In short, decapitation means you get to keep your stuff after your commander dies, but if all commanders on your team die, it's game over. Decapitation is currently an unrated mod.

I think it should be rated, or even better, just integrated into the game as an alternate victory condition - that would mean games using it don't show up as modded, and since the option to show modded games is off by default, the games would have higher visibility. As long , of course, as there are no glaring balance issues (discuss), and as long as that's not too much work for the Game development team.

Why should it be rated? It's a better option than fullshare for casual team games with wide rating distributions, and it's a better option overall than Annihilation or Supremacy, because the cleanup required with those is tedious and meaningless. Right now, in fullshare, people have to actively avoid killing an 800 if they've got a 1600 on their team ready to take over their economy. It might, although this remains to be seen, also encourage new players to be a bit more adventurous with their commanders, which is, in my opinion, a good thing, since making best use of their com is something they learn pretty slowly, with experimentation being very expensive (you die).

As far as I can tell, the benefits outweigh potential problems with this game mode, one of which might be com bombing by high rated players. I believe this is so rarely encountered that people haven't figured out how to mitigate it at the t1 stage, when t2 transports aren't available yet. It's also not something I think is that easy to abuse in order to farm rating. A decision to make it rated could also be reversed at any time, should com bombing or anything else prove to be a big enough problem.

I'm looking for ways to make life easier for new players, in the hope that this will prolong this game's life in the long run.

@Deribus said in the Q&A Thread that noobs are often confronted with the following problems:

• Getting kicked from custom lobbies
• Long queue times in matchmaking, and very imbalanced matches for the first 10 or so
• Few similarly ranked players willing to play anything but dual gap and astro
• Very steep learning curve

The #gameplay-and-training discord channel is focused on helping with that last bullet point, and I commend everyone there for their effort and success, but upon talking to the members, I got the feeling that the other issues are not really part of their mandate (which, upon reflection, is reasonable)

So could a similar community effort help make those critical first few games more straightforward to get, and also a pleasant experience? How did #gameplay-and-training get started? How were the trainers recruited and how are trainees finding their way there? How do big clans like ANZ or CpC organize so well to fill lobbies so fast? Does anyone have any thoughts on what such a community might do to help? Are you interested in taking part?

I'm thinking a good starting point would be finding people willing to host around the clock, build enough reputation to fill lobbies reasonably fast, and compete with the endless gap/astro lobbies for noob attention, with a focus on making a good first impression, but I'm kind of lost when it comes to the organizational part.

Percies? Bricks? What are those? I thought you were only supposed to make titans and loyalists

After having hosted countless all welcome games on randomly generated maps I can attest to the fact full share makes the games more fun to play, for both sides. Without it, games end at around 10 minutes, after the first player death, with no chance of recovery for their teammates, after some 2v1 or unfortunate first engagement. This drastic, game-ending outcome often comes as a result of rock-paper-scissors dynamics in the build orders (much more prevalent on random maps), not some grand masterminded strategy that could potentially be scouted and countered in time.

I am, however, dumbfounded by the amount of people that join only to immediately throw a tantrum because they see full share on, then begin to educate me on its shortcomings. Very few games have ended in victory for the team down a player, so the oft repeated argument that full share makes snipes meaningless just doesn't ring true to me. Being down a com and placing more burden on another player does not make the game easier for the losing team, and, at least around my level, it takes time for the the unified economy to compensate for these disadvantages.

I really hope more people give it a chance, and, as funk said, learn to adapt their decision making to this change in rules. Snipe economy, and press the attack once you get a kill instead of zoning out and going sim city.

Everyone responding to players expressing their reasons for leaving with "you're wrong" should just shut up. Your arguments will not convince someone to keep playing once they decided to leave and you're only discouraging others from speaking out. Doesn't matter if you're right, you're just shitting up a rare, useful feedback thread for no reason.

I generate random map. Looks like it might be good, but the preview, it's the size of a stamp. A tiny stamp because I made 12.5km and it's got a big black border. There's this black gradient over the bottom that ensures the very interesting map name spanning 2 lines is readable so I squint harder than Clint Eastwood. No use, can't see shit. My old man vision can't even pick out the spawns if the map is of the darker kind. So I click create game. I zoom into the map using the NEW BIG LENS BUTTON and notice something I don't like. Close lobby. Go back to host dialog.

I realize this host dialog was never designed to nitpick generated maps, count mexes per spawn, see the difference between cliff and ramp and all that stuff. We didn't have mapgen back when it was made. But maybe it's possible to add the NEW BIG LENS BUTTON in the game creation dialog thus fixing it?

Generally I think a turtle style feels way more comfortable for new players, and this is reinforced by a bias towards safer maps like gap or astro when it comes to the games they play.

For them to become ladder players, if they ever do, they have to go through a phase where they unlearn some bad turtle habits, and try out and succeed at being aggressive. They tend to do this by playing more open maps in custom lobbies, the lower the skill and confidence, the more players.

There's already a big cost in attention needed to use the ACU offensively, as compared to just making some obscene firebase with a t2 com, a very, very common noob trap. And attention, specifically, is a beginner's most scarce resource. They often forget radar, tmd, scouting in general, they may idle their first high tech engies for minutes if they get distracted, or attack then look away from the fight, because doing these things right is not yet second nature to them. They spend more time doing any one thing and often get tunnel-vision on some random task because they have to think about it and it's not just busywork as it is to a veteran. This makes multi-taksing harder.

