I second that. It would be nice to see the stats, especially if they exist in raw form somewhere so we can explore them better. Questions that stats could answer: - Have player minutes per day increased? - Has waiting time decreased between games? - Are more people playing? - Has player turnover decreased? - Has new player retention increased?
+3 / -0
|
quote:
It would be nice to see the stats |
quote:
I'm not even doing the sophisticated scraping that allows for the 1v1 stats tool or the team game analyser. I just went to the replays page, held Page Down until I hit the start of the year, and copied the page into a text file. |
GoogleFrog already gave us a look at a pretty detailed analysis he did, and pointed to the data source he used so we can do the same (!!!). I also think that if the experiment starts harming ZK numbers overall, he'll notice and not like it. Do we really want GF to spend more time presenting the data to us? I feel like we can trust he can interpret the data as well as anyone and has the game's best interests at heart. It looks like we can dig into the data ourselves if we need to.
+1 / -0
|
we will loose some players.. but question is will we gain more new ones or loose less then if we stayed on old system.. players might even leave if you did inconciquential things like renamed the game to zero-Z..
+3 / -0
|
If there's an up to date datasource, could you reshare it please? I only see past comments with screenshots. I noticed there are still many games with people waiting to play in the main lob pot instead of creating new lobbies. Now, with more distance from the change to 22 players, it would be interesting to explore how that has affected player behaviour.
+2 / -0
|
You simply can't change a decade or more of game's culture overnight with some abrupt changes. Of course that many old players will be annoyed and simply leave, and how many more new players will be genuinely attracted by this stupid experiment remains to be seen lol
+4 / -2
|
We live in times of excessively fast and even accelerating developments. From everyday human interaction to schools, work, nations, culture, entertainment, technology, science and whatnot. To still claim that optimism for improvements is futile is foolish and so cynical that I downvote it because of it. The changes are an experiment with the shared goal to give Zero-K a way to grow past one active pot at a time. I invite you to take a constructive role in that, if you like Zero-K.
+1 / -0
|
I tend to agree with    bozo with regards to the culture. I played this game years ago and nothing has changed about the 1 room culture. There have been attempts made to change it and nothing much came of it. Administrative action can only be effective when most people are willing to go along with it. The 1 room culture actually offers many benefits (such as a sense of community, being close to where the action happens, etc) that you will not readily find in other games, despite its obvious shortcomings. Hence the resistance to change. I think that unless enough people are willing to individually just go to another room and wait for a game to happen, while risking to miss out on some of the action, no technical measure can be successful. Small team games for good players on a regular basis would be a logical first step.
+5 / -0
|
quote:
We'd need some community support, in terms of explaining the idea to people, and collecting data. |
The description on frontpage, steam etc should be updated. It still prominently lists 16v16 matches. The same tools that were used to build the culture of one large pot needs to be used to rebuild into something else. That means a post for example: Posts on frontpage+steam explaining the change: What was the idea behind 16v16 in the first place, why it got changed now, how long it is meant to stay, etc. For many players this is the most relevant gameplay change in the last decade.
+0 / -0
|
We require data to discuss further. If Googlefrog can share, or somebody knows where we can find them, please point me to it. I am not interested in generalisations about "change".
+1 / -0
|
|
|
IMO take player activity stats with a spoon of salt. my ZK activity oscillates wildly for a variety of reasons that are overwhelmingly unrelated to whether i'm aligned with the latest ZK developments (time, life, other games, own work/projects,etc.) Lots of players probably do similar things and the community size is small enough that the effects may not average out within a few months, therefore, changes in player activity numbers may not reflect the likability of ZK management decisions. Then let's look at the poll, these two options stand out: - Whatever preference I have is driven by what is best for growing the playerbase - 38% (42) - I strongly dislike the 22 player limit, because it reduced or removed my favourite games sizes - 26% (29) So the ones "in favour" are mostly interested in the end goal (more active players/battles, reduced waiting times) not the specific measures to get there, on the other hand quite a few people feel strongly against the 22 limit specifically. lowering the player limit was a means to an end, maybe choose some other means?
