FFA Masters League
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: FML|WorpeX on March 16, 2015, 10:37:00 pm
-
As many of you noticed with the very vague post that Mage posted, FML S21 is still a ways away and also still very much in the planning stages. So now is the best time to hear from the fans and players as to what you all think should be included or excluded into the next season!
Any and all suggestions are welcome! We value everyone's opinion greatly here so don't be afraid to tell us your thoughts!!
-
It should be a smaller player pool like 20 or so. Past champs and well known/established players should get 12-16 of those spots through invite only (that way I don't have to practice, and neither does my alter ego Renaud). Then the last 4-8 spots could be filled through a short double elimination qualifier so players have 2 chances to qualify like olden times.
The main reason I recommend these ideas, apart from selfish reasons, is that last season we saw well known players getting hard teamed 2v1 or 3v1, and (arguably) weaker players winning qualifier games simply by doing nothing and waiting for the more well known players to get unrightfully teamed out.
Another idea I had would be for the qualifiers to be played as anonymous games, then the season play as normal. But I realized that would be a scheduling nightmare for admins to figure out.
-
Couple of ideas... The 4-way games have become more and more mundane and predictable. They almost always delve into a 3 way where players alternate attacks and manipulate. As it stands, there is basically no advantage to playing well early and winning your initial 1v1. In fact, it often is a disadvantage as said player will be seen as the threat and the other players will stop fighting.
The other point is that these games often take so long - especially when the stakes are high. This leads to passiveness and far too much chatting and little fighting.
To help combat these points, I propose the following:
1) A timer could be added to the games (similar to BNet's tournaments). This idea was brought up after seeing last season's dreadfully long Semi Finals. Once the timer is out, the game ends. Player with the highest score would win at that point. However, games would rarely end in this manner as there would be real incentive to be active and much less being passive.
It could be set at different limits based on the map, but a standard number could be 90 minutes. This would give enough time (too little time would alter the games in a bad way) for a complete FFA game while promoting action and decisive moves. As the game goes into the 2nd half of time the pressure and action would increase leading to fast-paced FFA play. Naturally there could be cons to this but I really think it could work great, hopefully we can test this out.
2) Increase the number of players in the games, when possible. I think we can all agree that the 4 way games at times are stale since you can count on a predictable, boring 3 way. This is not the case however when you have 6 or 8 players in a game. As you've seen in past showmatches with 6 or 8 players, the games are often great and unpredictable. The unpredictable factor is key in enjoying FFA in its glory and can be lost often times in a 4 player game.
With 6 or 8 players, players have their early opponents but they can change on a whim and directions be refocused. Dead players have the ability to rebuild, stronger players don't have to face the dreaded 3-way of teaming after successfully taking someone out. Some will get better spawns then others, but overall it is a fun and balanced game!
A con to this is scheduling as Maga was quick to point out today, though 6 player games could be much easier to schedule as opposed to 8. I think its safe to say the best FFA games are 6+ skilled players.
-
Very good points you guys, we've been heavily discussing both the player format and time limits. I won't reveal our decisions on them but do know we're giving them heavy consideration.
We had not talked about doing anon FFA for the qualifiers, and honestly I don't really like the idea. That being said it's worth thinking about so thanks for the suggesting it.
6 way FFA is also something that we really have not given any consideration to, and I don't even really have an opinion on it since I haven't thought about it. Interesting suggestion, and these are what we're looking for!
Feel free to provide additional ideas, and even if you think it's something we've already covered you can chip in.
Something I've discussed individually with a few players but would like more feedback on. What do players think of the tiebreaker points we did for a few seasons? And what is the ideal way to break ties from a players perspective. By no means saying you'll have any actual input into it for the season, however we do take into consideration your opinions before we create the rules.
-
I agree with seksi's two points that a timer and a 6-player or 8-player format could be great additions to the FML tournament.
Making the games anonymous will be a hard since we have few FML players making it easy to discover player style according to race etc. I do think that anonymous games are the best way to avoid "unrightful" teaming on high profile players, but I am not sure it would work in practice (problems with scheduling, discovering player styles etc). I do like the idea though!
About the qualifier / FML tournament: I don't like the idea of auto-qualification for well-established players. Newcomers and less high profile players should have a chance to participate and advance as well. So, I think It's better if players earn their spot in the FML season based on their performance in last season (if they made it to finals= auto qualify).
Yes qualifying games will probably result in some of the high profile players being taken out, but i think it's necessary to make the tournament interesting and dynamic. I really liked the way last season went with 3 qualifying games into a FML qualifying season to finals / semifinals. 3 games with a timer should be enough for strong players to make it through!
Other than that I don't have any new ideas that I think could benefit FML. Removing chatting in 4-ways can work and make games interesting if all players are good and know how to scout. I don't think it would make the FML games more interesting to watch though because a lot of players are bad at scouting :icon_wink:. It's better from my point of view if there is a timer on the games that will force the action - then the chat/manip/sitting/hoarding in 3-ways should be less productive.
