Originally posted by skankyrart

Originally posted by Mykell

My only concern is on my server (Darklands) Order and Destruction are fairly evenly balanced with both sides pushing zones up to the fortresses. But now we are at a stalemate. It used to be server crashes now its just impossible to take a half decently defended fortress.

Fortress attempts favour defenders to much. You only get an hour from when you flip zone and with some defense (oil, destroyed ram seige pads) it can take 10 minutes to get a door down. The fact that when you engage the lord the attackers cannot rez anyone and they have to run back from the warcamp really kills any momentum attackers can build up. I've been on front lines with a couple guild healers and they say they cant keep me up cause of the lag (see below).

Seeing as there is only one way to get to the fortress lord you just have zerg vs zerg and the lag is unplayable for most everyone as well.

Keep design is too simplistic and seeing as technology doesnt seem to be able to handle large scale RvR/PvP (200+ vs 200+) Mythic needs to find a way to split up the zergs.

There's your reason.

I think people enjoyed the early game, as I did, because it was something new. I was excited by the public quests, suitable quest rewards, pvp battle objectives, gaining exp through pvp... but the bottom line is that the game does not live up to the vision they created. Zone control was (and maybe still is?) one of the more broken elements. BOs and keeps were boring as there was almost no variation in the game play. BOs were almost always simply traded, but it isn't like it mattered seeing as their control had no real effect. In keeps, the attackers always just knocked down the doors and then zerged the lord room. Yeah, I still think I'd get a kick out of dropping oil on people, but they really needed to make this much more complex and interesting for everyone involved. Probably as a result of the above, scenarios were the bulk of what people played. And in reality they are the exact same as WoW and I can only enjoy them now and again.

However, I drew the line at fortress sieges. After hours of hard work to flip zones - which sometimes seemed to occur randomly, you get to the fortress and the game crashes or lags up so terribly that you can't do anything. I understand that it is somewhat of a challenge to build a game that can handle large numbers of players on a single screen. However it was obvious that everyone was playing the game for the war aspect, and as such they should have focused on testing this and making sure the average computer could run it. I mean why do you think WoW is successful? People can play the content they want without the server crashing or lagging out incredibly.

 

Well technically the old TM/SS raids did crash WoW servers quite often.  But TM/SS raids were not billed as the end game of WoW .... even though many people liked them a lot.  But that is neither here nor there and the BG's killed that anyway. 

Its sounds like for you it was multiple aspects of the more "in-depth" parts of the campaign not getting richer ?

So was the fortress problems the straw that broke the camel's back or just a straight up deal breaker?

I mean if the other parts of the campaign were richer, wouldn't you have been maybe more willing to forgive the fortress problem?  Or is the obstruction of the stated goal of the game basically "game over"?

In the TM/SS raids mentioned above the server crashes pissed many PvE players off and that was unacceptable to Blizzard.  But the PvPers thought it was great fun and frankly most expected the server to crash and tried to get as much action in before it did.

Is this all a matter of expectations and promises undelivered?

Originally posted by gestalt11

Originally posted by skankyrart

Originally posted by Mykell

My only concern is on my server (Darklands) Order and Destruction are fairly evenly balanced with both sides pushing zones up to the fortresses. But now we are at a stalemate. It used to be server crashes now its just impossible to take a half decently defended fortress.

Fortress attempts favour defenders to much. You only get an hour from when you flip zone and with some defense (oil, destroyed ram seige pads) it can take 10 minutes to get a door down. The fact that when you engage the lord the attackers cannot rez anyone and they have to run back from the warcamp really kills any momentum attackers can build up. I've been on front lines with a couple guild healers and they say they cant keep me up cause of the lag (see below).

Seeing as there is only one way to get to the fortress lord you just have zerg vs zerg and the lag is unplayable for most everyone as well.

Keep design is too simplistic and seeing as technology doesnt seem to be able to handle large scale RvR/PvP (200+ vs 200+) Mythic needs to find a way to split up the zergs.

There's your reason.

I think people enjoyed the early game, as I did, because it was something new. I was excited by the public quests, suitable quest rewards, pvp battle objectives, gaining exp through pvp... but the bottom line is that the game does not live up to the vision they created. Zone control was (and maybe still is?) one of the more broken elements. BOs and keeps were boring as there was almost no variation in the game play. BOs were almost always simply traded, but it isn't like it mattered seeing as their control had no real effect. In keeps, the attackers always just knocked down the doors and then zerged the lord room. Yeah, I still think I'd get a kick out of dropping oil on people, but they really needed to make this much more complex and interesting for everyone involved. Probably as a result of the above, scenarios were the bulk of what people played. And in reality they are the exact same as WoW and I can only enjoy them now and again.

