Great server organization is killing WvW ... What do you think?

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

[Swamurabi.7890]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

So BG is affecting the other servers in T1 to NOT play and also affecting the THREE servers in T2 to NOT win.

Anet on autopilot.

That's some choice.

[L A T I O N.8923]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

[nthmetal.9652]

Basing linkup on skirmish success is probably problematic, because the skirmish success can indeed depend a lot on your opponents' performance. This will likely lead to as many problematic linkup situations, as the current system.You could try to base the matchup on performance, but the tier-system we have kind of already does that.

The links based on population probably works well enough, but WvW would need additional mechanisms to counterbalance servers vastly overshadowed by other servers in a given matchup. Better chances at success by both servers / harder fights (in which you still have a chance!) are a good thing for WvW and if parts of the playerbase in a matchup cannot achieve that, it's probably a good idea to give additional incentive to the losing side.I can already hear people whining now "but then you do not value effort at all anymore!" "yeah, keep rewarding bad performance, you'll just lose more players". I think the system as it currently is loses way more players than any counterbalancing mechanisms ever might. I also don't say that the side performing better, without relying on counterbalancing mechanisms should not be valued. I have to admit, that the whole situation is so complex, that I can't come up with a good set of mechanisms that will alleviate the problems without causing new bigger problems - but I'm not a pro game developer or even theorist. But there are pros out there, and they should take a look at this. I'm sure there's ways to deal with the current situation, which will yield a higher satisfaction than the current solution.

[Eremes Guile.1480]

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

do you expect milk and cookies when taking a fully defended objectives? lol

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

So BG is affecting the other servers in T1 to NOT play and also affecting the THREE servers in T2 to NOT win.

Anet on autopilot.

That's some choice.

Sure. You are right.

Because winning doesn’t matter.

[L A T I O N.8923]

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

do you expect milk and cookies when taking a fully defended objectives? lol

Naah, i Just dont like to ktrain 15 hrs in a row

Everyone its own thing i guess

[Strider Pj.2193]

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

I though that would lead to fights which is why everyone plays now?

[Strider Pj.2193]

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

do you expect milk and cookies when taking a fully defended objectives? lol

Naah, i Just dont like to ktrain 15 hrs in a row

Everyone its own thing i guess

So.., everyone is defending but it’s a ktrain?

How does that work?

[L A T I O N.8923]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

do you expect milk and cookies when taking a fully defended objectives? lol

Naah, i Just dont like to ktrain 15 hrs in a row

Everyone its own thing i guess

So.., everyone is defending but it’s a ktrain?

How does that work?

Stop pretending you stupid, ill give you another shot

[Strider Pj.2193]

Point stands. People ‘don’t care about winning’ but when they can’t win they stop playing...

Kinda ironic.

[Eremes Guile.1480]

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

do you expect milk and cookies when taking a fully defended objectives? lol

Naah, i Just dont like to ktrain 15 hrs in a row

Everyone its own thing i guess

what? lol

[L A T I O N.8923]

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

do you expect milk and cookies when taking a fully defended objectives? lol

Naah, i Just dont like to ktrain 15 hrs in a row

Everyone its own thing i guess

what? lol

Nothing, Just up to next tower

[Eremes Guile.1480]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

do you expect milk and cookies when taking a fully defended objectives? lol

Naah, i Just dont like to ktrain 15 hrs in a row

Everyone its own thing i guess

So.., everyone is defending but it’s a ktrain?

How does that work?

yeah defending a keep is a k-train?????

[Sylosis.7125]

People wanting to be organised killing the game????. If you had mentioned maybe Mounts / mount stomp, Lag, skill balance, power creep, lack of rewards, stale/boring gameplay/huge downtime between action, lack of action, world population balance/ transfers, real life/time (game is old), people wanting to play with others of similar mindset / ability, people streaming the game less/watching on twitch sure i would maybe say they are possible reasons. WVW IS STILL THE BEST MONSTER SCALE PVP MMO OUT. We are all guilty of complaining about the game, it has so much more potential and we want it to be even better. i am not religious but i pray to the god of anet every day that they bring in some changes that will promote this game and make it even more enjoyable.

[L A T I O N.8923]

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

do you expect milk and cookies when taking a fully defended objectives? lol

Naah, i Just dont like to ktrain 15 hrs in a row

Everyone its own thing i guess

So.., everyone is defending but it’s a ktrain?

How does that work?

yeah defending a keep is a k-train?????

Can you think before you speak?IT makes discussing far easier...

Allright since its you let me explain

You defend or attackAttacking from bg mostly means ktrainDefending mostly means siege wars

[Strider Pj.2193]

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

do you expect milk and cookies when taking a fully defended objectives? lol

Naah, i Just dont like to ktrain 15 hrs in a row

Everyone its own thing i guess

So.., everyone is defending but it’s a ktrain?

