My issue is the following:

In this thread alone, we have one group of people, such as Blodir, Tex, Box, Tagada, Bennis, and Archsimkat(Head of 1v1 map pool I believe?). These are people who have either played map gen tourney, hosted a large number of mapgen games, are top 1v1 players, or are active on ladder, and these people are ALL in support of map gen and a possible limited inclusion in matchmaker. The people who are the most active in the micro community this change would effect seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of this change. This is not counting Morax, Resistance, Tatsu, and several other individuals who have voiced support for map gen.

This is primarily opposed by people who have not played ladder, played in the tourney, or played on map gen more then 1 or 2 games. These people then get defensive/aggressive when this fact is brought up, and the conversation gets railroaded into inaction. FTX claims that BO-whoring isn't a factor in ladder, (which he hasn't played in over 3 years), when myself, petric (in his map gen tournament forum post), and even biass, all acknowledge BO-whoring as a factor on authored maps. You also have unreasonable standards being set to prevent testing map gen in ladder by saying that "either it’s good enough to replace everything or it isn’t good enough to be in ladder.", or superficial flaws with map gen being blown up to a bigger effect then they rightfully should be (map doesn't look pretty).

And to bring up the point of a depressive tone, most of the negativity in this forum seems to be coming from those very same people. Comments like "Please do not try and be "superior" about it because you "play" ladder maps." "make better posts", or an entire post sarcastically breaking down the word 'assume', are far more antagonistic then myself pointing out that the word 'aesthetic' means something entirely different then what biass was using it for.

And @morax, that feels a little unfair to bring up a separate conversation we had yesterday, out of context, to this post. I was not even aware I was even on the discord channel for ladder team until you told me I was removed from it, how is that my fault? Also, if someone has been voted/appointed to a position of power/authority in this community, such as council of setons, player councilor, or in charge of map pool, I would expect them to not lose their cool when it comes to discussions that are directly under their responsibility as a community appointed member. I agree that these people get an unwarranted amount of hate, but that does not mean that every counter argument or criticism to their argument is an attack on their person.

TLDR: We like map gen. it would be fun to try and implement it into ladder for a month or so to see player reception to it. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but from where I am sitting right now, it seems like people want to give it a shot. And I have yet to hear a good argument against including it. If it is too difficult to code, or there are other problems that take priority, that is fine by me. But I dislike the argument that other people who don't ladder/play map gen know better then the people who do.

I blame you directly for this Morax. As the new Player councilor, it is your responsibility to ensure everything works to make the player (me) happy.

I think that is a flawed argument ftx, you can't compare the playtime of every faf map in existence vs map gen which has not seen wide popularity until recently. You should be comparing the average relative quality/enjoyment of playing map gen vs playing a 'standard' map. Playtime=/= fun. Look at dual gap

The point of map gen isn't to have a 'perfect' map, its to have a NEW map, and that is the point I think you are missing. Its really really fun to play something that you and your opponent are completely unfamiliar with, and actually try and figure shit out on the fly. Its not like clicking ladder and finding yourself on daroza's and knowing the first 6 minutes of gameplay require a hard wired build, with at least 10-15 minutes going by before any meaningful player interaction outside of the initial drop to secure expo. At that point it doesn't even feel like playing.

I have played more map gen then ladder this last month, although admittedly it is partly due to the 'look, new!' effect of it. That being said, I would absolutely love for it to be incorporated into ladder. I have had more then 80% of my matches on map gen end up being very enjoyable, which is more then I can say for ladder. And I personally do not see the over-emphasis on map 'aesthetics' to be such a high metric for map quality. But I guess seeing as how you don't actually play ladder maps, you need to evaluate them somehow...

My only complaints with map gen are the following: Terrain isn't always obvious (quick camera angle viewing fixes it) and that after a while (20+ games), some of the maps can seem to be fairly similar. That being said, even for some of the 'similar' maps, I could make the same complaints for a few of the maps I have seen in ladder pool. There is only so much variation you can have imo.

I would really like to see 10-20% of ladder games be map gen for a month, gauge reception then. Its really nice to have something new to play on, rather then the same old same old, and the no build order whoring aspect is amazing.

No shit. But its a cool thing to look at the relative hierarchy for tournament matches.

