Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

So long and thanks for all the fish.

13 posts, 445 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
4 days ago
This post has been downvoted below -5 and collapsed, click here to expand
New lobby changes have killed the core appeal of the game for me. I have a strong suspicion they wont ever be reverted.

If you feel the same and would like to bring back AT LEAST uncapped custom lobbies, please upvote this.


The way I see it a very small, vocal, elite, subset of the community is being catered to, under the guise of population growth.

This will be my last post here, and I wish you all well in your adventures.
+6 / -13

4 days ago
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
+2 / -0
4 days ago
+1
+2 / -0
4 days ago
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.
+0 / -0
3 days ago
I also prefer 32 player lobbies.
+3 / -0

3 days ago
AUrankSarathos

You are more likely to get a favorable response if you voice concerns eloquently than if you throw a tantrum and slam the door.
+4 / -0
In the end, it is just an experiment. If nothing comes of it, nobody will (or should at least) have any qualms with reverting.
And if it does have effect and we get more people, that just means we can have bigger pot more consistently later!
+3 / -0
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.
+8 / -0
2 days ago
as for me, i have fixed this new update by playing BAR
+0 / -0


2 days ago
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?
+7 / -2
2 days ago
i play there with more than 16 players )
+1 / -0

2 days ago
he hasnt even played in 58 days, so he was never actually affected o.o
+3 / -1
2 days ago
Maybe specify who exactly, it is a bit confusing, I thought you talked about op.
+0 / -0