Add Another Player Slot or Two

[BORG]

Could you guys please add another player slot or two to the game so 5-6 players can play? Maybe you could make it a game options setting so we can choose how many players we want?

When I play, I often have more than 4 players interested in playing, but we can't all play together because we can only have 4 players in a game.

You guys added more classes so I thought it would be a good idea to add another 1-2 player slots.

[BORG]

@IceBeam, it doesn't have to be a forced option. It could be settable by the host through game options. I would never ask that such a feature be forced. It would be fine for the vanilla game and affect nobody who doesn't want to use such a feature.

I feel you didn't really understand the depth of what I proposed. I said difficulty could ramp up depending on the amount of increased player slots, stats, etc.

You're taking the suggestions more at face value than thinking more deeply about it all when contrasted with the current state of the game. The game could change in such ways that balance additional players.

Again, try to think more deeply about it all. You're taking this all at face value and this goes well beyond how you're understanding it.

[BORG]

Messaggio originale di Saber Help:

Messaggio originale di BORG:

Think you guys would be interested in doing something like this?

https://steamcommunity.com/app/699130/discussions/0/3820796859474991379/?tscn=1694690668#c3872588429044780085

Hello! We add all player-generated feedback to the players' wishlist.

OK good to know. That means my proposal in that link is in there too? I hope so! It could really add some interesting game play, styles and chaos. :)

[IceBeam]

Messaggio originale di BORG:

I feel you didn't really understand the depth of what I proposed. You're taking the suggestions more at face value than thinking more deeply about it all when contrasted with the current state of the game.

My previous comment indicates that I have already put enough thought into this suggestion to understand why it is a bad idea.

Messaggio originale di BORG:

Ideally 6-8 max would be good so long as the balance is there to keep it challenging and fun for everybody

Messaggio originale di BORG:

it doesn't have to be a forced option. It could be settable by the host through game options. I would never ask that such a feature be forced. It would be fine for the vanilla game and affect nobody who doesn't want to use such a feature.

I don't think you understand the depth of issues those extra player slots will bring and how difficult it will be to deal with the class-based power creep when you let players bring extra classes to the team. The total number of 6-8 player slots is A LOT. Many things in this game are balanced around 4 players. If the option of having more player slots is added to the base versions of Campaign and Horde, then each time developers decide to add something to the game, they will need to think about how it will perform in games with 6-8 players. Things designed for games with 4 players can end up being completely overpowered in games with 6-8 players, and vice versa. If the difficulty of the 8-player mode is increased, then things balanced around the 8-player mode can end up being underpowered in modes with 4 players.

Campaign maps like New York 2, New York 4, Moscow 4, Rome 3, and Kamchatka 2 will become significantly easier in games with more than 4 players. Maps like Moscow 2, Moscow 3, Tokyo 3, Marseille 3, and Kamchatka 3 have spaces already cramped enough for 4 players. Add more, and it's a recipe for an increase in friendly fire incidents and/or people overextending in front of each other and fighting over zombie kills.

Holdouts in the Horde mode will become easier if you add more players, and the earlier waves will be even more boring.

Messaggio originale di BORG:

I said difficulty could ramp up depending on the amount of increased player slots, stats, etc.

The game could change in such ways that balance additional players.

How do you suggest doing that without fundamentally reworking the game modes and the maps? Since the number of players can increase dynamically (for instance, 4 players start the game, 2 more players join mid-game, then 4 players leave before the end), the difficulty will also need to increase dynamically. This means that touching static entities that can only be changed before the game starts (classes and their perks; weapons, their stats and their perks) is highly undesirable. Otherwise, exceptions have to be programmed for the increased player count and the perk descriptions need to be bloated with exceptional scenarios.

"Add more zombies" isn't really an answer. Firstly, this game already spawns a lot more zombies at once (hundreds) than other games (where the zombie count is often capped at less than 100 so that the game doesn't become a slideshow by straining the hardware). Secondly, this game already gives players combinations of weapons and classes that let them eliminate from 200 to over 500 common zombies just by emptying the heavy weapon they spawn with. MGL Hellraiser, MRL 202 Hellraiser, MRL 202 Exterminator, and RPG Exterminator make it happen within a few clicks during horde sequences. Chainsaw Slashers and Vanguards can slash through multiple pyramids before they run out of fuel. Not to mention the combo with multiple Fixers for duplicating supply bags. Several hundreds of common zombies will need to be spawned to counter-balance just 1 player slot. Might be possible if you're looking at the Tokyo 3 finale or Rome 3. In Moscow 2, Moscow 3, the subways of Moscow 4, and the finale of Marseille 2, there's only so much space to work with.

