DSD or big games discussion - Page 3

DSD or big games discussion

Please use this forum to set up matches and discuss played games.

Moderator: Moderators

ShockWave
Posts: 20
Joined: 07 Mar 2015, 20:42

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by ShockWave » 09 Mar 2015, 18:08

ShockWave wrote:We've already tried to setup small rooms,
FabriceFABS wrote: We ? Who ? Where ? When ? How long ? What setup exatly ?
Hosts named conflict and newbies, yours too.
FabriceFABS wrote: I'd be glad to receive an invitation at this time for a talk.
This is a long job and it will give results after a certain time, not after a day.
Simply because old players should be really-really be more mixed in others games with new players.
you cannot mix newbies with experienced gamers, or the game last 6 minutes, even
before they've built a lab. For this reason people asked ts limit into small rooms.

In a large team a newbie gererally doesn't make big problems, and a proper balance
is possible.
FabriceFABS wrote:
ShockWave wrote:
2) most of people refuses to play into a small team, specially low skilled players.
They feel themselve protected into a big team, and viceversa, in a large
team a noob won't cause an epic drama, like it would be in a small team.
I think low skill players are less shy to join smaller games too simply because the big team -bad- effect
is not here. Even if they feel protected, this is not a solution to leave a newbie in a corner of a big game.
If a noob fails in a big team result is the same : Entry point and with for quite sure 2,5kM present.
and what is the noob fail probability? In a big team he has to control few units, a little
part of the map, and there are a lot of players that, although between noobs insults, tell
him what to do, and can support him easily.

In a small team the newbie in necessarily left alone, to hold a large map area, against
who already know commands and units usage.

this is a general battle behaviour:
Large team: newbies are usually ignored, players spend resources to kill dangerous
enemies, not tiny kittens.

Small team: newbies are permalloy magnets for the enemies troops.

FabriceFABS wrote: 128 spec limit is a really silly value. 10-12 specs are really enough.
What you say is false : a 8v8 game runs at least from 35 to more than 60 mins somtimes.
Firstly you wait this, after you should have the chance to pick a free place between 10 potentials players between 20 specs ?
No chance, not this time ? Let's wait again !! ROTF... Are you serious ?
that's the point, game last 35 to 60 minutes, if the spectator limit is reached, the
room is automatically locked. So you must wait ready to click someone that
quits the room, for long. After 2 minutes you have the mouse above the X icon.
Or, like most people do, sit idle in another room alone, for hours.

most of spectators are just afk, locking rooms for who want to play.
FabriceFABS wrote: Why quitting-rejoining action ?
In case of a client-pc failure it's possible to unlock the game for temp entrance.
crash / replacement / disconnections. Who took your place isn't the one that left the battle,
so you cannot rejoin a locked room. I don't know if spads has changed this behaviour, or
added an exception for the player owner of the place, was only for admin.
FabriceFABS wrote: For the final word, new players should say to their friends to rejoin Spring, otherwise Spring (BA) will be left to a pool of 15~20 players with never-ending new players that don't want to stay.
Actually newbies do all of that, they play with their friends into their rooms.

The problems is in the lack of players generally, with tons of players every solution will
work, and will be adeguate to the variety of gameplay required by players.

Unfurtunally there is only 1 room active, filled by dsd lovers, those who are keeping
spring alive.
0 x

User avatar
FabriceFABS
Posts: 345
Joined: 28 Jul 2010, 16:20

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by FabriceFABS » 09 Mar 2015, 21:24

ShockWave wrote:you cannot mix newbies with experienced gamers, or the game last 6 minutes, even before they've built a lab. For this reason people asked ts limit into small rooms.

In a large team a newbie gererally doesn't make big problems, and a proper balance
is possible.
Yes, and even if the game lasts 6 minutes, where is the problem ?
Do you really think that all players here don't want to teach newbies on small games ?
TS limit in small room ? Does this really work ? TS limit doesn't change anything in small rooms, really. Already experienced.
ShockWave wrote: and what is the noob fail probability? In a big team he has to control few units, a little
part of the map, and there are a lot of players that, although between noobs insults, tell
him what to do, and can support him easily.
Yes and no... Any player has to control his map zone in front of him with the number of units it requires.
I hope so. I'm delighted to read that newbies are treated well on big games !
ShockWave wrote:In a small team the newbie in necessarily left alone, to hold a large map area, against who already know commands and units usage.
No...No... Small team games = small maps firstly, and secondly newbies are never left alone because it's an important danger of turnover, and you supervise them with a lot of attention.
When they do something wrong, they got advice immediatly.
You said it, on big games it's not really a danger... => No supervision of newbies really.
ShockWave wrote:this is a general battle behaviour:
Large team: newbies are usually ignored, players spend resources to kill dangerous
enemies, not tiny kittens.

