FFA Masters League
League => League Discussion => Topic started by: FML|red7z7 on October 12, 2016, 05:09:29 pm
-
Hi all, with each season we try to learn how we can better organize the league to serve the players. Now with season 23 behind us, we would like to open a discussion to hear your thoughts, ideas, and suggestions regarding the season format (duration, match-making, news postings, etc.) and all related things. We've already heard good feedback on the map selection, so thanks for that. The admin team has been having conversations about things we would like to change for next season, so now we would like to hear from all of you as well.
-
More Crypt Lord
-
good topic, I will post my thoughts and suggestions this sunday :)
-
Hi. Why who win more score in game get 11 pts ?
Mb to do : 4 place - 5 pts; 2,3 - 10 pts; who win more score in game 15 pts, who win game 15 pts too, and who won game and more scored - 20 pts
I think its more motivation play for win.
-
Hi. Why who win more score in game get 11 pts ?
Mb to do : 4 place - 5 pts; 2,3 - 10 pts; who win more score in game 15 pts, who win game 15 pts too, and who won game and more scored - 20 pts
I think its more motivation play for win.
This is actually an interesting idea, though I dont know if it would work but it would lead to more players just going rambo and not hoarding and crying for 3 hours
-
Hi. Why who win more score in game get 11 pts ?
Mb to do : 4 place - 5 pts; 2,3 - 10 pts; who win more score in game 15 pts, who win game 15 pts too, and who won game and more scored - 20 pts
I think its more motivation play for win.
it's a really good idea.
i would tinker a little bit with the numbers though
4th place - 5pts
2nd and 3rd place - 10 points
winner of game gets + 15 (25 total)
winner by score gets + 10 (20 total)
if you win by game and score you get +20 (30 total)
would motivate more dynamic play.
i would consider vetoing maps would be an interesting idea too.
for instance you give the players 5 maps to choose from and veto (1 each) so they can play the final remaining map. this of course has it's downsides (like players playing a map more than once throughout rounds) but it will add some extra spice and clashes of game plans even before the match.
third thing i would suggest to make things even more interesting : bonuses for certain achievements.
for instance the player who makes the most hero kills throughout the round can swap two players from other matches next round (self not included). would make for hilarious scenarios and "deathmatches" with a lot of good players in one place.
Man of the round (the person who performed best but couldnt win, we can make a poll after each round) gets to choose the map next round, denying his future opponents the map veto.
etc. you get the idea.
-
We are already planning to change the usual pointsystem (25-10-10-5)
-
it's a really good idea.
i would tinker a little bit with the numbers though
4th place - 5pts
2nd and 3rd place - 10 points
winner of game gets + 15 (25 total)
winner by score gets + 10 (20 total)
if you win by game and score you get +20 (30 total)
would motivate more dynamic play.
Why u think winner by score should get smaller then winner by game ? Winner by game can be not figts but win. Winner by score must fights more. I think winner by score must get equal pts, not smaller.
-
We are already planning to change the usual pointsystem (25-10-10-5)
25 is ?
-
it's a really good idea.
i would tinker a little bit with the numbers though
4th place - 5pts
2nd and 3rd place - 10 points
winner of game gets + 15 (25 total)
winner by score gets + 10 (20 total)
if you win by game and score you get +20 (30 total)
would motivate more dynamic play.
Why u think winner by score should get smaller then winner by game ? Winner by game can be not figts but win. Winner by score must fights more. I think winner by score must get equal pts, not smaller.
.
If winning the scores is valued as high as (or close to) winning the actual game, then there will be many games where shortly after the 3-way begins the dominating player suicides one of the remaining players and leaves. This secures him almost full score with no risk at all. The alternative is that he tries to win the 2v1 and risks that some1 surpasses him in the score.
Winning the 2v1 and keeping the top score would reward only 5 pts more compared to the risk free suicide strategy. The suicide strategy also lets the dominating player decide which player gets the "winner of the game" -points. He checks (or has checked) the scoreboard and suicides accordingly.
The current point system leaves only little room for this kind of dirty play since in 90% of games it encourages all player to play for win.
-
Winning the 2v1 and keeping the top score would reward only 5 pts more compared to the risk free suicide strategy. The suicide strategy also lets the dominating player decide which player gets the "winner of the game" -points. He checks (or has checked) the scoreboard and suicides accordingly.
Hi J33, i do not think so bad about the players FML. This rly dirty style and i think fml players not played like this
About current score system. I think encourages all player : not die first - important target, not play for win!
Obtained if you played good and agressive you not are rewarded if not win game.
-
I agree with J33, to reward more than 1 point for top score is to reward a player for winning at some abritrary blizzard-created point value system. I can fight all 3 players, get triple 10 heroes, and lose the game horribly but still win in points - that is not ffa
FFA is about being the last man standing. Just because you rambo and have good micro doesnt mean you're good at FFA. Which is proven in the recent finals where J33, who most predicted had the worst micro of all the players, came out on top because of excellent game sense, timing, and scouting.
-
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)
-
The way the point system is set up right now encourages players to play passive. It rewards players that manipulate, hide buildings, trees etc. and camp in their main in the long run. It makes for 3-4 hour games where nothing happens in 80-90% of the game and where things get exciting in the last 10 minutes in a base race we have seen a zillion times.
