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

Team Games Too Large?

20 posts, 1123 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

4 years ago
During Peak hours 1/3 of the player pop is in a very large team game which means all the players that basically wish to play in public are int his game which sucks for us that don't wish to play large team games
+5 / -0
4 years ago
It would help if you joined team games queue instead of just 1v1
+0 / -0

4 years ago
The reason people don't play team que MM is because it is unbalanced most of the time and you play with plaeyrs who you don't wisht o play with unless you party with them I assume
+0 / -0
USranknop
4 years ago
If you start another lobby does nobody join?
+0 / -0

4 years ago
During a lobster pot rarely anyone joins a normal lobby, including mine, it will take forever. THey only join it if the lobpot is already started and they hate speccing btu most pple don't mind speccing
+0 / -0


4 years ago
If everyone joins both 1v1 and teams MM queues, everyone gets an 1v1.

That is pretty much why mm teams are rare. You have to be looking specifically for a teams match while resisting the temptation of that instant 1v1 you could have instead.
+0 / -0

4 years ago
I don't get why folks want to split 25 metal/second with 10 other dudes. It's too steamy, and there's too much greasy melted butter. I must be greedy or something because in the lob pot I wonder where all the metal is?; then see 20 ravens idle circling our air factory. Instead of going off and flaming mistakes, I queue and spec mm regardless of wait.

hellacious says ranking is harder in casual / lob pot? show me the numbers. lol b.s. 1v1 thru 4v4 will make you excellent at this game. Lobsters jumping back in 1v1's from casual get thoroughly handled for a few games before finding the competitive edge again.
+0 / -0


4 years ago
When I started playing most games were 4v4-6v6. Then 8v8 for a long time. Then the max player count went up and up and it turned to shit. 8v8 was big enough.
+2 / -0
Advancing in rank through large team games is difficult not because the games are more stressful or competitive; it is because your contribution to whether your team wins or loses in any given game is far smaller and your rating changes much less with each game.

In other words, if you are a better player than your rank indicates you will find it much easier to gain in rank through 1v1 than through large teams; you will win a larger proportion of your games and each win will count for more.

I have seen very few games larger than 8v8 which I felt were improved by having more than 16 players in the game.
+0 / -0
4 years ago
I don't get why so many people think that 32v32 is such a problem. Nothing is stopping people from joining smaller games if they want to. Nothing.

I play lobsterpot because I find it a lot more fun and easier to learn how factories work than going 1v1 and having to worry about every little thing, or going 2v2 and having to worry about my teammate's expectations of me. Don't get me wrong, I still try to do what I can to help the team in any game, but in larger games I can fail without it being an instant teamkill. They are more forgiving for a (relative) beginner. But if I wanted to play 2v2 or 4v4, there's nothing preventing me from doing so. And don't forget the annoying message asking you to join a smaller game every time a larger one ends.

Sometimes I want to play a small game. But if I don't want to play a smaller game, I simply press Alt+F4 when there's no large one going on as opposed to creating or joining a smaller one. I'm sure I'm not alone in this behavior.

So why not just say, "to each his own" and leave this topic alone? Why is this such a big deal?
+3 / -0
quote:
So why not just say, "to each his own" and leave this topic alone? Why is this such a big deal?

The substantial number of people who would prefer a small-medium teams game but will accept a large teams game, coupled with the group of people who will only play large teams, can (and probably does) lead to many more large than small-medium games being played even when on average the available players would prefer to play small-medium games. (Or at least would prefer to play more small-medium games than what they do play).
+2 / -0
4 years ago
Hm. I see. Perhaps the problem is visibility? Would maybe a few autohosts for 2vs2 and 4vs4 help solve this?
+0 / -0
quote:
And don't forget the annoying message asking you to join a smaller game every time a larger one ends.

I vouched for this poll exactly because there were repeated requests to limit the big teams room. Instead of actively preventing big teams games from happening I'd prefer to just ask players for what they're interested in. The rhetoric was often that there are many player in the big teams that'd play smaller teams if they were available, but didn't want to miss out on the action while seeding a smaller room. So this poll would check if there are enough people interested to make a balanced match and then take those out of the room directly into a match.

That certainly turned out to be wrong, nobody is going for these small teams now. Are you suggesting that we would be more successful by asking for even more players to accept and make medium teams games?

To go to the extreme, I removed the size limit on the big teams host for a few days to see when people would start going for the small teams. Well, we got our first ever 19v20 game. And if you think that's just because MM games are inherently disliked/unfitting, then one could always just abort the MM game and take the people to a custom room once they have them gathered.
+0 / -0
quote:
Are you now suggesting that we would be more successful by asking for even more players to accept and make medium teams games?

I don't remember suggesting that. Just acknowledging the message's presence... and the unfortunate lack of a way to switch it off.
+0 / -0
4 years ago
Sorry for the double post, but I think this edit deserves a separate reply:
quote:
And if you think that's just because MM games are inherently disliked/unfitting, then one could always just abort the MM game and take the people to a custom room once they have them gathered.

