Jump to content

KimmoKM

Members
  • Posts

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by KimmoKM

  1. 3.1 patch theorycrafting isn't relevant for 3.3.3 talents. In this patch, at pre-raid gear levels, demo sims the highest, followed by affliction and destruction is at the bottom At that stage they're all pretty close (destro would still be #3 spec in the game in extended single target fights), but destruction is the lowest-scaling spec of the three so it's only ever going to fall further behind, and both affliction and demonology have ways of gaming mechanics (like proccing decimation on low-HP adds or affliction snapshotting corruption with tricks of the trade damage boost) that can be used to gain a further advantage over naive Patchwerk-like conditions of a sim. Now, destruction does have a small resurgence with 4pt T8 set bonus but that's not enough to bring it to the top. Realistically, the encounters where you might want to use destruction are those where survivability of a soul link comes in handy and you don't want to run demonology for one reasons or another (in 25-man raids overwriting raid DPS geared demo mains Demonic Pact is a pretty good reason as it is). Or alternatively, if you suck: destro is the more mindless spec. :^)
  2. Angrathar timers for Algalon and Vezax would be wrong, but other than that, I don't recall other custom changes Angrathar had that would alter the timers.
  3. The reasoning only applies to pure PvP-players and not hybrid players who intend to do both high-end PvP and PvE. For example, currently 3/5 of both 2v2 and 3v3 top5 teams are Horde (and at some point I believe it was 5 out of 5, at least for 2v2), and that's despite smaller pool of active PvPers on Horde. PvP-oriented players by large might go ally but a lot if not most "elite" players tend to be hybrid players who play on Horde side, or go Horde because they can find aforementioned teammates there, or because Horde racials are better for their specific class.
  4. RDF is inherently every man for himself kind of system that punishes prosocial behavior. Blame Blizzard for making such a garbage design (and devs for implementing it at this stage). I understand they eventually """fixed""" this with personal loot, which I think is a retarded system, but to its credit at least it does remove the issue of people not only needing gear for friends but people needing gear to vendor it, which I recall being a far from unheard of practice in retail and some private servers. At this point people are being nice, only needing items for actual use (by someone). Titansteel Destroyer is much better for UH anyhow. Just buy that one.
  5. KimmoKM

    Remaining Resto Druid Talent Points

    Drop points from Living Seed and put them to Balance for Celestial Focus for 3% haste (+ 3/3 Nature's Grace and 1/3 Brambles to unlock it). You're basically not going to be using direct healing spells in 25-man raiding context (in dungeons and 10-mans you might as well be playing 0/0/0 spec so the negative tradeoff is insignificant).
  6. KimmoKM

    New to the server - Ratios question?

    There's no accurate numbers available, but my general feeling is 60:40 H:A ratio or closer. If you are concerned with PvP queues however, it should be noted that PvP-oriented tend to go Ally, and from what I've seen, Horde has instant queues despite being the more populous faction.
  7. KimmoKM

    Can we end the Alliance advantages in WG?

    https://www.wowhead.com/news=145516/patch-3-3-3-upcoming-wintergrasp-balance-changes It's Blizzlike, something that happens if the faction has been losing many times in a row.
  8. KimmoKM

    Profession for BE Retr Paladin

    No it isn't. The exclusive enchants give the same benefits as other professions so don't in fact offer any advantage (in fact, it's a disadvantage, because gaining this benefit costs enchanting mats worth gold) and for all but the most business-savvy players dedicated for making gold, you will NEVER make back the cost of leveling the profession in the first place from selling enchants, compared to cheaper professions (inscription/alchemy). Taking DEing epics into account, you might eventually, but even that is questionable, especially considering some other professions also allow you to save money in other ways (such as double flask duration for alchemy and inscription shoulder enchants being cheaper than Sons of Hodir ones, as well as removing the opportunity cost of time spent getting your reputation up). Moreover, as ret specifically, ap is strictly inferior to strength so in actuality the benefit (enchanting gives 80ap) isn't the same as other professions but in fact worse than JC (105ap) and Blacksmithing (100ap come epic gems, at this stage it's the same 80ap benefit) that allow you to get stats of your choice. Tailoring and engineering would also be more potent than ench/alch/insc/LW, although require slightly more thought than passive stats. Moreover, if you are thinking about perhaps playing Holy offspec, for Holy JC+BS are overwhelmingly the strongest professions. TLDR: If you want to min/max, the professions of choice are JC and one of tailoring/engi/BS (once epic gems become available). If you don't really care about min/maxing, inscription and alchemy give parity benefits to remaining professions while being the least trouble. Enchanting and leatherworking are cuck professions: someone's gotta have them in the guild, but they are goddamn awful to level and you get no personal benefit out of them.
  9. KimmoKM

    Is this server really Blizzlike?

