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

why we dont get new players

172 posts, 5729 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 9 (172 records)
sort

CArank[G0G0]Dancer
20 months ago
15v15 all day with a lineup of people waiting to just play/try it.

When instead you could have at least 3 5v5's.

In a 15v15 each team starts with 7500m and can rush striders and skip the regular unit play. Nub players can just spam whatever and may or may not win. No one really needs to focus on eco since it is totally shared, and a game of that size no one needs to even bother to learn the game, just drop a lab and spam units.

If a new player joins one of these games they will not learn anything, and will most likely lag out if they dont have a proper gaming PC (which if they do, they are probably gonna play the games they bought).

Other RTS games dont do such massive games with that many players and units mainly because of how taxing it is on the server. This game is already fairly heavy on unit numbers, pathing and production.
+10 / -0


PLrankSprung
20 months ago
Sorry, won't be done because current playerbase is valued higher than all the leaving newbies (as leaving newbies won't immediately swarm the forum with 9001 baw threads).
+8 / -3


CArankAdminShadowfury333
20 months ago
Wow. PLrankSprung, that's a bit blunt.

Anyway, with matchmaking on the horizon it should hopefully be easier/possible to turn that room full of 30+ players into a set of reasonably-sized matches, for whatever a reasonable max is determined to be. Players get to room pile and get reasonable game sizes.
+2 / -0

RUrankYogzototh
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

quote:
Sorry, won't be done because current playerbase is valued higher than all the leaving newbies

I assume the communism is there also to help current playerbase and not the newbies?


I dont think there is any single lobby/server mechanic that specifically favours old players over newbies.

The reasons few people come to this game is
1) No marketing - only those who search for some specific terms will find ZK
2) Old age - Spring engine is old as fuck, and so is ZK. The graphics are far behind the newer RTS games. People see screenshots and leave before they get the chane to enjoy the gameplay. ZK is no Dwarf Fortress, its not unique enough to go viral.

The reasons few people stay is
1) No decent singleplayer. There are very few scenarios that barely fit into a campaign, and the "skirmish" AI is primitive as fuck. Singleplayer is where people fool around and learn the basics of the game, get used to the interface. Being a dumb nab in a multiplayer room is embarassing and many people prefer to avoid that by first getting some experience against AI.

2) No decent built-in tutorials. Shadowfury made some great video tutorials, but they are not viewable or referenced anywhere in the lobby, so you gotta search youtube to find em.

3) Only as #3 in the list is the lack of matchmaking. Of the people who learn about this game and want to play, very few will ever reach the multiplayer lobby and try to play multiplayer. But once there, nabs these days are not used to manually picking rooms, and certainly not used to managing the hostbot by sending it chat commands.

quote:
15v15 all day with a lineup of people waiting to just play/try it.

People tend to gravitate towards the biggest room. I dont see how you can blame it on anyone but those people themselves. Its their fucking choice, how can you possibly blame it on the server or whatever else? Maybe they dont fucking want a 3v3 if they instead join a 10v10.

Admittedly, lack of self-organising skills is not unusual among clueless nubs who have no idea whats going on.
Hopefully the matchmaking will alleviate that somehow, although there is a problem that having a "looking for game" screen sit in front of you for 5-10 minutes is extremely discouraging. It is much better to sit in some room and watch the action, waiting for the next game.


Ideally, i'd want the hostbot to split the room once there are over 16 people. Add a room option "maxplayers" so that you can play a clusterfuck if you want. Let it reset after every game or two so that if no one is actively managing the room it reverts to default behaviour.
+4 / -0

USrankforcegod
20 months ago
I was thinking that we don't get new players because there is no advertising for this game outside the spring engine. Hell, the only reason I first played this game was because there was nobody playing Evolution RTS, but I saw a nice 10v10 game.
+7 / -0


PLrankSprung
20 months ago
quote:
easier/possible to turn that room full of 30+ players into a set of reasonably-sized matches, for whatever a reasonable max is determined to be.

Try determining the reasonable max to be anything less than 10v10 and wait for the reaction.
quote:
I assume the communism is there also to help current playerbase and not the newbies?

Look at the forum: a lot of people hate communism and blame it for ruining the game etc. It would be the same with a sensible room limit.

Large games don't inherently favour old players but clusterfuck is a terrible place to learn, often becomes laggy, nobody plays properly, and the actual games have lengthy lobby interludes of pointless votemaps. In general it gives newbs a really bad impression of pretty much everything.

I agree with your points that no tutorials, no marketing etc. suck balls, and I think everyone else would agree too. But these things aren't simple to do. Meanwhile enforcing small teams is a few lines in config, and could easily be done, but won't be because clusterfuck playerbase would baw despite there being a ton of benefits that has.
+0 / -0

RUrankYogzototh
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

quote:
Meanwhile enforcing small teams is a few lines in config, and could easily be done, but won't be because clusterfuck playerbase would baw despite there being a ton of benefits that has.

Can you prove that the number of people retained by forcing small rooms is going to be bigger than the number of active players who will leave?

You keep saying that big games are bad, but all i see is your personal opinion. Maybe people like it, maybe people like to relax and dick around instead of tryharding. Maybe people like massive clusterfucks. Who the fuck are you to decide what kind of game those people are supposed to be playing and enjoying?

Joining the biggest room is clearly a free choice. Why are you trying to restrict it and force whatever you think is right, instead of letting people decide in an independent, non-forced way?