I'm worried about the nerfs you suggested because they make the climb from astro noob to ladder player steeper. I'm sure, FTX, you're very familiar with all the things I described, with all your mentoring experience on discord, and with that in mind, maybe I shouldn't be worried, but I'm still hoping you can think of another way of solving the problem.

I think the recent speed boost to t2 is a welcome change, and in general, I think I'd prefer some solution (which i don't claim to have) that emphasizes decision-making. The same way an air player rushing t3 air might conclude he has a window of opportunity and a need to do damage with a very early strat if he sees his counterpart making t2 bombers, and the same way a less skilled air player like myself decides to pay a mass tax and always shield their t2 pgens, even as i know some better players skip this sometimes, by scouting better and being able to determine if they're far enough behind that a shield is needed.

There's another point to be made regarding player experience.

Since without full share, you are usually punished with an agonizing and inevitable defeat when your teammate dies, sometimes through no fault of your own, player deaths are often followed by toxic interactions between teammates, "moron" tags peppered around the map and stuff like that. Full share helps a lot with this problem.

It also seems to me that people more often stay in the game instead of leaving immediately when full share is on, maybe partly because they want to see their stuff put to use. For one thing, this means defeat feels less bitter since fewer rage quit. But it also increases the chance that dead high rated players instruct lower rated players on their team, and that dead low rated players stick around to learn from their teammates. These are the only times casual players get to see high level play and actually pay attention to it, since very few of them spectate games or watch replays, and actually incentivizes high rated players to teach, since they can salvage their rating if they guide their teammates to victory.

These are not minor concerns. This community is plagued by the unreasonable popularity of maps like astro craters or thermo or gap. If a lobby features some other map, it's almost always rating limited. New players end up joining the only lobbies that will have them, the aforementioned shit map trifecta. Some never leave this comfort zone even after gaining a white rating.

TMM is one of the few developments in years that has a chance to change this, and, if I'm not mistaken, it's whole purpose is specifically remedying this situation. We should not overlook player experience when deciding how to structure team play. Even if it turns out full share is not the best option, TMM should arguably use it at launch to be more noob friendly.

@askaholic said in Introducing Mapgen Week on Ladder:

Let’s rename it to "Neroxis and Sheikah Map Generator". And while we’re at it let’s rename the faf client to "Downlords and Axels and Brutus’ and Sheikahs and All those other guys FAF Client"

Praise Neroxis when mapgen is good, blame Sheikah when something is wrong with it. This is the way

I can't even reject percies, I just make those instead of fattys and then cry when a GC shows up. Probably why I'm still so shit at the game.

@cocucka said in Punish bad lobbies:

Well, can someone explain what I am doing wrong?

You're doing nothing wrong, it's unfortunately like that, until slowly, it isn't anymore. Still faster than waiting for gap matchmaker. You can try hosting 3v3s or 2v2s if you want, they might fill faster, but that's assuming you want to play those kinds of maps.

@blackyps Yeah, I suspected as much and it feels like the right call, although, ironically, it kind of set a bad precedent. At least that argument is now dead and buried, though, mostly, thanks to that extra work. Is it worth putting in a similar effort again to settle the matter of gap tmm? I have no idea how much work it actually is, but I also have a gut feeling that it's a problem the community will have to face at some point, if the long-term goal is to reduce emphasis on custom games.

@cocucka I think I saw some numbers about 4v4 share vs no-share on this very forum posted by the devs, trying to find them now

@exselsior the OP is indeed trying to host themselves already, I've seen their lobbies in the list.

Maybe the thread is partly about that solution not being entirely frustration free, and that might have something to do with people's reluctance to join lobbies hosted by lower rated players, but I'm just guessing.

Personally, I have to admit whatever gut feelings I might have about a hypothetical gap only queue are worthless since the death of 4v4 tmm came as quite a surprise to me. It was vindicating, but surprising as hell, based on what I perceived the consensus to be at my rating level at the time. The fact that it even existed at all is proof that fullshare was at the very least controversial, forcing the devs to launch tmm with both, which was the right call.

I wonder if no-share's utter failure came as a surprise to any them as well, and if so, maybe it's worth reminding ourselves our intuition is not perfect at predicting how large, mostly silent communities will react and can't replace actual experiments.

On the other hand, if it came as no surprise at all to anyone on the dev team, more the reason to trust their judgement on this, but it's interesting to think that they were willing to entertain no-share then just to prove to people hardly anyone wants to play it, so it must not have been that huge of an effort.

Sometimes people are reluctant to host themselves because it seems like the slowest option to get a game. @Cocucka all I can suggest is make your lobbies fun and fair and hopefully people will flock to them. It's slow at first but it gets better as you get better at hosting. Once enough people add you to their friends list, they get notified when you make a game and it fills a lot faster, even compared to matchmaking at prime time.

@melanol go ahead and automate it

@deletethis or just say in lobby chat "i rehost", then get an almost insta full lobby

@cocucka we already have matchmaking, but that's beside the point. Even if the devs agreed with your suggestions, it would take months to make the changes. You don't have to wait months (or forever) to solve your problems, at least not in my experience. Try it.

I felt the same way about bad hosts and started hosting and it worked for me. You will be able to solve all your problems if enough players come to prefer your games over others, and you will get there way faster than the changes you're asking devs to make.

Firewall is configured to allow faf through.
VPN did not help.
Selecting Global coturn server did not help.

ice-adapter.log
client.log