However, I drew the line at fortress sieges. After hours of hard work to flip zones - which sometimes seemed to occur randomly, you get to the fortress and the game crashes or lags up so terribly that you can't do anything. I understand that it is somewhat of a challenge to build a game that can handle large numbers of players on a single screen. However it was obvious that everyone was playing the game for the war aspect, and as such they should have focused on testing this and making sure the average computer could run it. I mean why do you think WoW is successful? People can play the content they want without the server crashing or lagging out incredibly.

 

 

Well technically the old TM/SS raids did crash WoW servers quite often.  But TM/SS raids were not billed as the end game of WoW .... even though many people liked them a lot.  But that is neither here nor there and the BG's killed that anyway. 

 

Its sounds like for you it was multiple aspects of the more "in-depth" parts of the campaign not getting richer ?

 

So was the fortress problems the straw that broke the camel's back or just a straight up deal breaker?

 

I mean if the other parts of the campaign were richer, wouldn't you have been maybe more willing to forgive the fortress problem?  Or is the obstruction of the stated goal of the game basically "game over"?

 

 

In the TM/SS raids mentioned above the server crashes pissed many PvE players off and that was unacceptable to Blizzard.  But the PvPers thought it was great fun and frankly most expected the server to crash and tried to get as much action in before it did.

 

Is this all a matter of expectations and promises undelivered?

Yeah, but the TM/SS raids were just a silly 'side' thing to the game.  Players knew that even if they suceeded in taking SS, there wasn't any real point to it.  In Warhammer.. capturing Forts and moving into the city IS THE GAME.   There is absolutely no point in capturing keeps and BOs during primetime and even worrying about VPs because you know that you won't be taking a Fort.

A better example for WOW would be if the final boss of Molton Core caused the game to crash every time you got to him.  How much fun do you think it is to constantly clear trash and minor-bosses when you know that the big reward is out of reach because of technical reasons.

Originally posted by Grunties

Its really interesting the number of people that either havent played the game, havent played the game in the past 2 months, or never got to tier 4 at all, all claiming to be experts on tier 4 pvp. I would honestly be less surprised if someone claimed that EVE had no pvp, or WoW was too PvP heavy. Whats the point of posting about nonexistent problems? Things that have already been fixed?

mmorpg.com truly is a hotbed of unexplainable sociological phenomenon.

Fortress sieges have not crashed for a while, though it is still not possible to have more than 500 simultaneous participants without slowdown, big surprise there. If not being able to support that many without slowdown is an issue, then I guess just about every mmo has some serious issues to look at.

The last few patches have made tier 4 packed due to the oRvR incentives, so there arent any valid complaints about population or participation in that area for a long while. Such comments should be ignored as they are based on uninformed month old data. I think a lot of those claims come from people that quit a while back, or are viral advertisors for other games.

Only real tier 4 pvp problems is that things are too packed, too busy, and this will only get worse as more people get to tier 4. There needs to be more ways to split people up in a meaningful way, bring incentives to moving in smaller coordinated tactical groups instead of en masse. And that shouldn't be done with scenerios (though that is essentially what they do), it needs to maintain the oRVR feel while still managing a lot of simultaneous players and allowing more thoughtful tactical manuevers. There are technical limitations that need to be considered while still staying true to the desire for epic battles.

Man you couldn't be more right. Also a word of thumb to anyone reading about anygame on this site never never believe the haters or those who pretend to know anything.

REM crashes almost every night.

And this whole '500 players make it crash' is nonsence.  There are WAY less players than that when it crashes.. try like 50v50.

Originally posted by Azrile

Originally posted by gestalt11

Originally posted by skankyrart

Originally posted by Mykell

My only concern is on my server (Darklands) Order and Destruction are fairly evenly balanced with both sides pushing zones up to the fortresses. But now we are at a stalemate. It used to be server crashes now its just impossible to take a half decently defended fortress.

Fortress attempts favour defenders to much. You only get an hour from when you flip zone and with some defense (oil, destroyed ram seige pads) it can take 10 minutes to get a door down. The fact that when you engage the lord the attackers cannot rez anyone and they have to run back from the warcamp really kills any momentum attackers can build up. I've been on front lines with a couple guild healers and they say they cant keep me up cause of the lag (see below).

