| 1 |
All that said, I've decided it is worth giving smaller rooms a try.
|
1 |
All that said, I've decided it is worth giving smaller rooms a try.
|
| 2 |
* Rooms cap out at 22 players.
|
2 |
* Rooms cap out at 22 players.
|
| 3 |
* Split is available at 32, creating two 8v8s
|
3 |
* Split is available at 32, creating two 8v8s
|
| 4 |
* The queue de-prioritises people who played the last game, so seeding is not so penalised. Maybe people who played the last game and end up in the queue will be motivated to make split work.
|
4 |
* The queue de-prioritises people who played the last game, so seeding is not so penalised. Maybe people who played the last game and end up in the queue will be motivated to make split work.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
Unfortunately, it is not a painless change. When 23-31 people pack into the main room, looking to play, some of them will be on the waiting list. But this is going to happen at some point as people pile into the room. The fundamental problem is how to get 40 people to split nicely into two 10v10s. Making the rooms smaller makes this more likely, provided people have the patience to reach the threshold. The logic behind 22 players is as follows.
|
6 |
Unfortunately, it is not a painless change. When 23-31 people pack into the main room, looking to play, some of them will be on the waiting list. But this is going to happen at some point as people pile into the room. The fundamental problem is how to get 40 people to split nicely into two 10v10s. Making the rooms smaller makes this more likely, provided people have the patience to reach the threshold. The logic behind 22 players is as follows.
|
| 7 |
* A limit of 16 or below replaces the problem of creating a second room, with that of creating a third room. Walk before you run.
|
7 |
* A limit of 16 or below replaces the problem of creating a second room, with that of creating a third room. Walk before you run.
|
| 8 |
* Splitting on multiples of 4 seems best, and 32 creates 8v8s, which seem to count as the smallest "huge game".
|
8 |
* Splitting on multiples of 4 seems best, and 32 creates 8v8s, which seem to count as the smallest "huge game".
|
| 9 |
* If we get two 22 player games, then that is 44 players playing, which is a significant improvement over 32, so it might be worth the pain.
|
9 |
* If we get two 22 player games, then that is 44 players playing, which is a significant improvement over 32, so it might be worth the pain.
|
| 10 |
* Only needing 10 waiting players to split feels fairly safe. If the requirement is too high, people won't hang around to reach it. The current requirement for 32 players is 48, which I don't recall ever being reached.
|
10 |
* Only needing 10 waiting players to split feels fairly safe. If the requirement is too high, people won't hang around to reach it. The current requirement for 32 players is 48, which I don't recall ever being reached.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
I
don't
know
how
long
the
experiment
lasts.
If
it
works
it
works.
If
people
complain
and
try
to
ruin
it,
I'll
probably
just
have
to
dig
my
heels
in
until
it
is
sufficiently
tested,
in
spit
of
complaints.
But
if
it
seem
to
have
perfect
conditions,
yet
fails
dramatically,
something
might
need
to
be
done
early.
So
give
it
a
fair
go.
|
12 |
I
don't
know
how
long
the
experiment
lasts.
If
it
works
it
works.
If
people
complain
and
try
to
ruin
it,
I'll
probably
just
have
to
dig
my
heels
in
until
it
is
sufficiently
tested,
in
spite
of
complaints.
But
if
it
seem
to
have
perfect
conditions,
yet
fails
dramatically,
something
might
need
to
be
done
early.
So
give
it
a
fair
go.
|
32-player TAW is not good for Zero-K