It's really cool that 40 people and 20 teams gathered in just a couple of days! Thanks to the organizers of the tournament! I hope after such success we will have more blitz tournaments!

@Kilatamoro yes, but even despite this fact, it's a very cool tournament.

Please correct the post, the rating limit is 4620

@PViddy If anyone can have such an archive, it is @zlo

My favorite blitz tournaments and my favorite 2x2 format! The tournament team knows how to make pleasant surprises! And it's such a pity that I won't be able to play that day... But I'll be happy to watch the stream recording as soon as I get home.

@Crimsonz Ask in the official discord FAF. I'm not 100% sure that it's possible to do this, but if there's anywhere you can get an answer, it's there. https://discord.gg/mRw9cxW6n

@KnownSniper Seton is very different from other maps by having 2 large water pools. I'm not sure if we should build a balance based on this map alone.

On land maps, if you build exp instead of game enders in an equal situation, you will win in most scenarios because your exps can safely reach and kill enemy bases. On most water maps, a navy victory will be enough, as the t3 range of navy units will be able to destroy all bases.

And only on Setons and similar mapgens is the mid too small to let exp through it (since they will be destroyed by the enemy navy from another side), but at the same time the air base is far enough away to be out of the firing range of navy units. Plus, air base has enough energy, bp, smd, and a convenient place to build a game ender. The choice of game enders is better because of the features of the map, the location of the bases, and the terrain. And not because game enders are too unbalanced.

Therefore, you are unlikely to see game enders on maps like Maridia, Metir, Skadi etc. Even though there are more resources on these maps and the games also last 30-40 minutes or more.

If you don't build game enders in a situation where you've won the navy side on Setons and you have a good eco and 100k reclaim, then I don't understand in what situations it is necessary to build game enders at all? Only on Gap of Rohan, where there is only 1 gap and it is impossible to break through it with equal play?

@Nuggets I know what you're talking about. Maybe we don't fully understand each other because of the translation. I mean, what if builduptime and traveltime and so on not allowed to punish your opponent for building a game ender, then this game can no longer be considered dynamic. Which means building a game ender is an absolutely normal way to complete the game.

This does not happen on 10x10 maps or maps with a small amount of resources. This doesn't happen in a 1x1, 2x2, or 3x3 game. But if you are playing 20x20km slopgen, where there is a huge amount of resources, or Seton, where in late game navy gives a huge amount of reclaim that is building a game ender is an absolutely normal way to complete the game.

Not everyone wants to play one game for 1.5 hours, building 50 exp each, as if it were a t1 unit

The 220k of mass that you need to spend on average on game ender is a lot. That's a lot. If your opponents in a dynamic game were able to invest a mass equal to 9 GC or 25 Battleship and you did not punish them for this, then this is not a balance problem.

Again, a lot depends on the maps. The larger the map, the lower the exp efficiency due to the fact that it takes you a long time for exp to walk from one side of the map to the other side or does it take a long time to prepare and defend bp closer to enemy bases. And I don't see anything illogical or wrong with that.

I've been thinking about a big team tournament for 2k+ players for a long time. 4 teams of 4 players with an average rating of 2200+. Fortunately, there are many active top players now. But Seton has a bit of its own rules, not all 2200+ mapgen will play seton well.

Therefore, for Seton I think the ideal format would be a showmatch between the 2 strongest teams. Considering that all the strongest players will never be able to gather in one day, it is not an option to make 4 teams. And with 3 teams, 1 team always will have to wait ending of the game, which is also not very convenient.

I also agree with yudi that top players should be able to play any slot equally well. Therefore, I don't see any big problems with the format.

@Nuggets In your opinion, what should the timing be for a game ender?

