Excellent video. Highly recommended study for anyone looking to push towards really high win rates in FTL. I'd like to expand a little on Crow's point about overstating micro. I think it applies not only to overstating micro execution, but also to overstating the relative importance of micro versus macro. Roughly speaking, micro is everything you do during a fight, and macro is everything else. Macro includes decisions about how and when to spend your scrap, sector routing, store decisions, deciding when to skip an optional fight, sector choices, and so on. I think these out-of-fight decisions are even more important than your ability to perform advanced tactics during a fight -- or at least, I think that's true if we're evaluating what makes top players better than other high-level players. All high-level players have a good basic degree of both micro and macro. Top-level players have better micro, but IMO that's not the main reason they win more. It's their better decisions. The main reason players like Holo and Crow are so good is that they consistently make better decisions than almost all other players. It's not because Holo can flash shields no pause while handling boarders, and it's not because Crow can bounce reactor around to silly degrees. It's because they are both REALLY good at things like spending their scrap and deciding when to skip a fight.
i also agree that macro ultimately trumps micro in terms of consistently winning and truly sets the top players apart from the rest. I also agree with crow that having a higher level of micro allows a player to employ the best strats for every situation. and i do think that the top of the top players all do both of these things exceptionally well. if either one is lacking, it's going to cause you to lose runs. it's kinda interesting because i do think that for the most part if your macro decisions are "correct" the need for insane micro really lessens. but sometimes the high level of micro can be needed to make the "correct" macro decisions, be it from not buying power, not buying crew, not upgrading doors or whatever it is. so i see them go hand-in-hand a lot of the times. I do want to be clear though. I absolutely think that macro is more important than micro in the big picture. There's no amount of micro that can save you because you're systemless and 4 shots against 3 shields because you haven't bought the weapons you shoulda or held out because you only saw teleporter, drone control and medbay. I do think the inverse is true too. you can have very basic levels of micro and make all the right choices and still be able to win fairly consistently. it's really when all of the things start coming together that you start winning 90%+ of runs. i think there's 2 spots that micro does things and i've mentioned 1 already. it's being able to do the things with micro instead of spending scrap to do the same things (which you can really make the argument that that's more macro than micro). the other being having exceptional micro can pull a top level player out of a situation where almost all other players would be dying.
@@farbYou absolutely nailed it with that comment. Totally agree, I certainly wouldn't want to downplay the utility of micro. See also: nearly my entire youtube channel lol
I find this video applicable to many games in general. I play Dota 2, and your first point, overstating positives, is something that happens a lot. A viewer watching a streaming pro player may say "This pro player used this skill/item build, I shall copy it because of positives 1 2 3" but what the viewer doesn't see is why the pro player DIDN'T choose another build. In another game, against other enemies and with other teammates, this build may be suboptimal (FTL is less variable in this regard though). Other things like tilting and being impatient are also problems.
(among many excellent points,) I like that you highlight not rushing to get weapons online before they are needed. after all, you don't earn extra points by pounding a weapons room that's already completely destroyed (or disabled beyond the point of hurting you), and investing in systems might allow you to crew kill a ship that you otherwise might just destroy (if you dumped all scrap into weapons). I still have to fight this urge a little bit but I think I've made progress. glad to hear you like making guides! I really enjoy your well reasoned "video essays" and I keep coming back to your tier list videos since they have so much useful info/context beyond just "thing good" or "thing bad". Have you done or thought about doing an augment video or "tier-list"? not the easiest thing to approach I suppose since many of them are situational, but I think the community would benefit from hearing you outline your thoughts (apologies if this exists out there already and I haven't come across it)
The really big thing about not upgrading weapons too early IMO is that securing a system can make you much safer in the medium-long term. So for example, let's say I'm in sector 2 with 2 shields and I bought a weapon already. I probably don't need that weapon online YET, so I'll consider delaying the system upgrades in case I can buy hacking (for example). Then if I get into sector 3 with no immediate store, THEN I probably need to make the upgrades. Whereas if I get the upgrades immediately, I might be just short of affording hacking at the next store, and then I might not see hacking again for several sectors.
I really haven't considered an augment tier list because, as you say, they're highly situation. but maybe that it's the purpose to have one. Much like weapon/ship tier list really was to get players to consider better options with weapons or early upgrades for ships. It's just such a rare occurrence that I buy augments. I do have an idea for another project. but it tends to take me almost 2 months to bash about the language and structure
@@crowrevell2082 amazing! I was really surprised to see it so quickly haha. I enjoyed the video and look forward to your next one whenever it comes along
thank you for this excellent resource Crow! a ton of good reminders and insights. i will be applying these perspectives to my play as i continue pursuing my first cycle.
