I plan to dedicate a Discord section to discuss and debate matchmaking map pools so I can form a quick method of engaging with the community and get feedback from players of different levels.
This makes little sense as all it will result in is an additional barrier of entry for people to talk about anything related to matchmaker pools. It’s why I reversed from the idea and instead moved everything into the single, centralized FAF Discord server. You just end up talking to and getting maps from the same couple people that had the interest in joining a tertiary server. What is gained by directing players to one Discord, directing mappers to another Discord, and then saying oh but if you are a specific mapper OR player interested in anything related to matchmaker pools you actually need to go to this entirely different Discord server?
I will be surveying active ladder players, and delivering the information I have gathered to map creators, which in some cases will allow them to build a map around actual gameplay rather than aesthetics. Therefore, the ladder pool can be updated with quality maps faster.
I will encourage new players to use the matchmaker more often, and will do everything in my power to improve the experience they get from the game.
So first off, this is already done for mappers. Maps get put in for review and are criticized and given adjustments to improve their gameplay, aesthetics, and variance. Failure to accommodate criticism results in a map not being put in, simple.
With regards to players, how do you encourage them? How is the experience made better? By surveying players and seeing what they like? There are players across all rating brackets that enjoy tons of 5x5 and no 20x20, or love 20x20 and hate 5x5. There is a general trend where these two groups decrease/increase in size as you increase in rating and it’s what the map brackets are currently based on. The only way to make the experience anything more than marginally better from what it is now is by using a choice pool that operates through map vetos. I talk more about this below.
I also plan to return the veto system, with the intention that it does not reach its logical extreme.
A system outline for how a choice pool (with veto) has existed since 2018. It does not mean the developer manpower to implement the entire different UI that would need to accompany said system exists. Now with matchmakers (that didn’t exist in 2018) we would also need to rework how some of these systems work in order to accommodate not only different team sizes but also the additional factor of some teams being random and some being premade. However, I’ve already planned out the way it can under the hood, mainly, a point based veto system.
After thorough deliberation, I will organize matchmaker map sheets based on players' preferences.
This already exists.
After making a discussion concerning this topic, I will be bringing a map pool of at least 200 maps.
After discussion with you it seems you just want to make a 200 map pool and either never touch map pools again or very rarely touch them to rotate a few maps out. I do not understand what this is supposed to accomplish.
If you want to make a pool where map prep means zero, then make a map gen pool. Adding 180 maps does almost nothing for the average user on ladder who plays for approximately 4-5 hours a month and will never hit 9 let alone 20 maps, god forbid anything more. Thomas can’t even manage to hit all 20 maps in the map pool in a month.
I also don’t understand WHAT discussion you expect to happen with a 200 map pool. You will be scrapping the absolute pit of the map vault in order to gain 200 maps. It’s what I had to do to reach the current number of like 230ish 1v1 maps I have (and probably 20-25% of even these were marked as too bad to play anyway since the team either saw the gameplay as too bad or the general player reaction to seeing these maps were unfavorable).
On a regular basis, I will assist players in the training channel. And whenever possible, I will give personal advice when complications occur.
You’re never there as it is. Why would I believe this would change as PC? It’s probably the lowest barrier to entry thing to do on this entire list.
At the request of the players, I will review their replays to conduct an analysis of their
gameplay, provide them with advice to avoid further mistakes to the best of my ability.
Again, you don’t do this as is even when there is great demand for people to do the work, why would it change now? It doesn’t require any level of organizational effort to do nor any permission from anybody. In fact it’s just a repetition of the responsibilities above, really.
I’ll be planning on making tutorials if the situation requires it.
That would be great, it’s been severely lacking and I have been unable to find someone interested in crafting tutorials for the general pool of maps that <300 players get.
From the very beginning of the game, I had serious questions about the TrueSkill system, and how easily many hosts abuse it.
Then you should understand that it’s impossible to create a custom game system where TrueSkill can work without making it extremely and needlessly complicated for the end user.
