Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
You need to look at your own replays before making such wild accusations.
I'm watching a game of yours, you're 5k mass down (one and a over-half T3 mexes) at minute 10.
You make a Galactic Colossus instead of planes like you're supposed to be doing. So you're of course going to be down planes.
You engage enemy air while down on planes by roughly 20. You move your planes right past his, allowing him to shoot down your bombers for free. And after idling for a couple of seconds, try to run away while he is in the process of shooting your planes down.
You'll find that fighter jets are not capable of shooting backwards.
After this loss, you decide to make AA gunships. AA gunships are not as good as ASF for damage vs other planes and thus you shouldn't be making them unless you actually won the fight.
Also, despite being on two bases, your inability to follow basic eco steps is letting your single base mirror get close to out-ecoing you again. I don't know what happened to that GC but i'm assuming you fed it.
Your second airfight, after idling over five cruisers and two flak guns for a couple seconds, puts you at 50 asf to 216. That's not "out number my opponents air on units". That's a complete and total air loss.
You get smoked, as only someone with a quarter of their units can.
I'm going to be straight with you. You're not an ok air player. At best, you're attempting to mimic better players without any of the desicion making or understanding of why the better players play the way they do. You have a long way to go before anyone would consider you "ok" at the game. If you want to get better, focus on reviewing your play and handling losses with more tact. Attempt to incorporate better ideas into your play each lobby instead of mindlessly sitting on autopilot for another 6000 games.
And don't accuse people of cheating unless you watch the replay yourself and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Good luck!
I’m of course happy for anyone to air out their issues either now, or when it actually appeared. My pms are open or you can forward it anonymously through a middleman.
However, for the interests of making an informed opinion about the topic, you need to be aware of the following:
Exotic_Retard speed2 Tatsu nine2
Have both:
A financial incentive to reply here - all part of a team developing a game that tatsu/nine2 co manage A career incentive to post here (nine2 pays or organised the payment of their salary for the financial incentive) They were directly asked to post here through private message.
Your opinions are your own about the topic, however I don’t think choosing to omit this information is particularly acceptable.
Hello everyone.
It is with regret that I announce after much discussion, FAF Leadership has unanimously decided to remove both Francias and Suzuji's applications to apply for Player Councilor.
FAF Councilor elections - like the grand majority of democratic processes - Do have eligibility requirements. It is expected that applicants do have a mostly clean moderation history. Users who are permanently banned, or have been banned repeatedly for serious offences, do not meet these requirements.
It is indeed our mistake to have not posted any requirements in the original thread, and I will apologise on behalf of the council for that. I will push for both the Council and the FAF Association to outline these requirements so that this situation does not happen again in the future.
I also apologise about the desicion to review the canidates AFTER the discussion period. The review should be done beforehand as to not needlessly waste anyone's time or sow confusion.
For the sake of transparency, and to avoid any Conflicts of Interest, I need to make it known that:
I would also ask that discussion around the removal not be included in this thread. If you need further information. I would suggest going over to zulip - or asking Giebmasse or myself.
Following this decision, we've decided to prolong the discussion period for an extra week to accommodate further debate.
The new timeline is as follows:
30th of May: Signups close. 6th of June: Voting Period begins.
If you're wanting to apply, you can still do so until the 30th. Make sure to post your application here. Any applications posted outside of this thread are not to be considered as legitimate.
You also need to commit yourself to a councilors pledge. If you're not able to think of one; one has been created for you. Make sure it's in-line with the councilor responsibilities from the FAF wiki. They're also posted here: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1589/player-councilor-election-2021
You can find an outline of the current duties of the position here: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1571/an-election-will-soon-take-place-for-the-player-councilor-role-apply-here/2
You can find the current applications with these links:
FtXCommando: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1589/player-councilor-election-2021/2
Morax: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1589/player-councilor-election-2021/4
Emperor_Penguin https://forum.faforever.com/topic/1633/new-player-councilor-discussion-removal-announcements/27
They may also choose to repost their application, or modify it to place here if they wish.
Use this thread to discuss the applications. Feel free to repost questions from the old thread if they have not been answered.
And of course; good luck. biass.
This is my stance, it's prewritten at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SDsnfOu1prAMZx0XbUlyZZprsqLdkV_BMu5ZAs9P0FM/edit?usp=sharing If this post has issues. Huge shoutout to everybody that put in their time to make this post - the longest on the forum as of now - possible.
The purpose of this proposal regarding the FAF Map & Mod Vaults (hereby referred to as “vaults”) is to create a system that serves to better suit the regular FAF user, to reward the effort they put into their contribution, and to avoid removing features and options from the user experience.
Furthermore, this proposal seeks to extend the range of valid contributions to the community, and strike out internal inefficiencies that are causing a large negative impact to you, and the client as a whole.
If you want to see more content in FAF, and that of a higher quality - without losing anything in the process; I would hope that you would support this following proposal.
This proposal eventually expanded out to 7 pages worth of text. I do deeply thank everyone I've bothered over the course of writing it for your input and suggestions. If you’re short on time, I decided to create a TL;DR for you. I would highly encourage you to read over it all before you cast your vote, however. So, to summarise:
1. Do NOT remove the “Most Recent” vault tabs like what is currently planned.
2. Remove rules and inefficiencies that make admin work overly difficult, and take away from your gameplay experience.
3. Organize and catalog all of our creative resources.
3b. Organize and promote what tasks FAF needs people to do.
4. Remove the map bias from the Councilor role.
Let us begin:
1. THE WHITELIST VAULT
This is the main point: Keep the “most recent” tab of the vaults, while allowing the planned “FAF Author” exclusive tabs to be integrated. The difference is this: Morax plans to remove the “most recent” tab, and I do not wish for that to happen.
The FAF Author vault will be discussed in Item 3.
Removing the “most recent” tab of the vaults removes the need to moderate them. FAF doesn’t need to go and spend their time doing admin work if they just cut that feature out of the client entirely. It’s a cop-out strategy. More below:
The first problem with stopping you from seeing rule-breaking content, is that the rule-breaking content still exists on the vault. Examples of this being a problem are cheat maps.
Consider the following: I make a clone of “Fields of Isis” and add some player slots, making it a 6v6 map. I also clone the mass near my spawn a thousand times over to give me a significant reclaim advantage, and because I’m hosting my games; I put myself in the same spot every time.
Even if you’re lucky enough that the cheat is not well hidden and you manage to spot it: The burden is now on the player to go and gather the evidence and make a report. There is no reason for there to be a vault moderation team if we don’t moderate the vaults, so it’s a gamble on if your report is handled. Whoever does handle it must now sift through all of the other new isis variants to find and hide the map. Even if this is handled in a reasonable time frame, the damage to the regular user is done. If you think it isn’t possible for a map to get away with having extra resources on one side, we only found out Loki (a map with over 50k plays!) was imbalanced a couple of weeks ago. It can happen to you.
In our current system, cloning maps and uploading them again are both A: against the rules of the vault and B: are the easiest to spot and remove. This example could not happen and If it did, the problem does not lie with the vault tab.
My further points about this topic follow:
Uploading and seeing your map on the vault is gratification. I can state this even after uploading 30+ maps to the vault; seeing your maps in the list and watching them climb in play count is one of the only rewards that map-makers - and by extension modders - get on the client.
Removing motivations and rewards for contributors to make life easier for the administration goes against what keeps FAF alive. The statistics for map play count are being used to justify the removal of the tab, but I personally don’t think we have a real right to decide how many plays are good enough for an author. If an author sees their content get even 1 extra play, and decides that’s enough to create another work? FAF only serves to profit from that.
We also - as an aside - remove options for the player when distributing maps to other players. Relying on auto-download would have been devastating to FAF during the period when said auto-download was broken, and many users have expressed their discontent over the interface for the vault search systems. Allowing maps to be located with no extra UX “steps” covers an inconceivably vast array of use cases for how players use the vaults to distribute their content to one-another. It’s not something worth throwing away to escape administration responsibility.
Speaking of:
2. VAULT ADMINISTRATION, AND THE 3 STRATUM RULE/MEME MAPS RULE
The current system is damaging the community to fix issues that the vault admin team have created for themselves.
I will first outline the current administration process so you can understand how desperately it needs reformation. And then I will discuss the removal of rules that are inherently elitist in nature and remove your gameplay variety.
First: When you upload a map to the vault that is rule breaking. It’s eventually hidden. So you just upload it again, and it’s back. You can repeat this process ad eternum.
The only way you get banned is to intentionally step into vision of the M&M staff and annoy them enough so they ban you from uploading. This ban will be permanent. If you avoid this step, the vault is free game for you.
Appealing your permanent ban is tough, because the staff or the admins do not know why you’re banned. Outside of one particular case, your ban reason is not properly recorded or maintained in any location that staff can find.
Map Authors already know this strategy. When the vault team found someone dedicated enough to start hiding maps on masse (hello Farmsletje), FAF started to see an increase of maps uploaded to the vault in return. Authors are just re-uploading their hidden maps to evade FAF’s administration process.
Here’s a graph to back this statement up, it shows maps uploaded per day, big thanks to Exotic_Retard for sharing this with me.
