Noob matchmaker queue
-
I disagree. First of all, faf is already very low micro compared to other games. Secondly, I find raiding to be my favorite part of it, and even though I’m a noob (like 700 on ladder) having lots of stuff going on is what makes it fun. If you win it’s because you succeeded in overcoming a mental challenge more effectively than your opponent, and that’s cool. If you lose it just means that there is potential for you to improve in the future. And IMO the biggest source of pleasure to be gained from games is from that progressive improvement.
So I totally disagree that in order for noobs/low tier players to have fun, the game needs to be dumbed down. Doing that just has the opposite effect by suppressing the potential to improve and therefore removing the fun from the game.
-
I made a game mode that is more friendly for new players. It is the mod (in the mod vault) called "Stone Age." It takes away everything above t1. This takes away a lot of complexity. You don't have worry about TMLs or making SMD or building flak to counter gunships. It also strips away your ability to eco in place by upgrading mexes, which means you don't have to worry about balancing between unit production and growing your economy. Pretty much all you can do is spam land (or air) and expand, take reclaim, raid your opponent, pick fights where you can win (to get unit advantage or to take reclaim) and eventually try to kill the enemy ACU or destroy their base.
The idea is that new players can practice the fundamentals (balancing power with mass income, spending mass, scouting, raiding, fighting, reclaiming) without being led astray by temptation: the temptation to make t2 mexes, the temptation to get high-tech "toys" to play with. Learning how to spend all of your mass on t1 production is a skill that players need to learn if they want to get good at ladder.
A lot of low-rated people make too many t2 mexes. It's a crutch. "Oh, I have too much mass, I guess I'll make a mex." Take that away and they're forced to learn how to spend their mass. A lot of low-rated players can barely even IMAGINE making 10 t1 factories in a game. It's like their brain doesn't even think it's possible. Give them no other option, and they'll learn to do it. So it's both a teaching tool as well as a more comfy environment.
I suggested making a matchmaking queue where every map is a 5x5 or small 10x10 with not much water, with the stone age mod, and people don't get to pick their factions. Red will be Cybran, blue will be UEF. That's my idea of a simple noob-friendly matchmaking queue.
I wouldn't say this makes the game "dumbed down," you can have some pretty intense competition with T1 only. I have to agree with @Askaholic that making a "dumbed down" version of the game would be a bad thing.
The problem with trying to learn the game when everything is on the table is that too much is going on for people to learn anything. I think a lot of noobs try the ladder, lose horribly, and even if they keep going back, they draw the wrong conclusions about what they need to do better. E.g. they worry about whether they went t2 too soon when their problem is they didn't expand and raid enough. They want to be the "Supreme Commander" "Master General" "Brilliant Tactician" so they're more focused on strategic-level decisions (do I get t2 air or should I get t2 land) instead of mastering the logistical side of things (just making sure you're spending your mass, have the right amount of pgens, your units aren't idle, you expand where you can, you scout, you raid, you use what you got in an effective way). That's why they would benefit from taking away everything above T1 and just drilling the fundamentals first.
-
I like that above, I don't want dumbed down and believe you get crutches from it, removing aspects of the game that can be reintroduced later is a good idea
-
@emperor_penguin said in Noob matchmaker queue:
There is an argument to be made for changing the map pools for the lower rating brackets to be more apm-light/noob-friendly, but then people argue that those map types won't teach the lower-rated players the 'right way' to play the game according to their perspective...
Well, it's a competitive queue, so it makes sense that it has more difficult to play maps; this it not elitism, it's just the nature of a competitive environment.
People shouldn't play ladder games if they don't like the difficulty of the maps, the whole point of it is to proof yourself in a competitive environment (Askaholic expanded on this here already).
Btw, lower bracket maps are already chosen to be a bit less difficult, they get more smaller maps for example, though they aren't as easy as Astro.Back to the topic, a casual queue without shown rating would make a lot of sense imo, though as you can see in this thread it seems everybody has a different opinion about what maps it should have and even about how much of the game should be enabled in them...
I don't think we have the playerbase to make as many queues to please everyone and being able to queue for multiple at once doesn't solve that. -
@askaholic
FAF might be low micro by your standards and in comparison to certain types of other games, but it can still be very high micro to a lot of peoples' standards, as different people can have very different comfort levels for apm/micro/etc.If you read this thread, you can see that a lot of people do have trouble keeping track of and handling things on maps like those generally put in the ladder/TMM pools nowadays. As bellatrix explained, it can be stressful and not fun for a lot of people to play those sorts of maps. I get that it can be fun for a lot of people as well, but there are obviously a lot of people who don't like that sort of gameplay and who don't play TMM/ladder as a result.
If you don't believe that a lot of FAF players (the majority?) prefer easier more apm-light maps in general, I'd like to refer you to the popularity of astro and gap (among others).