I feel like I want to recommend this video to every backgammon player I know, but they wouldn't understand any of it. 🙂 My point is that, if you put aside the "specifics" of things like stores and fights and crew micro, the larger concepts here are applicable to many other games, and indeed to many aspects of real life. Honestly evaluating cost/benefit. Aversion to variance when winning (and the reverse). Seeking to identify your errors rather than blaming bad luck. Strategy over tactics (this varies). Efficient use of assets. Maintaining (or recovering) an even keel. Using time efficiently. How to improve in a random world that gives you noisy signals.
I agree. It's funny how i'm generally able to deal with FTL BS at this point, but when playing elden ring and the enemy targeting me with magical attacks through 2 solid walls will almost instantly tilt me.
Overstating positives can be broadly placed under the "inaccurate model of opportunity costs" umbrella. As you explain, having piloting 2 over 1 is (usually!) better...if and only if it's free. When it isn't free, you buy it at the exclusion of alternatives...and when players don't take the "best" alternatives, it's a mistake just as much as neglecting a threat and losing crew. It's surprising how much a lot of players struggle to grasp this though. In their mind, one is a mistake and the other isn't, somehow. In FTL, and in other strategy games with depth, it's pretty hard to identify which options are better than others in terms of "how likely is this to help the run win compared to other options". It isn't something where you can just slap together some arithmetic and pick the highest number. You need tons of data, and to process it in context. It's also important to mention that micro capability *informs* macro choices. Good and especially great players can forget just how much it influences the game, until you watch someone who's bad at it. Players who don't realize you *can* use a weapon or crew a certain way in a fight won't even consider it as they build a ship, and they *also* won't micro fights as well, so they take more damage and even die in fights that an experienced player with the same build could win.
I don't disagree. There are some things i touched on in the Value video I didn't want to retread, as well as try to frame arguments to reflect conversations I've witnessed or taken part in. Another thing I wanted to touch on was consistency. That streaking player will take more risks during the early runs of a streak, particularly the first run because they only lose 1 run, but they don't realize is that it can throw their perception of how good or bad a run is going. But I digress. The weapon loadout that 1 player can use versus another is accurate. I try to give the caveat of "these are weapons that I'm comfortable winning with." Better players can do more with less and knowing what they "need" means they don't spend on excess.
@@crowrevell2082 Let me preface this by saying I'm building on what you're saying rather than disagreeing with any of it...sometimes that gets lost in the weeds when I make long posts. The funny thing about "value" to me is that it means something different depending on what, specifically, you value. When most players say "value", they mean "total scrap generated"...and if your goal is just to get the biggest numbers at the end of runs you do win rather than to win the highest % of runs...taking stuff like LRS and scrap arm is correct. Those choices will lose more often, and win harder when they do win. However, most players feel bad when they lose :p. This suggests that their real goal is, in fact, winning the game lol. Options with the most "value" with that goal tend to optimize survival *right now* and in near future. I guess if it's a matter of getting a rookie to a high level, it's useful for them to improve across all domains in the game. Better macro decisions makes fights easier to win. Better micro implies more viable macro options + less damage taken per fight = most scrap to work with in those macro decision moments. I think most players will have the most fun playing if they improve these evenly. Learn some micro, think about store purchases/choices when they lose that might have prepared them differently, repeat until they start winning more.
@@TheMelnTeam i didn't take what you said as a disagreement. For the Micro vs Macro i've had talks, in particular around the likes of Holoshideim. There were several no pause players who missed all the good macro he does and focused purely on Micro. And when trying to help players to make better decisions, I got push back. Or if fights went poorly, they would say something like "guess i could have micro'ed that better" instead of looking at their strategic decisions. Perhaps it seemed, or in actuality I did, undersell micro to try to bring focus to macro discussions. Mistiming of weapons, or failing to power a system are micro mistakes that can lead to a lost run.
