New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements

1

I think the player base don't really give a damn about who is going to be the new PC or the old one,all we are willing to see are actual changes and progression,most players that i know hate Ftx for being harsh but he does his job and there is a huge track of what has been done,same goes for Morax,would be nice to see more participants as well.

queuing with a newbie to show him the beauty of tmm and meeting tagada be like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLcRpdZ0Xb0&ab_channel=Tomoko

0

@askaholic said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

Who exactly are these people? Because I certainly was not included in any such discussion and it would be me who is in the position of having to implement a large part of your idea, or ultimately, spend a lot of time reviewing and maintaining the code.

My TMM plan is designed to improve the user experience a lot but largely utilizes the underlying (already created) architecture to do so. It can be done in a way that largely uses the existing code as it was designed to be used, but implements it in a way that gives TMM players a lot more options for a better TMM experience. I talked with different developers for different things, but for the bulk of what you're worried about, I talked with Sheikah. I'd be happy to discuss the details with you further in pm. I'd rather not bog down this forum with extensive minutia detailing how coding it is actually feasible and can be done reasonably.

0

@emperor_penguin said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

My TMM plan is designed to improve the user experience a lot but largely utilizes the underlying (already created) architecture to do so.

How? bloating the TMM ui doesn't improve the UX. Infact it makes it more complicated and adds more sticking points. Unless you think a new player is going to know what these options even mean?

0

@biass said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

How? bloating the TMM ui doesn't improve the UX. Infact it makes it more complicated and adds more sticking points. Unless you think a new player is going to know what these options even mean?

Different players often want to play different things and many people are often interested in playing particular varieties of different games but want an easy way to play something that is convenient and will actually fill quickly. A TMM with a variety of good options helps solve this issue by providing a convenient way for users to queue for the types of games they actually want to play. Part of the logic for making TMM appear to have a universal queue with options is that the proper UI for that would use space a lot more efficiently than the alternative concept of listing every desired combination of queue options individually as a separate queue. Appearing to have a universal queue would actually result in a relatively condensed UI compared to what TMM might otherwise become once more queues are added, and it would have a better UX as well as more options. And yes, I think players understand the meaning of things like "1v1", "2v2", and "fullshare". To clarify, my sample options list above was not the UI design, but was simply a sample list of some potential options.

1

Some history:
Fullshare is a false option (in that it be a choice of not being a team games cause its shouldn’t be choice at all).

For 2v2 and argueably higher match makers it should always be full share. Now before you say “But intended!”
In GPG the standard share didn’t work the same as it does now. Specifically anything someone donated before they died DOES NOT get crtl-K and frankly speaking that was used extensively.

Specifically if you died you would donate your base before you went kaboom. Meaning the most basic team game scenerios, were functionally speaking fullshare.

And different players want different things? You mean we are not all clones, utter madness. What if we had a portion of the client where you could create a game, click the map and condition you wants.

Even turn on the sim mods you desire. And for balance we make a rating specific for it. Also let you define the start positions were desired. But alas you can only play TMM or ladder no option for such...so what should we call it custom game perhaps?

Madness, man we really should implemented that yesterday.

I’m a shitty 1k Global. Any balance or gameplay suggestions should be understood or taken as such.

Project Head and current Owner/Manager of SCTA Project

2

I like the idea to have options for a queue. People could opt in in the higher rated pools if they want to. However I see two serious issues here: the map pools for different team sizes are fundamentally different. It makes no sense to put everything into a "mega" queue. The other thing is that you have no way of knowing if your selection will give you a game anytime soon. Some of these options are mutually exclusive and you could isolate yourself without knowing it. Think of "2v2, share until death, mapgen only, only new players"

1

Full share and share until death are not built to work for the same type of maps so that's already going to be doubling the maplists.

1

@dragun101
With that sort of logic, you could say that we shouldn't have ladder or TMM at all.
Ladder/TMM options gives the advantage of convenience as well as not having to deal with things like hosting, bad hosts, various custom/global rating-related problems, etc. It also allows players to join the queues for every available option that they feel like playing at the time, as opposed to only joining one custom lobby and hoping it fills quickly. My TMM proposal would give users the ability to do what is almost equivalent to automatically joining every lobby they're interested in simultaneously and then leaving the extras once one is full from people doing that. With users queueing like that, the result would be much faster waiting times than we often get for custom lobbies.

