Player Councilor Election 2021

0

valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:

Not only do they not get what they want

I'm important to realise that, while "lower rating players" are not ignored, most requests to do something to improve their time here are based on entirely fictional demographics, upon each users's personal experience and observation.

For example, it's easy to argue that points such as:

Actively giving more (useful) feedback to map authors when they submit a map for ladder/TMM and it doesn’t make the cut

Is not a point made towards improving the experience for new players, but is something that would improve the time here for Emperor_Penguin specifically. Because of course:

  • The number of "new" players interested in matchmaking are a minority.
  • The number of "new" players who are interested in matchmaking and creating maps for it, are an incredibly small minority all-together (sub 10 people at maximum)
  • The number of "new" players who are interested in matchmaking, avoid my current resources made towards helping new creators, submitting to ladder and then getting rejected is almost non existent (sub 3)

It would be good to ask "how do we find, and improve the time for, all these different player demographics?" and then vote for whoever puts forward the best idea.

It shouldn't be about asking: Can you do "X"? X might not be a good solution.

After all, there are plenty of different groups who play everything from phantom to nomads to coop only, and ladder is only but a small group of players. (calling eachother elitist is a moot point if you're only going to focus on ladder boys)

Right now you have three of the same strategy. Which is pretty terrible.

"We're going to improve the matchmaker!"

To which we ask them, how so? and they reply:

"By asking ppl how to fix it!"

Polling people is not an interesting point to make in an election. You don't need to be a PC to make one. You need to choose someone who has the strength and the strategy to represent your needs, and who can deliver them with FAF's constraints (asking for dev or manpower options is entirely moot) or else you'll just end up with nothing.

I personally would have liked to have seen something related to clans. I didn't see anything here of course.

0

I think you already have your answer Valki, Morax offered in his application to interview people about what they want for ladder/map pool.
I think it's a nice idea to actively search for the "complex desires" of ladder players in order to refine your vision of what the player wants. Now unfortunatly, it's very easy to do this for a little group (like the 1800+ who are less then 20-30), but i don't think you can have a general opinion of the almost 900 players under 1000 with this method. It would be very time consuming and i'm pretty sure you'll have so many diverse opinions that you won't conclude easily. Hence the idea of polling.

0

@auricocorico I guess I could take that as my answer then, but would still appreciate a direct answer. I'm just growing concerned not only about TMM but also some aspects of the management of it.

When TMM was released me and a friend moved in from Starcraft 2 2v2 (I already played FAF 1v1). If the apparent* popularity drops further our game night might move on from FAF TMM.

The fact that everyone** we talk to ingame/postgame dislikes the same things, and I get called a retard for bringing one of those supported concerns up on Discord... I fear that this might be the cause of TMM's apparent* popularity drop.

*Judging based on our matchmaking experience on Saturday evenings
**"Everyone" so far is about 10 people 600-1100 rated over a number of weeks

6

I see a lot of "FtX ignores the lower rated players" but not a lot of specifics, so here are some thoughts and some questions I have so we can maybe see how much merit this statement has.

One aspect I saw mentioned, is that there are almost no tournaments for lower rated players. I think that is a fair observation and we could really use more of these. Morax also recently pointed this out in a separate thread. Luckily Suzuji seems to be very motivated to organize some. And because you don't need to be PC to be a tournament director, I'm looking forward to seeing some tournaments from him regardless how this election goes.

It seems like Emperor_Penguin and the players he knows are very unhappy with the maps in the ladder pool. Can you elaborate why the pool "doesn’t prioritize regular player preference, fun, playerbase growth, and new player retention anywhere near as much as it should"?
Also what exactly do low rated players desire, when talking about mapsize is apparently not it? What are these same things that they all dislike as Valki said? And how do you determine that what you and the people you talked to is representative to the playerbase as a whole? I am about 1k rated myself and I generally like the pool. I think the rating brackets for the pool are a good solution to give lower rated players maps that are easier to play.

Polling lower rated people is really difficult because their community interaction is really low. Many don't even read the news. Only a server message to all boosted the poll result numbers significantly and I don't want to have everyone bothered by popups every month.

I'd also like to hear some examples of the "toxic/derogatory attitude/rhetoric", because the dictator FtX meme gets hinted at a lot, but so far nobody bothered to explain what egregious things he has apparently done. To me it seems that some people are disgruntled because he denied their proposed changes/maps/ideas. In my experience, everytime this happened was because the ideas or maps were not well thought out (i.e. had negative implications that the proposer didn't think of, or didn't even adress the root problem but merely a symptom), were of low quality or simply not feasible (hello low dev resources).

