Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 02:14:43 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Warhammer Online (Moderator: tazelbain)  |  Topic: Warhammer Online Server Dead Pool 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 20 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Warhammer Online Server Dead Pool  (Read 300588 times)
Pagz
Terracotta Army
Posts: 490

I AM GOING TO WRESTLE THIS BEAR WITH MY BARE HANDS!


Reply #175 on: December 03, 2009, 05:20:54 PM

I don't give Turbine much credit here.  When you remove PvP from the equation thing are allows much simpler.

 Head scratch
I think he means that because the skirmishes in lotro are PvE and not PvP, it doesn't have the issues WAR did with population issues?
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8306


Reply #176 on: December 03, 2009, 05:27:10 PM

NPC's also don't care if they always lose :)

and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
Redgiant
Terracotta Army
Posts: 304


Reply #177 on: December 03, 2009, 06:37:05 PM

WAR had some design issues certainly, but its biggest issue was one of expectation. "War is everywhere!" and the promises of incredible PvP killed WAR just as dead as any mistake in design.

I don't think most people believed the hype.  I think the box sales were a sign that gamers wanted something new to mess with that wasn't WoW.  WAR delivered a bad version of WoW.  That was the primary downfall.  

There are a lot of players who expected and wanted DAoC 2. That is a very large factor in disgruntlement as well.
- no 3-way
- no similar sense of realm pride/separation/call to arms devotion as a realm (Tiers not organized well geographically and in other ways)
- missing RvR features like climb points, random seige location, breakable/repairable walls that DAoC already knew how to do
- huge lack of open-world RvR focus, all sorts of cockblocks, progress bars, shit that just doesn't matter getting in the way (if you give WAR players so many stupid options that take them away from open RvR, why do you wonder why there aren't people in open RvR? Seems obvious to me.).


Most die hard DAoC fans were some of the very first to realize where WAR was headed and quit back in Dec/Jan. A few stubbornly optimistic and/or fanbois will stick it out to the bitter (and coming) end since they don't want to admit this is the last gasp Mythic had to replicate the DAoC magic.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 06:39:16 PM by Redgiant »

A FUCKING COMPANY IS AT STEAK
Kageru
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4549


Reply #178 on: December 03, 2009, 07:16:34 PM


I think for world RvR you also need to have some sort of pride in owning and holding the territory. The RvR field in tier 1 felt totally disconnected and the reward for holding it was all abstract  realm points and a meter moving forward. Splitting it up into different stories also diluted the playerbase which meant that even if the population was balanced you'd still end up with offensive zergs capping points because they can pick undefended and lightly defended targets. Aided by the fact that defense is boring and the reward system favored offence anyway. This part of the game could have, and should have, worked with two factions. The three factions is more helpful for mitigating the inevitable population imbalance.

Is a man not entitled to the hurf of his durf?
- Simond
Rondaror
Terracotta Army
Posts: 47


Reply #179 on: December 04, 2009, 06:13:07 AM


Warhammer badly needed a "is this fun?" pass early on in the design process and then use beta to refine and extend it. Far too many of the base game-play mechanics just didn't seem to add anything to the game. Combine that with force-feeding and ignoring warning signs from the beta test, trying to shoehorn in an entire new gameplay mechanic (world RvR) very late in development. Then when things start falling apart after release add more classes and a new zone with new mechanics as if that's going to fix fundamental issues.


That's the point. They should have stayed with the original Guild Wars design concept, instead of trying to turn the game into a DAoC-Light in Beta.
PvE, map design, crafting, every single portion of the game aims for fast, in-and-out gameplay experience based on scenarios. WAR has no depth, there is nothing in WAR that provides a sandbox type of gameplay experience. That's why it is impossible to fix the game, even if they succeed to make RvR fun. The rest of the game does not support it.
March
Terracotta Army
Posts: 501


Reply #180 on: December 04, 2009, 06:26:26 AM


I think for world RvR you also need to have some sort of pride in owning and holding the territory. The RvR field in tier 1 felt totally disconnected and the reward for holding it was all abstract  realm points and a meter moving forward. Splitting it up into different stories also diluted the playerbase which meant that even if the population was balanced you'd still end up with offensive zergs capping points because they can pick undefended and lightly defended targets. Aided by the fact that defense is boring and the reward system favored offence anyway. This part of the game could have, and should have, worked with two factions. The three factions is more helpful for mitigating the inevitable population imbalance.