Seeing as there is only one way to get to the fortress lord you just have zerg vs zerg and the lag is unplayable for most everyone as well.

Keep design is too simplistic and seeing as technology doesnt seem to be able to handle large scale RvR/PvP (200+ vs 200+) Mythic needs to find a way to split up the zergs.

There's your reason.

I think people enjoyed the early game, as I did, because it was something new. I was excited by the public quests, suitable quest rewards, pvp battle objectives, gaining exp through pvp... but the bottom line is that the game does not live up to the vision they created. Zone control was (and maybe still is?) one of the more broken elements. BOs and keeps were boring as there was almost no variation in the game play. BOs were almost always simply traded, but it isn't like it mattered seeing as their control had no real effect. In keeps, the attackers always just knocked down the doors and then zerged the lord room. Yeah, I still think I'd get a kick out of dropping oil on people, but they really needed to make this much more complex and interesting for everyone involved. Probably as a result of the above, scenarios were the bulk of what people played. And in reality they are the exact same as WoW and I can only enjoy them now and again.

However, I drew the line at fortress sieges. After hours of hard work to flip zones - which sometimes seemed to occur randomly, you get to the fortress and the game crashes or lags up so terribly that you can't do anything. I understand that it is somewhat of a challenge to build a game that can handle large numbers of players on a single screen. However it was obvious that everyone was playing the game for the war aspect, and as such they should have focused on testing this and making sure the average computer could run it. I mean why do you think WoW is successful? People can play the content they want without the server crashing or lagging out incredibly.

 

 

Well technically the old TM/SS raids did crash WoW servers quite often.  But TM/SS raids were not billed as the end game of WoW .... even though many people liked them a lot.  But that is neither here nor there and the BG's killed that anyway. 

 

Its sounds like for you it was multiple aspects of the more "in-depth" parts of the campaign not getting richer ?

 

So was the fortress problems the straw that broke the camel's back or just a straight up deal breaker?

 

I mean if the other parts of the campaign were richer, wouldn't you have been maybe more willing to forgive the fortress problem?  Or is the obstruction of the stated goal of the game basically "game over"?

 

 

In the TM/SS raids mentioned above the server crashes pissed many PvE players off and that was unacceptable to Blizzard.  But the PvPers thought it was great fun and frankly most expected the server to crash and tried to get as much action in before it did.

 

Is this all a matter of expectations and promises undelivered?

 

Yeah, but the TM/SS raids were just a silly 'side' thing to the game.  Players knew that even if they suceeded in taking SS, there wasn't any real point to it.  In Warhammer.. capturing Forts and moving into the city IS THE GAME.   There is absolutely no point in capturing keeps and BOs during primetime and even worrying about VPs because you know that you won't be taking a Fort.

A better example for WOW would be if the final boss of Molton Core caused the game to crash every time you got to him.  How much fun do you think it is to constantly clear trash and minor-bosses when you know that the big reward is out of reach because of technical reasons.

 

From the World of Warcraft handbook for the game:

"In the world of Azeroth, the Horde and the Alliance are opposing factions locked in a struggle for control of the land - and neither side is backing down. Horde and Alliance players can battle each other, but they are unable to group together, trade, or even talk to each other. Thus, if you wish to play with your friends, make sure you select races that belong to the same faction. "

A silly side show in the game, indeed. The title of the game is WORLD of WARCRAFT. What does that say to you.

It was fully intended that open world PVP  would be in the game, but the poor servers couldn't handle it no matter what the dev's did. This is the reason for instanced BG's and penalties for open raiding they implemented

Just go to the WOW forums (When they don't delete them), they still have problems with crashing servers and lag because of Wintergrasp. Seems WOW still has end game problems, same with Molten Core when it came out, half your raid would disappear and not be able to log back in. Didn't happen every run but enough to be extremely annoying. Pretty bad when you are on a once a week timer started by Blizzard.

Played the game for a while. I had a lvl 40 rr 40ish.  The classes don't have enough flare to make any kind of different pvp experances. As order basically win by zerging with brightwizards as destro  sorcs, witchelfs ect.  The pvp is far to simplistic.  I think wow has more class combinations with different skills imo.  The rvr areas do infact feel extremely arbitrary. Meaning they seem to only be there for one reason. The game seems too formulated . Each chapter has 3 pqs and a little town with the same stuff x 40 lvls of this. The pvp does not really change from t1 to t4 as far as character skills. Sure you get a few new ones but the basic play seems the same.   Wow 2.0 could have been done better, i mean war sorry.  IF you played wow as your first mmo or prefer steady and predictibable combat over the opposite then this game is for you. For me It was not worth my time. I had fun in the begining but not now.  It really boils down to is the game fun and is it fun when you play it after a month or 2.    Sure the game was fun for a few weeks but then it slowly got less and less fun.  Like a poster said it was like t1 t2 are fun t3 not so much.  t4 not really at all.