    Retail had dynamic respawn timers since at least the beginning of TBC. Indeed, the current implementation is unblizzlike, but to the direction of spawns not being adjusted enough. Wrath dungeons aren't worth doing in RDF with 25% experience boost from finishing them or otherwise. It has no practical significance whatsoever. Like, I don't know what you expect. Obviously, you don't really know what retail Wrath was like to begin with. Conversely, these are just some differences among others. For example, every single mob has incorrect damage values unless they're correct by accident. Or, even if they were correct, their damage values are incorrectly determined, because in retail mobs had str/agi/sta/int attributes that contributed to their attack power and other stats, while private server implementation simply only has the final values (the only way you could tell the difference would be mobs gaining stats if you mind control them and buff them with kings, which happens precisely never, but it is an example of a bug that affects every single mob). Depending on how nitpicky you are, you could list thousands to hundreds of thousands of unblizzlike bugs. And then there are deliberate deviations from retail implementation, such as not having T10 raids available with 3.3.5a client, or buffed raids. To answer the question "is the server blizzlike" demands defining what exactly you mean by "blizzlike". Correct implementation of any WotLK patch? Obviously not, for previous reasons. But if you mean something like "producing authentic feel" (whatever that means exactly), then the answer is probably yes. 2x experience rates don't make leveling completely ridiculous such that mobs turn gray before you even finish the zone and the general feel of leveling is kinda the same except that it takes half the time (3x for 1-68 is where you begin to feel the difference but it's not completely bonkers, the worse offender is random dungeon finder, which is blizzlike for 3.3x version of the game). Conversely, endgame is arguably more authentic than correctly implemented blizzlike servers would be. For example, bosses like Firefighter, Yogg+0 and Lich King heroic with 0% buff are remembered as tough encounters but analogous to first BWL clears in WoW Classic that are going to be over in about the same time as world first Nefarian kill alone (just like people are killing MC bosses in 15 seconds flat), blizzlike versions would be killed on the first try while Angrathar was well-tuned to provide a real progression raiding feel to the content. And generally, game elements like economy and such do feel about right, despite higher experience rates and inaccuracies of emulation. And it should be noted that while I can list hundreds of thousands of bugs, most people would struggle to find more than a select handful of "obvious" issues. When I say there's 100k bugs, that doesn't mean the game is unplayable or anything. It's actually pretty well-implemented all things considered.
  10. KimmoKM

    My thoughts and concerns

    Angrathar lived through its life cycle well-populated throughout. Why should people farm the same content for years on end?
  11. Why should you be able to guarantee BiS equipment the first day you ding? Why do you feel obliged to be able to get it at all? Come on. On the other hand, while we're on topic on 5-mans, they really ought to be buffed by 100-300%. AT LEAST by the 30 something percent that would compensate for 3.3.3 talents. They were pathetic at Wrath launch but they're absurdly pathetic now.
  12. KimmoKM

    Angrathar: Endgame

    How many resets did it take to clear LK HC? Quite many as I recall. Now, the strongest guilds had left the server during or after Ulduar so LOD could certainly have been achieved in fewer resets, but I just don't get some people's obsession on expecting near-BiS gear by the time bosses are killed. Indeed, that would be quite ridiculous since at that point only the single strongest guild can beat it - if another guild could clear it with any less gear, they would have claimed the first (supposing no one's doing split runs, everyone gears at roughly the same speed, and for that matter I don't think split runs should be encouraged). Each reset of gear acting as an indirect nerf to content is a wonderful mechanic, but that only works insofar as there's further room to gear up beyond the point that's required to kill the bosses. If a boss DEMANDS very many resets of gear (especially considering if it also takes a good comp, which high-end guilds are more likely to have: requiring too much gear will lock out most raids forever), you're in an utterly unhealthy spot of super-exclusive content or prompt nerfs being required, neither of which are desirable. On the other hand, if firsts are achievable without farming prior content too much, this mechanic takes care of all the problems naturally without demeaning the content with nerfs or anything of the sort being required and everyone's happy. Besides folks who have an obsession about content "lasting long enough" even though they don't have any skin in the game, I guess. Now, perhaps you could say bosses other than LK should have lasted longer and that sort of makes sense, but then again, they lasted for an unblizzlike duration as it is. ICC sans LK is supposed to be pathetic.
  13. KimmoKM

    Whats the current HC Progress for ICC?

    What retail hype? Every heroic boss but Professor/Sindragosa/Lich King died the first day. Everything but the Lich King died the first reset. I don't know about Sunwell's custom buffs to Professor or Sindragosa, but in Blizzlike ICC only Lich King would be in any way relevant.
  14. KimmoKM

    Dual Spec for Horde

    If it's such a big deal to you and your guild, why didn't you roll Alliance? Besides, from what I have seen having followed the numbers a bit, faction balance has been dropping closer to Horde. I may even have spotted it temporarily at 60-40 (Horde outnumbering Allies 1.5 to 1), a point at which the outnumbered faction starts to noticeably suffer, presenting a strong incentive for established players to flee, or for new players not to roll. Reducing incentives to stay Alliance might be disastrous.
  15. KimmoKM

    New to private servers.

    In order to be a good prot warrior you have to play a different expansion. Go with the paladin.
  16. KimmoKM

    Faction imbalance

    The differences are blown out of proportion. Realistically, they are almost meaningless, valued at less than a week's worth of gear, so in PvE context the effects are felt by guilds going for realm firsts, and beyond that point it doesn't really matter seeing as that, by having progressed slower and utilizing gear from more resets, you've already been compensated for and then some relative to racially advantaged but undergeared guilds who still managed to clear the content (if the strongest guild is Horde to begin with, on Hellground relaunch for example Autismus Ultimus was three resets ahead of everyone else as Alliance). In PvP it's at least arguably a bigger, but only a very small minority of playerbase is serious about minigames anyway. And indeed, historically TBC servers often had fairly balanced populations without any efforts to balance them because in actuality very few people care enough about racials to let them influence their choice of faction. This problem is real but it is a new one, caused by feedback loop of some recent servers having had lopsided population, which makes Alliance-leaning players anxious to roll on a dead faction where they might get outnumbered 2 to 1 in world PvP (66-33 pop) or being unable to find suitable guilds, making them go Horde as a safety measure, and now even the more faction-loyal folks might have to reconsider. Funnily enough, by having this discussion we are propagating the problem. However, the cat is out of the bag and, as you say, the fate of the server could be decided on day 1, with any adjustments done after the fact likely having little to no impact. After all, who would roll on 80-20 slaughterhouse of a faction even if you leveled twice as quickly or had an extra grand saved up from free riding skills? If a thousand people rolled simultaneously it would be fine, but we'd be living in a post-scarcity eutopia if that sort of coordination problems were easy.
  17. KimmoKM

    Dual talents on TBC

    Besides, feral is among the strongest solo specs, prot paladins are really good at AoE grinding in areas like Black Temple, so only prot warriors actually draw the short straw. And then Blizzard added daily quests to the game in 2.1, addressing that problem too.
  18. KimmoKM

    Nightbane Timeline

    Well, technically they even had Hyjal, although it was even further from being finished than T5 was, and no one got there prior to patch 2.1 anyway. Anyhow, besides the issue of only having T4 at launch not being Blizzlike, it's worth noting there's only three 25-man bosses in T4, which isn't exactly ideal for 25-man guilds. Moreover, having T5 available at launch has an additional benefit in that the first guilds entering there will do it comparatively undergeared, making content that much more difficult, while still keeping it doable for worse/more casual guilds once they have farmed heroics and Karazhan for a couple of resets. Content receiving indirect nerfs from gear gathered each reset is a wonderful and elegant mechanic, and you shouldn't ruin it for no good reason by allowing people to farm near-BiS equipment before being able to enter.
  19. KimmoKM

    What's up with the PvE difficulty?

    I don't think there's doubt in anyone's minds about 4/5 Hyjal and 4/9 BT being substantially easier than killing Kael and Vashj, and while I guess it's reasonable for some early bosses to be easier as a reward of sorts for beating T5, more than half the tier being free loot if you just can access it goes a bit too far. However, in my personal opinion it's not just those bosses but pretty much the entirety of the tier: Archimonde too is an easy fight in terms of numbers and coordination (individual mistakes can fuck the whole raid over, yes, but comparing apples to apple-aspects-of-Archimonde, he's not tough at all), and in BT only Illidari Council starts approaching parity with T5 end bosses... and that's if your point of comparison is 2.1 values for T5 rather than 2.0 never mind pre-nerf! Hell, even Illidan has just one tough phase (P2), the rest of the fight being a mere formality.
  20. KimmoKM

    What's up with the PvE difficulty?

