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

Forum index  > General discussion   >

32-player TAW is good for Zerok

8 posts, 305 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
GBrankmr0neoncat
42 hours ago
Pros:
More people= more engagement and more dynamic matches
More people= Less relying on the individual self So it makes it the team game we enjoy
Beginner friendly = Since individual performance is less punished it lets people learn easier without being criticised
Less trolls = The smaller the teams the more impact Magpie spammers and newton rampers have on the game
Allows people to specialise = If its 8x8 if one person eco's the entire game it could be considered "trolling" in teams all welcome it should be actively encouraged

Cons:
Sometimes you miss a game = Can be easily fixed with a new matchmaking meta
Games too long = Do you really want your games to be decided in 8 minutes by a crow rush?

Summary:
Don let the voice of the few control the voice of the many, We play this game because we enjoy it, there are already multiple options for smaller games and guess what?!?!? people font want to play them. Lets all embrace what this game has as its unique selling point and play a large team based RTS!!!
+10 / -3
CNrankXNTWSAD
39 hours ago
(edited 39 hours ago)
There is a very important difference about peoples' attitude on playing:

If you just want to enjoy ( idk what is that enjoy ), the bigger team the better.

But if you want to be better at the game, then small team is better.
Less player -> more metal you can get -> more things you can do -> more you can learn.
While your team can divide the work, 8 people are quite enough.

(unless you want to be like BRrankmuffa or USrankSkepticalViews, you can go big team)

(In my thought, be better at the game is the only way to enjoy so...)
(or if you say lob dirtbag)
+2 / -0

CYrankMedlazer
37 hours ago
XNTWSAD you do not make a fair point. Being a "good player" in a big game has different qualities that being a "good player" in a small game. You can be great at small games and have the ability to win battles, but lack the understanding of scale to improve your chances at winning big games.

Small games do let you learn faster. But many of us like this game for the scale of things.
+2 / -0
AUrankSmokeDragon
37 hours ago
i agree they play differently.. in a big game you can rush a singue or pal from the start and that might help your team win.. in a small game thats suicide.

they do play differently. so a good player is different for both. true.

but i think what being hinted at is you have to learn to multirole as a small teams player.. you cant always be expected to rely on allies solving problems like needing aa or making eco. in large team games even if your forget something somone will have your back
+1 / -0

CYrankMedlazer
37 hours ago
I mean i get the benefits of games with small teams. Here's the difference. The way it was, I could play large games when they happened, but also played small games. Now, I can only play small to mid size games. The choice was made for me.
+1 / -0
FRrankmalric
36 hours ago
There should be an experiment with TAW being limited to people less than gold or something and then check how fun it is. I think some people enjoy TAW in the current state because there are enough people that try to play good.

Watching huge maps with many people that just porc seemed to get boring even for the people, besides looking very boring for the spectators.
+2 / -1

AUrankAdminAquanim
32 hours ago
(edited 32 hours ago)
quote:
Being a "good player" in a big game has different qualities that being a "good player" in a small game. You can be great at small games and have the ability to win battles, but lack the understanding of scale to improve your chances at winning big games.

I think this is incorrect. There are some large-teams-specific skills, but anybody who is a strong small teams player will be pretty good at large teams also. A large team made up entirely of small teams players might suffer a bit on certain maps, but a large team normally has no shortage of players willing to "scale" while a small teams specialist suffers battles at the front.

On the other hand, I have seen some large teams players play very poorly in small teams. This is by no means true of all large teams players, but a few are unwilling or unable to adapt.
+4 / -1
AUrankSmokeDragon
11 hours ago
(edited 11 hours ago)
the truth might be somewhere in the middle..

if a small teams player had never played a large teams game they might get blindsided by a tactic that they never see in a smaller game such as space jacks..
but since in a large team game you cant see a new players weaknesses as easily due to them being covered by the team who help counter the space jacks for them..
its far less visible..

your also correct that if your good at small games then you can at the very least be better then many large team players.. since many large team players are not concidered 'good' at conventional play..
for eg. often a player who makes 1 detriment and knows how to use it..

it needs much less micro and can find there place as a good player in a large team game..
that is when you compare vs themselves in a frontline role that they would otherwise feed the enemy metal..
its not that they could best a good player in a frontline battle but that they can pucn above there skill level by playing in a way they cound never normaly do..
and perhaps even kill a good player with said detriment.
+0 / -0