PSN is down. Technically it is undergoing maintenance, not subject to some cyber attack by the hacker group Anonymous. Euhh. And it wasn't working since one day before this 5-day long weekend holiday started.
Now, Black Ops on the Xbox has an 'Xbox Live' menu option exactly where the 'Playstation Network' option is on the Playstation version.
I take it that just like Facebook or other major websites, Playstation Network is a 'portal' site and presumably there is some value in keeping it that way.
In future though, I hope that other games will let me connect directly to another computer for gaming, and not only servers that are, have been and most definitely will be subject to outages. I mean, if it doesn't contribute to server traffic, surely that will reduce costs and let me enjoy gaming when the server is not responding; and for something like multiplayer zombies among friends, that is entirely appropriate.
Then again, why would a company operating a network server want to allow users to do it on their own?
I guess it will need to be some sort of homebrew game that does that as a standard feature.
2011/04/01
Ideal team size
Is there an ideal team size for KDT?
The top of the leaderboards are dominated by gamers who played in pairs; that means they played in pairs from Round 1, rather than starting as a team (or just a group) of four that had two guys drop out at some stage.
Looks like evidence for pairs being the best, but why? My guess is a few reasons.
1. Less zombies to kill each round: round 1 has 6 zombies in solo, 8 for two players, 10 for four players. I suspect that the increments are lower per round too.
2. Less confusion: since the zombies only ever have two targets (assuming no monkey bombs or Awful Lawton bolts on the map) each player finds it is easier to predict the zombies, they are heading for you, or the other guy.
3. More coordination: it's easier to coordinate talking with one guy rather than 3.
4. More likely to be revived: the stakes are a lot higher for not reviving the other guy, compared to 3-4 player games where each player thinks that another player might get the guy who went down, or that there are more guys in play, so more likely that someone will make it to the next round.
5. More likely to be gaming with an established buddy.
But then again, in each round, maybe there are less zombies per player when playing in larger teams. This means less possible points (although with my strategy, the surplus you get might not matter after round 15 or so) and possibly an easier distribution of zombies for each player to manage.
The top of the leaderboards are dominated by gamers who played in pairs; that means they played in pairs from Round 1, rather than starting as a team (or just a group) of four that had two guys drop out at some stage.
Looks like evidence for pairs being the best, but why? My guess is a few reasons.
1. Less zombies to kill each round: round 1 has 6 zombies in solo, 8 for two players, 10 for four players. I suspect that the increments are lower per round too.
2. Less confusion: since the zombies only ever have two targets (assuming no monkey bombs or Awful Lawton bolts on the map) each player finds it is easier to predict the zombies, they are heading for you, or the other guy.
3. More coordination: it's easier to coordinate talking with one guy rather than 3.
4. More likely to be revived: the stakes are a lot higher for not reviving the other guy, compared to 3-4 player games where each player thinks that another player might get the guy who went down, or that there are more guys in play, so more likely that someone will make it to the next round.
5. More likely to be gaming with an established buddy.
But then again, in each round, maybe there are less zombies per player when playing in larger teams. This means less possible points (although with my strategy, the surplus you get might not matter after round 15 or so) and possibly an easier distribution of zombies for each player to manage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)