Moreover, as a beginner player, I remember how you were treated when you have a black rating, and literally being kicked from all the hosts, and even those who host all welcome games can see it as a reasonable decision.
This is why we created and plan on expanding the Matchmakers while also are doing autohosts on map gen maps where new players can join and launch games without being kicked. It’s also ideally intended to be helped via the Division system where players feel less fearful and anxious over their performance over the last game or two. Are there other solutions?
Of course, now I have completely learned the system, but I want to say that it is very difficult for new players to understand it, and in addition, simply writing on the forums what TrueSkill is, will not be enough. (Since probably not everyone uses it) Therefore, I plan to use various methods to create a comfortable environment where new players can more easily integrate into the system.
Methods like what? The methods to make TrueSkill easier and more intuitive are hiding it and replacing it with a more intuitive system. It’s what every game does with their MMR essentially. It’s what we’re trying to do. What’s the different plan?
I also plan to create a list of preferred maps for players with slow CPU to avoid further conflicts.
Sounds great but that’s also more in the Creative Councillor’s domain so you would be cooperating with him to do anything like that.
I will be planning to write a formula that will prevent generating unfair matches with high rated players against beginners. Such games not only do not provide any fun for high-rated players themselves but also discouraging for newcomers. To provide an example, the algorithm would work in a way, so that an 1800+ player would never be matched against a zero-rated player.
A quote from a post explaining the new matchmaking process from me 3 months ago:
“So first some definitions:
A top-level player is anyone with mu over 1600
A newbie is anyone with less than 10 games.
All teams with at least one newbie and no top-rated player will be matched randomly amongst each other if no decent game is initially found. If there are an odd number of newbie teams, the last newbie team can only match with a non-newbie team that has at least one failed matching attempt. If a team has a top-rated player, that team will not be eligible for random matching at all”
What you are upset about is the interpolation part of the matchmaking process. Which was weighed thusly:
Since 2013 there has been a massive complaint across FAF matchmaking about the level of skill that TrueSkill puts you up against in your first few games. This is because the intended bell curve peak is at 1500 mu, the current active peak is far off. This is due to a variety of deflationary aspects, mostly seen by the introduction of a biased initial sample during the initial early years of FAF (GPG players) and there being a surge of players that have almost zero exposure to the game.
The solution has been to place players at a lower than theoretically efficient level but what accommodates the real rather than theoretical FAF TrueSkill bell curve.
This in turn has harmed the 30 or so players that are above 1800+ that have now had the expectation of playing 10 “interpolation placement” games in order to regain the rating they used to have. I weighed these 30 players against the 400-500 new players I see play ladder/matchmaker each month (alongside the fact the negatives for the 1800+ being short term) and decided the interpolation was worth implementing regardless of those growing pains.
I will provide any assistance I can to TDs in their initiative to run the tournaments.
This already exists.
I will be planning to create events in the middle-level category to cultivate an interesting and competitive atmosphere that would potentially hook less experienced players into the gameplay.
Sounds good, but you also fail to explain anything about current events. Are you planning on personally hosting tournaments every month or every 2 weeks or are you cutting on tournaments currently in the FAF LotS Workshop thread? If you plan on doing this, it’s a huge sudden spark of motivation to do so when you have never hosted a single tournament in your entire 4(?) years on FAF.
I will do my best to prevent any potential conflict and look further to avoid violations regarding
Tournament Code of Conduct when the situation requires.
This already exists.
To ensure that players remain in the FAF and are satisfied with their experience. I will aim to combat toxicity in the FAF community. Since I see it as something that hasn't been properly addressed before.
You have actively contributed to creating this toxic atmosphere in the past considering you have several bans for:
Toxicity in chat
Intentionally losing games
I will address forum topics accordingly, surveil FAF activities in general, and intervene if necessary.
Sounds good, already done. You also don’t really seem very active on the FAF Forums at all. Would this also suddenly change when you’re PC?