-
Going to throw just a few points/ opinions on what it has been said (don't have much time):
- I think it should be the usual that only finalists get to get into the new season automatically. Having the same players over and over will be boring and will be a barrier for new blood to try their luck. Yes, there will be upsets but thats the spirit of the game.
- 8 way definitely not as this is a scheduling nightmare. 6 way can work though. My suggestion is that this can be a side event of some sorts maybe?
- No chat and anonymity I am definitely against. Bad for viewers, bad for the game itself. We played many no chat games already and they all suck even with capable ffa players.
- Timer is a good idea and I am for testing it out. 90 mins for smaller maps and maybe 120 for bigger maps should be good enough.
-
I like the 6 or 8 players idea a lot. Here are a couple of thoughts about it :
From what I saw last season most of the games end up full with 8 obs and there are always people ready to sub.
There is the possibility to turn those observers into players just for that game and transform a 4 way into a 6 or 8 way, depending on the circumstances. Also most of the time some of those observers are not qualified or have no stakes in the game, which make them ideal picks.
How about this :
Normal scheduling of 4 way, game is hosted, everyone joins. Admin flips a coin, heads it's a normal 4-way, tails it's a 6-way. In case of a 6-way first two volunteers, provided they're okayed by the admin (to avoid people being sniped etc), join the fray. That way there are no extra scheduling issues. No volunteers ? Classic 4 way.
The 6-way map is also indicated in advance in the scheduling thread (if need be, ie if the initial map is a 4 players map).
To avoid those extra players from messing up the ranking they are ideally picked from non-qualified players pool. Since it's also harder to win such a game the points could be granted like this :
1. 25
2. 15
3. 10
4. 10
5. 5
6. 5
-
Well, a lot more interest in 6ways then I would have thought. We'll certainly discuss it.
A few things to consider about it. 6 way FFA's lend themselves to larger seasons. If there's going to be 6 people in the final it means we'd probably need at least 24 people in the season, possibly more.
Scoring will need to be changed up, but this isn't a huge deal.
Scheduling will be a problem, but it's not unworkable I don't think.
3 ways are still a problem. They always have been and always will be regardless of the number of players involved. However, combined with a time limit perhaps this problem could be eliminated.
** These opinions do not reflect my views as an admin, just as a caster/observer.
-
Maybe only one 6 way game during season... As like a mid season match the liven things up a bit. With a scoring of like 30, 20, 10, 10, 5, 5?
Also I liked the TB points in past seasons in order to break ties, as well as the 11 pts for 2nd IMO has always been a good rule.
-
I think 6 ways can definitely be fun and lead to chaotic games, but I would say that they don't belong in FML league matches. FML league has always been 4 players and it is kind of what defines top tier tournament FFA in my opinion. (I also don't think it would make the games all that more interesting, as they will still end in long 3 ways when the outcome of the game matters -- it will just take longer to reach the 3 way).
scheduling and point system are two more reasons it would be hard to do
-
TIMERS / SCORES / 6-WAYS / TEAM ORCS
-
i think season 18 had a pretty good format, at least better than the 20th. 4ways are fine, need many qualify games where only the winner gets into the main season. Everyone can try multiple times. And a longer season like 6 games.(i think 6 games were in season 18. mb 5). 6 ways would be stupid at maps like twilight, monsoon... but can work perfectly on a map like silverphine. Maybe add one extra game 6way at silverphine, that would be a bit more fun, but need a balanced point system. I really hated in last season that the players started with points, instead 0 points.
-
Thank you all again for your posts. It's actually been pretty interesting to see what the community thinks, and we're rethinking some of our plans currently to try and find the balance between making the community happy and using a workable format for the league. Stay tuned for more information soon, and feel free to keep posting any suggestions you may have!
-
I am completely against a Timer
Here's why
First of all we are playing the FFA gametype. FFA is about winning at all costs, with no teammate, by any means necessary, against 3+ players trying to do the same. Its not about who is the best at solo, micro, or finishing their opponents within an allotted time limit. Yes sometimes games run long, but thats part of FFA, part of the game we have chosen to play. Want fast action intensive games? Play solo or AT. There are countless games that because of circumstances in the game are forced to run long. Its not always a 3way, and 3ways are not always so bad - they are about balancing power, and players are getting better and better at them, which will make them shorter.
Somtimes, like that semi finals, or even the finals, games will run long. Thats part of our gametype. But take the finals for example: J33, Maga, and Tyrant played an amazing game balancing power that came down to the wire, a timer would have ruined that. Yes the game went over two hours, but the player who played the best that game won in the end. Patience, endurance, and stamina are part of FFA. I agree that timer games could be fun to WATCH, but that is a subgametype. FFA is not a SPECTATOR SPORT. Its a game, for the players. If you haven't noticed, most of the people watching these games are players themselves, so to change the gametype for viewers would undermine the game we are playing. Its like when sports leagues try to change the rules to benefit the viewers and almost always hurt their sport for the players.
