Bug: 32 player limit on weekends

I have said it before and i will say it again, The team's for teams all welcome (which will now be refered to as TAW for ease) should be 16v16.
- 16 is a nice even number (2 Cubed)
- The more players there are the easier it is for new players as individual performance doesn't affect team performance as much
- It allows players to focus on economy or on air support
The big problem is alot of people i know log onto zero-k pacifically to play Teams all welcome which is why i think it should be a default game mode at the top like how you find casual or ladder 1v1 .
11v11 Helps noone its more people into the waitlist which nobody likes and as the name implies in Teams all welcome, All should be welcome to come and play.

To act like a mirror in the least malicious way possible, may I suggest an auto-combat game on mobile phones?

quote: - It allows players to focus on economy or on air support

It is generally good play for at least one player to focus on "air support" in an 11v11. Even at 5v5 or smaller it is often good. In those smaller games you do have to work harder to not be letting down your team if you go air. But that is true for any strategy.

A player who says they are "focusing on economy" is pretty likely (not certain, but likely) to be letting down their team no matter the game size. I guess it is not as likely in a 16v16.

i hope we can all concider eachother as friends =) some people like the bigger games.. i would like them to be happy too.. perhaps there are compromises

I chose my words with care. In a large game one or more people often do have to sink some metal into singus at some point. But anybody who actually says they are "focusing on economy" is more often than not saying it to justify why they are not helping, or not going to help, their team.

When you see a high-rated player building singus, they are often going to be either
(a) building it with the reclaim they got by fighting at the front, or
(b) helping their team with a few units which they can micro for high impact (think placeholder, widow, et cetera).

I do go dedicated eco in a fair number (10-20% maybe) of my games before transitioning out, and I think it works fairly well (tmk it's not making me lose). I think there are times when it's a good idea. But I feel most of the people doing it tend to eco arbitrarily, not in response to the context of the game. Eco takes time to pay off, so do it is when you're confident in a stalemate situation where you couldn't have otherwise broken through.

The transition out is also important. When you finish the singu you're still value negative and tempo negative (you're 4k metal behind). You need to catch up on tempo ASAP and this requires dynamic decision making. Most of the time People just slam a detri/pala/sup/moresingu and go back to their knitting and this is almost always the worst decision IMO. They're following a script and it's a really bad one.

Is putting the knights towards the middle of the table a good goal in chess? You would possibly think that knights could attack a larger area so they would be useful there, so it must be good play. But no, this reasoning is flawed because it completely disregards context and situation. I'm not saying moving the knights there would be bad play, I'm saying that the process to determine it was strong play was flawed. The same is true for Zero-K, which can be seen as a modern, advanced distant cousin of chess. Strong play is using the best of your opportunities. But what opportunities you are getting depends on the context. So any context-independent strategy, like "build singus, then Pala, then Detri", is missing essential justification. It would be bad game design to make such strategies unconditionally strong, because it would make the game less interactive.

Important fundamentals for strong play are

• Information: Watch the battles, scout, figure out the context
• Knowledge: Know what beats what to know how to react
• Speed: React quickly to the context because it changes

Find strong play by respecting these fundamentals.