Originally posted by TeamFortress

One general comment.

WOW adjusts his award end game play system for every player (new or old) (casual or hardcore) in a new cycle of 6 months. Everyone motivated, everyone happy. Hardcore, softcore. PVE, PVP, crafts,

Those who say they don't agree: no problem.: look at life.

Life is a constant reset and upgrade of things.

We want that new computer, we want those new pants, we want that new cell phone (I-pod replaced by I phone).

Those who think "Oh My God I "worked" (sic) so hard for this item and now I am replacing it, should take a long view of what they buy every month in RL.

You don't agree with this principle? No problem mate ----> alternative societies are that way.

They have't added any new PvP content and make you grind the same 4 BGs and arenas for the longest time.  They just keep adding new "upgraded" armor to make you grind on the same stuff over and over PvPwise.

Originally posted by TeamFortress

One general comment.

WOW adjusts his award end game play system for every player (new or old) (casual or hardcore) in a new cycle of 6 months. Everyone motivated, everyone happy. Hardcore, softcore. PVE, PVP, crafts,

Those who say they don't agree: no problem.: look at life.

Life is a constant reset and upgrade of things.

We want that new computer, we want those new pants, we want that new cell phone (I-pod replaced by I phone).

Those who think "Oh My God I "worked" (sic) so hard for this item and now I am replacing it, should take a long view of what they buy every month in RL.

You don't agree with this principle? No problem mate ----> alternative societies are that way.

Whate are you even talking about, that WOW is a "Real-Life-Simulation"?

Epic interview btw.

Originally posted by fuzzylojik

Originally posted by TeamFortress

One general comment.

WOW adjusts his award end game play system for every player (new or old) (casual or hardcore) in a new cycle of 6 months. Everyone motivated, everyone happy. Hardcore, softcore. PVE, PVP, crafts,

Those who say they don't agree: no problem.: look at life.

Life is a constant reset and upgrade of things.

We want that new computer, we want those new pants, we want that new cell phone (I-pod replaced by I phone).

Those who think "Oh My God I "worked" (sic) so hard for this item and now I am replacing it, should take a long view of what they buy every month in RL.

You don't agree with this principle? No problem mate ----> alternative societies are that way.

 

They have't added any new PvP content and make you grind the same 4 BGs and arenas for the longest time.  They just keep adding new "upgraded" armor to make you grind on the same stuff over and over PvPwise.

We're talking about "PvP content" here, which to me seems like an oxymoron.

Surely it doesn't matter whether the group I'm healing is fighting in a valley, a mountain, some otherwordly place because there entire point of PvP is PLAYER vs PLAYER.

The fact that you have so many people playing to me indicates you're not likely to run out of "PvP content" because the players are the content.

I thought any PvP minded player would realize this, especially when you consider elderly games such as Counterstrike where players refuse to play any other map than Dust2.

Oh yes WAR with it's 20 scenarios means surely different types of grass to fight on but chances are they're not going to be as fun as WoW's measily 4 BGs, and even more likely that the combat is going to be margainally less exciting than playing the table-top game,

Originally posted by Recant

We're talking about "PvP content" here, which to me seems like an oxymoron.

Surely it doesn't matter whether the group I'm healing is fighting in a valley, a mountain, some otherwordly place because there entire point of PvP is PLAYER vs PLAYER.

The fact that you have so many people playing to me indicates you're not likely to run out of "PvP content" because the players are the content.

I thought any PvP minded player would realize this, especially when you consider elderly games such as Counterstrike where players refuse to play any other map than Dust2.

Oh yes WAR with it's 20 scenarios means surely different types of grass to fight on but chances are they're not going to be as fun as WoW's measily 4 BGs, and even more likely that the combat is going to be margainally less exciting than playing the table-top game,

Its only an oxymoron because you think fightin everywhere over everything is the same.

That's like saying the battlefield doesn't matter, the context doesn't matter, and what you're fighting for doesn't matter.

For instance PvP content entails: keep sieges, territory control, world PvP objectives, an in built non-item centric reward system, PvP scenarios (BGs), death penalties, PvP quests, PvP progression and levelling.

That's PvP content. 

So you're saying the upcoming Lake Wintergrasp is not PvP content because it doesn't matter where you're fighting?If it doesn't matter where you are fighting since it's PvP why have even 4 BGs and not 1?

I played it, combat is fun and with way more PvP content than WoW.

Originally posted by fuzzylojik

Originally posted by Recant

We're talking about "PvP content" here, which to me seems like an oxymoron.

Surely it doesn't matter whether the group I'm healing is fighting in a valley, a mountain, some otherwordly place because there entire point of PvP is PLAYER vs PLAYER.

The fact that you have so many people playing to me indicates you're not likely to run out of "PvP content" because the players are the content.

I thought any PvP minded player would realize this, especially when you consider elderly games such as Counterstrike where players refuse to play any other map than Dust2.

Oh yes WAR with it's 20 scenarios means surely different types of grass to fight on but chances are they're not going to be as fun as WoW's measily 4 BGs, and even more likely that the combat is going to be margainally less exciting than playing the table-top game,

Its only an oxymoron because you think fightin everywhere over everything is the same.

That's like saying the battlefield doesn't matter, the context doesn't matter, and what you're fighting for doesn't matter.

For instance PvP content entails: keep sieges, territory control, world PvP objectives, an in built non-item centric reward system, PvP scenarios (BGs), death penalties, PvP quests, PvP progression and levelling.

That's PvP content. 

So you're saying the upcoming Lake Wintergrasp is not PvP content because it doesn't matter where you're fighting?If it doesn't matter where you are fighting since it's PvP why have even 4 BGs and not 1?

I played it, combat is fun and with way more PvP content than WoW.

 

That was actually a better response than I was expecting and I tip my cap to you Mr. WAR-hopeful and I may even feel some geniune pity when WAR comes along and manages to dissapoint you like every other MMORPG on the planet has managed to done for the rabid fanbase that each game builds on pre-release.

You may wonder why I'm being so obtuse, it's because you've glorified aspects such as 'seiges', which is another word for 'LOTS OF PLAYERS FIGHTING FOR CONTROL',  which happens to be the objective of every single BG and world PvP objective in WoW.

The biggest and best point you have made is context, and I must admit I don't have a proper counter-argument to this because on paper this is a geniunely better aspect to WAR than WoW could possibly hope to offer.

HOWEVER...

It means bugger all if the game has not improved since my brief encounter with beta where the combat is less interesting than watching paint dry.  What people have forgotten about Blizzard games after their 100th post about how grindy and repetitive the game is, is how well designed the control and interface of their games are - including WoW.

Despite playing Warsong Gulch for the 50,000th time players don't tend to mind because actually fighting in that game is fun.  What's the point in having an elaborately intricate PvP system of territorial control when the game is completely boring.  I mean look at EVE online, the gameplay is so boring an entire pseudo-political metagame has formed and the actual 'content' of that game is warring factions bitching on each other on forums.  Much like what we're doing right now.

In fact I would rather play Forum-Seige than WAR right now because at least I have to use a tiny portion of my brain instead of running zerg-style into the latest public quest.  There are dozens of grindy and repetitive MMORPGs out there but only one of them designed by a game developer that actually makes successful games, not a new startup that's riding the MMORPG hype wave like a parasite.  A parasite with a surfboard.  Ok I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I'm still going to say that PvP content is actually pretty meaningless to players who actually care about saving friends and killing enemies.

Originally posted by Recant

Originally posted by fuzzylojik

Originally posted by Recant

We're talking about "PvP content" here, which to me seems like an oxymoron.

Surely it doesn't matter whether the group I'm healing is fighting in a valley, a mountain, some otherwordly place because there entire point of PvP is PLAYER vs PLAYER.

The fact that you have so many people playing to me indicates you're not likely to run out of "PvP content" because the players are the content.

I thought any PvP minded player would realize this, especially when you consider elderly games such as Counterstrike where players refuse to play any other map than Dust2.

Oh yes WAR with it's 20 scenarios means surely different types of grass to fight on but chances are they're not going to be as fun as WoW's measily 4 BGs, and even more likely that the combat is going to be margainally less exciting than playing the table-top game,

Its only an oxymoron because you think fightin everywhere over everything is the same.

