Why would you have left FAF?

0

@FtXCommando said in Why would you have left FAF?:

@kokoryba said in Why would you have left FAF?:

ladder
think about how much time does a new player need to be properly prepared, to know all the races, maps and tech thats in ladder?

Zero.

0 time needed to get to know all the maps, races, tech...? doesnt sound right, sorry 🙂

@FtXCommando said in Why would you have left FAF?:

Why do you guys think that new people in ladder are facing 1600s?

why do you think "we guys" think that new people in ladder are facing 1600s?

0
This post is deleted!
0

so you are one of the new players, saying that?

0
This post is deleted!
1

i agree the players want big shit stuff, but ladder is not the place where you get it.

and the baby ladder how @arma473 calls it, could exist next to normal ladder so you wouldnt be forced to play it. but new players should be encouraged to

0
This post is deleted!
0

@FtXCommando call it ladder or not, it wont change a thing. and why map pool, and why 50 games? dont you think player can have fun in first 5 games with 1 race and 1 map? and next 10 games with 2 races and 2 maps? how fast can they finish those 5 games? 1 hour? many modern games limit players before they let them play the real stuff. and its for their own good

0

@FtXCommando said in Why would you have left FAF?:

Yes, I was a new player once. I would have never played anything that forced me to play a faction I didn't want to play. Nor would I want to be restricted to these tiny garbage t1 units when I want to make the cool big shit stuff.

But you also weren't afraid to play in the real ladder.

Let's add to it: participation in the baby ladder would be anonymous, so people wouldn't worry about being judged for bad gameplay or worry about having a "losing record" or worrying that they need to "prepare" more before jumping in. There could even a chance that your opponent is just an AI, especially if the queue time is too long.

It would remove 90% of the reasons that some people are afraid of trying the ladder and it would give them the tools and confidence that they need to play the real ladder.

@kokoryba said in Why would you have left FAF?:

many modern games limit players before they let them play the real stuff. and its for their own good

There are people who come back to FAF after a few years or a decade's absence, we don't need to force them to play 30 matches before they can unlock the real ladder. And there are people with 1700+ global rating who barely play the ladder, we don't need to make obstacles for them.

0

@arma473 said in Why would you have left FAF?:

There are people who come back to FAF after a few years or a decade's absence, we don't need to force them to play 30 matches before they can unlock the real ladder. And there are people with 1700+ global rating who barely play the ladder, we don't need to make obstacles for them.

one half of me wants to agree with you, making it optional, to play the baby ladder only if you want. the other half has this feeling, that most of the players will want to play with all the toys immediately, they get crush, frustrated and they leave the FAF for good.

as long as there would be enough of new content so the player wont get bored, it should be fine to force it (not on players with 100+ games) (and lets face it, standard supcom had 3 races and you get access to all the stuff after how many hours of gameplay? 30 games on small map might be 5 hours of gameplay)

0

@FtXCommando said in Why would you have left FAF?:

Zero. After watching several dozens of 0 rated games from people that are new and ask for advice, I can tell you that if a new player prepared by watching a 5 minute BO explaining 1 land fac 4 mex hydro land fac or 1 land fac 2 pgen 2 mex 2 pgen 2 mex pgen land fac they would already be about 500 rating underrated.

Why do you guys think that new people in ladder are facing 1600s?

Sorry to say it, but you are completely out of touch with what it is like to be a real noob. I got 25 games in 1v1 and got messed up good. After spending about 1-2 hrs watching tutorials and BOs. So I spend almost as much time improving as I played.

I got a 400 rating and constantly get raped by 500s and 600s. Quickest game I had was against a 1200 who wiped me in 5 minutes. Got a 40% WR.
Hard, just hard.

2

Now my own thoughts:
FAF isn't the game I want to have but I am stuck with. I really dislike the efficiency simulator aspect, as I come from the original TA. It was way more about tactical decisions and unit composition as FAF is. But to my knowledge there is no usable TA version around anymore so FAF it is. Credit where credit is due, FAF has its glorious sides!

Now about my experiences when I started about 4 weeksa go. Sobering is the best word to describe them. You come into the custom lobby and there are only camping games. Not what the tactician in me wants. I play Setons because it is the most action packed map aviable. I get raped and flamed because 600-700 players are 5 leagues above my skill level even though I am ranked the same for some reasons. In other games I tried to prevent seal clubbing parties by being outspoken and begging overly experienced players to leave. Got seal clubbed anyway, as predicted.
Hosting games myself is out of the question, I am too unexperienced. Still tried, no one joined. Reasons unknown.
In the end I had 1-2 very fun games on maps usually not hosted where the balance was somewhat okay.

Went for 1v1. As in my first post, that experience was pretty hard too. But at least I got some good games out of it.

