Reform the Experienced Only room

I am sure everyone agrees that Zero-K is best played without having to carry teammates wasting metal by building Annihilators in their base. I also think that most people like small teams, about 2v2-5v5, better than 1v1. This is a good example of one such great game. Currently, the only reliable way to get a good small teams game without having at least one teammate who is nothing but a waste of metal is the experienced only room. Some people who do not just waste the team's metal do not have the required 1600 elo to play in the experienced only room though.

I propose that the experienced only room uses a more reliable method of player selection. I think that level and elo should both be used. I have seen very few people over level 50 that do very little to help the team. I was thinking something like:

If the player is higher than level 50 he/she/it can play in the experienced only room.

If the player has more than 1600 elo he/she/it can play in the experienced only room.

If the player is under level 50 but has more than 1600 elo he/she/it can play in the experienced only room.

If the player is over level 50 but has less than 1600 elo he/she/it can play in the experienced only room.

Something else I was thinking is that people that could not play there but think they should be able to can apply for a tag that allows them to play regardless of elo/level/whatever.

I think that this could let more people play without having to instruct, compensate for, or rage at teammates who are not pulling their weight.

Ahh wait I see. You are one such player. :P

I can see why you'd want this.

quote: Ahh wait I see. You are one such player. :P I can see why you'd want this.

I don't think that there are many people that have just under 1600 elo (1550 in my case) so I think that this may, in fact, be unnecessary.

quote: Something else I was thinking is that people that could not play there but think they should be able to can apply for a tag that allows them to play regardless of elo/level/whatever.

I think that this would be more appropriate for the amount of people it would be for.

if only i saved the like to the 1v5 games with 1400-1600 players i had a while back

1600 is the limit, please no lower. IRL it should be 1700

I think the small teams room should be used more often. It's just perfect for what you want, TheSponge. It puts the more casual/newer half in one room, and the more competitive/experienced half in another. Finally it works with any number of players and any levels of elo just fine!

We should promote the small teams room more. Whenever people play in the experienced room, they should move to small teams instead! In smaller teams low elo players are less of a "problem", because there are less players and teaching one newbie is easier than teaching 3+ in these popular 10v10 games with everyone spamming markers everywhere. Plus, people learn more.

Small games already give more xp. That's because single players have a higher impact. Maybe that should be made more obvious for new players?

Make Titanium room with 2000+ elmos :D
And GODS only with 2500+

@[TROLL]sfireman Let's see how long you can stand playing properly and keeping your high Elo value ;-)

quote: bait players with something to play smaller team games or something?

For me it would not need bait.
I play for the fun not for awards...

Just that there is no oppurnity to play small games.
And do not say "ask players or join empty 'small' room", I tried for years and does not work:
In zK the last game on small games host is "3 days ago" so to me seems it is not used much and idling there would have been pointless.

Sure, sometimes there is small (2v2/3v3) games on the normal hosts.
But like that I could only ever play one game. Second game is already large game because so many players flooded it.
If the rooms were at least sensibly limited, one could play game after game and waiting would be worth it.
Wait and chat so long just for one decent game...?
Even in "small games room" you can suddendly end up with 10 players:
http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/187904