Small team: newbies are permalloy magnets for the enemies troops.
:lol: and newbies aren't magnet on other size games ?
ShockWave wrote:
FabriceFABS wrote: 128 spec limit is a really silly value. 10-12 specs are really enough.
What you say is false : a 8v8 game runs at least from 35 to more than 60 mins somtimes.
Firstly you wait this, after you should have the chance to pick a free place between 10 potentials players between 20 specs ?
No chance, not this time ? Let's wait again !! ROTF... Are you serious ?
that's the point, game last 35 to 60 minutes, if the spectator limit is reached, the
room is automatically locked. So you must wait ready to click someone that
quits the room, for long. After 2 minutes you have the mouse above the X icon.
Or, like most people do, sit idle in another room alone, for hours.
You set a spec-value of 128, this spec limit will be never reached, and this only room will become as large as it can.
By lower spec value, you encourage the creation of new games.
Are you proud the last day about the 37 specs + 16 players : 53 persons in the same room...
Maybe you'll do better performance another day... Is it a goal ?
The problem is exactly the same that with TERA hosts.

You, as BH owner, is -partly- responsible of the fact that players that dislike DSD or big games couldn't do anything else or it's very difficult to have even a 1v1 game...
Waiting in rooms : More there are players, more quickly the next ones will join.
Players attracts players, but if they are attracted with a no-limit-DSD-effect, no chance they go anywhere else.
And those DSD players plays small games the morning on CCR and others maps, because there are very few players and they got no choice. So please, don't tell me that they are DSD lovers and so on !
ShockWave wrote:most of spectators are just afk, locking rooms for who want to play.
No comment.
ShockWave wrote:
FabriceFABS wrote: Why quitting-rejoining action ?
In case of a client-pc failure it's possible to unlock the game for temp entrance.
crash / replacement / disconnections. Who took your place isn't the one that left the battle,
so you cannot rejoin a locked room. I don't know if spads has changed this behaviour, or
added an exception for the player owner of the place, was only for admin.
I talk about «AutoLock Running Battle» => AutoLock entry of a running battle (only).
Check it out, what's the goal to join a game already started ?
Yes I know sorry, spec, and comments...
ShockWave wrote:
FabriceFABS wrote: For the final word, new players should say to their friends to rejoin Spring, otherwise Spring (BA) will be left to a pool of 15~20 players with never-ending new players that don't want to stay.

Actually newbies do all of that, they play with their friends into their rooms.

The problems is in the lack of players generally, with tons of players every solution will
work, and will be adeguate to the variety of gameplay required by players.
Well I'm not sure about tons of players every solution works... => (maybe...) We will get only 1 host with 100 specs !
ShockWave wrote:Unfurtunally there is only 1 room active, filled by dsd lovers, those who are keeping spring alive.
Oh.... How can you say this... Are you sure ? How considering others players : Ghosts because they don't play annoying porcy games ? Can they play anything else ?
«Unfurtunally» ? :lol:
This is really false. DSD game runs too long, and sorry but most of the game are non-DSD games.
DSD games are long games. So saying spring is alive with only 1 long games... ?!

Spring will be alive when you'll see many // games. Not only 1 room with 50 persons.
I would say it is gently dying instead...
And many players one day, will leave because they are tired of this.

How about turning off the magnet player by :
1. Autolock running battle => On,
and/or
2. Lower specs from 128 to 16 initialy.

Spring will get in a better health.