Personally, as a player, when I'm IN a game thats running long, I have never worried about the time, only about trying to win. If you do get impatient as a player, thats a weakness. As an observer or even in replays with 8x yes sometimes I get bored, but I know its not about me, its about the players in the game having every strategy at their disposal to win the game. All in all, a timer would favor a certain type of play, which means it would favor a certain type of player, and that would be unfair.
TL,DR: Timers are unfair because they favor a certain type of player and put a restriction on the FREEdom in FREE for all.
As for 6ways, I agree with others that it could be interesting for ONE game, or as a side thing, but like Red said, 4 ways are what make FFA competitive. 6ways would require a lot more games to have a surefire winner that could truly be considered a champion because there would be a far greater variation in the number of winners per season. So not only would it be harder to schedule, it would require 7+ games to find a real winner
For example, the average player would probably win a game only once or maybe twice, the rest being 2-6th place. The best players may only win 3 times out of 6 tries...unless you are Htrt or something
-
Instead of an arbitrary timer that could ruin games how about lowering the gold amount in the mines ? -20% on every mine should be effective enough ?
-
@eshan
Timer could actually help the most patient players; once the timer starts to get low, some players will get stressed and try to do risky play in order to secure more points, but doing that will likely make him vulnerable! It could also give a reason to team a player (the one we assume has the most points).
I'm actually a fan of long games, but I wouldn't mind seeing what the timer does :)
@valefort
less gold could actually make longer games, since there are less chances for a player to become dominant. If everyone only has a little resource, they might become more careful with how they spend it and turtle up even more than before!
-
Just a few comments on Eshan's arguments against a timer:
First of all you argue that a timer is best for solo players with good micro. This is something that I doubt is true because the timer gives room for 3-ways with a time limit on 1½ hour to 2 hours.
First, 3-ways will still have a big significance in the game even if it's 4-ways or 6-ways since 1½-2 hours is more than enough to finish 1v1s. Second, in 4-ways where a player is fast taken out the player who is most dominant in micro, profile etc. may get teamed straight after and never get the time to rebuild. So i wouldn't say it necessarily favors stronger players.
Your argument that the more experienced players are the shorter 3-ways will get.. I very much doubt that. In the last season we've seen how a FML game takes about 2-2½ hours on average where half of that time is spent on 3-way sitting and chatting. This happened regardless of whether players were experienced with 3-ways or not, and the longest game in FML history has been with experienced players (with few exceptions that has to do with player style more so than experience). Frankly only about 10% or less of these games were enjoyable to watch, and i dare say that most players don't find it fun to play the stalemate 3-ways, especially high-profile strong players.
I would also contest the argument you make about a timer being a subtype of FFA and not the real thing. First, FML has in itself favored a certain subgametype of FFA - we are playing 4-ways that are non-anonymous, no time limit, chat allow etc. In contradiction to this, the ladder on playffa favors different subgametype aspects of ffa that are anonymous, where u can choose from 4-ways, 6-ways, 8-ways (...) and rdm heroes and so forth.
Secondly, the timer is not just for the viewers. Yes, it is an important reason that the games interesting to watch and actionpacked, but it is also for the players and newcomers who find long 3-ways very boring. I myself have said to myself that I will not play FML next season unless it changes up on the 3-ways because it's not fun to get slowly teamed for hours (in 4-ways u get zero advantage from winning ur 1on1 fast). It's not even fun if the game is just balancing slowly, or people sit and manip in their base for hours and nothing happens - there are so many examples of this in the last seasons.
You conclude that "All in all, a timer would favor a certain type of play, which means it would favor a certain type of player, and that would be unfair".
How is adding a timer different from any other subgametype in FFA? I mean, why is it unfair with a timer more so than a 4-way without time limit format? As is, FML games are played out with specific format, rules etc. that favors some play styles (or players) over others. This is nothing new - all rules/formats are designed with a specific purpose that favors certain playstyles over others and apply for everyone - thus they are not unfair. The best players will in my opinion learn to adapt their play style to new changes and take advantage of that.
For the same reason I don't think 6-ways or 8-ways that have the same rules for everyone can be considered unfair. They apply for all players and should therefore be legit.
