Originally posted by ginzo All we need now to complete this thread is a post from Bilton himself.
Now Bilton really hit the nail on the head- he Called OJ's tactics "Blitzkrieg" because he was effectively very much like reality of WWII from the perspective of just driving and shooting up an enemy e.g. armour's function in Blitzkrieg is to drive and avoid defensive position.
If OJ's columns ever met a defence...how well did they do? Answer: They avoided the town and went elsewhere. Just like an armoured formation in the BoF - avoid and let the inf mop up whilst the arour moves on to the next town (or in OJ's case, udnefended point on the map).
And there is the problem with his tactics.
a. Its poor gameplay for both sides .e.g you do not prosecute and attack if there is a defence so there is no battle.
b. Camping is poor gameplay for the defender, there is no battle.
And there is the rub - as soon as they allow the defender the actual ability to spawn in and defend, OJ's tactics stop working and he starts disliking the game (for some reason).
Agree with that, made a few posts on official forums in the past about how deluded some people are to think it was a privilege to be camped and lose to an enemy that avoided any towns with a proper defence set up. As mentioned, sure its cool for the guys attacking but it wears down defenders and eventually people logged out as they couldn't find a fight worthy of the name.
As pitt says, you'd struggle to do that now and it was actually a lot of fun when people tried it last summer because defenders had a chance to set up.
Lot of guys think they were responsible for the game's success, shame they can't see how their own 'glory' came at the detriment of a lot of other peoples' expense.
Nobody is saying the game is perfect now, just that it had more problems than any of the vets give credit for when they rant at CRS for ruining their campfests. They totally refuse to acknowledge that the game would arguably have been in just as much trouble eventually without dev. intervention.
Originally posted by Stug David - do you believe combat avoidance is a good trait in a WWII combat simulator? That is what these early game tactics equated too. Do you beg to differ?
Finding a weak spot to attack the enemy is "combat avoidance"? Have you played the game lately? No one attacks a town unless they can get a camp going at the beginning, or manage a sneaky capture when the other side is busy with something else. I've seen players reprimanded by their high command, AOs pulled out from under them because to keep attacking a strong defense would waste supply.
In fact a bunch of allied players basically unsubbed when the FRUs came out because their massed tank columns(the same tactic that you say is avoiding the fight) we much easier to stop. They no-shit complained in the forums that there was too much fighting because the FRUs made there be so much infantry around town that there was a constant battle.
What did you guys at CRS do? You responded to their whines, nerfed the core infantry spawning mechanic(sort of critical in a FPS) without any consideration for the impact it would have on server activity. I won't even get in to your efforts to cripple large squads.
So for all your talk about encouraging battles and not "avoiding the fight" it's obvious that creating big battles and lots of action aren't your priority.
Anyway, you refuse to answer my question, then in a later response chide another poster for changing the question.
So let me ask this again. Do you have more subscriptions now? Do you have more revenue, more community buzz, more squads/guilds active in your game? Is your game more popular now?
Does changing the question mean you agree with me that combat avoidance was the main tactic in the "Glory Days"?
I havent been playing WW2 for a long time only started last year, it was a simple question, if its a ww2 combat simulator how come a sherman can destroy a tiger at long range? no need to be condescending to me
So David, all I'm saying is that the game today has much more combat in it today, than the early game where combat avoidance was much easier and I would argue the norm, as opposed to today's ops. Wouldnt you agree?
Abyss, whilst you are topic hijacking, I'll humour you here. Why can't a tiger kill a Sherman at 1k+? Well, it can, it's been recorded on you tube. So if you are a responsible wwiiol player I would get fraps and use intermission to test the 75mm vs the tiger and test to say if you say is true, that the 75mm can penetrate frontally.
If it is the 76mm gun, you should find it penetrates the tiger more easier.
Anything else is just noise. Please do go and start another thread if you want to discuss the.damage model abyss, out of this thread.
Several elements factor in playing this game at its highest level. Surprise is a key factor on many levels that compliments a good squad leaders attack
Ideally, you want to look a the map and choose a target thats fresh. Joining the P1 meatgrinder that was a bad target originally or is already in motion does not promote good squad play because you have already tainted the supply, blown the surprise and allowed the defenders to react. You cant properly field your squad as a unit in this mess and it reduces the game to a herd of people all halfed assed zerging an objective. Many of you need a flashing box to figure out where to go and where to play, but I'm not walking my squad into a setup like that ...ever
The game starts at devising a plan that gives each squad member a specific gear role and detailed orders. This is followed by staging your squad as one cohesive unit on the field and excuting the assualt to give you the most advantage possible. The speed at which you execute your plan is a huge key in success.
