Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Community activity very low

121 posts, 4137 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 7 (121 records)
sort
Firepluk
8 years ago
Also vote is not representative, "I would play more" option is missing :D
+1 / -0

8 years ago
quote:

+ an order of magnitude easier release and maintenance,

(citation needed)
+5 / -0


8 years ago
100% agree with sfire
+1 / -0
8 years ago
And everyone that wants Steam hopes Steam will not be the next Nokia ;) (or Sun Microsystems).

I have already heard many times the argument "how can you imagine X will go away?" and then in 2-3-4 years the thing went away (or changed the conditions, or start charging for the service, or etc.)

The decision will ultimately be taken by the people that invest time in this (as it should), but personally I always prefer "no lock in" even if it is a bit more work.

Also, someone mentioned something like "+1000 players", I value more the devs than the players. So if (hypothetically) I need to choose between +1000 players and +1 dev I would choose the dev. Devs can enable more players in the future... Ex: with the fix for the threading - think it was Hokomoko? sorry if I confuse - we would still be stuck with the older and desync prone engine version.
+2 / -0
Skasi
8 years ago
quote:
if (hypothetically) I need to choose between +1000 players and +1 dev I would choose the dev

Agreed! I value RUrankParzival as the train-factory dev more than +1000 potential Steam players.
+9 / -0
The continued existence of Steam is not a valid concern and hasn't been for almost a decade. And even if it were to only exist for a few more years the influx of new players would be worth the effort. If Zero-K can't attract a larger player-base it will stagnate or die like so many other Spring mods, long before Steam does. Frankly even considering the idea into any estimation makes you a lunatic in the eyes of the average Steam user.
+0 / -0
8 years ago
for me, in many cases I was simply not good enough to play the game without annoying everyone.
playing against CAI I get flooded out by a thousand factories within minutes.
so I've basically just not played or played other games in a failed attempt to practice,lol
+0 / -0

8 years ago
ITrankmanero

Hiding elo solves nothing, because players see each other playing and know their names. I agree we should do better on avoiding straight-up insulting newbies, but fundamentally: in a small-numbers team-game context where weak players can actually damage your team (not just be ineffective, but worse than if they were absent) and every teammate screwup is highly visible?

Teammate rage is inevitable. It's the same with DOTAlikes. It's a side-effect of the gameplay itself.

At best we could push new players into less-grief-driven gametypes like 1v1 or FFA, but FFA isn't fun (unless you liked dragging your machine into the single-digit framerates with an endless porcfest) and 1v1 is repetetive and frustrating if there isn't a good pool of 1v1 players providing a skill-appropriate matchup.

...

I really should look at resurrecting the old broken KOTH code. A good middle-ground between FFA and 1v1 without leaning on teammates that shouldn't have to put up with you.
+2 / -1
Make Reward:Effort ratio better.

How?

1.) Reduce effort needed on communications.

2.) Addition of "DO it yourself" widgets.

3.) Pure coop mode? All players on a single allyteam are assigned a single player / shared control.


I'd like to try a social experiment. If @KingRaptor or other coredevs wouldn't mind setting up a shared control host, I'd like to see what a few games on that host would be like. It's like the 1v1 and team games had a child with less griefing and more co-oping!


Not only that I think the change of pace would be welcome for some tired/jaded players. You know who you are ;)


Desired result:
With this solution I am hoping that the complainers will have no reason to complain. In fact it will also mean those who dislike "Ego" players (You know who you are) will also be pleased since there isn't any "I" any more.

Perhaps even allow multi coms for both sides. Would be fun!
+2 / -0

8 years ago
Why do threads about the future of ZK always devolve into a slew of random crazy ideas?

The only thing worthy of dev time is improving lobby so that it can be release on steam which is probably only hope for revitilizing ZK playerbase but frankly I give it 99% chance to be nothing more than a temporary spike in population just like evo.

I guess we can always hope for more success but realistically zk is ded gaem, just like sc2 and the whole strategy genre too
+3 / -3
^
At least we'll all die before the inevitable heat death of the universe grinds everything to a halt.
+4 / -0
The TBS genre is in a good health status, it is the RTS genre that's currently semi-dead.

I guess it is partly because RTS was pretty mainstream, perhaps even casual during 90s and early 00s, recently its position was taken by other genres such as MOBA, and the game industry need some time to figure out how to create and sell RTSs as niche games.
+0 / -0
Firepluk
If nobody does proper load-testing and ensures horizontal scaling of back-end architecture - all we get is a temporary spike of players and down time :D Agree with GBrank[Fx]Drone
Lobby && server works with 100 players online - fine, GJ
What happens with 500 online?
What happens with 1000 online?
What devs can do if we got 2k and shit went down?...
+3 / -0
Firepluk
8 years ago
One of the easiest ways to tackle such problem(till some degree) - move separate components(database for example) on physically separate instances, preferable with 0 downtime
Last time ZK did a similar migration - we've had downtime for days, this is totally unacceptable during steam release
You of course can't also reboot servers wherever you like - because there always will be significant online and we need some kind of graceful restart - with notification in each battle channel(sound, text), unability to create new games for N minutes and only then restart
+4 / -0
Some of the comments about Evo are a bit inaccurate.

Yes, the date for release was a week earlier than I meant. However, it wouldn't have changed anything. The lobby would not have significantly changed and the problems would have been the same.

The main issue with the evo release was the fact that the lobby system collapsed, not the spring server (although the traffic did bring it down for about 5 minutes), but the lobby system itself.

Weblobby was by far the most equipped lobby to handle the issues as it automated much of the process. Unfortunately, the lobby situation in spring is, at best, ill equipped to handle that sort of traffic.

Games of 50 or 100 specs of people who had no idea how to play emerged, and game rooms were chaos.

Interestingly enough, the game itself was pretty much a-ok. There were a couple of snafus, but nothing major. As I have stated repeatedly, the whole ordeal shone a spotlight on just how bad the spring lobby situation is. Unfortunately, everyone would rather work on their own pet lobby than work on a single lobby that would alleviate the issues.

Another piece of the fail-puzzle was that the spads servers weren't set up for total nubcakes. As a result there was some confusion surrounding that as well. At the time it was also set up for springies (like ZK), but the situation on springie was arguably worse, because springie was/is even more noob unfriendly).

Bottom line is this: If you decide to have "everything" ready before release as RUrankParzival said, the release will never happen. The important parts are the intimate places where the noob interacts with the UI. Be it the lobby, or the automagical hosts. The game itself is interestingly the least of the issues.

TL;DR - Make your lobby+Hosting the most simple and user friendly experience possible, and you will likely do well.
+18 / -1

8 years ago
Hence matchmaking and one-click "Play" buttons :D
+9 / -0
Firepluk
preferable as well:
- newb friendly host(probably enforce this host during first few games, as soon as we hit the steam)
- carefully choosen map pool: simple terrain with no known terrain issues
no low ground hardness, where 1 duck deforms terrain and neb can't use his lveh/hovers anymore
- reasonable upper limit on number of players, if it was me I'd put something like max 6v6 here
+8 / -0

8 years ago
You definitely do not want a real battleroom or anything where users have to interact with the system, vote and do other boring stuff to get in the game.
+11 / -0
Yeah voting is frustrating when it's so constantly either abused or neglected.
+1 / -0

8 years ago
I don't know about voting, but I like being able to stay in a lobby for 1v1s, instead of being automatically connected and disconnect after pushing a button. Learning from that one player and talking with them post game has been a very enjoyable experience for me.
+6 / -0
Page of 7 (121 records)