Some points I would like to add to the post:

1. If we can rebalance the entirety of the T3 land stage, I don't see how it would be a problem to look at t3 mex's cost. Arguing that its too big a change and needs years of testing seems pointless considering the scope of balance changes we have done over the years. IIRC T2 land HQ is like 50% more cost then 2012, T3 land HQ is also significantly more expensive, T3 land units are much weaker (except for the campy sniperbots!), T4's have been changed as well with greater buildtime cost. T3 mex has stayed the same. Perhaps its possible that by systematically nerfing land across the board for years, this is making mex is stronger in relation?? Anyone?? Also, Mex adjacency on factories has been buffed since then as well. Another reason to eco.

2. Level of gameplay has improved significantly. Generally speaking, we can eco smarter and harder, and take advantage of mistakes more. Everyone has dozens of engis roaming the map for reclaim. The most effective use of reclaim after a battle is to dump it right into mex upgrades, then scale production/eco appropriately. Pushing into a base is hard because engis can spam walled PD instantly, then reclaim the carnage for more eco. I had a game the other day where I had to pull back 15 loyalists and 30 medusa from raiding a bunch of t2/t3 mex because there were enough engis there to spam T1 PD forcing away loyalists. That sickens me. 2500 Hp on a t3 unit designed to raid can not raid because of instantly spammed PD.

3. The ratio of cost per benefit of the t2 mex upgrade -> storages -> T3 mex is nearly the same, the only difference is how much you need to invest before payout. On a lot of wide open 1v1/2v2 maps its often a smarter move to force a t3 mex in your base then to keep upgrading t1 mex to t2 if it is outside of your base where it can be raided. I do not think that this should be the case that a wrapped t2 -> t3 mex is nearly as cost efficient as t1 -> t2 or t2 -> storages.

My opinion to the main argument brought up by Bennis is that reclaim values should be scaled down, and t3 mex cost increased. Both by a small margin, say, reclaim down 15-20% and t3 mex up by 10-15%. Start from there. See what happens.

edit - I also like everything tagada said above. Very good points.

second edit - Upon giving this some more thought, since FAF released, we have made significant changes to the following: T3 Land, T3 Air, T4's, RAS, T2 Land, Adjacency, Overcharge, Vet, SCU's, and are trying to make changes to SCU-RAS. There is really nothing else left to change at the T3 stage besides T3 mex. I think this is all the more reason that T3 mex should be reviewed due to how much the game has changed, and what the game might need currently to bring it to a better state.

Good morning, evening, whatever. I'm writing this from a 1v1, 2v2 perspective. Setoners, calm your tits.

Cybran frigates are wayyyyyyy too strong.

For example: They can beat a UEF frigate 1v1 with a good amount of HP left over, while costing less mass and having far better AA for killing torp bombers.

Best AA of any frigate.

Cheapest Frigate.

Higest dps Frigate.

Cybran frigates eat other frigates for brunch, then will relax on the beach sipping a mimosa as they fuck up your naval factory engis or exposed mass extractors. This is not cool, and very imba.

Quick and dirty testing replay for those who do not know: https://replay.faforever.com/14205092 If anyone wants to get together with me and do 'real' testing, I'm all ears.

Please nerf.

Closing thoughts, to avoid a few tangents I can see this argument branching off into:

Yes, I think Cybran is really weak. No I don't think they should have an over tuned frigate to counteract this. That is bad game design IMO to have a faction strong on some maps and weak on others, even more so when you are laddering into a blind map. Please fix Cybran weaknesses in other ways. Like give them HP on their structures for fucks sake.

Yes, Cybran does not have hover. Unfortunately, frigate balance is closely related to hover balance, of which this post will be trying to address frigate balance on its own. Hover balance is another terrible issue. IMO, hover should be used to raid and stuff, not be an alternative for navy. If this were the case, frigates could do their own thing instead of being overtuned to counter hover.

Yes, UEF has the best T3 navy. No, I don't think that is a fair tradeoff on maps like Roanoke, PoR, Oracle, where you get A-moved by 500 frigates by minute 12, and your t2 naval factory doesn't live long enough to see the light of day, let alone tech up to t3. I think it is fine to have that balance when their T2 navy is utter dogshit to get up and running, but T1 balance should not be so lopsided when it has such a large impact on the early game development.

So help me if any of you say UEF jamming is OP and that's why its balanced. Maybe if it didn't cost an extra 18 or so mass per frigate in energy cost to run the damn thing. I don't think its a far tradeoff even if it was free.

Discuss:

Small speed buff would be quite interesting. Faster rushes across map, easier to close distance with percies/OC, and you could use it a bit more sneaky with the stealth by mixing up its positioning. Have it be something that lurks on the map like a shark, make it scared for you to move out.

Just dreaming up ideas, don't mind me.

