It doesn't need to be stacked, I just need to go before they start hitting my hull, or at least drop a vf somewhere so they can rescue me. Trust me, there is a lot to gain from that style. Much better than what I currently do anyway.
you just need to stop caring and ignore the bitching while you ruin the game for a good portion of players, except for your fanboys who noone would miss anyway. and im still not mad at hobbes for doing it - kinda odd ...
I like Hobbes for doing that too. When I am on his team, I can save him. When I am on the other side, free win. I don't rush enemy CV actively, but if you drive your CV onto my face, I am not gonna let you go.
The game plays best with teams between 16 and 23 players in size. Less and the game just feels like it's being scaled down. More and things become disorganised chaos in which real strategy can't be enacted.
I disagree, people lack discipline for larger games. M&B Napleonic Wars linebattles consist of a good few dozen people on each side. Strategy can be enacted, but knowing your place has to come first.
I'm trying to imply that people will eventually learn. And if not, the dream of 32v32 scrims/pugs. It's real.
Guys you're all missing the point of why a maxplayers of 32/34 is worth it. hint: it doesn't have to do with whether 32v32 games are fun or not. they most undoubtedly are, but they are not good for the mod with our current playerbase size
I agree wit FN for sure, right now smaller player size servers would support the community more than big ones. We peak at 45~ players every day, enough for 16v16 and a smaller game at the side during rush hour.
People will just queue to get in the game rather than go play on another server. We need at least an average of 20 players more than we currently have to start thinking about splitting it across 2 servers.
Actually...yeah I did kinda notice that when the server size was reduced, less people tended to play at peak. I mean we had a full 60 or so, but then it just went down to a full 46 with no one on the other servers... Could be a side-effect of people going back to whatever else after the update, but I'm not entirely sure.
Just because you or someone else cannot lead a large force doesn't mean nobody can. IMO 32 players per team is completely doable and normal. Resources prevent the map from being completely filled with tanks, too, so that wouldn't even be a problem.
For once i agree with sitka. Also, It was you who said that you sit around and fiddle with your thumb most of the time when comming. Seems to be somewhat contradictory with what you claim is happening with this "muh strategy" stuff.
Which is what I said would happen. I mean, wasnt one of the reasons for lowering the count, the "fact" that overflow will just go and populate the other server and "play" "empires" as a 5x5/whatever? You basically did effectively split it across two servers, I see no sense in your post here.
It's just not possible to get people to work together at that level. The team is so large that people just ignore what you ask them because there's just someone else who can do it. I mean we're talking about the difference between having 3 squads and having 6 squads. It's a huge difference. I'm not saying you can't lead them. But it just devolves into "OK EVERYONE DO THIS", "OK EVERYONE DO THAT", etc.
I've done it before. I wouldn't lie about it (I mean, lol, I'm a bad enough player I don't need to ). Really, at that level it comes down to the fronts, and you usually only have 3 fronts to work with anyway - and two areas on each front, as well as two guys who are making plays at more distant objectives. So you focus on a front, give them what they need, then move to the guys behind that front, give them the ref and the rax and maybe the VF, then you go to the sneaky guys and make sure they have an armoury... I mean, it's only buildings that you can drop anyway, it's not even targets any more, so...
I can remember when 10 v 10 tank battles in slaughter were common place, sad we have come to where we are currently...