You could add more special zombies (3 Bulls, for instance), but this would be countered by those extra slots that will let players have utility for dealing with specials. A Vanguard can just face-tank multiple Bulls without getting grabbed. A Prestige 3 Dronemaster and a Fixer can eliminate each Bull with one shot on Extreme difficulty. Each of them needs to carry a Payload Rifle buffed by "the Big Five 0" perk and be followed by a Quadrocopter to make it possible. A Hellraiser with C4s buffed by the "Hello Kitty" perk can stop the entire group of Bulls. 1 Slasher will have enough Stun Gun charges for all those Bulls, and 2 Slashers can split 4 Bulls between themselves without running out of charges.

The idea with RNG-based scenarios you have suggested significantly alters the flow of the game and will require a map rework.

This is why I am saying that if the option to increase the number of players is ever added, it should be limited to a mutator or a separate game mode.

[IceBeam]

Another important thing to note is the number of players who complain about the player count and "dead game". Even these days, even in the European region that has a lot of players across all platforms, many servers, and where it's possible to get a game going at pretty much any time of the day. Several years later, the number of players will eventually get reduced (which happens to most games during the late stages of their life cycles), and there will be more of those "dead game" complaints. Inevitably, someone will complain that it's hard to get a game going because the playerbase is split and people have too many choices. They will suggest removing the option to choose the player count. If the maximum number of players is 6 or 8, then they will ask the classic limit of 4 to be removed. People usually gravitate to "more" and "easier", and this is exactly what those extra slots will give.

Developers will have to make a difficult decision either way. If they remove what's easier, casual players will be pissed and review-bomb the game. If they remove what's harder, then the hardcore portion of the community will be outraged, and those are players who tend to stick with the game longer than others. Instead of taking a break from the game and then returning to it, they might leave for good. Either way, if you take something away from players, something bad is bound to happen. Either a wave of players will leave, or there will be a wave of review-bombing.

This is why it's extremely important to be careful with what you add. Simply not adding a controversial idea can be a better choice than adding it, seeing what kind of disaster it ended up causing, and then removing it or tweaking it in a twisted way.

[BORG]

I see. I guess we should dismiss every suggestion because you say it's bad. If you say it's bad it's absolutely a fact it must be bad for everybody. It's not just your opinion - no - no, no, no. It's facts. No point adding new ideas and suggestions to the game. They're just bad and you know everything there is to know about and what's best. Everybody should believe what you believe. There is no other way. There's no room for discussion on ideas on how to improve upon said proposal - nah. Why do that? Why discuss how to improve upon them? It's best to simply flat out reject them. No having ideas here. Not unless ideas parallel your own.

Gotcha.

[IceBeam]

Messaggio originale di BORG:

I see. I guess we should dismiss every suggestion because you say it's bad. No point adding new ideas and suggestions to the game

This is a classic example of the straw man fallacy. I have never said that absolutely all suggestions should be dismissed. It's this particular suggestion that is bound to do more harm than good. If you suggested a better idea (like adding a more precise way of tuning the mouse sensitivity on PC or nerfing Vanguard), I would agree with it.

Messaggio originale di BORG:

They're just bad and you know everything there is to know about and what's best. Everybody should believe what you believe. There is no other way. There's no room for discussion on ideas on how to improve upon said proposal - nah. Why do that? Why discuss how to improve upon them? It's best to simply flat out reject them. No having ideas here. Not unless ideas parallel your own.

• You come up with an idea that suggests increasing the number of player slots.
  
• I point out that the number of player slots is a crucial component of the class balance in this game. It's the constraint that prevents players from having too many damage-dealing classes and too many support classes at the same time. I back up my point with examples of some team compositions that would be overpowered and make the game hard to lose.
  
• I say that this idea will break the game balance and is dangerous to implement. I also say that limiting the idea to a mutator is a way to avoid many negative consequences.
  
• You dismiss what I have posted, saying that your idea is fine. You are saying that it will not be hard to balance. You also ask me to think deeply about it.
  
• I present a slightly more in-depth insight into why this idea is bad and how it may have a negative impact on the game as a whole. I elaborate on why I believe that a decrease in difficulty produced this idea will be hard to counter-balance. I ask you about how exactly you would adjust the difficulty of the game in case more player slots are added.
  
• Instead of addressing my points, you have misconstrued everything I said and posted a passive-aggressive rant.

Messaggio originale di BORG:

If you say it's bad it's absolutely a fact it must be bad for everybody. It's not just your opinion - no - no, no, no. It's facts.

The passive-aggressive tone of this remark aside, I have actually presented many facts. You have not done so yet.

At this stage of player progression, when you do not have even 100 hours in the game, have not played even 100 PvE matches, and have not played this game enough on the higher difficulties, it's not surprising that you do not understand why your idea is not as good as you might think. Play this game enough, and you might see why my concerns are valid.