That's like saying the battlefield doesn't matter, the context doesn't matter, and what you're fighting for doesn't matter.

For instance PvP content entails: keep sieges, territory control, world PvP objectives, an in built non-item centric reward system, PvP scenarios (BGs), death penalties, PvP quests, PvP progression and levelling.

That's PvP content. 

So you're saying the upcoming Lake Wintergrasp is not PvP content because it doesn't matter where you're fighting?If it doesn't matter where you are fighting since it's PvP why have even 4 BGs and not 1?

I played it, combat is fun and with way more PvP content than WoW.

 

That was actually a better response than I was expecting and I tip my cap to you Mr. WAR-hopeful and I may even feel some geniune pity when WAR comes along and manages to dissapoint you like every other MMORPG on the planet has managed to done for the rabid fanbase that each game builds on pre-release.

You may wonder why I'm being so obtuse, it's because you've glorified aspects such as 'seiges', which is another word for 'LOTS OF PLAYERS FIGHTING FOR CONTROL',  which happens to be the objective of every single BG and world PvP objective in WoW.

The biggest and best point you have made is context, and I must admit I don't have a proper counter-argument to this because on paper this is a geniunely better aspect to WAR than WoW could possibly hope to offer.

HOWEVER...

It means bugger all if the game has not improved since my brief encounter with beta where the combat is less interesting than watching paint dry.  What people have forgotten about Blizzard games after their 100th post about how grindy and repetitive the game is, is how well designed the control and interface of their games are - including WoW.

Despite playing Warsong Gulch for the 50,000th time players don't tend to mind because actually fighting in that game is fun.  What's the point in having an elaborately intricate PvP system of territorial control when the game is completely boring.  I mean look at EVE online, the gameplay is so boring an entire pseudo-political metagame has formed and the actual 'content' of that game is warring factions bitching on each other on forums.  Much like what we're doing right now.

In fact I would rather play Forum-Seige than WAR right now because at least I have to use a tiny portion of my brain instead of running zerg-style into the latest public quest.  There are dozens of grindy and repetitive MMORPGs out there but only one of them designed by a game developer that actually makes successful games, not a new startup that's riding the MMORPG hype wave like a parasite.  A parasite with a surfboard.  Ok I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I'm still going to say that PvP content is actually pretty meaningless to players who actually care about saving friends and killing enemies.

Well to each his own then.  I played WAR and found it immensely fun.  Actually fighting in large battlefields out of the constraints of instances only as end game does appeal to me.  I guess if you find the game is boring it's a matter of taste.  But the 12 people from my guild who played preview weekend with me find it loads of fun.

That's the thing.  WAR has already come along, I've tried it and hasn't dissappointed me.  If the endgame is still being worked on we'll still have tons of fun in the scenarios while we wait.  As you can tell I'm not a rabid fan, I don't nonchalantly defend a game, I see it's flaws and come up with a balanced opinion.  I think WAR may have stuff to work on but its a fun game to me.  Ultimately, you don't have to weep for me even if a game fails, I have a RL (gf,house,job,dog), gaming is not the end all of life.  If it fails simply move on with your life.  I never understood why people take it so seriously.

I'm  sure playing the same BGs to some countless times may not be boring to you but to me it is and to many of my guildies who are tired of the same BGs it is too.  Playing the same 4 BGs with a lack of meaningful world PvP objectives for 3+ years definitely gets old.

You do know that public quests require more than to zerg to get contribution points and kill stuff right?  I would hardly call 5-10 people doing a public quest a zerg anyways which is the average I encountered in preview weekend.  If you call that a zerg I'm guessing the 40 mans from WoW were a definite zergfest for you.   I'm detracting, I'm found public quest ok as a whole but I mainly play the game for the fact that you can join PvP scenarios from anywhere int he world, there are >20 to choose from and you can level using PvP alone pretty efficiently.

World objectives such as sieges, territory control and battlefield objecties result in many people fighting over the same thing.  In war that's what happens.  In a MMO which simulates a state of WAR, you should have massive amount of people fighting.  That I feel is the whole point of having an Massive Multiplayer experience in PvP.  Sure you can have PvP instances alongside it but having world PvP objectives is an important aspect of the genre which should continue to thrive.