FML games have good skill quality, but ultimately the format stagnate and the games become boring, long and predictable.
Why does a FFA game have to last 4 hours when all players are good? Should it not be rewarded if you fought and played the best throughout the game? I think there is room for improvement in the current system. Obviously J33 and Eshan have interests not to change this. They have great succes with the current format and are just better shaped at winning the mind games than getting the top score imo.
I think if we make it like 15 points for top score (like 25-15-10-5), it might create more incentive to play aggressive instead of sitting. it would be both more entertaining and fun for the viewers (skillwise, microwise, strategy wise) - plus the winner would still get the most points of all. I think it is at least worth experimenting with ideas to force players to stop sitting. The timer did not have the outcome we wanted, but maybe this could help stop a trend of boring and predictable games.
The "downside" to this is that the strong fighters will be represented in the top. This is, however, already the case with the current format so there is no news to this. With a new format we may see more entertaining games, more fights and a higher display of skill in more aspects of FFA.
-
intersting debate, I think I would be on Eshan´s and J33´s side on this particular topic (the top score point), but I´ll explain my reasons later. Keep the ideas coming guys, it certainly helps to change from time time and it wouldnt hurt to try new things out :)
-
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.
-
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?
-
lol, Judge Shave: "If you team a fed up orc you are guilty" :icon_smile:
-
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.
-
damn shave you triggering the kind-hearted 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Dv could u post ur suggestion to get better games?
-
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 :icon_biggrin:
-
@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.
-
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
-
@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.
-
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 )
-
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.
-
This thread is really alarming to me - first of all, the same few people are the only ones posting - the few people who have a problem with FFA as it is currently. I agree that maps like Gold Rush and Sanctuary obviously lead to longer games...but as a PLAYER, I don't usually mind.
If someone started messing with the gold counts on twilight or market, I would boycott
A few players seem to think that long games are horrible - but I would like to have an analysis of the average game length this season before you jump to conclusions. The finals was very long - but it was a good game, and if youre watching the replay you can just skip ahead. We don't play ffa so you can have an entertaining replay, thats just the icing on the cake.
Secondly, about score. If you start rewarding players for something other than WINNING the game, then you are changing and ruining what FFA is about.
Top score is just a metric that blizzard used as a sort of breakdown after the game, and it was definitely NOT designed for FFA - and should not be used to determine anything important. For some reason, high level heroes gives you a huge score, but lots of gold doesnt. But as we know in FFA, lots of gold is sometimes as important or more than hero levels in getting a win. So the scoring system is flawed for FFA
1 point for top score was a good idea, controversial at the time, but if you give any more weight to top score, then you are rewarding rambo players with good micro. Thats just one type of player, and it makes no sense to reward a game play STYLE rather than WINNING.
Overall we need to identify the issues with the current season. I disagree with DV, who says that only 3/50 games were close and fun and interesting. I think there were about 6-7 REALLY close games and thats a good percentage. And i found about half of the games to be an interesting watch. Most of the shitty games were in the earlier rounds when dumb players made bad moves.
All in all my feedback is that I thought this was a great season. There was a good variety of maps, the best players made it to the semis mostly. The winner was well deserved, the games were good, the competition was strong. The only issue was that it seemed human is slightly imbalanced, but i dont know how to fix that.
I am completely against timer - because of the issue of what happens when timer runs out - its hard to determine who is winning. As we have seen a million times, there is no real winner until the very end. So if you use top score to determine the winner after the timer, then you are completely fucking up FFA. Laxu won a retarded game vs renaud in this seasons first round, where renaud dominated all game but made ONE key error at the end (not pumping to 100). In a timer game, Laxu wouldnt have gotten his win.
If you are worried about game length then just play a season with 2 small maps, 2 medium maps, and 2 big maps. That should be fair
-
I could write map suggestions, rule changes and so on, but i think this league is overall great and the admin-team is experienced enough to make the right steps and twist some screws here and there. It doesn't need any big changes.
At least i have some funny ideas that i brainstormed through:
1. A round with rdm heroes!
I think most of us dislike random heroes maps (including me), but it would make up for some funny games i bet.
2. Tavern heroes only round!
Instead of random heroes we make a round where we can only choose tavern heroes. I know this might favour elves, but hey it's just an idea.
3. No-chat joker VETO
Every player has one so called NO-CHAT Joker throughout the whole season that he can use at anytime in the game which means that the rest of the players will not be allowed to use chat throughout the end of the game.
We can make some exceptions. For example vetoing a semi-final or final isn't allowed. THat would make up for some new strategies. You could use your no-chat veto right before u want to stomp someone with your army and he won't be able to call for help, people would have to scout more (Ebo-Style).
4. Make games more dynamic/fast-paced:
I agree with soso. Nobody likes 4 hour games where nothing happens after 30 minutes until the last 20 minutes where you get a thrilling base race.
Each of us has a certain age and time is a limited ressource to us, isn't it?
Find a way to benefit people who try to stay active and are interested to make games greater to watch for observers.
5. Reign of Chaos Round:
This sounds crazy i know, but why don't we make a round with Reign of Chaos?! I'm sure it is new to most of us and would provide some epic fun and strategies.
