What if we lowered the playercount to like 16? Do we have any maps that are made for bigger than 8v8? Do the games get any better with more people? Wouldn't it be better to split the 13v13 games we have into 8v8 and 5v5 based on skill level? The way I see it, having a room with capacity 40 just creates a toxic eniornment where all the newbies and pros play in 1 room and nobody is happy. In addition, it draws players away from potentially better games with better matchups.
+3 / -0
|
did u checkout the matchmaker since u prefer small teams? or the small teams room?
+0 / -0
|
people will host their own 40 player battles, with local militia running it and democratic dystopia every time the map needs to change , lobsterpots are lower quality games but the experience of vastness is much more easy to have, the probability for epic games is higher no matter your skill, your actions could be that epic play and if you fail you get more chances to do it again, also the potential when there are 15 other commanders on your team is quite compeling everyone has a different mindset when joining the lobsterpot, goals may differ. this creates friction if you wanna tryhard dont expect anything from your team, it isnt realistic, a fair chunk of players join the lobpot because they dont want to play hard, mindless wacka-mole thats all [Spoiler]i mean look at    Firepluk the embodiment of the spirit of lobsterpot, he doesnt even make units we have a community thats creates games ranging form wild hood fight to masterfull chessgame passing trough soccer game
+3 / -0
|
I think it might be easier to rebalance the late game around 40 players and using mirroring to make bigger maps at this point =) Then again I have heard people not want to play huge maps in spite of having huge teams. People apparently feel comfortable being cramped to the point of breaking the game's balance. I have heard players optimize the fun out of a game if the devs let them. Maybe this is a case of cramping the fun out of the game?
+0 / -0
|
There is probably something to try in this area, but a lot of things have been tried before and shown to fail in interesting ways. Can someone find and link to the last few large threads on this topic?
+0 / -0
|
As a person who mainly plays lobster pots, the 20 v 20s are pretty fun. I hate playing rounds where one stupid flank can completely kill me. If I fail in a lobster pot, I can always try again.
+2 / -0
|
https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/28271 1 page https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/28148 3 pages https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/25734 1 page goneth casual ladder side ;cometh top 100 of competitive ladder could we have a poll ? How would your zero-k habits change if only competitive(matchmaking) rating yielded a rank colour and the casual ladder abolished ? i would stop playing i would not be affected i would play more competitive i would play more casual
+0 / -0
|
I see lots of non-autohost rooms popping up all day, and if I turn off the passworded filter I see even more. People who play ZK because they like to play in the lobpot are gonna keep doing it. People who are toxic are gonna be toxic. People who are sick of it are gonna do something else. Does lowering max player count to an arbitrary number change any of this? How is 8v8 less toxic if the same people are in it? I haven't heard or seen a compelling automatic, organizational solution to toxicpot. If you want to get people away from it, try and see what happens. Whenever somebody is really trying to organize another game, people come. In other words, instead of requesting other leaders fix a problem you perceive (when they are already busy doing day to day moderation), be a leader.
+0 / -0
|
I would rather play 4v4 - 8v8 than some even close to 20v20 bullshit. Cant there be an option people can check/enable/whatever, kinda like matchmaker, that if there are enough willing players for medium size casual battle, the game would say that "hey, now there are 16 people who want to play this room, want to go to that room now?".
+2 / -0
|
quote:
Cant there be an option people can check/enable/whatever, kinda like matchmaker, that if there are enough willing players for medium size casual battle, the game would say that "hey, now there are 16 people who want to play this room, want to go to that room now?". |
What you are describing is literally matchmaking. But I do think the UI could be better for this, right now it doesn't give you a notification at the top unless joining a queue is guaranteed to instantly start a game. If you could see the state of all the queues while in a lobby it might help people be aware of MM teams queues. Until then, tell people to join MM Sortie/Battle queue between toxicpot rounds.
+2 / -0
|
maybe we can make another autohost room called [A]No Toxicity Lobsterpot
+1 / -0
|
Here's my personal perspective on the birth of lobsterpots. This all happened in like 2012. 1. Room max size was 8v8. All was well in my opinion, although usually there wasn't a second room and people tried to fit into the one room (population was lower then). The 2v2 to 8v8 games played on the teams hosts were good. 2. As a noble attempt to create more rooms and split lower and higher skilled players to their own games, room max size was increased to 16v16 and a system was implemented that automatically split games when they ended. Iirc it worked so that if there was 20 or more players when a game ended, it would split into two 5v5s sorted by rating. 3. Above system was deemed a failure, since one of the games often died immediately or after one game was played. The splitting system was abandoned but room size was kept at 16v16, and since then we have had THE LOBSTAPOT.
+0 / -0
|
After spectating some games in the palladium event yesterday, I have to say, there wasn't anything I would have described as toxicity in either the game I was a part of or the ones I watched. I didn't watch all of them, but that was leagues better than what I see every time I spectate the ATW game. Frustrations did still exist to some extent but it was a lot more restrained. I wonder how the ATW was doing yesterday.
