Sounds like a fun event, as for the rules I think:

• The matches should be BO3 if you're looking for more competitive games, 1 game a week isn't a lot (also, will there only be 2 teams playing a week, or can multiple teams challenge eachother?)
• I'd say 3 consecutive wins might be a reasonable amount, it's pretty difficult to win 3 BO3's in a row in an even matchup, but not unattainable
• Think you can use a mappool of decent 2v2 maps, but if you're aiming for a more casual experience, you can use maps you don't usually see played 2v2. This might make pros less interested though
• I don't think base donation is an issue unless there's a huge rating discrepancy between the two teammates. I guess if you want to prevent that, ban base donation for all teams
• I think a rating limit would be good, because currently there could be maybe 3 possible teams that are equally skilled to eachother, but will completely outmatch everyone else. If you put a rating limit at e.g. 4000 global/3800 ladder(?) it makes for more possible teams, and u end up with maybe 6 teams that will be equally skilled, but not far superior to other contenders

If you decide not to put a rating limit, I think we'll end up with champions that are unbeatable. If you get a team of 2 2200s it already rules out a massive portion of the playerbase from ever winning

see you in a month, thomas

@femtozetta said in Naval Balance Survey:

You could make the T2 ones useful by making them submerged.

pls no harms are already painful enough

A lot of people will love it, and a lot of people will hate it. Just like with every other decision on faf lol

It's just that "finding the best 2v2 team" and a rating restriction don't work well together. Keeping the rating limit or removing it is both fine, it just means the tournament will attract different players.

Cancelling it really isn't necessary, if you don't like changing plans, just keep what you have now, because it's fine (but then remove the "finding the best 2v2 team" part for realism).

You had map control but no/barely any t2 mexes. Your opponent made t3 mexes. This is why you evened out in mass production.
Your mass production should be more efficient however, since t1 mass extractors are way more efficient (cost only 36 mass, produce 2. t3 mex + storage costs 6336 in total, produces 27).
This means you SHOULD have more mass to work with for either outscaling your opponent in eco or outproducing him in units.

But this wasn't the case because of the inane amount of mass you spent on t1 pgens. At minute 23 you are overflowing 3000 power on 74 mass income and still building many more t2 pgens. You also built a bunch of t1 units that had no chance of breaking through. These two things were a huge waste of mass.

If you're in a position where you control the entire map, you don't have much reason to try and go for more. Sitting back, ecoing up until your opponent has no chance of coming back (extreme example: 500 mass income vs 100) will give you a guaranteed win provided you spend the mass well.

in the end you tried building a monkeylord but you didn't have the mass for it. try going for a smoother transition between t1, t2, t3 and eventually t4.

P.S. don't ring t1 mexes with mass storages, you should only do it when the mex is t2

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

I have repeatedly and extensively sought out user feedback (with discussions, surveys, polls, etc) and took an activist-type stance on behalf of much of the community that you tend to disvalue so much.

Yes, ftx has also run polls regarding what kind of maps people would like to play in ladder. Very few people voted, and the results were pretty much useless.

while disvaluing and dismissing majority opinions...

I keep seeing this and I can't understand why this is inherently a bad thing. A lot of the ideas people give are just plain bad and should be dismissed "for the good of FAF".

I have also put a lot of effort into learning gameplay/variance/aesthetic/etc criteria for evaluating maps/ladder/tmm better

Yeah ftx has a designated team for this, what is your point exactly? I know there's been an outrage on some of the maps archsimkat has put in the ladder pool recently, and I dont know what system he's following, but he's already receiving help to bring better maps to the pool.

with particular focuses on what types/styles of maps/gameplay/etc are desirable for different FAF communities/player-types. That is a large aspect of the sort of stuff a good Player Councilor should do imo, and you dismiss/neglect a lot of it.

You seem to really want to satisfy everyone on faf, but this is simply just not possible. Some people like one pool, while others will hate it. In what groups of "FAF communities/player-types" would you split the community up, anyway? And would you let them decide what maps to play? You do realise this will A. make it harder to match with players in matchmaking, since your preferences may not overlap/be similar and B. allow people to farm rating on maps they're good at and create unrealistic competitive leaderboards?

Also, saying ftx ignores these things is extremely ignorant. Like I said there have been polls and they were useless. The lower rated players would just flood the polls and vote 1 star on 20km maps and 5 stars on 5km maps. Does this represent the entire community? No. Yet, ftx implemented a system that made it so that lower rated players have to play less 20km and more 5km, whereas higher rated players get to play more 20km and relatively less 5km.

So far the only real issues with ftx as a PC that people have brought up are:

• Lack of lower rated tournaments, which is due to a lack of TD's, not something he can be blamed for. If you want lower rated tournaments, host some.
• Unfriendliness. I don't struggle with this myself, but I can see why people would think this way. Besides this, ftx has done a great deal of work for FAF. People mention to add an additional councillor role who would interact with players and this might not be a bad idea, but it is not a reason to remove/replace someone from his position when he's done so much good for FAF.

Are you the one solo player? If so, will you win your own(?) prize money if you beat all teams?
If two teams beat you, which one between them will be the winner?

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

@randomwheelchair because morax is interested to sponsor noob tournaments. FtX most of his time spends on the top player tournaments.

Then why don't we see him sponsoring/organizing noob tournaments right now?

Signing up.

damn i didn't make it

hands off my wwpc avatar!!

I'll be on my laptop tomorrow aka trash gameplay so im sitting this one out

Dropping out of o3600, autonoob won't be able to make it

there's always a lot of dead time inbetween games though

also signing up for o3600 to claim 1st place
team name: maagden
AutoNoob (1934) and zwaffelNoob (1789), total rating: 3723

signing up for U3600
Team name: sigma grindset
zwaffelNoob (1792) and hybrid_ (1774), total rating: 3566

It's just that "finding the best 2v2 team" and a rating restriction don't work well together. Keeping the rating limit or removing it is both fine, it just means the tournament will attract different players.

Cancelling it really isn't necessary, if you don't like changing plans, just keep what you have now, because it's fine (but then remove the "finding the best 2v2 team" part for realism).

I kinda liked it for not being a generic thumbs up button. Also didnt struggle finding it or knowing what it meant

signing up with 2 easy AI

A lot of people will love it, and a lot of people will hate it. Just like with every other decision on faf lol