Honestly I hate to be blunt, but I think ML scaling terrain is a horrible idea balance and gameplay wise. 75% of the maps it wont make a difference, and on like 10% of the maps it will be OP as all fuck. It will never be possible to balance properly like that, and its something that is very couther-intuitive gameplay wise.

In regards to the conversation for skill changing over time, the other day I took a look at my POV replays from 2012. No hotkeys, no UI mods... I was either +200E or -200E for the first 10 minutes of the game. No eco skills or any sort of plan/direction visible in my gameplay. Reclaim was hardly prioritized. Efficiency wasnt discovered yet. Micro was poor. Multitasking/prioritizing was out of balance. Builds were non-existent. All I knew how to do was drag a line of factories down the map and win at t1 stage. And somehow that was good enough for 2k 1v1 ladder. Times have changed for sure. 2021 Tex could play a BO99 with 2012 Tex and do a clean sweep in 50 games. Overall average FAF skill is much higher now then it was in the old days.

I like the idea of buffing UEF frigate instead of the Cybran nerf, as a quick band aid fix. It solves the issue of this post, as well as UEF difficult naval game before T3, as well as the cybran hover issue. No major problems with that, and it would help more then it hurts. Also helps them vs hover as well, seeing as how riptides are not as strong as floaty flak, fobos, blazes, floaty shields...

However, without getting too into it (would need another thread for it), I don't want to be buffing frigates any more then they already are. I feel like they are too strong as is, and I would love to see an eventual rework of subs, torp bombers, hover, and frigates. But that is an entirely different issue I don't want to get into at the moment, which I why I proposed cybran nerf rather then UEF Buff.

Either way, as I said before. Moderate UEF buff would be quite nice to even things out, I would support this helping to solve the issue of this post. I do not know very well aeon/sera vs cybran frigates, as I have not tested it/played as much as I have as UEF navy, so someone else should weigh in if UEF frigates are as bad as other factions or not vs cybran. Aeon has their own funky thing going on.

No one wants to go through their vetos, then find out that their mapgen map had generated a giant pond in the middle. I.e, the map that Petric and I had.

That being said, aeon scary.

I blame you directly for this Morax. As the new Player councilor, it is your responsibility to ensure everything works to make the player (me) happy.

Farms nooooooooooooooo

Signing up, because Swkoll deleted my post.

Yudi whispering into my ear how much he hates me for arty dropping his entire air grid.

Signing up, unless Tagada wants to send me 25$ to sit this one out.

This thread has taken more twists and turns then I could have ever though possible. How in gods name are we discussing Etymology now?

Edit* Awww, whoever deleted the previous posts makes me sad. Now my post has no context.

Do what you must.

No shit. But its a cool thing to look at the relative hierarchy for tournament matches.

@Blackheart - I said 2k ladder not 2300 ladder. There is a world of difference between the two as you well know

You are saying skill when it comes to the very top of the ladder. I was saying skill as a general statement. I mean, look at Zock, the dude is a beast. Has been and always will be. Zock could beat me 10-0 then and 10-0 now, after a brief unrusting. His gameplay analysis videos still hold up today as hands down the best 'how to play faf' in terms of decision making. Its just really hard to compare top level skill in a game that only ever has 1-5 players at a time being truly dominant.

I am just stating that on average, most of your players these days do much better then their counterparts from the early days of faf. I don't really care how much of that is due to game sense/decision-making skill or how much of it is due to better builds/meta/UI/hotkeys/eco balance, I stand by the fact that for all but the top 0.1% of faf, the players are much improved. The fact that back then I could be as high rated as I was with such a limited skill set illustrates as much. But to your point, that is also why I was never at the top level of faf.

Maybe instead of using the term skill I should be saying gameplay or relative strength. 1800's still make stupid decisions for sure, but they are now doing so with more units, higher eco efficiency, and better micro.

In regards to the conversation for skill changing over time, the other day I took a look at my POV replays from 2012. No hotkeys, no UI mods... I was either +200E or -200E for the first 10 minutes of the game. No eco skills or any sort of plan/direction visible in my gameplay. Reclaim was hardly prioritized. Efficiency wasnt discovered yet. Micro was poor. Multitasking/prioritizing was out of balance. Builds were non-existent. All I knew how to do was drag a line of factories down the map and win at t1 stage. And somehow that was good enough for 2k 1v1 ladder. Times have changed for sure. 2021 Tex could play a BO99 with 2012 Tex and do a clean sweep in 50 games. Overall average FAF skill is much higher now then it was in the old days.