You gotta get past the hype thing.  Its not hype if people have actually played the game and had fun in it.  I've never actually condoned a game that I haven't tried past the fact that it looks good on paper and has a possibility of success.

PvP content is actually extremely meaningful to people who like saving friends and killing enemies because saving a healer from a battle in a keep may be what's saving you in the next ten minutes when he throws a heal on you.  Likewise, killing enemies will ultimately decide if you gain the objective/capture the territory etc or not.

Lastly, I don't understand how people want a game to fail when it will only create more good competition in the market for developers to add new content.  It's good for the gamer.

Originally posted by Daffid011

Anyone who thinks the same pattern is not going to exist in Warhammer is kidding themselves. 

If you played DAoC you'd understand just how stupid that statement is. But it's all fine because to quote a long standing WoW fanboi

They offer us dancing cows, YOU CANT BEAT DANCING COWS!!11!!1

but anyway that's not the reason I posted I just wanted to point out

"My maurauderz are in ur raid stealin ur dkpz !!!!!!"

Originally posted by Recant

Originally posted by fuzzylojik

Originally posted by Recant

We're talking about "PvP content" here, which to me seems like an oxymoron.

Surely it doesn't matter whether the group I'm healing is fighting in a valley, a mountain, some otherwordly place because there entire point of PvP is PLAYER vs PLAYER.

The fact that you have so many people playing to me indicates you're not likely to run out of "PvP content" because the players are the content.

I thought any PvP minded player would realize this, especially when you consider elderly games such as Counterstrike where players refuse to play any other map than Dust2.

Oh yes WAR with it's 20 scenarios means surely different types of grass to fight on but chances are they're not going to be as fun as WoW's measily 4 BGs, and even more likely that the combat is going to be margainally less exciting than playing the table-top game,

Its only an oxymoron because you think fightin everywhere over everything is the same.

That's like saying the battlefield doesn't matter, the context doesn't matter, and what you're fighting for doesn't matter.

For instance PvP content entails: keep sieges, territory control, world PvP objectives, an in built non-item centric reward system, PvP scenarios (BGs), death penalties, PvP quests, PvP progression and levelling.

That's PvP content. 

So you're saying the upcoming Lake Wintergrasp is not PvP content because it doesn't matter where you're fighting?If it doesn't matter where you are fighting since it's PvP why have even 4 BGs and not 1?

I played it, combat is fun and with way more PvP content than WoW.

 

 

That was actually a better response than I was expecting and I tip my cap to you Mr. WAR-hopeful and I may even feel some geniune pity when WAR comes along and manages to dissapoint you like every other MMORPG on the planet has managed to done for the rabid fanbase that each game builds on pre-release.

You may wonder why I'm being so obtuse, it's because you've glorified aspects such as 'seiges', which is another word for 'LOTS OF PLAYERS FIGHTING FOR CONTROL',  which happens to be the objective of every single BG and world PvP objective in WoW.

The biggest and best point you have made is context, and I must admit I don't have a proper counter-argument to this because on paper this is a geniunely better aspect to WAR than WoW could possibly hope to offer.

HOWEVER...

It means bugger all if the game has not improved since my brief encounter with beta where the combat is less interesting than watching paint dry.  What people have forgotten about Blizzard games after their 100th post about how grindy and repetitive the game is, is how well designed the control and interface of their games are - including WoW.

Despite playing Warsong Gulch for the 50,000th time players don't tend to mind because actually fighting in that game is fun.  What's the point in having an elaborately intricate PvP system of territorial control when the game is completely boring.  I mean look at EVE online, the gameplay is so boring an entire pseudo-political metagame has formed and the actual 'content' of that game is warring factions bitching on each other on forums.  Much like what we're doing right now.

In fact I would rather play Forum-Seige than WAR right now because at least I have to use a tiny portion of my brain instead of running zerg-style into the latest public quest.  There are dozens of grindy and repetitive MMORPGs out there but only one of them designed by a game developer that actually makes successful games, not a new startup that's riding the MMORPG hype wave like a parasite.  A parasite with a surfboard.  Ok I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I'm still going to say that PvP content is actually pretty meaningless to players who actually care about saving friends and killing enemies.

