Beginners FML FFA Guide

[Dovekie]

So even though your win % is definitely lower in FFA, you only have to be 'good enough'. If you are 'good enough' (and that level isn't very high), then you are also soft capped with some sort of win % even if you are lower skill. You still win games often enough against people clearly above your skill level.

It's not like that in competitive solo, or a number of other disciplines.

Like I can into a track race with people out of my skill level. I will lose every race no matter what. I will have a 0% win rate, all the time.  In FFA, I can play with people who are all better than me, at micro / macro / manip / decision making / unit choices, etc. And I can win my fair share of games. But this also is just part of my opinion on how organized, competitive FFA makes absolutely zero logical sense without some sort of rigid ruleset that affects gameplay.

Also—no one said anything about being offended (though eshan might be because I don't agree that it's harder).

[ZsSuperCumulo]

There seems to be two groups of people regarding this discussion. Those of us who think FFA is nowhere near as difficult as solo and the others who think FFA is more difficult. In order to find some level of concensus, since in this day and age everyone has his and her own truth, we should first agree on some ground rules as to what constitutes "difficult".

I think itīs fair to say that all of us regard this set of skills as very important and difficult to master in warcraft 3:
- Micro
- Macro
- Timing (decision making)

Now, the better you are at this set of skills the more likely you are to win a game. So far with me? good. Now, if we were to give numbers for each individual skill from the set, from one to ten, where one means extremely poor at it and ten extremelly good at it, then we could assign this set of skills to any player and provide some way of measurement. Of course the way to measure it would be in some sense arbitrary, but letīs just say we use a reference point, that is the asian solo players who have the set of skills of 30, ten for each individual skill. Furthermore, the amount of points that any given player receives for the set of skills relative to the asian players would have to be calculated after thorough revision of replays.

Now, letīs not forget our main objective, that is to find a way to define "difficulty" between these two game types, FFA and solo. However, within these game types there are two scenes, the noob scene and competitive scene and since we are playing in a competitive FFA league, Iīll base my points for the competitive one. The noob scene is a shitshow of unbearing distress anyway.

Caracteristics of solo gametype at the competitive scene
- The game length in minutes: from ten to twenty
- Average points for the set of skills: here I will assume that anything below seven for each individual skill takes you out from the competitive scene. So letīs just say that most solo players fall between eight to nine, which yields an average of 24 to 27 pts in total.
- The map selection: most maps are very small, hence making the games short. This also means that the resources you can get from the map are very limited; e.g. levels, items and gold.
- The mentality of the players: itīs not surprise that, in most cases, players go at each other from minute two, as soon as their heroes come out; so you as a player have a difficult time defending as well as harrassing, and all of this with levels one or two.
- The food limit: battles are won or lost, mostly, with armies less than or equal to fifty.
- Scouting: Constantly done, mainly by the constant pressure of harrasment.
- Number of heroes per player: between two and three.
- Main base upgrade: tier two or tier three.
- Outcome of the game: if you win or lose itīs all on you.

Caracteristics of FFA gametype at the competitive scene
- The game length in minutes: from 60 to 180
- Average points for the set of skills: here I will assume that anything below four for each individual skill takes you out from the competitive scene. So letīs just say that most FFA players fall between four to eight, which yields an average of 12 to 24 pts in total.
- The map selection: most maps are large in general, hence making the games quite long. This also means that the resources you can get from the map are very abundant; e.g. levels, items and gold.
- The mentality of the players: players simply assume that they can do almost anything they want without anyone standing in their way, it is as if there had been an implicit preteam among all players not to attack each other for the first ten to twenty minutes.
- The food limit: battles are won or lost, mostly, with armies greater than or equal to eighty.
- Scouting: this is done very little if itīs done at all since players rely mostly on the whining from other players.
- Number of heroes per player: three.
- Main base upgrade: tier three.
- Outcome of the game: if you win or lose, it wasnīt all you.

With the caractheristics of each game type out of the way Iīll move on to explain why solo is far more difficult than FFA. Again, my arguments will be based on the ground rules Iīve written above. I think most of you would agree with a lot of what Iīve written so far, so letīs move on to the matter at hand.

1) Is the game length important? Yes. In solo,with such a short period of time, any little mistake can quickly snowball into your demise. For example losing militia while creeping, being harrased and have your items or xp stolen, losing units or your hero in an early enagagement. Any of this events dramatically decrease your chances of winning; while in FFA if any of the previous events happen you are fine as long as the other player(s) have mercy on you. As a matter of fact, weīve seen FML players who have won a season after losing their heroes while creeping with no one harrasing; which in my opinion is a complete disgrace to the "competitive scene". One last point, if you think that the longer it gets the more difficult it becomes, I donīt think thatīs necessarily true since you have more time to prepare and counter, but there are also other variables which I would rather keep out of this post since they are not included in the set of skills.

