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

32 VS 22 lobby cap, pls bring back 32 cap

18 posts, 421 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

25 hours ago
I'm not a big TAW player but honestly in my experience as someone who is not hyper active and brings newer players into the game the experience is abysmal.

1. 11 player teams is so odd bc it's in the threshold of being large enough your individual skill doesn't matter, but it's small enough that teams with larger amounts of newer players will just get rolled.

the reason is that each lane has less players now where 1v2s and 1v3's are even more common and if it's a gold vs 2 purples that lane is guaranteed to lose pretty much resulted in that team losing the game. Bringing back lobpot allows newer players to still experience large team zero-k without being a total detriment to their team's lane by being forced to solo.

Example being something like Tabula where I've had my team's top or bottom lane get steam rolled from the player difference.

2. TAW lobby monopoly is still present since we didn't really encourage smaller lobby sizes, we just made the biggest lobby seem less big when there is still a large majority. The other 2 lobbies running 3v3s or 4v4s would still happen in things like people's custom lobbies or palla when people move over.

The issue isn't the lobby cap, it's the community. The game isn't newbie friendly when it comes to communicating where people can play casually where most of the common places people play in are labelled under "custom games"

Most people who enjoy this game in smaller team sizes or lobbies play with their friends anyway so bring back TAW for those of us who enjoy lobpot and remove TAW 2 and 3 entirely and promote the smaller auto-host lobbies to take their place. It's redundant to have TAW 2 and 3 be just 8v8 lobbies at most when we literally already had lobbies for that to begin with


That's my take on it honestly, I'm willing to give it a few more tries but honestly it just looks like constant steamrolls to me given how my fair share of games lasted literally sub 10-15 minutes.
+1 / -0

24 hours ago
I totally agree.
I started playing the game with a lobby like this, and I really, really like the scale, which is reflected in the fact that every meter of the map has its own players' eyes.
It would be even better if there was a 20x20 room.
+2 / -0
The solution to newcomers getting steamrolled by purples is to not have these two in the same match.

Today we had 3 TAW lobbies active in matches with reasonable sizes, like 20, 16, 8 or so. There were different average skill levels in the lobbies, too. That's good for newcomers and good to scale for more players.
+8 / -0

24 hours ago
it be better if we had noobium and palladium ACTUALLY have active player bases rather than mixing us all in 3 different lobbies so purples are even more scattered and free to pubstomp
+0 / -0

23 hours ago
well... the difficulty is kickstarting those lobbies, heck seeding just a second lobby even.
This experiment has lead to smaller teamgames with lower skilled players to pop up at more frequency than I've seen in a good while!
so maybe this will grow a playerbase for those lobbies, with more time spent playing than waiting for the big pot to eventually end.

+5 / -0
RUrankAO
23 hours ago
Copied from my discord.

We’re facing a dilemma:

On one hand, we want to split large rooms into smaller ones so that big lobbies don’t absorb all players and prevent other rooms from filling up.
On the other hand, we want players to be able to join the rooms they actually want to play in, without being restricted by hard player limits.

The idea is to remove strict player caps and instead use a soft, dynamic limit:

Each room has an optimal player count — not a hard cap, but a recommended size.
If a player tries to join a room that has reached this optimal number, they enter a waiting queue that gradually fills a “lobby expansion bar.”
Once the bar is filled, the room’s player limit increases by +1, allowing the player to join.
The more the current player count exceeds the optimal size, the longer it takes to fill the bar — acting as a soft penalty.
If the player count drops, the limit slowly decreases back toward the optimal value.

This system:
Lets players join rooms they’re interested in.
Encourages better distribution without enforcing it.
Prevents one popular room from stagnating the rest.

Players can still push limits, but they’ll need to wait a bit — which is a fair trade-off if they’re truly committed to that specific room.
+0 / -0

23 hours ago
My experience is more or less the opposite of Jill_2550's. Getting 1v2d or 1v3d is just expected in larger game, though sometimes it merges into 2v4s. Aside from the problem of uncertainty about new 1500s' true skill, a problem which lobby size can't solve, large games tend to be decided largely by either the mid-skill players or by a lone purple popping off uncontested. Further, the issue of weak lanes getting rolled is something a player like Jill and I should have substantial influence over because we can lend support or switch lanes entirely, and a strong performance by the team's weak side can be game-deciding simply by losing slowly enough to get a strategic victory elsewhere.

As far as encouraging new players goes, the best I've found is actually the 1v1 mm postgame chat.

Then again, a disproportionate amount of my "play" experience has been sessions where I wait a while for a 32v32 slot to open up and then give up and exit the game without the opportunity to build a single unit.
+3 / -0

23 hours ago
to me this is the worst idea ever and i wholeheartedly agree

whatever small benefits seen are purely temporary and dont outweigh the massive negative of making the game less approachable and removing the defacto selling point of ZK, the 32 player lobby. It was always ZK main selling point, its what kept me playing and what i always tell people about. There is no other real RTS game with large lobbies that actually work and scale well like ZK does. BAR large lobbies are a complete nonfunctional clusterfuck with occasional civil wars in the team over who gets what mexes. There is no alternative to TAW for people who love the 32 player lobby like i do and i feel like a very large portion of the community WANTS the big lobby, why else would people always show up at the exact same hour every single day for last half a decade? Because they knew thats the exact time when TAW is nearly full. When TAW gets under 20 players it always near isntantly dies becuase people dont want small games.

This must be reverted and never tried again or the game will officially die off.
+3 / -5
The game has seen more activity since these changes since a long time. Zero-K DOES NOT scale gracefully to the large lobpots. It's possible to play it, but the balance is whack and it is not a good experience. HOWEVER, you are still right that you should be able to play this. But more important is that there are options. So as long as we don't have a very healthy amount of multiple lobbies, I think the lobby size should stay restricted or be even more restricted, for the good of Zero-K.
+4 / -2
the experiment of smaller pots displays the following:

* it is possible to run more than one pot
* there is the possibility of igniting even small teams or palladium games
* there are still players, who want the 32 player pot

suggestion:
* find a balance between these two.
* you could allow on certain day(s) the pot to be 32 players, e.g. saturdays


sidenote:
=> theme based events could bring also more joy. (special rooms for that?)
  • raider weekend: 50% off the cost for raiders
  • no static defence weekend
  • bigger explosions weekend: everything explodes on death violently with bigger AOE
  • ...
+7 / -0
I like the idea to combine larger matches with special promotions. Might attract people. Maybe some stay after the promotion runs out without burning out in the lobpot.
+0 / -0
quote:
* there are still players, who want the 32 player pot


Of course there are, me among them, and it seems at least several others who are reasonably good and active. Without massive battles the game is pretty much dead for me and I really don't see playing anymore until this is reverted, or some other solution without capping the room size is found. Admittedly I am not a particularly good player, I suck at smaller battles, but I don't care about ELO at all, I just want to chill a bit sometimes before going to work. Big lobpots were the most enjoyable gamemode of any game I have ever played, and it was the biggest reason I have been playing ZK with the same enjoyment for so long. I don't want every game I enjoy devolve into something sweaty and competitive. I really won't be playing while those changes last. Of course, I am just another player you can do without, but I wanted to tell you my opinion before leaving.

quote:
=> theme based events could bring also more joy. (special rooms for that?)


This is the change I wholeheartedly support and I am all in for that. But please, implement it without limiting the main room size.

quote:
I started playing the game with a lobby like this, and I really, really like the scale, which is reflected in the fact that every meter of the map has its own players' eyes.
It would be even better if there was a 20x20 room.


Exactly how I feel too.

+1 / -0
7 hours ago
quote:
* you could allow on certain day(s) the pot to be 32 players, e.g. saturdays
( DErankAdminmojjj)

Maybe one autohost for giant battles could appear or one autohost's player limit could be automatically increased to 32 once at least that many people are waiting as players on any autohost and at least 3 team-game rooms are active in total. The 32-man mode could end when it gets unpopular as long as several hours have also passed.
+2 / -0

5 hours ago
It's baffling how dramatic this topic is.
+2 / -0
USrankStStephenHawking

quote:
It's baffling how dramatic this topic is.


Storage. I built 2 of them. Discuss.
+1 / -0

3 hours ago
CArankGalamesh
quote:
Storage. I built 2 of them. Discuss.


May Godde have mercy on us all.
+1 / -0

56 minutes ago
The wrong tool for the job.
Restricting lobby size has taken away a feature that differentiates this RTS from many others. We are trying to solve a marketing issue with a technical change. The bigger discussion needs to be "how do we bring more people in the game to get 2 or more 32 player lobbies active". Not how to adapt the game for a small player base.
+0 / -0

19 minutes ago
CYrankMedlazer.
I think it is important to stay realistic in this one.

Zero-K, in the current gaming market and the preferences of the global gaming-community, will never have multiple 32 player lobbies going. Maybe in some rare occasions 2, but never more.

I think there can be made an argument that the 32 player lobby even kept Zero-K from growing bigger.
Because having only 1 lobby, with games lasting 45 minutes or more, and 10 players in the waiting list in front of you.
That is demoralising for new players.
And understandably so.

So having more lobbies, more potential "entry points" will generate more gametime as a whole.
And I think it will even do well to the general skill level of the community.
Because in the 16v16 games, people just dont learn to really play the game.
And I believe that will create a better experience for the community, and keep people attracted to the game for a longer duration.
+0 / -0