The End of FAF

@dorset said in The End of FAF:

I'm wondering does the forum directly tie to discord in a way that people who don't come to the forum but only go to discord can read these threads?

No, the FAF Forums do not have a bridge to the FAF Discord, but the forum threads either have similar discussions on Discord &/or are linked in post on Discord.

When the high level scene is declining looking at people quitting is only half the picture. People will inevitably stop playing the game at some point. The other half is: How many new players are emerging? Top players quitting is not a problem if enough new top players are coming in. I frequently see "there are no other high level players to play against, so it dries up" but when the game was new, nobody was good at all. How did these people manage to push the level of play to heights that nobody had played on before? Why is it not working now?
Answering these questions might lead us to productive insights. Right now I would guess a lack of promotion is the issue, but that is just a quick guess.

@jip I was going to make a post, but since we are already here, can I please get some stats for 1v1 ladder specifically?

@blackyps said in The End of FAF:

I frequently see "there are no other high level players to play against, so it dries up" but when the game was new, nobody was good at all. How did these people manage to push the level of play to heights that nobody had played on before? Why is it not working now?

Honestly, it feels like your skill at games is decided by your genetics.
Some people get to 2k+ level or its equivalent in other games in less than a few years, some players get hardstuck in elo hell at <1500 for literally tens of thousands of games, like they just perform a script, without ever changing it or improving.
we should introduce gaming skill-based eugenics

@thewreck u nailed it

@ganima said in The End of FAF:

@jip I was going to make a post, but since we are already here, can I please get some stats for 1v1 ladder specifically?

I don't have those numbers for you at the moment, I'll see what we can do. But that's no promise !

Honestly, FAF isn't even that beyond saving, it's just that there's no idealist way to progress and therefore splinters are beginning to form.

What I want to know is, what even if the vision for FAF? The reason I ask this is because every older FAF player I speak to keeps saying FAF isn't what it used to be, client used to be more optimised and there was actually a pro scene. What changes caused this? Can an agreement be made to try and bring some of these older players back and rebuild one of the fundamentals of what makes an RTS great?

Also with the new RTS games out there, I feel like they'll lose their appeal over time, stuff like BAR, PA and Sanctuary will all thrive for a while and slowly lose the feeling of being new to people. This might cause a few people to come back to the old reliable RTS they once thrived on, just a thought.

All in all, I don't really have a massive stance in each direction, I feel a lot of newer policies could've been handled better, and maybe better communication between moderation game dev team etc and the general populace of faf and the remnants of the pro scene, overall it just seems like no one really knows what the fuck is going on and therefore leaves a lot of frustration over smaller things instead of how to make the game enjoyable again.

I suspect some new insights in the next 2-4 months will give us a bigger picture for us all to work with, as it is a community effort after all.

@blackyps It's very difficult to replace great players, just look at the top of any esport that doesn't have millions of players. You have to hang on to your players.

@strydxr said in The End of FAF:

All in all, I don't really have a massive stance in each direction, I feel a lot of newer policies could've been handled better, and maybe better communication between moderation game dev team etc and the general populace of faf and the remnants of the pro scene, overall it just seems like no one really knows what the fuck is going on and therefore leaves a lot of frustration over smaller things instead of how to make the game enjoyable again.

You want the communication to be better, but can you try and define what better means practically here?

Lets be real here, the reason people are distracted with renaming limits and other trivial nonsense is they have nothing else to do. They are frustrated that they cant get enough games especially at the higher level (so it is claimed).Therefore they are looking for somewhere to vent that dissatisfaction.

I think the moderation team made a fair argument as to why name changes should be less frequent. If you need something to attack to vent your anger at you should look elsewhere.

The root cause though is that FAForever is unable to attract and retain the more capable players that are out there looking for something to play and excel in and the reason they are choosing other games over SC:FA on FAF is that the FAF mod is such crap in terms of gameplay that they rather play checkers. No one is going to devote their time and effort to become good in a game if they think it is very monotone and boring.