    I think, more so than strict Blizzlikeness (which can be a bit problematic, more on that later), there's two other criteria that should be preferred: 1. Consistent difficulty. One of the problems on Angrathar was inconsistent difficulty. To an extent this is an issue on Blizzlike Wrath too, seeing as that 5-mans and T7 are faceroll trivial, Ulduar NMs are substantially tougher, Ulduar HMs are overwhelmingly more difficult than anything previously seen, and then TOGC is easier than Ulduar. However, inconsistent custom tuning made this worse: The gap between OS (both raid sizes)/Naxx10, and Naxx25/EoE, was overwhelming. Ulduar was arguably even worse: unlike Naxx25 that featured fairly consistent difficulty across bosses and then Malygos being one step above that, NMs were easy even for the weaker guilds (due to not compensating for final patch talents) but even the easiest of hardmodes would have proved overwhelming and not worth attempting for a lot of guilds that managed to clear normal. Moreover, even if you did beat Orbit-uary and perhaps Yogg+1 (final boss HM being a contender for the easiest hardmode fight doesn't seem right either) or XT-002, the gap between them and the easier keepers was a wide gulf, and the difference between Knock*3/Firefighter was wider still. There was no gradual progression from boss to boss with loot from each new boss conquered helping you to beat the tougher ones, with some steps being worlds apart. From what I've understood, realm first Grand Crusader went to a guild that hadn't beaten Freya HM yet, even after the nerfs! The gap between required execution and raid composition was just that wide. How does that relate to TBC? Well, for starters, if you go with pre-2.1 tuning on heroics and provably Blizzlike tuning on Karazhan, the raid is far easier, which seems backwards. Similarly, T5 is notorious for being broken at launch, but if you settle for the final, fixed, versions that actually were killed, most of them would be easier than the most original versions of Gruul and Magtheridon. Similarly, most of T6 is easier than most of T5, and then SWP is again a huge leap. If you pick one standard and apply it across the board, you'll likely end up with a bizarre, often backwards, difficulty curve, and as seen from Angrathar, that's not such a good thing. Final patch tuning wouldn't have the issue at quite this severity, but we want (and need, due to knowledge and experience advantage) some approximation of "pre-nerf". 2. Maintaining Blizzlike IDENTITY of content. For example, the pre-nerf versions of Gruul and Magtheridon are remembered as though Blizzard had designed them for 40-man raids. T5, as mentioned previously, was notorious for being utterly broken, with some bosses changed around a bunch before they were even worth attempting, and the end bosses enjoying a legendary status as some of the longest-lived bosses in the game. The thing is, if you present contemporary high-end guilds with versions that retail guilds from back in the day managed to kill, they'll go down immediately. Conversely, you obviously can't have bosses bugged the same way Kael was, say, and on the other hand, a boss like Morogrim Tidewalker probably wasn't bugged, just too difficult to even bother with his original incarnation with water elemental spawns etc. The thing is, if you managed to implement pre-nerf post-bugfix versions with exactly the same values retail had, some bosses might be impossible even for contemporary guilds, some bosses like Morogrim might be really tough but doable, and then you'd have bosses like Kael being comparatively easy. T5 tuning is such a moving target that, even if you did pick one standard of values you'd use, and managed to research them accurately with no doubt about the values being the most original pre-world first values, difficulty would be all over the place, often times in contradiction with how difficult bosses are perceived. And then there's the feasibility of figuring out the "pre-nerf" state to consider. Take a boss like Curator for instance: I think there are compelling reasons to think he used to have damage reduction shield outside of evocation phase: there are some old forum posts talking about something to that effect, and Astral Armor spell ID is right next to his other spells. I think it's very probable Curator was changed some time early, but can you find definite sources like combat logs from the first week or two when he presumably still had this ability? Maybe, but I haven't seen any. What about Morogrim Tidewalker water elementals? From what I've seen in discussions from early 2007, guilds didn't even bother to try him. How are you going to find values for their health, damage, spawn locations, anything? Maybe there in fact are reliable sources for some of these details that I'm not aware of - I'm not omniscient so there will definitely be at least some of them - but most likely there will be a lot of times when you have to come up with values yourself by just guessing, or playing it safe and leaving some bosses in their real pre-nerf state and others at something substantially easier, because you couldn't find any proofs... which might well result in backwards difficulty curve discussed earlier. Personally, I think it's just more convenient to go with Corecraft values. They meet the two criteria I outlined earlier while at least some of the values definitely being pre-nerf Blizzlike, and given that they obviously didn't custom tune everything, some of the questionable stuff might be based on real research with original sources no longer available. However, you shouldn't treat them as immutable gospel either: while many T5 bosses haven't been tested by serious guilds, I think some values might be on unfairer side of things and would be better off with adjustments. For example, when we were doing Leotheras with a dying guild on Hellground, he seemed doable, but dealing with Inner Demons seemed a bit too overwhelming for a few classes like shadow priests even provided all the help you can give them (earth shields etc). Conversely, Fathom-Guard Tidalvess seemed a bit too RNG for my tastes with potential for windfury 1-shots.
  21. KimmoKM