One big ass opinionated statement. My opinion says you re wrong, does this mean you re right and i m wrong or vice versa. In our own minds were right, in otherwords who the hell cares. Play what you want, we ll play WAR, there done,
 

Originally posted by Deto123

One big ass opinionated statement. My opinion says you re wrong, does this mean you re right and i m wrong or vice versa. In our own minds were right, in otherwords who the hell cares. Play what you want, we ll play WAR, there done,
 

Prove it!

Gah

Originally posted by Deto123

One big ass opinionated statement. My opinion says you re wrong, does this mean you re right and i m wrong or vice versa. In our own minds were right, in otherwords who the hell cares. Play what you want, we ll play WAR, there done,
 

And the WAR game isn't even published yet....

:))

See your point?

How was the end game capitol fighting in WAR? Oh I see NDA.

WotLK doesn't have an NDA. I know the whole world will be playing WotLK, except those few hundreds on MMORPG.COM. How sad ....

Originally posted by fuzzylojik

Its only an oxymoron because you think fightin everywhere over everything is the same.

That's like saying the battlefield doesn't matter, the context doesn't matter, and what you're fighting for doesn't matter.

For instance PvP content entails: keep sieges, territory control, world PvP objectives, an in built non-item centric reward system, PvP scenarios (BGs), death penalties, PvP quests, PvP progression and levelling.

That's PvP content. 

So you're saying the upcoming Lake Wintergrasp is not PvP content because it doesn't matter where you're fighting?If it doesn't matter where you are fighting since it's PvP why have even 4 BGs and not 1?

I played it, combat is fun and with way more PvP content than WoW.

 

That's a good one.

WAR will have the SAME KEEPS all over the place: same lay out, same knocking on front door, same stairs.

And you have exaclty ONE world PvP objective: the other capitol. ONE capitol.

No Crowd Control like in WOW. Meaning LESS skill and MORE zergfests: biggest (healed) group wins.

This morning in AB: 4 to 7 situation: the 4 won because one rogue killed the healer and another healer was constantly CC with our Warlock.

THAT's PvP: tactical situations with CC. Not even possible in WAR.

Says it all really.

Fuzzy was too much owned in Wow. He'd rather play some "gray" fights in meaningless RvR over the same Keeps and the same ONE capitol with the SAME ennemies.

WAR PvP in this way is for losers buddy.

Actually I'll add a little bit more. For those who can be bothered here go read some history. Not suprisingly you'll find pretty much the exact same things being levelled at WAR were levelled at WoW while it was in a similar testing phase...and they say lightning can't strike twice.

Oh as for those millions of subs I would like to take the chance to point out that WAR will be the ONLY western MMO to compete with WoW in China. Which is where most of those millions of subs come from. People talk about companies not publishing their subs if they're doing bad. Why have we not had a break down on where Bliz is in the US market...

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21439

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21319

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21288

Unfinished content we were told would be there...

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/20874

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21778

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21671

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21832

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/22019

Okay look I'm really bored of trolling back through the varied history of WoW when it was at the same stage of development as WAR is currently. Suffice to say the exact same crap as is being said now about WAR was being said then about WoW. The EXACT same. Hell in some instances I even see the exact same names. At any rate. WAR will be successful and yes it'll drag people out of WoW subs but them's the breaks. And let's face it with raid sizes getting smaller and smaller you won't miss the huge exodus anyway. In your best interest that they all move on right...more epix for joo!

<applause>

Night folks. have fun.

Originally posted by TeamFortress

Originally posted by Deto123

One big ass opinionated statement. My opinion says you re wrong, does this mean you re right and i m wrong or vice versa. In our own minds were right, in otherwords who the hell cares. Play what you want, we ll play WAR, there done,
 

 

And the WAR game isn't even published yet....

:))

See your point?

How was the end game capitol fighting in WAR? Oh I see NDA.

WotLK doesn't have an NDA. I know the whole world will be playing WotLK, except those few hundreds on MMORPG.COM. How sad ....

 

There you go again saying i know as an opinion.

Originally posted by TeamFortress

Originally posted by fuzzylojik

Its only an oxymoron because you think fightin everywhere over everything is the same.

That's like saying the battlefield doesn't matter, the context doesn't matter, and what you're fighting for doesn't matter.

For instance PvP content entails: keep sieges, territory control, world PvP objectives, an in built non-item centric reward system, PvP scenarios (BGs), death penalties, PvP quests, PvP progression and levelling.

That's PvP content. 

So you're saying the upcoming Lake Wintergrasp is not PvP content because it doesn't matter where you're fighting?If it doesn't matter where you are fighting since it's PvP why have even 4 BGs and not 1?

I played it, combat is fun and with way more PvP content than WoW.

 

 

That's a good one.

WAR will have the SAME KEEPS all over the place: same lay out, same knocking on front door, same stairs.

And you have exaclty ONE world PvP objective: the other capitol. ONE capitol.

No Crowd Control like in WOW. Meaning LESS skill and MORE zergfests: biggest (healed) group wins.

This morning in AB: 4 to 7 situation: the 4 won because one rogue killed the healer and another healer was constantly CC with our Warlock.

THAT's PvP: tactical situations with CC. Not even possible in WAR.

Says it all really.

Fuzzy was too much owned in Wow. He'd rather play some "gray" fights in meaningless RvR over the same Keeps and the same ONE capitol with the SAME ennemies.

WAR PvP in this way is for losers buddy.

 

Well if you knew anything about CC and how it makes pvp the umtimate who gets off their ability first win button then you would know it has no place in pvp as an overpowered sense as in WOW. there isn t one person that can tell me when i m fear by a warlock and can t do a damn thing but let it happen that is a good pvp skill. As far as whoever has more healing in a zergfest you re wrong. As i said before in other posts i ve seen 3 people in WAR take out 8-10 because they knew what they  were doing as opposed to the 10 trying to find their so called great pvp skill CC.

No Crowd Control like in WOW. Meaning LESS skill..

That made me rofl hard.

---

Originally posted by TeamFortress
How was the end game capitol fighting in WAR? Oh I see NDA.

---

 
Seriously I've already corrected one person for this. I'll do it again.

Better?
People who joined the WAR beta at an early stage have tried it thoroughly. I got to try it but the queues were playing up so didn't get to try it to any large degree.

---

Originally posted by TeamFortress
This morning in AB: 4 to 7 situation: the 4 won because one rogue killed the healer and another healer was constantly CC with our Warlock.
THAT's PvP: tactical situations with CC. Not even possible in WAR.

---

Oh it's ok. WAR still has silence, knock backs, Morale based stuns, healing debuffs and so on and so forth. Instead of getting CCed to the point where you are having to sit and wait to die. You keep control of your toon. Which is a bit of a novelty if you played WoW for an extensive period of time. :p

As I've said many times in the past, I enjoyed WoW for it's PvE content and enjoyed PvP when it was just dicking about running from TM to SS when we knew the PvP was a tacked on joke.

Originally posted by Coir

Actually I'll add a little bit more. For those who can be bothered here go read some history. Not suprisingly you'll find pretty much the exact same things being levelled at WAR were levelled at WoW while it was in a similar testing phase...and they say lightning can't strike twice.

 

Oh as for those millions of subs I would like to take the chance to point out that WAR will be the ONLY western MMO to compete with WoW in China. Which is where most of those millions of subs come from. People talk about companies not publishing their subs if they're doing bad. Why have we not had a break down on where Bliz is in the US market...

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21439

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21319

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21288

 

Unfinished content we were told would be there...

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/20874

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21778

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21671

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/21832

 

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/22019

 

Okay look I'm really bored of trolling back through the varied history of WoW when it was at the same stage of development as WAR is currently. Suffice to say the exact same crap as is being said now about WAR was being said then about WoW. The EXACT same. Hell in some instances I even see the exact same names. At any rate. WAR will be successful and yes it'll drag people out of WoW subs but them's the breaks. And let's face it with raid sizes getting smaller and smaller you won't miss the huge exodus anyway. In your best interest that they all move on right...more epix for joo!