In the FAF admin log, Farms went and removed a lot of old maps first, before moving onto the current uploads. This is shown by the authors of such content being an “unknown” because they’re so old. Names of authors start appearing around the 18th of the 3rd. I marked that date with a black arrow for you.
You can verify that in the admin log here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15Q3FJ9QN8nc51ytTDJK61brrUtqd3L3efq58GFJaclU/edit#gid=0
Why are people circumventing the rules? For starters, it’s easier to do and nets you no consequence, but another important point is that our rule documentation has some major accessibility issues. If said rules were on the forum proper or another website, users from other languages can automatically translate them from a web browser. It’s far harder if the rules are on a google document, and impossible to do if you’re using images with text in them. The current rules are using both of those. And so I ask you: Вы вообще можете прочитать наши правила? If you don’t know what the rules are and thus don’t know why your map was hidden, it’s easy to perceive the hiding as a bug, or as an unjust removal.
As an aside: If we had happened to go down the route of using more text in imagery and other methods that are less accessible, FAF could run the risk of legal actions as covered under some national disabilities acts. This is something I feel FAF needs to be conscious of moving forward.
On to the second part; Here is what we’re removing that nets such an increase in people circumventing the rules:
Here is a graph I made in the admin log some time ago. It shows all the reasons for removal in a bar graph.
It does illustrate my key point, that being we’ve hid over 1100 maps for the “3 Stratum Rule.” This is the vault team’s way of gatekeeping content that FAF deems low effort.
What’s “low effort?” We don’t know. Just adding the required textures is very easy, so they added a clause to make sure you paint those textures onto the map “in detail.” except that it's highly dependent on what staff member sees your content first, and a lot of the staff are people that the userbase would not deem qualified to judge. It’s far too ambiguous for FAF to regulate, and should not be a rule.
I’m of the opinion that content that you inherently don’t care about will not pass the gate no matter how many textures you have, and this is showing in the map vault now. Maps are still low effort, and are just at varying levels of how close they tried to skip around the rules to allow it on the vault. Either it isn’t enough and it’s hidden (just re-upload it again!) or it is good enough and you stay on. Except it isn’t any better than having no textures on your map at all.
Painting textures onto the map is done in such a rough and artistic method, and so it is almost impossible to create artificial texture styles in the editor unless you “really” know what you’re doing. If you want to create for example a city map, or a machine world map that requires a lot of harsh angles and square geometry? You’re forced to create a high level masterpiece to avoid the gatekeeping rule, or you’re just no longer able to make them with the current administration.
If you want to create something to play with your friends on a saturday afternoon, and don’t want to to spend a month making a map pretty because that doesnt net you any return, you cannot pass the gatekeeping rule.
And lastly, moving onto the second rule: If you don’t want to create a map that is not made for the standard FAF ladder/teamgame gameplay, you’re not able to do so because we also do not allow “meme maps'' in the vault. The addition of this rule means that “fun” custom game content that defined other multiplayer games such as Halo and Counter Strike, is not allowed on FAF.
Obviously, removing maps that are not made for ranked gameplay only damages the variety that the FAF experience offers, and authors will not change to make maps for game modes they don’t care about. They just leave, and that is the worst scenario to have if you’re in charge of creative content, as the councilor role is.
Now I've explained the process and the flaws in our system. If you vote for this proposal, what changes is this:
“Meme” maps, or maps that offer differing gameplay experiences, will be allowed in the vault once again.
Maps that don’t have textures, or are impossible to have textures on, will be allowed on the vault again. If you were banned for either of those rules, your ban will be lifted.
Add a proper consequence to users that intentionally circumvent the rules. Create alert systems that properly alert you to infractions without requiring insane admin overhead. Properly document the rules to help allow for your appeal, and add a fair, time based system in line with FAF that prevents all bans from being permanent.
Move the rules to a more accessible location. remove inherent accessibility issues that prevent users from seeing them. present them in a more professional manner. and organise for them to be translated into FAF’s main languages.
Properly extend these improvements to the mod vault, which is just being moderated ad-hoc at the moment.
3. ENCOURAGE AND REWARD CREATIVE CONTRIBUTION
With my proposal, you have removed the admin inefficiency and are now properly managing content that breaks FAF rules. You did this without crippling features that benefit the FAF user, and have allowed them to play games on modes that are not just our standard ranked systems. So how do you use this role to get MORE quality content than was previously appearing?
This area of the proposal outlines implementing systems that allow the councilor role to demonstrate the potential that is being wasted in an almost criminal fashion.
First of all, and most importantly; this role is supposed to be more than just a “Vault Councilor,” and furthermore, the role is not only supposed to be a “Map Vault Councilor.” because doing so leaves the vast majority of FAF creative contributions out in the cold with no proper project management.