2

@blackyps @ftxcommando
The behind-the-scenes code in my TMM plan actually makes it possible to set up map pools that essentially have subcategories for different option combinations. So, any particular combination of options could be set to use the particular maps in the pools that are desired for that particular combination of options.
There could also be something like a 'quick match button' which queues the user with recommended options if you want a simple guided choice for users.

0

Actually, the Full Share discussion stems from a problem where a team joining as a party has 1 bored member... or an uneven rating team apparently wins because they lost the lowest ranked ACU.

I read something about a "Demoralization" victory condition. I cannot find much about it. However if it means that you remain in control of your buildings and stuff after your ACU dies, and your team only loses when all ACU's are dead, then this also solves the problem in an even better way for party-based play especially.

...Aside from not seeing half the enemies stuff explode which remains anticlimactic

0

Demoralization is you and your team quitting the game via Ctrl-K.

5

FYI, I have now discussed my proposed TMM plan with Askaholic in more detail, and he said that it's not much work for him on the server (since it largely utilizes already created coding architecture). So, from a technical standpoint, that shouldn't be a problem.

1

Askaholic is becoming Answeraholic as of recent with this PC election...

Anyways, I am going to answer @biass questions now. I would like to respond to a couple others, especially FTX response to my post soon but am awaiting some more answers.

Biass, you asked:

First, why are you here?
You've answered what you want to do. But why are you applying exactly?
Are you applying to do these things specifically, and why are you not doing them already?

I am here because as someone who has played the game for close to 15 years I want to continue to support it and the people that around it. My ideas for accomplishing tasks as the player councilor are very close to FTX's but I believe in certain key areas I can do it better, for example map evaluation for ladder and TMM pools.

I am applying to do these things not only because I could do them now, but set a protocol and open, transparent policy on how they are done. As stated in @Aulex post here there is a need to focus a bit more on some other areas of the community. I want to do that and not distract myself with what should be other's responsibilities such as the promo council not working on FAF live.

More often than not, the primary role of the Player Councilor is to act as the beat-stick. The "Main tank" if you will. What i'm saying is that in the role, you'll cop a truckload of literal shit that you can't actually do anything about.
How do you expect to fare against the tide?

Do you think your past history as contributors here will reflect well on your chances?

Easy: I was M&M council for awhile and was beat up all the time by anyone and everyone, including you @biass . The only reason I stepped down last year was because the pandemic caused a lot of stress on my work where it was a last-ditch effort attempt to save a small company I was working for that lacked funding/resources to operate under such harsh conditions.

FTX may claim that experience as the M&M council has no meaning to being a different council, but I say otherwise as it taught me a lot about how to interact with people here, who are the devs, how to use Github and find severe issues to work out, and so much more.

1

I think emperor penguin is the best candidate. He seems to be s genuinely nice person who wants to integrate all the strata of faf. What a nice thing to have someone like that running for the job.

0

@emperor_penguin said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

@dragun101
With that sort of logic, you could say that we shouldn't have ladder or TMM at all.
Ladder/TMM options gives the advantage of convenience as well as not having to deal with things like hosting, bad hosts, various custom/global rating-related problems, etc. It also allows players to join the queues for every available option that they feel like playing at the time, as opposed to only joining one custom lobby and hoping it fills quickly. My TMM proposal would give users the ability to do what is almost equivalent to automatically joining every lobby they're interested in simultaneously and then leaving the extras once one is full from people doing that. With users queueing like that, the result would be much faster waiting times than we often get for custom lobbies.

Because ladder is not meant to be a curation for a competitive enviroment. Its not meant to be a one click join custom game lobby.

I’m a shitty 1k Global. Any balance or gameplay suggestions should be understood or taken as such.

Project Head and current Owner/Manager of SCTA Project

0

@morax said:

Askaholic is becoming Answeraholic as of recent with this PC election...