Stool #1

<fall> WaR

Stool #2

Quote from: Rondaror
That's the point. They should have stayed with the original Guild Wars design concept, instead of trying to turn the game into a DAoC-Light in Beta.
PvE, map design, crafting, every single portion of the game aims for fast, in-and-out gameplay experience based on scenarios. WAR has no depth, there is nothing in WAR that provides a sandbox type of gameplay experience. That's why it is impossible to fix the game, even if they succeed to make RvR fun. The rest of the game does not support it.

Both statements are true... it was Mythic's job to deliver on one of them; in the end, they delivered on neither.

Though... I will say this, the GW2 model they had in Beta1 was pretty damn sucky... I suspect they lost faith in their own original plan and desperately attempted to create DAoC 1.75 in about 4 months - but by that time they had so much investment in the GW2 model that even something simple like Thidranki v.2 for Tier 1 was impossible.

And yes, I am forever convinced that PvPvRvR simply requires at least 3 sides.
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8306


Reply #181 on: December 07, 2009, 12:54:35 AM

The Three sides thing is over rated and no where near any kind of guarantee or balance device, but I've beaten that horse before, maybe even in this thread!  Beating a Dead Horse

and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #182 on: December 07, 2009, 09:16:23 AM

Sure, it isn't a guarantee, Fordel.  However, if you have two sides and give the side that is already overpowered and winning a bonus of some sort you almost guarantee failure. 

Besides, three sides seemed to work pretty well in DAoC, so why wouldn't it improve things in WAR?  Because WAR is an unadulterated mess otherwise. 
March
Terracotta Army
Posts: 501


Reply #183 on: December 07, 2009, 10:16:56 AM

Hey, who doesn't like a good ol'fashioned horse beating once in a while?

While I recognize that much of F13 seems to worship the Platonic Form of "Perfect Balance" with almost maniacal devotion... I'll simply add that my interest in three-sides has nothing to do with Balance and is purely and observation that three-sides are more fun than two in a PvP/RvR game.  In short, I will enjoy the ineluctable unbalance more.

 Beating a Dead Horse
BitWarrior
Terracotta Army
Posts: 336


WWW
Reply #184 on: December 07, 2009, 11:26:42 AM

I always liked the idea of having a ton of sides - one for each army (Beastmen, Bretonnia, Dark Elves, Dogs of War, Dwarves, Empire, High Elves, Lizardmen, Skaven, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, etc), but that would have likely been a logistical nightmare trying to figure out how to make 12 sided battlegrounds. 

Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.
carnifex27
Terracotta Army
Posts: 250


Reply #185 on: December 07, 2009, 12:09:13 PM

http://pauser.com/warhammer/popmon/

Because of the population issues, as well as realm imbalances, I don't see how people are going to want to pay a monthly fee to come back to this game.
The fucked up part of this quote is that you could have said this about DAoC a year or two after it came out and been completely wrong. This time you're completely right. 
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #186 on: December 07, 2009, 01:30:15 PM

Besides, three sides seemed to work pretty well in DAoC

Maybe on your server...

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #187 on: December 07, 2009, 02:31:33 PM

I didn't play DAoC.  Just going on hearsay.
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8306


Reply #188 on: December 07, 2009, 03:12:31 PM

The problem with 3 sides, is its just 2 sides in disguise. The ideal is the 2 weaker sides gang up on the 1 strong side. The reality is the 2 stronger sides make the 3rd wheel it's little bitch, especially if in doing so, both of the two stronger sides ensure their own profitability, be it points or resources or just pure "pwning".