This type of play blows away what the game is today "herding online" out of the water
Originally posted by Stug So David, all I'm saying is that the game today has much more combat in it today, than the early game where combat avoidance was much easier and I would argue the norm, as opposed to today's ops. Wouldnt you agree? Abyss, whilst you are topic hijacking, I'll humour you here. Why can't a tiger kill a Sherman at 1k+? Well, it can, it's been recorded on you tube. So if you are a responsible wwiiol player I would get fraps and use intermission to test the 75mm vs the tiger and test to say if you say is true, that the 75mm can penetrate frontally. If it is the 76mm gun, you should find it penetrates the tiger more easier. Anything else is just noise. Please do go and start another thread if you want to discuss the.damage model abyss, out of this thread.
You mention the combat simulator aspect of the game, and that wasnt what I asked, I asked how can a sherman kill a tiger at long range (bold to help you) not the other way round.My tank knowledge is hazy but I think it took numerous Shermans to kill just one Tiger(maybe one could destroy one with a rear shot less than 70m away) so it loses it's title as combat simulator doesn't it?
I'm not bashing CRS, I used CRS software in the British Army as they use it for their tank simulators.
I asked you a question,a simple one, why should I start a thread about it?
2. OJ - Suprise, yes, of course. But Suprise makes for poor gameplay if it is your only tactic. People effect a bang for their buck. As for squad tactics you'd like our sqiads,as we do just that
3. Abys, nice. The point i was making was players have said x =y on forums before and when someone replicated what they said it actually wasn't fact. Have you recreated what you say in game( ref 75mm perform) or are you saying this should be the case?
Ref new thread, makes sense to have a separate discussion.
Originally posted by Stug So David, all I'm saying is that the game today has much more combat in it today, than the early game where combat avoidance was much easier and I would argue the norm, as opposed to today's ops. Wouldnt you agree? Abyss, whilst you are topic hijacking, I'll humour you here. Why can't a tiger kill a Sherman at 1k+? Well, it can, it's been recorded on you tube. So if you are a responsible wwiiol player I would get fraps and use intermission to test the 75mm vs the tiger and test to say if you say is true, that the 75mm can penetrate frontally. If it is the 76mm gun, you should find it penetrates the tiger more easier. Anything else is just noise. Please do go and start another thread if you want to discuss the.damage model abyss, out of this thread.
You mention the combat simulator aspect of the game, and that wasnt what I asked, I asked how can a sherman kill a tiger at long range (bold to help you) not the other way round.My tank knowledge is hazy but I think it took numerous Shermans to kill just one Tiger(maybe one could destroy one with a rear shot less than 70m away) so it loses it's title as combat simulator doesn't it?
I'm not bashing CRS, I used CRS software in the British Army as they use it for their tank simulators.
I asked you a question,a simple one, why should I start a thread about it?
He answered, just phrased it a little odd.
test the 75mm vs the tiger and test to say if you say is true, that the 75mm can penetrate frontally. If it is the 76mm gun, you should find it penetrates the tiger more easier.
Originally posted by Stug 1. David - answer the question. 2. OJ - Suprise, yes, of course. But Suprise makes for poor gameplay if it is your only tactic. People effect a bang for their buck. As for squad tactics you'd like our sqiads,as we do just that 3. Abys, nice. The point i was making was players have said x =y on forums before and when someone replicated what they said it actually wasn't fact. Have you recreated what you say in game( ref 75mm perform) or are you saying this should be the case? Ref new thread, makes sense to have a separate discussion.
Your attempting to generalise OJ's and in general squads game play into something it's not. You call surprises game breaking? Well here's some news, the majority of competitive games (and the enjoyment that come from them) are built on your pet hate, surprise. What would be the point of a game if I knew everything the other player would do and they knew what I would do?