AFAIC, I limit to 12 specs and already see times where extra players build up a new game elsewhere this is how Spring should work, without excessives values or overpopulated or insane rooms.
If you do it, it's a good point, if you don't do it, Spring will stay, as is and for ever.
0 x

ShockWave
Posts: 20
Joined: 07 Mar 2015, 20:42

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by ShockWave » 10 Mar 2015, 14:01

FabriceFABS wrote:Yes, and even if the game lasts 6 minutes, where is the problem ?
cool you need 4 minutes to build a minimal sequence, mexes solars lab,
game over even before you've tried an unit.

this implies that you already know an optimized building sequence, otherwise we are
talking about newbies. ^^
FabriceFABS wrote:Do you really think that all players here don't want to teach newbies on small games ?
when you have to spam commands isn't that easy to write at the same time, and looking
what is doing your mate at the other corner of the map. So basically is left alone to die, and
insulted for its fail. ->newbies and low skilled people refuses to play into small teams.
FabriceFABS wrote:TS limit in small room ?
Requested by players, due to the fact that a newbie cannot join small games without
ruining the game itself, they must be sent in a dedicated sandbox first, where they
can pratice units and command with their timing

when you reach a certain level of automation, is easy for you, since is even trascured
by your brain, that for a certain command you give a combination of 3-4 key + combination
of propers mouse clicks (left right buttons combination) in a ms.

This isn't easy nor intuitive for newbies, they needs seconds even for building a single mex.
FabriceFABS wrote:Any player has to control his map zone in front of him with the number of units it requires.
since there isn't a spreaded front for a single player, battle zone is divided by the number
of players in the large team.

In small teams everyone fights directly its own opponent, hardly you can reroute
your army to save your ally, without dying you too. Also, due to the distance,
you notice that the newbie is fallen when you note enemy's troops in your base.
FabriceFABS wrote:I'm delighted to read that newbies are treated well on big games !
was a joke, anyway the real part is that into small team they are totally ignored, and insulted
when the game is over. So you are insulted and you don't know what went wrong.
FabriceFABS wrote:No...No... Small team games = small maps firstly, and secondly newbies are never left alone because it's an important danger of turnover, and you supervise them with a lot of attention.
When they do something wrong, they got advice immediatly.
already answered above, the fact is exactly the opposite, this is what you wish for newbies,
but not what really happens.
FabriceFABS wrote:You set a spec-value of 128, this spec limit will be never reached, and this only room will become as large as it can.
By lower spec value, you encourage the creation of new games.
we've already tried spec limits for YEARS, only troubles and a reduction of players connected, zero
increase of running battles ( players ingame ).
FabriceFABS wrote:players that dislike DSD or big games couldn't do anything else or it's very difficult to have even a 1v1 game
if a players is spectating and you broadcast a message "1vs1, small game starting in the other host"
through 37 spectators, if none follows you probably is not interested. But at least you have a chance
to find, between spectators, who is interested in that game. Is pointiless to broadcast to players, since
they are already playing.

With spectators limits, the only effect, talking by facts, is a reduction of players connected, with them
the chances to find more players for another game.
FabriceFABS wrote::lol: and newbies aren't magnet on other size games ?
again:

In a large team the newbie fail probability is low, and even if it happens, rarely
the whole team falls.

in the small team the newbie fail probablity is almost a certainty, triggering consequentially
the whole team failure.
FabriceFABS wrote:Waiting in rooms : More there are players, more quickly the next ones will join.
So why aren't they filling others rooms? why are they spectating other games? why when you
broadcast messages to start another game everyone ignores you? Why active spectators
in the game are 4 over 38 spectators?
FabriceFABS wrote:And those DSD players plays small games the morning on CCR and others maps, because there are very few players and they got no choice. So please, don't tell me that they are DSD lovers and so on !
Try to disable dsd, enjoy empty rooms and the death of this game. ^^
FabriceFABS wrote:The problem is exactly the same that with TERA hosts.
FabriceFABS wrote:How about turning off the magnet player by :
1. Autolock running battle => On,
and/or
2. Lower specs from 128 to 16 initialy.
I'm confused, this has been the configuration of TERA Host ^^
FabriceFABS wrote:How considering others players : Ghosts because they don't play annoying porcy games ? Can they play anything else ?
Yes actually they are playing anything else, other games maybe. Ghost are you talking about
join spring 4 times/month, even less, if they had been connected, they would have started another
room in the server "no dsd", that had been active for years for them.
FabriceFABS wrote:If you do it, it's a good point, if you don't do it, Spring will stay, as is and for ever.
The problem isn't in the room's settings, but in the lack of players.
We had the outcome of players, the ghost you are talking about, right now, have wife and
even children. But we haven't an adequate income of new players.
Result -> decrease of spring population.
0 x

tzaeru
Posts: 283
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by tzaeru » 25 May 2015, 19:28

I've tried to have some small to medium games, from 2v2 to 6v6 in past days. A few times I've waited literally for hours with no one joining me. Managed to score a few 1v1s. Of course, the DSD host is at 8v8 w/ 20 specs. But can I really complain about that? I think not -- if that's what people want to do, it's OK. The only thing I do wish is that people who are not bent to have that 8v8, would be a bit more open-minded towards joining smaller games. Check the game list once in a while, if you're fine with smaller games.

For all people who argue that DSD "imbalances the game" or "is boring for everyone" or "totally unskilled", well, you should understand that it's merely.. different. And I say that with no sarcasm meant. Sure, DSD is very different from your 3v3 CCR, but it isn't necessarily worse. It just is what it is. When I look at a typical 8v8 DSD match, I can see a few things that probably appeal to people well. For one, it's less micromanaging heavy. Failing a few time-critical moments is not necessarily a game-breaker. With the help of teammates, you can rebounce and contribute to the game despite losing large part of your base once. It's easier to focus on a very specific role and try to master that single role.

It might not be my favorite, but the offensive bashing of DSD really isn't respectful towards the community as a whole. It should stop. It's OK to not like it, but it's equally OK to not like 3v3 CCR or 1v1 Archer's Valley. Neither needs to be bashed or talked of like it destroyed Spring & BA.

Still!.. If you're OK with a smaller game, do throw an occasional glance to the game list.. I might be waiting ready there. ;)
0 x

User avatar
FabriceFABS
Posts: 345
Joined: 28 Jul 2010, 16:20

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by FabriceFABS » 29 May 2015, 10:48

Well, we'll make it simple because this discussion is deflected slightly :

With a regular number of 40 BA players, this host sucks all them very often (late afternoon) in it, this is a reality.
Not everyday, but often it gently grows to 8v8, and when it reachs the 8v8 limit, next specs are growing to inconsistent values.
You can notice that in the morning few players plays small games, --they don't have the choice...-- And don't leave SpringRTS.--

We can permit this kind of games, but in fact there is absolutely not the numbers of global SpringBA players for running this.
This puts a real brake for expansion of Spring community players.
Could be good in the past, I remember in year 2010 where 2 or 3 // 8v8 games, also some smaller and several Chickens too.
I used to practice such games, I didn't really mind about this problematic in the past TBH.
The number of players has kindly started to tumble until today.

Simply this is NOT normal, if you don't want to play such games, that making a 2v2 or 3v3 is often, NOT possible, or you should wait for edges.
Do you think that new players, to try the game, will wait so long ? Or they will recommend this game to their friends ?
Maybe they'll join the 8v8 host, but waiting 50 mins for having a tiny chance to get a player place between 10 "active" specs ?

Suggestion is simple :
Max specs to 16 (is a nice effort) lower would be better and autolock running battles.
Those who miss the train take another one, but in another station :P

***The Conversation***
tzaeru wrote:Of course, the DSD host is at 8v8 w/ 20 specs. But can I really complain about that? I think not -- if that's what people want to do, it's OK.
it does not prevent me from sleeping (those battles I mean). Simply reasoning must go further than to say "I like or not like." It's not the subject of debate.
tzaeru wrote:For all people who argue that DSD "imbalances the game" or "is boring for everyone" or "totally unskilled", well, you should understand that it's merely.. different. And I say that with no sarcasm meant.
AFAIC, I understand it. I play metal maps, non-metal maps, BA Chickens... that is also different, and maybe boring to some others.
tzaeru wrote:Sure, DSD is very different from your 3v3 CCR, but it isn't necessarily worse. It just is what it is. When I look at a typical 8v8 DSD match, I can see a few things that probably appeal to people well. For one, it's less micromanaging heavy. Failing a few time-critical moments is not necessarily a game-breaker. With the help of teammates, you can rebounce and contribute to the game despite losing large part of your base once. It's easier to focus on a very specific role and try to master that single role.
Message for me ? "My" CCR... LOL. The goal is not saying I like or dislike DSD...
And what you are saying here applies to to 7v7, 6v6, 5v5, 4v4 and let's say 3v3 too... and why not BA-Chickens. In a team, each player has a role.
tzaeru wrote:It might not be my favorite, but the offensive bashing of DSD really isn't respectful towards the community as a whole. It should stop. It's OK to not like it, but it's equally OK to not like 3v3 CCR or 1v1 Archer's Valley. Neither needs to be bashed or talked of like it destroyed Spring & BA.
We will do it short : Again, AFAIC, I don't bash DSD lovers.
I simply request lowering specs to 16 and autolock running battles. Hard to say it better...
tzaeru wrote:Still!.. If you're OK with a smaller game, do throw an occasional glance to the game list.. I might be waiting ready there. ;)
yes :)
ShockWave wrote: FabriceFABS wrote:
How about turning off the magnet player by :
1. Autolock running battle => On,
and/or
2. Lower specs from 128 to 16 initialy.


