Hello everyone, today I'm announcing my resignation as balance councilor. I took on the role following Zock's resignation in February 2017 and formed a new team to work on FAF balance. With a lot of help from that team we released eight balance patches in that time with changes covering most areas of the game. I want to thank the following people for their work and support: Zock, Brutus5000, Petric, keyser, Exotic_Retard, PhilipJFry, Strogo, Mephi, Turin, Farms, Zlo, Icedreamer, Sheeo, all council members past and present and anyone who may have slipped my mind in the moment.

The balance team currently consists of the following five players; myself, Petric, keyser, Turin and Farms. Petric was unanimously selected as the new Balance Councilor with the approval of the Council of Setons. I will remain on the team as a regular member.

JaggedAppliance

What do people define as toxic? I've seen this word so often that it is losing its meaning. In many cases people seem to see it as simply saying swear words. If this is the metric then I am as toxic as the next.

I can sum up my thoughts in a single phrase. Leave it alone.

The request for consent to collect certain information is just GDPR compliance, it's unavoidable. There is nothing sinister about it, we don't even have analytics on the website.

FAF is also quite apolitical and not very heavily moderated.

@pryanichek Don't worry about it, take a breath and see what you want to do. I hope you'll run tournaments and if you want any help send me a pm.

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

This might include getting more good moderators by creating rewarding incentives for people to be good moderators, talking with the moderation team about implementing a better system for requiring ‘official’ FAF streamers to adhere to certain non-toxic standards, requiring councilors to act actually follow FAF's rules (and having them removed if they refuse), creating 'safe-space' chats, working with the FAF association to help give moderation the resources it needs to promptly handle moderation reports and moderate better, etc.

Some of these ideas sound completely unreasonable and/or near impossible to implement. Are any of these things under the remit of the PC? Also can someone please define toxicity.

accepting inv...

oh

I went through the applications and some responses for almost 3 hours on stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpHyXQUIZNU

TL;DW I believe FtxCommando has a proven track record and has put forward by far the strongest platform. Morax's application was also solid and reasonable. Suzuji's application shows that he does not understand what the PC position is actually about and he is promising things which are completely unreasonable in terms of hours. A lot of his commitments are personal ones and they are commitments to things which he has no track record of ever doing before so they are not believable. Francias is the alt account of Feather and has no business even posting on the forums, let alone applying for this position.

@sheeo said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

@jaggedappliance said in Council of Setons EXPOSED - Part 1:

What do people define as toxic? I've seen this word so often that it is losing its meaning. In many cases people seem to see it as simply saying swear words. If this is the metric then I am as toxic as the next.

Trolling, lying, derogative behavior, being argumentative just for the sake of it. I don't think this is so hard to come to an agreement about.

Just using swear-words is clearly too low of a bar, though.

Trolling is not an easily agreed upon judgement, nor is arguing just for the sake of it in many cases. Lying is of course extremely negative behaviour. Derogative behaviour I assume means insults which is not always toxic in my opinion, it depends on the insults and where they are directed e.g. are they personal or aimed towards an idea or towards some very negative behaviour.

In reality all this thread has done has put out the serious disagreements from within the council into the public. It doesn't look good and I don't see where this is heading at the moment.

Please don't recommend the icon mod to new players, whatever you do. If people have played for a while and they want to switch, whatever. If they are not even used to the default icons do not suggest they switch because you personally like them.

I can sum up my thoughts in a single phrase. Leave it alone.

I do this by spamming the "select nearest idle air scout hotkey."

Yeah that sounds like way too much administrative overhead.

Good decision imo.

I assume he means group B.

The groups look pretty balanced to me.

You're explaining the choice yourself, they have clearly separated roles. This is why both units exist on the same tier despite them both being engies. Once you give them all the blueprints things get muddied.

The choice is whether you make sparkies or not, not a choice directly between two engineers. If there's a choice between two engineers on the same tier that can build the same things, why does that choice exist? There have to be serious differences and differences in available blueprints is the clearest way to differentiate them.

In terms of dropping sparkies or using them on the front, a t1 engy can fill in the gaps that you want filled, you don't need a t2 one. Sparkies having less blueprints available makes them a real choice. You want to remove the main drawback to them and replace it with cost maybe? That's boring and flavourless.

"Encouraging a more aggressive t2 stage." That's a ridiculous reach.

There's no reason to change this. UEF gets the regular T2 engy and it gets a T2 field engy. Field means not in the base. Sparkies are really good units with big upsides over t2 engies like hp, speed and buildpower. What's the point in allowing them to build everything when you have a unit for that already? Don't close the gap between 2 units on the same roster which are almost identical.

Signing up