick edit?
-
Feel free to offer your own corrections Sylph.
-
@nex said in Why would you have left FAF?:
@monstratus said in Why would you have left FAF?:
In my humble opinion, there is a serious lack of a good rating system. Just making sure dead players don't receive rating points would greatly improve the system. I will immediately say in response to the fact that many will say that there will be a lot of snipes
Why do you think there will be a lot of snipes?
when you win your opponents won't get any rating anyway, so why would you spend resources on snipes instead of on winning?
The problem is though that now the optimal move would be to win and in the last moment snipe all your teammates, so you are the only one gaining rating. Since the goal of the rating system is to be the top rated player, so the optimal strategy will be to maximize your rating gain, while minimizing that of every other player.I think the problem with the rating system is not that there will be a lot of snipes (I just assumed that). The problem is that even those players who died receive ratings, even if the team won, so there is a strong imbalance. If we made it so that only the survivors would receive ratings, it would be much better...
-
@monstratus said in Why would you have left FAF?:
I think the problem with the rating system is not that there will be a lot of snipes (I just assumed that). The problem is that even those players who died receive ratings, even if the team won, so there is a strong imbalance. If we made it so that only the survivors would receive ratings, it would be much better...
There are lots of games that I hard carry but die in a desperate snipe attempt from the enemy team. Why shouldn't I get points if I crush their team but then die due to the last guy going suicidal tele or something stupid? Frankly, I've seen the rating system be pretty solid if you exercise some common sense around it. Meaning if some dude is a 1600 gapper, I generally would trust him to be 1600 on gap but then on Seton's or map gen he'll be a 1200. Same deal if you stick a 1600 setoner on gap.
The issue that comes up is if someone is an 1800 air player but 1k everything else and is rated 1300 or w/e. He'll play like a 1k in most slots but then crush air, never being his actual rating. There are no rating systems that can account for that in a game like FAF though, it's quite impossible.
There are exceptions where people get troll ratings, but those are just that, exceptions, and all rating systems have them.
-
I have rarely seen such a case when a skilled player dies out of stupidity. But I have often seen cases where high-rated players (whom it seems to me do not justify their rating) die first, while average players win the match for them. I have also often seen that very mediocre players (including me) get points by dying out of stupidity. It still seems to me that if those who did not survive the match did not receive points, it would be fair...
-
Ideally, the rating system for rts should be completely different, it should take into account the overall benefit the player brought during the entire match, this is influenced by many factors such as the number of kills of the opponent, the amount of mass killed, etc. But as I understand it, it is difficult to develop. I think the rating system in a 1 on 1 match works perfectly, but in group battles 8 on 8 for example, also taking into account that a person on the gap can get 1500 and on the generated map he will play like 200...
-
@monstratus said in Why would you have left FAF?:
It still seems to me that if those who did not survive the match did not receive points, it would be fair...
You fail to notice that the rating system isn't a one-way route to judge how people play. It also influences the way people play, since ultimately the goal of the game is not to win, but to gain as much rating as possible compared to everyone else.
So your suggestion would encourage turtle play, with minimal chances of your com to die, optimally winning after all your teammates are dead, encourage teamkilling, discourage literally any play that could put your com in danger. Nobody would tele snipe or com drop in a hope to win the game, because they wouldn't get rating anyway, so they would still "loose".
The rating system should properly encourage any playstyle that increases your teams chances of winning and the only reliable way to do that is to only rate wins/losses and play enough games with diverse teams, for noise (like stronger teammates that carry you) to average out.
-
Really, a mediocore Coustomrating means not that much. only Increasing the Sample Size by playing more games makes it more reliable, bcs your overall performance and influence on the matches become more clear after lets say 1000 matches. You wont get away with playing bad and hoping you are in the winners team by random in the long run. Also killing an enemy high rated player by sacrificing your com may be a dick move but is a legitimate strategy in a team game i think.
-
@monstratus said in Why would you have left FAF?:
I have rarely seen such a case when a skilled player dies out of stupidity.
dude never seen a farm stream
-
Downvoted for toxicity.
-
get gud
