Emperor_Penguin’s Player Councilor Application
https://docs.google.com/document/d/135dn1Xzr0xCGcKpvbgRT7Oa5S9b58yKMBsEs7P_OFhc/edit?usp=sharing

Introduction:
Hello everyone,
I’m applying for Player Councilor, as I would like to give more value/weight/focus to the desires of the majority of FAF players, improve the TMM experience a lot, increase transparency, and reduce toxicity in FAF. In preparation for this application, I have spoken to members of many different FAF communities to get their perspectives so that I could better understand the desires of the communities that make up FAF and act in their best interests. I have been trying to learn more about what everyone wants, like I think the player councilor should.

Some background on me:

I have been part of the FAF community for 7+ years.

I helped with and coded many of the improvements in the random map generator within the last year, and worked on many other FAF-related projects.

I have personally made over 50 maps for FAF.

I have recurrently helped to train new FAF players and answer FAF-related questions.

I’m nice. I actually listen to feedback from ‘regular’ FAF players and normally respond in a relatively friendly and informative way.

Some differences to the other candidates:

I aim to make FAF more inclusive and to better-serve many underrepresented parts of FAF.

I am to make FAF significantly more transparent, with more community involvement for the things within my power as PC.

I am the only candidate with a solid history of reliably being relatively nice to players when they ask questions or suggest ideas rather than berating or dismissing them.

A lot of my opponents’ platforms/stances/activities seem to cater to the 1800+ and 1500+ crowds while giving a disproportionately small focus to the wants/needs of the large majority of FAF players. I intend to keep the 1500+/1800+ crowd happy while also making the majority of FAF players happier as well. (How? – Giving each bracket more of what they desire and improving TMM options and community involvement.)

I didn’t initially want to run for PC as it takes a lot of time and energy to do well, but I have a great vision for TMM, and I would like there to be a Player Councilor who accomplishes that and actually gives more value/weight/focus to the desires of the majority of FAF players.

Some perspective:
The current focus for things like ladder/TMM map pools, forum attitudes/rhetoric, tournament funding/attention, etc, seems to cater primarily to high-level gameplay for the top 1%-5% of FAF players, while giving much less weight to the 77.1% of players with less than 1000 rating. AFAIK, most FAF players play FAF to have a good time, which generally involves playing a fun game with people in a friendly environment.

Giving a lot more weight to the desires of the lower and mid-level players will create a better experience for the thousands of noobs and mid-level players rather than catering to the <1% of players who are 1800+ players or even the top 5.2% of 1500+ global FAF players. Having a PC who is focused more on improving the experience of the ‘normal’ FAF player would help FAF to grow more and retain more players.

Some current statistics from recent leaderboards (using unrounded ratings for players with 10+ rated games):

For 1v1 Ladder:
1221 players with 10+ games = 100%
26 players with 1800+ rating = 2.1%
63 players with 1500+ rating = 5.2%
~941 players with <1000 rating = 77.1%

For Global:
8782 players with 10+ games = 100%
83 players with 1800+ rating = 0.9%
342 players with 1500+ rating = 3.9%
~6,053 players with <1000 rating = 68.9%

I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Things like ladder/TMM map pools for lower-rated players should be changed to be a lot more like what the bulk of those players would actually like to play, or an additional matchmaker queue option should be added for them. (Currently, the lower-rated players’ map pools seem more like they’re designed as feeder-pools to weed out everyone who doesn’t like the basics of the types of gameplay enjoyed by high-level FAF ladder players and to get them experience with that sort of gameplay. While this isn’t the worst thing that could be done, it’s far from the best, and it doesn’t prioritize regular player preference, fun, playerbase growth, and new player retention anywhere near as much as it should.)

To address many of these challenges and several others, I believe that TMM should get a major overhaul from a user-perspective. I have already talked with developers and have a feasible vision for TMM, presented below:

TMM/Matchmaking
TMM should appear to have one universal queue with a checklist of different game options/types that players can select/deselect to be queued for greater/fewer potential games and game types. Players get matched with other players who have compatible game preferences. With this system, players could have one overall TMM rating and or several different ratings for different individual queue options/categories. Sample TMM options list below:

Select game types to queue for:
(the more game types you select, the faster you will find a game)
[Select All Button]
o 1v1
o 2v2
o 3v3
o 4v4
o share until death
o full share
o new players only (only grays/players with low game counts could select this option)
o simple ladder map pool (easy maps that are noob-friendly)
o moderate ladder map pool (map pool intended primarily for mid-ranked players)
o advanced ladder map pool (more interesting maps for pro players)
o randomly generated maps
o rotating map pool decided by a different FAF community each cycle
o player's choice poll map pool
o popular map pool
o casual party-games (unrated)
o short casual party-games (unrated, games last 30 minutes or less)

