Spiral Knights - Allowing more than 4 people in party for a higher cost

Allowing more than 4 people in party for a higher cost

20 replies [Last post]

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 11:43

Supercoolguy

I think it would be fun (assuming that it wouldn't make the game laggier) if more than 4 people could venture the clockworks/missions together in trade for having a higher elevator/revive cost, simply because it would be fun to have a larger diverse group of people.

- The price can be ridiculous to the point where the mission isn't profitable (remember the fact that we have mist energy).
- Every 4 revives, the price will double up.
- People would not have to wait for more others to join them when waiting inside of lobbies.
- Prestige missions probably shouldn't have this.
- Alts would not be an issue, since the price of using elevators would be somewhat higher ~15-20 mist/ce per person.
- The monster's health would stay the same or raised slightly higher.

tl;dr: Sometimes you can't get everyone you want to join you on a mission or clockworks run, so a 6-8 would deliver a much more fun experience if you're not grinding for CR. People can still do parties of 4 at the normal cost.

Story-line justification: Since the elevator is carrying more people, it costs more to transport them safely to the next depth.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 11:51

Terra-Necro

o_e

No... just no.

Do you know that for every party member, all monsters get a health boost? 6 teammates would equal a crapload amount of smacking to beat one monster.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 11:55

Infernoburner

Derpuraptor strikes back

@Terra-Necro Hell yes, Snarbolax wars. This is the day I have waited for so long.

The extra price would not solve the alt problem, since there alts. The owner doesn't care about them and uses them to score more drops.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 12:54

Super-Ratman

Yes and no

While I think any restriction like this is ridiculous (though I understand you can't just remove the restriction; Just a few more slots might do), the idea of having to pay for more party space is, in my perspective, as ridiculous as unlocking a weapon or accessory slot for only a month (no permanent option? Why not?)

Don't get me wrong, I like this idea.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 13:32

Kyrie-Phoenix

Also.

No. Party members enjoy using weapons like Voltedge and Polaris, this would just add to the lag and would essentially make it harder for most people. I think maximum should be 5 however, without having to pay any crowns.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 14:58

Klipik

Seems fun, but there's a problem

How do you get around the lag caused by more than four players? Solve that and this would be amazing, although I'm not entirely sure about the increased elevator cost. You get a +0.5 :)

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 16:46

Supercoolguy

/sigh

I was going to respond to everyone, but it just dawned on me that Three Rings probably tried to make parties or more than 4 players but were not successful in doing so because of Lag.

Also, it seems that I was not clear in the OP.

- Not everyone uses a polaris/voltedge.
- Less revenue would be generated using more alts compared to using simply 4, thanks to the extra cost.**
- We have a mist tank (the naturally refilling one), please don't forget that.
- It's permanent. If you start/join a party of 6, the cost will be 15-20ce per floor. The point is to have fun, not make money/grind.
- Drops are rare, and even then are not always valuable.

I'm not for the increased price, it's just their so people can't abuse the system.

LD isn't laggy for everyone, and has smaller/similar-sized game maps compared to the depths of the Clockworks.

I'd be happy with any change, to be honest. If there is a raise in the elevator cost, go for it. It not, awesome! If the developers can raise it to 5 players, cool! I'm just acknowledging some things without necessarily getting carried away with my idea.

It boils down to this: If the content is there just for you to grind and takes up a lot of your time, then what's the point of playing the game?

6 knights use 66-100 mist each to generate 600 ce worth of cr, whereas 4 knights who use 50 mist each generate the same amount, and can double that with the remaining 50. (Does that make sense?)

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 17:08

Little-Juances

Actually, if you have lots and lots of alts -to the point were you can't spend all their mist in one day-, even the high costs don't matter. Just rotate them each level.

Don't make me show you ALL my juanceses to prove my point.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 17:55

Supercoolguy

Would you use 4 accounts to

Would you use 4 accounts to do spend 100 mist/ce each (2 FSC runs) and generate 800 ce?

would you rather have 6 alts spend 100 mist/ce each (for 1 FSC run) and generate 600 ce?

Am I missing something here?

I'm not talking about rendering alts completely useless. You can still rotate alts either scenario. Heck, do multiple FSC runs at once if you have so many alts.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 18:12

Zaffy-Laffy

Sorry, but this suggestion, and especially your explanation, just doesn't cut it.

No.1 Error : Why would you let more people into a team, especially when each person has to pay that extra energy when they themselves are self-sufficient. Is it gonna make the game easier? If not, why that extra energy wasted, when there are an equal amount of mobs that drop equal amounts of crowns equivalent to when soloing.

When the game recognizes more players, the game scales the monsters' HP with no extra charge. Derp : "Objection! Shadow Lair is much difficult, added with that shadow key!" Yes, but at the end you grab some cool materials, and you get the sanctuary machine.

No.2 Error : It does get laggier with more people. This is an issue with bandwidth limit per instance of a game. Derp : "So what? LD has 12 players and a clockwork run has 4 players" Mobs consume bandwidth too if you shall notice, so bandwidth is an actual issue. Even LD gets laggy, but it keeps within that 12 players, unless added with spectators. Size of map doesn't count for anything, but number of players and number of mobs count.