FAF needs someone to do two things: Create a central, easily accessible bank of contribution related information, and: Organize what yet needs to be created, and promote it to potentially willing contributors.
The M&M Role as it has stood since creation, has been the one role most up to the task of completing these critical objectives. Perhaps due to the name, or pool of willing applicants; the role has been instead relegated to some kind of vault janitor. While I don’t understand why it had become this way, (due to vault admin tools not existing when the role was made) NOT doing the two tasks above has crippled FAF in a truly indescribable fashion.
To better explain this section of the proposal, it will be split into two relative sections: Why this bank of information is required, and How I will be able to manage the contributor base to more efficiently produce what is required for FAF.
1. Our knowledge bank:
Hundreds of FAF contributors spend their time creating tutorials, guides on how to contribute, and other such educational resources for every aspect of FAF. However: this information isn’t placed in any feasible location so that other users may access it. This means that when another willing contributor decides it’s time to write a guide, they do not know what has already been covered. I try not to imagine how many times FAF has made the same guide over and over again.
With the wiki, blogging tools, the forums, and the various FAF discord servers as an interconnected suite, the councilor role should prevent this issue from occurring time and time again by properly cataloging and presenting what has already been created.
This benefits everyone in the community.
I would like for the wiki to be the start. Discord servers have always been terrible for accessibility, and a wiki is easy to edit, can help display what is still to-do, and doesn't require “inside knowledge” to locate.
But what is still “to-do? 2. Contributor project management. Here are some random items that FAF requires help to complete, to help illustrate the point:
Depending on how far “into the community” you are, you might barely know about two of those items. Just like how you don’t already know what has been done, the community needs someone capable of organizing what actually needs doing. Feeding more information outward to potential contributors will give them the information they need to jump right into the project, without joining a server at random and flailing about until someone decides to direct them. It gives said contributors an end goal to work towards, and FAF is more easily able to locate contributors to fill niche roles that never get done.
Adding to point 2 is a system about presenting what needs to be created to contributors and providing incentives towards their completion. Names for this system could be: FAF Contracting, FAF Bounty Hunters, FAF Bounty Boarding, etc.
Viewing what needs to be created on FAF is essentially looking at a bounty board. This system helps to elaborate on the requirements for each request by laying the information out in something not unlike a design brief.
Have you seen the mapping tournaments I (And FtXCommando) have created? They ask for something, offer a reward, and explain to you the nuances and technical requirements involved. They've been nothing but an absolute success for FAF, and this system aims to bring this method out from purely map creation, to the entirety of FAF proper.
When you see something that piques your interest as a contributor on this client; You’re immediately shown what is needed and if applicable: the reward for doing so. The higher the priority, the bigger the reward, the faster it gets done.
You’re told who to go for more information, who to hand off your work to so it gets integrated, and what to send them. If you’re one of the people who are using your work here to bolster your employment applications, completing these pseudo “design briefs” is a far better case for your professional ability than trying to compile an explanation in the dark.
Will this work for maps and mods as well? Of course. The ladder team is beyond able to articulate what niche maps are needed to fill out the pool, and if you’re starved for motivation, completing one of these basic tasks is an easy way to keep refining your skills.
I mentioned the FAF author vaults would be discussed in this section and it’s because completing tasks like these could net you access to the FAF author vault as a reward. Other rewards for completing this could be avatars, forum decorations if they’re added to the new forum, and other forms of compensation as well. This gives you actual reasons to make maps/mods/other content and to make it of an acceptable standard. We can’t possibly expect you to work for nothing here, and while other councilors might protest that “noone is motivated to do anything,” it is this councilors job to motivate you. I personally don’t believe that your creative contributions to this client should be left out in the cold and have advocated for this stance across multiple other councilor cycles. Maybe it’s time you actually got compensated for the work you put in?
Finally, I want to extend these suggestions to grunt work. Grunt work can be defined as for example: testing new FAF systems, maps, new mod content, doing janitorial roles like being a vault moderator, etc. No matter how many times we advertise in chat, no one appears to help because they don’t benefit. When we gave users even a small avatar incentive to help test ICE in one instance, participation spiked. I want to continue this trend by including them in this system.
So to sum up these three main points, You’re not going to lose the vault tab if you vote for this proposal, you’re instead getting systems that enhance your experience on the platform as a contributor, and you’ll be rewarded for helping FAF grow. You’re also getting a more professional admin system to properly handle the vaults we would be keeping in.
However as a bonus: I wanted to add an extra section at the end to “catch” things I had missed out of the flow of text here.