You are lobbying for a group of people, of which you are not a part of, and for things which might not even be what they want.
Stop making excuses for lobbying for your personal interests under disguise of caring about some helpless minority which for some reason is uncapable of voicing their opinion.
+4 / -0


CArankAdminShadowfury333
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

From what I have gathered, a big issue with large teamgames is that people are trying too hard, rather than just messing about. I think there needs to be a "messing about" gamemode to keep people who like this game playing, even if they don't feel confident in their competitive skills or are just tired and want a bit of zaniness. It just seems like 10v10+ isn't it, going by all the admin reports and complaints about communism.
+4 / -0


USrankFealthas
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

I wonder what forcibly splitting the teams rooms by elo would do. 1600 above in one room, 1599 below in another.

ie. TEAMS: Experienced players and TEAMS: __something __ Welcome
+0 / -0


PLrankSprung
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

quote:
You keep saying that big games are bad, but all i see is your personal opinion.

Larger games:
* have higher Elo variance.
* make the already performance-hungry game even more so.
* take more time to start (lobby voting).
* are preferred by trolls and make them effective for cost (one troll ruins game for more people).
* unit balance deviates more (most units are balanced for 1v1).
* cannot be handled by the colour spectrum (hard to tell people's colors apart).

Then there's personal dislike reasons:
* incentivize passive playstyle due to the ease of porc and eco, and are thus usually either a cheezy rush or a porcfest.
* are often played on very small maps like Icy or trololo which makes them retardedly cramped.

And there's things that I mentioned earlier about not being nub-friendly:
* hard to learn introspectively: too low personal influence on outcome
* people usually don't care and won't give advice
* laggy, troll magnet, votespam in lobby (already mentioned above)
quote:
Can you prove that the number of people retained by forcing small rooms is going to be bigger than the number of active players who will leave?

No. [Spoiler]

quote:
Joining the biggest room is clearly a free choice.

Sure but that's not how humans work.
[Spoiler]

quote:
Stop making excuses for lobbying for your personal interests under disguise of caring about some helpless minority which for some reason is uncapable of voicing their opinion.

That wasn't even supposed to be disguised. I personally think small games should be enforced for reasons above, and being crappy to nabs is just one of them. I felt like emphasizing on this particular reason because of the thread title.
+6 / -0

ESrankElTorero
20 months ago
+1 for small rooms
It would make finding a game easier, wait times would be lower, would reduce lag, games would be actually more balanced thus would discourage trolling, people would stop bawing about nanofarms and comunism and the world would be a happy place

+7 / -0

USrankKshatriya
20 months ago
(edited 20 months ago)

If 15v15 games were played on proper map sizes (20x20 or larger) then then there would be normal unit play and everything would be fine. People who can't run a game that big due to pc limitations can go play small teams.
+2 / -0

USrankPowerGuy
20 months ago
if I was brand new and saw the threads that are often posted here,I probably wouldn't have played for long either. the game it's self is fun, but the forum is always full of people arguing and accusing each other.

as for engine limitations, if the thing where it freezes for like 30 seconds happens to everybody,new comers might try to join their first battle, force close the client,and just assume the game cannot be run with any patience.
+1 / -0


USrankkaen
20 months ago
Set the limit -- to hell with clusterfuckery. Let them leave if they refuse to play anything less than 6v6 (or whatever the limit is set to). Trying to appease everyone leaves nobody happy. Optimize for the group of players who aren't hyper-vocal shitheads. Rebuild with a playerbase who self-selects for reasonable game sizes, and foster healthy competition.

[/dream]
+11 / -5


unknownrankSnuggleBass
20 months ago
Probably a silly idea addressing an issue that shouldn't be there post-launch:

I don't like forcing limitations on people, but I think there could be room for circumventing the one big room issue. It's pretty obvious that there are plenty of people who want small games but don't want to start a small teams lobby from scratch with a behemoth teams room sucking up all the players.

If there was someway to set people's search status to a specific preferred game mode, you could have the lobby check and notify when there's enough people to go start a small teams room. That way you don't have people shitting up the big teams room trying to convince players to leave, and nobody is forced to play a gametype they have no interest in. I've no idea how much effort this would take though...


+4 / -0

USrankPowerGuy
20 months ago
unknownrankSnuggleBass
that sounds like a good idea
+0 / -0


CArankAdminShadowfury333
20 months ago
From what I've gathered from CZrankAdminLicho's design musings, the matchmaking system is going to basically be a big room that people pile into, that then separates them into appropriately sized games (1v1, small teams, etc. depending on room) periodically.
+0 / -0

CArank[G0G0]Dancer
20 months ago
People keep talking like "if you dont like big team games, then go play smaller team games" as though that is an option while the big 15 v 15 games are going on.

Instead what it seems like is there is no other game going on. Till enough people get tired of the massive team games on "super speed metal", or "10 v 10 on icy run" or the lagfest of dsd on 15 v 15.

Then when enough people actually LEAVE THE GAME, and it gets down to 7v7 ish, then normal games start to emerge.

A method of "troll till players stop playing so we can have a normal game" is REALLY BAD FOR PLAYER BASE, and keeping players of course.
+3 / -0

USrankKshatriya
20 months ago
I'm fine with big games on big maps. They get shitty when on a version of icy run or some troll map.


I realize this is pretty off-topic, but i had to insert my opinion in here. :P
+3 / -3

ROrankForever
20 months ago
What are you saying, Icy run cluster 16 vs 16 is the most epic game ever :D.
+5 / -5
Page of 9 (172 records)