32-player TAW is not good for Zero-K

Just checking the title I was wondering, will this be a complaint about "games should be larger!" or would it be "games should be smaller!".

My solution to the issue that I prefer a specific game size is to join the lobby when game sizes are around those sizes (sometimes after peak hour, before it gets to 2v2). Until we have only 32 players games all day long I think this strategy will work just fine, and anyhow I did not see any reasonable alternative proposal that would not upset one group or the other.

It most frustrates me when there's a TAW match that just started and the lobby's at 36/32 or whatever (plus spectators) and TAW2 is at like... 3.

Second biggest gripe is that few maps are designed for 16 players per team and those that are don't regularly come up in the map vote, so you're sharing a front at a 15 metal/second or whatever income. Hitting 30 metal/second is a rare luxury.

quote: Otherwise we just hear people loudly proclaim that everything is ruined. And we don't get any good feedback as to what was ruined,

My interpretation (could be wrong, or biased due to who comments more) is that there are people that are "slackers" for which the larger the game the better. They get more resources, to try stupid things and less feel of responsibility. At the other end of the scale, the people that "try hard", prefer games in which they know they matter (so some play a lot 1v1), and some/sometimes challenges (team games). But in a large team game where you have both "slackers" and "try hard-s" the last category will get annoyed.

Does ZK prioritize one type of player over the other? For now I feel there was an uneasy balance. The "try hard-s" will probably play 1v1/ smaller teams/palladium/occasional reasonable sized TAW and advocate for more ways to get games in which you can try hard. The "slackers" will play mostly large size TAW and advocate for more games where they can fool around (more metal/more players).

Is TAW the reason ZK is loosing players? I am not that sure. There was more time spent in single player than I thought (last time I checked statistics I did on the topic), which we (as multiplayer players) ignore completely, so it is not the game is not "popular" but people also prefer other game modes (also chicken/other mods). I personally would probably play more if there would be some kind of "social" aspect to it (like Planetwars, clans). Random teams is good for balance, but I do have a couple of players, for which rather than play a game with them I would just logout (and they don't do reportable stuff)

disable spectating. on game start, all non players get thrown out! or dont.

How can we get multiple largish team matches going in parallel? This is a challenge for Zero-K that all parties can agree on.

What makes TAW special compared to matchmaking?

1. You see who the other players are
2. You see which map is going to be played on
3. The matches are large
4. The skill level is mixed
5. It is a social lobby for everybody, the right place to be if you want to play.

Can we find and agree on a compromise to help Zero-K grow?

So let me make a wild and rough proposal.

* Zero-k gets a mechanism mixing matchmaking and TAW.
Try to appease as many as possible while allowing for more players.

* The team sizes are large.
Minimum like 10v10 or something.
Dynamically adjust size with active player count at the time.
Prefer multiple matches over fewer large matches.

* Skills could be mixed, but fair teams.
Balance not just numerically, but also by even numbers of try-hards and slackers.

* Once a match is found, people get to see who they are playing with and on what map.
Players can refuse, others fill in, until map/player pool is deemed a failure or it starts.
Water map? Just refuse. That dork is there? Just refuse.

* People join through an option in the matchmaker or by going to a special lobby.
We need to make it easy.
A big lobby that spawns matches sounds fun.

* All matches can be spectated freely.
Spec-K is fun.

If this was tried and didn't work or is an unsalvageably bad idea, please let me know. I'm just trying to find a way forward.

I'm willing to provide support, be active during tests, explain stuff, hype up people, write up experiences.

I think this needs UI work.

madez: additional things that can be seen as pluses for TAW:

• you know approximately when you will get a game (when current game finishes)
• if you "stick around" there is a chance you get a larger game at least at some point

If we're discussing here how to improve TAW...
I would suggest to change order who play next game:
Currently: [players who played] + [players in queue]
New: [players who won] + [players in queue] + [players who lost]
This way you can always play next game if you didn't play this one.

About making TAW size smaller, i think that would be mistake.
One of fundamental flaws of TAW is that gameplay significantly deteriorates when more then half the team below gold level (or maybe below average level). I think, the results of these games become random. So if you make team size smaller the possibility of this random matches will be higher.

The impedance to have multiple lobbies like TAW and TAW2 running is way too high and it's always failing for multiple reasons.

dear GoogleFrog I think that players don't want to change because they've been used to it this way for years. But those who come to this game as new players have a somewhat desolate spectacle: only one room to play in, not to mention the very long wait since the games last an hour on average in 16v16.
Since it's an open source and not a paid game, maybe it would be a good idea to take a risk and remove the 16v16 taw and put only 10v10 or better 8v8 rooms, which better expresses the power of the game and the fun. How can you say that it's fun to play with the lag and spend an hour until the game is decided by paladins?