-
They are free to stay in the custom lobbies if they want totally stress free environment.
Ladder is supposed to be competitive one that showcases what the game is about.That's why you never see such bad maps like gap or astro in the ladder. No game that values itself even allows for such maps to be part of competitive 1v1 ladder. There is a reason why only SR is allowed to be ranked in LoL and Aram + other game modes have their ratings hidden.
-
@RandomWheelchair
Marginalizing people out of TMM is not the right approach.
Making additional TMM option(s) for them would be much better.
There are benefits to having the convenience/functionality of TMM for players who want regular games that go beyond the blitz chess style of current ladder play. -
Use 1 rating for all these baby queues: you have now converted tmm rating into as useless of a metric as global
Use a variety of ratings: you have now brought over the predisposition of one map players into matchmakers where players will refuse to move on to another queue because that means they lose their identity of “2k god” in the noob queue and will continue to be averse to jumping into a new queue until they feel they are “totally ready”
now you force people into new queues: congrats, you found your way into an over-complicated way of what we currently do.
Matchmakers operate by “proof of induction” because if it doesn’t work for the top players, it’s already dead conceptually.
-
I think there should be different queues for different things
Ladder as stated above, to find out the best players
Casual, to get more games like crazy rush and phantom and other fun games in for relaxing play, hidden rating
Noob, for reduced shock of ladder so new players can learn concepts of the game without pressure, a good example would be the stone age mod and correct maps, hidden rating
-
RTS is stressful by design, because there are many things to keep track of at the same time and the better you do that the better you play. Only a fraction of players enjoys that. And that is imho the reason why RTS will always stay niche.
The astro experience is arguably not RTS anymore but more a city builder with big explosions in the end. There is nothing wrong with playing sim city, but that is not what faf aims to provide.
That is why you will never find maps like astro in a competitive matchmaker. It just doesn't align with the aim of faf regardless of how many people want it.
In the end it is also about the kind of players that faf wants to attract, not only about the players that are already here. That is why it is not always useful to argue with what a majority wants.
-
@veteranashe said in Noob matchmaker queue:
I think there should be different queues for different things
Ladder as stated above, to find out the best players
Casual, to get more games like crazy rush and phantom and other fun games in for relaxing play, hidden rating
Noob, for reduced shock of ladder so new players can learn concepts of the game without pressure, a good example would be the stone age mod and correct maps, hidden rating
The solution is called Custom games and we already have that. You want to play Phatom, Astro, Dualgap ? Np. The solution is already there. Once you start treating them as casual game modes which they are then you can also hide Global Rating to emphasize that.
The rating will be hidden but still there allowing for balancing while reducing the stress and the hostility towards new and grey players. If you say that the host needs to see the ratings to be able to manually balance then I can just as easily say that they already do that with out seeing the rating or rather ignoring it since it's so bad and they manually balance based on their knowledge of the players. -
I can go and put up a custom game with any of the modes and wait hours, and never get a game going.
At least we may have a change when you can queue for several types of game modes at once
-
@BlackYps
I fail to see how anyone could argue astro craters is like sim city with a straight face, even allowing for the way in which many people here (as shown on this thread amongst others) seem to look down with disdain on those of us that play such maps (even though they appear to be the most popular types of maps on FAF, at least for custom games). There's more variety in the gameplay on astro than the majority of 1v1 maps on ladder for those not in the highest ratings , where in most cases for ladder it's a case of 'T1 land spam or die' (with having a good APM being far more significant than making good strategic decisions). Perhaps you've just not played enough astro games to appreciate the range of strategies on it (since if you're using your main profile you don't appear to have any games on the map).I'd have also thought a focus on "the kind of players that faf wants to attract" (in the context of not wanting to attract people who don't like high APM play) very shortsighted. The more people who play faf (in a non-toxic way) the better its longevity/future prospects. Just using myself as an example, while I may play mostly astro I also sometimes play some 1v1 ladder. I doubt I'm the only person who has a favourite style of map such as astro/gap/setons but who also likes to sometimes play other maps or game modes. If all such players were to leave faf because we're 'not the kind of players that faf wants to attract' you get fewer people playing those maps/game mods you approve of such as 1v1 matchmaker.
I also don't understand the logic proposed both here and in the PC election thread for removing the global ranking system. If you had a team of rank 1500s on astro or dual gap against a team of rank 500s (global rating), almost every time the 1500 ranks would crush the 500 ranks. While you may have a greater variance in ability (especially at lower ratings) than with a 1v1 rating, the rating is still a far far better guide to how well someone will play than having no rating at all. Removing the rating just seems like a way of punishing people who are playing maps that don't meet the personal preferences of those suggesting its removal, especially given how bad opti-balance is at balancing a game when you have newer players. As for manually balancing based on knowledge of players, the majority of my games have been from where I've hosted an all welcome lobby, but on average I won't recognise the names of the majority of people who join, and even of those whose names I recognise I'll only know how well some of them play/favoured strategies (there's probably only 4-5 people I could think of off the top of my head where I know how they tend to play and how good that style of play is).