These sample TMM options are open to changes based on community feedback, and additional options could be added if there is a strong desire for them and a willing developer. Certain things, like options to queue for games larger than 4v4, and things like a queue option for co-op games against AI or a map veto system, are things that I am in favor of adding to the matchmaker as well, but would require significant additional coding/problem-solving to be incorporated, and would only be added if there is a willing developer (strong community support for something often makes developers more willing). Other things, like making one or more queue options affect global rating, could be done more quickly. So, if there is strong community support for having one or more TMM options use/affect global rating, I would want to add that feature, as that could help noobs/grays/etc to get good games and proper global ratings more easily.

Improving the community experience:
I plan to act as a liaison between the playerbase and other FAF officials. Specifically, I plan to voice the wills of the playerbase and work with the relevant FAF officials to try to get popular changes that would be good for FAF implemented. So, for example, this might include talking with the moderation team about implementing a better system for requiring ‘official’ FAF streamers to adhere to certain non-toxic standards.

I plan to make substantial efforts to reduce toxicity in the community, and that will be a major focus for me. I plan to bring FAF into better repute and aim to work with the FAF association and the board to bring about important changes to the FAF leadership structure that will improve the situation tremendously. I’ve already spoken with the president of the board (among others) to that effect.

Furthermore, I plan to increase transparency on FAF dramatically. This incudes:

• Creating a new channel on the FAF Discord specifically for community discussion of ladder/TMM map pools, the maps in them (and their gameplay), and the processes used to determine what maps are put in the pools

• Making ladder/TMM team map pool discussions publicly visible on the FAF Discord

• Posting potential ladder/TMM map pools in advance on the FAF Discord (where they can be discussed for potential changes before being implemented)

• Actively giving more (useful) feedback to map authors when they submit a map for ladder/TMM and it doesn’t make the cut (oftentimes, people submit maps for ladder/TMM and get basically no response from the PC or his team, even after several months… this is obnoxious/frustrating to the mapper and it lowers the odds of the mapper creating good maps for ladder/TMM in the future)

• Working with other teams (such as the balance team) to make more explanations and easily accessible community involvement for improving FAF via things like new Discord channels for suggesting and discussing balance changes as well as things like suggestion channels for improving the random map generator and map pools.

Tournaments:
I would continue PC support for the Legend of the Star(s) and intend to support the high-level competitive FAF scene as it has a solid format that has many positives. I would also encourage and support additional tournaments and event creation, including for things like ‘Average Joes’ tournaments and “Map Gen’ tournaments, etc.

I would continue the tradition of working with potential donors to properly distribute funds and create appealing tournament formats. I would continue to help make tournaments fun and competitive experiences for players with proper scheduling, avatar rewards, prize money, etc.

I would work with both established casters and up-and-coming casters to provide them with good live castable tournament content. I would work with the promotions team to ensure the promotion of FAF tournaments and various casts and streams.
However, while I am ready and willing to support tournaments and events in all the ways reasonably expected of the PC, including as outlined above, I feel that the PC position has grown too extensive and would be better-served by an additional elected position, which I’ve tentatively dubbed ‘Tournaments Leader’.

So, if I am elected PC, I would promptly hold an election for the ‘Tournaments Leader’ position and would accept applications from any reasonable candidates that are in line with FAF’s standards and would do a respectable job. The accepted applicants would then be put to a vote by the overall FAF community, and the winner would become the new ‘Tournaments Leader’.

The ‘Tournaments Leader’ would be part of the PC team and would handle almost all tournament-related responsibilities of the PC and could bring additional visions and ideas for better-serving the tournaments side of FAF. However, if for whatever reason, the ‘Tournaments Leader’ fails in his duties, I would take over and handle things properly.

Pledge:
If elected, I will:

• Collaborate with the FAF Board to work towards our objectives.

• Communicate professionally and avoid bringing FAF into disrepute.

• Spend an average of at least 4 hours per week working on these responsibilities.

• Be available at least 2 hours every other week for a voice call to discuss these responsibilities and the responsibilities of other FAF Councilors.

• Attempt to help other Councilors perform their responsibilities.

• Understand that if I am unable to perform these duties, I may resign or be replaced.

