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 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.