One thing I found is not overspending in sector 2 to do a useful but not necessary upgrade can make a big difference, like for example, stealth c can be a lot harder if you get a flak 1, and you power it going into sector 2, that can actually be bad because obviously stealth c’s weapons are more than enough for sector 2, so its much better to focus on getting shields and hacking. Great stuff as always crow. Edit: I have had to take a break recently though because of annoyance after a bad engi b run I tried as hard as possible to win and rewatched multiple times, and couldn’t find anything memorable to learn, mainly frustrating because it was a forced rebel sector 4 after I somewhat stabilized with back to back rigger fights with insane offense and defense. I will be back eventually but that was very annoying lol
@@anthonymudge9768 absolutely, and there are times when the correct play can only be revealed in hindsight, and I don’t count those as mistakes, but there are some circumstances where you just lose. Like imagine playing mantis b, and you find a zoltan shield ship with mind control, bl2, and small bomb, in a solar flare. While there is a bunch of bullshit you can do to try an survive that, you can just lose regardless. And I certainly wouldn’t hold It against anyone if the lost that. Sometimes forced losses aren’t necessarily a specific encounter as well, but the way an encounter happens. Like if you are playing any ship, and you have bad repair ability, and the encounter just keeps slamming the essential systems even if o2 is vented and you are prioritizing your repairs correctly, you can still just lose if you are unlucky. So the short answer is yes, but that usually only applies to sector 1, and the forced losses make up a very small amount of losses.
I haven't checked out that run. It's definitely can be tricky, particularly at your level of play, to try and find some little thing the blame. Like my stealth c run, in which i died to a monster in sector 4 and it's like. well i had 2 shields, 4 shots and mini beam plus hacking. but the pirate ship i couldn't see in the nebula popped in with 2 burst 2, ion blast, combat 1 and zoltan shield. And it's like "do i skip all blind ship fights? but then that can get you killed and put you far behind on scrap.
Off topic, and not sure if you've already done it, but it would be great for you to do a blue option tier list. There are a few out there but the problem is that they always just rank the individual blue choices. It makes more sense to rank the things that cause the blue option. E.g level 2 scanner, beam weapon, engie crew, etc.
Excellent video. Highly recommended study for anyone looking to push towards really high win rates in FTL.
I'd like to expand a little on Crow's point about overstating micro. I think it applies not only to overstating micro execution, but also to overstating the relative importance of micro versus macro.
Roughly speaking, micro is everything you do during a fight, and macro is everything else. Macro includes decisions about how and when to spend your scrap, sector routing, store decisions, deciding when to skip an optional fight, sector choices, and so on.
I think these out-of-fight decisions are even more important than your ability to perform advanced tactics during a fight -- or at least, I think that's true if we're evaluating what makes top players better than other high-level players. All high-level players have a good basic degree of both micro and macro. Top-level players have better micro, but IMO that's not the main reason they win more. It's their better decisions.
The main reason players like Holo and Crow are so good is that they consistently make better decisions than almost all other players. It's not because Holo can flash shields no pause while handling boarders, and it's not because Crow can bounce reactor around to silly degrees. It's because they are both REALLY good at things like spending their scrap and deciding when to skip a fight.
i also agree that macro ultimately trumps micro in terms of consistently winning and truly sets the top players apart from the rest. I also agree with crow that having a higher level of micro allows a player to employ the best strats for every situation. and i do think that the top of the top players all do both of these things exceptionally well. if either one is lacking, it's going to cause you to lose runs.
it's kinda interesting because i do think that for the most part if your macro decisions are "correct" the need for insane micro really lessens. but sometimes the high level of micro can be needed to make the "correct" macro decisions, be it from not buying power, not buying crew, not upgrading doors or whatever it is. so i see them go hand-in-hand a lot of the times.
I do want to be clear though. I absolutely think that macro is more important than micro in the big picture. There's no amount of micro that can save you because you're systemless and 4 shots against 3 shields because you haven't bought the weapons you shoulda or held out because you only saw teleporter, drone control and medbay. I do think the inverse is true too. you can have very basic levels of micro and make all the right choices and still be able to win fairly consistently. it's really when all of the things start coming together that you start winning 90%+ of runs.
i think there's 2 spots that micro does things and i've mentioned 1 already. it's being able to do the things with micro instead of spending scrap to do the same things (which you can really make the argument that that's more macro than micro). the other being having exceptional micro can pull a top level player out of a situation where almost all other players would be dying.
@@farbYou absolutely nailed it with that comment. Totally agree, I certainly wouldn't want to downplay the utility of micro. See also: nearly my entire youtube channel lol
I find this video applicable to many games in general. I play Dota 2, and your first point, overstating positives, is something that happens a lot. A viewer watching a streaming pro player may say "This pro player used this skill/item build, I shall copy it because of positives 1 2 3" but what the viewer doesn't see is why the pro player DIDN'T choose another build. In another game, against other enemies and with other teammates, this build may be suboptimal (FTL is less variable in this regard though). Other things like tilting and being impatient are also problems.