No.3 Error : This game doesn't generally support usage of alternates in gameplay, why else do you think they limit us to 1 mist tank per computer? Following my response to error #1, and some people suggesting mindless whacking, alternates are just too boring to use, inefficient, impractical. Naturally it is not an issue.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 18:56

#10

Klipik

hmmmm

"Mobs consume bandwidth too if you shall notice"

If this is true, then how come this won't work?

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 19:06

#11

Supercoolguy

Thanks for the feedback.

No.2 Error: That makes a ton of sense! Thank you.

No.1 Error: Having more members isn't supposed to have a practical use, per se. It's just there so people don't have to split up into different parties. It's not to make anything easier, and it's not something that should be profitable. It's also an alternative to roaming around in haven and the Advanced Training Hall (which can hold more than 4 knights). It's more of a "having a good time" kind of thing.

You lost me on the second sentence of the second paragraph of Problem#1. I understand what you're saying, I'm not so sure as to what point you're trying to get across. You're saying that SL's will be somewhat more difficult with more players (point taken), but are still worth it because of the mats? Does that mean that you like the idea?

No.3 Error: Alt's won't be a problem? Great! No need for the increased elevator cost! But then again, monsters will be stronger, and everyone will get the same amount of crowns for doing less work. Good point. I'm not endorsing alts, just in case you got that impression.

*Since* lag will be an issue, then my idea is pretty much a useless one. Thanks for taking the time to point that out. There's no point in playing a game (instance-wise) if it's not enjoyable to play.

I would graveyard this, but am leaving it hear in case of new deploy-able opportunities and insights. Cheers! I'd like to thank everyone who's left a comment.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 19:09

#12

Supercoolguy

@Kilpik

You're only proving his point and answering your own question...

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 19:15

#13

Klipik

what?

If mobs consume bandwith, that proves servers can handle more people than are in one haven. Right? I wasn't trying to prove him wrong. I'm hoping he's right and my logic holds together.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 20:04

#14

Hexzyle

@Klipik
Haven cap is 30. There are pretty much NEVER 26 mobs spawned at any one time. Also, size of a level does consume more client-side resources for rendering, but only solid matter. Clockworks levels are filled with gaps and don't have many animations (Unlike haven which has waving flags, many lighting effects, moving NPCs, and many many many polygons to render. Compare a huge guildhall with no furniture to a huge guildhall which is crammed full of furniture)

@Supercoolguy
Not everyone uses a polaris/voltedge.

Lol, that's a laugh.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 20:11

#15

Klipik

Charred court with all the rooms opened? Garden of Goo with both sides open? Rouge Guildhall during Troikamas?

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 20:18

#16

Hexzyle

@Klipik

"Charred court with all the rooms opened?"

This rarely happens, and when all 4 players do decide that they're all going to go to seperate rooms, the number of mobs barely pushes up past 30. And when it does, even I feel the FPS drop.

"Garden of Goo with both sides open?"

Once again, barely 30 mobs spawned. And you know [poop] is going down because all your weapon sounds disappear

"Rouge Guildhall during Troikamas?"

Players have always been able to force an instance past its cap. There's no changing that.

The alternative would be to lock an instance once its player count reaches a certain number, but it happens so rarely that this really isn't needed.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 20:35

#17

Supercoolguy

Aha! I see what you're

Aha! I see what you're talking about now. Each player has has more assets(?) than a monster. You have to look beyond the character itself.

"Sometimes when changing locations, we transparently move you to another server. When this happens, we need to compress and store all of your player data, move you to the other server, and then fetch and uncompress your data again. The larger the dataset, the longer this takes, and the longer you have to stare at the street loading screen. " - A dev of Glitch.

I'm not sure if SK works the same way, but I hope you get the idea.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 20:49

#18

Supercoolguy

@Klipik

How about a different approach? Perhaps in the gear menu, we could have buttons that would teleport us to different parts of haven. That would save some amount of time, wudinit?

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 21:18

#19

Zaffy-Laffy

Clarification

No.1 I am suggesting from your point "It's permanent. If you start/join a party of 6, the cost will be 15-20ce per floor. The point is to have fun, not make money/grind." something similar, that we should not just discourage people from playing in groups of 5 or 6 just by charging more energy. It's pure extortion. Unless you are suggesting some sort of reward at the end, similar to shadow lairs, then it's okay.

No.2 Mobs do consume bandwidth. Let's say you disconnected, the mobs don't continue to roam around and strike you as if it is a client-sided thing. They pause there with their animations, but in the server, all the mobs are moving around, striking you. So who says mobs don't consume bandwidth?

In this case when compared to LD, a clockwork run would have consumed as much bandwidth as an LD match. Adding more players just lag it to hell, not to mention how many clockwork runs are simultaneously running. There has to be a bandwidth limit.

And don't put this thread into a hardware situation... blah blah graphics lag.

Sun, 03/17/2013 - 21:59

#20

Supercoolguy

Thanks again!

No.1 Ah, that makes more sense. I'm sorry about before. I wonder what price should be at the end. But then again, the idea is useless (as of now) because of lag.

No.2 Wait, when did I say that I disagreed with anything that you've said here? I probably seemed sarcastic of contradicted myself in some way, but I understand what you're saying and have died enough times after being disconnected deduce that much. Perhaps that one statement regarding assets confused you.

No worries mate, I won't move it to the Technical Problems thread.

Search

Allowing more than 4 people in party for a higher cost