Lmao

0

@FtXCommando @Morax @Emperor_Penguin You probably all know me as someone who makes a lot of suggestions that are lets say misguided at least in the majority opinion. I'm trying to better explain my reasoning and invisible modesty in newer topics, but not the point now.

The point is community interaction by the Player Councillor. You are free to assume I was wrong in these topics, I would like to invite you to provide a good example of how you would respond to these misguided nooby topics.

@valki said in Aeon T1 PD under construction cannot be hit sometimes:

[Picture removed]
Replay: https://replay.faforever.com/14230328

I have seen this in game quite a few times, where sometimes units waste all their firepower at an unbuilt Aeon PD. Possibly also other structures.

It was easy to reproduce.

It seems the Aeon PD is underneath the ground, units target it and hit the ground instead.

It does NOT affect UEF, Cybran or Seraphim PD. Also tested this in the same replay.

I was not satisfied by the PC's dismissive reply, problem still exists.

@valki said in missiles subject to TMD should ignore shields:

FAF lacks a skill-sensitive siege option, where a player with significantly less economy than its opponent can break its defenses.

MML counter shields fine, but this is in a macro view where MML is cost effective vs TMD. If the defending player has much more eco, then the shields offer him enough time to use his superior eco to spam up cost ineffective TMD and defend the base.

I want a player with less eco to destroy a firebase without TMD quickly, so he has a chance to get ahead purely through superior tactics.

[...]

Sure, bad suggestion, but I was disappointed that the interesting thought behind it - even if it was never worth implementing - was just not picked up. (did not get a bad PC reply here)

@valki said in (A)RAS: reduce nearby building consumption to zero:

I suggest that RAS will reduce the mass consumption costs of nearby buildings to zero. ARAS reduces mass and energy consumption of nearby buildings to zero. Units and in particular engineers derive no benefit. SCU's provide a 50% reduction instead of a 100% reduction.

[...]

I'm by no means a FAF or balance expert, but thought this might be an interesting idea. I cannot really defend or speak on its impact on balance or the metagame.

I was somewhat depressed when I posted this, dealing with lifechanging injury, but still. This was a helpfully intended suggestion that was completely dismissed and nitpicked. Almost quit right there, though in hindsight it doesn't look so bad.

I was wrong, I invite you to tell me nicely

0

@Valki, my dude, these are balance topics. None of the forum posts you linked are really relevant to FtX or the PC election at all. Also, tbh it's kind of ridiculous to say that "I was not satisfied by the PC's dismissive reply" when he was the only person to even bother replying and giving you an explanation at all.

0

Honestly no idea what to say if these are the examples of my asshole behavior.

And wtf, I’m an asshole when I respond and when I don’t respond? I didn’t respond to the TMD thread because it just wasn’t an idea worth discussing to me, it breaks way too many of the interactions in the game and converts cruisers into absurdly OP units.

0

@archsimkat said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

@Valki, my dude, these are balance topics. None of the forum posts you linked are really relevant to FtX or the PC election at all. Also, tbh it's kind of ridiculous to say that "I was not satisfied by the PC's dismissive reply" when he was the only person to even bother replying and giving you an explanation at all.

These were well-intentioned but misguided posts by me, I consider the tone relevant. I will not debate whether this response is better than no response. This is more an opportunity for @morax and @Emperor_Penguin.

I hope you can appreciate I am somewhat humiliating myself for this purpose.

@ftxcommando said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

Honestly no idea what to say if these are the examples of my asshole behavior.

And wtf, I’m an asshole when I respond and when I don’t respond? I didn’t respond to the TMD thread because it just wasn’t an idea worth discussing to me, it breaks way too many of the interactions in the game and converts cruisers into absurdly OP units.

I'm not calling you an asshole, I genuinely respect you also because you do take the time to explain like in our PM discussions. Not getting what I want does not mean I think you are an asshole. (Note I did not bring up our ongoing discussion about rating)

However, I would like (not need) a Player Councillor who deals with this in a better way, having to get through needless nitpicking can be needlessly discouraging. I am interested in what the others would say.