| 1 |
There is a lot here. I like @AveragePlan's first post on player preferences the most. And @SmokeDragon wrote the only post with some data in it.
|
1 |
There is a lot here. I like @AveragePlan's first post on player preferences the most. And @SmokeDragon wrote the only post with some data in it.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
[q]I'm not against trying the 11v11 limit. But the "large rooms kills small rooms" attitude is wrong and confused no matter how many times its expressed.[/q]
|
3 |
[q]I'm not against trying the 11v11 limit. But the "large rooms kills small rooms" attitude is wrong and confused no matter how many times its expressed.[/q]
|
| 4 |
I agree, and I thought I covered this in rule #1 of trying smaller room sizes. Large rooms are a preference, there are players that much prefer them, and they are not objectively wrong. I get that the rooms being smaller for the moment is emboldening for the anti-large room cause, but arguing that people are wrong to like large rooms is just adding noise.
|
4 |
I agree, and I thought I covered this in rule #1 of trying smaller room sizes. Large rooms are a preference, there are players that much prefer them, and they are not objectively wrong. I get that the rooms being smaller for the moment is emboldening for the anti-large room cause, but arguing that people are wrong to like large rooms is just adding noise.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
Something more subtle than "large rooms kill small rooms" seems to be true though. Experience says that a 32-player room "kills" the possibility of a second large room, when there are somewhere around 40-50 players looking to play. If those players were split in half and somehow completely unaware of each other (ie they exist in completely separate ZK communities), then they would each get to play a 25 player game. This is still a pretty large game, and there would be 50 people playing, rather than just 32.
|
6 |
Something more subtle than "large rooms kill small rooms" seems to be true though. Experience says that a 32-player room "kills" the possibility of a second large room, when there are somewhere around 40-50 players looking to play. If those players were split in half and somehow completely unaware of each other (ie they exist in completely separate ZK communities), then they would each get to play a 25 player game. This is still a pretty large game, and there would be 50 people playing, rather than just 32.
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
We know that at least 40 people want to play a large team game at peak times. So the experiment is, if those 40 people fit snugly into two rooms, will they actually go out and populate two rooms? Or is the absolute maximum number of people who can play teams Zero-K going to just drop from 32 to 22? Because if the maximum just drops, then we know that any growth ZK might have had is being squandered by an apparently hard cap on how many people can play at a time.
|
8 |
We know that at least 40 people want to play a large team game at peak times. So the experiment is, if those 40 people fit snugly into two rooms, will they actually go out and populate two rooms? Or is the absolute maximum number of people who can play teams Zero-K going to just drop from 32 to 22? Because if the maximum just drops, then we know that any growth ZK might have had is being squandered by an apparently hard cap on how many people can play at a time.
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
There is surely some sort of marketing move that could push us past the awkward 40-50 peak player point, to the point that we naturally support two, or even more, large rooms. But I don't see anyone doing that. If you have a suggestion for some sort of marketing that you, personally, are going to put the work into, make a thread or post on Discord. Otherwise, we grow slowly over time, but slow growth doesn't seem to be able to breach the one-room threshold.
|
10 |
There is surely some sort of marketing move that could push us past the awkward 40-50 peak player point, to the point that we naturally support two, or even more, large rooms. But I don't see anyone doing that. If you have a suggestion for some sort of marketing that you, personally, are going to put the work into, make a thread or post on Discord. Otherwise, we grow slowly over time, but slow growth doesn't seem to be able to breach the one-room threshold.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
The
new
limit
is
22
because
11v11
is
still
a
pretty
large
game.
It's
relative
to
some
degree.
Do
we
have
people
clamouring
for
20v20,
refusing
to
play
unless
it
becomes
the
new
norm?
No,
because
the
standard
has
been
32
for
ages.
There
are
posts
about
what
people
love
about
the
large
games,
which
is
all
fine,
but
I
have
trouble
with
the
implicit
".
.
.
and
these
things
are
not
present
in
11v11,
because
that
game
size
is
way
to
small"
at
the
end.
16v16
is
somewhat
arbitrary,
that's
the
limit
because
it
used
be
8v8,
then
someone
doubled
it
because
the
tech
became
available.
If
they'd
increased
it
to
12v12
instead,
then
I
expect
large-game-lovers
would
be
extolling
the
fun
of
24-player
games.
So
in
all
this
feedback,
I'm
having
to
adjust
for
the
feeling
that
something
players
are
owed
has
been
taken
away
from
them.
|
12 |
The
new
limit
is
22
because
11v11
is
still
a
pretty
large
game.
It's
relative
to
some
degree.
Do
we
have
people
clamouring
for
20v20,
refusing
to
play
unless
it
becomes
the
new
norm?
No,
because
the
standard
has
been
32
for
ages.
There
are
posts
about
what
people
love
about
the
large
games,
which
is
all
fine,
but
I
have
trouble
with
the
implicit
".
.
.
and
these
things
are
not
present
in
11v11,
because
that
game
size
is
way
to
small"
at
the
end.
16v16
is
somewhat
arbitrary,
that's
the
limit
because
it
used
be
8v8,
then
someone
doubled
it
because
the
tech
became
available.
It
could
have
been
12v12,
and
then
large
game
lovers
would
be
defending
24-player
rooms.
|
|
|
13 |
\n
|
|
|
14 |
The benefits of supporting more than one large teams room are hard to ignore. It is selfish and shortsighted to do so. I see this a bit in the waiting list prioritisation change too. Great, you want to sit in a room and play for five hours. I like to do that sometimes too. But what about the people that popped in for a game or two, and can't find it because there is only one room, and that room is full? Guaranteeing a game for new arrivals seems like a good way to get new players.
|
|
|
15 |
\n
|
|
|
16 |
And I know there are a bunch of solutions to the single room problem floating around. I'd ask people to give good thought to why they might not work, or consider actually trying to implement them. I'll try a lot of ideas that don't seem like they'll work, provided that whoever suggests them puts up some work behind to see it happen.
|
32-player TAW is not good for Zero-K