The community is very weird. In lobby chats you have a person talking back from time to time but most of the time it is like talking to a wall. Russians spamming the team chat in Russian even though you beg them to talk in English. Ocasional flaming. The Client chat room 'aeolus' has a very weird toxicity to it and everybody seems to know each other so I don't dare to ask anything. Newbie chat is deserted. Here and there I met with friendly players but really just here and there.

Pretty sobering all in all...

1
This post is deleted!
1

@FtXCommando i think its not about losing itself, its about the reason of losing

have you ever played a board game where you have lost because of some special rule nobody told you about? and later again, you played well but you lost because there is a special rule you didnt know about...now you know, but the game is already lost. and you would ask why didnt you tell me before? well because there is just too many of these little things so we just cant tell you all of them, you will have to learn as you go. but many people wont. they leave 🙂

1
This post is deleted!
0

i will list some of the reasons why people lose their games (my opinion only, no research done apart from playing the game myself 🙂

  • not aware of guncom strength and cost (could be solved with nice 10x5 map with chokepoint)
  • special units from aeon and seraphim such as aurora and zthuee with floating capabilities
  • too big map (20x20) too many things to do
  • new map, no idea what to build, where to go
  • bad T2 timing

i dont think its about small differences between units as you mentioned. i think you mentioned T3 bombers to partly disqualify my point

but maybe you are right about ACU movement and mass overflow. on small map, they would learn better that ACU must be used, and they wouldnt get easily overwhelmed by the size of the map

now your talk about 1000 rank i cannot take it seriously but you can prove me wrong, you play rank under 1k and win with mass sky slammer spam

the point of the baby league is to keep the player long enough in the game to teach him the basics. as it is now, ladder will teach them the same, but only if they wont get frustrated before. and that might be the case why people are leaving.

0
This post is deleted!
1
  • problem with guncom is that its not easy to see it is a guncom. i imagine new people are quite surprised what killed them. not everyone is methodical and watch their own replays, not everyone zooms in to check for the gun, some even might not know how it looks like.

  • t2 timing most of the time depends on the map right? hence the low map pool i proposed, and new maps only with guide

  • define a new player. i might be one, i lost games because of this in combination with new map. i wont provide any replays as i dont really thing such a replay would prove my our yours point. i think most of the people imagine what kind of shit zthuee can do on maps with water and clifs

  • i think there is difference between people. you are talking about map diversity yet most of the people in the lobby play 1 or 2 maps 🙂
    yes some people will never be happy with even 100 maps but if you play competitively and ladder is such place, then i believe you want to know the map you are going to play on. now since you cannot choose which one that will be, nor you can ban any map, you must learn them which takes time and not everyone is willing to invest it into a game. i imagine they want to play as soon as possible. then they get to learn the hard way. losing the match and maybe, i say it again, get frustrated

  • and i didnt propose to limit the rank under 500 with X maps only. i proposed to base the map pool size on number of the games played, and THEN on the rank. how many maps do the 500 rank access to right now? its certainly not 15 or 20 anyway

0
This post is deleted!
0

i think the rank has many faces. cybran vs cybran, cybran vs UEF, UEF vs sera....on small map, map with water or without..

of course the number of games you played matters. if you played only 10 games i can guarantee you didnt play every map. you want to tell me that when there is a tournament, nobody prepares for specific maps? that it doesnt matter because they already played more than 10 games?

and the number of race vs race combinations is exactly 10 so in the best scenario you played every variant only once. did you learn all the sera tricks after you played 1 game against them? or is there a chance that people get better to certain degree after simply playing on the same map vs same enemy again and again? and then, some later, they hit their maximum rank.

we dont need to differ between 10 and 30.000 games. i proposed to differ between 0,5,10,15,30,60,100+. and they are not the same skill level.

how many hours, days, maybe weeks did you invest into this game? how many hours? maybe 1000? thats 25 weeks 8 hours a day.

its all about new people. they need to learn everything, everything they didnt see in some youtube video that attracted them here. i only propose to teach them bit by bit.

its not like you go to math class and they want to teach you all the tricks at once, is it?

0

@olp-O-mat said in Why would you have left FAF?:

But to my knowledge there is no usable TA version around anymore

There are plenty TA like games, or even just improved versions of TA. Like Balanced Annihilation, the Escalation mod for TA, Beyond All Reason, Zero-K, Planetary Annihilation and probably others.

Anyway, I think this thread is going nowhere. Should be about collecting data/problem identifying and not for problem solution.
A "baby league" is not going to solve anything; other games (AoE, StarCraft) don't need such excessive hand holding either.
There's been a massive focus here on the game being "too hard", but there are plenty games that demonstrate that difficulty or a lack of a tutorials is really not as big a problem. Would be nice if people could discuss something more useful again.

And another note, this thread is also barely readable with what feels like half the comments getting removed. I doubt what FtX said was so offensive that it had to be removed? He's not some random guy talking shit without basis, he's the Player Councilor lol
And if it wasn't a mod, we need a better indication of whether something was removed because of mod action or the user doing it himself.