-
I used to be opposed to timers for many of the same reasons as Eshan. But now I'm much more willing to try it out. The long games are a burden for many reasons:
- Long games are considered boring for 80% of players
- Long games are considered boring for 99% of spectators
- It is a huge time investment for people to play 3+ hours (this is on top of the ~15-30 mins it takes to get a game started)
- It makes scheduling easier because you know exactly how much time you need to allot for a game
- We are all getting older in this community, time is becoming an increasingly scarce resource for us between school, jobs, relationships, etc. Forcing games to be shorter makes fitting FFA into our lives just a little bit easier
It's hard to predict all the outcomes of a significant change such as timers. But I imagine that at first people won't be used to it, and in the early games, the game will end and it will seem premature and disappointing to some players who thought they had a chance to come back from behind or snipe a win. Then people will adopt more aggressive strategies, do more "all-or-nothing" attacks and manip harder, faster and earlier. At that point games will be more dynamic and fun, and more entertaining as well.
@Valefort: Reducing gold amount in mines has been tried before and usually results in longer games. The point where mines run out is usually when people starting camping their bases.
Games evolve, and rules change over time, and in the long run it's always for the best. We made a rule to stop feeding and exchanging items -- I think most everyone would agree that made the gametype better. We banned private chat -- I think most people would agree that made the game better. We stopped using Gold Rush. I think most people would agree that made the game better. Now we are going to try timers, and I think there is a good chance this will make the game better.
-
Wait, we stopped using Gold Rush?? Nooooo
But wait... With timers, we can bring it back!
-
1.5/2+ hour games are frequent enough and they are not enjoyable for at least 80% of the player base.
-
I could easily write a script that shared resource information among those who agreed to share it, to cut down on manip - or at least expedite it - if that's of any interest..
also, i could write a script that in some way incentivized activity - i.e. by not counting food costs for units in the middle of a map or something..
if you can think of some mechanic that would speed things up, just let me know and I'll see what I can do.
-
Really appreciate the feedback here guys, keep it up! We've basically scrapped our original ideas (which were not very good, imo) and completely reworked our plans to match what you guys want to see! I'm really excited for what we've got cooked up behind the scenes... rumor has it that our king is getting tired...
-
Can you put a gametimer visible for all (obs + players) and a Ressources board of all players? (just visible for observers) into a map?
Edit by WorpeX: I have this under control Pinball.
-
Okay once we talk about scripts to share resource information this is getting WAY out of hand
The game of FFA includes manip, secrets, scouting, thinking about unknown factors, all that stuff. If you want to dumb it down you are ruining the game that some of us have been playing for 8+ years. Seriously dont be ridiculous. I know its a hard gametype, and theres a learning curve etc, so that even amazing microers dont win every time, and i think thats a GOOD thing. Thats part of what makes FFA so unique.
ZtSoso, Playffa came out in the past two years or so, FFA as a specific gametype has been around since WC3 came out, and the original, most free version of this gametype allowed everything - any chat, no time limit, etc. I enjoy Playffa games for a change, but the highest level of competition lies closer to the original gametype. (This isn't just my opinion, the best FFA maps are all geared towards 4 way games. If someone wants to take the time and forge some terrific 6way maps be my guest, although we'll still run into the scheduling/scoring nightmares i mentioned in my last post).
Theres a lot of new blood in FFA these days and I love that, and with new players will come new ideas which is great, but some things have withstood the test of time, and the fact that many many of us have been hooked on this gametype for so long, means that its doing something right. I've spent more hours in long games in FFA than doing any one other game in my life and thats a lot of time and I still wouldn't have the gametype any other way.
Yes we have made some changes for FML: we took out Private chat (athough I dont believe in restricting the tools in your toolbox once youre in a game) and banned preteaming for competitive reasons because they allowed for OUTSIDE of the game decisions, and I wouldn't mind anonymous FML games, but these never affected the way you WIN the game.
The worst thing about a timer is that it changes the way you win the game. Its not about killing your opponents buildings like youre supposed to do in every gametype of WC3. Instead it becomes about this strange abritrary thing called POINTS. Points is just a bullshit scoring mechanism that shows up at the end of the game that is largely based on hero levels and has NOTHING to DO with actually defeating your enemies.
I JUST played a game with a timer in Ugri's tournament where the time ran out, I had both of my opponents down to their last army/buildings, they were teaming me and running around hiding to waste time because they had higher hero levels and they wanted to steal the win through POINTS when the time ran out. Points are not a valid way to win the game. They make very little sense, and I would fucking kill someone if I spent 2 hours on a game, almost won, and lose because a timer ran out and someone had higher points than me. Thats bullshit, thats not FFA, thats not even WC3, thats just a weird timer game based on an arbitrary point system that rewards good heroes.
FFA should be a gametype where players who have incredible micro like maga, tyrant, soso, etc can win...but ALSO where the other side of the spectrum can win too: players like Camp_and_Spank who go AM towers tanks and make it to the finals. And for every type of player in between. So please... Don't ruin the game
-
Zt I dont care about 3ways, I care about changing the face of this game completely and making it something else entirely
And theres no doubt at all that a Points system favors micro players. Many of the ways to win the game dont involve points at all. And I dont think anyone is in favor of a game where elves mass wisps in order to get more lumber points...
