well, to be fair, my comment was a little of a burn for both sides.
the truth is, the game is smoother, and more playable now, that it has ever been. the war game offers depths, and even the ability to dominate, aggressively.
like lore said, their are certain players, that when ever Andy, post ANYTHING, they are their to judge the quality of what he says, and make unrelated demands... like they are really running the game.
their are a wide variety of games out there. in the past their was a huge discussion, mostly about the war game. where it came out, that in spite of what the players thought was best, W3C wanted to offer a particular flavor of game play. and stated that in the future, we "might not even recognize the game,"
when it comes to desertion, certainly people have quit do to being attacked, and defeated. and that is easy to see, player O attacks player B, player B quits, now players L, S,
In some respects we do understand the game better than the GM. It is us who use the code many man hours a day between us. It is us who discover real bugs and report them. The GM thank us for highlighting them.
Sometimes the GMs lack of response or total denial of an issue that is well explained and documented and obvious to all of us (or those active here) leads one to wonder if they really do master the game. I'm sure they do, but sometimes they dont quite inspire confidence. Generally I reckon you're right though, most perceived 'bugs' are player misunderstanding.
Andy understands that no one likes change, and that's what he's up against, most of us moaning about change, me included. I would't fancy his PR job, maybe the perks, but not the job ;)
And, hey, people do move on you know. Quite a few of the old players I knew who have left have done so because their lives have moved on.
I don't get how I'm trying to act as though the game is "owned" by me in any capacity. The game is what it is and I decide whether and how I'll play. I exercise no control whatsoever. There is no consultation with me on any game change. There is no evidence that my opinions have ever been taken into account on any game change. I make no claim to have any relationship with the management. My correspondence with the management is minimal as I find their outright denials of things that are very clearly the case bothersome and unpleasant.
I make observations. That statement was an observation.
People may play online games for various reasons, but "stifling other people's fun" likely includes the very behavior that I define as "competitive".
A "competitive" game is one where players try to "win" the server. This means shutting down as many and every player around by pushing every
"A "competitive" game is one where players try to "win" the server..." and the rest of that, i really liked that statement!
1000 players quit because they were bashed in war?
No chance,man. Not in a million (game-)years.
K
Kiss_of_Death
All worlds
Broccoli, what is your fixation with this 1000 players? ha ha ha ha Get over it already!!!
I think the GMs and well most anyone would be more receptive to advice and comments if they are put forth in a positive manner and not one that is arrogant, condescending, and negative in nature.
Look at me, you say something I dun like, expect a shoe to be flying somewhere CLOSE to your vicinity. lol
@ Crafty
You and I are here, because we old folks. ha ha ha ha Fortunately, we still have lives! :P