Yesterday PW was popular for a while, and we had some 8v8 battles on small maps. I was wondering, is there any mechanism to limit the number of players somehow? Now it really comes down to how many players are online. I mean big games are fun, but it can be a bit over the top this way. And 1v1 or 2v2 can also be a lot of fun. Do we want that to be a part of PW? I wonder what will happen if PW really takes off and we get several hundred/thousand active players. That is what we are hoping for, right? The game should somehow scale with the number of players while retaining all the attractive elements. :)
+0 / -0
|
In the end, PW will always have that issue with scailing because map choice is determined largely by planets surrounding the player, which can of course largely vary in size. Thus the cases of strange games on numbers of players happens more often than in normal games(which still happens at times. Darkside 6v6+ Anyone?). In my opinion if players want certain maps of certain sizes, they are just gonna have to force drops, just as voting is done in the normal room. They can also wait for more/less players, but eh, people are impatient.
+0 / -0
|
More drops needed to play wrong sized maps can solve this 2x2 map with 6 ppls need 6/4 = 1.5 as much drops ( round down ) 6x6 map with 6 ppls need 12/6 = 2 as much drops ( round down ) 3x3 map would be normal
+0 / -0
|
Meh...that sounds like complicated coding, would cause for imbalanced ship drop setup(ie. a clan with large maps surrounding them getting screwed due to several small games), and it doesn't solve the issue of mis sized random maps. In the end players just need to be more concious about drop choice with map numbers, and possibly should break up the game into smaller ones when the game gets too big,
+0 / -0
|
Well wouldn't it be an option to have whoever put the dropships be given the choice to limit the number of players for a map to the 'natural' amount? Something like a checkbox. If checked, max 4 players on a 2v2 map. If not, any number of players. ?
+0 / -0
|
Well the problem there agian is "What happens if there isn't a planet nearby a clan of that size to drop on?" For example, if a 1-planet clan is bordered by DSDPlanet and TabulaPlanet, by some sort of system like that would require them to either have several clan members on, or to be able to get the people there for the fight. On top of it, Ships can be dropped anytime, even if a player is not in battle. I could see the use of a "Battle will be at planet x if planet x is heighest ships and there are y players in the battle", but agian in the case of the "all big maps around planets" or "all small maps around planets" scenario you can kinda screw people over. Better controls on player numbers for the insurgent/random battles although would be good.
+0 / -0
|
Hmm, I don't really see the problem with limiting the MAXIMUM (didnt say anything about minimum) number of players in any given battle. If this means some online players can't play at a given time, they can just wait/spec, or start their own PW battle. Just like now if there are more than 16 online. No need for complicated tests with how many players are online, or which maps border which other maps. Just keep it the way it is, but allow the attacking player to change the maximum number of players from the default 16 to the 'natural' amount belonging to the respective map.
+0 / -0
|
Sounds like a reasonable idea(especially if people are trying to play with just clanners), probably a little hard to code or control since the attacker can change in an instant at times, but it is reasonable.
+0 / -0
|
Who will define "natural" number for 2000+ maps :)
+0 / -0
|
Hmm, good question. I guess we could invent a voting system for that, with reports of abuse and all.. But that's prolly also a lot of work.. lol
+0 / -0
|
I see I miss read the suggestion. Really the easy solution would be for the attacker to be able to set a player limit, like springie sometimes is able to do for setting autostart on the normal game.
+0 / -0
|
8v8 on tiny map or 1v1 on huge map is part of the point of planet wars! You end up playing more creative combinations that normally you wouldn't try, and get a wider diversity of gameplay.
+0 / -0
|
Actually I dont think that's the point of PW, but what do I know.. ;) Yes it's fun to play creative, but it's not fun to just play 8v8 the whole time, cuz that's what happens. All the online players join the same game and beef it out.
+0 / -0
|
Best advise then Ent would be to try to get people to join you in a smaller game, else much like DSD in BA people are going to see a room full a people and flock to it.
+0 / -0
|
Attacker setting limit has many issues: 1) there is no attacker :) There are people with dropships in orbit (or not!) - and there can be any number of them 2) it might be abuseable to set limit too low or too high (2 clans one with 2 people - wants 2v2 , other with 8 wants 8v8 -> fight)
+0 / -0
|
What about a lower hard limit? Like 5v5.
+0 / -0
|
What's about rescaled maps or different sized maps for each planet ? a small and a big map for a planet or a single medium map. What's about autokick ppls with a slow hardware + large maps ? :) if you play alone on a big map against another lonely one he has the same disadvantages. But pw don't like the combination of ( noob / newbe against godde ) / etc.
+0 / -0
|
Actually that is a good point. Map size should give a great indication of the amount of players it supports.. If nobody has dropships, then nobody gets to set the flag. If multiple have equal dropships, whoever is present with highest ELO gets to decide. Or just make something up.. :) The lower hard limit GoogleFrog suggests is completely against what I'm trying to achieve..
+0 / -0
|
Map size is poor predictor of player capacity.. For example comet catcher redux is great for 1v1 to 6v6 even though its huge. Some smal maps are also suitable for large player counts (darkside remake)
+0 / -0
|
Maybe some ppls don't know about shared m income? :) We need manual entries how to play big maps ... Or not?
+0 / -0
|