TL;DR
If elected, I plan to:

• Have substantial positive impact on the FAF community and community growth, not only by making changes that benefit more of the players, but also by helping to change the atmosphere on FAF (in Discord, forums, etc) to be more friendly and less dismissive/toxic to noobs and to new ideas

• Massively improve the TMM experience with lots of user-choice and new options with community-driven map pools (including the option to queue for just randomly generated maps)

• Survey and poll a lot more and take greater efforts to reach regular FAF players

• Create a publicly visible section on the FAF Discord specifically for discussing ladder/TMM map pools, the maps in them (and their gameplay), and the processes used to determine what maps are put in the pools

• Create systems for more community engagement and transparency with things like map pool selection, balancing, a reaction-based polls channel in the FAF Discord, etc

• Create a new elected position specifically for tournaments (tentatively dubbed ‘Tournaments Leader’)

• Act as a liaison between the playerbase and other FAF officials
  Work with the FAF association and the board to bring about important changes to the FAF leadership structure that will improve FAF’s atmosphere and situation tremendously

There is now a 3v3 Full Share Mapgen-only matchmaker queue on the FAF client, and players have already started playing on it. Players have an additional rating for this queue, with the initial ratings for it based on 4v4 TMM ratings with additional sigma (more uncertainty, so the shown rating is initially lower and more easily changed).

Here is the initial map pool:

It uses the average rating of the players in a match to determine the bracket, and the brackets are currently not cumulative. The map sizes, slot counts, and number of mapgen settings sets in each bracket can be adjusted based on player feedback and how the queue goes. Suggestions are welcome. Feedback can be given here or in the Matchmaker Pool Feedback Thread.

A new button for in-lobby auto balancing of two teams is now on FAF Develop. When pressed, it balances players into two evenly-sized teams. It does not balance the same way as opti does. It tries to balance both teams' base ratings and uncertainties (grayness), with more weight given to balancing the base ratings. Here is the relevant PR.

Note that the current balance calculations used in this are tentative and may be adjusted in the future.
Also note that the estimated balance percent currently provided in the lobby uses different calculations from this and is not perfect either.

The purpose of this thread is to increase awareness of this new feature, encourage trying it out, and get feedback. Constructive thoughts on the balancing it provides (what you like, what it balances well, what it should balance better, etc) are welcome.

I am also considering additional changes to how this autobalances that would theoretically involve further increasing the balancing quality at the cost of lowering the autobalancing speed (ie: making it less likely for the 2 highest-rated players to be on the same team, with a slightly longer processing time). So, thoughts on whether or not that sort of thing is desired are also welcome.

Tbh, comparing those old and new pics, I prefer the old overall.

Having read through those threads Sheikah linked, it seems this feature should be added imo. Some points and counterpoints in favor of adding a reclaim brush:

1. It would be a QoL improvement
2. It would make the game more fun for most players - Most players would rather spend their apm microing units, dodging shells, basebuilding, using activated powers like OC/stealth/etc, scouting, adjusting buildqueues, focusing on macro, managing drops, etc than spam clicking rocks/etc.
3. It would make the game more modern
4. It would add a feature many new players expect based on the features of similar games and would help slightly with player retention
5. It would be consistent with FAF's precedent/pattern of adding UI improvements/features that reduce click count and improve QoL for most users - some examples:
   o spread attack
   o spread move
   o templates
   o hotbuild
   o gazui
   o advanced target priorities
   o eco manager
   o supreme scoreboard's 1-click resource sending
   o easy ringing of storages/pgens/fabs
   o automated mass fabricator behavior
6. Its functionality would be clearer than attack move's functionality is (especially for new players) - attack move often sends units in seemingly bizarre ways that I (a 1700 with coding knowledge) haven't even figured out yet, it seems to auto stop/end the order when the player's storage is close to full (people often want to overflow/keep reclaiming/not have the order cancelled), it reclaims things of lower value, and it is less clear exactly what area it applies to when clicked
7. Spam clicking rocks/tedious micro is not the point of this game - some satire from a relevant thread:
   
   
   
8. High APM players could still take advantage of their high APM - While this would be a nice QoL feature that would do a decent job, it would not be optimally efficient in general, and so, high APM players could still manually click rocks to their hearts' content to gain some advantage. However, after the first few minutes of the game, high APM players would still generally be better off spending less of their high APM on spam clicking rocks and instead taking advantage of their high APM by spending more of their APM on fun things (see point 2) and strategic things (ie: thinking about game macro, strategy, and tactics).
9. Attack move and regular manual reclaim would still be desirable to use in many cases; this feature would obviously compete with them, but it would not replace them, as there are pros and cons to each in comparison to the others.
10. This can be implemented in a way that's not laggy and doesn't add too much processing burden - It can be done in a sensible way, and it can have limitations to its impact on processing, if desired (ie: small max brush size, tick-based limitations, max order limitations, etc).