X=Y? Well thats what CRS use for balancing. E.g. panzer4G and sherman against each other have the K/D ratio of around 1. Coincidence? They're modeled so that over a map one doesn't overpower the other in terms of kills (true strength and not taking into player skill is a different matter)
Likewise, DOC speaks about "expected parameters" of the sherman and 4G. A parameter is an external influence/constraint. If they were modelled accurately then it would be expected behaviour. However by refering to parameters it means that the 4G and sherman are modelled so they have an assigned power in relation to each other, thus X=Y over the period of a map. If I were to do perfect tests on the 4G and sherman the sherman would be vastly superior to the 4g. But why the same K/D? Whether you like it or not on average the average axis player is better than an average allied player. Axis players typically have played the game longer, have better comms (mark more) and don't have an attitude of spawning armour for the sake of it and blindly 'rolling' towns but utilising different weaponary (88's, stuakas, shreks) rather than a 'vet' allied player who just spawns a sherman and drives to town.
Your doing a DOC, your telling us to prove something that we have no means of testing and comparing e.g. DOC loves to say (and contradict himself) that everything in the game is historically modelled and we're wrong and should prove it but they dont ACTUALLY give us the ingame data used. Is the frontal hull armour of the Tiger in game really 100mm thick? What is the in game armour penetration in mm's of the 75mm ATG? We know from looking at historical data things happen in game that should not happen but they do.
There is no training server either (love to hear your opinion on that) and what proof that the training server is the same as the game server? CRS tweak models so they fit their assignemtn K/D's, if a side is losing (and thus having lower K/D's) equipment is 'rebalanced' thus the values are the models are changed
Originally posted by Stug 1. David - answer the question.
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
There isn't more combat now than before.
I just did a rough count of all the axis players present on missions. There are 67 players on that side, including a whopping three Luftwaffe pilots. Axis is supposed to be the always-overpopulated side so who knows how many are on the allied team. Population is probably going to go lower as we move in to the next time zone.
This is supposed to be a MMO and I can find a bigger battle(100 vs 100) on a Mount & Blade server.
So there isn't more combat now. What metrics are you using to say that there is, server population, average battle size, squad size and quantity, kills per minute? Because it's quiet now, with only brief spurts of activity on what used to be the "prime" days.
The only thing that can possibly save this game is to have those still involved removed from the decision making process and investors/good dev people brought in. The chances for either of those things happening is about 0.
67 people on one side in an mmopg during the moderate peak server time is absolutely disgraceful. We have more activity in this forum than the games main forum. I'm afraid they let it go way to long to actually be able to come out of it at this point. We can only hope that someday a developer will come along and takes this idea to where it needed to go. They clearly showed what does not work over the last 10 years and sure laid the ground work for a really good game though.
Sorry Bodkin - im not even going to address your points on balance issues because - it is CRS's hate/Player x is a a douche in wiiol.
That was the response to abyss saying why can a 75mm MV kill a Tiger? <shrugs> I cant say either way without checking penetration values in books (which means naught) in game terms if people think there is an issue as you need to test it to show there is an issue.
All im saying about testing is next intermission, PROVE, FRAPS what you consider not to be working because (you'll love this bit) CRS have corrected problems with the game engine where people have tested and adequatetly proved there are issues. No doub,t if you can prove it to them, they will take note.
For example, most recent was Dotsie's tests - before that it was the gearing/speed of German tanks that was effectively buffed after (again) Dotsie (I think) tested. So if you think there is an issue in armour performance provide hard evidence
I could say there is an issue that the PZ38T can kill churchills, starting an anti-CRS fervour that axis kit is overpowered. .Why are you scared of such a sensible suggestion as to test to prove such a matter as to its facts?
Originally posted by Stug 1. David - answer the question.
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
There isn't more combat now than before.
I just did a rough count of all the axis players present on missions. There are 67 players on that side, including a whopping three Luftwaffe pilots. Axis is supposed to be the always-overpopulated side so who knows how many are on the allied team. Population is probably going to go lower as we move in to the next time zone.
This is supposed to be a MMO and I can find a bigger battle(100 vs 100) on a Mount & Blade server.
So there isn't more combat now. What metrics are you using to say that there is, server population, average battle size, squad size and quantity, kills per minute? Because it's quiet now, with only brief spurts of activity on what used to be the "prime" days.
I am not talking about numbers - you seem to have misread me. I am talking about the fact that the glory day tactics where about combat avoidance over combat itself. The game today gives the player more intense combat than it did in the past.