0

@suzuji said in Player Councilor Election 2021:

As a prominent figure in the FAF community he must avoid gossip or harm the reputation or well-being of other users; in turn, lack of desire to adhere to a good character may bring FAF into disrepute.

Surely you having 10 recorded bans on your name wont have a negative impact on this at all

0

@blackyps said in Player Councilor Election 2021:

Also what exactly do low rated players desire, when talking about mapsize is apparently not it? What are these same things that they all dislike as Valki said? And how do you determine that what you and the people you talked to is representative to the playerbase as a whole? I am about 1k rated myself and I generally like the pool. I think the rating brackets for the pool are a good solution to give lower rated players maps that are easier to play.

Recently:

  • People rather having Share Until Death than Full Share
  • Spawns on Phenom Spartiate v2 are wrong (or chose poorly)

There was something a while back but it no longer matters and I cannot remember.

2

@valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:

Recently:

  • People rather having Share Until Death than Full Share
  • Spawns on Phenom Spartiate v2 are wrong (or chose poorly)

There was something a while back but it no longer matters and I cannot remember.

I don't think you are supposed to promote less competitive experience, that is also just worse gameplay wise just cuz' few folks are unable to see their own shortcomings. Full share is simply better experience in 2v2 no matter what you might be thinking.
All that share until death does is increase the snowball to one that cannot be stopped which is not something that should be encouraged in game design, loss of half APM is already big enough of a setback for the team that's losing.

As for other part I don't see how that directly relates to anything of importance here? It's either just normal human error or just different vision of the ladder team?
Not sure why you would bring that up here in PC election.

If anything I feel like these problems you brought up are miniscule and don't matter, which just shows how little there is to complain?

1

valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:

People rather having Share Until Death than Full Share

I don't understand here, it was only you who said they rather have this? And maybe penguin. Should the PC change the system because two people asked for it? Even though two plus people said they would rather have fullshare in the same chat?

0

@biass said in Player Councilor Election 2021:

valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:

People rather having Share Until Death than Full Share

I don't understand here, it was only you who said they rather have this? And maybe penguin. Should the PC change the system because two people asked for it? Even though two plus people said they would rather have fullshare in the same chat?

I wanted to provide feedback and all I got was shouted at and be dismissed. This made my point a greater one, that legitimate feedback is handled badly.

@randomwheelchair said in Player Councilor Election 2021:

@valki said in Player Councilor Election 2021:

Recently:

  • People rather having Share Until Death than Full Share
  • Spawns on Phenom Spartiate v2 are wrong (or chose poorly)

There was something a while back but it no longer matters and I cannot remember.

[...]
All that share until death does is increase the snowball to one that cannot be stopped which is not something that should be encouraged in game design, loss of half APM is already big enough of a setback for the team that's losing.
[...]

Snowball is not bad by definition, games are supposed to end, especially games where you play with a friend. I didn't discuss the reasons at length with others, but our subjective reasons, feel free to judge and discuss among yourselves... I cannot know if I am right, and I am done being shouted at.

  • Often, at my level, it feels like "kill 1 ACU = lose game".
    • I think because you have 4 noobs, 1 noob dies, giving another noob eco he would never develop. This allows him to build stuff noobs never encounter and cannot deal with.
    • Especially obvious when you have a team with a high and low player, bad player dies, good player steamrolls.
  • With your friend down, the game is no longer 2v2. You wanted to play 2v2, possibly with a friend. The sooner it ends, the faster you get into a new 2v2 game.
    • Alternative: give us something to do after death
0

Nobody is shouting here. People pointed out the drawbacks of share until death and mentioned that some people like full share. So it is unknown what a majority prefers.
What about this is bad handling of feedback?

0

Discord yesterday after I mentioned it.

I think we could do with a subforum and Discord channel just for one sided feedback. Negative responses not allowed, even constructive criticism discouraged. We need a safe place for people to express their concerns even if they are stupid and wrong. FAF leadership can then hopefully receive more feedback and discuss that in other subforums and channels.

People who want to defend a point could be invited to start a topic elsewhere.

0

Ah, now I know what you mean. But that was FemtoZetta, i.e. a random dude that insulted you.

0

Following important anouuncements, please move discussions to this thread:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1633/new-player-councilor-discussion-removal-announcements

This thread will be locked, but the timeline in the OP will be updated to fit the current one.
Apologies for the inconvenience.