| 1 |
I don't enjoy massive teams, but I hardly play so that's a bit of a moot point. However, as I've tried to get a lot of players into Zero-K over time, it is undeniable that large teams are reasonably welcoming for people who are willing and want to improve and learn the game, since they're fairly low on responsibility the lower one's WHR is, and even into higher ranks its still pretty freeform. My point though, is that massive teams, for all their arbitrary limits not really mattering, are important to the new player experience, and I don't really agree with the idea of reducing the player limit.
|
1 |
I don't enjoy massive teams, but I hardly play so that's a bit of a moot point. However, as I've tried to get a lot of players into Zero-K over time, it is undeniable that large teams are reasonably welcoming for people who are willing and want to improve and learn the game, since they're fairly low on responsibility the lower one's WHR is, and even into higher ranks its still pretty freeform. My point though, is that massive teams, for all their arbitrary limits not really mattering, are important to the new player experience, and I don't really agree with the idea of reducing the player limit.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
[quote]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.[/quote]
|
3 |
[quote]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.[/quote]
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Tribes 3: Rivals, a fairly recent game, has had an issue for quite a while where it supports plenty of custom games and players, but rarely has more than one significant public game going, even with matchmaking, simply because the playercount for that one big game never seeds a second and rather, either joins the first or leaves. This is with a maximum playercount, outside of bugs, set at 16v16.
|
5 |
Tribes 3: Rivals, a fairly recent game, has had an issue for quite a while where it supports plenty of custom games and players, but rarely has more than one significant public game going, even with matchmaking, simply because the playercount for that one big game never seeds a second and rather, either joins the first or leaves. This is with a maximum playercount, outside of bugs, set at 16v16.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
With that in mind my suggestion here is simply to increase the Teams All Welcome maximum size to 20v20, despite the obvious drawbacks regarding Zero-K's performance and risk of long games. As GoogleFrog stated, 16v16 is somewhat arbitrary, and I don't think 20v20 will be significantly worse when it comes to the matter of longer games, but it will have a negative impact on the gameplay. Fortunately, I also happen to believe that Zero-K could use with some form of map refresh, and with all the new BAR maps, many of which are supported and featured, and many not, that have significantly higher metal values, 20v20 is perfectly viable if there is also a concerted effort to test, find, and promote maps into the pool for large teams. For example, consider these currently Unsupported maps.
|
7 |
With that in mind my suggestion here is simply to increase the Teams All Welcome maximum size to 20v20, despite the obvious drawbacks regarding Zero-K's performance and risk of long games. As GoogleFrog stated, 16v16 is somewhat arbitrary, and I don't think 20v20 will be significantly worse when it comes to the matter of longer games, but it will have a negative impact on the gameplay. Fortunately, I also happen to believe that Zero-K could use with some form of map refresh, and with all the new BAR maps, many of which are supported and featured, and many not, that have significantly higher metal values, 20v20 is perfectly viable if there is also a concerted effort to test, find, and promote maps into the pool for large teams. For example, consider these currently Unsupported maps.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
[url=https://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/64150]Swirly Rock v1.1[/url]
|
9 |
[url=https://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/64150]Swirly Rock v1.1[/url]
|
| 10 |
[url=https://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/64254]Pit of Azar 1.0[/url]
|
10 |
[url=https://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/64254]Pit of Azar 1.0[/url]
|
| 11 |
[url=https://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/64147]Krakatoa_V2.0[/url]
|
11 |
[url=https://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/64147]Krakatoa_V2.0[/url]
|
| 12 |
[url=https://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/64144]White Fire Remake 1.3[/url]
|
12 |
[url=https://zero-k.info/Maps/Detail/64144]White Fire Remake 1.3[/url]
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
There
are
many
supported
maps
large
enough,
and
featured,
and
while
I
have
not
checked
these
maps,
but
I
would
be
more
than
willing
to,
and
other
maps
to
see
if
they're
maybe
worth
trying
out
as
supported
and
maybe
featured.
With
that
in
mind,
supporting
up
to
20v20
would
be
a
potentially
significant
loss
on
playability
due
to
performance
issues,
but
it
might
be
able
to
keep
more
players
engaging
with
the
game,
especially
new
players,
whereas
my
understanding
is
that
reducing
maximum
playercount
in
these
teams
will
do
more
harm
than
good,
even
when
the
difference
between
16v16
is
fairly
insignificant
overall.
|
14 |
There
are
many
supported
maps
large
enough,
and
featured,
and
while
I
have
not
checked
these
maps,
I
would
be
more
than
willing
to,
and
other
maps
to
see
if
they're
maybe
worth
trying
out
as
supported
and
maybe
featured.
With
that
in
mind,
supporting
up
to
20v20
would
be
a
potentially
significant
loss
on
playability
due
to
performance
issues,
but
it
might
be
able
to
keep
more
players
engaging
with
the
game,
especially
new
players,
whereas
my
understanding
is
that
reducing
maximum
playercount
in
these
teams
will
do
more
harm
than
good,
even
when
the
difference
between
16v16
is
fairly
insignificant
overall.
|
32-player TAW is not good for Zero-K