"So David, all I'm saying is that the game today has much more combat in it today, than the early game where combat avoidance was much easier and I would argue the norm, as opposed to today's ops. Wouldnt you agree"
So I love the cute way you have all jumped on "OOO!! He's talking about numbers! Lets get on our normal "no one plays the game [even though there were fricking TONS of players on and the server was BUSY when I was on at the weekend] bulls*t rant". Its just like when Doc posted, role out the old hate....
So David - asnwer the question - how do players avoid combat today, like they did in the past? Or do they NOT do it as the game design has changed/evolved to code out player clubbing as a method of winning - e.g. peopel get chance to fight back wghich I would argue is a better thing.
Originally posted by Stug 1. David - answer the question.
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
There isn't more combat now than before.
I just did a rough count of all the axis players present on missions. There are 67 players on that side, including a whopping three Luftwaffe pilots. Axis is supposed to be the always-overpopulated side so who knows how many are on the allied team. Population is probably going to go lower as we move in to the next time zone.
This is supposed to be a MMO and I can find a bigger battle(100 vs 100) on a Mount & Blade server.
So there isn't more combat now. What metrics are you using to say that there is, server population, average battle size, squad size and quantity, kills per minute? Because it's quiet now, with only brief spurts of activity on what used to be the "prime" days.
I am not talking about numbers - you seem to have misread me. I am talking about the fact that the glory day tactics where about combat avoidance over combat itself. The game today gives the player more intense combat than it did in the past.
"So David, all I'm saying is that the game today has much more combat in it today, than the early game where combat avoidance was much easier and I would argue the norm, as opposed to today's ops. Wouldnt you agree"
So I love the cute way you have all jumped on "OOO!! He's talking about numbers! Lets get on our normal "no one plays the game [even though there were fricking TONS of players on and the server was BUSY when I was on at the weekend] bulls*t rant". Its just like when Doc posted, role out the old hate....
So David - asnwer the question - how do players avoid combat today, like they did in the past? Or do they NOT do it as the game design has changed/evolved to code out player clubbing as a method of winning - e.g. peopel get chance to fight back wghich I would argue is a better thing.
could you maybe say all that agian in some way that makes sence please. how dose . . . whatever you just said have to do with activity level on the game?
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
Comments
Now Bilton really hit the nail on the head- he Called OJ's tactics "Blitzkrieg" because he was effectively very much like reality of WWII from the perspective of just driving and shooting up an enemy e.g. armour's function in Blitzkrieg is to drive and avoid defensive position.
If OJ's columns ever met a defence...how well did they do? Answer: They avoided the town and went elsewhere. Just like an armoured formation in the BoF - avoid and let the inf mop up whilst the arour moves on to the next town (or in OJ's case, udnefended point on the map).
And there is the problem with his tactics.
a. Its poor gameplay for both sides .e.g you do not prosecute and attack if there is a defence so there is no battle.
b. Camping is poor gameplay for the defender, there is no battle.
And there is the rub - as soon as they allow the defender the actual ability to spawn in and defend, OJ's tactics stop working and he starts disliking the game (for some reason).
As pitt says, you'd struggle to do that now and it was actually a lot of fun when people tried it last summer because defenders had a chance to set up.
Lot of guys think they were responsible for the game's success, shame they can't see how their own 'glory' came at the detriment of a lot of other peoples' expense.
In what universe are you guys living in? What evidence do you have that the gameplay is better or more balanced now?
Whatever it is, it certainly isn't subscriber numbers.
That is what these early game tactics equated too. Do you beg to differ?
Nobody is saying the game is perfect now, just that it had more problems than any of the vets give credit for when they rant at CRS for ruining their campfests. They totally refuse to acknowledge that the game would arguably have been in just as much trouble eventually without dev. intervention.
If this is a ww2 combat simulator, why can a sherman kill a tiger, a frontal shot
Does changing the question mean you agree with me that combat avoidance was the main tactic in the "Glory Days"?
Hold up buddy I'm not insinuating anything, its a question....dont get your back up
I changed my response - see above. Thanks.
Finding a weak spot to attack the enemy is "combat avoidance"? Have you played the game lately? No one attacks a town unless they can get a camp going at the beginning, or manage a sneaky capture when the other side is busy with something else. I've seen players reprimanded by their high command, AOs pulled out from under them because to keep attacking a strong defense would waste supply.
In fact a bunch of allied players basically unsubbed when the FRUs came out because their massed tank columns(the same tactic that you say is avoiding the fight) we much easier to stop. They no-shit complained in the forums that there was too much fighting because the FRUs made there be so much infantry around town that there was a constant battle.
