Any idea to promote more 1v1 up to 6v6 games?

Sometimes there are 10v10+lot of spectators and you can wait a long time to play a ~3v3 or even a 1v1

I know that this is not a new question but anyway

by making it easier to find a map that all players have so less time is wasted on map voting/download.

Is it a real problem? Cause even hosting popular maps people still stuck on 12v12 hosts.

I think many players are overtrained for 8v8 DSD and they fear to play different maps/small games cause it is very different.
I dont know but maybe because they are insulted in smaller games when they fail
Or because 8v8 has a more nobody-is-responsable gameplay?

Just trick them into downloading a special version of dsd with zwzsg mapmorpher in it, than suddenly midgame, map morphs to map of choice...

Or maybe promoting some tourneys (1v1 upto 6v6)

Seems like a human issue 1v1 when you lose you cannot blame your ally.

I like a good 1v1 but most of the time in spring they are one sided, me creaming someone or them creaming me. Hardly ggs

This issue will unfortunately never get fixed. You're right Marcio, people hanging on 12v12 hosts don't want to get challenged, because if they do and they lose, it will hurt their epeen too much.

Anyway I made a thread about this in the past, as well as keijj0 but we never really got any real results. People either agreed + TRIED to get things going to another direction and then the other half just told us small game lovers to host small games and wait for people because eventually, ppl would join. No they will not. Or then there's someone trolling about it when it's not really the best subject to troll about.

Anyhow it's not really up to us whether it's going to change or not, all we can do is just wait, and yes, that sucks.

Only known solution is play more small game so people get drag to some host where they have the choice to play with less pips. Or spontaneously go to 6v6 max autohost when you connect to TAS even that is empty.

Ladder could also bring intereset in 1v1

Something I would really like is planet wars. That looks realy cool. Too bad that only happens for in communist annihilation

Thanks Carp for sharing your experience. It is really sucks to just wait

Maybe Albator is right, if we spontaneously go to 6v6-max autohost when connecting even if it is empty... maybe some months later ( ) people will start playing more small games.

Or if you have an autohost, you can help just setting to 12-max players.

+1

No one joins them but all complain that no one plays there. To get things started you need to be a bit patient. The time you write on forums you could already idle there.

There is/was a ladder, it died quickly: http://ladder.springrts.com/

or stop running away when someone wants to play 1v1 with ya, right ?



that was lulz, few months of complaining and begging for ladder, 2 weeks of actual playing :D essence of spring lol

I didn't really understand the reason of this ladder, I mean what is the relationship with playing small games?
Does the ladder motivates small games?

The idea is that the larger the team is, the more diluted the contribution of each player. So competitive players looking to advance their ladder ranking by winning will look to play in smaller games or with only teammates they already know and trust.

And of course, there is a separate category for 1v1 for ultimate e-peen advancement.

Unfortunately pretty much all the competitive players seem to have left for Starcraft 2 or something else.

Imo a lot could be done with better-kept autohosts, matchmaking (with persistent user rating kept over different accounts), applying knorkes startup wall gadget as a modoption so noobs can have peacetime if they want.

The biggest problem is when an autohost has no one in charge there, because anyone can make teamsize bigger and people joining means you cannot make it smaller. This is a slippery slope.

The psychological reasons listed here for big team playing are less relevant than the snowballing of teamsize for technical and utility reasons.

Maybe matches should require both a player limit setting and a spectator limit setting? That way the server can be locked for player count? Also actually using the map player count as the upper bounds for matches hosted?

Issue is getting new people to play small games with each other. They'll not fit in to play vs decent players very soon, and there's the threshold to take initiative to start a new room when you're new, so you just join something you can ie. big team games.

Even if big games are ruined by too wide skill spectrum as well.

There would be a "fixed player count" version of all the popular maps within 2 days. Trying to limit team size by technical limits will not work like this.
Even a gadget like in Spring Tanks* could be worked around, if there was interesst.
*limited to 4 players only due to lazyness to define more than 4 spawn positions per map

quoted for truth.
But it leads to psychological reasons:

I think in Spring people only play small games with people they know or have played with before.
Properly not because they do not want to team up with a noob but because chances are low that a first time player will even manage to get ingame and do something.
At least I have given up on joining an AH if there is just one player in it. Sad truth is, whenever I did that there simply was no game.
Evern after hours trying to explain lobby,map dl, gameplay - in the end you will not have played one real game.
So you either join the loldsd or wait for "experienced" player(s) to come online.

Oh well, another usless post in an MTR thread.
Basically dont try to ban 12v12 but try to make 1v1 more attractive.

that's fine.

But then it would have changed nothing but a few map names?