Originally posted by wintersclan

 T4 do need some rework, or a lot of fixes, particularly surrounding the Fortress Siege areas.

But other than that, T4 is fine as it is.....slightly.   Here is my take on the different tiers.

• T1 - lots of fun zerging
• T2 - understanding Keeps and BO.   Some fun in zerging, 1v1. Who cares about coordination.
• T3 - understanding 2 Keep Doors, Keep and BO.  Less fun in zerging.  Ok, now I care a bit about coordination as T3 VP spills over to T4.
• T4 - all about coordination, team work.  It's about how you play, rather than what you play.     If you are not guilded, you better be.     And you better be geared up for Fortresss Siege.   And don't QQ if you are not geared up.    There are lots of ranked (ward) geared up players in T4. 

T4 opens up for more strategy if you are in a guild that values coordination and team work.    We have taken a heavily defended Keep in T4, by just luring them out into the open, and ambushing them, while other team sneak in and get the Keep Lord.      We have also managed to lock down a zone with just 2 alliance WB, all in under 1 hour.

In T4, it's just a different game style, really.   Well, that's my 2 cents.   

 

 

YOU ARE WHAT IS WRONG WITH EVERY PVP GAME, ZERGING <<<< IT DOESN'T TAKE TEAMWORK IT TAKES NUMBERS, THIS GAME NEEDS A SPEED CLASS SO EVERYONE ISN'T ZERGING, WTF IS THE POINT OF ZERGING... IT SUCKS, LEARN SOME SKILL, GO 6V6 OR SOMETHING O_o

Originally posted by Azrile

REM crashes almost every night.

And this whole '500 players make it crash' is nonsence.  There are WAY less players than that when it crashes.. try like 50v50.

I'd say the numbers that crash the server fall somewhere in between.  I've never seen 4 WB's (50v50) crash a zone, probably more like 200 total players, which is still ridiculous considering the game touts large scale rvr.  And the crashing isn't even necessarily the problem, it's the poor optimization and lag (yes, my comp is only just slightly above average, but those with uber machines have plenty of problems too).

By tier 4 the CC is out of hand, disabled, disabled, respawn isn't much fun plus people seem more interested in farming renown than locking a zone, which is in large part due to the futility of fortress takes (zone crashing).  If individual keep and BO ownership gave one side additional respawn points or other pluses there would be more short term reasons for taking them as opposed to the currently impossible long term goal of sacking the enemies fortress or capital.

I will add that part of what makes all the problems so frustrating is how cool and epic the sieges actually are.  The game has a good 'feel' to me, but needs to work out alot of the mechanics. 

Here's the issues I found in tier 4 and some solutions I think would fix a few problems.

1.  Too much action in one area.  Everyone wants to be where the aciton is so everryone will fload one area and eventually lag or crash the server. 

The only solution is through the players.  Oppertunistic guilds need to separate fromt he zerg and take keeps in other zones to spread out the war more.

2.  Maps in tier 4 too much safe zone.  One thing that helps in crashing the server is having a gigantic zone with NPC mobs wandering about waiting for action WHILE you have a zerg of 500+ people fighting for a keep elsewhere in that same zone.  All that mix of PvP and PvE is stressing the server. 

When the next expansion comes out, (or free update) there should be new zones introduced with no safe areas.  It is all PvP, with some PvE mobs mixed in, but not at the level that it is now.

3.  Simular to #2.  Tier 4 maps funnel players too much with the restricting setup.  Kadrin Valley is the worst for this.  There's no room for tactic.  Your zerg travels down a one way path to the keep and meets the other zerg for a big non-tactical zerg fest.  In the end one team is pushed to their warcamp where they are farmed.

To fix this, again make the next group of RvR maps OPEN.  Lot's of wandering space for people to flank.  to take other objectives, and just use their brains.  Ostland / Troll country, High Pass / Talabaclands,  Blighted Isles are all examples of nice open PvP zones where people wonder and use tactics.  This is one reason why people love tier 1 and 2 so much.

