| 1 |
[quote]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?[/quote]
|
1 |
[quote]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?[/quote]
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Let's
be
clear
about
what
the
actual
request
is.
While
"40v40"
might
be
a
meme,
I
think
most
people
just
want
the
biggest
lagless
lobby
possible.
As
such,
simply
asking
not
to
lose
the
16v16
(
32-player)
lobbies,
at
least
in
custom
settings
seems
entirely
reasonable.
|
3 |
Let's
be
clear
about
what
the
actual
request
is.
While
"40v40"
might
be
a
meme,
I
think
most
people
just
want
the
biggest
lagless
lobby
possible.
As
such,
simply
asking
not
to
lose
the
16v16
(
32-player)
lobbies,
at
least
in
custom
settings,
seems
entirely
reasonable.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
With that in mind, the suggestion that a 10v10 with 4x starting metal is "roughly the same gameplay" is simply not comparable. The statement that we "shouldn't need" 32-player games is a subjective opinion, not a fact; for many, that large-scale format is what they enjoy most about Zero-K. The fun comes from many non-mechanical factors that aren't being considered: the lower APM requirement makes it more accessible, some people enjoy the simple chaos of monospam, and many just love the unique spectacle of a massive battle.
|
5 |
With that in mind, the suggestion that a 10v10 with 4x starting metal is "roughly the same gameplay" is simply not comparable. The statement that we "shouldn't need" 32-player games is a subjective opinion, not a fact; for many, that large-scale format is what they enjoy most about Zero-K. The fun comes from many non-mechanical factors that aren't being considered: the lower APM requirement makes it more accessible, some people enjoy the simple chaos of monospam, and many just love the unique spectacle of a massive battle.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
[quote]Here's some examples of how we can do more with less:
|
7 |
[quote]Here's some examples of how we can do more with less:
|
| 8 |
- If people do not enjoy expanding (which they have to do less of in a large team game), should we not just automate that? ...[/quote]
|
8 |
- If people do not enjoy expanding (which they have to do less of in a large team game), should we not just automate that? ...[/quote]
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
The list of proposed mechanical changes, while creative, would mostly require significant amounts of dev time and would create fundamentally different games. They are interesting ideas for new modes, but they are entirely separate from the issue of preserving an existing, popular one.
|
10 |
The list of proposed mechanical changes, while creative, would mostly require significant amounts of dev time and would create fundamentally different games. They are interesting ideas for new modes, but they are entirely separate from the issue of preserving an existing, popular one.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
Finally, some of the post's core logic is confusing. It talks about "hard capping at 32 players" as a problem, but the cap was just lowered to 22. The claim that new players face a "one or two hour wait time" is also a significant exaggeration.
|
12 |
Finally, some of the post's core logic is confusing. It talks about "hard capping at 32 players" as a problem, but the cap was just lowered to 22. The claim that new players face a "one or two hour wait time" is also a significant exaggeration.
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
The reality is that players have always been able to start other lobbies, but they consistently choose not to, preferring to wait. The new, lower cap seems designed to "fix" this by creating a larger pool of overflow players, thereby forcing a second game to start. But this forced 'solution' doesn't guarantee player growth, improve game quality, or even address the fact that players may not want to play with these limits.
|
14 |
The reality is that players have always been able to start other lobbies, but they consistently choose not to, preferring to wait. The new, lower cap seems designed to "fix" this by creating a larger pool of overflow players, thereby forcing a second game to start. But this forced 'solution' doesn't guarantee player growth, improve game quality, or even address the fact that players may not want to play with these limits.
|
32-player TAW is not good for Zero-K