When i play zero-k i like to play it with a couple of friends, the fact we all now have to play a lottery on whether we will be able to play together completely ruins the experience for us and means we cant all play together like we used too
+3 / -0
|
The double room idea is a great concept. Simpl(ish) solution maybe: 1. Implement the ability for a player to keep their position in queue for the "big" game. They can go play a game in another room with people or vs AI till the big game ends. 2. When the big game ends, don't force the player out the current game. Ask them if they want to switch. If they don't choose yes within 10 seconds, their name is removed from the 1st game's queue. This still allows big games to fill up. And lets people play zero-k while waiting for zero-k
+2 / -1
|
Something about having a room with giant+ restriction. This'd let the yellow and light blue players in, unlike palladium.
+0 / -0
|
btw lobby has specific promotion for small games.  when i was new to Zero-K. I actually use 1v1 button and Coop. I guess, majority 1v1 games originated here (at least for new players). But for teams, as we can see, this doesn't work. Why? Because you want to see map before play, maybe (but you always can change it through vote after). Or you want to see players who you will play with? Maybe this button should be always at the top (like Join 8v8, 5 people waiting), where usually appear "Do you want to play 1v1?"| "Want to join Coop?" (i don't remember exact text there). And encourage people who want to play small teams: just hit the button!
+2 / -0
|
I miss the old 64 Player lobbys.
+6 / -0
|
its funny how taw still has almost all the players in it but most now have to wait.. 26/22 and 10 specs
+4 / -0
|
I prefer games with lot of people. I like small maps as big ones, and honestly have nothing against an Isis on 16v16. I like to complain in game (and do forget what was the problem two minutes later), and you can't complain if you can't find your opponent. Waiting for my turn doesn't bug me, as I like to spec and watch the games, generaly shooting at the kitten "do you see what he does ? Is that f* blind ?!*". The tinies agreed with me (I feed them). Tonight, I had a great game (f* to all domis !), but when the lobby said "no more than 22 players", I felt a little stolen. My only complaint about big games is as games can take some times, it is just some maps come back too often. There should be a delay (in games) before a map show again in the poll. I like Isis, but apparently some people die a little when the little orange map come back with en vengeance
+3 / -0
|
I'll stop playing for now. I want 10 v. 10 minimum - for small maps - but I highly prefer 12v12 or more. Max 11v11 means 10v10 is likely and it is not worth checking to see if a game is available instead of playing something besides zk. The games I play, like zk, tax my system too much to have 2 running at once.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
Will disabling spectating get more games? if i'm spectating i'm not there to play. |
It happens to me to spectate games by hoping to learn something from experienced players and to improve my play style. On the other hand, I've seen many time a 32 players room that had up to 40 players at the peak time. Why do they stick to this full room ? So why not popping out a tiny window that would suggest spectators/queueing ones to join in another Team All Welcome by clicking on a [take me to it] button ? Also, some players like to battle with some other ones they consider as skilled enough but this would tend to exclude newcomers and therefore contradict the goal of such rooms which is to welcome anyone and to play with them. (maybe as a "tutor" ?) Beside that, there are many 1v1 / 2v2 / co-op "private" rooms openned at off-peak time. I'm wondering if those players have the will to join in TAW soon or later. (If not, why ?)
+1 / -0
|
I don't think disabling specs is useful. I spec a lot when I'm not prepared to play. And sometimes, if I see a particular map I like, I'll hop in and play when I otherwise wouldn't have. I play more as a result of spectating, not less. I get when you're trying to get a game off the ground and you see people in spec it's tempting to assume these people would be playing if they weren't spec, but for me at least, it means I'd have exited the client. Limiting spectating won't increase my will to play, it'll just limit my engagement with the game and community unnecessarily.
+4 / -0
|
I'm extremely appreciative that we are experimenting around this issue, regardless of how it turns out. I'm certain that a solution to the problem exists in possibility space, and the way to find it is to keep trying out new systems.
+4 / -1
|
I'm not against trying the 11v11 limit. But the "large rooms kills small rooms" attitude is wrong and confused no matter how many times its expressed. In BAR you can choose from multiple large or (active!) small rooms anytime you like, and people still overwhelmingly go for larger rooms. How can you argue this isn't just a reflection that most people like large rooms? Yet still people claim the greater popularity of large rooms in ZK is because they sucked the life out of the small rooms. But we have evidence sitting right there, of an almost identical game, that this isn't the case! I play both, and often you'll find people in the small rooms that currently prefer large rooms and are just trying something new. The large rooms actually help the small rooms! Billiards has two versions, pool, which is popular and easier, and snooker, which is more obscure and arguably much more challenging. At billiards halls, you'll find pool has way more people. But restricting pool is obviously a stupid way to grow snooker. Besides it being a bit like forcibly telling people what they're meant to be doing for fun (!), you're basically killing off your gateway drug for the thing you want them to play. I don't think small rooms purists ever consider that many small rooms players were either introduced to a game via large rooms, or are in the small rooms because they just want a break from large rooms which they also enjoy. And both would not be in the game at all if the large room wasn't there to attract them. Promoting small rooms is great, telling people to "get over" what they enjoy so they do what you think they should enjoy IS NOT THE WAY.