6. Point Distribution:
I agree with Eshan that the top score doesn't mean you have been the best player. There is hundreds of different approaches to play ffa. Being aggressive and going broke later while you ended as top score doesn't qualify you for extra points. The fact why most of us love ffa is because EVERYONE can win. Nobody would observe a game if you know that in 99 % of the games the same guy wins.
7. Bring back 12 ways!
12 ways cause chaos, insane dynamics, are a lot of fun to play and observe! The only problem is to get a proper cast for it :icon_mrgreen:
8. Bring back Celebrity FFA:
You could make this a series. I know there has been pro-player ffa games before long time ago. Play 8 ways with a combination of 50 % solo pro's and 50 % ffa guys. I know the excitement would be big and you could promote FML very well through this.
9. Donation:
Give us a possibilty to donate a prize pool for the season, i'm sure we can get 100$ for the winner of a season. That would maybe bring back some lost players and new ones too, if there is something to win besides pride and honour.
That is all that i can think of right now. I hope you gonna like one of those.
Greeting,
Lightweight
-
There was a time when I was all about bringing down the amount time FFA games take, however, i'm starting to change my opinion on that.
FFA is like the NFL of WC3. The season doesn't contain a lot of games, however, the games that are played are generally longer then your average WC3 game. Because there aren't a lot of games played in a season and we put a huge emphasis into scheduling, there is rarely an issue with game length. Most complaints come from non-ffa players who just don't 'get it'.
Now, I am more about improving the observer and spectator value of FFA. The most recent finals has proven that you can have a quality spectator experience on a long game. My goal now as an admin is to make FFA more accessible to viewers and more interesting to watch. I don't think that reducing the length of games is the answer. The answer comes in playing on the right maps and giving a greater incentive to aggressive actions. Hoarding and passive play is currently overpowered in the current meta and scoring of FML.
-
I agree with Eshan. Many of suggested changes sound so artificial, unnatural. Mining mass gold, hoarding etc. are all part of FFA and its strategies, so gold amount should not reduce.
Either I don't buy the idea of evading the maps with higher grounds. It's also an element that is designed into this game and is one part which players have to pay attention when they are fighting.
And about the pointsystem, all I care is that there still should be a good advantage for the game winner. The FFA is meant to be a game mode where only game winning matters, no top scores or something else.
One good idea which could implement is giving two map options for each match and players could vote which map they want to play. This would make some nice variation.
-
aarnikratti ur post is just one big silness
there are bunch of things u can call "part of the game", it doesnt make them GOOD
for league i mean
we play FML cuz its fun, right?
and if u say "only winning matters" so why the fucking hell past season was bunch of freewins except semifinals and final?
all of u are delusional about eternal classic super right format of FML
FFA is not THAT simple as solo, where u go with "dont cheat, kill ur opponent", its much more complicated and it REQUIRES rules, which are cannot be PERFECT for YEARS
Its just impossible to have perfect rules for 10 years
God, thats so obvious, i just cant believe i have to explain these things to u
-
What made the finals so interesting was the Wrecktify/Mog cast, i mean they really did a good job there. I agree with you Worpex, need to make FFA as interesting as possible for the viewers.
-
And about the pointsystem, all I care is that there still should be a good advantage for the game winner. The FFA is meant to be a game mode where only game winning matters, no top scores or something else.
I agree fully. But if the top score is awarded it should be more than 1 pnts (assuming the current system).
About the maps, there are some racial benefits on small maps. Humans like to secure their expos with towers and they are good at holding those expos. In some cases hum can hold expo in 80 vs 50 pop situation. On the other hand elf expos are hardest to hold and no elf holds an expo with 50 vs 80. Usually teaming takes care of this shit on small maps. In theory different sized maps favor different races so there should be a good balance between the map sizes.
I loved the special round with random heroes. So Im also a fan of LWs special round suggestions.
After all, no set of rules or map pool can please every one.
-
What made the finals so interesting was the Wrecktify/Mog cast, i mean they really did a good job there. I agree with you Worpex, need to make FFA as interesting as possible for the viewers.
I agree, and I definitely think that shoutcasting is important to providing a quality spectator experience! However, you can't devalue the game either. It was a fun game to watch which made it a fun game to cast - thus making it a good experience all around.
-
too many walls of text, too much theorybullshit by noobs.
what works:
shorter season (makes regular season games more meaningful.)
map selection (good choices this season, dont feel compelled to reinvent the wheel next season. repeats are fine.)
what doesnt work:
no set schedule. seasons used to have full-season schedule released on day one. revert to this. current process of making up matchups every sunday night is silly. a league = round robin. a tournament = games determined by previous round. FML = ffa masters LEAGUE not TOURNEMENT.
Smaller roster and/or smaller playoffs. Top 3 goes to finals, next 4 go to a play in game seems appropriate. Currently only the playoff games are played with an appropriate sense of urgency, because no individual week really matters.
thats it.
(thats it meaning fucking with gold counts, scoring, or any other retardation suggested here would be retarded. yes i know thats redundant. go back to 20 players in ffa-A and use an FFA-B season to test crap rules.)