(among many excellent points,) I like that you highlight not rushing to get weapons online before they are needed. after all, you don't earn extra points by pounding a weapons room that's already completely destroyed (or disabled beyond the point of hurting you), and investing in systems might allow you to crew kill a ship that you otherwise might just destroy (if you dumped all scrap into weapons). I still have to fight this urge a little bit but I think I've made progress.
glad to hear you like making guides! I really enjoy your well reasoned "video essays" and I keep coming back to your tier list videos since they have so much useful info/context beyond just "thing good" or "thing bad". Have you done or thought about doing an augment video or "tier-list"? not the easiest thing to approach I suppose since many of them are situational, but I think the community would benefit from hearing you outline your thoughts (apologies if this exists out there already and I haven't come across it)
The really big thing about not upgrading weapons too early IMO is that securing a system can make you much safer in the medium-long term.
So for example, let's say I'm in sector 2 with 2 shields and I bought a weapon already. I probably don't need that weapon online YET, so I'll consider delaying the system upgrades in case I can buy hacking (for example). Then if I get into sector 3 with no immediate store, THEN I probably need to make the upgrades.
Whereas if I get the upgrades immediately, I might be just short of affording hacking at the next store, and then I might not see hacking again for several sectors.
I really haven't considered an augment tier list because, as you say, they're highly situation. but maybe that it's the purpose to have one. Much like weapon/ship tier list really was to get players to consider better options with weapons or early upgrades for ships. It's just such a rare occurrence that I buy augments. I do have an idea for another project. but it tends to take me almost 2 months to bash about the language and structure
Made an augment tier list video. enjoy.
@@crowrevell2082 amazing! I was really surprised to see it so quickly haha. I enjoyed the video and look forward to your next one whenever it comes along
thank you for this excellent resource Crow! a ton of good reminders and insights. i will be applying these perspectives to my play as i continue pursuing my first cycle.
Your stress advice is great. FTL isn't a game that stresses me, but the advice useful everywhere.
I feel like I want to recommend this video to every backgammon player I know, but they wouldn't understand any of it. 🙂
My point is that, if you put aside the "specifics" of things like stores and fights and crew micro, the larger concepts here are applicable to many other games, and indeed to many aspects of real life.
Honestly evaluating cost/benefit. Aversion to variance when winning (and the reverse). Seeking to identify your errors rather than blaming bad luck. Strategy over tactics (this varies). Efficient use of assets. Maintaining (or recovering) an even keel. Using time efficiently. How to improve in a random world that gives you noisy signals.
I agree. It's funny how i'm generally able to deal with FTL BS at this point, but when playing elden ring and the enemy targeting me with magical attacks through 2 solid walls will almost instantly tilt me.
Well, you have a bit more practice dealing with FTL's particular qualities.
Overstating positives can be broadly placed under the "inaccurate model of opportunity costs" umbrella. As you explain, having piloting 2 over 1 is (usually!) better...if and only if it's free. When it isn't free, you buy it at the exclusion of alternatives...and when players don't take the "best" alternatives, it's a mistake just as much as neglecting a threat and losing crew. It's surprising how much a lot of players struggle to grasp this though. In their mind, one is a mistake and the other isn't, somehow.
In FTL, and in other strategy games with depth, it's pretty hard to identify which options are better than others in terms of "how likely is this to help the run win compared to other options". It isn't something where you can just slap together some arithmetic and pick the highest number. You need tons of data, and to process it in context.
It's also important to mention that micro capability *informs* macro choices. Good and especially great players can forget just how much it influences the game, until you watch someone who's bad at it. Players who don't realize you *can* use a weapon or crew a certain way in a fight won't even consider it as they build a ship, and they *also* won't micro fights as well, so they take more damage and even die in fights that an experienced player with the same build could win.
I don't disagree. There are some things i touched on in the Value video I didn't want to retread, as well as try to frame arguments to reflect conversations I've witnessed or taken part in. Another thing I wanted to touch on was consistency. That streaking player will take more risks during the early runs of a streak, particularly the first run because they only lose 1 run, but they don't realize is that it can throw their perception of how good or bad a run is going. But I digress. The weapon loadout that 1 player can use versus another is accurate. I try to give the caveat of "these are weapons that I'm comfortable winning with." Better players can do more with less and knowing what they "need" means they don't spend on excess.