-
Just FYI - if theres a timer based system you will see this often: race to get high heroes, win your 1v1 and get the highest heroes, TURTLE FOR THE REST OF THE GAME.
-
I think Valeforts idea about lowering gold mines might have something to it
-
Okay once we talk about scripts to share resource information this is getting WAY out of hand
It's harder to read because it's crossed out, but he said for the obs :)
Just so we don't have to click a building to see the info, it's especially usefull during a battle to see how the food is going down for both player, while looking at the action
-
Nice to see so much passion for FFA still!
I'm glad most of the feedback is positive on the timer idea. Eshan, I understand your points too but at least we will try it out and see how the games go. The thing if it is set at, say 2 hours, games very rarely will be decided by points. The term to use is a "Complete FFA game" and that can be done in under an hour but on average somewhere between 1 hour and 1.5 hours. Anything past 1.5 hours is almost always a passive 3 way where the advantage lays in sitting rather then acting.
Players that win their initial 1v1 and turtle will be teamed, I mean if they are the strongest they will be teamed (and other players will catch up in score). if not, the other players will fight each other more and catch up in score (while the previous leading player sitting does not gain much). And then this will make the leading player go out and fight, seeking the win through action! (side note: Resource scores have very little weight in total scores... you could get 2 shredders or make mass wisps for lumber without seeing any significant difference)
In Theory you'll want to pursue the victory instead of sit and wait for it. But still, there is PLENTY of time in a 2 hour game to be patient and wait for your opportunities. If the time limit is too restricted then players will be forced to play differently, but if the time limit is enough it should just promote action and decisive moves rather then playing passive. More then anything, adding a sufficient timer will promote players seeking fights to gain the advantage!! And that is great.
My prediction is that the games will heat up after the first hour and be decided sometime around the 90 minute mark. Players will play normal FFA games and then make the moves they would otherwise wait for other players to make as the 2nd half (2nd hour) begins. The map will be fought for and we will have many interesting, action packed games showing our players at their finest!
As far as suggesting the 6 or 8 player games, after reading your replies and thinking more about it, I like the thought of one 6 (possibly 8) player game in the season (the rest normal 4-ways).
One quick note on the advantages of 6 ways vs 4 ways: Yes, while there can still be a long 3 way in a 6 player game, its much better then a 3 way in a 4 player game. With 4 players, the 3 way is sudden and players are familiar with their spots in the game. The dynamic is boring and straight forward. With 6 players, however, once it gets to a 3 way there is a lot more going on and different considerations. The players probably have not been primary 1v1s with each other and hold various amounts of the map and experience. Plus, it is not too early in the game where many times the final 3-way in a 6+ player game will play out quicker and smoother.
6 player game can be great on 6 player maps (like Silverpine), but can also be very good on select 8 player maps too (Twilight, Sanctuary). On these 8 player maps, some will have better spawns, but those mines will be contested and won't give too much of an advantage. You may be forced to fight for your position but ultimately the games are almost always good on these maps too.
If we have one game a season with 6 players, it could be in round 2 or round 3. I like a point distribution of 30/15/10/10/5/5. 30/20/10/10/5/5 could work too, but I believe giving 2/3rds of the winner's point total is too much for 2nd place. 30/15/10/10/5/5 seems optimal. The 6 player round would be worth a total of 75 points (to continue the pattern, 4 player rounds are worth a total of 50 points)
TL;DR: Timer should be set at 2 hours. Each hour can be seen as the first and second halves of a game. This will give plenty of time to ensure a "Complete FFA game" while promoting action and decisive moves.
There should be one 6 player round, preferably in Round 2 or 3. Silverpine would be a great map, though select 8 player maps would work well also. Suggested point spread of 30/15/10/10/5/5.
-
Seksi its a good idea in theory, but you don't have to sell it like youre selling some sort of product. "Showcase our players at their finest!" I understand you came up with it but you have to admit the glaring hole it has: points. No game should be decided by points at all. Or anything except a true winner. So many games are decided by the smallest factor, like the Finals even. And the fact that youre trying to predict what these games will be like makes it even worse: predictable. Do you really want FFA to turn into a predictable game type mash fest where players try to either raze each other as fast as possible or accumulate enough points to coast through the timer? Unpredictability is one of the best qualities in FFA
If a timer could work in a way that didnt have some arbitrary way of deciding who wins when the time runs out it would be a lot better. But with victories being given out for stuff that doesn't reflect the actual winner, its unfair. And youre promoting a type of game that won't have last second building kills, epic cross map comebacks, etc. I don't see how a timer would work without ruining the way the game is supposed to be won...
Maybe another way to shorten game lengths or make them more dynamic. People are saying the average FML game length is over 2 hrs. So if you make all the games end by the 2 hour mark, youre not even allowing for the AVERAGE game length. I think if theres a cap it should be much higher, so that games dont become ridiculous, like 3 hrs.
