Feedback for S23

[Dovekie]

Time Limit.


Also, I think achievements like most hero kills sound dumb, as it is simply easier to get hero kills with certain races.  I'd be more interested in putting a handicap on everyone like not being able to use a specific unit or hero than reward a race arbitrarily for having more disables than other races (cough human cough orc), kinda like how Undead is rewarded for being bad in long manip games.


oh yeah, and

Time Limit.

[j33.]

why am i not suprised seeing eshan and jee voting for a point system were hoarding manipping and crying gets rewarded and agressivness and micro punished :D (your final was nicely played tough jee! <3)

Thx for the credit. I didn't say im against changing the current point system but merely stated what i was thinking about the proposed systems. Imo winning a game should give most points with a good margin. The new system should encourage players to play for win even if their changes to win have dropped. Otherwise players with leading scores could start securing their top score by forcing the game to end once their winning chances have dropped.

We could form a panel of 5 or 7 judges (Shave as head judge ofc), who would score the performance of each player on the game. We naturally drop the lowest and highest score and sum the rest. Player with highest judge score wins. This would stop manipulating and hoarding since all the players would know Shave and his team are not fans of this kind of rat play. We would see much more entertaining games with new army and hero combos while players are trying to impress the judges. Games would be shorter too.
Basically this system would solve all the problems of todays disgusting FFA games. So  what are we waiting for?

[ZsSuperCumulo]

lol, Judge Shave: "If you team a fed up orc you are guilty" 

[Tleilaxu]

I've always thought the current point system had too large intervals.
I would like to see some like 0-5-10. Getting +1 point for highest score would also matter much more in such a system than now, where it's mostly just tiebreaker.

[Dovekie]

damn shave you triggering the kind-hearted j33

[j33.]

To be serious for a while:
1. Timer is ugly but not the worst imaginable solution
2. Winning the points could be awarded more than 1 pts so in the end of season those would matter more than just decide tiebreakers. Great players should have realistic chances to gather 5  or more bonus points before the seasons end. Here 5 is the smallest point difference from a single game which currently is 10 - 5 pts = 5 pts. It should be unlikely to end up having most points after losing every game with top scores. But it should be enough to secure a semifinal spot in the most cases.

[b100death]

Hi guys what if make two counting table:
- first for places by game
- second for places by score
the final result will be obtained by adding.
player won 3 palce Xpts, and win 2 place by score Ypts. Final result X+Y

[DV-]

Sup nerds, asking u a question: how many very good games with close endings u had past fml season? 1? Maybe 2 or even 3.
Yeah, no need to change anything.

3 out of 50 is totally worth playing/watching/winning it.
I wish you everything laxu usually wishes ppl <3
Peace.

[j33.]

Dv could u post ur suggestion to get better games?

[ZsSuperCumulo]

Sup nerds, asking u a question: how many very good games with close endings u had past fml season? 1? Maybe 2 or even 3.
Yeah, no need to change anything.

3 out of 50 is totally worth playing/watching/winning it.
I wish you everything laxu usually wishes ppl <3
Peace.

lol DV, I kinda agree with u 

[DV-]

@j33 i had converstation with redz7z7z7z7z in chatbot about point system and it was kinda my idea to change it (althought he had it in mind before)
i suggest 20-10-10-5 with 5 bonus for top score (works for winner too)
i suggest chaning gold count in goldmines on big maps like Market Square and Twilight and Harvest
these maps are TOO LOADED with gold for 4 ways

no sanctuary or goldrush obviously

but overall my main suggestion: try to change ANYTHING since current rules dont work for good games, if these changes wont work, you will try to change something else

Thats simple tho: ffa has changed when rules hasnt. Why? Cuz you are scared of changes.

[letshavesomefun]

i request an updated sympo league 1 point system.

+1 for highest score (since this can also be achieved due to collecing mass wood (fucking nigthelves with their whisps))

+2 for 15 or more herokills

+2 for tripple 10 heroes

5 10 10 20 due to places

[j33.]

@DV Thx for a good reply. I didn't know u made this suggestion. I agree that current bonus point is too little to make any difference. Ur system could be great. Im just worried if it would create many games where some1 tries to secure 15 pts and destroys the  game doing so. If its 3/50 games that is not problem. If it is 10/50 games then it is a problem.

It is hard task to find good balance with the points so that it would encourage active play but also encourage to play for win no matter what.

ObserveAndLearn and DV's systems are good suggestions. Imo DV's systems is slighly better since it values streak (win, win, 2nd/3rd) higher than (2nd/3rd, 2nd/3rd, 2nd/3rd) in every case. OaL system could value these equal. It is also nice that in DV's system streaks (win, win, 4th) could be equal to (2nd/3rd, 2nd/3rd, 2nd/3rd). In OaL system the latter could give more points than (win, win, 4th).

15-20% less gold on those maps wouldn't chance the nature of the maps but it would speed the games up. So not a bad suggestion.

What ever the changes are it should't change the goal of FFA: Be the last man standing no matter what.

Dovekie gave a very good argumet against hero kill awards.

[Slythe]

less Gold = faster or better games ?!? no way ( e.g. ppl will probably hoard until all gold is gone you can argue vs the hope that they will fight for herolvls or the remaining gold, but fighting costs gold too... then races that can be more effective at 50 or that have better towers or that needs less tech would be in advantage !?!

players/races/maps are the deciding factors for the quality of games, imo

i am fine with whatever points for every place, lol, it does not affect the fun i have or the way i play

the only things that happened with the current system was playing for third, which is not cool, but still acceptable


there were some funny changes in the past with swapping players or bonus/malus points for certain things


don´t change too much or make rounds with special rules or two different divisions ( like classic & new )

[FML|red7z7]

Ooh talking about how map design can create better games is really interesting. I think the following characteristics are needed for a good map with shorter games:

• Smaller distances between spawns (silverpine forest vs harvest of sorrow)
• Open entrance, no high ground bases (market square vs twilight ruins)
• Lots of creeping options (fountain of manip vs twisted meadows)
• More gold (more on this later)
• Less gold in mains (more on this later)

Smaller distances is important because it allows you to actually engage armies at a faster rate, and allow people to win a fight, then go to enemy base and finish them rather than win a fight and walk 1 minute across the map to find they are at 100 pop again. It also allows for rush strategies.

Open entrances, no high ground bases - Pretty obvious, but similar to smaller distances between spawns, it allows for easier finishing people off. If it's super costly to attack into a base, people won't do it and will just have a standoff.

Lots of creeping options - one of the most interesting aspects of FFA is how different players come up with different creep routes. Maps with lots of camps of various difficulty allow for greater diversity in playstyles and strategies. The other reason this is important is because it creates a cost-benefit balance between attacking and creeping. With good creeping options, it may be valuable to creep. But that leaves you more vulnerable to a rush. But if you rush, then you lose out on good creeping. It makes more dynamic games.

More gold - it seems counter intuitive but that's probably because the few examples of high-gold maps also have big other problems (gold rush is too huge, sanctuary is huge and also has high ground mains, market square has high ground mains). Slythe touched upon this, but having more access to gold means you can be a bit more reckless with your actions, since the cost of losing an army is smaller relative to your available resources, and you can afford to make more production buildings for quicker bounce-backs. To be fair, I think less-gold maps also make faster games but in a different way. Less-gold maps accelerate the time it takes to get to that end-game phase with teaming, balance of power, and eventually base race. But maybe that's not exactly what we want since that phase of the game inevitably has hoarding, camping, and lots of chat. To put it another way, less-gold maps would lower the average game length, while not necessarily making games more interesting, though I'm sure it would be an improvement to the current state of games. More-gold maps would make more interesting games and potentially lower average game time IF and only IF the map was small with open-access bases. No map like that exists currently so there is good opportunity for map makers to do that.

Less gold in mains - this is important I think because it creates an exodus effect, where if you want to control resources you have to sort of migrate out of your main - it makes you spend more resources defending positions on the map that are closer to the center of map, thus playing into the closer-spawn aspect, basically closing the distances between players as the game progresses. With lots of gold in your main, people can just tower up once and sit and hoard comfortably. If you have to migrate then games become more dynamic.