I'm confused, this has been the configuration of TERA Host ^^
Of course...
Do apply it, don't be afraid, there is no need to wait more. We all trust in you for your influential on your involvement with regard to the arrival of new players !
ShockWave wrote:
FabriceFABS wrote: How considering others players : Ghosts because they don't play annoying porcy games ? Can they play anything else ?
Yes actually they are playing anything else, other games maybe. Ghost are you talking about
join spring 4 times/month, even less, if they had been connected, they would have started another
room in the server "no dsd", that had been active for years for them.
You didn't catch me.
Simply saying you that you don't have much consideration to players that's play anything else that such big games in a arena of 40 specs.
So we are ghost for you... As a ghost, I can say that I connect almost every day, and I play 0*8v8 games.
Catch it ?
0 x

tzaeru
Posts: 283
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by tzaeru » 29 May 2015, 11:04

FabriceFABS wrote:
tzaeru wrote:Sure, DSD is very different from your 3v3 CCR, but it isn't necessarily worse. It just is what it is. When I look at a typical 8v8 DSD match, I can see a few things that probably appeal to people well. For one, it's less micromanaging heavy. Failing a few time-critical moments is not necessarily a game-breaker. With the help of teammates, you can rebounce and contribute to the game despite losing large part of your base once. It's easier to focus on a very specific role and try to master that single role.
Message for me ? "My" CCR... LOL. The goal is not saying I like or dislike DSD...
And what you are saying here applies to to 7v7, 6v6, 5v5, 4v4 and let's say 3v3 too... and why not BA-Chickens. In a team, each player has a role.
By "your CCR" I didn't mean to single out you or anyone else, really. It was just a general way of hilighting the fact that CCR, too, is a commonly played map and well known in the community. The "you" here refers to the whole playerbase.
FabriceFABS wrote:
tzaeru wrote:It might not be my favorite, but the offensive bashing of DSD really isn't respectful towards the community as a whole. It should stop. It's OK to not like it, but it's equally OK to not like 3v3 CCR or 1v1 Archer's Valley. Neither needs to be bashed or talked of like it destroyed Spring & BA.
We will do it short : Again, AFAIC, I don't bash DSD lovers.
I simply request lowering specs to 16 and autolock running battles. Hard to say it better...
I'm not fully sure if this is necessarily a good approach. It's my belief that majority of the spectators on BlackHoleHost are really there just to socialize. They aren't going to play. They just want to chat with other people and check a few games. Autolocking or limiting spec amount is not a solution to that.

What goes to the general concern of dwindling player counts and the lack of fresh blood, I think the underlaying "issue" is really much more complicated than the tendency to play a specific map on specific hosts. TA derivates have a lot of room for growth, that's for sure, but to achieve this, we need something to penetrate into the consciousness of RTS people. We need something marketable. Something that indie game sites could write about. We also need community effort, generally in a loosely coordinated manner, as getting a good amount of attention at once is much better than getting a little attention now and then, as higher attention helps retain player counts better. There are such efforts in existance and I, personally, want to look for all the possible ways of pursuing this goal of getting a bigger playerbase.
0 x

User avatar
FabriceFABS
Posts: 345
Joined: 28 Jul 2010, 16:20

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by FabriceFABS » 29 May 2015, 12:15

tzaeru wrote:I'm not fully sure if this is necessarily a good approach. It's my belief that majority of the spectators on BlackHoleHost are really there just to socialize. They aren't going to play. They just want to chat with other people and check a few games. Autolocking or limiting spec amount is not a solution to that.
Socializing specs ? :oops: :lol:
Humm... Those specs could go into any else game ? or it's some DSDProSpecs too ?