4. MAP/MOD VAULT PARITY: RE-ALIGNING FOCUS
The past couple of M&M Councilors have been almost entirely map focused. While I'm not the champion of modding some of you might dream for, I believe that mods are just as important to the game as maps, and wanted to use this role to rightfully extend FAF’s improvements to the mostly underdeveloped mod vault.
Such as the following:
Of course, mod related materials are also part of those due to improve in the systems i’ve outlined in point 3.
That’s all I have for you today.
Personally I think it’s time that FAF got someone to give their contributors the actual project management they need to really drive the project forward, and I think that the “Maps and Mods Councilor” was a role far too limited in scope. Perhaps as the close of my proposal here, rename this role to the “Creative Councilor” instead?
Please leave any questions for me to answer if you have them, pms are always acceptable. biass.
You might have seen a couple of comments on the forums about it, but we're looking to start a casual matchmaking queue that runs party game modes.
The devs that work on TMM are very eager to put the code time into it, and the far-more-skilled-than-i-am Creative team aready have a couple party game modes "fixed" for their inclusion into the queue.
This post is to ask for suggestions to this list, which has everything I can think of which could be included. Of course, this queue would be unrated. I rather it didn't show your rating at all too.
Final Rush Pro Phantom X Wave of Death Claustrophobia King of the Hill Murder Party Zone Control HardFFA Gap of 64 ACUS Labwars Scout Wars Chess Crazyrush Shared army Generic survival? New faction mods? Special win conditions?
This is everything I can remember.
It's important to note that it was quite common for maps, which contained their own scripts, and mods to be combined. So it's possible for us to do something like Gap of 64 ACUS, with the claustrophobia mod that makes the map shrink. If you do have any combinations you would like to see, make sure you also suggest those here too.
I've been granted the authority of the M&M Councilor position as of now. This post serves as:
The initial announcment, What I plan to do as Councilor, A checklist of if i've done it or not. A list of things I hope to complete as an aside, A place for you to pass your feedback to me, And a place to provide status updates and the like.
First, some things are effective immediately, or as soon as I am able to do so.
1. Renaming to the Creative Councilor. If you object to this, let me know.
2. Strip the 3 Stratum, and Meme map rules out of the map vault rules document. I'm just going to move the existing document for now, and put that in a new post on this forum, because I don't think one exists on the new forum yet.
If your map was hidden for these reasons and you want it unhidden, the onus is on you to contact me. Maps will not be unhidden if they also break other rules. (Don't ask for your 8 astro clones to be unhidden, please!)
3. People who are banned from the vault will be unbanned. This is pending until I touch base with the people responsible.
Futhermore, I need to speak with a number of people. We may or may not have spoken already but if you have not yet got anything from me, please message me at your most convenient time.
And anyone else i've forgotten.
The following things will be worked on in no particular order:
1. I want to fix up the discord server a little bit, thanks again to Morax for this smooth transition. This includes a rebrand, trimming channels, fixing the roles and adding extra features such as bots. Feel free to leave suggestions.
This includes a space for the "Preflighting" concept, which was left out of the vault proposal due to space.
I also want to open a basic space for projects, this list currently includes:
All it is, is a basic introduction as well as an invite link to the server and stuff. If you're one of the three leads responsible, expect me in your DM's eventually. If you have a FAF project you would like to put in this space, let me know.
2. Implement the new vault admin systems spoken about in the vault proposal. I need a new document for keeping track of hides and the like. I want to set it up in a way that allows for good data collection. Need to further fix the new map rules to remove the accessiblity issues and translate them onto the forum. Need a new rulelist for mods.
If you're interested in helping hide maps, let me know as always.
3. Work on the knowledge bank concept outlined in the proposal. Currently working on consolidating my information and contacting people who might want to have a stake in this. this includes Laticlave's old unit - github concept, and the old tutorial curriculum I still have to work on.
3b. Implement the bountyboarding systems in tandem with the above, again as outlined. Need to create a terms of use, and create some documents that need to go with it.
Here are some things that i'll probably be doing as an aside.
It's almost certain that i've forgotten something, so this post will serve as my bookkeeping and is prone to change at any time.
Finally, each councilor has a pledge that they follow along. It's really only for sentimental value more than anything, but I've made one anyway.
Very poetic.
If you've been mentioned in the post, expect a message soon.
I want my time as a councilor to be one that people do not look back upon with resentment. Thanks to everyone who has been involved thus far, hope to continue working with you.
Rowey has kindly offered $35 to sponsor this tournament.
You have until the 20th of April. Create a 10km map, Make it 2v2, and in a summer/spring/early fall theme. And post the name here. The best authors will recieve prizes.