Going back to the OP, while I'd like the idea of an option to play 'lower APM' 1v1 maps (as opposed to currently where I can be given a 1v1 map on a map that's normally seen in the custom lobby as a 3v3 or 4v4 map), and think it would be a more gentle introduction to newer players, if implemented it'd need to be as an option on the existing matchmaker (e.g. you check the box for if you want to play 'new player friendly only' maps, and/or if you're open to playing the full map pool), or else you dilute the number of people on matchmaker even further.
Since as I understand it something a bit like this is meant to happen (I don't think it's working well if it is though), it may be easier to just improve the current system of starting with a small map pool and then adding more complex maps as rating rises.
The 'stone age' mode also sounds like an interesting idea for teaching the gameplay style that's required for 1v1, although I'm not sure how best it would be implemented (if as an option, people may just not choose it and/or it splits the pool of people queuing too much and makes finding games harder; if its as a tutorial mode with AI then people may not be aware of it and/or the AI may not offer enough of a challenge; if it's forced for the first x games then it could put off people who want to experience the full range of options and not be limited to the first tier).
M27AI and M28AI developer; Devlogs and more general AI development guide:
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/2373/ai-development-guide-and-m27ai-v71-devlog
https://forum.faforever.com/topic/5331/m28ai-devlog-v130 -
As an unbiased observer that dislikes both playing 1v1 and astro, I can heartily tell you that 1v1 has massively more variety in tactics than astro. You can quite literally win games by having your garbage player suicide on astro to give you dual base and there is absolutely nothing a dude of equivalent skill can do to catch up to you other than plead with his teammate to donate their base to him.
Yes, this is how I won the last astro I played btw.
Rating removal is predicated on changing the intended use of custom games on FAF and is part of a larger scale motion to shift cultural attitudes. If you make custom games an area for fun script maps and general casual things like ffa or sim mods, it no longer necessitates a rating system.
I really do not like the idea of using mods that artificially restrict the game to acclimate people to, well, the game. If anything people could make noob friendly versions of ladder maps that have things clogging the map up so that it is more comfy to play a la starcraft 2 style. People will argue that players already naturally restrict their game through turtle maps in custom games, but the thing is that they restrict them to get to the cool epic toys that the game shoves in your face in casts and promotional material. This would do the exact opposite and restrict you from accessing those cool toys.
-
Imo Astro/gap is a self fulfilling prophecy. People play it because a lot of people play it and therefore you know the game will fill at a reasonable time. That was my experience anyways. I never thought I myself “hey playing Astro crater sounds really fun rn”, instead I though “hey playing a bad map is more fun than lobby sim so I guess I’ll go join that 5/6 Astro game”. Popularity doesn’t imply preference.
What I really want to see, and what would have been really awesome to have when I was just starting to play faf would be a teammate matchmaker where you can queue for team games on lesser played maps. We’re getting close to this now, and I hope enough people will want to queue for it to make it a viable option for new players to learn the game. I think when you have big team games you naturally need to focus on fewer things since as a team you benefit from your allies APM too. So I don’t think that such a matchmaker would also need a simplified map pool.
-
@maudlin27
I'm not looking down on Astro players and this is not what this is about.
I wanted to make the point that there will always be wishes to change something and you have to check if these changes fit to the spirit of the rest of the project. Just because some people want does not necessarily make it a good idea.Having said that, I think it is a good idea to have a casual game queue with fun and quick game modes.
I honestly don't really get this complaint, that ladder maps are "too high apm". Yes there is more to do than you can manage, but there is no apm requirement. Ditching maual reclaim completely and limiting your move orders will enable you to give all important commands with really low apm. If you invest more apm it is because you choose to do so. I understand this is a mental challenge, because it feels like you are losing out on opportunities to gain an advantage, but I am sure that with this method you can easily get 1200+. That is already better than the vast majority of players. The game is stressful because you choose to make it stressful, because you really want to win. But if you consistently play "easy mode" your rating will adjust and you still have 50% winrate.
The only difference I see with astro and crowded teamgames is that there is so little to do that even with low apm there is literally nothing else you could do, so the self-induced stress goes away.
Especially in the beginning you need time to think about what you should do, reducing your apm until you feel overwhelmed even further. I don't think we can realistically create a map pool for a queue that can achieve this, that at the same time creates a competitive environment. -
@FtXCommando Your example is actually a difference in tactics that 1v1 doesn't have available though :p.