FAF has maintained this stupid policy of letting the balance team leadership decide the direction of the game but not letting the community that FAF is supposedly serving have any input on electing who gets to decide where the game goes from here.
The current Balance Team Leader barely plays (to me it looks like he only plays tournaments) and has not stepped down. His adequacy for the position in my eyes has always been very doubtful and yet the worst part is that in his stead it appears this Wheelie guy seems to be calling the shots and the garbage just keeps coming. Those of us who have eyes to see can tell that these people have nothing of any value to offer in designing the game, they only make it worse. I have conceded that they are very good players due to their fast click speed and willingness to grind but that is not relevant to the task at hand. We just need to look at 2 illustrative examples I remember very clearly.

1. The disruptor: Tagada claimed it is amazing and super strong. Never seen one being built and used, especially not in the 100+ replays of his I checked back then. In his arrogance he struck down my proposal because he knows best and did not need to prove his point, because he decried it to be so.

2. The mercy: Wheelie claimed you can deny your opponent advancing, he was told by many people how stupid it was to keep insisting on this when thousands of games later no one can point to any game where it was being used in that way.
   Both of these points make it crystal that they do belittle you when they are wrong and more importantly it highlights the low quality of their thought process and capacity to reason are.

Another point to be made here is that no one is calling for the return of previous balance councilors, they were just as bad as the current one.

In conclusion, the best thing for FAF at this stage would be that it collapses since I do not see the people who are responsible for running the quality of the game into the ground ever conceding that they were wrong to think they knew how the game should be played. FAF would be much better off without these people and could start rebuilding from the mess they have made once it is restructured.

@Jip Those stats do not tell the full picture, please provide answers/data for the following to show a clearer picture.
*Are lobbies actually games that are launched or just lobbies that were opened regardless of launching or not?
*How do you account for games that were short and needed rehosting because someone crashed as games of their own.
*How many minutes was the average lobby/game? This may be a better gage for actual activity when multiplied by the number of games.
*Are all the 1 player "testing" games developers like yourself create in the replay vault counted as games in this statistic?
*What is the ratio of how many accounts were created since the Steam link requirement relative to the current daily unique users?

@evildrew said in The End of FAF:

Lets be real here, the reason people are distracted with renaming limits and other trivial nonsense is they have nothing else to do. They are frustrated that they cant get enough games especially at the higher level (so it is claimed).Therefore they are looking for somewhere to vent that dissatisfaction.

Who needs to read more than that to know he has no clue what he is talking about.
I honestly can't be bothered to write full reply because i have no doubt that you will not understand anything about the current situation.

I think the moderation team made a fair argument as to why name changes should be less frequent. If you need something to attack to vent your anger at you should look elsewhere.

Can you please elaborate what the fair argument is? Making the life easier of moderation and (even if in some world you claim this to be trivial) reducing the freedom of players (which was not harmful) is not an argument on any level.

@evildrew said in The End of FAF:

@Jip Those stats do not tell the full picture, please provide answers/data for the following to show a clearer picture.
*Are lobbies actually games that are launched or just lobbies that were opened regardless of launching or not?

Lobbies that opened, I don't think there was a requirement for game duration or whether it launched.

*How do you account for games that were short and needed rehosting because someone crashed as games of their own.

This current data does not do that, but I posted it to show the trend and not necessarily the absolute counts. Note that in 2022 we had no infra

*How many minutes was the average lobby/game? This may be a better gage for actual activity when multiplied by the number of games.

I don't have those numbers.

*Are all the 1 player "testing" games developers like yourself create in the replay vault counted as games in this statistic?

They probably are, yes - but given we're talking about more than a million lobbies* they are not really relevant in my opinion. Let alone that I don't test via FAF, but locally and is therefore not in the database.

*What is the ratio of how many accounts were created since the Steam link requirement relative to the current daily unique users?

I don't have those numbers.

