New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements
-
@Morax @FtXCommando @Emperor_Penguin
My final three questions:
- Now we all see new tourneys, people to the people and all that polls, TMM etc. In your personal opanion, what has been your single greatest contribution to FAF? If suddenly you vanish, what has been your noteworthy addition to health of FAF now and in the future? And why?
- What has been sense the pandemic started, the best contribution to FAF that you were not personally in charge of (directly)? And why?
- What is the best thing you can say about the other two candidates in the race?
-
@dragun101 2. better be SCTA hehe
-
@exselsior said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
@ftxcommando Honestly I apologize, it seemed like people were just wanting to get rid of it off hand while implementing more matchmaker queues but I should have clarified better.
No point in apologizing, conversation was intended to frame it as so.
I've been annoyed with some conversations in the past about global rating being incredibly unreasonable and that carried into what I was saying here. There are reasonable ways we can either make global rating better or sunset it eventually with the right data showing it'll be fine, so if that's the approach taken I am more okay with that. Though you'd also have to be willing to accept that there might not ever be a state for FAF in which getting rid of global rating actually makes sense.
I dislike global rating because it is a fundamentally flawed implementation of TrueSkill. It is impossible to make it work better. You simply introduce yet more sieves that either complicate it into being a worse system, create new exploits, or worsen general user experience.
I have spent a long time trying to make global rating better because for a few years it was the only real way to look at players as competent teamgame players. But nothing is actually feasible.
There are several proposals ranging from having global rating impacted by matchmaker games to having global rating hidden but still adjusting itself for games to removing global rating but having say the highest matchmaker rating shown in lobby and balancing through that.
For the most part, I haven't really put much thought into what is better because we aren't even at Step 0 of a sufficiently integrated matchmaker. Odds are, it wouldn't even be me considering the issue but some PC 3 years down the line or whatever. My concern is in optimizing the matchmaker to then get into a situation where global is obsoleted and can instead take a new role where it instead operates more for casual play.
Something that I think is an important precursor that's in my opinion a more sure "win" so to say than more matchmaking queues is better stats available, e.g. overall w/l and breakdowns of w/l like per faction and per map, similar breakdowns for number of games played, your average K/D for your units, apm, etc. There are a lot of possibilities here. That coupled with working achievements, unless they're already working again, are things that'll be nice to have for new and experienced players alike. These are also the kinds of non gameplay related things that can get people playing more and get them more invested in the game even if they're not competitive. Not sure I've really seen this talked about much in this thread; it's possible I just missed it in this mess. I know this takes development work and time, but so does a ton of what else has been talked about in here. Better stats and achievements are things I'd love to see considered and talked about more
Stat-wise I don't have a problem with more information. Just comes down to presenting it in a fluid and intuitive format that doesn't end up confusing people even more. I do not think that this information helps players at all with regards to improving themselves and falls into the "neato" category. It doesn't really feel that pertinent to improving the player experience to me, IMO.
With regards to achievements that is actually something that would warrant a poll for me. I genuinely do not understand what the value of achievements are or how much of FAF actually values them at all. Do people actually look at this stuff? If so, I'd actually think about how to utilize them for FAF because honestly I just do not really think about them at all.
I don't even know why they were initially put into the client, just seems like such a weird thing because I've never seen someone achievement hunt in games. In fact it seems like it might incentivize behavior that you don't want to see if you make them more of a big deal with things like "make 500 GCs" and people intentionally stall games to fill some achievement dopamine hit.
-
@maudlin27 said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
So FtX am I right in understanding you'd favour the following approach:
-Introduce a 4v4 (and possibly 3v3) team matchmaker (in addition to the current 1v1 and 2v2)
-Have these work a similar way to current where it's preset options, with no customisation, and a set map pool (randomly chosen), as opposed to the option suggested by someone (was it Penguin? I cant remember now it was so long ago in this mess of a thread) of a single matchmaker where you select the various options you'd be happy with (1v1, 2v2 etc.; type of map; full share, etc. etc.) and see if anyone else has selected those same options
-Once this is in place and people have ratings for these game modes, remove the global rating for custom gamesThat is, if you see global rating as a bad thing, but don't think it should be removed yet, what is your future scenario you want to encourage that results in global rating being removed?