Prizes:
1. $35 and the Grand Sculptor Avatar 2. Face of Faction Avatar 3. Logo of Faction Avatar
This is pretty standard for mapping tournaments. However rules dictate that you should create a map that is in a summer/spring/early fall theme. This implies a vibrant, sunny evergreen map. Creating maps that revolve around the summer/spring culture of a certain nationality are also fine, but:
A: If i can't tell it's a sunny theme from first glance, it still bombs out on the score. B: make sure to let me know.
I'm adding a simple 4th score to ensure the theme is met. If you submit a map that isnt of this summer vibe, you score a zero and will probably not win this tournament.
This is on top of the basic Asthetics / Gameplay / Variance score we've used in the past.
Please note that adding custom props will help to boost your asthetic score as well as your "theme" score *if relevant), this is to help assist the new prop initiative mentioned here. and to reword you for your effort if you do decide to contribute.
Also, the map must be 2v2 and 10km. Nothing else will be accepted.
Usual stuff below:
Rules: You may only submit one map per author. Maps already in the vault at the time of posting may not be submitted. Maps that are currently in progress may be submitted.
Content is judged by an opinion panel, and like last time I expect that panel to consist of high level players, FAF councilors, and Ladder Team members. To avoid conflicts of interest, opinions of users who have also entered into the competition will not be considered.
There are still mutiple objective requirements. Make sure your content abides by them. Any map found to not meet these requirements will be instantly disqualified and I will not be showing any leniency.
I want to have more than just myself judge tournaments. PM if you're interested and NOT competing. See you in roughly two months.
@Psions said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
@FtXCommando If the majority of people prefer a map over another, it doesn't make it an objectively bad map, it just makes you a bad judge of what a good map is when it comes to the general playerbase.
Let’s get something out of the way here; the only people trying to correlate that “the map is bad” because “the people play it” are people trying to defend Astro crater.
The map is not bad because people play it. Astro crater is objectively, a bad map. It has nothing to do with playcount.
As is with all art, there is still objective qualities that can be judged.
And so on, and so forth. Astro doesn’t meet a minimum standard of quality for, or in some cases even has, any of these criteria. Everybody in this conversation knows this part and if you don’t, you’re either deluding yourself to keep a defensive, or you’re so inept at judging maps that you’re not worth having a discussion with.
People can make an “objectively better Astro” at any time. It doesn’t have anything to do with playcount. Maps can be popular and be “objectively good,” The original gap map is still good, even though it is one of the most played maps on the client.
Moving on, I’m not sure what changing the metrics to judge playcount actually solves. Why move the metric away from the quality of your work, to who can inflate their epeen the most? I wasn’t aware that people still cared about playcount on their maps until bad mappers started writing 2000 word forum posts to justify why they spent 2 minutes on their map.
Is there a reason why playcount should be a metric, or even considered to one? Is there a problem with the current (ladder) system of rating maps? Why should Astro be in a 2v2 matchmaker? Why should any map be in a matchmaker because it’s “popular?” Why should objectively good maps not be in the matchmaker if they’re not “popular?”
It’s okay to think people can play what they want, but don’t delude yourself in the process.
I wanted to raise this point for a number of reasons, but keep in mind that i'm not really a reddit user and thus am not completely aware of the functionality.
We have two subreddits, the /FAF one and also the /supremecommander subreddit. Both are completely underdeveloped, and moderated with a detached skeleton crew of staff including Gorton, who vanished from the community a number of months ago.
We have a bit of a issue here. The issue is that permabanned users from FAF can easily walk into the subreddit, and damage the influx of new users from that platform. Case in point is mirddes, who is actively causing major disruption by slanding the SC:TA project, and arguing about supposed "authoritarian practices" on the supremecommander subreddit.
Techincally, we're in charge of these places. I feel that besides the obvious moderation issues we're having, we're losing a major source of new users and retention of those by letting a community discussion panel stay in this state. There is still a sizable level of traffic on the subreddits, and for a lot of new users who might not know about the forums and the discord, reddit is such a popular place that people will likely head there for tech support and general discussion.
I want to suggest the following, and am happy to help work on these too:
I don't think people will have issue with FAF taking hold of the reddit and enforcing proper rules there. As long as we are fair and open towards other supreme commander communities, and communicate the expectations properly.
I'm happy to open the dialog with the current reddit admin if people are busy. I don't want to see "my" contributors be slandared and lose motivation because of FAF's apathy. Tell me your thoughts. I know a couple of users from FAF frequent the place such as Tatsu so their input is important for this project.
fiercelv said in Why would you have left FAF?:
Well, you asked. Rampant, unpunished lagers. REHOST 24/7 Self explanatory. Toxicity. 2.3. Russian language in the mixed nationalities teams. LOL
Well, you asked.