-
aarnikratti ur post is just one big silness
there are bunch of things u can call "part of the game", it doesnt make them GOOD
for league i mean
we play FML cuz its fun, right?
and if u say "only winning matters" so why the fucking hell past season was bunch of freewins except semifinals and final?
all of u are delusional about eternal classic super right format of FML
FFA is not THAT simple as solo, where u go with "dont cheat, kill ur opponent", its much more complicated and it REQUIRES rules, which are cannot be PERFECT for YEARS
Its just impossible to have perfect rules for 10 years
God, thats so obvious, i just cant believe i have to explain these things to u
I like FFA on its classical way and that's the point, its fun for me. IMO some of these suggestions would ruin the mean purpose of FFA. And this is supposed to be a FFA-league, right? And your words about free wins past season are just stupid.
-
no set schedule. seasons used to have full-season schedule released on day one. revert to this. current process of making up matchups every sunday night is silly. a league = round robin. a tournament = games determined by previous round. FML = ffa masters LEAGUE not TOURNEMENT.
Wait, when did we have a set-schedule? I would always make up the matches the week before when I was head admin. haha
-
I am completely against timer - because of the issue of what happens when timer runs out - its hard to determine who is winning. As we have seen a million times, there is no real winner until the very end. So if you use top score to determine the winner after the timer, then you are completely fucking up FFA. Laxu won a retarded game vs renaud in this seasons first round, where renaud dominated all game but made ONE key error at the end (not pumping to 100). In a timer game, Laxu wouldnt have gotten his win.
Dude the problem is that all the mines are usually mined out in like 40-50 minutes, and then the game will go another hour or MORE. What the hell is that trash? That only happens because everybody knows each other and being passive is so rewarding in that situation. The higher the average skill level in the game, then theoretically, the longer the game will go.
Don't pretend you know what what would happen if there was a time limit. It obviously would create a little bit of a different playstyle among everyone thats hard to predict without actually doing it—Its not like everyone would play exactly the same and then "OH Hey, btw games over times up!". Games should probably end around 50 minute mark anyway if you look at the way maps and mines are set up. Its chat and pointless, extremely boring passivity that makes games so long. So if you set like an 70 min time limit on a smaller map and a 90 minute time limit on a bigger map then you are giving people 20 and 30 more minutes then they should actually need in the first place.
Honestly "organized free for all" is an oxymoron, and the more objectively I try to look at it the more pointless it seems. If any type of play should be promoted, its the type of play that makes it more chaotic, instead of this weekly political meeting of sociopaths where you all gather around and use Warcraft 3 as a means to lie and manipulate each other for hours. That's not good gameplay. That's not good free for all. That's not good Warcraft. What that is is garbage, get me away from that.
-
"Honestly "organized free for all" is an oxymoron, and the more objectively I try to look at it the more pointless it seems. If any type of play should be promoted, its the type of play that makes it more chaotic, instead of this weekly political meeting of sociopaths where you all gather around and use Warcraft 3 as a means to lie and manipulate each other for hours. That's not good gameplay. That's not good free for all. That's not good Warcraft. What that is is garbage, get me away from that."
Do you hear that Eshan?!?!?! You are garbage and so are your opinions. :icon_biggrin: :icon_lol:
Dovekie is right though. FML always missed the chaotic dimension that ladder has. I might add it misses the "fairness" of playing on anonymous accounts where skills of versatility are truly rewarded and nobody is teamed because of name! :icon_wink:
I believe only a handful of FML players could actually make 75%-90% win rate on ffarena with at least 50 games :-)
P.S. - can somebody help me use quotes properly? This is just embarrassing
-
Honestly "organized free for all" is an oxymoron, and the more objectively I try to look at it the more pointless it seems. If any type of play should be promoted, its the type of play that makes it more chaotic, instead of this weekly political meeting of sociopaths where you all gather around and use Warcraft 3 as a means to lie and manipulate each other for hours. That's not good gameplay. That's not good free for all. That's not good Warcraft. What that is is garbage, get me away from that.
I can sign that as it is. I sometimes miss the battle.net ladder because you had to figure by the playstyle who you are being up against and you actually needed scout. Besides that b.net ffa was shit due to hackers and delay.
-
I actually agree with Eshan here. His wall of text pretty much sums up my feelings (as well as j33's earlier posts). There were a lot of entertaining games this season--in fact, most of the 'bad games' were the short ones where a no ffa sense player with good micro ran around attacking everyone and 1 player essentially would get a "free win". The entertaining games were mostly the long ones. Where there is more to a win then just good micro and high level heroes. The problem I see with a timer is it destroys the strategic variance of ffa that makes it such a beautiful and entertaining game type. Take the finals for example: under.sta sat basically afk in his base for an hour. While it may not have been 'entertaining for the viewers', it was the correct ffa decision for him to have the best chance to win the game. While some people seem to dislike that aspect of ffa, it is what makes ffa such a great game type--that sometimes the best plays are the subtle ones, and even sometimes the best play might be doing nothing at all.
Also as a side note, the players who are super passive are not typically the ones winning. Conversely the hyper aggressive ones also do not win because it is not necessarily a good ffa strategy to try and win 1v3 ramboing everyone to death. The most winning players seem to be the ones with a strong balance of knowing when to be aggressive to push their advantage, and when to be passive to push themselves into an advantageous position. Those are ffa skills in and of themselves and are the kind of things that make fml the most competitive and highest level of ffa. And also what makes it different from ffa ladder both in the old bnet days and also the ffarena days we have now.
