Posts made by BlackYps

I had some more thoughts while reading the thread, but I don't have the energy to write them all down at the moment. Maybe later.
But I just want to say that this conversation illustrates really well that the "don't leave unless the game is lost"-rule is far to hard to gauge in practice and leads to bad experiences for everyone.

I'm not a mod, but I can share some thoughts:
I believe that most public discussions of mod action would be started by people that justifiably got banned and it was not even some kind of gray-zone, but nevertheless explain how it was only their team's fault for making them do the things they did. And try to sway the public opinion by telling a loaded story full of omissions. Every once in a while someone like these pops up in discord anyway. I can totally understand that nobody wants to deal with these totally unproductive discussions and they are not healthy for the community either. I imagine that some of the drama gets removed when these people are funneled to a ticket system without any bystanders that they could try to persuade.

That said, I also find it a bit dumb that the rule also gets cited when someone tries to discuss hypothetical mod action i.e. if there is a rule breach by using a specific replay. There was no actual report, it was an attempt to better convey a point in a discussion about the rules in general. It also prevents constructive discussions about moderation quality or if a rule needs clarification when not just the banned person, but also many others do not understand the reason of a ban and feel it was out of line. This has happened as well.

So in conclusion I think the current rule about not discussing moderation decisions in public at all is not good enough and we need to find a way to be more lenient. At the same the people that ask for a better system need to also provide a solution how to prevent the issue that we will have at least one guy a week fanning drama in discord about his ban. And remarks like "if decisions seemed more "objectively right" rather than being ambiguous i believe less people would complain to mods team" are not addressing this problem with enough seriousness. As I said, people even do this if it's very clear that they have definitely broken the rules.

The exact reclaim numbers are not really doable because the map generator doesn't know the reclaim values of the props

Is it possible to modify the font size as well? Text is very small, both on mobile and desktop

That is the forum we are using. There are no modifications made by faf

I'm pretty sure that brutus doesn't know better than anyone else here how to edit forum themes. So everyone is welcome to make contributions

Far on the horizon maybe. I added the issues to the issue tracker here: https://github.com/FAForever/FAForeverMapEditor/issues

Are you using this version? https://github.com/FAForever/FAForeverMapEditor/releases/latest

What had more support in that discussion was to revive the concept of the old league months where playing a lot of games was rewarded. That was received well by the players at the time and improved the matchmaker activity.

I agree with your post in general, but manual reclaim in FAF is a completely optional mechanic in 99% of game situations. The fact that attack move exists to already provide an area reclaim tool means that manual reclaim is not a mechanic that makes games harder for new players or is APM for the sake of APM.

You might have read it already in the game patch notes, but in case you haven’t I’m putting it out here. Jip stepped down as the leader of the game team and the game team elected me to take his place. I’d like to use the opportunity to thank Jip for all the contributions that he did in this position. They are literally too many to name them all. So thank you Jip!

This change in positions will certainly change how the game team operates because Jip was very knowledgeable of the game and could do a lot of changes himself. While I have made contributions to the game myself, they have mainly been to the shaders, which is not entangled at all with the lua code of the game. I will (must) therefore focus on other aspects of the team lead role.
I will stick more to the administrative aspects and one of the first things I plan to do is to review how the game team operates and how that can go on as smoothly as possible despite this change in leadership. The game team is very active at the moment and that means it’s challenging to keep track of everything. On top of that it needs to work in close contact with the balance team, which is a lot less active. This has lead to frictions in the past and I will try to find a way of working together that suits both teams.

I’ll present more detailed plans or status updates at a later date, when I got more comfortable with my new role. You can still expect that development will continue in the meantime as we have a lot of regular members that can continue to work and are not affected by this administrative change.

The prop generators get picked at random if set to random, but they have weights attached to them which influences the pick chance. Sheikah recently reduced the chance to get the boulderfield and large battle prop generators to reduce the chance to get a map with lots of reclaim.

Before, the sliders affected which map styles could be chosen, so that might be the reason why people perceive that the probability to get certain styles of maps has changed.
Now the two remaining sliders act as input of the chosen generator. We should probably disable them unless you choose a specific prop or resource generator. It doesn't make sense to specify random prop generator and low reclaim amount at the same time. Some prop generators will produce a lot of reclaim even with a low reclaim density as input.
As you said, it's very unpredictable when the slider decides which generators can be chosen because it's not transparent to the user which slider setting disables certain generators. So switching back to this doesn't seem like a good option.

Someone is working on a multiselect option to make this kind of opt-out behaviour possible.

On top of what Brutus said, how do you expect this to become a serious discussion when you are telling us outright that you don't want to learn modding best practices?

@evildrew said in FAF(default) mode alternative:

I know there are some documents to read through but reading those just takes too long

Could you link some replays with unexpected amounts of reclaim?

Dude, chill. It's literally been four hours since somebody said they will investigate

The 0 point in the distributions of ratings is chosen completely arbitrary. For the system only relative differences between rating matter. You could add 1000 to everyone's rating and everything would still behave the same, just fresh players would now start at 1000 rating.

We are using multiselect in other areas of the client, so you could copy the code from there

at least for the moment where the league placements are only rarely displaying. Which I have to ask, if the new system isn't functional yet, why has it already supplanted the old system ?

Are there cases where divisions of players don't show up even though they should? To my knowledge the system is fully functional. It can be that people don't have a placement yet because the current season started only recently.

We should indeed add tooltips that describe the options. They are not hard to add, but someone has to write them. It's much appreciated if someone wants to contribute descriptions

That is what the biome controls