The problems that those spec clusters attracts players too, it's a reality that players attracts players or people attracts people in you prefer.
Don't you notice this in general ?

If you lower spec limits, you'll get indirectly more games, and then more spec clusters possibilities.
But I agree that this will don't bring effect immediately and will take some time.
tzaeru wrote:What goes to the general concern of dwindling player counts and the lack of fresh blood, I think the underlaying "issue" is really much more complicated than the tendency to play a specific map on specific hosts. TA derivates have a lot of room for growth, that's for sure, but to achieve this, we need something to penetrate into the consciousness of RTS people. We need something marketable. Something that indie game sites could write about. We also need community effort, generally in a loosely coordinated manner, as getting a good amount of attention at once is much better than getting a little attention now and then, as higher attention helps retain player counts better. There are such efforts in existance and I, personally, want to look for all the possible ways of pursuing this goal of getting a bigger playerbase.
You said it, we should make efforts : Giving more power to players, new players than specs in this often unique game room...
0 x

tzaeru
Posts: 283
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by tzaeru » 29 May 2015, 13:28

FabriceFABS wrote:
tzaeru wrote:I'm not fully sure if this is necessarily a good approach. It's my belief that majority of the spectators on BlackHoleHost are really there just to socialize. They aren't going to play. They just want to chat with other people and check a few games. Autolocking or limiting spec amount is not a solution to that.
Socializing specs ? :oops: :lol:
Humm... Those specs could go into any else game ? or it's some DSDProSpecs too ?
I think there might be a language barrier here.. Of course socialization works better with other people than it does in battle rooms with no one or just a few people on. :P
FabriceFABS wrote:The problems that those spec clusters attracts players too, it's a reality that players attracts players or people attracts people in you prefer.
Don't you notice this in general ?
Sure, but the real question is, how many of the specs would actually even play? How many of them would *want* to be in a battleroom with less people?
FabriceFABS wrote:
tzaeru wrote:What goes to the general concern of dwindling player counts and the lack of fresh blood, I think the underlaying "issue" is really much more complicated than the tendency to play a specific map on specific hosts. TA derivates have a lot of room for growth, that's for sure, but to achieve this, we need something to penetrate into the consciousness of RTS people. We need something marketable. Something that indie game sites could write about. We also need community effort, generally in a loosely coordinated manner, as getting a good amount of attention at once is much better than getting a little attention now and then, as higher attention helps retain player counts better. There are such efforts in existance and I, personally, want to look for all the possible ways of pursuing this goal of getting a bigger playerbase.
You said it, we should make efforts : Giving more power to players, new players than specs in this often unique game room...
What I actually was going after is that to succesfully have more games, we need more players. ~40-50 players on prime time is simply too little to be able to have a few small games, a duel game or two, a big game or two, speed game or two at the same time. That's a fact.

Now, as we both know, a lot of players attracts more players. So we've kind of a "egg or chicken" problem here. The way to solve this, eventually, is to make a coordinated effort of advertisement to attract more players simultaneously, which lets us to have a better retention rate.. In regards of what goes to BA in this, I'd wait for BAR.
0 x

User avatar
FabriceFABS
Posts: 345
Joined: 28 Jul 2010, 16:20

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by FabriceFABS » 29 May 2015, 18:36

Yes, it's annoying that not talk in the right language because we don't use the right words.
tzaeru wrote:Sure, but the real question is, how many of the specs would actually even play? How many of them would *want* to be in a battleroom with less people?
For the «spec» specifications, it's not easy, this can change due to many params.
But between specs, I think that most of the time, you got :
- 60% that are pure spec,
- 40% that wants to play (got a player place) and maybe 50 or 75% of this don't spec until next game and wait in this game's lobby.
It's on this last point that if all autohosts are locked auto on running battles, maybe a // 2v2 would run instead.
Even if players don't like it, it's better to play a 2v2 instead of waiting, isn't it ?