+5 / -0
|
as a newer player to the game, i can give my perspective of how team size effects my personal enjoyment of the game small teams(5v5 and lower): -often very stressful due to being forced into self reliance -can be frustrating if teammates dont assist in the fights, individual players must carry more weight -games tend to be quick and mistakes are punished harshly large teams(6v6+): -more beginner friendly -less individual effort required -teammates can cover each other's weaknesses -overall balance tends to feel better -matches tend to last much longer than needed. commonly seeing super weapons -factory diversity is very map dependent, you may have 7 spider players if the map encourages it. or water maps demanding certain facs --------------------------------- small teams are where your mistakes are punished. this is nice for improving, but is also VERY frustrating, especially if the team isnt communicating very well large teams are a good newb/noob friendly area where people can just play together casually. the issues i find with it is that players expect their teammates to be perfect at the game. usually resulting is toxicity... perfection is a lot to expect, look for effort, allow mistakes and offer PRODUCTIVE ADVICE (not just "thats wrong".. you can give productive advice without talking down to people).. the bigger the team size, the less the difference in individual skill matters, allowing better balanced games at the cost of longer games.. long games tend to kill lobbies, as players often need/want a break after a 45 minute+ game.. so finding the balance between beginner/casual friendly, and keeping games where individual player impact feels rewarded. their are 12 facs, 11 if you ignore striders. 11v11 seems logical, ideally on maps that can multiple different facs without a clear bias for any of them
+5 / -0
|
|
|
I think   lxa4000 suggested the solution to the problem. The problem lies precisely in choosing the room type. Perhaps it would be to leave the room player's choice only between co-op, modding, and chicken modes, so they can play without worries. And I would leave all host rooms with ELO ratings like platinum open to choice, or rooms open to everyone like 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, always with ELO modes. To access the ELO Casual mode, however, it would be more correct to access via MM, where you can choose between 4v4, 8v8, 10v10, and 16v16 modes. You don't know who you'll be playing with, but you know it will always be well-balanced. So, a player who wants to play will see where to join in the MM list and can play immediately, because they'll have a wide choice. But they won't be limited by the number of players in the room, as happens in TAW now. (Crowd Effect). This way, you avoid the waitlist and split-room issues. The problem is actually cultural, as bozo said. Older players in particular access TAW, which quickly becomes a convenient parking lot, but it doesn't take advantage of the game's capabilities; in fact, it does so in a negative way. When new players log in, they quickly learn the new rules and adapt.
+3 / -0
|
We are all just throwing opinions. Taking "stats with a pinch of salt" is fair. But it's a lot more accurate than opinions., I get that our gaming habits fluctuate. That is why I am asking for stats now. With enough people playing and enough days past the change, we have an acceptable initial sample size. The stats shared 1-2 weeks past the change were fuelled by conscious attempts to seed new lobbies in support of the change. That skewed results. My personal bias for larger games is not relevant here. The stats may show that the change was positive. In which case, we look forward to the next improvement. The stats may also show that the change failed to achieve its objective. In which case more monitoring may be needed, with an open mind about reverting the player limit and exploring another way to meet our goal. But any decision needs to start with measurable information. https://zero-k.info/Battles is not a database
+1 / -0
|
From    Medlazerquote:
The stats shared 1-2 weeks past the change were fuelled by conscious attempts to seed new lobbies in support of the change. That skewed results. |
The stats are also skewed by people intentionally not playing since the change to try coerce the reversal of the changes. Sure, if good data is available, go with the data, but consider that sometimes your data is incomplete, biased, correlated, poisenend, etc. and you have to go with further experiments/speculation/your gut. Or don't.
+2 / -3
|
quote:
The stats are also skewed by people intentionally not playing since the change to try coerce the reversal of the changes. |
I want to agree with this (if numbers support it), but if they really like 32 and would even want the games to be bigger, it seems normal for them to not want to partake in smaller teams. For instance, if a new limit is set to 4 or 6, I'm gone. I'm never touching teams again, ever. I don't like small teams format and would much rather 1v1, ffa, play vs bots and chickens... Anything but small teams. I hate small teams.
+3 / -0
|
intentionally not playing sound allot like choosing not to play.. whats the difference? i dont think we have the power to force people to play. =D
+0 / -0
|
I think some might see it as a petty form of protest, like calling for a review bomb for a very minor aspect of a game. I don't think it's petty. Plenty of people play exclusively in lob pot.
+1 / -0
|
An idea GoogleFrog, how about meeting in the middle and increasing the lobpot to 26 - 28 players? Maybe consider testing this to see if players prefer this.
+0 / -0
|