Correct. This is my bare minimum vision at the moment. I want to go into 4v4 matchmaker as this is a significantly more popular game size than 3v3. It should give a decent barometer into what exactly "the queue effect" is on the more popular queues (4v4 and 6v6 are the only ones more popular than 1v1 and we saw 2v2 rise from least popular to around the same tier as 1v1).
There are a variety of other directions to currently take the matchmaker and I want to work with Askaholic to create either:
A) A matchmaker specifically for global rating
B) Investigate the 2013-2014 rationale for removing matchmaker influence on global rating and see if we should revert this adjustment and go back to global rating being impacted by matchmaker ratings.I also want to try out other stuff with matchmakers. I think an asymmetric FFA queue would be cool, personally and am eager for Sheikah to finish up the adjustments for that in map gen.
I do not want a variety of menus because I do not see many of the suggestions he gave creating a decent game atmosphere. A new player doesn't know share until death 2v2 is essentially an autoloss on every map that isn't Fields of Isis. Many players don't. They won't figure it out until they play a dozen garbage games and need to adjust their experience if they don't just leave FAF for providing garbage games. Plenty of other decent RTS options out there.
Do these queues all use the same rating? So now I can be a 1900+ player using the "noob map pool" queue and essentially cut myself off from all the 1900+ players using stronger pools? Great, you just turned decent TrueSkill implementations into global rating.
Are they all separate ratings? So when do I switch from noob pool to a better pool? When I feel like it? But I like feeling like I'm 2k in noob pool. Why would I switch and face people on maps that I don't know, who have experience on that map, and who are going to be better than me?
These sort of problems extend into a variety of other elements
-
@exselsior said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
Something I'd like to know is if there are dev plans of adding features to the queue that allows you to A. see the people currently in the queue, B. talk to the people in the queue, and C. once the queue is ready there's say a minute or two delay for you to ready up before the game starts the game starts as soon as everyone readies up or kicks you if you miss the delay. Currently in larger games I'd take a lobby sim 10 times out of 10 over sitting in a queue for the same amount of time for those reasons. To me these features would be kind of nice in 1v1, nice in 2v2, and almost essential in 4v4 queues.
A. This allows you to manipulate your rating by rigging who you face. No.
B. You can talk to your team. If you talk to people in your queue you would need to know who you are facing, this is not information that should be given out involuntarily. If people want to say they are searching on Discord or in #aeolus they are totally free to do so.
C. I kind of don't get the point of this? Why queue up if you aren't ready to play?
-
@ftxcommando said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
@exselsior said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
Something I'd like to know is if there are dev plans of adding features to the queue that allows you to A. see the people currently in the queue, B. talk to the people in the queue, and C. once the queue is ready there's say a minute or two delay for you to ready up before the game starts the game starts as soon as everyone readies up or kicks you if you miss the delay. Currently in larger games I'd take a lobby sim 10 times out of 10 over sitting in a queue for the same amount of time for those reasons. To me these features would be kind of nice in 1v1, nice in 2v2, and almost essential in 4v4 queues.
A. This allows you to manipulate your rating by rigging who you face. No.
Huh? How exactly does it do this? You still aren’t picking who you play with or against the matchmaker system is. I just would want to see if there are enough players of a similar rating who are queuing.
B. You can talk to your team. If you talk to people in your queue you would need to know who you are facing, this is not information that should be given out involuntarily. If people want to say they are searching on Discord or in #aeolus they are totally free to do so.
Again, I’m extremely confused on this point. In no way, shape, or form does it do what you’re implying unless I’m missing something. Matchmaker still picks who plays who, I have no impact in that.
