Infraction wrote: »With oil all is possible.
Indeed.the game is balanced fine, my 6man wipes 30+man zergs all the time.
no balance adjustments needed, thanks
You gotta run with 6? *** zerger, duo all day every day get on my level.
its a group based game, and you cant wipe zergs with 2 the way we can with 6, no offense.
6 = zerg? bwahahaha
get enough friends to compete then talk to me
Infraction wrote: »With oil all is possible.
Indeed.the game is balanced fine, my 6man wipes 30+man zergs all the time.
no balance adjustments needed, thanks
You gotta run with 6? *** zerger, duo all day every day get on my level.
its a group based game, and you cant wipe zergs with 2 the way we can with 6, no offense.
6 = zerg? bwahahaha
get enough friends to compete then talk to me
zerger getting all defensive now.
casselna_ESO wrote: »JoseDelgadoCub17_ESO wrote: »Saying don't play in a zerg because a player prefers small encounter is like telling a country that prefers swords to not use guns. Then that country fights another country that really doesn't care and they shoot you with their guns.
You understand why that logic isn't appealing to people now?
Basically for people to enjoy small encounters that have to gimp themselves and acknowledge they won't be able to do all the things that a mass of people can do.
8 skilled players vs 25 skilled players. (Lol AoE cap)
Guess who losses.
You miss the point.
Team A always runs in groups of 25.
Team B can maybe muster 8 players.
Team C can *maybe* rally 4.
Team A always wins, and laughs at their *skill* at always outnumbering Team B and C.
Team B and C quit in disgust and now Team A has noone to fight.
See the *greater* picture?
If you're winning, sure, *your* logic makes sense. If you are not, then you are hindering the will for others to play and oppose you and MAKE STUFF FUN!