    Dual talents on TBC

    If you can change roles at will, it's not "specialization" anymore, is it? I sympathize with people who want to PvP at their leisure instead of having to dedicate certain parts of the week to PvP side of things, so as to avoid respec costs becoming overwhelming. I kinda sorta sympathize with warrior tanks and healers too, although their grinding disability was the reason Blizzard added dailies and after 2.1 content it kinda works out just fine. However, TBC isn't designed with the expectation of being able to switch roles at will. Being able to DPS in tank spec is a feature unique to ferals. You are supposed to do bosses like Shade of Aran with the two tanks doing the best, as opposed to brute forcing it with specs optimal for the fight. Moreover, one of the reasons (basically the only reason, in fact) you can have novel builds in the game is conflicting interests demanding different optimization criteria. By having troublesome respecs, some people actually go for hybrid builds rather than the cookie-cutter min/max ones. Systems like the one Hellground used to have make respecs bearable for the people who really really want and need to respec regularly, while having minimal overall impact on the mechanic's status as a gold sink and not interfering with its intended purpose. As far as I'm concerned, they are fine. Going any beyond that, however, fixes a non-existent problem. Respec is supposed to sting, because it's a specialization, and getting rid of that sting removes hybrid builds, unique strengths of feral spec, indirectly nerfs a number of encounters, reduces the incentive to build a network of trusted peers to run dungeons with, and a whole range of other undesirable outcomes.
  22. KimmoKM

    Faction imbalance

    People haven't argued against it in text, but I'd hardly say there's a widespread agreement of it being a good idea: After all, custom redesigns are at 20% in the poll. I for one would be against such a change because it's a permanent unblizzlike feature affecting endgame, and one you cannot realistically revoke without causing utter outrage (supposing your intent was to achieve faction balance, and you either end up hitting your target or, worse, overshooting it). On principle, efforts to balance population should be achieved through least invasive methods available, ie. those that don't have lasting impact in endgame. Moreover, I think it changes the identity of factions, identity arguably being a bigger deal than exact replication of Blizzlike details (one example of preserving identity over blizzlikeness would be custom buffs to compensate for patch and/or knowledge advantage, achieving original level of subjective difficulty, ie. keeping content remembered as hard, as hard), and the identity of Alliance in TBC is the faction with the better tanking seal, the identity of Horde is the faction with the better DPS seal, and the identity of TBC as an expansion is one in which some degree of faction diversity still existed. However, probably more importantly, I think this falls squarely in the category of things you might do to make TBC better if you started making custom changes in general, not in the category of things that would achieve more even faction balance. After all, most players don't pick a faction (or race) on min/maxing grounds as it is. And if you are actually in the business of picking the stronger faction, be it for PvP or PvE, that faction still remains Horde. Instead, I believe the main force driving people away from Alliance is the fear of ending up in a dead, severely outnumbered, faction, and a couple of more ret pallies going ally isn't the kind of credible signal or a rallying call that would convince people on the fence that the other people on the fence (most of whom are not ret pallies) might go Alliance after all.
  23. KimmoKM