C. I kind of don't get the point of this? Why queue up if you aren't ready to play?
Im talking off hours which is conveniently being ignored this whole time and represents way least half the day even on weekends. If I’m in a queue for potentially 30 minutes when I play, I’d like to be able to get up and get a drink or maybe play a casual game in another window. Having a bit more time to get back and get situated is nice. During peak times everyone would be ready right away theoretically and there wouldn’t be an additional wait.
-
There are 3.5 people on average in a 3 minute queue. I am a 500 rating player. In the current queue, I do not know if those players are 200, 400, 600, 800, 1200, or 1800. In your system, I do.
Do you see this inclusion of this information as having zero impact on my decision-making as a player? I have no inclination to avoid searching because a player I often underperform against is online? Someone who is 200 rating above me is online?
With regards to C, you already have this time due to the introduction of a wait time that counts down. You are not suddenly and randomly thrust into a game. You are always put into a game at a set interval that counts down from whatever set time. I do not get how going into a game at the end of a countdown from 3:00 improves by making it 3:00 but you also add an increase of a 1:00 delay as well as a confirmation button to confirm you want to play.
Imagine you play ladder for 5 hours today. Now imagine instead of simply clicking the "Ladder" button, you also need to go and cycle in and hit the "Confirm" button.
Pros: you now see less afk players in game. Is this currently such a large problem?
Cons: you see more people fail to actually launch a game, you see more frustration as people need to hit another button to play, you see a larger wait time for the end user that was not actually told to them at the start. -
Ftx stop smoking truck tires. You type way to much and say way to little. Global rating is a system that works. You are creating a problem that doesn't exist, I would say most people are happy with global rating. And the alternatives you offer sound half baked and are even more speculative than your characterisation of the problem. Can we maybe focus on getting one queue to work (tmm) instead of trying to implement 2 more queues? Clearly there is a problem with the queue system.
Resetting tmm rating hasn't exactly helped much has it.
-
And what is currently the problem with the queue system?
-
@mize said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
I like to use the Shit Sandwich approach.
First off let me say that I appreciate all the hard probably unpaid work that many of you guys do to make FAF work.
Now I want to point out that I have basically sat back for many years and seen FAF change over and over and over. Balance changes, eco changes, unit changes and such. many of them I really didn't care for.
IMHO many of these things were done to placate 1v1/ladder players.
Probably like many players we have just played and adapted for the love of the game, without much of a complaint. I also know and talk with many old FAF/GPG players who have left because of these changes.And what the hell is this about some maps no longer being included in the global rating system? To me being an older adult this honestly seem petty. I don't care what maps players want to play. It's just like I say and live by "who cares if your gay or not" to each his/her own. Enjoy.
I want a commitment or pledge from the elected PC that He/She will not remove the global rating system.
FTX?
MORAX?
Penguin?Again to all the people who work endlessly on this game. I applaud you. We need you and many more to make this work. I know i couldn't do it.
Mizer
I just answered this before you wrote this. It’s in post 293!
-
@shape-of-bennis said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
Ftx stop smoking truck tires. You type way to much and say way to little. Global rating is a system that works. You are creating a problem that doesn't exist, I would say most people are happy with global rating. And the alternatives you offer sound half baked and are even more speculative than your characterisation of the problem. Can we maybe focus on getting one queue to work (tmm) instead of trying to implement 2 more queues? Clearly there is a problem with the queue system.
Resetting tmm rating hasn't exactly helped much has it.
I usually don't reply on this thread, but i need to speak up when seeing this.
I also usually ignore what benis write, but i think it's important to reply for the people reading this.As ftx said trueskill hasn't been designed at all like it is being used now.
It is a tool to evaluate someone skill without bias. And applying that tool with custom game lead to big bias and a barely useful rating at the end.
What are the bias ?- ability to select your opponents : especially in our small community it is very easy to stack game even if the rating doesn't say it is.
- ability to select map : This is a major bias, especially when people keep playing the same map, and reach abnormal rating in comparison to their skill.