How does that work?

yeah defending a keep is a k-train?????

Can you think before you speak?IT makes discussing far easier...

Allright since its you let me explain

You defend or attackAttacking from bg mostly means ktrainDefending mostly means siege wars

That is the first logically stated comment you’ve thrown out there.

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:

@Dayra.7405 said:

@Swamurabi.7890 said:WvW would be more fun if Anet balanced populations based on skirmish results instead of player-hours, population or coverage.

That is not an absolute number, but depends on the opponents you have, e.g. Elona dominates T5, but lost T4.Using play-hours in fact makes sense, as play-hour differences ARE the main reason to dominate or get dominated.

Linking based on population in fact works quite well, but as long as the transfer system is not fixed, it only works for one week, then people stack together on the selected winner to get easier wins.

Equal player-hours does not mean equal competition. Please explain BG's now 43-0-0 skirmish record this match as being "competitive"

Coaxing the other servers out to play is more the issue.

And yes, BG shouldn’t have opened. The new devs haven’t seen the issue.

Left it on autopilot.

But the only reason why it’s 43-0-0 is because the other servers aren’t playing.

Again. It’s their choice.

FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after puberty

do you expect milk and cookies when taking a fully defended objectives? lol

Naah, i Just dont like to ktrain 15 hrs in a row

Everyone its own thing i guess

This makes no sense... but hey. Again, I guess people have been fooling themselves all along about ‘winning not mattering’

[SkyShroud.2865]

Most so-called organizations are just bandwagoners looking for short term glory, they not all that interested in sustainability. They don't follow the building it up bit by bit from nothing. They want a jump start to glory. When all the old guilds were still around, people are forced to build up bit by bit even if they don't want to because the existing competitions between many guilds. Now, the incentive to bandwagon is way higher than building bit by bit, there are so many remnants of old guilds you can get from different servers. Furthermore, the game balance favor numbers a lot more than what used to, there are just too many good reasons to bandwagon.

[Diku.2546]

cough

Not to be mean or discourteous.

It would be nice if folks trimmed out past reply quotes...and not create a monster reply thread that takes up half the page.

It's kind of hard having to scroll past all these single "reply-to-reply" quotes to find then read your single sentence reply.

Plus...these Reply-To-Reply Scroll Monster Postings...tends to drown out anything of value because of the clutter...without adding anything of value to the discussion.

Yours truly,Diku

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

[Strider Pj.2193]

cough

If that’s a problem, take a deep breath and start again.

[Diku.2546]

@ Strider Pj.2193That's a very good suggestion. I'll have to think about it.

Thank you,Diku

[Riba.3271]

NA WvW is more dead than EU, 16k average deaths per server in all tiers when EU t1-t4 all have 23kish. Everybody knows NA servers has been promoting more casual 4-fun derpstyle longer than EU thus they died.

Back to the topic; unfortunately server organisation is necessary, everybody can't be casuals. Each server needs about 2 popular commanders that run organised groups 4ish times a week to a total around 15 hours/week per commander. This punishes the most active 24/7 servers on their home/eb map because they will get queue easier with random roamers on map.

Good commander effects extend to times when they are not leading because people will log-in to follow commanders more often and most importantly, learn things from the good commanders.

Anyways GH+Dzagonur aren't even that great of a servers, filled with casuals, you literally just need 1 active pugging guild and you can take anything from them. Yes rank 1 servers have more WvWers logging in at all times of the days, but if they lose 1 matchup or get 1 bad linking their server is dead. They just have lot of people waiting to def things even when no coms so you think they're organised.

[YTKafka.4681]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after pubertyI though that would lead to fights which is why everyone plays now?Sadly no. What it leads to is people holing up in defended objectives trying to annoy people away with an overwhelming amount of siege. The only time fights actually happen is when the objective is undefended long enough for the attacker to get inside.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@YTKafka.4681 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@L A T I O N.8923 said:FC+jq tried for a couple of weeksAfter banging heads against T3 Walls, ac's and double numbers who defend a tower like its their own LIFE. I mean Lets face ITAlot of us been through that after pubertyI though that would lead to fights which is why everyone plays now?Sadly no. What it leads to is people holing up in defended objectives trying to annoy people away with an overwhelming amount of siege. The only time fights actually happen is when the objective is undefended long enough for the attacker to get inside.

Understood.

But if we are being honest, that was always the way it was with the exception of the Zerg buster guilds that would seek out the enemy Zerg and engage them in open field.

The closest we have to that now are some guilds that roam around looking to do something similar but with mostly equal numbers.

[LetoII.3782]

It's a team game-_-Are solo casuals entitled to noone else being less casual now?