It also allows the players who are under the care of the commander to feel special more often. Dumb analogy but having the commander having to take care less people makes it easier for him or her to learn the position if he's new. The only way herding cats gets easier is when you have less cats to herd. People often akin leading people to herding cats. I honestly don't know how much of an impact this bullet will give, but hey, it's at least something. This also helps newer players from being overwhelmed with choice and running off to do something ill advisable.Īgain, with a smaller scope the game will be easier to balance which I am sure is going to be a large issue for a game asymmetrical sides. If you have a narrower scope, you can better design a map for that number of people.Īn extension of smaller map sizes, the less objectives there are on the map (resource nodes, hives), the easier it is to navigate and coordinate as players. If you have a map designed for such a huge scope of players, the end result will be that small teams will feel lost and large teams will feel crammed. This may not seem like a good or bad thing, but only having a map designed for a certain number of people makes for better experiences. I'll quickly list the advantages of having a smaller team size scope briefly in no real order: I think NS2 will get more benefit from having the game built for a smaller team size in mind (4-10 heads per team) and expanding to 16 heads per team is a bad idea. I'm kind of tired, so I'll keep this short.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |