| 1 |
One could look at the problem of metal starvation in huge TAW games as stemming from inappropriate map choices for the player count. It comes at the same time as other "problems" that stem from this, such as highly constrained and spammy battlefronts (some see this as more fun though so I guess it's a matter of taste, however, it is often a divergence from the way the map is designed to be enjoyed).
|
1 |
One could look at the problem of metal starvation in huge TAW games as stemming from inappropriate map choices for the player count. It comes at the same time as other "problems" that stem from this, such as highly constrained and spammy battlefronts (some see this as more fun though so I guess it's a matter of taste, however, it is often a divergence from the way the map is designed to be enjoyed).
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
An alternate solution to the metal starvation problems in big TAW games could be to push TAW into more suitable maps for player size, or, if it's already the case in some way like big maps showing up more in the vote, to be more restrictive in ranges.
|
4 |
An alternate solution to the metal starvation problems in big TAW games could be to push TAW into more suitable maps for player size, or, if it's already the case in some way like big maps showing up more in the vote, to be more restrictive in ranges.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
Each map could have a tag of "suitable for X to Y playercount"
|
6 |
Each map could have a tag of "suitable for X to Y playercount"
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
The 4vote random map selection could stay within those ranges.
|
8 |
The 4vote random map selection could stay within those ranges.
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
This would require the most upfront work, but ultra-ideally the range tagging could have multiple priority layers, which could lead to less "you have to fix this" work in the future:
|
12 |
This would require the most upfront work, but ultra-ideally the range tagging could have multiple priority layers, which could lead to less "you have to fix this" work in the future:
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
Zero-K Admin Assigned > Map file itself (by map author) > Placeholder auto-tagging based on a formula that takes into account mex income and to a much smaller extent geo spots.
|
14 |
Zero-K Admin Assigned > Map file itself (by map author) > Placeholder auto-tagging based on a formula that takes into account mex income and to a much smaller extent geo spots.
|
| 15 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 16 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 17 |
Admin Assigned Ranges being an option that could be turned on and off on a lobby basis.
|
17 |
Admin Assigned Ranges being an option that could be turned on and off on a lobby basis.
|
| 18 |
\n
|
18 |
\n
|
| 19 |
\n
|
19 |
\n
|
| 20 |
Then
again,
right
now,
the
lobby
is
ultimately
responsible
for
re-voting
until
a
suitable
map
is
found,
and
it
mostly
works
according
the
sensibility
of
the
lobby,
I
think?
So,
ultimately
perhaps
something
that
would
be
strange
to
prioritize
doing
something
about.
Maybe
we
can
verbally
push
players
more
to
choose
appropriate
maps
in
TAW.
And
if
maps
just
aren't
suitable
for
32v32.
.
.
well.
.
.
|
20 |
Then
again,
right
now,
the
lobby
is
ultimately
responsible
for
re-voting
until
a
suitable
map
is
found,
and
it
mostly
works
according
the
sensibility
of
the
lobby,
I
think?
So,
ultimately
perhaps
something
that
would
be
strange
to
prioritize
doing
something
about.
Maybe
we
can
verbally
push
players
more
to
choose
appropriate
maps
in
TAW.
And
if
maps
just
aren't
suitable
for
16v16.
.
.
well.
.
.
|
How Would You Feel About Advanced Mexes?