So long and thanks for all the fish.

I don't want to leave, but I will definitely play very rarely. The only thing that attracted me the most was the big lobbies. That was the most interesting thing for me

To be fair, I think both sides of the debate have rather few people (maximum tens) that have a strong opinion. Out of 1500-3000 players active across 2-3 months that means probably less than 5%.

Probably the best is to check back in some time, just in case the player population increases by some miracle and/or bigger hosts are a thing again.

Sarathos

You are more likely to get a favorable response if you voice concerns eloquently than if you throw a tantrum and slam the door.

I agree that Zero-K is better with 32 player lobbies, but rage-quitting over this isn't the way.

The change is an experiment, intended to gain information that could help address these problems in the community:

• Some players prefer smaller games, and the 32 player lobby sucks up all the players who could be instead playing in those smaller games.
• Sometimes the 32 player lobby has a large waiting list, and there is no other active lobby. Some players on this waiting list would prefer to play a game immediately, rather than wait for a slot in the 32 player game (but they were unable to, as being the first mover to a new lobby would likely just make them lose their slot in the waiting list, rather than make them get a game).

You might not be affected by either of these problems, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

If the attitude of the players is that they will immediately leave if the developers experiment, then it become much harder for the devs to experiment, and it becomes less likely that the game will be able to reach a future that satisfies everyone (since the devs will have less information to work with).

That said, there is of course nothing wrong with spending your time doing things other than playing Zero-K, and it was nice of you to provide some feedback before leaving.

Go ahead, although I would like to know how the BAR limit of 8v8 is preferable to the current ZK limit of 11v11. Do you find that BAR does something you want even as low as 8v8, which ZK does better at 16v16, but which breaks at 11v11? Or should I just take your action as a protest with the intent to apply pressure?

he hasnt even played in 58 days, so he was never actually affected o.o

I log in and if I don't see at least 16 players in a TAW I exit and go play BAR.


Soon I won't even bother opening Zero-K anymore as it is clear they have no interest in what got Zero-K it's current population to begin with.

Once too many people leave the game will be defunct and never recover.

So if the goal is to just have a core of 12 players playing in their try hard room any everyone else is too low rank to play it cause room blocks them and the only other option is 1v1-3v3 then that's it, they leave and are never seen again, because the game is advertised as a 32 player lobby game.

This was a terrible decision and one that will be looked back at as one of the largest nails in it's coffin.

Splitting the userbase into several rooms also makes the game feel very dead. Not that it wasn't already, but still.
It's the same as splitting an userbase inbetween two different games. Obviously one will gain traction and the other will peter out and die.
Big lobpot made it so even 0 impact, fresh brand new players with no skill din't really ruin it for their teammates with team based resource drain and could still learn the game while big stuff happened all around them with the spectacle of large battles.
The craziness and scale of it also made for really amazing matches where every player technically is playing low-income and very slowly scaling up, which is where Zero-K shines at.
Having both, 32 player lobbies and 12-10-8 player lobbies available would have been preferable. The only alternatives before the current changes were 32 player TAW or 4v4 pro-only ranked lobbies, which were very polarizing.

64 Player lobbys -> All problems solved and everyone happy?