In my view, there are five stages to the game: T1, T2, T3, T3+exp, and Game-enders. In my experience, stages T1 and T2 last an average of 5–7 minutes each (for naval units, it’s a little more). Stage T3 and stage T3 + exp each last an average of 10–15 minutes. And after 40 minutes of play, the ‘game-enders’ stage begins (if you choose the most effective way to win, and don’t refuse game-enders on purpose)

If you wish to extend the duration of stage T3, I would only agree to this on condition that stages T1 and T2 are also changed to increase their duration. I don’t think it’s right to spend 80% of the game solely on stage T3

Also, I don’t understand to what extent you want to increase the cost of game-enders, so that with 150k mass on the reclaim after a side’s win on the seton, it would be not profitable to build a game-ender? It may be worth increasing time to eating reclaim and it will make it more difficult to reinvest a lot of mass in game ender so quickly. But this is too big game-changer that will affect all stages and requires a separate discussion.

Game-enders are generally almost never built, even in large 6v6 or 7v7 team matches. On Mapgen, even when the total mass income per team is 1,500–2,000, players prefer to build EXP or T3 artillery. If we make game-enders even more expensive, they’ll only continue to be built on dual gaps. Let’s not remove 5 buildings from the game.

I consider the current balance of the late game to be good and not requiring changes. It all depends on the type of maps and the personal preferences of the players.

Some people like to play a full game with units, whilst others prefer to rush their economy and build a game-ender; there’s a suitable map or game mode for every player (hello Dual Gap, Astro, Ladder, etc.)

I can guess which replay prompted the Nuggets to start this discussion.

An attack/invasion on Seton is very powerful and more effective than a game-ender. It’s simply a matter of timing. If you’ve won your naval side at the 15-, 20-, 25- or 30-minute mark, it’s more advantageous for you to start an invasion. Because your economy isn’t yet strong enough for a game-ender, and there isn’t much reclaim left in the water. However, if you’ve won your side at 40+ minutes, there’s 100–150k reclaim left in the water, and you spend 5 minutes building T1 factories with a full mass storage instead of investing that massive amount in a game Ender - whilst your opponents in a similar situation are building a game Ender and you end up losing - then this isn’t a balance issue and isn’t a reason to make the game Ender more expensive.

There are players who want to spend 1.5 hours playing solely with units, without using nukes, T3 artillery or game enders. I don’t think that’s a reason to remove all ‘game-ending’ structures from the game. Just as it’s not a reason to completely overhaul the game’s economy for the sake of those who want to play only T1 stage up to 20 minutes.

I also believe there is no need to change the balance between the game-enders. Each of them is effective in a specific game situation. Perhaps it is only Scathis that needs to be improved or made cheaper.

In theory, you can download the old balance patch, which has not yet had factory rework and other changes. But I do not know exactly how to run it. It may be enough to delete all new balance patches from the folder. But it's better to check with the technical specialists.

As a viewer, it would be interesting for me to watch the battle of the "best of the best"! Even if there are few teams

You can complete all the missions from the original FA in the Coop section, with all the mods and hotkeys from FAF.

@hybrid_ In my opinion, this will greatly devalue the victory in this tournament. For example, if you compare with this tournament where there were only 5 teams, but they gave out unique avatars. https://forum.faforever.com/topic/8336/setons-clutch-tourney-2024 or this 2x2 tournament with only 6 teams https://challonge.com/ru/zb2sb4m

If you think it's right to give out "King of Seton" avatars only for the tournament of the same name. Then it would be just as correct to take the avatar "King of Seton" from the past winners of the tournament. Just like the avatar u1900 champion is taken away after a new tournament.

You can give the winners of this tournament at least the old avatars of the "King of Seton", which are less beautiful. Or be consistent and take the "King of Seton" avatar from everyone except the winners of the last "King of Seton" tournament

Why won't the "Seton" avatar be given for victory in this tournament? It was also given for smaller tournaments.

@HotCheeseInRear I used an extreme analogy as an example to make my point clearer.

High-level players, such as bully or banani, don’t necessarily need to play the games to understand whether these changes are good or bad. Furthermore, in FAF development games, it’s not even always possible to build the unit being tested.

And it’s more effective to test the changes in a test lobby.

@HotCheeseInRear "Some things don't need to be tested to figure out if they're good or not, especially for experienced players with thousands of games at high level."

You don't have to play 100 games and write 1,000 words of explanation to say that increasing hp only for UEF ACU alone to 1 million is a bad decision.

I know that everyone who voted has read the changes.