Guest harro Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Starting low for a new game is bad IMO, because you're losing time to attract people that have not found a reg server to play on. 3 Link to comment
Hiphopopotomus Posted September 2, 2011 Content Count: 711 Joined: 03/02/08 Status: Offline Share Posted September 2, 2011 Just go for goddamn broke, we can afford the server. We either get the initial player base or the server will die. I personally only look for the 64 slot servers because I find them more realistic and entertaining. There is no need to be safe because we're paying for it anyways, just get a goddamn 64 slot and advertise the fuck out of it. 4 Link to comment
Tamahome Posted September 4, 2011 Content Count: 445 Joined: 02/27/11 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2011 Start with low players like the normal 12v12. If people want more slots, start upgrading to 32,48,64. If we start that low, the server will just die for sure.... I agree with Hippo. Just get the 64-man and advertise it to death. We don't really have much to lose and I doubt it won't be popular. Link to comment
duhoh Posted September 4, 2011 Content Count: 716 Joined: 01/16/10 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2011 64 slot is ONLY for conquest btw. 32 is max for rush. keep that in mind folks. Link to comment
Tweezy Posted September 4, 2011 Content Count: 3791 Joined: 08/08/09 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2011 64 slot is ONLY for conquest btw. 32 is max for rush. keep that in mind folks. Rush is bad imo. 64 slot Conquest, fucking do it and see what happenes, SG isn't stuck for cash atm is it... Link to comment
Metal Posted September 4, 2011 Content Count: 11723 Joined: 09/17/08 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2011 Rush is bad imo. 64 slot Conquest, fucking do it and see what happenes, SG isn't stuck for cash atm is it... Rush is far better than bc2 rush. Were you even in the alpha? 1 Link to comment
jazzy Posted September 4, 2011 Content Count: 2167 Joined: 06/28/09 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2011 Rush is far better than bc2 rush. Were you even in the alpha? rush was terrible and linear as fuck. the first stage was a complete fuckfest for defender. you are worse than a nintendo fanboy Link to comment
Metal Posted September 4, 2011 Content Count: 11723 Joined: 09/17/08 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2011 Lol it was a linear map but still, you needed teamwork to win. Also wait till new rush maps are shown Link to comment
duhoh Posted September 4, 2011 Content Count: 716 Joined: 01/16/10 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2011 Rush is bad imo. 64 slot Conquest, fucking do it and see what happenes, SG isn't stuck for cash atm is it... sure but there's no guarantee that this level of income can be maintained. rush is still incredibly popular, whatever your own opinions may be on it. Link to comment
Metal Posted September 4, 2011 Content Count: 11723 Joined: 09/17/08 Status: Offline Share Posted September 4, 2011 Thing is why only do half of a whole. its the start of a new game, might aswell have all types/maps for a few months Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Reply to Thread
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now