-
Much of what you say is true Mog, but I don't agree at all with your point that "subtle sitting in your main doing nothing for 1 hour" is what makes FFA great. To be frank, there are only a handful of people here in FML that enjoy long games. Some of them even see this narrow type of FFA that FML offers as the only source of high level competitive of FFA.
This is in my view an illusion that has been built on season after season till we only see 4-way format as the legitimate type of high level ffa. There are several aspects of FFA that are left out - you can try take a break and play some ladder games and see what different kind of skills it takes to win games there. It is not just micro and bulldozing over your opponents. It is also about making subtle moves to deceive your opponents.. In other words skills that allows you to take advantage of the situation.
What I would like to see is a change that encoruages action and stops a trend of 3-4 hour games. Right now FML scares viewers away and talented solo players (or upcoming FFA players). Everyone likes to watch the action and strategy behind FFA, but no one likes to watch a ffa game where nothing happens for hours - not even the players in the tournament. I don't get why some are so reluctant to experiment with new ideas. This just seems to confirm the point that a lot of old players here in FML are conservative and less open minded to ideas.
-
Also as a side note, the players who are super passive are not typically the ones winning.
Dude you and j33. are easily some of the most passive FFA players I have ever seen and have between you won 3 titles over the past few seasons. In fact I've seem some absolutely terrible games where you two get rewarded so ridiculously hard for literally doing nothing and staying out of trouble. There's nothing "beautiful" about that, contrary to what you think. But I mean, if thats what you find interest in, the current FML style can randomly reward you like crazy because of it, so more power to you.
-
Much of what you say is true Mog, but I don't agree at all with your point that "subtle sitting in your main doing nothing for 1 hour" is what makes FFA great. To be frank, there are only a handful of people here in FML that enjoy long games. Some of them even see this narrow type of FFA that FML offers as the only source of high level competitive of FFA.
This is in my view an illusion that has been built on season after season till we only see 4-way format as the legitimate type of high level ffa. There are several aspects of FFA that are left out - you can try take a break and play some ladder games and see what different kind of skills it takes to win games there. It is not just micro and bulldozing over your opponents. It is also about making subtle moves to deceive your opponents.. In other words skills that allows you to take advantage of the situation.
What I would like to see is a change that encoruages action and stops a trend of 3-4 hour games. Right now FML scares viewers away and talented solo players (or upcoming FFA players). Everyone likes to watch the action and strategy behind FFA, but no one likes to watch a ffa game where nothing happens for hours - not even the players in the tournament. I don't get why some are so reluctant to experiment with new ideas. This just seems to confirm the point that a lot of old players here in FML are conservative and less open minded to ideas.
I disagree with a lot of this post.
The 4 way format which is commonly used in FML is done so because it is the only form of FFA that is sustainable in a competitive league environment. Games are relatively easy to schedule, easy to get started, we have lots of map options, observer slots are not limited, admin duties are light and scoring is not complicated. However, despite this, we have done multiple seasons and events which incorporate other FFA game-styles.
Calling FML conservative is absolutely crazy as we tend to have some new wrinkle in every season. We have done quite a lot over the past few seasons to lower the game-time of matches including: Adding a bonus for highest score, some seasons had in-game objectives, creating multiple maps with a timer and removing maps from our rotation which create long games. We intend to continue to make changes that we feel will bring the FFA game-type to a place where all game play styles are viable and rewarding.
-
Yes the structure of the league has evolved a lot from season to season, not conservative at all.
-
Hi. Why who win more score in game get 11 pts ?
Mb to do : 4 place - 5 pts; 2,3 - 10 pts; who win more score in game 15 pts, who win game 15 pts too, and who won game and more scored - 20 pts
I think its more motivation play for win.
This is actually an interesting idea, though I dont know if it would work but it would lead to more players just going rambo and not hoarding and crying for 3 hours
I have to admit, stepping is one of the few players who doesn't give two flying fucks about losing a match. He usually leaves if he loses his 1v1, never seen him stay around being a pest :)
-
I disagree with a lot of this post.
The 4 way format which is commonly used in FML is done so because it is the only form of FFA that is sustainable in a competitive league environment. Games are relatively easy to schedule, easy to get started, we have lots of map options, observer slots are not limited, admin duties are light and scoring is not complicated. However, despite this, we have done multiple seasons and events which incorporate other FFA game-styles
TFW none of reasons listed have anything at all to day with gameplay
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/830/sad_frog.jpg)
-
@soso I didn't say sitting in a base for an hour is what makes ffa great, I used the example of the last finals where under.sta made the correct ffa choice of doing that to give him the best chance of winning. He could have been forced to attack because of a timer and had the ffa decision made for him with no strategic variance available. .. and some people may enjoy less choices in game play if it forces action, but I say ffa is great because of the many choices available. That makes it more impressive when players consistently make correct ffa decisions. Does that make sense? Because I feel you misinterpreted my post.
@dovekie, in my own gameplay, I have found consistently over the years the games I am the most passive I lose. I find I am too passive when I am unsure of what decision to make in a game, and that indecision loses me the game. I can't speak for j33, but in his finals match he was passive when it benefited him, but also aggressive when he should have been. He fought under.sta countless times and won the majority of those fights, and then also forced action against noexxx.