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

Sadly none of that experience matters for answering these questions (and half of it doesn’t even matter for the position, like who cares that you make map props?)

I was saying that to answer RandomWheelchair's question:
@randomwheelchair said in New Player Councilor Discussion + Removal Announcements:

why didn't you actually try to make this a better place before you set your sights at becoming the PC?

My answer basically equated to; I did actually do things to make FAF a better place before I set my sights on PC... Heck, trying to make FAF better is the reason I'm running for PC...

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

I shoot down ideas because I know they won’t get considered (through exposure with the people on the balance team) and decide I might as well as give people a rationale for why that won’t happen. You can try to hide it with “oh this would need x and y and maybe it might get considered” but it doesn’t change any of the realities here. You are definitely on the right track though, there’s no point at all in you responding to these posts when you have no experience or frame of reference with the balance team.

This condescending and dismissive attitude is part of the problem... You make many people not even try anymore to suggest or improve things out of negative thoughts/feelings resulting from the way you so often respond.
Perhaps an idea is extremely unlikely to ever be implemented into base FAF; that doesn't mean you need to rudely shoot the person down and discourage them from participating.

By comparison, doing something like mentioning that the person could make their ideas into a mod (and then linking some modding resources) is not condescending and is potentially constructive (and probably doesn't leave the person feeling so badly). Further, I have found many successes in life in trying where others say I can't do X. Your word is not law. Just because you think something will never ever be implemented, does not automatically guarantee that it is so. I think you shouldn't strive to stifle potential innovation.

@dragun101
FTX delaying the availability of map gen on ladder/TMM isn't why it has improved so much. It was being improved a lot regardless.

However, 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.
I took a similarly strong stance when Morax wanted to remove the 'most recent' section of the FAF client, which would've catered to the desires of some 'elite' mappers at the expense of the majority of map-makers for FAF. In short, I am not afraid to take strong oppositional stances or say "No." I try to act in the best interests of FAF, period.

How to improve forever - Blackheart's 6 laws - 1,816 words

Heaven's Video Tutorials - 60 videos (between 3 and 54 minutes each)

TheForgedAllianceColonel's Tutorials Playlist - 28 videos (between 2 and 29 minutes each)

UI mod guide for the improving player - 492 words

Ladder 1v1 - Beginner, Intermediate, and Advanced Topics - by arma473 - 27,175 words

Video intro to some basic concepts in FAF - <5 minutes

FAF Guide - In-depth explanations of basic FAF concepts - 5,276 words

BRNK's Tutorials - 19 videos (between 5 and 72 minutes each)

Все туториалы / Zlo's Tutorials Playlist - very large playlist of videos from numerous sources (many are in Russian) / очень большой плейлист видео из многочисленных источников (многие на русском)

Active Trainers Contact Page - list of trainers

Gameplay and Training Channel in FAF Discord - a place to ask questions and learn things

If you have additional helpful links for learning how to improve at FAF, you can add them to this thread and I may add them to the OP (this potentially includes some particularly useful replays to watch (just ones that would be very efficient to learn from though)), thanks!

Currently, FAF clans have some impact on the community, but I believe that they could have a lot more. I imagine that clans could be better utilized in FAF to further improve the new player experience, player retention, fun, player skill improvement, the sense of community and connectedness on FAF, etc.

Perhaps some sort of active and competitive clan system might help. Or, perhaps some other new features, flavor, or clan-related leaderboards might be good incentives. Or, perhaps you have another idea?

What changes/improvements/new features could improve the impact of having clans in FAF? Do you think any changes to the FAF clan system or how we use it should be implemented? If so, which?

This thread is intended to be an open discussion. Please chime in if you have some constructive thoughts on any of this.

@Jip
I understand the desire for more lighting realism and matching upgrade animations, but it seems like the new result is less desirable than the old result for general users in normal use. There are many other cases in FAF where we forego increased realism for a better gameplay experience. I think I'd rather have the old factory versions (with or without the pbr shading) than have the new ones. I'm not inherently opposed to new factory designs, but I think this should be reverted and potential changes such as this presented more publicly in the future. If you initially set out to change the textures and tell the community that, but end up wanting to change the models as well, I think that should be shared with the community too in time for feedback.

PS: A subtle problem can easily be on FAF Develop for months yet noticed very quickly on regular FAF. I think FAF Develop is played about 1% as much as regular FAF. So, while it certainly can be useful for testing and noticing things, it would theoretically take something like 300 days on FAF Develop to get the same amount of player-game exposure that something would get in like 3 days on regular FAF.

There are ~13,245,017 games on the replay vault.
Of the ~7,196,303 that showed up in the duration-refined results, 5,746,418 were 5+ minutes and 1,449,885 were 5 minutes or less. 932,939 results showed up when the duration was set to 60+.