2)  What about the point difference for the set of skills from both game types? Well, in solo, if player "X1" has a set of skills greater than player "X2" then the former should always win. In FFA if player "X1" has a set of skills greater than players "X2,X3, and X4" then eventhough the better player should always win, he will find himself occasionally losing due to teaming and manippulation, behaviours that I did not take into account for the set of skills. And yes I know you will say that those two should be included in the set of skills, specially for ffa, but Iīm trying to keep it as simple as possible with Micro, Macro and Timing. Besides, what is so skilled about saying "hey, player "X1" is strong, letīs team him!" or constantly chat and lie about the situation of the game just to benefit yourself. In any case, despite the fact that the set of skills I stablished coincide in both game types, this set of skills is more important and relevant in solo than in the FFA. Since itīs valued more in solo it takes more time to master and make the scene far more difficult; unlike FFA where two players with sets of kills of 15 each could easily beat somone as Yaws for example with a set of of skills of 27.
Now eventhough Iīm trying to use reasonable numbers, one could argue that you can not simply add set of skills, it would be like five morons being more intelligent than Albert Einsten, but when it comes to warcraft and the manegement of large armies, it is extremely difficult to defend off against two 80 or 100 population armies, no matter who you are.

3) Lastly, some were saying that with all things being equal, solo players have 50% chances of winning while in ffa itīs 25%; so since the percentage of winning in FFA is lower then it must be more difficult. The one problem I have with this argument is that eventhough the odds are against you, 25% less than in solo, this ideal game where all players, X1,X2,X3 and X4, are identical clones will rarely ever be witnessed. In other words, you will have players with different set of skills in one game and if player "X1" with a minimum set of skills, that is 12 pts, has 10% chance of winning a FFA, that doesntīt mean that the difficulty of the gametype is higher than solo, it just means that player "X1" will have a harder time winning.
What Iīm trying to say is that what makes something difficult is the amount of time it takes to master it, and how well you execute it in a given period of time. Solo is the pure expression of the set of skills from warcraft 3. FFA relies on many other factors such as being surrounded, getting teamed, having free time to do whatever you want, being lazy about scouting yet have a roughly good idea about whatīs going on else where,etc.

Anyway, I think I can speak about this subject since I was a solo player for a long time and did quite well in the amateur leagues. I suppose the main reason some of us still play FFA instead of solo is because in FFA you can at least accomplish something, even with a set of skills of 12 pts, while in solo that will get you nowhere. Not to mention, if you lose in FFA, you can always blame someone else rather than yourself while in solo itīs all your fault making it more difficult to realize the cold truth, that you donīt have what it takes.

[Peregrine]

wow i didnt read cumulos post when i realized his attempt at simplification was an 11 paragraph essay. also when he took diplomacy out of 'set of skills' i assumed it was gonna be a biased argument. So im gonna skip that and go right to:

@Dovekie  - i admit i see your point about always having a chance to win in FFA, while in other gametypes you may have 0% chance to win if your opponent is better. That's a good point. Solo is a binary gametype. AT/RT are more variable. And FFA has quite a bit of chaos.

Just like you say ffa is less difficult because you always have a chance to win, I also believe that FFA is MORE difficult because no matter how good you are, you can always lose. Solo is like a track race, FFA is much more like War. (Craft.)

Its more difficult to 'master' the FFA gametype. But I see your point about the other end of the spectrum, so I'm happy to say that FFA is a more 'complex' gametype than solo. Since you can always win, but no matter how good you are, you can also always lose.

Its much more difficult to have a high win % in FFA, but also easier to get a win when you are less skilled.

In the end thats why i prefer FFA to solo. While solo is just a nuclear arms race with one weapon: micro

FFA is a complex gametype with so many different ways and strategies that can help you win, so many outcomes, and thus it provides a richer experience that has kept me coming back for over 10 years.

[ZsSuperCumulo]

lol, diplomacy is just another fancy word for manipulation. As for the complex line, there is a lot going on in competitive solo that demands a higher level of attention than in ffa. The only complex aspect of ffa, for everyone, is the three way; however, this is nowhere near as complicated at handling a rival in 1v1 whoīs constantly hammering your ass from the gecko.

[xA-iZamatish4]

@ZsSuperCumulo  - I agree with your previous points (not your last post) - however, Eshan's logic still stands.