-
I read through all of these responses
Right off the bat:
@dovekie - you can fuck off because you have never played an FML game. Secondly, you are a total deviant that has very specific personal views about FFA which have nothing to do with the purity of a league or the gametype. 50 minute games? Sorry, this isnt a ladder noobstomp, so no. So as I said, fuck off. "get me away from that"? you dont even play FML so you ARE away from that. Stop commenting upon a league you have no interest in and have never played in
@ DV: youre a smart guy so stop making half thought-out posts. You didnt even play this season. I know youre smart but you also like to play the devil - but in terms of the greater good of the league, your halfassed efforts are undermining
@ mog and J33 - I agree
@ soso - a funny post coming from a player people often call "passive" - anyway the main point is that 4way FFA, as worpex said, is preferable because of scheduling and balance. The other point you made was about "long games scaring away viewers and solo players" - FFA is not a spectator sport. Its a players game. Stop pretending we're gonna get thousands of viewers. The best idea is to make 5-10 minute "highlight" videos of games, that showcase the coolest parts of a match. These videos might intrigue players to check out FFA, and that could build a bigger base. But people who dont PLAY FFA are not gonna sit there and watch 1hr + replays. Thats just NOT gonna happen. Secondly about solo players - highlight videos will get them interested, FFA ladder will get them experienced, and once theyre good enough they will desire a higher level of competition, and they will join FML. its that simple.
FML is great because it takes a chaotic gametype and tries to make a competitive league out of it. Its difficult, but the only goal should be winning. All the other stuff is aesthetic. I'm not saying that the league is perfect, but these huge dramatic changes are not necessary. We all start with 5 food and a main, and then we do our best to take advantage of everything the game offers to win the match. Some people prefer micro, some people prefer strategy, some prefer diplomacy, some prefer crazy hero combos and fun styles. All of these approaches are legitimate, as long as they result in a win. Thats why I'm against extra points for "top score" or a gametype that promotes a certain type of play.
-
I have to quote htrt here:
"
FFA behaviorous analysis
Now a little of that social experiment of which ffa consists. We are all unique in our ability to apprehend our environement and think. And that is for sure the case for playing FFA, although some constants seem to appear time and again in the play of many persons. Some tendacies, too, can be used to caracterise people in that kind of game.
First of all, many players, me included, tend to lack the ability to perfectly ignore eventual early injuries inflicted by other players. For example, those three red hp footmen an angry blademaster came in and murdered savagely. Or that walking, smoking tree of life that you used for creeping, and somoene came in your back and killed your tree, forcing your tp and stealing your creep. The possible examples of that are of course too many to be listed. Very rarely have I witnessed or proved myself capable of displaying that flawless impassibility in order to absolutely ignore the event while thinking about the game. Often, it does not mean you are going to rush that clumsy person and ruin your own game for that (yet it still happens sometimes), but at least that person will most likely become your target. And you may try to actually get more from that player than what you should have reasonably hoped for, meaning it is only because of anger that you may ravage him to a point where his mind will be empty of ideas except that of revenge. So the emotive factor must be taken into account, because it may overcome reason. All of us are generally concerned.
Second, most people will usually forget about some Warcraft 3 basics and, based on those misunderstandings, may value to an absurdedly high scale some ridiculous and rather innefective gains made early in the game. The most prized example of this is creeps. Many people have some creeping routes already set in mind, and encountering another player in that route will only lead in blood being spilled and time wasted. All of that for a mere fifty gold, an item whose effect is severly diminuished by the incredible amounts of gold harvested by players combined with the presence of shops, markets and plenties of other huge creep camps... As for the experience, it is valuable, but at that point of the game it means nothing. Simply that it can be your advantage AND your disadvantage, because killing your high level heroes could eventually become a fast levelling sport. Experience on heroes will actually only truly matter if the game ends up into a 1v1 with two people willing to do battles. So, be aware of people’s weird and miscalculated fetishes about the game.
Third, people strongly dislike any sort of crying, yelling, insulting and any other burst of wild emotions. Even though it may arguably be a fine way to manipulate in certain situations, it is generally abhored and a sound way to receive antipathy. If you partly annoy people using those in chat, your annoying behaviour in the game (because everyone annoys everyone one time or another in FFA) will anger even more your opponents. And they may even start playing unrationnaly only to shut you up. So, be aware of how you say things and how often you say them.
Fourth, and most importantly, micro can be dangerous. And it can be for everybody. The objective of micro-management is to control your units in an optimal way in order to fight and harass opposing forces. That does not fit properly in FFA, because it requires a lot of focus, and the main objective of it is to kill and be the winner in any fight or any skirmish, while FFA may sometimes mean to think in a different way. For example, early in the game, if you fast expand with Archmage and footmen, then move on to another creep, meet a Demon Hunter with archers and begin spamming countless clicks to surround the hero, retreat a footman, focus the archers, you may lost touch with many effective macro actions that would have definitely been a wiser choice instead of such a pointless, here is how I call it, burst of solo rage. So be aware that people may get confused in microing, and that you may too.
As for the tendacies, I will present the principal ones I repertoriated during FFA gameplay with original names.
The tiger : Extremly proud, heart instilled of burning fury, the tiger is a predator. Irascible, he will answer provocation with aggressive fighting. Tigers have good micro and won’t dedain using it to its full extent. They don’t hesitate breaking upkeep after upkeep in their lust for battle, which usually gets ultimately toned down after relentless waves of teamming. Can fall for the trickery of monkeys or the impavidity of gryzzlys.
