32-player TAW is not good for Zero-K

Some people play Mario Kart on 50cc in reverse on time trial. I have no idea why they do it, but they do it.

There are a bunch of players in TAW that aren't there to learn. They aren't even there to play well. They aren't there to even execute a strategy of any kind. They are there because it's a place to be at a set time with a bunch of other players, and that's all they want. The game just so happens to be ZK, but it could be anything else.

Competitive players make Zero-K matches work, that's why Niobium isn't an active lobby and low rank TAW lobbies tend to die. So the trolls, casual, not wanting to listen players need those that are competitive to play Zero-K but not the other way around. TAW is the place for all to join, so nobody can really complain about bad play, but TAW unfortunately incentives bad play at least by allowing it. It's A-Okay that some are competitive and some are not. Large TAW matches satisfy only a part of the playerbase (or rather potential playerbase).

I can personally say that SmokeDragon has a point. I have introduced dozens of people to this game, and the only ones that kept playing play with their own friend group in private lobbies and mess around with ZK's fun mechanics. When I play with them I feel the need to coach them to be better players and to teach them strategy, only to quickly realize that they don't want to get better - that's not how they have fun - they just want to experiment and mess around. This is naturally aggravating to me since I have fun by being competitive, but it is important to recognize that a lot of people don't have that competitive drive, and naturally those players are towards the bottom of the ladder. I don't know why some of these people join TAW if this is the case, though - perhaps they like the atmosphere of the large-scale battles and being behind actually good players?

quote: some are competitive and some are not

There's this in various comments. IMO competitiveness isn't a binary trait as there's varying degrees and variation over time.

People may sometimes express themselves by doing specific things that are somewhat suboptimal (like morphing expensive com and trying to get the award), which mildly annoys teammates feeling more competitive at the time.

The TAW rooms (even palladium) all count for the "casual" ladder. It's supposed to be casual but since the ranking visibility and mechanics are similar to the competitive one, people near the top % end up feeling competitive about it.

I suppose TAW is giving mixed messages. It says "casual," but the fact that it counts towards rating which puts you on a ladder makes it competitive. Other games typically separate competitive and casual completely, where there's a ladder and rating for competitive but not for casual. I'm not saying TAW shouldn't count towards elo - that would cause other problems - this is just an observation.

quote: I suppose TAW is giving mixed messages.

I am not sure new people are thinking it through as much as we do.

To put it another way: where is it written for which ladder does a game count? The only reference I know is on the ladder page where the "Competitive" ladder says "Matchmaker" (which I assume means any game started via Matchmaker will be included in this ladder). The casual says "custom" - whatever that means.

And regarding expectations, Zero-K is a strategy game where the purpose is to destroy the opposite team. It is not Simcity, so I think any reasonable person would consider a team game a game in which you try to win the game. My general impression in TAW is that people don't mind various mistakes/explorations (and the assholes that complain about everything get banned at some point), but people that seem not to care at all or repeat the same stupid ideas endlessly.

What would be ideal (and was already discussed) is more "separation" between ranks that play. Putting a top 10 player with someone in the last 10 can't turn out good. I do enjoy more games in which there are players around my ladder position (let's say +/-100). Sure, you will do stupid mistakes (which you might even realize), but you are not punished as bad as if you have the best player to counter you. Same for the other spectrum, I might steamroll someone but if it is too easy there is no joy either.

32-player TAW is good for Zero-K.

Just kick those who rush Berthas or Detri right away, without paying attention to their teammates, especially if it concerns no names who have no idea how to manage it

We should absolutely not kick people for playing badly. Suggesting that is insane (without intention of personal insult). Not even for going for detri early on. We need to tell them nicely it's bad and explain why it's bad, but elo should speak for itself. Having said that, TAW gives bad impressions of what is good play. But even then, kicking people for bad but not malicious play will just drive off so many people and feel unnecessarily hostile.

Blowouts are not fun, and taking turns at blowouts is not fun.

I'm really surprised the TAW habituals are still around. I take 3-6 months breaks and when I come back, the list of players is mostly the same.

And then I get into a game and it's each side taking turns at losing to krow rush, so I scout then make gnats. Or I make a ton of gremlins and then as soon as the krow shows up I shoot it down.

And then I spectate the next game, and it's another krow rush and one side losing to it, then the other...

I'm really, really puzzled as to how the same players can do the exact same thing for so long and win/lose the same way, and still be around to do it some more. It's not even about winning or losing... just doing the exact same thing over and over.