Diplomacy may include a level of manipulation - but it's still another variable.

I believe you may be misunderstanding what we're saying about complexity.  In an FFA, you could very well have 1,2 or even 3 players 'hammering your ass from the gecko' .

[x,y,z] = more complex than [t] , however, that's not to say that x > t or that x+y > t.

I like Eshan's analogy with a nuclear arms race. It's true - in solo, you can't deny you're in a race of time against one other player.  All we are saying is that in FFA, there are many more variables to consider.

Even in solo - bigger maps add more complexity. More numbers and variables will always bring in greater complexity.

Personally, I love the FFA game type as I'm rarely ever 'done'. Even if my base is destroyed, I can buy enough time to rebuild. I found solo matches quite frequently end so prematurely. Players will make one mistake and then "GG".  That's so underwhelming to me...

[htrt]

in ffa the game can (and will) shape itself around your mistake(s), with the last mistakes becoming more and more critical and less forgiving

in solo you will get shit on for every mistake no matter how tiny

ffa is not the place to compare skill, solo is

ffa is fun, solo is not

or so I think

[ZsSuperCumulo]

in ffa the game can (and will) shape itself around your mistake(s), with the last mistakes becoming more and more critical and less forgiving

in solo you will get shit on for every mistake no matter how tiny

ffa is not the place to compare skill, solo is

ffa is fun, solo is not

or so I think

HTRT has spoken

[SteppinRazor]

Solo has a far higher skill cap then FFA.  In theory, FFA is harder to win (25%) then a solo (50%) assuming generally equally skilled player but that does not mean FFA is harder to master then solo.  In FFA, if you have good micro, gold management, and understand the gametype you can be a very strong player.  Solo requires a tremendous in-depth understanding of every matchup, every map and its affect on every matchup, pin-point timing (sometimes literally 10 seconds window of opportunity), and punishes tiny mistakes ridiculously hard.  The guys who are top solo pros have to play like 12 hours a day to maintain that level of skill. 

That being said, I hate solo and would rather play FFA any day ;D

[FML|WorpeX]

Love this discussion, but that was really just a throwaway line to talk up the game-type this league is about.

[Peregrine]

Yea but I wrote that line so i'm defending it :P

"Solo requires a tremendous in-depth understanding of every matchup, every map and its affect on every matchup, pin-point timing (sometimes literally 10 seconds window of opportunity), and punishes tiny mistakes ridiculously hard. "

When you guys say stuff like this - thats because of the level of COMPETITION, not the GAMETYPE.

If FFA treated as competitively as solo, with so many players who dedicate their time to it, then FFA would also punish every single tiny mistake too, because the level of competition would be so high. Just because less skilled players play FFA, doesn't mean the GAMETYPE is less skilled.

[dv]

in FFA mistakes not always lead you to lose and sometimes even lead you to victory which is ridiculous in context of sports related competition
That's pretty much it. Bad play rewarded by victory = bad sport = not something that you can call "hard competition"
FFA is hard just because it simply has 4 players and therefore less chance for win to each of participators. Its artificial "difficulty".

Wanna have most difficult competition mode? 1000 players FFA. Imagine how hard it would be!

(click to show/hide)

Idiots

[Peregrine]

actually you make a great point even if you were being sarcastic

a 1000 player ffa WOULD be much higher difficulty (even if mistakes could help you win etc)

FFA with 4 players or 6 or 8 or 12 or 1000, is harder difficulty to win than 1v1.

Take any two average wc3 players and put them in 1v1, they have 50% chance to win.

Take any average wc3 players and put them in 4way ffa, they have 25%.

You guys never studied data/statistics/research methods? You have to control for all players, right now you are making a biased argument based on skilltype.

[FML|WorpeX]

I think Eshan brings up good points. I think its the level of competition which really makes Solo so difficult right now. FFA is a niche gametype and not many players play it. The level of competition isn't that high. To win FML you need to be an above average FFA player but you don't need to be any good at solo.

If the level of competition in FFA was higher, the whole meta would change I think. Right now the meta caters towards low micro, high macro players. Small mistakes, especially early game, rarely matter because of this. This generally means playing "smarter" and trying to win economically or diplomatically.

Over the years of FML, we have seen many players come from a solo background which is high micro - low macro style. Some have come into the league and completely changed the meta like Trunks, Duck, Rain and Magadansky. How would the Meta look if we had all players on their skill level? Hard to say, but I know FFA would not look the same as it does now.

[FML|HighTac]

Back to #1