- select your position on the maps, etc
If we want to improve the game, it's going to be necessary to remove (or at least hide) this rating.
This will also help the community on several fronts :- it allow new player to start playing more easily, without getting kicked (help at player retention)
- It will also help at reducing toxicity in game, especially in custom game where rating aren't at stake anymore. This lead to having custom game being used for what it main intend is : playing chill game modded or not (keeping global rating hidden with auto balance tool will make this game balanced-ish), while competitivness is handled by tmm.
Also to answer to mize about "elitist selecting map that will be rated" or whatever that was. As i explained this is required by default to get a useful rating. That's how it works in other games like sc2.
-
@Mize
If I am elected PC, I will not remove or hide Global Rating.
@emperor_penguin said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:I absolutely do take strong stances on certain things and am not afraid to say "No" when the situation warrants it. For example, when FTX expressed that he wanted to and actively planned to remove Global Rating from FAF and make all normal (non-TMM) games be unrated, I took a strong stance against that, which I still stand by, as I strongly believe that that is not in the best interests of FAF, and that is supported by a myriad of conversations I've had with numerous FAF players. So, as PC, I would strongly oppose removing global rating and would say "No" to removing it.
Frankly, FTX's plan to remove Global Rating would be a major negative for a very large portion of active FAF players, and hiding or removing it would undoubtedly cause countless FAF players to quit FAF entirely. My approach, as outlined in my PC application, is to get more people playing ladder/TMM by making them better for everyone, while keeping Global Rating, but making it easier for new players to get started.@keyser
You and FTX have explained why you guys want to remove/hide Global Rating and explained some problems with it. However, your alternative rating solution also has problems, removing/hiding Global Rating would cause major problems, and Global Rating can peacefully coexist with alternative rating solutions (there could even be a minor UI change to show an additional rating). Anyway, it's not necessary to remove Global Rating to improve FAF, and removing/hiding Global Rating would worsen FAF for a lot of people as outlined in my explanation here:@emperor_penguin said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
Some relevant info:
Most multiplayer FAF players play the same few map(s) over and over for all or almost all of their games for long periods of time.
TMM rating (with FTX's TMM plan) would not represent many of those players' skills as accurately as global rating does in the games they actually play most/all of the time.
Further, removing global rating removes the option to play select maps and map types and slot types competitively.
By removing it, he will be making FAF less fun and less enjoyable to them and will cause countless people to quit FAF entirely.
To put it another way; I want to play competitive FAF games besides what will be on TMM; so do thousands to tens of thousands of others.
TMM doesn't work for balancing things that are more global-specific and won't be on the TMM.
Map-specific rating, slot-specific rating, rating for 5v5/6v6/7v7/8v8, etc (and more) are all things that are covered somewhat (with flaws) by global, but would not be covered by FTX's TMM rating.
So, if TMM seems like a good fit for you, that's great.
However, it's not a good fit for many game types that are massively more popular/more frequently played.
So, global rating should not be hidden or removed.
*PS: The current plan for TMM (regardless of who is elected PC) involves TMM only having up to 8 players (4v4 or less) due to technical reasons regarding network connection issues. So, all games with more than 8 players (including 5v5, 6v6, 7v7, and 8v8) would not be on TMM and would be unrated without Global Rating. -
Penguin, please stop.
FTX and I both likely will not abolish it, will use a better system if it presents, and explain it if it is feasible and accepted. I don't see that happening in the near future.
You and everyone have to remember: we are doing our best with our applications to bring what we believe possible and improve over the next entire year or more. Positions/technology can change, opinions contrast and yield different results over time, etc, etc etc.
This whole act of accusing someone of not being able to change is what makes me worried about you. I would be deathly afraid to say anything if you were a council member and held any previous actions as "rock solid" for eternity. I don't want to be denied the ability to admit guilt, apologize, and move on to improve things.
FTX and I clash on a lot of ideas, but even with the friction encountered in this election I am very certain, win or lose, we will all learn some things together and make the community a better place.