Rampant, unpunished lagers. REHOST 24/7 Self explanatory.
Toxicity. 2.3. Russian language in the mixed nationalities teams. LOL
Today on FAF: Speaking Russian is toxicity.
Bilingual requirement for thee but not for me~
@cheeseberry said in Downsides of the Advanced Strategic Icons mod:
So it's not out of any reasonable project scope, you just think we shouldn't prioritize it. That is something different to be discussed then.
Yes, and I think it’s out of any reasonable scope because it is so low priority. Stupid comment.
which is demonstrably untrue, as shown by some of the people here in this thread.
I know you’re new, but I shouldn’t need to explain to any veteran that people will say they want to do something and then won’t do it - including me. This is very extensive free work with a long iterative design phase and large amounts of tedious menial gruntwork. Claims to work on it amount to nothing.
You would be very brave to want to buck the trend but I would hesitate to call it smart - most people need to do jobs that allow them to eat.
Changing the game icons is out of any reasonable scope? Why?
Because if you're going to spend money, you should spend it on fixing stuff that is far more important. People are in here trying to argue if this "change" (because ASI is not a fix) is even a positive one. Why should you spend money on this instead of for example, the terrible client ui? 99.99% of FAF users are going to be using that UI. That is not the case for an icon mod.
cheeseberry said in Downsides of the Advanced Strategic Icons mod:
The ASI guy literally proved that it could be done,
And? Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should. Do you remember when FAF made the text colours correspond to faction and people literally couldn't read the text when they chose cybran? It was "proven to could be done" but that doesn't mean anything.
@biass Changing the game icons is out of any reasonable scope? Why? The ASI guy literally proved that it could be done, albeit there is still much to improve there of course. Also it matters to quite a lot of the most involved and contributing community members. See for example Jip above who has put in at least like 2 months of full time work improving the game, or any of the people here who are sitting on various unpaid council/admin positions out of their own good will. If their voice doesn't count, whose does?
@biass Changing the game icons is out of any reasonable scope? Why?
The ASI guy literally proved that it could be done, albeit there is still much to improve there of course.
Also it matters to quite a lot of the most involved and contributing community members. See for example Jip above who has put in at least like 2 months of full time work improving the game, or any of the people here who are sitting on various unpaid council/admin positions out of their own good will. If their voice doesn't count, whose does?
Why are you telling this to me? Did you forget like a month ago I was still a councilor here? Did you forget Jip worked with me on many projects? I don't get the point of this outside of this being some pointless arguing. A word of warning though, don't speak on behalf of other people. Like 3 dudes have come in to say they like the icon mod. That's not "quite a lot" and that doesn't mean they're willing to drop donation money on it instead of important shit.
Random "fixes" like this only matter to the people who are/would never do the work in the first place. Otherwise you would realise that this is completely out of any reasonable project scope.
If you're going to hire someone, (which none of you are) Focus on making the client UX better, or fixing up the webpage that STILL has sc2 images.
These things actually matter more.
Maybe we want an icon tournament? The iconset voted for by the community gets a hundred bucks or so?
Absolutely do not do this.
https://www.nospec.com/
So could you, instead of calling me shit a player that doesn't know what he is talking about, post some pictures or other evidence instead to prove that I'm a shit player that doesn't know what he is talking about?
Yes, you'll notice that I posted a stats display of your game history and the rating gain on a per map basis. This should be reasonable proof if you're looking to dispute that.
The stuff that is actually relevant to the conversation, uses images from the OP. My examples reference both battleships and mexes, which can be seen in the first two images.
You would know this if you decided to read more than just the first paragraph. Can't claim i'm surprised with you at this point. It is FAF after all.
Cherry picking examples on repeat and presenting them as evidence of the icons being cluttered or not is the epitome of bad faith. It's very easy for someone like me to ignore your example and point out that in your first images, the cyan coloured player is building something using a swarm of engineering drones. On the defalut icon setup the building is visible whereas in the ASI image, the building is completely obscured. It's pretty typical of FAF users to engage in such boring talk that goes nowhere, but you didn't help it by framing your OP this way. Did you come here to learn something or only to argue about your point for 55 cringe ass posts?
Of course you're going to be able to see certain things easier if you abuse the 5 elements of design to blow something out of proportion. When two things are contrasted together, one is easier to see -> and the other is thus harder.
Luckily on this game, you are provided additional information while you play the game in order to help you parse what you need to know.
Let me draw attention to this quote.
Purple also has some battleships but without staring at it for a couple seconds I don't know if purple has 4 or 10.