Again the two halves to game sounds cool and the push for dynamic play sounds good, but you gotta have a real winner, not some timer based points BS...Its like FFA is a jungle where anything can happen and youre trying to chop down the rainforest into some predictable park looking thing
I mean go ahead and try it out but it got tried out during the playffa cup and there was controversy (and those were small maps)
-
Average game length is around 90 mins:
http://ffamasters.net/index.php?topic=1839.msg33300#msg33300
I think 2:15 is the perfect timer. 15 minute count down starts at 2:00. It's well beyond the average game length, it's at the point where the map is almost certainly mined out, and when people are probably just camping their bases if the game is that long.
-
I dont think timer will hurt the game as you picture it Eshan. In scenarios where one guy has obviously won and the other(s) is/are just delaying by hiding buildings, admins can enforce the win even if the other has higher score. But only if its obvious (like hunting buildings down, barely any units/heroes).
I am all for something new that will spice things up (like the ban on PM did).
-
I vote NO for timer. I guess this timer will happen anyway but here is some of my toughts.
Timer will benefit battle winners and micro monsters. It will harm players who don't rely on their micro and ability to win every 1v1 fight but cunninges and long time planning. Timer will boost micro aspect of FFA too much and hurt "smart play" aspect too much.
I don't think microers need this boost. They win games as do players like me and Mog. Timer will make comeback wins rarer. Maybe that is what majority wants. No more noob(elf)s stealing wins they dont deserve.
I have always been fan of smart ffa play. All my favorite players (maga, renaud, mog,..) are all extremely Intelligent players (maga being also a micro monster) and they tend to produce long games. As an obs I don't mind long games. I love to see players out smarting their opponents and making better decisions in long run. Timer will force bad and hasty decisions.
Lets say 3-way starts 1 player being significantly behind 2 others. His first object is to stabilise the game so it won't end any time soon. Then starts the hard and SLOW process of weakening them both and not pissing them off too much. This is slow since you can't let neither die before both are weak enough.
If there is a timer it is propably better for the weak player kill him self than waste 90 mins for a game he can't win. 90 mins is too short time to kill all buildings of 2 dominant players. Winning by score is not possible for the weak player.
Maybe this is how it should be. Failing in your 1v1 means you dont deserve the win and you should get OUT NOOB.
I also agree on every thing Eshan said. It seems this timer will happen so I propose it will be 180 mins.
One question. what if time ends and it is "clear" who is the winner but loser graps the win by points. For example higher score player has no heroes or units, only 1 peon hiding buildings. What if time ends while there is extremely thrilling (1v1) end game going on. How ending the game there would benefit observers?
-
I think you bought up interesting arguments about the timer. We did not agree on how it will work exactly but i think winning by highest score seems not the best option. (Like in ur example someone with incredible high heroes died and he is just farm-hiding and survive the time-up to guarantee his 25 points. I got a little penalty in my mind which would apply in this case.
Another idea would be a split-point scenario if the timer is up and we got 3 players with noone clearly dominating. (like (25 + 10 + 10 )/ 3 =15 for all remaining players adding a potential TB point for the one with highest heroes/score)
-
Draw should not be an option. It will force passive players turtle even more (why lose the 10 pts by trying to win, when you can get 15 by doing nothing).
The timer's duration is a valid point as 90 min would be short in scenarios j33 described. For small maps (see Emerald, Twisted Meadows, Fountain of Manip), 90 mins should be more than enough. You basically cannot rebuild there.
However, for bigger maps, 90 mins is not enough and scenarios where someone rebuilds and wins are present. 120 min, or even 150 min though I think should be good enough and it gives you an opportunity to win by rebuild. If someone hides buildings knowing he has best heroes but no chance of winning anymore, just to waste the timer, then admins should take away the win and enforce a penalty. That will stop those attempts.
-
I notice that most of this discussion is about the length of the games, on which I will just give my short point of view, and then focus on what I find most important: the player pool.
However, I totally agree with Eshan. At the end of the day, we are all FFA players and this is the kind of game we want to play. Adding a timelimit only to appeal more to the observers? Lets face it, we are playing w3, the potential audience is very limited so there is no need to chase some extra viewers. And regarding Red's comment: why would we try to modify the game and make them shorter only because circumstances are changing in our lives? You cant just modify the game incrementally depending on changing factors in the players' personal lives, that would be just as stupid as allowing the ball to bounce twice in our tennis matches only because we are older...
This brings me to the concern regarding the player pool. Since I am a rookie in this community, ofc I don't like the idea of making the next season exclusive to "older /well known players". Honestly, that would be like a "Tomb of Relics". Many of the older players are more busy nowadays I guess, since they are never playing except for the 5-6 FML-games they play per year, which means that their skills are probably more likely to decay than to enhance. I travel quite much in my work, but when I don't, I play inhouse FFAs every day with players like Maga, zTsoso, Alien, Letshave, Valefort etc, and I feel that no matter our initial skill level, all of us are improving a lot (except for Maga who hit triple-10 ages ago). Some of the newer players, not me though, have leapfrogged the older/well known players which is why I think a competitive moment is necessary to decide which players should be qualified for the next season. Also, this is a moment for the older players to prove me wrong and show that they are not just old relics.