You experienced the long wait, alone in a game lobby.
I could tell you that I did wait too, and still wait for a game actually.
Sometimes it's a fail, sometimes, more players coming, faster they comes (ie. : Players attracts players).
I've noticed that this works also good when there is a odd number of players waiting.
tzaeru wrote:to make a coordinated effort of advertisement to attract more players simultaneously
Done for french community http://springrts.fr (needs some updates, but whole contents ok)
The real question is : Why new players don't stay ?
One of the reasons partly is the time needed to build a small game, for instance a 2v2, or the time to wait for playing this unique (BA) big 8v8 game.
To lower waiting, I claim to auto-lock running battles and lowering specs value to 16.
16 specs are really enough. Doing this as long as the time it takes for a new player pool is established.
tzaeru wrote:In regards of what goes to BA in this, I'd wait for BAR.
Humm...I'm reserved regards this (being attractive, etc)... but I believe in BAR' project.
0 x

Orfelius
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Nov 2014, 20:57

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by Orfelius » 30 May 2015, 01:23

Just one small suggestion from a person who have only played BA DSD like 2 times.

There was one game mode called Defense of The Ancients which has been played on multiple maps. Long story short basically one was played so much that all the content DoTA spinoffs were put together as one giant pack and as we all know the game benefited from this change a lot. Perhaps BA devs should take this into lesson into consideration and instead of rehashing TA, focus on building a game based on Delta Siege instead while using already avaible assets.

It is just a suggestion from a person that doesn't even feel as being a part of this particular community (BA community) so feel free to ignore me :)
0 x

User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by albator » 30 May 2015, 12:15

Orfelius wrote:Just one small suggestion from a person who have only played BA DSD like 2 times.

There was one game mode called Defense of The Ancients which has been played on multiple maps. Long story short basically one was played so much that all the content DoTA spinoffs were put together as one giant pack and as we all know the game benefited from this change a lot. Perhaps BA devs should take this into lesson into consideration and instead of rehashing TA, focus on building a game based on Delta Siege instead while using already avaible assets.

It is just a suggestion from a person that doesn't even feel as being a part of this particular community (BA community) so feel free to ignore me :)
This has actually already been the case with some old mods who get famous because of that (cf. old senna work).

And this also now the case with BA where all the balance have been redone to fit that particular map. (imo)

From my own perspective, that is what makes make want to only play dsd only now. The game use to be far more balance accross other map and especailly ffa.
What is happening now (and I won't argue if that is good or bad, that is just the consequence of the choice that been made - some of them partially due to engine change):
- 1) you cannot really end a game in t1 (that is basically because some of the t1 anti t2 unit dont do there job anymore)
- 2) poeple don't go on producing t2 unit straight away and it is better to porc for safer win. This because it is much more difficult to kill AFUS stack that is was before with air and also because the overall clumpying of unit made the defence more efficient)
- 3) game last much longer because of 1 & 2
- 4) because of 3 and things like the juno (the ba dev are non-willing to introduce automated fogwar (L-key) widget to make the poeple aware of what the radar is. I am not even kidding 95% of poeple even ghost-ranking don't know about it. So they spam lot of any unit (air scout and ak/pewee) to have LoS), the game ends by some of poeple cannot play anymore. I know that is still very possible to do by turning some parameters down (i have 6yo hadware 30fps late game), so but you should not ask the nooby who arrive to tune the game so it is playable, you should make it affordable to (relatively) old computer.
- 5) T3 is less likely to be countered by lower eco for many reason: blade are less efficient, you cannot Dgunb a t3 after the com landed, the unit stack makes t3 more effective, the berta range is lower (i agree that is a good thing though), air in general is less good and most t3 unit have AA capability


The consequence of that is that since the game last longer, the noob dsd player can see the full teck tree of BA and dont get rape. I assume that was the targetted idea of the change.

The downside is that it makes game more boring since more fucus on defense and far less dynamics that what it was before. The only last interesting things that last after that is the team play and you can only get that in DSD since everyone knows it...That is why poeple play it. Other maps are getting boring since that is all about porcing and waiting long enough to have significantly more eco and spam. I know that the way RTS works, but because of the point 1,2 & 5 the difference in eco to be certain to win was much higher...

