Really curious to why Medium rooms were disabled and small extended? I mean, with the rooms as they were the small game enviornment was starting to bud.
+0 / -0
|
I think the problem with medium and small rooms were that players quit them when splitting 'cause they're too small. With both teams merged there could be a higher chance of getting games going. That's just theory though.
+0 / -0
|
Small Teams room was just a constant mess of juggling. Looser tolerances means less juggling. I think it might've gone too far - I'd be happy with Small Teams splitting at 13 players (making two 3v3ish games on split) and a functional upper-limit of 6v6. Splitting at 9 players (the old mechanism) means the split gives you a game with the bare minimum number of players needed to start playing a team game.... but then what happens if somebody drops out of one of those games? Well then you've got a 2v1, below the minimum limit for a small game, so you have to juggle *again*. The 4v4 cap was just too unstable.
+0 / -0
|
|
|
I see. Makes sense that the small room is 7v7 now(since over that makes good splitting).
+0 / -0
|
Like I said, I'd prefer splitting at 14 players, creating a 3v3 and a 4v4 too. When splitting by elo just put the 2 middle players to where they are closest or wherever it's best for balance. If that requires more code than a simple number change, how about splitting at 12 then?
+0 / -0
|
Medium rooms weren't removed, small rooms removed and medium rooms were re-named to small. If the idea is to split it down to 3v3/4v4 then it is still medium teams. Small teams worked just fine splitting down to 2v2, because the players in small teams liked 2v2. That's exactly how the room was advertised, as a 2v2 -> 4v4 host. The OP was right, the small team game environment was really starting to bud and suddenly it's been killed off. :(
+0 / -0
|
Nah, I set small to "+2 like" even though I didn't like 2v2, lucky. My preferences were always 3v3s - 5v5s or even 6v6s when the game wouldn't end in lagfest. A 2v2 every now and then's alright and fun, but not more.
+0 / -0
|
Skasi, are you arguing the fine point of "I like 2v2" vs "I think 2v2 is alright on occasion" because you disagree with me and like the change of small teams to 2v2 -> 7v7, or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
+0 / -0
|
I think I don't really understand the "arguing just for the sake of arguing part" of your question. Anyway, I like the player cap increase, but like I said, think it's a bit too high now. On the "like 2v2" and "2v2 is alright" part: I was stating facts, giving information. You know, the stuff forums are all about. I don't think everyone who set quickmatching to use small teams liked 2v2s, else there wouldn't have been so many people leaving the room immediately after juggler created a 2v2.
+0 / -0
|
Well, SC2 has separated each possible team size, so you are playing and getting ranked either 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, or 4v4. Because Spring max player size is much larger, it isn't viable to separate games by every possible size, that would be silly. So somewhere there needs to be divisions of player counts. I think with the 3 different sizes before it worked just fine, and people were generally getting what they wanted. If people didn't want 2v2, they shouldn't have joined the small teams host. They should have joined medium teams and then they wouldn't need to worry about a 2v2. If the trouble is getting enough players for medium teams, well that why I originally suggested that small teams be left alone and medium teams be changed for minimum lower player count instead. http://code.google.com/p/zero-k/source/detail?r=6535
+0 / -0
|
I had small teams on +2 because i like 2x2's. With "small teams" now allowing for 7x7zkdsd, it's back to zero, since i can't rely on the small game being small - it's actually medium. Please please bring back the small rooms that can't sprawl like that.
+0 / -0
|
i agree with anarchid here. The small 2v2-3v3 games were nice. When you enter small now you can still get a bigger game. This juggler debate seems to have no end or solution. Bottom line is, as said before, there are not enough players to make it really work. Sometimes i'd like to go back to the old dyi hosting. Rooms without passwords, with one player who manages everything and still have the unlocks commanders i mean. You'd set a minimum rank if you wanted to have 'high' level games. In the game description you enter what type of game you are looking for. "2v2 all welcome", "4v4 newb game!", "TROLOLCOMMANDERTROLOL", "1v1 high elo games" etc This used to work in all but the big team games. So why not make juggler only manage games from 4v4 and bigger? Let all smaller games be managed by the players themselves?
+0 / -0
|
?? you can create room of ANY size and manage it yourself same way you could in the past. Quickmatch is a service not something you must use. Feel free to open own hosts.
+0 / -0
|
yes, but those are passworded by definition
+0 / -0
|
quote:
yes, but those are passworded by definition |
not anymore.
+0 / -0
|
cooool, i should have know this, excuses for being so ill informed XD
+0 / -0
|
I still think capping small teams at 5v6 would be best - splitting at 6v6 would produce a nice functional pair of 3v3 servers. 6v6+ is a good definition for a "large" game.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
6v6+ is a good definition for a "large" game. |
I'd go at 4x4, but that's unsplittable.
+0 / -0
|
Am I the only one who thinks 2v2 is where its at?
+0 / -0
|