@@crowrevell2082 Let me preface this by saying I'm building on what you're saying rather than disagreeing with any of it...sometimes that gets lost in the weeds when I make long posts.
The funny thing about "value" to me is that it means something different depending on what, specifically, you value. When most players say "value", they mean "total scrap generated"...and if your goal is just to get the biggest numbers at the end of runs you do win rather than to win the highest % of runs...taking stuff like LRS and scrap arm is correct. Those choices will lose more often, and win harder when they do win.
However, most players feel bad when they lose :p. This suggests that their real goal is, in fact, winning the game lol. Options with the most "value" with that goal tend to optimize survival *right now* and in near future.
I guess if it's a matter of getting a rookie to a high level, it's useful for them to improve across all domains in the game. Better macro decisions makes fights easier to win. Better micro implies more viable macro options + less damage taken per fight = most scrap to work with in those macro decision moments. I think most players will have the most fun playing if they improve these evenly. Learn some micro, think about store purchases/choices when they lose that might have prepared them differently, repeat until they start winning more.
@@TheMelnTeam i didn't take what you said as a disagreement. For the Micro vs Macro i've had talks, in particular around the likes of Holoshideim. There were several no pause players who missed all the good macro he does and focused purely on Micro. And when trying to help players to make better decisions, I got push back. Or if fights went poorly, they would say something like "guess i could have micro'ed that better" instead of looking at their strategic decisions. Perhaps it seemed, or in actuality I did, undersell micro to try to bring focus to macro discussions. Mistiming of weapons, or failing to power a system are micro mistakes that can lead to a lost run.
One thing I found is not overspending in sector 2 to do a useful but not necessary upgrade can make a big difference, like for example, stealth c can be a lot harder if you get a flak 1, and you power it going into sector 2, that can actually be bad because obviously stealth c’s weapons are more than enough for sector 2, so its much better to focus on getting shields and hacking.
Great stuff as always crow.
Edit: I have had to take a break recently though because of annoyance after a bad engi b run I tried as hard as possible to win and rewatched multiple times, and couldn’t find anything memorable to learn, mainly frustrating because it was a forced rebel sector 4 after I somewhat stabilized with back to back rigger fights with insane offense and defense. I will be back eventually but that was very annoying lol
It is possible to commit no mistakes, and still lose?
@@anthonymudge9768 absolutely, and there are times when the correct play can only be revealed in hindsight, and I don’t count those as mistakes, but there are some circumstances where you just lose. Like imagine playing mantis b, and you find a zoltan shield ship with mind control, bl2, and small bomb, in a solar flare. While there is a bunch of bullshit you can do to try an survive that, you can just lose regardless. And I certainly wouldn’t hold It against anyone if the lost that. Sometimes forced losses aren’t necessarily a specific encounter as well, but the way an encounter happens. Like if you are playing any ship, and you have bad repair ability, and the encounter just keeps slamming the essential systems even if o2 is vented and you are prioritizing your repairs correctly, you can still just lose if you are unlucky.
So the short answer is yes, but that usually only applies to sector 1, and the forced losses make up a very small amount of losses.
Yeah I was referring to your Engi run. And I was also quoting Star Trek 🤓
@@anthonymudge9768 ooohhhh lol I remember the quote now. Truly a
☝️🤓 moment
I haven't checked out that run. It's definitely can be tricky, particularly at your level of play, to try and find some little thing the blame. Like my stealth c run, in which i died to a monster in sector 4 and it's like. well i had 2 shields, 4 shots and mini beam plus hacking. but the pirate ship i couldn't see in the nebula popped in with 2 burst 2, ion blast, combat 1 and zoltan shield. And it's like "do i skip all blind ship fights? but then that can get you killed and put you far behind on scrap.
Off topic, and not sure if you've already done it, but it would be great for you to do a blue option tier list.
There are a few out there but the problem is that they always just rank the individual blue choices. It makes more sense to rank the things that cause the blue option. E.g level 2 scanner, beam weapon, engie crew, etc.
I made a sheet that organizes all blue options available by sector tinyurl.com/vu9qeo8
Excellent video. Thanks for making this.
when you talk about winrate %, is that on normal or hard? thanks!
Hard Mode.
@@crowrevell2082 Incredible, I just started consistently winning on normal. can barely conceive of 97% on hard mode. unreal!!
Coach Crow Revell.
After publishing 'FTL 101', the next best-seller will be 'Real Life 101'.
Step 1: Be LethalFrag, DolphinChemist, Crow, Rand or Holo. Got it!
1a: *and here's how*
Thanks Crow