There was maybe 2 servers in DaoC that actually had 3 fairly even competitive realms. On all the others, there was a massive population advantage for Albion and then a substantial participation/effort advantage on either Hibernia or Midgard. The third realm was almost always under manned, under gunned and largely irrelevant outside of the odd gank group trying to score kills while the two larger forces fought over the third realms territory.


You could make it 5 sides, 15 sides, 342 sides, it'll eventually degenerate into Red vs. Blue scenario or worse.



It may still be worth while for flavor or world building, I wouldn't argue against that.

and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #189 on: December 07, 2009, 06:38:26 PM

The biggest issue with these games that try to do world PvP is that "rewards" are offered for the winning side.  The idea is that the losers will feel bad and suddenly get super motivated to get organized and go after the other side.  In reality, people just want to win, not work.  So the average joe will simply quit or reroll for the winning side.  What they should be doing is giving boosts to the losers to keep things somewhat equal.  I guess that is what they had planned with the dogs of war dealy, but that was apparently too difficult for them to do with 100 million smackos.
Kageru
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4549


Reply #190 on: December 07, 2009, 06:58:20 PM

And the boosts they give are generally XP gains. The people doing most of the defending are level capped and don't care, while a side being beaten into the ground probably isn't getting a lot of new recruits. WoW tried to use a buff in wintergrasp which can have population imbalance. That's not very popular either because while your opponents side might be outnumbered that's little consolation if he's blowing you away 1 on 1 due to a balance buff.

I'm still of the opinion that World PvP is a nice idea that pretty much never works in practice.

Wow, those population numbers are impressively dire. 4 servers peaking at 600-1k? So a subscriber base of probably under 20k. The game has to be on life support mode and headed for shutdown.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 07:02:05 PM by Kageru »

Is a man not entitled to the hurf of his durf?
- Simond
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8306


Reply #191 on: December 07, 2009, 07:31:40 PM

If you want a RvR game, you need to equal out the starting sides from the get go. If you can't get a somewhat equal spread of overall population AND a spread of participation* population, the game is doomed. All the tinkering after the fact will just slow the bleeding, but it won't correct the initial break. You still want that tinkering to help keep it even, but you need it to setup proper from day 1.

Of course, all of that amounts to "Do it right" so /shrug  why so serious?

It isn't just a mechanics thing either, you also have to cater to the player psychology or whatever you want to call it. Need to flavor and racial diversity, can't make one side the 'bad guys', or the 'ugly guys'. If you are keeping the standard fantasy setting, each side needs Humans, Elves, TinyShortPeople, GiantBadassMonsterPeople. If you are keeping the standard fantasy class types, each side needs 'Paladins' and 'Rangers'. Just general things to help the populations start as even as possible.



*Having thousands of players online, but all sitting in the captial crafting hinges doesn't win you a RvR fight.   awesome, for real





and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #192 on: December 07, 2009, 07:51:57 PM

Wow, those population numbers are impressively dire. 4 servers peaking at 600-1k? So a subscriber base of probably under 20k. The game has to be on life support mode and headed for shutdown.

Those are level 40 folks, I believe.  Still sucks.
Shatter
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1407


Reply #193 on: December 08, 2009, 05:36:55 AM

The populations have been horrible for a long time.  My old server Gorfang which is considered a busy server was dead during the day and you couldnt get PvP until about 2pm.  If you logged in any earlier then that prepare to do PvE cause you wont be getting scenarios and the RvR was a waste. 
Redgiant
Terracotta Army
Posts: 304


Reply #194 on: December 09, 2009, 08:14:20 PM

3-way worked well in DAoC as far as you could take it.

Since DAoC never added formal support in-game for cross-realm alliance communications or damage prevention due to being temporarily "on the same side", everything from agreeing to coordinate an attack on the stronger realm to avoiding hitting each other at keeps when the eventual fray of all 3 realms converged was just done ad-hoc in Vent, forums, manually avoid targeting or AEing and the like.