-
Eshan, you bring up good points, I think it needs testing for sure. However if there is enough time allotted (I thought 2 hours would be good, but 2h15 or 2h30 could work also) - there should still be plenty of time for a 'Complete FFA game'. I understand the winning by points wouldn't be great, its a valid point, but it can be tested and probably worked around if need be as Maga is referring too. And I don't endorse or sell the idea because I had it lol that doesn't matter, I think it's a good idea to freshen up the format. It could work out well, worth some testing at least don't you think?
When I said showcase our players at their finest, I mean all players (all types) will play to win the game, not wait for the win to come to them. You can still be smart and strategic in your moves without sitting and waiting for the first player to make a move. The idea of a timer (it can be a long timer, like 2+ hours) is to prevent the sitting and waiting in bases, passive style of games.
j33, good points, though I don't think it will be the disadvantage you imagine for players who fall behind in battles. The dominant player will still be teamed either way, but maybe the decision and moves would just be quicker. I think its key to have a long enough timer to not force players to make rash decisions. Over 2 hours shouldn't do that, but we'll see.
I will say I can see the problems if points determine the winner, but with a long enough timer and possible workarounds I don't think it would be the issue it seems to present.
-
A flat timer will deal adequately with most games but might butcher longer and legitimate other games, there needs to be a way to adjust to the specific game.
How about adding a timer based on a vote by the players ? It would only be to break long 3 ways.
A majority vote could also break games (for examples 2 dominant players and the third trying to snipe a win and playing a longer game) so it needs to be a consensus, all last 3 players must agree to a timer (45 minutes ?) else the game continues normally.
That's assuming it's possible in the first place though.
-
Valefort coming up with new ideas! Maybe a timer that can be voted on in the case of a 3way...that requires all players to vote yes. A 45 minute timer up for vote. That makes it interesting. And if one player votes no, you can team him :) cause maybe that means hes got 30k gold. Or maybe you team him and you end up teaming the wrong guy. Keeps the strategic aspect, just adds a new wrinkle to play with, i like it. Games can end faster if all players agree, but its not FORCED. The points issue is still a problem
J33 said what I was trying to say even better - timer really caters to a more micro style play and it hurts strategic players. Some of us enjoy the long games. And fetta said it too - we shouldn't change the game in a way that might hurt the players just for the sake of observers. Its good to make the game better for observers and to bring new people but not when its hurting the game itself...
The thing that makes timer completely ridiculous is the win by points thing. The timer itself isnt horrible its just that when its over, the win goes automatically to the highest points which is a TERRIBLE way to judge the winner. Who came up with how the points are scored anyway? What is it based on? Its just some interesting statistics that was mostly geared for solo games. Like if you won a game with one hero, you would still lose in points to a guy you killed who had 3 heroes. Sometimes the guy with the highest points isn't even in the game anymore etc.
Seksi its worth a try but it really doesn't work unless you can figure out the points thing...but maybe if you incorporate Valeforts idea and have a vote on timer in games, that is something that is definitely worth experimenting with. But even when the vote timer is up...the win by points thing is still weird. Anyone have any ideas on how to better judge the winner when time is up?
Even in Bnet tournaments, if youre in a 1v1 and the timer finishes, you only get a win by points if you have a LOT more points than your opponent. If its close they give you a draw. You can't have draws in FFA so...its a weird problem.
-
I would think a timer might cause lots of unfinished games and lots of drama about who wins in those games because anyone who knows FFA knows that score is never a reliable indicator of who would win the game. I don't think there's really anything to add that Eshan or j33 didn't already say, but I would be against it.
Depending on the turnout for this season, I liked the format best a few seasons ago with lots of players and elimination every 2 rounds and 6 rounds total before playoffs. BTW I'm glad to see many people posting, FFA/FML has seemed rather slow for the past month :)
-
I still think the scenarios you portray are not THAT often and usually these are the games where the boredom is omnipresent. I am still for to try the timer and 2 hours/ 2h : 30min should be long enough for any decent/ good game to end. It wont limit the strategies, except one which was present at the semi - sitting and doing absolutely nothing. And I already suggested that an admin can decide whether the game was won by someone even if the timer ran out (hiding buildings etc.) It shouldnt be a problem.
