ATS 100 Man Server

[Hanniba1]

Requesting 50 man cRPG as a voting option. I'd also like capture the flag if anyone else would be interested.

 

[Knight of the Rose]

Requesting 50 man cRPG as a voting option. I'd also like capture the flag if anyone else would be interested.

Anything NA populated other than the battle mode I would prefer.  I do not have the time to play everyday where I would not mind sitting out 80 percent of the time I play.

 

[Jaykprime]

I'd say the masses spoke Friday night.  Most I saw on the server for battle there was about 20-30.  I had a good time, managed to not die too often...didn't have to do too much watching.

 

[Ving]

I voted both above, but if its one or the other, its gotta be siege. Siege is the intermediate experience, where you have enough time in field to actually experiment and improve your skills. Battle is really for those who are already comfortable w/ thier skills or hunger most for a more brutal and final simulation mode.

And since the absence of the ATS siege server, the siege choices have been meager. It seemed when ATS was a quasi Siege server, youd get good games w/ over 30. Sieges are meant for over 30. Now your lucky if you can find a decent one with a MAX of 32, which is pretty limiting for a siege server.

We need the ATS Siege server, unless another big dog can take the Siege reigns...

 

[CrimsonShroud]

I greatly prefer sieges over battles.  When I'm online, I want to be playing, not watching.  And even though I'm pretty good and usually can last towards the end of a battle match, occasionally I'll die early and then I'm left with the choice of either observing the battle for 5-10+ minutes, before getting a chance to play again, or leaving.  I usually just leave after my first early death.  With battles you can also just join at the wrong time, right after it has started, and have to wait the entire duration before getting to play.

So long story short, I like to play not watch =p  But I can see how battles are fun for people who are communicating through Ventrilo.  But I definitely think if you're trying to appeal to the masses, sieges are the way to go.  Most people aren't pros, and they aren't going to want to sit out more than they get to actually play.  The few times I have played battles on your server I actually tend to hang around the ATS members on my team, since I know they are coordinated.  It's a good way to live longer.

 

[Knight of the Rose]

I voted both above, but if its one or the other, its gotta be siege. Siege is the intermediate experience, where you have enough time in field to actually experiment and improve your skills. Battle is really for those who are already comfortable w/ thier skills or hunger most for a more brutal and final simulation mode.

And since the absence of the ATS siege server, the siege choices have been meager. It seemed when ATS was a quasi Siege server, youd get good games w/ over 30. Sieges are meant for over 30. Now your lucky if you can find a decent one with a MAX of 32, which is pretty limiting for a siege server.

We need the ATS Siege server, unless another big dog can take the Siege reigns...

This is what I have been saying all along.  And the more time that passes the greater chance something else will take its place as a siege server.  I could only hope that the replacement does not have reflective friendly fire.

 

[mckchun]

We understand that siege has some advantage over battle. And no large siege server available is quite sad.

But battle is easier for us to communicate and recruit, which we havent been doing for some time. And we really have no budget to do both servers atm.

 

[CrimsonShroud]

Oh, so is it set to battle all of the time now?

Edit:  Also, I notice that POM seems to run battle-mode full time and that people seem to go there before your battle server.  I don't see any populated NA siege servers anymore.  I tried to play another battle today, but honestly I just don't have the patience for it.  People tend to turtle up and then eventually individual players will tire of the wait and charge a group and usually die due to being outnumbered.  It just all seems very boring to me and, like I said before, if you get picked off early you're forced to either watch the remainder of the match, look for another server, or just exit the game.

I'm at the point where I am shelving Warband due to the lack of a NA siege server.  I know you took a poll on this and the numbers are pretty even for both siege and battle modes, but I think people on the forums are more likely to vote for battle because they are in clans and are using voice communication.  I would venture a guess that the majority of the casual or clanless gamers, like me, prefer either duel, TDM, or siege servers.  You just don't hear many of their voices because they aren't as involved with the forums.  Anyway, I suspect that if all there is available are battle servers then the NA population will continue to slowly die.

By the way, I'm not trying to convince you to change the mode to siege.  Your clan seems happy with the present situation.  And you guys are paying for it, so who am I to argue?  I'm just trying to show the perspective of the casual and clanless players out there and why they aren't lined up to play your battle server.  The few times I did play, when the server was set to siege mode, the numbers were pretty good at 60+ every time.  I'm sure you know the overall numbers better than me, but from what I saw siege was much more popular.  But, on the plus side, you can probably get a smaller (and cheaper) server if you go battles full time =p

 

[mckchun]

Oh, so is it set to battle all of the time now?

Edit:  Also, I notice that POM seems to run battle-mode full time and that people seem to go there before your battle server.  I don't see any populated NA siege servers anymore.  I tried to play another battle today, but honestly I just don't have the patience for it.  People tend to turtle up and then eventually individual players will tire of the wait and charge a group and usually die due to being outnumbered.  It just all seems very boring to me and, like I said before, if you get picked off early you're forced to either watch the remainder of the match, look for another server, or just exit the game.

I'm at the point where I am shelving Warband due to the lack of a NA siege server.  I know you took a poll on this and the numbers are pretty even for both siege and battle modes, but I think people on the forums are more likely to vote for battle because they are in clans and are using voice communication.  I would venture a guess that the majority of the casual or clanless gamers, like me, prefer either duel, TDM, or siege servers.  You just don't hear many of their voices because they aren't as involved with the forums.  Anyway, I suspect that if all there is available are battle servers then the NA population will continue to slowly die.

By the way, I'm not trying to convince you to change the mode to siege.  Your clan seems happy with the present situation.  And you guys are paying for it, so who am I to argue?  I'm just trying to show the perspective of the casual and clanless players out there and why they aren't lined up to play your battle server.  The few times I did play, when the server was set to siege mode, the numbers were pretty good at 60+ every time.  I'm sure you know the overall numbers better than me, but from what I saw siege was much more popular.  But, on the plus side, you can probably get a smaller (and cheaper) server if you go battles full time =p

I understand that more players like siege than battle, I saw the player count skyrocket when we had siege on.
Hang in there, I'm looking for a part time job to pay for new server, but havent had any luck lately. And my donations are running out, so it would be great if i could get some help at least for the upcoming month, and I will promise to bring the massive siege back while having a small battle at the same time to satisfy everyone.