4.  To short a distance to return to battle.  In tier 3, a person who dies defending the keep is back at the keep in less than 15 seconds.  10 of those seconds are spent being PvP immune.  That is pathetic.  Thickmuck Keep in Badlands is the worst for this.  Tier 4 has a longer run distance but it still is not long enough to really make player sweat a bit when it comes to survival.

Again, when those new maps are made, make the runs to the keeps much farthur and make BOs closer to warcamps to compensate the long run.

Most of the problems in tier 4, that I see, all revolve around the map setups and keep distances from warcamps.

Originally posted by gestalt11

In a majority of people's opinions who tried this game Tier 1 and Teir 2 were fun.  Pretty good balance, some rough spots with WP/DoK, but all in all pretty good. 

 

Then around level 22 the game starts to take a nasty turn.  T3 is OK, and T4 is pretty bad in the opinion of I would go so far as to say a large majority of people who played this game.

 

T4 is bad enough that people have been agitating for level locking (ala former EQ2 PvP) just to not have to leave T2.  Not so they can twink but so that they can avoid T4.  I think a lot of them would go so far as to say they would accept a premade character that can level lock and only were green equipment to avoid twinking.

 

So what went wrong?  Is this just perception and not reality?  Are the CC problems people cite a real problem?  Is it more of a function that T4 is more dependent on the VP system and T2 is not?  Or what? 

 

What could Mythic do?  Its not like a ton of powers are actually given out after level 25.  Are the gameplay problems all the result of a few powers and could easily be fixed?

 

I personally found t2 more fun than t3 or t4 but I quit before they got rid of Magnet/Rift so upper T3 and T4 were retardedly un-fun at the time.

 

It is a rather strange thing that this game takes such an abrupt turn I don't know that I can quite put my finger on what changes around level 25 but I know its a serious and consistent issue with the game.   Maybe Tier 4 needed more testing, but I am pretty sure they did a good bit.  I know they threw in last minute changes for some uncomprehensible reason, that is how Rift/Magnet got in like it.  Is this all part of the that last minute self-sabotage ?

Well, the level locking requests have little to nothing to do with T4.  This is something we wanted in beta primarily for min/maxing of rewards and being able to hold up to keep leveling groups together.  T4, in general, is vastly improved over what it was at launch.  The idea to add influence to the rvr lakes gets people out of the whole keep tag mentality and gives players a reason to actually defend keeps and such.  This was something that could have been forseen but not through the beta data.

In beta, once t4 opened, it was constant rvr action.  always there were multiple wbs running through the zones fighting it out.  Not once did I see the keep tag that permeated the launch game.  I have to ask if you still play the game, and if you are on a decently populated server?  Because the complaints you bring up were very valid a month ago or so, but today are far less applicable.  Is it perfect yet? nope.  Do I think it ever will be? Nope.  But, is it fun? oh hell yeah it is :)

I think early 20ies is a difficult turn in every MMO. By then you have learned all the basic game mechanics, and the trick of the devs is to make really NEW things, exciting things, which seriously  thrill and motivy you and in that WAR just falls flat. At 25 or so you basically have all spells and attacks you ever get, you have all gear (visually), since what comes is mostly the same in slightly different bolts and nudges. The keep conquests are now all basically the same, destroy door 1, destroy door 2, run up the ramp. There is no real novelty and variation, so it gets very dull once you get around 25+.

Its a danger for every MMO, some work around it better, some worse, but WAR really belongs to those who manage to bring almost no novelty beyond level 25.

The same was the pitfall of the Vanguard classes, for instance. I found the classes VERY interesting, but at level 20/25 you had learned ALL, and the following spells were all higher versions of the previous, like Fireball I, II, III, IV asf ad nauseam. The class design of EQ2 and WOW is way more interesting, you learn really new, interesting stuff even in higher levels. The more I think of WAR, the more I shake my head over how dull WAR is really designed. Its really one of the most boring of all the AAA titles. *shrug*

I don't have any tier 4 toons yet.  I have one tier 3 herder.   

Tier 1 pvp was fun.  Successive tiers have become less fun for me.  I'll cite two reasons why.

Reason 1:  The rvr lakes are way too big.  What I liked about tier 1 was the closeness of the objectives.  I didn't have to run far to reach each one and my chances of seeing an enemy were greater due to the small area than the larger tier 2 and 3 rvr lakes.

