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

Forum index  > General discussion   >

32-player TAW is not good for Zero-K

8 posts, 213 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

DErankmadez
25 hours ago
Large matches bring new players to Zero-k, but only having large matches also makes it losing players.

I hope for Zero-K to get over exceedingly large matches.

But at this point this needs developer/moderator action.
+2 / -2
FRrankmalric
18 hours ago
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.
+0 / -0
GBrankmr0neoncat
15 hours ago
(edited 15 hours ago)
What do you mean if i play smaller matches it makes my team lose when i do nothing but build magpies
+0 / -0
USrankTechheadZero
10 hours ago
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.
+2 / -0


AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
8 hours ago
We've tried smaller rooms before, but the backlash has been fierce. Are you willing to actively support the new sizes during the early days of an experiment? We'd need some community support, in terms of explaining the idea to people, and collecting data. Otherwise we just hear people loudly proclaim that everything is ruined. And we don't get any good feedback as to what was ruined, and how, which would be required to run adjusted tests. There is no point running an experiment without data collection.

Split was a potential step towards supporting smaller rooms, but then it broke. It broke in a social way. Initially it made a fair number of successful splits, in that new games were created, but eventually it rarely succeeded. Does anyone have information on why this may have happened? The split limit was subsequently raised to 48 players, as high numbers result in more success, at which point the threshold is rarely met.

A 10v10 size limit sounds like a reasonable test. The current split settings would split at 32 players. Are rooms going to grow to that point? Probably. Is split going to work though? I would want people to report on it. If the goal is to optimise players finding games, then 10v10 hits the threshold earlier where players miss out on a game. If split doesn't work, then smaller room sizes just caps peak players at 20 rather than 32. So split, or natural split, has to work. To give it the best chance of working, we need people to support and explain it.
+3 / -0
FRrankmalric
4 hours ago
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)
+0 / -0
USrankQuietMute
2 hours ago
(edited 109 minutes ago)
I usually am not a try-hard player. I do not try "stupid stuff." I play to win, but TAW allows me to focus on 1 type of effort - 1 lane, eco, air, raiding, water, mobile support, expensive support, nuke/widow, super weapon construction, etc. I can also switch focus as the game evolves. I do not need to do all those tasks at once in a TAW that I would need to do in smaller teams or 1v1.

I play to relax, but I like the competition of large TAW games. Often, I just like to watch TAW games because the victor usually is not decided in the first 5 minutes like most 1v1 games and recovery from a losing position is more likely in a TAW than a smaller game due to super weapons. If I cannot play a TAW because there is no room, then I often am quite content to watch.

It feels great to use Nukes, Odin, Scylla, Tac Nuke, DRP, Zenith, or Sneaky Air Strike, to turn a game around - or solidify a winning position.

My profession is mentally very taxing so that is not what I want from a game.
+0 / -0

DErankAdminmojjj
4 minutes ago
disable spectating. on game start, all non players get thrown out! or dont.
+0 / -0