Because on my servers (Nimue and Guinivere), there were many instances of allying my realm with another to take back relics the strongest realm had gotten from either of us. And sometimes even banding together wasn't enough when the strong side has so much talent and organization to embarass lesser players (see Retribution/Jander/Hod on Nimue, or Xukoth D'Oloth on Guin) but it was at least a better shot at it.

Imagine if they had more formally supported those abilities in-game. Regardless, I can tell you from personal play experience it DOES matter having > 2 sides even without formal in-game support (which would just make it even better and matter more).

A FUCKING COMPANY IS AT STEAK
Soulflame
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6486


Reply #195 on: December 10, 2009, 08:42:18 AM

Just to underline that "skill/players/ToA" thing about DAoC - I remember an eight man group taking a keep, and camping in it.  We hit the keep with around 115 players, and every single one of them died within a 15 minute period.

Another memorable fight (that I was not at, but had friends who were) was two groups sitting on the roof of a tower, and waiting for the lord of the tower to die.  Lord dies, entire enemy raid was ported to the roof, AE casters hit their "you can't interrupt me" ability, and almost instantly killed 80+ players.

Neither of those are particularly fun, and it's a given that Mythic should have worked to ensure something like that wasn't possible in their next game.  Which, of course, they did not.  There are plenty more examples of this too, in particular Mythic deciding to give CC and AE fall off effectiveness from the center of it, that they never (to my knowledge) implemented in Warhammer.
Redgiant
Terracotta Army
Posts: 304


Reply #196 on: December 10, 2009, 12:04:51 PM

Its been so long since DAoC for me, but I could swear I recall a point where my Hib enchanter's PBAE was changed to honor falloff radius. You had to get more up close and personal to deliver a full blow.

Before falloff, a couple PBAE-ers could hold off an army due to (a) being off-to-the-side where the PBAE radius barely covered the stairs but still delivered a full punch, and (b) PBAE working through stone ballustrades, railings, doors.

A FUCKING COMPANY IS AT STEAK
Soln
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4737

the opportunity for evil is just delicious


Reply #197 on: December 10, 2009, 12:50:20 PM

I played a Wiz.  I definitely remember holding keeps with PBAEs in front of doors.
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8306


Reply #198 on: December 10, 2009, 01:35:35 PM

I remember people being incredibly stupid about Keep doors and not understanding you could move back half a foot and not be hit by any PBAE's and still hit the door. They would rather die and complain that PBAE shouldn't go through walls while they waited on a Rez.  awesome, for real

3-way worked well in DAoC as far as you could take it.

Since DAoC never added formal support in-game for cross-realm alliance communications or damage prevention due to being temporarily "on the same side", everything from agreeing to coordinate an attack on the stronger realm to avoiding hitting each other at keeps when the eventual fray of all 3 realms converged was just done ad-hoc in Vent, forums, manually avoid targeting or AEing and the like.

Because on my servers (Nimue and Guinivere), there were many instances of allying my realm with another to take back relics the strongest realm had gotten from either of us. And sometimes even banding together wasn't enough when the strong side has so much talent and organization to embarass lesser players (see Retribution/Jander/Hod on Nimue, or Xukoth D'Oloth on Guin) but it was at least a better shot at it.

Imagine if they had more formally supported those abilities in-game. Regardless, I can tell you from personal play experience it DOES matter having > 2 sides even without formal in-game support (which would just make it even better and matter more).

Formally supporting those options in game means you officially have a two side conflict, just with more hoops. Even without formal support, it was still a two sided conflict, one that once you dissolved your alliance, would revert to one realm dominating the other two. This is assuming you have one massively stronger realm against two weaker ones. DaoC's three sides became a joke when it was two stronger realms and a third wheel joke realm.