I thought I'd have a look at my recent astro and 1v1 ladder games to check I'm not going off faulty memory to illustrate what I mean when playing at my rank (around 800 in 1v1 ladder; 1400 global although opponents ranks will vary wildly due to being all welcome games):
Astro last 5 games - notable tactics used by winning team:- Guncom
- T2 firebase; Sparky drop
- Com+T1 bomber rush; Monkeylord
- T1 land raid with range (no dps) com; Early strat; Nuke
- Range (no dps) com; Mercy snipe; T2 Arti (to counter fatboy); Strat snipe (of SMD) combined with nuke
1v1 last 5 games (winning player):
- T1 land spam; T1+2 land spam with guncom;
- T1 land spam with Guncom
- T1 land spam; T2 turtle (PD, Arti, shield); T3 land spam
- T1 land spam; T2 firebase;
- T1 land spam; T2 bomber snipe
I had to go back 8 games to find one where initial T1 land spam wasnt a winning tactic in 1v1, and it's only if T1 land spam isn't enough to win the game outright that the game opens up enough to allow other tactics. My memory of being a new player to 1v1 was also similar (although then the games would end before T2 because I'd usually be the one dying to t1 land spam)
Probably veering a bit off-topic now though. My initial experience of looking for games I wanted to play was also similar to that of Ask-a-holic's - I wanted to play a game, and was tired of waiting (although I was also getting tired of t1 spam), so joined custom games that seemed popular. Initially that was Setons, but I found I didn't like how games would typically go on for a long time, and could be decided a while before actually ending; I tried dual gap briefly, but struggled both due to not having a great CPU at the time and not liking how the large number of players meant what I did had far less of an impact; Then although put off by the look of the astro map I eventually gave it a try.
However, I'm not sure I'd see the 2v2 matchmaker as a good option for a new player wanting to learn the game. From my own experience it involves very long waits (much longer than 1v1), plays very similarly to 1v1, but you've got the added worry of a teammate being more likely to get mad at you for not playing well. By contrast, dual gap shields you from this due to the large number of players, while astro does to a lesser extent by allowing your teammates to easily take over your old base.
I think the casual party game matchmaker idea (linked by harzer earlier in the thread) has more potential for working, even if it wouldn't be the best way of teaching a new player how to play 1v1 ladder, since it could (if it proves popular enough to allow quick matching games) allow variety in game styles, access to a game where people are more likely to be inexperienced (and hence people may be more forgiving of mistakes/learning the game), and sounds like it'd be marketed as a casual option (so again more relaxed/about having fun).
I'd also favour making 1v1 matchmaking more friendly to new players by increasing the extent to which rank determines the maps available. E.g. players with fewer than a certain numbrer of games and/or below a certain rank (not sure on the best thresholds, e.g. 10 games and <=400 rank?) only get 5v5 maps, and those maps are weighted towards ones with fewer lines of attack/more choke points, lower levels of reclaim, and lower levels of expansion (i.e. lower APM maps).
Then as the rank and games goes up, the larger and harder maps start getting added to the pool (more open style maps; more reclaim; more expansion points; navy based maps; larger sized maps, etc.).
That way, new players should have an easier introduction to the play style, and will still need to get to grips with the basics of using t1 land to do well, without being as overwhelmed.
Another point as well to helping the new player experience - at the moment there are tutorials with build orders for specific maps intended presumably to help newer players learn how to play. However, those maps aren't in the ladder pool, meaning they're of significantly less help to a new player starting out (potential solutions being to include the maps in the ladder pool even if just for lower ranks, and/or pick a couple of maps that will always be in the ladder pool and refresh the tutorials for them, although that would involve more work).
-
Also it's not true that ladder is 'T1 land spam or die' you can do basically anything in lower ratings if you do it somewhat well. Once when I was around 900 rating my opponent went T2 almost immediatly and utterly crushed me xD
-
@ftxcommando We need the rating system because people don't want to play stacked games. They really, really don't. If they didn't care about rating, they would just ignore it. Anyone is free to host a lobby where teams aren't balanced based on rating. Nobody does that and just about nobody would join, if someone did.
-
@maudlin27 you claim to see a greater variety of strategies on Astro compared to 1v1 ladder, and it is because of this:
@blackyps said in Noob matchmaker queue:
you can do basically anything in lower ratings if you do it somewhat well.
Generally speaking, high level ladder is played at a much higher level than "high level astro" (if there even is such a thing). The strategies used by top players on ladder are refined and optimized over collectively tens of thousands of hours of experience, and lower level players will seek to emulate those strategies. You see a preponderance of strategies on Astro because it is being played at a much lower level and literally nobody knows what they are doing. If there were top players motivated to play astro as much as ladder, you'd likely see a set of "optimal" strategies emerge, and as lower level players sought to emulate that you'd likely see a decrease in strategic variety.