I plan on actively reviewing replays, work to gather any valuable data, to see any issues that players might have regarding the balance changes. I will try hard to represent players' voice when it comes to opinion about the balance.
Could you be more specific here? What players? What replays? What is valuable data? What are you looking for exactly? Why do you promise this rather than a collaborative plan with Balance Team?
I will be planning to collaborate with popular streamers to highlight LotS for a higher audience. And in the end, I want to find one specific streamer who will broadcast LotS for the linguistic segment, and do it as an event in the FAF client, to reiterate, that will allow to encompass a broader audience.
Putting a stream into the client requires dev work but there isn’t exactly a reason it would be technically unfeasible. After talking with you I see that what you mean by “linguistic segment” is working with a Russian streamer to stream events as a sort of Russian FAFLive for that audience. No one has a problem with this currently. In fact, I specifically made an exception for ZLO in the LotS streamer blackout because I recognized there was no Russian caster for Russian FAF and I had no one else to fill in the niche. By all means if someone wants to cover FAF events in Russian all they need to do is send me a PM on any of the FAF services I’m available for and I would work towards accommodating them and even attempt to give them the same streamer tools we are using for FAFLive as it is.
I welcome attempts to collaborate with popular streamers, but BRNK has no interest in working with anything officially part of FAF. Gyle has no time to do anything. And Yuri has no interest in covering 1v1 gameplay which he considers too boring. This is based on the years of attempting to get “the big 3” to cover events. FAFLive is the attempt to concentrate the various audiences of high level streamers and reach out to casual audiences under a single channel. It also serves the additional purpose of giving a selling point for sponsors and advertisers that there is a baseline with little volatility for their product.
I will do my best to inspect thoroughly the environment around LotS, and make sure there are no potential issues regarding the event, as well as do everything possible that everything runs smoothly and without logistical complications.
I will aim to uphold all the current responsibilities regarding LotS that current PC performs.
Sounds good, it’s everything I already do, but I have seen no reason to believe you would suddenly develop the motivation to spend the time I do. Again, you have never even hosted a single tournament for FAF nor approached me about anything relating to them.
Quite a long time has passed since the moment when the galactic war system was removed, and many things have changed, and many people interested in GW have left the FAF project altogether. Therefore, I plan to arrange a series of polls in order to understand at all whether the players need a project of galactic war or not, and, if possible, reallocate development resources in a more necessary direction.
You have no ability to reallocate development resources. Developers work on what they are interested in doing or you build up the good will for a developer to trust that working on what you think is good will be of interest for FAF.
It also doesn’t matter what your poll says. Several devs have wanted to make GW for years, they are going to do it purely because they find it fun to do and it doesn’t matter if few on FAF want it (which isn’t true anyway).
If you wanted to poll anything, it would be about what to include with GW and how to include GW without harming other ecosystems of players. But these are hardly poll questions and instead need to be solved through discussions between people informed both of the issues surrounding the FAF playerbase and general game/ui design. It needs a coherent objective or niche in the FAF client that it is working to fill/solve and it needs a variety of systems/tools inherent within it that reach those objectives.
Since I am very interested in the Division system, and therefore I will do my best to help the developers in any way I can.
I will be planning on watching replays of the matchmaker games, and personally use matchmaker search system to detect any technical issues.
I should be able to provide any assistance to developers that is potentially required from PC at a moment's notice during primetime.
Sounds good, this is for the most part what I already do barring the regularly searching for games kappa.
As I mentioned earlier, I’ll plan to get access to different resources with the presence of the target audience. Also, I will try to reach out to different media, and potentially hook them to FAF to a higher extent, as a small example, I will be searching and providing individually unique replays that other casters didn't review in their video, if that suits them. I have been hypothesizing for a long time about possible methods of attracting contributors and media to the FAF project, so with motivation as a PC, I will plan to implement them so that more players interested in the RTS genre would be aware of the features of the Supreme Commander and the FAF project.
