| 1 |
40v40
would
just
end
up
degenerating
to
rush
x
big
unit,
much
like
bantha
rush
was
in
the
past
or
rush
superweapon.
Do
we
really
need
80
players
for
this
sort
of
gameplay?
Why
not
4x
starting
metal,
4
starting
comms
per
player,
1/4
income
rate,
drop
game
size
to
8v8,
play
on
some
1v1
map
and
achieve
the
same
gameplay?
I
do
not
see
how
throwing
more
players
into
a
singular
game
makes
it
more
appealing,
entertaining
or
fun.
|
1 |
40v40
would
just
end
up
degenerating
to
rush
x
big
unit,
much
like
bantha
rush
was
in
the
past
or
rush
superweapon.
Do
we
really
need
80
players
for
this
sort
of
gameplay?
Why
not
4x
starting
metal,
4
starting
comms
per
player,
1/4
income
rate,
drop
game
size
to
10v10,
play
on
some
1v1
map
and
achieve
roughly
the
same
gameplay?
This
would
allow
4
games
to
run
in
parallel,
which
would
allow
4
people
to
control
the
"big
game
winning
unit"
that
is
rushed
rather
than
1
out
of
80.
|
|
|
2 |
\n
|
|
|
3 |
Rather than increasing player counts, ideally we should be focused on making the game more accessible to more players and [i]doing more with less[/i]. We have a limited amount of players, and hard capping things to 32 concurrent players isn't going to help us grow in the long term. Having 4 extra players being able to play means we have increased the amount of players able to be playing MP in parallel by 12.5%. We shouldn't [i]need[/i] 32 player games to have fun with Zero-K, and instead explore what is making those games fun and bringing that to smaller game sizes which would allow more people to play concurrently. More people able to play concurrently will mean more players will be able to enjoy ZK, which will mean we should grow.
|
|
|
4 |
\n
|
|
|
5 |
Here's some examples of how we can do more with less:
|
|
|
6 |
- If people do not enjoy expanding (which they have to do less of in a large team game), should we not just automate that?
|
|
|
7 |
- If people enjoy coordinating with teams, why can't we have a series of smaller game sizes where you can reinforce your "team"'s other concurrent matches?
|
|
|
8 |
- If people don't want games to end quickly because of raiders, why can't we have starting defenses?
|
|
|
9 |
- If it is just people liking the restrictive metal income, why can't we have a metal mult of like 1/2 and bring the game size down to 8v8?
|
|
|
10 |
- If it is goofing off and having low player responsibility, why can't we just agree to no-tryharding or produce scenarios in which a player can reasonably goof off? (Though if it is this, we'd have the issue that this would become stale over time, which would likely hurt retention). We could just.. agree that the game is a casual game and enjoy it as such.
|
|
|
11 |
- If people like to have large scale armies, why can't we center a game between two ais who spawn hordes of units over time that you must support? Players could contribute units to it and it would send waves at the enemy units while the players macro/micro.
|
|
|
12 |
- If it is the novelty of them, we should come up with events to introduce novelty.
|
|
|
13 |
\n
|
|
|
14 |
What I think players need to focus on is what is discovering why they're having fun rather than arguing over an arbitrary number that is somehow producing games they enjoy. This way we can replicate conditions while still allowing more players to play. Having a singular host though where the bottleneck for more players playing is the maximum players though I don't think will be healthy long term for concurrent player counts as any new player we gain will immediately be welcomed by up to an hour or two wait time to try the game.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
15 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Rather than increasing player counts, ideally we should be focused on making the game more accessible to more players and doing more with less. We shouldn't [i]need[/i] 32 player games to have fun with Zero-K, and instead explore what is making those games fun and bringing that to smaller game sizes. If people do not enjoy expanding (which they have to do less of in a large team game), should we not just automate that? If people enjoy coordinating with teams, why can't we have a series of smaller game sizes where you can reinforce your "team"'s other concurrent matches? If people don't want games to end quickly because of raiders, why can't we have starting defenses?
|
|
|
| 4 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 5 |
I just hardly see any appeal in having more players outside of saying we have it.
|
|
|
32-player TAW is not good for Zero-K