[BORG]

@IceBeam Ah now you go making assumptions now about my play experiences based on game hours now on Steam. I was expecting that sooner or later from you. I see what I have to work with here now. You speak of straw men, but then you stereotype. Yup. Top shelf cognition going on there.

I've actually played this game for many, many hours and ranked high. Steam isn't the only platform in existence. You do know this, right? I've played the game for years on EGS. You have all the facts and know everything though. You're right. I have no experience with this game. I'm just some lowly noob scrub who can't see the light of day. I must have been in a coma, dreaming all that time. I guess I have no choice, but to parallel with you. I don't have enough visible play time on Steam to stack up against the required criteria, to even talk about the game.

My feedback has been added to the players' wishlist. You can request Saber remove it if you desire. If you believe the ideas/suggestions will do extreme harm to the game and community, you should request they disregard that feedback and give them some better tips of your own that are far superior to anything I could ever think up. Maybe they'll see your higher wisdom and disregard my feedback and suggestions to favour yours. You definitely have the superior knowledge.

I can see why people don't make a lot of suggestions around here. Unfortunate.

Anyway, off to drink some coffee and blast some Zeke. Gotta rack up some game time hours to meet that experience level criteria. Then everybody will know I have my World War Z certification and meet the minimum play time requirements to be part of the cool kids club.

[IceBeam]

Messaggio originale di BORG:

I've actually played this game for many, many hours and ranked high. Steam isn't the only platform in existence. You do know this, right? I've played the game for years on EGS.

If it's true, then it's even more surprising that you don't understand why your idea is bad.

Messaggio originale di BORG:

You have all the facts and know everything though. You're right. I have no experience with this game. I'm just some lowly noob scrub who can't see the light of day. I must have been in a coma, dreaming all that time. I guess I have no choice, but to parallel with you. I don't have enough visible play time on Steam to stack up against the required criteria, to even talk about the game.

I have never said that, but if you wish to believe it, feel free to do so. By the way, instead of wasting screen space on all of those passive-aggressive paragraphs of salt, you could have addressed at least some of the points I've made so that members of Saber Support checking the forums could extract something constructive from your posts.

Messaggio originale di BORG:

My feedback has been added to the players' wishlist. You can request Saber remove it if you desire. If you believe the ideas/suggestions will do extreme harm to the game and community, you should request they disregard that feedback and give them some better tips of your own that are far superior to anything I could ever think up

As I have already stated, we are discussing this particular suggestion of yours here, not suggestions in general. Besides, I have also submitted feedback that changed some things in the game for the better.

Implementation of bad suggestions can actually do harm to any game. The fact that players who really like a game voice their concerns about its general direction and bad suggestions isn't some concept from another planet in a parallel universe.

Messaggio originale di BORG:

I can see why people don't make a lot of suggestions around here. Unfortunate.

People suggest things all the time across different platforms, including the official Saber Support[support.saber.games] website. No need to be dramatic about it.

[BORG]

@IceBeam don't like the feedback? Request Saber remove it from the players' wishlist. Simple. No need to make more drama here and derail the discussion for your own argumentative disruption of the discussion. If you protest it, make your own discussion and cause disruption there instead. If you have nothing constructive to contribute, I humbly ask politely, that you move along. You're the only one here making a stink about it. You don't agree with the feedback, you've made it clear. Please move along.

[IceBeam]

Messaggio originale di BORG:

@IceBeam don't like the feedback? Request Saber remove it from the players' wishlist. Simple.

As I've stated many times, we are discussing this particular suggestion of yours, not feedback in general.

Messaggio originale di BORG:

No need to make more drama here and derail the discussion for your own argumentative disruption of the discussion.

Exactly all of my posts here have been on-topic. I have not derailed anything.

Messaggio originale di BORG:

If you have nothing constructive to contribute, I humbly ask politely, that you move along.

All of my comments have been constructive so far.

Messaggio originale di BORG:

If you protest it, make your own discussion and cause disruption there instead. You're the only one here making a stink about it. You don't agree with the feedback, you've made it clear. Please move along.

No, this is not how it works. This is a public Internet forum. If people have something to say, they will say it. If you post an idea and they don't like it, they have the right to disagree with you and elaborate on why they think this way or that way.

Why would I need to make a separate topic when I am addressing your suggestions posted in this topic?

If you believe that I have broken the rules, report me to the moderators and move on. However, I doubt that anyone will ban me simply for disagreement.

[Strac_CRO]

I don't like suggestion, it's awful.
Thank you.

[Cailey]

I love this suggestion, It's amazing. Thank you
But for real this would be great for people who have more then 3 friends who want to play all together, it could just be an option to select 4 or 6 player game i am not sure how this would be terrible, you could even have it set to a specific difficulty that cant be lowered at 6 players, if thats what people are concerned about.