Posting Restriction for Balance Discussion
-
@sladow-noob said in Posting Restriction for Balance Discussion:
Move balance-thread to forum, moderate more strictly and close threads which rather aim for the "mod-suggest"-direction.
Or moving those threads into more fitting subforums, which is also not possible on discord I think.
But apart from the "balance suggestions" that are in fact just ideas for mods, recently it has been actively tried to kill any meaningful discussion on discord. If that is the intended use-case for that category it might be a good idea to just remove it.
Moving to the forums will loose some people (discord is more accessible for most), but you can then directly see their ingame name (so you can put context on their opinion) and I guess reputation though I don't know how meaningfull that is. -
@sylph_ said in Posting Restriction for Balance Discussion:
@snowy801 I don't think checking people's global rating/games played alone is really indicative, since it doesn't include any of the games they've played on the ladder.
This is actually not entirely true because the ladder and MM will impact your global rating til a point like 1.4k iirc
Also please don't take any point personally. Everyone has good and bad takes, me included. If a person happens to read like 5 bad ones in a row and no good one (which isn't uncommon if you're active or just sharing own opinions without data) you just happen to have a bad image for them. It's the same for me since I did some major clown arguments in the past and still have like 1-2 which certainly are not perfect. Ask FTX about my take on Janus a month ago 4head
Inactive.
-
@nex I do like the reputation aka. downvotes on the forum since if ppl just say "aeon t2 bad." without giving any explanation, you can just show it while on Discord messages tend to get reacted to with emotes which can be quite meaningless or just mocking.
So ye, I do like the feedback-system on the forum there, as well as the fact ppl usually tend to put more effort into messages here than in the discord. -
@sladow-noob said in Posting Restriction for Balance Discussion:
This is actually not entirely true because the ladder and MM will impact your global rating til a point like 1.4k iirc
I don't think this is true.
My global rating has been 1170 ever since my games played was 12 - which was about a quarter of the way 'in' to the journey of discovering the game. (the 1132 rating in the above post is not my acccount)
The client lists it as 1170 to me, (much higher when I get into a game and find the mean rather than the minimum, though my 1v1 rating is lower, and that's mostly what I play!)
If it is true, I'd be very interested to know how the global rating and games played never changes despite my ladder rating going up hundreds of points in the mean time (I can provide an old screenshot proving this). -
@Deribus Do you have an answer to it by any chance? Afaik I remember talking with you about that impact
Inactive.
-
@sladow-noob It's perhaps not massively important, I just wanted to point out what a bad idea choosing that one metric is in the way snowy 'named and shamed' above; particularly given that they've played less games than I have by other metrics!
This seems particularly poignant given that global rating / custom games are the easiest to 'game' to farm rating, which we'll be forced to do if we enjoy exploring 'what ifs' / chatting about the game, and want to be allowed to do so.
Personally, I think people should absolutely be allowed to discuss balance. As long as the balance team are balancing the game with the top ratings at the highest priority (not the only priority, mind).It's my opinion that the balance decisions that go behind some of the massive changes need to be far more visible. Tons of players get frustrated when big changes are made without any explanation or discussion, and when I've personally asked about them (like the +15% vision change to almost every unit) it was because I was unable to find anything when searching forums and discord.
-
Please note that I'm aware that all ratings are different and a 1800 ranked 3v3 TMM player can't be compared to a 1800 ranked 1v1 player. Each time I say something such as "<1200 ranked players" it's just a general thing talking about any low ranks from 0-1500 rating, not specifying the rating exactly. For me it's just a rough guide to e.g. differentiate between 1500 and 1800.