<applause>

 

Night folks. have fun.

So much bollocks in one post.  It's hard to know where to begin.

First of all WAR is not the only competing Western MMO in China,  there's a game over there that you might have heard of called EVE Online, you nitwit.  Also EQ and EQ2 both operated over there before they were finally closed down because the chinese couldn't give a shit about those games.

Posting complaints from MMORPG posters does not equal proof that Blizzard failed to deliver on their promises.  Hell, if you took MMORPG posters threads of proof of everything we'd all be playing Vanguard and Age of Conan.

The sad part is that you're lying to yourself, more than everyone else.

Originally posted by TeamFortress

Originally posted by fuzzylojik

Its only an oxymoron because you think fightin everywhere over everything is the same.

That's like saying the battlefield doesn't matter, the context doesn't matter, and what you're fighting for doesn't matter.

For instance PvP content entails: keep sieges, territory control, world PvP objectives, an in built non-item centric reward system, PvP scenarios (BGs), death penalties, PvP quests, PvP progression and levelling.

That's PvP content. 

So you're saying the upcoming Lake Wintergrasp is not PvP content because it doesn't matter where you're fighting?If it doesn't matter where you are fighting since it's PvP why have even 4 BGs and not 1?

I played it, combat is fun and with way more PvP content than WoW.

 

 

That's a good one.

WAR will have the SAME KEEPS all over the place: same lay out, same knocking on front door, same stairs.

And you have exaclty ONE world PvP objective: the other capitol. ONE capitol.

No Crowd Control like in WOW. Meaning LESS skill and MORE zergfests: biggest (healed) group wins.

This morning in AB: 4 to 7 situation: the 4 won because one rogue killed the healer and another healer was constantly CC with our Warlock.

THAT's PvP: tactical situations with CC. Not even possible in WAR.

Says it all really.

Fuzzy was too much owned in Wow. He'd rather play some "gray" fights in meaningless RvR over the same Keeps and the same ONE capitol with the SAME ennemies.

WAR PvP in this way is for losers buddy.

 

So you're saying WoW had a better endgame at launch than WAR has currently?

You forget that WOW had very limited endgame, a broken MC and no PvP objectives whatsoever, it did fine.  So far you haven't countered that argument yet just seem to ignore it and chime on about broken endgame of WAR at launch.  WoW also had terrible balance at launch.

Same endgame? You do know that they have things called patches and new content in MMOs right? 

WAR has crowd control.  Just that people don't like standing around for a few minutes unable to do anything.  It also has collision detection to supplement that.  Making someone unable to move for a period of time is not skill LMAO. Just because it has different forms of crowd control does not mean it's bad just means your'e unwilling to accept that different games have different gameplay. 

I've never been too much owned in WoW.  It's sad that you have to make personal attacks when your arguments fail and yet still claim that people saying bad things about you is bad.  That's quite a hipocrite.

WAR PvP is for losers?  Hahah.  Resorting to personal attacks again? You're taking this too personally my friend.

So tell me this TeamFortress aka Vicksburg, how many PvP objectives did WoW have at launch and what kind of endgame did it have at 60 at launch.

WAR PvPers are losers and me getting owned in WoW?  Personal attacks getting bad eh Vicksburg?  LOL.  For a person who keeps saying how he hates personal attacks you've shown your true colors.

You know what's actually WoW's PvP? Gear and setup.

I can put my off-gear on(4/5 s4 and a shitty s3 wep), spec Disc on my priest and tank 4-5 people at the same time. Even if they fail to interrupt or spam dispel on me, 4-5 people should pwn a single person no matter what. This simply shows that gear is huge in WoW. Thank god it wont be the same in WAR.

Even with people who know to interrupt my Holy spells, i can still do a psychic scream, run behind a obstacle and do a Greater Heal. Tell me, how is this retarded LoS abuse and CC skill? It doesn't look to me like that.

Also, go on WoW PvP forums. What you see? A bunch of clueless people. I've seen many times things like "ZOMG X PWNS Y" and right below a thread there was a "ZOMG Y TOTALLY OWNS X NERF FFS". I'm really tired of this.