I also do not see why the steam link requirement is relevant to the discussion.

EDIT: This was off-topic to be honest. Ignore please.

So to summarise,
You think FAF is dying (2023 saw the second largest number of games played, in spite of DDOS attacks)

Your ’solutions’ to this problem are:
-Anyone should be able to force a game to end against the wishes of all other players [Edit: if they are high rated]
-People should be allowed to insult and use certain offensive terms
-Names should be changeable monthly instead of every 6 months
-only high rated players with 5 years of activity and 1.5k games should be considered for mods
[Edit-additional point I missed: High level and senior players should be allowed to ignore FAF rules except in the most extreme cases eg exploits)]

Suggestions which I think would lead to many people leaving and difficulty retaining new players. In other words achieving the opposite of what you claim you want.

Why do I think it achieves the opposite? Well in addition to it being common sense (ie that encouraging a toxic environment where you can get insulted and have the game ruined by other players with this both being permitted and there being almost no mods even if it wasn’t permitted will prevent more people having fun than the few people who enjoy such an experience), many people also cited toxic behaviour as a key reason for leaving or considering leaving:

https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1100/why-would-you-have-left-faf?_=1717853309510

Also while we have you saying FAF is dying because (amongst other reasons) the mods have cracked down on insults, we have the most active thread on the Supcom steam discussion pages prompted by someone saying people should stay away from FAF because (amongst other reasons) the mods do nothing about insults.

@maudlin27 said in The End of FAF:

So to summarise,
You think FAF is dying (2023 saw the second largest number of games played, in spite of DDOS attacks)

Isn't it because of DDOS attacks? Not sure if 2-minute games are counted as games, but even then rehosts were required much more frequently during that period, artificially increasing the game count

@maudlin27 do not reword what i wrote. I said that high level players do not care about base ctrl k.i said higher level players do not care about the use of these words.this was an extremely dishonest response to what I wrote.

@thewheelienoob It’s possible but you’d expect a dramatic fall in 2024 if that were the case. However figures jip posted in discord with the data to early june (so 43% of the time period) had 43% as many games for FAF standard games. In other words, assuming no significant seasonal effect that boosts numbers in Jan-May vs Jun-Dec, game numbers remained relatively stable.

@nuggets said in The End of FAF:

@evildrew said in The End of FAF:

Lets be real here, the reason people are distracted with renaming limits and other trivial nonsense is they have nothing else to do. They are frustrated that they cant get enough games especially at the higher level (so it is claimed).Therefore they are looking for somewhere to vent that dissatisfaction.

Who needs to read more than that to know he has no clue what he is talking about.
I honestly can't be bothered to write full reply because i have no doubt that you will not understand anything about the current situation.

I think the moderation team made a fair argument as to why name changes should be less frequent. If you need something to attack to vent your anger at you should look elsewhere.

Can you please elaborate what the fair argument is? Making the life easier of moderation and (even if in some world you claim this to be trivial) reducing the freedom of players (which was not harmful) is not an argument on any level.

So you are under the delusion to think you have a right to change your username on a database you do not own but willingly registered yourself to at any time and that the entity offering you the service under its terms of service cannot change the terms of service even though it is stated in them that they can.
You can ask to be removed, that right is granted to you under GDPR but no where is it mentioned that you have a right to change your username.

You made a real fool out of yourself by grandstanding, saying I have no clue what I am talking about. Maybe try being more lowkey when adults are speaking.

I suggest the mod team should let you change your username in return for paying $25 like on PlanetSide 2. I highly recommend they do that, then you have what you want and they know you will not be changing your name every week, easy.

The most clown take ever. Bro is completely unaware no one had any issues with frequent name changes for over 10 years.

@thewreck said in The End of FAF:

The most clown take ever. Bro is completely unaware no one had any issues with frequent name changes for over 10 years.

No one? How do you know this to be true, you just state that like it is fact but you got no proof and even a 7 year old could see how stupid it is for you to claim you know what everyone thought...