The whale : Lousy, lazy and passive, whales are not agressive by nature. They enjoy swimming around in the vast and regular ocean of hoarding. Not stressed, whales will swallow every single mine that randomly trepasses through their gigantic mouths, and were it not to happen, they will probably die there, being unable (or unwilling) to defend properly. Their micro is usually very poor and they don’t tend to compensate it with good ffa sense and/or effective macro. Rumor has it some whales have already been raped by tigers and grizzlys, mercyfully pulled out of water by their mighty paws.
The monkey : More of an all-around player, the monkey will combine all aspects of the game to a considerable extent, be it micro, macro, ffa sense or manipulation and will carefully prepare his glorious and, if things go well, incoming victory. His plans, though, are often too complex for the whale to understand and he may end up being crushed by its immense body. Moreover, his fragile neck is definitely not out of the mighty tiger’s grasp.
The grizzly : Grizzlys are similar to whales in which that they are very fond of gathering a lot of ressources. But do not be mistaken about their apparent indolence : at the first sign of provocation grizzlys will stand over their full height in a terrific sight to behold. Leave them to their wandering duties over the map, but consider that they may reveal to be the most fearsome opponents late game. They have gold, and they know better than anyone else how to use it. Usually quiet and dangerous enough to elude a tiger’s attention, a grizzly’s routine may on the other hand be spoiled by the monkey’s trickery.
Although presented in a rather funny method, those models correspond to most of the ffa community and thus consist of an excellent source of reasoning as to how to deal with every player. That being said, I personally think the best consistency to pursue in order to acheive victory is either that of a strong and mature grizzly or a mix between tiger and monkey. As long as it is guided by a masterful and indepth understanding of balance of power, the odds of winning will remain high. It requires a lot of scouting and deduction, as well as the ability to pierce any attempt of cheating your perception with manipulation. Keep your blood cold even though you act otherwise, and see as clear as your knowledge of the game allows you to. Remember that your opponents never speak to lose.
Mastering chaos in three ways
I will expose two things here. First, the possible ways ffa games with three players left usually end up. Second, the way I normally try to lead them into a seemingly chaotic carnage while it had throughoutly been planified few minutes ago.
So, basically, what is a three way ? What does it imply ? A three way is a free for all that suffered the loss of a player. Three players remain alive and are confronted to a cruel situation : any attempt of attacking another player may result in a friendly sacrifice for the last player who will eventually get the win. The players will most likely become passive and wait for other people to do moves. They will try to respect balance of power, and eventually the victory will be stolen by either the most patient, skilled or manipulator player. Sometimes, it is sadly the most lucky player. In other circumstances, for example if the three way started with an absence of balance between the three players’ forces, some radical teamming will happen. A sort of teamming that is different from usual one, as it does generally cripple the teammers equally, while utterly destroying the third player. It is in their interest, because it allows a rather fair 1v1 at the end even though it is lame for the victim.
What I propose for three ways requires a deep understanding of what real amount of power other players really possess. I prefer to do absurd yet controlled actions in a three way, actions that do not follow the guidelines of balance of power. More precisely, actions that advantage another player over me. For example, I have often decided to attack somoene in a three way while telling the third player to kill my expands meanwhile. The trick is that he will be teammed after too anyways, but you will take implicit leadership of the game. And if no player plays excessively dumb or unpredictable, you can make sure in a subtle way that out of all the incoming chaos, you will have the greatest power at the crucial point, the point where no amount of teamming will be capable of taking you out because of all the destruction that occured. Let yourself be teammed, team people, destroy a lot of things, scout a lot and reveal your true visage at the edge where confusion overwhelms everyone’s thinking. It may lead in a pitiful situation if somoene plays too dumb, but at that point of the game you should have normally taken into account anyone’s eventual dumbness.
Manipulation
It is the art of chatting in the game, giving yourself a unique style of persuasion either in order to blatantly lie about your current status and falsify the proper course of balance of power or simply to ensure its proper course. It can be used to trick people about your emotional state as well as treating somoene, and can take too many forms to be listed here. In general, my opinion is that manipulation should never be able to alter your real and accurate vision of the game, according that your vision was correct. That way, manipulation, no matter how sensational or skillful it is, can become your own tool in order to read in your opponents’ obvious projects. In other words, you can comprehend how your ennemies conceptualised their own victory. That is an essential, vital information for the point above, mastering chaos in three ways, because the best way to win is not to build up an incredible plan for victory, but to build it based on the other players ones.
My personal ways of manipulation tend to include irony, accurate and embarassing guesses, eloquence, apparence of fairness and sometimes absolute truth."
-
FFA is about winning, no matter what you have to do to win. What makes heroes is the fact that they know how to perform the art at his best. If it requires 2 hours of sitting and faking beeing drunk on a snow map just do it, people will remember that performance of yours! If you can win with a tinker running arround the map saying "AHAHAHAHHAH you can't kill me", use that tinker.
PUTTING A TIMER WOULD JUST KILL THE FUN FFA IS, THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER. Even I play mostly agressive and I'm against a timer. If there is a timer, I would go am mk pala everygame, rush someone out with the imbalance human has early game, defend 1v2 with 1000 towers and win 80% of the games. Yes human is easy to play if you know how to play them.