Since I'm actively training all ratings from literally 0 to up to 2000, I found a destribution for myself which I stick with. But I wasn't asked about it so far so I didn't bother explaining it.Referring to the explanation:
There are explanations, both on the website together with the changes as well with a stream of farms where he's talking about it for multiple hours, going through each change and answering questions / discussions and if you ask on the Discord there is a high chance someone will explain it to you even after months have passed. -
@sladow-noob While looking for explanation of the vision change, all I was able to find was 'it's a bugfix, not a balance change', despite it obviously making a difference to balance. I did ask about quite a bit, and it quickly became apparent that it hadn't been discussed anywhere public on discord or the forums. I'll try to keep a more vigilant eye on farm's stream, although without a 'search function', it sounds like a pretty bad place to have to go to understand how high-rated players felt about the change. (I do think I watched a relevant twitch video at the time, looking forward to the explanation, and getting none; but I might have dreamed it!)
Regarding rating and discussion, I've personally enjoyed exploring 'what if' scenarios in general discussion areas, but as I said I don't make official 'balance suggestions', and when I comment on those threads I only try to re-iterate what I've heard to players say, or reference actual unit stats for objective discussion (such as me mentioning that an ED1 shield costs <5% the cost of a T3 power for cybran). Still, I might well have been grossly mistaken about the 'pro'/balance team opinion on that, and maybe cybran will be getting hitpoint buffs to ensure that their reduced hp buildings never actually result in cybran structures dying to less shots.
What I've found about rating as I've been playing and chatting more, though, is that many of the players who I've been listening to quite avidly don't even play certain game types, and it takes time to learn which voices are relevant to the game types we personally play. This 'required rating' metric for discussing balance would have to ensure that a player was versed in all areas of the game, I imagine; so that they know all the implications of their suggestions? Or is that not the suggestion, and as long as someone is good at something, their opinion is valued?
It all sounds a bit elitist to me tbh. I think there's already too much elitism in this community, where a newcomer can't get a game precisely because they're a newcomer!
I think the best solution is to let people discuss what they want on discord or the forums, and ensure that the balance team aren't clueless wackos like us peasants!
-
@sylph_ Farms usually announces the balancetalk-streams in the announcement-channel on the FAF Discord and it should be on the news as well afaik. so that's definitely something to watch out for. Besides that I do remember explaining the vision change like two or three times, however I cannot tell you whether it was in public, in DMs, ingame or in the FAF-client since I'm active everywhere. There is also an explanation here though? Even tbf that wasn't the first thing which came into my mind but I was pretty biased since I've talked a lot about it in the past.
https://patchnotes.faforever.com/balance/3761.html#vision
If you don't get an explanation in the stream, feel free to ask in the chat - that's the whole purpose of it.What I did forget to mention in a previous post: There sadly are so many clowns/trolls already which ppl don't take serious anymore nor listen to, compared to actual useful posts they clearly dominate. So it's really easy to get put into that "troll"-drawer.
Not exactly sure what you mean with the "which voices are relevant to the game types"-part. Imho as long as the player is good at something, I try to understand their thought process more. E.g. it doesn't matter whether you play ladder, gap, astro or 4v4 TMM, if I read smth like "I just kill sniperbots with two bombers all the time" it's simply an opinion I don't value as high cuz it completely ignores the existence of shields and AA. There are patterns however, e.g. <1200 tend to waste a lot of mass, or gappers tend to snipe a lot and turtle, or ladderplayers tend to avoid mex upgrades etc., so it's not really a question I can answer in a simple reply like this.I was actually thinking about something the other day though, it kinda fits your last paragraph. Since I've joined the balance team for the simple reason I play low rated games and get their opinion, I was thinking about being the "go to"-station when asking for a (serious!) balance-take. E.g. the TML-one which I'll mention in a meeting. But since I know that I'm not the most non-toxic person on FAF, it's not as easy to tell whether it'd help or how I should even announce that effectively; The core thought of "balance team are elitists and 2000+ ladderplayers are the only relevant people" is simply way too deep in some minds out there. (e.g. Evildrew's post)
Inactive.
-
Since the messages are getting a bit long atm, if more ppl want it, I can create either a discord-message which I'd link or a forum-post about my opinion what situation the balance takes from lower rated people have and how large their impact is
-
@sladow-noob said in Posting Restriction for Balance Discussion:
Not exactly sure what you mean with the "which voices are relevant to the game types"-part. Imho as long as the player is good at something, I try to understand their thought process more
When people are talking about when to upgrade MEXes, or how to fight against PD creep and the like, the fact that they're playing 4v4 or 1v1 is absolutely massive. That's all I was getting at - that it took me a while to start to understand which 'expert opinions' actually applied to the games I was playing.
For example, your comment: "There are patterns however, e.g. <1200 tend to waste a lot of mass, " really doesn't apply to 1v1 games! I play against 1v1 ladder 700's and 800's that never waste a single point of mass, like the 700 and 800 teamgame/global players seem to. It's very much the norm to waste zero mass at 700+ 1v1 rating.The fact that Snowy picked a single metric to make a few people look really bad, when many other, less-exploitable metrics would cast far less of a shadow over those involved, is only an aside...
The bigger issue is telling people of any skill that their contributions are not welcome -it's a great way to kill a community, not improve it!"the simple reason I play low rated games and get their opinion" - You mean you make custom games to play them? Or you make smurf accounts? I imagine it's the former, for training? You'll have to play some with me sometime, I could use some advice about where to move my commander to resist raiding!
That being said, I think lower-rated players do a far better job of communicating the experience and potential changes that might make lower-rated play more fun, than pro players can, whether the pros are destroying low-rated players in custom games or not!"The core thought of "balance team are elitists and 2000+ ladderplayers are the only relevant people" is simply way too deep in some minds out there"
, FWIW I don't think that in any way! I'm very glad the balance team are top-rated players. I've been a top-player in other games, and totally appreciate how much better they understand the ebb and flow of any game! I do think that contributions can be valuable at all skill levels. I also believe that balance discussions could benefit from being publicly viewable, but this might just be because the first major 'issue' I saw from a patch, which I had lots of questions about (vision change) didn't really yield any discussion when I was searching. -
I'll get onboard with hanging up my balance-discussion cleats (my rating is 400 git.at.me) if the message given to low-rated players when they try to contribute is "snowy801 decided your rating was too low for you to have an original, nuanced, and relevant opinion".
Seriously: It's a bad idea. There's like four people who are consistently clogging up the balance discussion channel with bad takes. Warn/ban those people and moderate the channel if you want it to improve.
-
@sylph_ Ngl the ~700s I train in 1v1 ladder still do a quite bad job at their economy / floating / wasting mass, that's the main reason they're 700 ranked. So far my experience;
Thing is, that I can understand snowy. He's decently high rated so he doesn't suffer the other problem I'm about to mention, but he's still looking for indepth analysis and the difference between e.g. a 600 and him is just massive so he understands the dynamics better and don't want to simply look at the stats. E.g. Freeman does a lot with sandbox and stats, which is nice and all, but I personally don't really care if blazes are stronger than yenzenes cuz t3 shields exist in the game. Which he doesn't do in sandbox cuz he's talking about just t2. And the same is probably with snowy and the other topics. The other thing is that if you want to learn as a new player, having lower rated players give advice isn't always a good idea. I personally learnt other games as well and had the bad luck of a low ranked explaining stuff to me which I applied, so yeah. You can guess why I didn't become good. But that's not rlly my main point since it's not the training channel (besides that your responses so far were decent so don't misunderstand this please).
I do play low rated games with my main account, I don't smurf anymore since I got perma banned for it years ago lol. I use some games to train someone in there by following what they're doing but most of the time I'm just playing, seeing what people rant about.
Funnily enough I asked a while ago if I could see the balance channel to simply.. well.. see it. And since I can see it now (due to joining) I can tell you that it makes literally zero difference. A few random numbers and that's about it, most of it happens in VC anyway and since everyone has a decent understanding of the game we don't go into detail (since we know what each other mean) aka. lower rated people prob won't even understand most of it without having 10 different questions. So I can see your thought and I shared it, but I can tell you it wouldn't matter. That's why Farms does the balance-talk streams now to explain it so everyone can understand it and ask.Inactive.
-
@clyf said in Posting Restriction for Balance Discussion:
I'll get onboard with hanging up my balance-discussion cleats (my rating is 400 git.at.me) if the message given to low-rated players when they try to contribute is "snowy801 decided your rating was too low for you to have an original, nuanced, and relevant opinion".
Seriously: It's a bad idea. There's like four people who are consistently clogging up the balance discussion channel with bad takes. Warn/ban those people and moderate the channel if you want it to improve.
Pretty much this, cuz let's be honest. Lower rated people can provide insightful opinions too. Just look at all the ComradeStryker posts. So yeah, remove/warn the offenders and call it a day.
-
@sladow-noob I appreciate the reply.
If you take any of my comments to another area, though, it should either be:
- Side-point, but seems important: The fact that global rating currently doesn't seem to change when ladder matches are played.
(I really don't have many games played, nor a massive rating! I just think the metric used here is a bad one, especially given the lack of ladder games played by other contributors.) or: - I believe that this quote has things the wrong way around:
"Anyone should be able to create a balance suggestion or discussion post, provided they pass whatever minimal criteria already established........ From there, only people above a certain threshold (whatever may be established idk) can actually comment on the discussion post."
I think the problem is people with no real confidence being able to start balance topics. (I don't start them, since I don't believe my understanding is good enough to do so... If I have thoughts, I chat with good players about them!)
Even low-rated players are generally able to help re-iterate the reasons that XXX is the way it is, imo.
I don't find myself disagreeing with pro players very often in those balance suggestions. The problem really does seem to be allowing the same low-rated players to start as many balance suggestions as they possibly want.
All that being said, I think locking posting restrictions for low-rated players absolutely might be too strong a 'fix'. Maybe restricting balance suggestions per player /month might be a better idea, to encourage people to chat in general areas before putting out an 'official' balance suggestion.
(Again, thanks for your patience and contributions)
edit: I think @snowy801 found the wrong 'sylph' when checking ingame accounts (mine has an underscore - "sylph_"). Not that it matter much, since the global ratings are close between the 2, and I think they're a bad indicator when used alone this way.
Regarding your comment about 700-rating 1v1 players floating mass - I just don't see it! My 1v1 games against such players usually (I'd guess 3/4 games) have both players on zero mass floated all game.
Still, my point about different game types can be demonstrated elsewhere - such as your comment about blazes not being better than yenzynes since 'T3 shields are a thing'. From the 1v1 games I play (and also those I watch, such as the recent 'pro' invitational that turbo won) T3 is quite, quite rare, and Yenzyne having no T2 shield support is a huge factor that weakens them; on TOP of the fact that blazes (range, firerate, speed) are better than yenzynes even without the t2 shields that aeon can back them up with! Of course, balance doesn't exist in a vacuum, if that was your point, but some game types really don't allow T3 to balance T2 discrepancies like that.)
Point is, balance discussion are dependant on the gametype being played, and slapping a global rating on people to silence them seems counter-productive. - Side-point, but seems important: The fact that global rating currently doesn't seem to change when ladder matches are played.
-
discord balance area opened to allow people to casually post outside of forum restrictions, now we need to bring forum restrictions to discord balance area to stop the same low effort shitposts gg
-
I mean, we just need mods to work on it:
-
@endranii said in Posting Restriction for Balance Discussion:
I mean, we just need mods to work on it:
Pretty sure having bad takes on balance is not what this rule is meant to be about...
-
I don't think the name and shame in OP is very nice.
For me personally the biggest hindrance in reading balance posts is the argumentation. This applies across the board to all ratings really. If there was a nice summary of everyones point of view I would likely read them, however in reality the threads tend to be branching arguments which rarely add any real substance and often appear more socially motivated than motivated by any enthusiasm to contribute to balance. Discord "forums" are particularly bad for this reason. I'd like to see just some nice bullet points or lists of pro/cons and such.
-
@redx said in Posting Restriction for Balance Discussion:
Pretty sure having bad takes on balance is not what this rule is meant to be about...
Does something like this look like a balance take that is only hindered by the low rating of the poster?
I agree that there should be moderation to prevent the balance threads to become a complete clown fiesta
