@Vulkunne
I agree. We are essentially reduced to arguing over a campaign that lags, bugs, is run rampant by ball groups that aren't even working to the actual objectives of Cyro, unkillable tanks, and a max alliance player count of, what, 50?
Versus
Minimal lag, zero combat bug (although I will admit there were a few bug issues still with siege and getting stuck in walls), no ball groups, playing Cyro as it is intended; an alliance WAR, no unkillables and a player count of more than 300 people at a fight with battles lasting 2 hours and hardly anyone lags or disconnects.
Why is there so much fight against PvP becoming something playable by a larger number of people? This iteration of Vengeance won't be the end all be all. Anyone with common sense can see they are actively creating a NEW PvP experience from semi-ground up. They will have the issues to address from this round, and just like last round they will make the necessary adjustments to proceed to the next level of testing. I just do no understand why there is such dramatic response to ZoS actually fixing PvP. This isn't a "wave a magic wand" type of thing to fix.
If smaller scale is what you are into, there is both IC and Battlegrounds. Cyro is meant for large groups working together to conquer the map. That is why score is based on territory/scrolls obtained and not just kill count.
Sythen88411 wrote: »The mail win or loose. Got 2