Reason 2:  Realm jumping keep farming zergs.  Tiers 2 & 3 are frequent victims of this.  I see why people do it but it kills orvr and its boring.  Nobody is prepared for a massive zerg that suddenly appears, owns everything then quickly leaves for another realm.  There is no one around to defend the keeps taken so a small wb can take the keeps and bfos back with little or no resistance....not fun.

Those are the two reasons why orvr sucks for me beyond tier 1. 

The CC needs to be tweaked.

Originally posted by severius

Originally posted by gestalt11

In a majority of people's opinions who tried this game Tier 1 and Teir 2 were fun.  Pretty good balance, some rough spots with WP/DoK, but all in all pretty good. 

 

Then around level 22 the game starts to take a nasty turn.  T3 is OK, and T4 is pretty bad in the opinion of I would go so far as to say a large majority of people who played this game.

 

T4 is bad enough that people have been agitating for level locking (ala former EQ2 PvP) just to not have to leave T2.  Not so they can twink but so that they can avoid T4.  I think a lot of them would go so far as to say they would accept a premade character that can level lock and only were green equipment to avoid twinking.

 

So what went wrong?  Is this just perception and not reality?  Are the CC problems people cite a real problem?  Is it more of a function that T4 is more dependent on the VP system and T2 is not?  Or what? 

 

What could Mythic do?  Its not like a ton of powers are actually given out after level 25.  Are the gameplay problems all the result of a few powers and could easily be fixed?

 

I personally found t2 more fun than t3 or t4 but I quit before they got rid of Magnet/Rift so upper T3 and T4 were retardedly un-fun at the time.

 

It is a rather strange thing that this game takes such an abrupt turn I don't know that I can quite put my finger on what changes around level 25 but I know its a serious and consistent issue with the game.   Maybe Tier 4 needed more testing, but I am pretty sure they did a good bit.  I know they threw in last minute changes for some uncomprehensible reason, that is how Rift/Magnet got in like it.  Is this all part of the that last minute self-sabotage ?

 

Well, the level locking requests have little to nothing to do with T4.  This is something we wanted in beta primarily for min/maxing of rewards and being able to hold up to keep leveling groups together.  T4, in general, is vastly improved over what it was at launch.  The idea to add influence to the rvr lakes gets people out of the whole keep tag mentality and gives players a reason to actually defend keeps and such.  This was something that could have been forseen but not through the beta data.

In beta, once t4 opened, it was constant rvr action.  always there were multiple wbs running through the zones fighting it out.  Not once did I see the keep tag that permeated the launch game.  I have to ask if you still play the game, and if you are on a decently populated server?  Because the complaints you bring up were very valid a month ago or so, but today are far less applicable.  Is it perfect yet? nope.  Do I think it ever will be? Nope.  But, is it fun? oh hell yeah it is :)

I played EQ2 PvP when it forst came out so i have no doubt that sigificant portions of people advocate level locking for reasons you mention above.

The reason I mention it is that enough people dislike T4 to see this as a solution.  I do not agree with them but it is such that some people who are against it due to twinking are chaning there stance since it seems like an easy solution.

I do not play this game currently.  I have a character on Ungrim (transfered there) which wound up much better than Monolith population balance wise.  I find the campaign to be, well, crap.  The VP and mechanics of how you progress it need a lot of help.  So I won't resub until that gets changed.

But that is partially why i made this thread.  The main thing I hear and see about T4 is that its not fun but T2 is fun.  But some of the problems of T4 essentially exist in T2 (such as VP and keep take structure).

However I have been hearing and seeing the CC complaints consistently before and after the most recent changes.  The changes in combat over the tiers make sense.  There are some crazy CC in T4.  AOE ranged disarm is kind of crazy IMO.  Some of the other seems I dunno, it doesn't fit with the t2 comparison.

But if you peruse the forums there is consistent complaints about T4 before and after the various 1.1 changes.

Like many thigns in WAR its peculiar.  There are many things that don't quite make sense.  I won't say bad, just funky.  Things often don't mesh well or are at odds with each other.  It seems like this sulminates in T4 and then is made worse by the fairly radical change in CC and damage.  But its hard to get people to separate out what is bugging them.  Partially because WAR is just peculiar in the way it herky jerky changes things up and goes counter to people's expectations.

Boring zones.

Bad lock mechanics.

But most of all is the "shared" nature of the RvR zones. I could care less about Praag. It isn't mine.

In DAoC, my homeland was my homeland. We had leveling zones in there, we had things related to our "side" out there. I felt a sense of loyalty to it.