Siege masterrace.NO
pfft siege is easy, even if you die you'll just respawn in either 8 or 30 sec, and even with pike getting a lot of kills is not a big problem; real adrenaline comes from battle, one life, forced to use that wisely, more fun and more challenging.Shut up, you scallywag!
though there's a ranged problem, or better, too few players which is directly proportional to ranged effectiveness.
pfft siege is easy, even if you die you'll just respawn in either 8 or 30 sec, and even with pike getting a lot of kills is not a big problem; real adrenaline comes from battle, one life, forced to use that wisely, more fun and more challenging.
though there's a ranged problem, or better, too few players which is directly proportional to ranged effectiveness.
The people who prefer siege largely wont just got to EU1 if EU2 was shut down, they'd just quit till it's back.
pfft siege is easy,
get some profile pictures tssss
Shut up, you scallywag!
If we are going to argue which server should be shut off first, there is a strong argument for it being Siege, as it completely unables an entire class category to play. Balance has always been focused on Battle, because that is where the biggest number of classes and playstyles are viable.
If we are going to argue which server should be shut off first, there is a strong argument for it being Siege,lel, I have a much better argument for shutting Eu1: ppl don't want to play on Eu1 and that's why this server is empty. So yeah, let's shut Eu2 and enforce ppl to play server which they don't like.
I think the argument that you have to wait more on Battle is a load of crap. Battle rounds probably last like 4.5 minutes on average. If you play smart it is pretty easy to stay alive for 3.5 minutes on average. Siege probably has a similar average round time, so if you die 3 times on average as defender, you already accrued more waiting time than on Battle. As attacker it is 5 seconds per death, but the running to the fight is usually completely devoid of any action, so that is basically waiting while having to press WAnd on Eu1 you don't run at all.
lel, I have a much better argument for shutting Eu1: ppl don't want to play on Eu1 and that's why this server is empty. So yeah, let's shut Eu2 and enforce ppl to play server which they don't like.Well that is just not true. Currently there are 66 players on EU 1 and 9 on Siege. Sometimes Battle has more, sometimes Siege, but populating always starts with Battle and usually ends with it. Apart from being invalid, it is also not a better argument.
And on Eu1 you don't run at all.On EU 1 there is usually danger and decisionmaking involved in nearly any run time, on Siege it is mostly a matter of aiming and opening chat.
didn't get why suddenly we're talking about shutting down servers but yeah, +1 for argumentationThe OP mentioned it.
If we are going to argue which server should be shut off first, there is a strong argument for it being Siege, as it completely unables an entire class category to play. Balance has always been focused on Battle, because that is where the biggest number of classes and playstyles are viable.
Strong argument? You do realize siege is the more populated one? Why shut down the more populated server to accommodate less populated one?
If we are going to argue which server should be shut off first, there is a strong argument for it being Siege, as it completely unables an entire class category to play
Team death match or death match would be fun to have for a while
Probably in a year or so.People already said that a year ago.