This is all mostly too vague to comment on. You have done zero work in this area for FAF and have presented entirely paperthin statements here that give me zero confidence you have a thought out plan of action. The only thing with merit is providing replays to casters, which is commendable and without problem. What are the plans for targeted outreach? What sources of media are you going for? Where are FAF players mainly present? Where are potential FAF players present? How is it most efficient to target them? What are the qualitative descriptions of the audience you are going for? Have you looked into anything like Google Analytics and the best terms to bid for in order to reach other audiences? Hell, have you thought about how an ad for FAF should even look like?
Most of this work is also currently the responsibility of the Promotions Councillor.
I will stand for:
Make FAF community more open and friendly.
Make FAF more democratic.
Democracy - control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
This one particularly gets to me because I’ve worked to make FAF as democratic as I could make it. In fact, it was one of the things that specifically made me mad enough to want to take the position back in 2018. When I got elected, there was a grand total of 1 position open for direct election. When I was in Council, there were 3 that eventually got downgraded to 2 because the rest of the Council overruled my attempt to make the Promotion Councillor selection a direct vote.
Promotion Councillor selection when I was PC:
M&M Councillor before I was PC:
M&M Councillor after I was PC:
I’d also like to note that I’m the one that specifically pushed to make it so that it was clear each Councillor position could be put for an election if a contributor under them wished to do so. These elections would operate by being a closed vote between the contributors of that Councillor.
For instance, this is how we moved between the various Moderation Councillors under my terms as PC.
So I’m curious what exactly making FAF “more democratic” entails. Which Councillor are you going to be working to make directly elected by people as I’ve already worked to make every Councillor operate under the discretion of their contributive teams and worked to make as many Councillors directly elected as I could.
You promise to offer FAF the best of your communication abilities. I do not see you on any official FAF communication medium.
Will you simply get the sudden drive to post in 10 threads a day on the forums once you get a green badge? Be highly active in the Discord? In Aeolus?
You promise to offer FAF large assistance in training programs and trainer assistance. I have never even seen you post an iota of training assistance whether it’s on guides on the forums, youtube, or the Discord.
Will you simply get the sudden drive to answer questions and create guides for 1-3 hours a day once you get a green badge?
You promise to not only meet my current level of tournament coverage but surpass it. This is with you never having hosted a single tournament in your 4 or so years on FAF.
Will you simply get the sudden drive to learn proper tournament creation, handling tournament coverage logistics, and tournament promotion once you get a green badge?
You promise to drastically improve the Matchmaker system. This is with you never even approaching me or anybody associated with the current system about how it works nor showing any interest in helping within the system. The lack of understanding of the current system is showcased in your proposed reforms of the system that have already been developed by me but tabled due to the lack of necessary manpower.
Will you simply get the sudden drive to spend time not only working with map authors to fix their maps for the matchmaker but also make pools and maintain map sheets once you get a green badge?
You promise to refine the TrueSkill system we currently use. I do not understand how this would happen when you have shown you don’t understand the way the system currently works by suggesting a solution that already exists. You have also not given any sort of concrete value adjustments or suggestions that are intended to lead to a superior system.
Do I think you have decent ideas here? Yes, it would be great to have people help create tutorials for the introductory maps lower rated players play. It would also be great to have curated replays that can be sent to casters. That last point is why I decided to incorporate a replays-to-cast channel on the Discord where casters can quickly scoop up a decent game given out by a credible player.
But if you haven’t even tried to implement some of those low initiative/cost ideas now (hosting some tournaments, being active in the training channel, etc), I fail to see why anything would change because you got a green badge.
You have 4 years of doing nothing related to any of this platform you posted. I have 3 years of massive investment into this project across all of these areas. The best path forward for FAF is you joining in to collaborate and learn how these segments of FAF operate and then in the future taking the mantle of managing them. If you have the motivation you claim to have in this post, then you’d not only be able to take a drastic weight off of my shoulders but have the ability to implement most of the ideas you’re advocating for here by working alongside me. As it is, I do not think it serves FAF’s interest to gamble on an entirely unknown entity.