-
In the aspect of long games with lengthy periods when nothing happens have you considered drastically reducing gold amount in expands (like x/2 or 2*x/3)? It will naturally lead to faster, more aggressive and intense games with less towers (due to reduced economic efficiency of mass towers) and without shady factors of point calculation, additional pressure of timer and questionable admin's decisions
-
never mind, I didn't read the topic thoroughly enough :D
but for the record: I don't agree with Renaud, less gold wont lead to longer games
another "timer"-like idea: after certain time point (90 minutes for example), every player will receive gold penalties over time (every minute), like 0.9*X/Y (where is X is a current gold amount, Y - number of minutes in which players will lose 90% of their gold), it will force players to spend their gold and not to sit on it
-
If i got the whole topic right it is all about to prevent long and boring 3-ways.
The most discussed idea was the timer. Many different ideas about the timer came up but mostly lacked the certain point about the deciding part (Points, Gold or what something else which is taken into consideration). Someone came up with the idea about giving the 3 remaining players the chance to vote for or against the timer. Since 4-ways mostly are fun to watch you should stick the timer to 3-ways only, meaning the timer has to start AFTER the 4th player died. In doubt that the timer will be voted by all 3 players that often. So why dont we try a fixed timer? Whenever the 1st player is dead the timer starts. The amount of time is also often discussed. In FML we dont play on that big maps. Therefore i would stick to one time. 90 mins should be fine for all different maps and different 1st-player-defeat-times.
-
Actually I kinda like that idea. A timer after the 4th player dies sounds good to me.
-
I can understand having a timer if it was something like 150 minutes. I would assume no timer would be used on semi games or the finals though
-
yeah a timer that you can VOTE on after the 4th player dies. you shouldnt force these things onto games...and again it still leaves the points problem.
there are players who dont have great micro but they use other time consuming strategies to win, like hoarding and using chims or tanks etc. these players would never win through points and they also would be hurt by a timer. this is why i think its unfair...its helping some players and hurting others... a timer by vote might work, especially if we can figure out the points thing.
Also red posted that the average game length is about 90 minutes...which really isnt so bad at all
-
Timer will benefit battle winners and micro monsters. It will harm players who don't rely on their micro and ability to win every 1v1 fight but cunninges and long time planning. Timer will boost micro aspect of FFA too much and hurt "smart play" aspect too much.
Yeah how dare the people who play better get an advantage, that sounds terrible. And good micro, battle sense, knowledge of army composition, timing on spells, items, understanding of position, etc. is definitely not about "smart play", right? Its definitely also by far the least fun and interesting to watch aspect of games. I much prefer to see who is better at lying or stealing wins through calculated luck, manipulation, and lack of opponents scouting.
And on that note I would prefer like an 80 min timer.
-
Really good post Dovekie. FFA is unfair gametype. Best players of the gametype rarely win and worst player of the game type dominate it. Those noobs have no understanding of the game and no skills required to be successful in ffa and still they win most of the games. Very strange. Obviously FFA is broken game mode.
Also rules of soccer should be changed so my favorite team could win more. They are best in that game but rules just suck.
I have solution. Lets play Microwars custom game or lets remake it for 4 players and 100 vs 100, 80 vs 80 armies. It would fix many of our problems.
- Pretty much fixed duration of match
- Noobs can chat and manipulate as much as they want. It won't help.
- Observers could witness constant big battles, the most fun and interesting aspect of FFA
- No more lame and pathetic teaming
I am sorry if I couldn't achieve same level of sarcasm as Dovekie did in his post.
Please ignore all above.
FFA as a game type is what it is. It allows certain things. Superior battle knowledge isn't everything. Go play microwars if u seek game mode where it is.
It is big part of FFA but not everything. Only winning counts. 80 min timer would be a joke, it would change game mode too much.
Timer is not doomed idea. It just shouldn't change FFA too much.
-
Sorry I was being a little harsh. I do enjoy me a good upset and when more intelligent play wins even if it doesn't have good micro, but something in my brain literally ticks off once a game gets to an hour and a half. There is nothing fun about the game type anymore for me, and I feel a lot of people are similar. It is just people purposefully changing warcraft to waitcraft and I will go suicide someone at that point just so that something happens because waitcraft is absurdly stupidly boring to play and watch. I think it bothers me that someone would actually torture someone else with passive boring do-nothing play just cause they want to win that way.
-
The point of the timer is to speed up the game. Players will see the timer when there is 15minutes left of gameplay and immediately speed up their plans. Sure, a game might end prematurely, but I think the far more likely outcome from this is that most FFA games that get close to the time limit become chaos of the last 15minutes with all players having to accelerate their long-term plans.
Of course, we wont know for sure what will happen until tests are done!
-
The way I see it, the timer is actually better for patient/manip type players.
We strive when other players lose their calm, the timer will just accelerate that.
We also need to convince others that whoever has the biggest heroes should be kill, not the most gold... which will be easier to do if it looks like it might go to time
But of course, this is just my theory, there is no way to know until we try it. So let's at least try it, that way we can either get a new system that everyone loves, or at least gives us some data to have a real argument :)