What did you guys at CRS do? You responded to their whines, nerfed the core infantry spawning mechanic(sort of critical in a FPS) without any consideration for the impact it would have on server activity. I won't even get in to your efforts to cripple large squads.
So for all your talk about encouraging battles and not "avoiding the fight" it's obvious that creating big battles and lots of action aren't your priority.
Anyway, you refuse to answer my question, then in a later response chide another poster for changing the question.
So let me ask this again. Do you have more subscriptions now? Do you have more revenue, more community buzz, more squads/guilds active in your game? Is your game more popular now?
I havent been playing WW2 for a long time only started last year, it was a simple question, if its a ww2 combat simulator how come a sherman can destroy a tiger at long range? no need to be condescending to me
Abyss, whilst you are topic hijacking, I'll humour you here. Why can't a tiger kill a Sherman at 1k+? Well, it can, it's been recorded on you tube. So if you are a responsible wwiiol player I would get fraps and use intermission to test the 75mm vs the tiger and test to say if you say is true, that the 75mm can penetrate frontally.
If it is the 76mm gun, you should find it penetrates the tiger more easier.
Anything else is just noise. Please do go and start another thread if you want to discuss the.damage model abyss, out of this thread.
How can there be more combat now when there so few people playing anymore?
Combat avoidance = surprise
Several elements factor in playing this game at its highest level. Surprise is a key factor on many levels that compliments a good squad leaders attack
Ideally, you want to look a the map and choose a target thats fresh. Joining the P1 meatgrinder that was a bad target originally or is already in motion does not promote good squad play because you have already tainted the supply, blown the surprise and allowed the defenders to react. You cant properly field your squad as a unit in this mess and it reduces the game to a herd of people all halfed assed zerging an objective. Many of you need a flashing box to figure out where to go and where to play, but I'm not walking my squad into a setup like that ...ever
The game starts at devising a plan that gives each squad member a specific gear role and detailed orders. This is followed by staging your squad as one cohesive unit on the field and excuting the assualt to give you the most advantage possible. The speed at which you execute your plan is a huge key in success.
This type of play blows away what the game is today "herding online" out of the water
You mention the combat simulator aspect of the game, and that wasnt what I asked, I asked how can a sherman kill a tiger at long range (bold to help you) not the other way round.My tank knowledge is hazy but I think it took numerous Shermans to kill just one Tiger(maybe one could destroy one with a rear shot less than 70m away) so it loses it's title as combat simulator doesn't it?
I'm not bashing CRS, I used CRS software in the British Army as they use it for their tank simulators.
I asked you a question,a simple one, why should I start a thread about it?
2. OJ - Suprise, yes, of course. But Suprise makes for poor gameplay if it is your only tactic. People effect a bang for their buck. As for squad tactics you'd like our sqiads,as we do just that
3. Abys, nice. The point i was making was players have said x =y on forums before and when someone replicated what they said it actually wasn't fact. Have you recreated what you say in game( ref 75mm perform) or are you saying this should be the case?
Ref new thread, makes sense to have a separate discussion.
He answered, just phrased it a little odd.
test the 75mm vs the tiger and test to say if you say is true, that the 75mm can penetrate frontally. If it is the 76mm gun, you should find it penetrates the tiger more easier.
Your attempting to generalise OJ's and in general squads game play into something it's not. You call surprises game breaking? Well here's some news, the majority of competitive games (and the enjoyment that come from them) are built on your pet hate, surprise. What would be the point of a game if I knew everything the other player would do and they knew what I would do?
X=Y? Well thats what CRS use for balancing. E.g. panzer4G and sherman against each other have the K/D ratio of around 1. Coincidence? They're modeled so that over a map one doesn't overpower the other in terms of kills (true strength and not taking into player skill is a different matter)
K/D against sherman: http://wiki.wwiionline.com/mediawiki/index.php/PzKpfw_IV
DOC (page 2) gives complete backing to a player who speaks about sherman and 4G K/D's being equal as reason why nothing wrong: http://forums.battlegroundeurope.com/showthread.php?t=391578
Likewise, DOC speaks about "expected parameters" of the sherman and 4G. A parameter is an external influence/constraint. If they were modelled accurately then it would be expected behaviour. However by refering to parameters it means that the 4G and sherman are modelled so they have an assigned power in relation to each other, thus X=Y over the period of a map. If I were to do perfect tests on the 4G and sherman the sherman would be vastly superior to the 4g. But why the same K/D? Whether you like it or not on average the average axis player is better than an average allied player. Axis players typically have played the game longer, have better comms (mark more) and don't have an attitude of spawning armour for the sake of it and blindly 'rolling' towns but utilising different weaponary (88's, stuakas, shreks) rather than a 'vet' allied player who just spawns a sherman and drives to town.