The base issue isn't the number of sides, but the division of the player base. Any potential RvR game needs to find a way to ensure every side (be it 2, 3, 5, 72) has a equal distribution of players, active players, skilled players and catass players.

and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
Redgiant
Terracotta Army
Posts: 304


Reply #199 on: December 10, 2009, 08:20:00 PM

Let's pretend this were possible in DAOC:

There are 6 relics total (2 per realm; one caster-oriented, one melee-oriented for bonuses and such).

If one realm holds 4 relics, the other realms to go into truce mode. Any realm in truce mode has rudimentary communications allowed between any other realm in the same mode.

If one realm holds 5 relics (or 4 relics for more than 3 days), the other realms to go into ally mode. Any relam in ally mode can fully communicate and share alliance chat in addition to anything from above.

If one realm holds all 6 relics (or 5 relics for more than 3 days), the other realms go into unified front mode. Any realm in unfied front mode treats any other realm in the same mode as a friendly unit for damage avoidance and other benefits of "being on the same side" as well as everything form above.


Something like that would help a game like DAoC or RvR-oriented ones to avoid the razor's edge of 1:1 sides. And this is just with 3 sides; the more sides you add with similar rules, the less likley any one realm can hold out for extended periods - but they'll have fun trying.


Edit: Just for grins if one realm holds all 6 relics for more than 3 days, DF opens up to everyone period plus all the benefits above.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2009, 08:23:37 PM by Redgiant »

A FUCKING COMPANY IS AT STEAK
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #200 on: December 10, 2009, 09:21:10 PM

Great ideas, but Mythic couldn't even get the armor and character visuals to change as you leveled up....
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8306


Reply #201 on: December 10, 2009, 09:23:07 PM

Imagine one realm holds 3 power relics, while the other realm holds 3 strength relics, while the third realm never holds relics outside of the server resets on massive patch/expansions.

The other two realms happily farm the shit out of the third realm any time they want RPs, Keeps or Access to DF. Both content to happily use their specific Relic bonuses to their advantage. The third realm is under manned and couldn't hope to stand against one of the relic realms, let alone both at the same time.

Thrilling multi-front RvR-Action?  Ohhhhh, I see.




and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
Sjofn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8286

Truckasaurus Hands


Reply #202 on: December 10, 2009, 11:44:17 PM

Yeah, Igraine essentially had two sides. I don't mind the notion of more than two sides, so long as people realise that there is a pretty good chance that third side will just be crapped on. Two sides WILL team up against a third, it's just a lot of the time the third one is the one that can least take it.

God Save the Horn Players
01101010
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12002

You call it an accident. I call it justice.


Reply #203 on: December 11, 2009, 06:42:22 AM

I think we are taking this 3rd faction thing in too narrow of a discussion. In a battle, yeah, I agree with most of the posts that portray the weaker of the three getting swept off the field of play. However, if you are talking about the entire game with several different objectives to be had, that is the time the third faction utility starts to shine - in that the two juggernaut teams battling it out may have to decide to continue pounding on each other or split and send a few fighters to deal with the other faction raping and pillaging the keeps/towns/farms/livestock owned by said team.

Does any one know where the love of God goes...When the waves turn the minutes to hours? -G. Lightfoot
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #204 on: December 11, 2009, 06:44:56 AM

Yeah, Igraine essentially had two sides. I don't mind the notion of more than two sides, so long as people realise that there is a pretty good chance that third side will just be crapped on. Two sides WILL team up against a third, it's just a lot of the time the third one is the one that can least take it.

It's all how you look at it.  My guild used to move to servers where the third realm was getting stomped.  It gave us a goal.  We moved to Igraine Mid when they were getting stomped and it gave us a wonderfully target-rich place to get consistent pvp action. 

I like the notion of more than 2 realms in any game.  It provides a lot of replay value. 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #205 on: December 11, 2009, 11:59:24 AM

Yeah, Igraine essentially had two sides. I don't mind the notion of more than two sides, so long as people realise that there is a pretty good chance that third side will just be crapped on. Two sides WILL team up against a third, it's just a lot of the time the third one is the one that can least take it.