-
@morax
I too am trying to act in the best interests of FAF and improving the overall FAF experience.I'm not accusing someone of not being able to change. I acknowledged that you apparently changed your stance. I obviously don't hold all previous stances as "rock solid" for eternity; that would be absurd. Frankly, there have been a number of false accusations against me this election (particularly from FTX), and I think the facts can speak for themselves at this point.
Win or lose, I am trying to make a positive impact on FAF this election, and I have campaigned with community-benefit in mind.
-
@Emperor_Penguin it is a shame that you don't seem to be receptive to the arguments for hiding it. This is a serious and important discussion that needs a PC that is neutral and open minded.
I don't get where @Morax did anything "wrong" here, I skimmed through a lot of this thread so I could be wrong... But it seems that all he did was be open to the arguments in this discussion, and he was notably very scared about another rating reset disaster.
-
It just turned may 30th for me, but I live in Australia. I'll close the thread in roughly 22 hours or so (when it becomes the 31st here) as it was decided upon in the OP. The voting will hopefully begin on time as also discussed in the OP.
You can of course discuss topics outside of this thread if you wish.I would encourage the participants to perhaps
- Make sure no questions have been left unanswered
- Possibly make a closing statement
before the time period ends.
This thread has been a ride and we probably should have done some extra rules /moderation,
but thank you all regardless. -
I’m going away this weekend to celebrate a family member’s wedding, will be unable to write a closure until Monday.
I’ll follow up with a post then on the following:
-
Any unanswered questions/concerns in this thread
-
A sample event and rationale schedule for the next year per Swkoll’s request
-
“What would I not do if not elected and what would I do” to help people understand and clearly express I do not intend to deviate from supporting the community should I lose
-
A list of 5 questions for FTX since he does not want to have a voice stream debate
Sorry to all but a family wedding takes precedence over this election.
-
-
It was just a day ago, but at the same time it is over 30 posts ago that Morax requested I say a little bit about the upcoming league system. It's true, I and many others have been working on it. It will probably be ready in the next months. Basically it will provide divisions and seasons for the players like almost all competitive games do.
This will not remove the trueskill system, but it will hide it from the players in favor of their division. This way we can hopefully provide a better sense of progression while also making the system easier to understand. No more "why do my teammates get a different amount of points than I" and the like.
There is no plan to have a global rating division system. So the divisions would basically only exist for the matchmaker queues. That does however not imply anything about what you will see when you join a custom game. It's basically an added feature for the matchmaking system. Changes to how the custom games rating system works could be introduced at the same time, but are not necessary. -
@ftxcommando said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:
Do you see this inclusion of this information as having zero impact on my decision-making as a player? I have no inclination to avoid searching because a player I often underperform against is online? Someone who is 200 rating above me is online?
Yes, I do see it having an impact on decision making as a player because that's the point. There's no rating manipulation with what you just said - no one is magically going to jump hundreds of points because of avoiding one person who beats them. Low rated players can't leapfrog between each other to become 2k anymore than they can now. What it does mean is that in a hypothetical 4v4 queue I can see if it's actually worth queueing instead of wasting time in a queue that has 10 500 rated players in it and zero 1400+ players or whatever. It does mean that it's easier for players to decide whether they're going to queue or not, and furthermore can encourage people to queue when they see people around their level queueing. The Java client's ability to say if someone your level is queueing is nice, I'd argue that both bringing that back and expanding on it would be beneficial.
With regards to C, you already have this time due to the introduction of a wait time that counts down. You are not suddenly and randomly thrust into a game. You are always put into a game at a set interval that counts down from whatever set time. I do not get how going into a game at the end of a countdown from 3:00 improves by making it 3:00 but you also add an increase of a 1:00 delay as well as a confirmation button to confirm you want to play.
I do generally agree, and after talking to a TMM dev about it I really don't care about point C as much
-
thank f**k it's nearly over good luck to all the candidates