J33 was the smartest in the final, after I killed is tree and had 8 builds I said him STOP PLEASE and he answered "DIE" which was the perfect move because it sounded like he wanted to suicide me, so Geasss wouldn't search him. J33 has shown us what a hero is.
Everyone has his playstyle and that is what is beautiful about ffa, you can never do the same because your emotions will never be the same in a game cause we are not robots. As for me, I enjoyed watching 70% of the games this season and enjoyed playing 100% of them. I had a lot of fun in playing them.
This said, I agree we could change a bit the point making system. But the first player should still have a lot of points. IF YOU ARRIVE FIRST AND LOSE THE GAME, YOU'RE A LOSER, A WHINER, you should not be rewarded too much. If you played the best in a football game and lose, you get 0 points. Putting a timer in ffa would bring the same boring matches as in football.
Lightweight's fun rules seems really good to have funny games.
@all the people crying about passive players, just rush them out and stfu. FFA is about finding a solution to every situations. For example, in the final, I find a solution "to lie, manip" for 40 min about the cost of my archmage. It worked really good but the passiveness of the players about doubting about wheter I had an am or no cost me the game. I took some risks doing that but it was Worth it, I hided it for 10 minutes and I'm happy about that. Using a potm in final and vs 2 humans was the best choice.
If players are passive and it works, it is normal for them to stay passive unless they are dumb as fuck, it is the players who cry about passiveness that should rush those players out. I can guarantee you that if a passive players loses 5 games in a row for being passive, he will stop being passive.
That being said,
I want to thank coach shave for being the guy that keeps FFA alive in the chatbox, without him we would have almost no games.
#IWANTSHAVEBACK in skype group!!!!!
Congrats to J33, the hero of this season and of course
LIGHTWEIGHT #1
-
Lots of walls of text posted in this thread, I ain't gonna read them all.
I basically agree with DniweV-. Sitting for 4 hours in a game is just too much, it should be the exception instead of the norm, which it is slowly becoming.
Obviously, the goal of FFA is to win, but when everybody hoard and camp for hours to maximize their chances of winning that does not lead to exciting games.
A change in the point system would help, so that the winner doesn't get such a comparatively big advantage.
Some (Eshan, Soso etc.) might of course say that FFA is about winning bla bla bla. and we shouldn't reward rambos, but let's be honest, who cares? FFA isn't balanced, it's not super competitive, it's something we play for fun.
-
I really agree with Mog's post.
sums it all up pretty much. the players who can balance aggressive with passive play styles are the ones who will always have an edge. and timer kinda kills the game in my eyes. (and i am undead - the most trash race when it comes to ffa lategame)
Also i do agree with zTsoso that FML games lack the funrandomness and chaos that bot games provide
if only we could make next season have no names? it would be impossible to supervise by the admins but would make for one hell of a season.
-
Noexxx my hero <3
I scrolled past those giant walls of text like "no way in he'll I'm gonna read all that".
But then I started reading and I simply could not stop. Htrt quote was perfect and also your analysis I completely agree with. Very well said sir. And that AM manip on the finals was magical; it was innovative and unique and definitely a highlight of the season!
-
Right off the bat:
@dovekie - you can fuck off because you have never played an FML game.
This is completely rude and uncalled for. I ask you not to talk to me like this—you're being both vulgar and wrong. I've definitely played an FML season and have subbed as well in others. I've also played a number of tournament/cup games that literally play out exactly the same as FML games. Stop being rude to me and belittling my opinions. This is called "Ad Hominem" if you don't know, and its a fallacy.
Secondly, you are a total deviant that has very specific personal views about FFA which have nothing to do with the purity of a league or the gametype.
I am not a total deviant at all. In this thread there are about 5 or 6 of you just talking to each other. I'm making an assumption here, but I bet half the time you only care about people's opinions who already agree with you. You, at FML.com, are like a guy at church arguing why church is great. Of course at least half the people are going to have the same opinions as you. Obviously others don't agree with you. Don't tell them to "fuck off". Is something wrong with you dude? Just cause I and obviously others don't share your opinions isn't an excuse to try and get rid of them.
50 minute games? Sorry, this isnt a ladder noobstomp, so no.
Yeah 70 minute games on small maps, like I said. You can try rereading because now you seem to obviously have skimmed over it and not tried to read what I wrote.
So as I said, fuck off.
No. I'm not gonna "fuck off" from a community I care a lot about because someone is being really pissy and because my opinions don't coincide with his.
You dont even play FML so you ARE away from that. Stop commenting upon a league you have no interest in and have never played in
I do have a lot of interest in it. I love FFA, and this is the community I started in. I know all the names and even though a lot of us are high energy, competitive people, and argue a lot, especially in-game, this is definitely my FFA home. The thread specifically asked for feedback, and as a legitimate fan of Warcraft 3, FFA, and some of the players in the league, and as a FFA player myself, I am coming to give my feedback.
I think the games are too long, and need a time-limit. That's my feedback. Get over it. I also think Redz7z posted some very good ideas on the second page, and agree with a lot of what he has to say.
-
oooookay. I think we have enough information from this thread now. Thank you everyone who posted. We will keep all the suggestion in mind for the next season!