It's all how you look at it.  My guild used to move to servers where the third realm was getting stomped.  It gave us a goal.  We moved to Igraine Mid when they were getting stomped and it gave us a wonderfully target-rich place to get consistent pvp action. 

I like the notion of more than 2 realms in any game.  It provides a lot of replay value. 

...wait a minute. Do I know you?

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Sjofn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8286

Truckasaurus Hands


Reply #206 on: December 11, 2009, 12:13:11 PM

It's all how you look at it.  My guild used to move to servers where the third realm was getting stomped.  It gave us a goal.  We moved to Igraine Mid when they were getting stomped and it gave us a wonderfully target-rich place to get consistent pvp action. 

I'm sorry, but your guild was the kind of rerollers I fucking hated on Mid/Igraine. Absolutely useless from a realm war standpoint, and that's what I played DAoC for. And given that's what I played DAoC for, three realms did jack shit to enhance that experience, because the Albs and Hibs could take over our fucking frontier whenever they felt like it. Being the underdog pooped on realm was incredibly demoralizing for the people actually invested in the realm war and the server.

Yes, I am still bitter that we spent at least a month carefully planning a relic raid, having to get basically the entire goddamn realm to log in for it, and having Hibernia take it back less than 24 hours later with a bunch of random ass people who were in our frontier and figured "hey, why not!" We had less people logged in IN TOTAL than they had hitting our keeps.


God Save the Horn Players
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8306


Reply #207 on: December 11, 2009, 06:55:24 PM

We had infrastructure Sjofn!  Ohhhhh, I see.

I think we are taking this 3rd faction thing in too narrow of a discussion. In a battle, yeah, I agree with most of the posts that portray the weaker of the three getting swept off the field of play. However, if you are talking about the entire game with several different objectives to be had, that is the time the third faction utility starts to shine - in that the two juggernaut teams battling it out may have to decide to continue pounding on each other or split and send a few fighters to deal with the other faction raping and pillaging the keeps/towns/farms/livestock owned by said team.


Except the two juggernaut realms decide to fight in your realm all the time, so anything you could possibly do to their own realms is completely moot, since your own realm is already completely on fire and occupied. To say nothing of the issue that for the third realms strike force can only really hit one of the invading realms at a time, which does nothing to dissuade the other dominant realm from leaving the third realms. The stronger realm is also going to be far more capable of splitting its forces to retake its own territory while still shitting over the third realm.



I like the three side flavor in DaoC, I love the lore and design behind the three realms. It's worth having 3 if only for that, but just splitting your player base in 3, in of itself, is not going to provide any kind of population counter balance.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 07:04:35 PM by Fordel »

and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #208 on: December 11, 2009, 07:16:03 PM

Absolutely useless from a realm war standpoint, and that's what I played DAoC for. And given that's what I played DAoC for.

We helped with every relic raid, so I'm not sure what you're so upset about.  Yes, we went there to zerg bust and 8v8 primarily, but we did have our little realm pride moments.

...wait a minute. Do I know you?

You probably knew my toon.  Hell, we may have been in the same vent server together.  Small world, all that.

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #209 on: December 12, 2009, 01:00:55 AM

Absolutely useless from a realm war standpoint, and that's what I played DAoC for. And given that's what I played DAoC for.

We helped with every relic raid, so I'm not sure what you're so upset about.  Yes, we went there to zerg bust and 8v8 primarily, but we did have our little realm pride moments.


Old drama is old. But, Mid/Igraine was a serial target of reroll gank groups who'd blow in, talk about how things would be better now, etc., and then 2 days later it was 'don't zerg up/follow us, we're only here to 8v8' etc. It happened literally like 10 times. Meanwhile we'd log in every night to a full frontier of captured keeps. It got old pretty fast.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 20 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Warhammer Online (Moderator: tazelbain)  |  Topic: Warhammer Online Server Dead Pool  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC