I'm really upset that Zero-K no longer allows 16v16 battles. One of the main reasons I loved this game was the scale and intensity of those epic 32-player matches. It’s incredibly frustrating because even now, the Steam description still says: "Hop online for epic 32 player battles or fast paced 1v1, on 100s of maps." But that promise no longer holds true. Instead of giving gameplay to those of us who came here for cozy evenings spent in large-scale chaos, the developers are catering to a handful of forum tryhards who are obsessed with forcing competitive balance into everything. These are the same people who already have what they want — they play their sweaty 1v1s or gather in their little "Palladium" rooms anyway. But for some reason, the devs can't seem to understand that those of us who just want to enjoy epic casual team battles are being pushed out. Now I'm being forcibly removed from the very matches I used to love, all because of short-sighted decisions made by developers who seem more interested in pleasing a vocal minority than supporting the broader community. It’s disheartening, and it makes the game feel like it’s lost its soul. #32playerTAWisBetter
+7 / -5
|
The ideas and motivations behind those changes are very far-sighted and good for everyone; have more active lobbies and in the end more options and players. It's unfortunate how hard some here react to relatively mild changes like 16v16 to 11v11 and the new waiting list that is good for newcomers.
+2 / -0
|
same kind of thing happened to Springs BA.. and then it went into decline.. i guess the hope is that even after a community divides that more people will join to fill the void of the new system.. with this new system it may attract more competetive and impatient players since the new system favours less game wait times and tighter skill requirements. but when people cater to eletes this alienates the new nooby players.. that in this case were growing in the protective reed beds of the large rooms.. now they are forced into the open where purple sharks will eat the elo.. it will provide a stronger fish but the player numbers will drop over time lost to the vast sea of rage quits.. i have seen it before. games get harder and harder to penetrate as the skill bar raises.. but with huge games it was actualy bypassing this issue and slowly generating new players in a safe space.. [Spoiler]total annihalation, balanced annihalation, tech annhialation, planetary annhialation, age of empires, starcraft, tiberium sun, red alert, twisted insurection, mental omeaga, supcom faf.. i played atleast 20 more and they all died from the same thing... the pro's became too good (i know they are still played) - what i mean by died is: they declined massivly.. with maybe the exception of supcom faf and aoe seing a recent resurgence
+1 / -0
|
Then why chess is still around? If you forced new players to face of the very best, it would die off, too. Just give options, don't force everybody into one match, and it's better for everybody.
+1 / -1
|
yeah i agree chess does prevent new players playing with pro's and it works well since the game is 1v1 its much easier to divide 1000 players into 500 games of closley matched skill. pro's would get bored beating noobs and noobs would be driven away by pro's you make a good point but in small rooms the pros will still hunt lobsters for elo.. and the noobs will have whole lanes to defend on there own sometimes hoplessly both our points seem valid here.. there will be tears when a noob is alone vs a pro. atleast in huge games the chances of both sides having a pro and a noob was better. but also likewise if games could eventualy be sorted by rank then new players could learn with other players of simmilar skills
+3 / -0
|
The hatred towards palladium seems misplaced. If those people went to 1v1 MM or decided to log off, would you also hate them for it? The only thing that matters is what is preferable for the TAW players. One large lobby with long wait time and players logging off without having the chance to play, or small lobies that potentially alienate players who like the large teams format?
+2 / -0
|
The big reason for BA decline was a player-base toxicity completely over the top, to be honest. For the other part, I'm still didn't felt like play a game since the prohibition of big games. More time to works on my personnel mini-A 4x space game and learning music, but still.
+0 / -0
|
If some hostility towards players was perceived, please make it more explicit so it can be understood and acted upon. Zero-K needs more active lobbies and players for many reasons, so I hope you can share the motivation in the changes and support them. Otherwise I wish you best of luck and happiness in other areas, as playing too much of any game can be unhealthy. But I'd still like to see you in the lobbies.
+0 / -0
|
ahh BA... when somone combombing an ally at the start happened once a night those were the good ol' days
+1 / -0
|
We should have once a year a "com explodes as nuke" weekend event.
+0 / -0
|
The truth is, this room limit will be reverted if enough people abandon the game because of it. Otherwise the statistics will show the move was successful in balancing the rooms and promoting active play. So those of us that want 32 player room, only win if the game loses. A lose - lose situation.
+2 / -0
|
There is also the effect that some people do not abandon the game because of the changes and the possibility that in the end we have multiple active lobbies and can have a 32-player lobby again. We are justified to have hope and optimism.
+0 / -0
|
The people complaining are the people who love the game and are looking for a reason not to leave. Don't blame people for not liking the game changing into something we didn't sign up for.
+2 / -0
|
Please try to look beyond those that love the 32-player lobpot and are complaining right now, because there are many of those, too. They should also have an option to play Zero-K the way they like. And in the end, we are trying to give more options to everybody, so I invite you to be positive and constructive.
+0 / -0
|
You are misunderstanding madez. It's not about being positive or negative. If you order chicken and I give you beef but tell you to "be positive about it", it doesn't change the fact that you still want chicken. Luckily, BAR sells chicken. The move to smaller lobbies is not necessarily a bad one. It's just not for some of us. Many games change rules with seasons too. And each time, some will leave and other will (hopefully) join
+1 / -0
|
And if the restaurant told you that you can't have chicken now because the livestock is running dangerously low, would you accept beef for a while?
+0 / -0
|
What's "a while"? I'll have beef a few times maybe and complain... then pick another restaurant with chicken. Don't get me wrong man, I have a lot of love for our little community. And I am glad we are finally addressing a long standing issue. I absolutely agree with the effort to reduce player waiting times. I just think there are other ways to get the same result that don't affect one of the game's unique selling propositions.
+2 / -0
|
Were the existing changes what I advocated or hoped for? No, they surprised me too. I just wanted to see action to finally address the many years long stagnation of a single lobpot going. I'm anxious too that it will rip the community apart. I just want the game to grow past that point because it was starting to annoy me more than I was willing to accept. I think everybody is open for suggestion and better ideas. Goodbye threads surely don't help.
+2 / -0
|
quote:
The people complaining are the people who love the game and are looking for a reason not to leave. Don't blame people for not liking the game changing into something we didn't sign up for. |
Is this true though? If the only reason you play the game is because it lets you play big teams, you're ignoring 99% of the game. I'm not sure you love the game if the only way you can possibly enjoy it is in contexts for which it wasn't really designed and you prefer other games the moment the lobby is smaller (but still very large by industry standards). What's more, there is only one side of this issue that I'm aware of that is threatening to leave. It doesn't really feel like you're trying not to leave at all. The people locked out of the gamestyles they enjoy by the big team room haven't been boycotting up until now (that I'm aware of). There are so many things about the current design that I don't like about ZK. GF's ear is bleeding from my constant balance harping. But not once do I threaten to leave because the game has so many good things about it that make up for it falling short of my personal preferences. How is boycotting indicative of a love of the game? How is trying to skew the results of the experiment anything other than selfish? Maybe I'm wrong and I've missed something big, I'm happy to be convinced. I think your preferences are legitimate I just don't currently respect the chosen means of advocacy.
+3 / -0
|
SnuggleBass you doubt I love a game i spent 6000 hours in? If I'm going to make statements that you doubt, this conversation won't be constructive. Yes, zero-k has more to offer than just scale. For me, the creativity that happens in long games with many people is what I enjoy the most. I'm not alone in this. Lobbies will often fill up after they reach a critical 16-20 players, because that is what many are looking for. I know it sounds demotivating when somebody "threatens to leave". You need to see it for what it is. People who loved what the game was.
+1 / -0
|