I stopped playing MM because the higher my level was climbing, the more I kept getting matched with either people who can't tell what a mex is for or people who can easily mop the floor with my forces despite my best effort. Most people I've played with don't want to pull out of a game already in progress. Myself included. That includes, irrational as it may seem, games where you're obviously mismatched with either your opponent, your teammate, or both. Where that stubbornness comes from is not something I can determine, but I've seen and experienced it. It's probably because it seems like this is the path of least resistance subconsciously, or there's some form of guilt involved, I don't know. The point is, you can't expect people to leave one game to join another until the previous one is over. Sadly.
+1 / -0
I've been thinking quite a lot about what I like and dislike about different game styles and was thinking about making a thread about it but a post here will do. The cut off between team games and lobster pots is necessarily a somewhat arbitrary one, but I'm going to call it 8v8.

1v1
The main pro and con of a 1v1 is that the outcome is dependent solely on me. On the one hand it's nice to know no one else can take the credit for my win. On the other, there are far fewer second chances than in a team game and my early game is pretty uneven. If I squander those raiders, I'll likely hand you the match. At least there's a chance I can identify a specific fault to work on. A further positive is that I have the resources of a whole map to play with, which means I might have cause to build and use a wider variety of toys. On the other hand, that's a lot of ground to keep an eye on. A 1v1 game also moves pretty quickly and usually gets decided before entrenched stalemate (which is usually bad for me as I like mobile, open games). However, there is also the fear of meeting someone much better than me, or cocking up so bad that someone ostensibly worse can kick my teeth in.

Although there are elements of 1v1 games I appreciate, they are counterbalanced by things I don't like.

Small teams (2v2-4v4)
For me, these represent the sweet spot where personal agency (which is important- I want to feel like I made that victory happen) is complimented by support. I've still got to work for it, but when I screw up, the team might be able to cover for me until I get back to contributing (and if someone else is suffering, perhaps I can enjoy the warm feeling of punching back and taking the heat off them). I've still got a big share of the resources on the map to play with and can diversify (or double down). I still have space to do more than throw units at the front. Of course, there is still the possibility of dark blues and me queueing up and me being a drag on someone but even if I can't beat @Sparkles, I can still sidekick pretty well for someone who can. I've played 2v2s where I've been teamed up with a pro against another pro and someone of a similar skill level to myself and my role has really just been to avoid dying long enough for my team mate to roll over his opponent's sidekick without diverting too much of his strength to save me. That's fine. That's a plan, that's a goal to accomplish, and satisfying when I achieve it.

Medium teams (5v5 to 8v8)
These are similar to smaller games, but with somewhat less personal agency (though there is still some) and more support. It's a more comforting spot - I might not have to work so hard, but the achievement will be correspondingly less. I have less space to play around with and fewer resources, but there are still some. On the plus side, with more players, it's easier to come up with roughly even teams.

Lobsterpots (9v9+)
Personal agency suddenly dies. I'm not being supported by my team, I'm dependent on them and possibly stifled by them. If my team wins, did I actually accomplish anything to achieve this? If we lose, was it something I did or was I just dragged down with the sinking ship? It's better than no game, but in my calculus, the choice between playing a lobsterpot and a 1v1 is whether at that moment, I'm less bothered by the fear of meeting someone much better or letting myself down or the probability that what I do won't impact the outcome.

About the only good thing in a lobsterpot is the possibility of seeing endgame stuff that doesn't normally get trundled out. Shame I won't be the one wielding it.

Co-Op
A change of pace, I'd like to do some more of it, and perhaps chicken defence will hone parts of my game that I'm really not very good at.

FFA
Difficult to access, so I've not played enough to be good at it, but the metagame element is quite intriguing. Winning doesn't just depend on how I handle my stuff in game, but on how I read my opponents and pick targets and allies (and who to backstab and when). With more practice, I feel like it would share the same sweet spot between agency and dependence as small teams, with the added benefits of (when it lasts) getting to play around with endgame stuff I'd never normally use.
+0 / -0

4 years ago
This has long been an issue but seems not to be able to resolve. I recall splitting big games options and things alike, they never work.

If you split a large team game, they usually all regather into the same room, and the second team room generally dies.

More people like lobsterpots than dont. Extracting those who would like smaller team game you must do manually, if you can find enough people.

The only remidy is really more people playing, where 2 pots have to eventuate and this would scatter to a number smaller games similtaneously.

For now I suggest:
- Host your own room, called 'small teams' and refuse if asked to increase max players.
- Manually gather a group to play small team from a lobster pot
- encourage and promote people to join MM teams.
+2 / -0

4 years ago
Maybe limit lobpots to 12 per side? Even that's plenty large. I sort of die inside when there are three people rushing individual singus and another rushing deriment on the assumption (I suspect) that "there's plenty of people in the front, they'll hold till I bring my mega monster into play".

... or maybe I'm just salty :D
+2 / -1


4 years ago
If there are many people who think they want to play small teams and not play lobpots, then these people should just boycott the lobpots.

Sitting in the lobpot while waiting for someone to host small teams will just feed the pot.
+10 / -0

4 years ago
I'd play the small teams after a big team game ends if it were casual.

randomly jumping into a "ranked" team game is asking for frustration for at least some of the players involved.
+2 / -0