This took less than a second for me (and others, apparently) to see. Why? Because a decent player can make reasonable assumptions about where or what a battleship would be doing. They're a similar distance away from the enemy fleet in a fragmented line due to their long range. They're definetly going to be behind the frigates but closer to the enemy than the cruisers. You might (read: 100%) have range rings on while you play that help you determine units even better. New (bad) players are fans of this mod because of these two things:
And instead need to use this overblown out contrast mod in order to see units "better". God forbid they're not using that dark blue and it's just universally harder to see.
Akin to ecomanager E throttle, It's a crutch that raises your rating a little - because you can see units better in badkid lobbies, but you won't ever learn the basics in order to see things like positioning -> making you a good player overall.
I'll also bring up mexes as an example, albeit one among many: Theoretically you don't need to scout and see the hideous, blatantly overcontrasted ASI mass icon to know a mex is now t2 while you're playing. This is because the t1 mex "dies" when the upgrade is finished and appears as such until the location is rescouted and the t2 mex is seen. This isn't the case for mass storages, which are also counted as an eco step and should be watched closely in a ladder game or other tight competition.
It's very lucky that you can even see that there are structures next to the mex icon when they're that upscaled. But what about if the mexes are actually pgens? Plenty of players ring their mexes with pgens to gain a boost while upgrading. You probably do it in the build order you've abused for 500 games. The important information is obscured to you unless you zoom in now and look, because the irrelevant MEX icon is so important that it needs to grab your eye despite other factors making it visible,
Let me restate the point im trying to make here with this new information.
While the default icons provide a mostly blank slate for you to exercise your fundamental game knowledge, ASI intentionally obfuscates important information to make important what a random modder has deemed important for you to know.
You use this overblown and overly emphasised information to compensate for your lack of game knowledge and plateau yourself by using a crutch. This is why I believe that BH claims it is a detriment. Because you would have to then lose rating in order to learn the game properly and you're all too weak of mind to do that.
And before you ignore everything to claim that you can make the assumptions about battleship placement despite your eyes being dragged around by insane contrasting: Even as someone qualified in design, impact from stuff such as colours (You could make everything important ingame red, because your eye catches on faster on average) still affects me. You're not any better. These are innate issues that most people cannot articulate, and is why you didn't know why all the good players don't like the mod.
While i'm here:
katharsas said in Downsides of the Advanced Strategic Icons mod:
common logical fallacies
It's very cute to call out a fallacy and then totally ignore the appeal to expertise in the OP. Luckily this is FAF and i'm already used to seeing rat-like tactics used for personal gain.
as a 1.8k global I imagine myself to have a decent understanding of the games fundamentals.
It's also very cute to claim you understand the game and thus ASI is made more valid by your claim, luckily someone pointed this out to me that in fact:
Grinding out a single map for a high rating leaves you with a warped understanding of the game. A understanding that in fact, might make ASI appear more valid to you.
When you plateau as a 1200 in ladder, please come back to this discussion and consider again why this might be a detriment to your understanding.
Dual gap became what it is due to an audience of people constantly refining something to continue to fit their needs. Willpower, iteration, and time investment.
Meanwhile, people trying to make “good” teamgame maps can’t be fucked to put a modicum of effort into making their maps good. If they even try to make a map at all. If you patrol the vaults you’ll see the result. 5 minute garbage.
And yet, when it’s time to complain on the forums and make cringe statements like:
You deserve to be banned from the forums for such BLATANT, INTENTIONAL LYING.
You all seem pretty motivated, don’t you?
Perhaps if spite wasn’t FAF’s main fuel you would have fixed this problem already. Lord knows you discuss it every second month.
If you want gap to go, make something better.
@gamb1t said in Not Okay. Line Crossed.:
"We want your data" schick that tries to justify itself as being benign. https://postimg.cc/Jtzhpmmb
You did read through that image right?
It’s basically telling you: “hey we need to store your email and your username for the forum to function”
You’re now saying “THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE” like you’ve just seen a duckduckgo advertisement for the first time.
About the CoC, I was one of the people who originally pushed for it to exist. I’m definitely no left winger by any means. I asked for it to happen to keep an unknown, inexperienced FAF Association board from potentially abusing the system to do harm. FtX and I saw countless loopholes and tried endlessly to fix it.
It’s cool to call out abuse or other shit that appears tyrannical. But you look like you watched a single video critic on YouTube and decided to emulate his entire personality. Simmer down.
Hello. This two week period is now over. You can now see Balthazar's introduction here: https://forum.faforever.com/topic/2354/biass-successor-an-introduction
I assume everything else will be transferred over shortly. I don't have the power to do this on my own, but in typical FAF fashion i've not been contacted in any way about my stepping down yet.
I'll still be lurking around in my usual spots incase you still have something you want to ask.
Good luck.