Edit:

The consequence of that is that nooby also get frustrated because they feel useless. I remember some new player saying this month that they felt useless and did not want cause of that. I guess it does not apply to every noob

my 2 cents...
0 x

tzaeru
Posts: 283
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by tzaeru » 30 May 2015, 13:22

I would dare to claim that ending the game in T1 in 8v8 DSD wouldn't be particularly rare if all the players in both teams were high-skilled and cooperated excellently. And far as I can tell, there's been no particularly game-changing balance changes to land units in BA for years now?
0 x

User avatar
albator
Posts: 866
Joined: 14 Jan 2009, 14:20

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by albator » 30 May 2015, 14:36

Some exemple of what changed "recently" and that a combination of engine and balance change

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=30710&p=545465&hil ... or#p544985

For the rest, it is relatively old changes that came out just after 6.82 (7.xx and further). just have a look at the rather drastic balance changes just after tfc left.
0 x

ShockWave
Posts: 20
Joined: 07 Mar 2015, 20:42

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by ShockWave » 07 Jun 2015, 13:01

FabriceFABS wrote: To lower waiting, I claim to auto-lock running battles and lowering specs value to 16.
16 specs are really enough. Doing this as long as the time it takes for a new player pool is established.
This settings has been active for years, without your desired result.

The effect of limit spectator is just to deny people to join battles, and when you wait alone
into empty rooms, your mouse will move toward the X icon.

We removed those limits to (finally) allow players to join others room, in order to have:
° fun spectating a game (i spectate a lot of games, often for few minutes to relax myself a bit, and it's funny)
° fun insulting noobs as spectator, because as spectator everyone is god and knows what is right to do.
° talk with other people about game's stuff, like trollmando OP. if you had searched for a girlfriend, you would have joined meetic
° try to start another room asking spectators to move elsewhere, you can find who is interested to play.

##### about DSD ######
After tons of pointless discussions, 274 failed revisions of DSD map, we concluded that DSD, and its gameplay, is good as it is.
Or better, someone like me would say: is awesome how it is.
######################

For BAR: i suggest a bit of promoting after we have:
° a working matchmaker
° an easy installer with games and most maps included (who try the game wants to start it immediately, or will be uninstalled)
° an easy lobby with 4 buttons: Singleplayer (training mission, BOT fight), multiplayer (matchmaking FFA mode), custom battles(actual rooms), settings.
the "custom battles"(or another name) button should bring players to the actual lobby and rooms, rooms locked to who has an unstable TS.

send newbies and who try the game in their dedicated sandboxes first.
0 x

tzaeru
Posts: 283
Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 02:23

Re: DSD or big games discussion

Post by tzaeru » 07 Jun 2015, 13:29

Newbies aren't an automatic death sentence in small to medium games though. I've gotten my butt kicked by vandie who had a 20-hour newbie with him while I had another gold star. :P

But yeah, it's true that a few newbies in 4v4 can drastically change the game, and will make it a lot more difficult for the side who have them. Regardless, I don't think that this is sufficient grounds to rank-limit small to medium games. There's no automatic defeat and sometimes, losing 5 times in row is worth it if you can teach a newbie to play a bit. It's not like every small to medium game without rank limit is going to see total newbies anyway!

And I guess that the main conclusion about DSD really is that it just is a map that majority of players like to play. Impossible to say whether it's good or not for the community. I'd personally haphazard to guess that it's neither; It just is what it is!
ShockWave wrote: For BAR: i suggest a bit of promoting after we have:
° a working matchmaker
° an easy installer with games and most maps included (who try the game wants to start it immediately, or will be uninstalled)
° an easy lobby with 4 buttons: Singleplayer (training mission, BOT fight), multiplayer (matchmaking FFA mode), custom battles(actual rooms), settings.
the "custom battles"(or another name) button should bring players to the actual lobby and rooms, rooms locked to who has an unstable TS.
The installer is a pretty realistic an endeavour. What do you mean by a matchmaker? A "quick game" button?

Lobby changes are a different thing. SL isn't a breeze to develop from what I've seen of its code. Making a fully new lobby is beyond the resources at this point, unless someone steps up for it. We'll see..

However, I do think there are the means to supply configuration with SL installation, to have default Lobby Filters etc.

Split further discussion of these ideas for BAR to viewtopic.php?f=44&t=33584. (Silentwings)
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Ingame Community”

cron