    Faction imbalance

    This makes sense, up to a point. I agree that most players are not min/maxers, as demonstrated by unoptimal races regularly being popular, and that typically you'd be getting faction balance close to 50-50 on grounds of the playerbase's aesthetic preferences having a roughly even split. Indeed, historically TBC servers too have maintained a rather healthy balance between the factions. However, exemplified by the existence of this thread, a fear of Alliance side becoming a dead faction has emerged and it is now something that will factor into people's mental calculus when choosing sides. As I mentioned in my previous post, Hellground relaunch was actually pretty much fine (at first)! However, by the time server got shut down by "B" and later re-relaunched as Wargate, situation on the Alliance side became unbearable (the balance had already started tipping towards Horde, but at that point the scales broke, causing a rout of people just quitting or rerolling Horde). I don't know/remember if that was the exact point in which Alliance in TBC started becoming perceived as the low-population faction in the private server community by large, but it certainly reinforced this idea and seems to be the case now, some servers ending up being dominated by Horde or ending up even-ish despite providing perks to Alliance. For example, we (Autismus Ultimus) decided to play Alliance for the benefit of the server, but after the re-relaunch Alliance proved to be a simply untenable environment for a high-end guild, and this fear now exists for every new project as well - by playing Horde, you can rest assured knowing it's AT WORST going to be at parity in terms of economy and pool of recruits. I was in favor of playing Alliance (for server-balancing reasons, I have no preference one side or the other beyond mechanical advantage of Horde, and in a 50-50 split server I'd unquestionably go Horde) and I have not changed my mind in that sense, but without some assurance of Alliance being a viable option, I would not play there again and I'm sure a lot of people are thinking the same thing. This all snowballs, and at the end of the day you have lots of folks unwilling to play Alliance. This is not the whole private server population: a lot of folks would play blood elves, say, purely for aesthetic reasons, but it is a sizable slice of people more in touch with the private server communities, presumably even more so among the high-end players (the demographic already most incentivized to go Horde for the sake of better racials and seal). As you point out, I don't think there's any innate preference to play Horde in most people's minds. But a new coordination problem has seemingly emerged, and given that you can't just assign each player/guild to a faction with no opportunity to appeal, you have to find some way to find a way to achieve a equilibrium, providing some kind of perk to Alliance being one way to achieve that: people on the fence pick Alliance since they know the perk will also affect decisions by other people on the fence, and you'll probably end up with something close to what you'd get if this whole phenomenon didn't exist. Certainly, I wouldn't expect any reasonable advantage to overshoot the balance point and make Alliance the bigger faction (for example, Warmane has had strong boost to Alliance in various events and the current population allegedly still remains Horde-favored at 4.05k/3.45k H/A), making it a rather risk-free endeavor. Maybe a series of reasonably balanced servers will cause the idea of Alliance population disadvantage to fade into obscurity as servers can also revoke Alliance-favoring policies,ending up with people forgetting all of this was even a thing, but here and now, I think it is a realistic concern.
  24. KimmoKM

    Faction imbalance

    I don't recall Hellground doing anything of the sort, be it the original server (which I remember being decently balanced) or the relaunch. Maybe Wargate did before it kicked the bucket too? However, the balance was irrecoverably screwed at that point: the server actually launched with tolerable balance (40-60 or something to that effect, it might even have been closer than that), but it started snowballing from there. After the relaunch as Wargate, the situation was already untenable: even as the sever first guild leading the competition by a few weeks, we didn't have the recruits to fill a raid, never mind Alliance having a healthy scene that could have supported more than one high-end guild, and even extreme advantages wouldn't have been enough to convince a player to join the dead faction facing an insurmountable disadvantage in world PvP. What I'm getting at is that the current ratio of players matters as much as any incentive in a vacuum. Playing in a slightly outnumbered faction could even considered advantageous since that's enough to provide you with instant PvP queues while not affecting world PvP by a whole lot (you have .48 potential allies who might be around to each of your opponent's .52 potential allies, big deal), or by allowing you to grab all the top players from your faction while the opposing one has two would-be server first guilds competing for recruits. On the other hand, if the balance tips too match to one side or the other, life on the lesser faction becomes untenable. Large-scale coordination, like entire guilds switching factions, might help, but when you are making decisions concerning yourself, would you join a faction that doesn't have ANY respectable raiding guilds? Or that's constantly outnumbered in Skettis even if you go there in a full party? At that point the answer is no, and you're not going to have a good time even if you were given a free 70.
  25. KimmoKM

    Faction imbalance

    By the way, while I'm in agreement that something should be done, there's one major omission in the poll: "No changes are needed".
×
×
  • Create New...