I think it would be a good change to have the cost of a new t3 mex and the cost of a t2 mex plus a t3 mex upgrade be equal. Having high apm is already very beneficial in FAF without this added bonus. We don't need to further handicap low apm players with an additional ~700 mass penalty per t3 mex compared to their higher apm counterparts.

@tobi__

@henter8480
Yes
https://github.com/FAForever/Neroxis-Map-Generator#neroxis-map-generator-for-supreme-commander-forged-alliance

@jip

I do think it's a reasonable assumption that most of the severe laggers would not figure out and go through the technical hassles and rule breaking that it would take to spoof their data for this.

Also, I think you might've missed or misunderstood part of what I meant when I said:

Alternatively, perhaps a system could be created that takes the extant in-game measurements for lagginess (for both connection and sim speed) and logs roughly how much each player contributes to lag in each game, and then have that data automatically reported back to the server at the end of each game.

Altenratively or additionally, perhaps stuff related to ICE could be utilized in some way to provide some additional data on which combinations of players are too likely to lag too much and or who tends to lag a lot from a connectivity perspective.

If the relevant data would be autoamatically reported to the server by everyone in a match (or at least by multiple people) comparably to how win/loss is reported, then that should offer some resilience against individual tampering. I'm not saying it would be perfect, but hey, if that sort of system is good enough that we already use it for reporting wins and losses, it seems like it should be good enough for this as well.

You would assign these commands by writing code in the script file for your map that is located in your map's folder. You could open it with a program such as Notepad++. You can read about how to code in lua online, you can ask questions in the mapping and modding channels of the FAF Discord, and you can look at other maps' script files to see what they did (I mentioned the Tower Defense Survival map before as that has some relevant example usage that you could look at).

Here are some things you can use. You'll probably want to use IssuePatrol to multiple different locations btw. Note that you'll need to actually specify values or properly defined variables (ie: make a table of units rather than just writing TableOfUnits without setting that equal to something beforehand).

IssuePatrol(TableOfUnits, {X, Y, Z})

IssueMove(TableOfUnits, {X, Y, Z})

Platoon = ArmyBrain:MakePlatoon('','')

ArmyBrain:AssignUnitsToPlatoon(Platoon, TableOfUnits, 'Attack', 'None')

Platoon:AggressiveMoveToLocation({X, Y, Z})

You can look at my Tower Defense Survival map on the vault to see actual examples of some of these in use.

@Rezy-Noob

You cite potential technical hurdles. If the technical hurdles can't be solved, then maybe we should leave the system as-is, but if they can be solved, maybe we should change it.

Selfish is defined as showing or arising from an excessive concern with oneself and a lack of concern for others.

If one person makes the experience a lot worse for several other people for a slight personal benefit, does that not meet the definition of selfishness?

Is it not more selfish for that one person to significantly worsen the TMM experience for many others than for those many others to want that person to be limited to select TMM queues and custom games?

@Jip

I understand that you personally have not been experiencing much lag in TMM games, but you presumably get matched with higher rated players in general, who seem less likely to play games where they lag a lot on average. I believe this problem is more pronounced at lower ratings, as I have noticed disproportionately more lag in lower-rated games compared to higher-rated games on average. Either way, there are players who consistently lag a lot and significantly worsen the TMM experience for others, sometimes resulting in numerous people leaving the TMM queues or dealing with bad TMM experiences due to the lag.

I'm not suggesting limitations be applied to all queues, but it seems like there should be at least some queues with some minimum requirements if the technical side of that can be handled reasonably enough.

Regarding how to handle the technical limitations, why not use the new metric that has been created for calculating players' lagginess across games? Even if people can find workarounds to spoof their scores, I imagine the vast majority of the severe laggers won't do that, and the ones who do could be moderated against. That would presumably require a lower level of moderation than if we moderated as you suggested but didn't use the new metric to filter out most of the severe laggers.

Alternatively, perhaps a system could be created that takes the extant in-game measurements for lagginess (for both connection and sim speed) and logs roughly how much each player contributes to lag in each game, and then have that data automatically reported back to the server at the end of each game.

Altenratively or additionally, perhaps stuff related to ICE could be utilized in some way to provide some additional data on which combinations of players are too likely to lag too much and or who tends to lag a lot from a connectivity perspective.

Also, as a side note, I think a lot of the severe laggers are not intentionally trying to ruin the games with their lag, but just trying to play. So, the rule you quoted doesn't seem like it would apply to most of them anyway... perhaps the rules could be changed to address this issue though...