+1 / -0
|
WRT Matchmaking, all the team modes always have 0 players. The only really viable option is 1v1s, but those get tiring after a while. WRT Small Teams host, it is empty like 3/4 times I log in. Coincidentally, of those times, when I check Teams All Welcome, it is like 30/40 people with 15 specs. Thus, my options are literally to play a game where my actions mean everything, or play a game where my actions mean nothing.
+1 / -0
|
quote:
As a person who mainly plays lobster pots, the 20 v 20s are pretty fun. I hate playing rounds where one stupid flank can completely kill me. If I fail in a lobster pot, I can always try again. |
How do you mean? In 20 v 20 stupid flank can kill you(=kill your team slowly after losing one front for whatever stupid reason) just as well as in 4 v 4. If you fail in lobsterpot? Try again? Try again in the same propably already lost battle? You can completely fail in 4 v 4 and try again, too, maybe even with more chances. Lets try medium teams all welcome? 8 v 8 max? Could even be 3 rooms, high/low/all elos? I would even like to spectate high elo games, even more so if I was a new player. Matchmaking seems to often(always?) ask me if I want 1v1? No, I dont, I hate it. I could maybe win against rusbolshakov. Please ask medium teams.
+2 / -0
|
If community like lobster pots then its already 'better'. If community wanted more small teams then they already would be played more. This big teams is that thing which lack almost any game and give ZK unique status. Some players only playing lobster teams. I don't see beneficial things if there would be limits. Devs already set this bad map poll system where 4 maps after game can be selected and its really is annoying when 4 shit maps appears and room suddenly turns dead. 40 people with nubs is less damaging then 10 peoples with nubs. Already saw so much small teams thrown by useless storage and porc spammer in base while his team is glowing white watching this.
+0 / -0
|
Would it be possible for Zero-k to modify economy parameters depending on the number of players? It would be nice if huge-ass lobsterpots could automatically have the economy adjusted as to reduce imbalance and the impact of the +6 metal commanders give. Just removing or reducing that bonus wholesale isn't viable as if the lobsterpot decided to play on a small map, the 20 players on a team would basically have no metal. I'm thinking something like: past a certain number of players (10v10 maybe) the game establishes a minimum amount of metal income the map must have per player. If the map does not have that income, all mexes are multiplied by a value necessary to reach that minimum. Superweapon cost and health could also be multiplied to prevent them from becoming too easy to rush (they kinda already are on large lobsterpots). I'm thinking only of the DRP, Zenith and Starlight being affected. An alternative would be: instead of fiddling with multipliers, maps are filtered instead, meaning they won't show up for voting if they don't met the minimum income requirement.
+0 / -0
|
And room should be renamed - trolls all welcome.
+2 / -0
|
I hAtE the new 20v20 host. 16v16 was already bad enough, I don't think we need even more players in a single match. Yes, it's cool the first few times to see a 20v20, but being honest here, cool factor wears off quickly. I don't inherently enjoy 16v16. I dislike the lack of income provided by it and the complete aversion to cooperation/coordination that most people have in it. A great example is when one guy is rushing nuke, another guy is rushing DRP and a third guy comes around 5 minutes later and starts another DRP. The lack of income means that teaming up and coordinating with another person on the front is necessary, but few people actually want to coordinate and would rather play interlinked 1v1's. This sours an otherwise unoffensive experience. However, things get worse when people vote in sea maps. Sea in 16v16 has to be one of the WORST experiences this game has to offer. It is dominated by thrown scallops with a few claymores tossed in or envoy/sirens. What makes an unfun experience even worse is the above combined with a split sea front -- two sea lane maps like tangerine or supreme battlefield. It's almost certain that people will forget one or both sides. If one side isn't forgotten and the match almost immediately lost, you can easily get tag teamed and lose simply because you have less scallops than the enemy. And once you lose once, it's hard to come back from the loss of a scallop ball. Sea is thus an experience that's just pure awfulness. I'd be willing to talk to  ADVENT and to try to seed smaller nonsea map games or even a second game (maybe 10v10 at most) if we could get more interested parties. There's typically 2-5 of us in a normal day. Since many of us are fairly elo'd, maybe we could invite higher ranked players to relieve the frustration of dealing with noobs or people playing terrible on purpose.
+3 / -0
|
@_Shaman how about go seed small teams room then yourself i mean there are technically all requirements given for you to play small teams without taking away other peoples opportunity to play big teams although i always see you idle in teams room when there were no [a] rooms, someone, mostly pluk, chesti or you iirc was seeding such a big teams room, nowadays u sometimes see ppl seeding small teams but mostly they just prefer big teams room just my 2 cents
+0 / -0
|