Sherman and 4G behave within expected parameters: http://forums.battlegroundeurope.com/printthread.php?t=391578&pp=40
Your doing a DOC, your telling us to prove something that we have no means of testing and comparing e.g. DOC loves to say (and contradict himself) that everything in the game is historically modelled and we're wrong and should prove it but they dont ACTUALLY give us the ingame data used. Is the frontal hull armour of the Tiger in game really 100mm thick? What is the in game armour penetration in mm's of the 75mm ATG? We know from looking at historical data things happen in game that should not happen but they do.
There is no training server either (love to hear your opinion on that) and what proof that the training server is the same as the game server? CRS tweak models so they fit their assignemtn K/D's, if a side is losing (and thus having lower K/D's) equipment is 'rebalanced' thus the values are the models are changed
There isn't more combat now than before.
I just did a rough count of all the axis players present on missions. There are 67 players on that side, including a whopping three Luftwaffe pilots. Axis is supposed to be the always-overpopulated side so who knows how many are on the allied team. Population is probably going to go lower as we move in to the next time zone.
This is supposed to be a MMO and I can find a bigger battle(100 vs 100) on a Mount & Blade server.
So there isn't more combat now. What metrics are you using to say that there is, server population, average battle size, squad size and quantity, kills per minute? Because it's quiet now, with only brief spurts of activity on what used to be the "prime" days.
And that's where their argument breaks down doesn't it? Anybody can create a free account, jump in and count the people playing.
The only thing that can possibly save this game is to have those still involved removed from the decision making process and investors/good dev people brought in. The chances for either of those things happening is about 0.
67 people on one side in an mmopg during the moderate peak server time is absolutely disgraceful. We have more activity in this forum than the games main forum. I'm afraid they let it go way to long to actually be able to come out of it at this point. We can only hope that someday a developer will come along and takes this idea to where it needed to go. They clearly showed what does not work over the last 10 years and sure laid the ground work for a really good game though.
Sorry Bodkin - im not even going to address your points on balance issues because - it is CRS's hate/Player x is a a douche in wiiol.
That was the response to abyss saying why can a 75mm MV kill a Tiger? <shrugs> I cant say either way without checking penetration values in books (which means naught) in game terms if people think there is an issue as you need to test it to show there is an issue.
All im saying about testing is next intermission, PROVE, FRAPS what you consider not to be working because (you'll love this bit) CRS have corrected problems with the game engine where people have tested and adequatetly proved there are issues. No doub,t if you can prove it to them, they will take note.
For example, most recent was Dotsie's tests - before that it was the gearing/speed of German tanks that was effectively buffed after (again) Dotsie (I think) tested. So if you think there is an issue in armour performance provide hard evidence
I could say there is an issue that the PZ38T can kill churchills, starting an anti-CRS fervour that axis kit is overpowered. .Why are you scared of such a sensible suggestion as to test to prove such a matter as to its facts?
I am not talking about numbers - you seem to have misread me. I am talking about the fact that the glory day tactics where about combat avoidance over combat itself. The game today gives the player more intense combat than it did in the past.
"So David, all I'm saying is that the game today has much more combat in it today, than the early game where combat avoidance was much easier and I would argue the norm, as opposed to today's ops. Wouldnt you agree"
So I love the cute way you have all jumped on "OOO!! He's talking about numbers! Lets get on our normal "no one plays the game [even though there were fricking TONS of players on and the server was BUSY when I was on at the weekend] bulls*t rant". Its just like when Doc posted, role out the old hate....
So David - asnwer the question - how do players avoid combat today, like they did in the past? Or do they NOT do it as the game design has changed/evolved to code out player clubbing as a method of winning - e.g. peopel get chance to fight back wghich I would argue is a better thing.
could you maybe say all that agian in some way that makes sence please. how dose . . . whatever you just said have to do with activity level on the game?
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.