+7 / -0
|
While I agree with the idea that people should have freedom to play whatever they like, I think we should acknowledge the fact that in large rooms some people benefit in being able to "fool around" at the expense of people that "play serious". I play TAW and I understand that some people, sometimes fool around. But sometimes I end up specing because it gets to silly and some do it no matter the situation and repeatedly game after game. Rather than a limit to the maximum, maybe we should have a inverse skill limit to game size. Are you purple? No game larger than 6v6. Are you blue? No game larger than 8v8. Etc. (numbers as examples, maybe other thresholds are needed). I think there are less purple-s that will complain they can't get in a 16v16 that we have now people complaining that they can't get in a 16v16. This will probably make the large games longer, which will in turn open the possibility that other game start.
+0 / -1
|
quote:
I'm not against trying the 11v11 limit. But the "large rooms kills small rooms" attitude is wrong and confused no matter how many times its expressed.
In BAR you can choose from multiple large or (active!) small rooms anytime you like, and people still overwhelmingly go for larger rooms. How can you argue this isn't just a reflection that most people like large rooms? Yet still people claim the greater popularity of large rooms in ZK is because they sucked the life out of the small rooms. But we have evidence sitting right there, of an almost identical game, that this isn't the case!
I play both, and often you'll find people in the small rooms that currently prefer large rooms and are just trying something new. The large rooms actually help the small rooms!
Billiards has two versions, pool, which is popular and easier, and snooker, which is more obscure and arguably much more challenging. At billiards halls, you'll find pool has way more people. But restricting pool is obviously a stupid way to grow snooker. Besides it being a bit like forcibly telling people what they're meant to be doing for fun (!), you're basically killing off your gateway drug for the thing you want them to play. I don't think small rooms purists ever consider that many small rooms players were either introduced to a game via large rooms, or are in the small rooms because they just want a break from large rooms which they also enjoy. And both would not be in the game at all if the large room wasn't there to attract them.
Promoting small rooms is great, telling people to "get over" what they enjoy so they do what you think they should enjoy IS NOT THE WAY. |
How large are BAR's big team games? What about the small ones? Which battle sizes is BAR optimised for? I don't think the experiment is about forcing everyone to play small team games. Also, I don't get the billiards example. Why do you think that game is akin to and relevant to Zero-K? You said "large rooms actually help the small rooms", but that doesn't seem true according to what I've seen over the years. On this website, according to the two old polls which were (approximately) about people's favourite battle sizes, 16v16 isn't even close to being the majority's choice.
+1 / -3
|
I have an idea!! If a spectator wants to join the game when it's full, they can defeat a player in a debate to take their spot
+0 / -0
|
> I play TAW and I understand that some people, sometimes fool around. I've seen this in small rooms too, and the impact seems a lot smaller in large teams due to team size. But I guess my point is, despite this dislike and other dislikes people point to, most people experience these things and STILL choose large rooms. That seems to indicate they REALLY like something about them. > On this website, according to the two old polls which were (approximately) about people's favourite battle sizes, 16v16 isn't even close to being the majority's choice. Ok, but I think those answering polls are more likely to be pro players, who skew smaller than the average player. Regardless, shouldn't we also be taking serious look at what all players are actually playing as opposed to what a much smaller subset say they play or what we theorize people might like to play? > Why do you think that game is akin to and relevant to Zero-K? Because while not the same game, it is, as far as I know, literally the most similar to ZK of all games in existence (maybe ZK ancestors also count), and is quite successful to boot. By this argument literally no example is good enough. Why wouldn't we learn something looking at it as a useful example? edit - grammar
+5 / -0
|
This thread and the large number of likes for more options somehow was taken as a vote for making the max number of players lower - which is not what the majority of people wanted in this thread. It is crazy that devs implicit bias is so strong that they misinterpret what people wanted and did EXACTLY what players did not want. The lobpot is not just about the size of the match, it's also about the chat that happens. People like to read it, even if they never comment.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
Because while not the same game, it is, as far as I know, literally the most similar to ZK of all games in existence (maybe ZK ancestors also count), and is quite successful to boot. By this argument literally no example is good enough. Why wouldn't we learn something looking at it as a useful example? |
I meant billiards.
+0 / -0
|
> I meant billiards. Oh right, my bad. Billiards is just a real life analogy to demonstrate what I'm saying, not saying its especially similar in other ways. BAR would be the more appropriate comparison.
+0 / -0
|
Hm... I wonder if TAW could be made into more of a matchmaking things instead of just a custom autohost lobby I think the large pot should probably still persist as 32 player room, the difficulty lies in trying to seed another room from there. Maybe matchmaking/a second lobby could be offered once a game finishes and a room is full or at a certain size? Splitting is painfull, so it may be better to allow people to opt in to play a smaller second lobby. That way those who enjoy a large pot can ignore it and stay while those who are fine with playing smaller teams can play a smaller TAW, that can be used to seed a second pot. Maybe it could be innitally limited to a size of 2v2 - 4v4 to not kill the main room, and also,to prevent backing out of the lobby, the game could start immediatly if the players who opt in can be put into a resonably balanced match.
+2 / -0
|
