Messages

1846

The Dog & Duck / Re: Merry Christmas

« on: December 24, 2008, 06:04:15 PM »

Merry Christmas, god jul, feliz navidad, hmm guten weinnacht iirc

Not playing much on christmas eve (at all really) similar to Jarkko's "excuse" spending time with family (and not the online variety haha)

1847

Warhammer Online / Re: Reikwald Fort in Reikland

« on: December 24, 2008, 06:01:39 PM »

Would have been there if it hadn't been christmas eve and spending time with family comes before killing (or more exactly getting killed by) destruction.

1848

Warhammer Online / Re: Stonewatch falls

« on: December 23, 2008, 05:50:59 AM »

Was there for a while.
But started getting wierd artifacting Hope it was due to the connection rather than gfx card going to crap since I can't afford to replace it (well can't afford to do anything really but I digress).
When I left about at about 21 cet or so we were pushing into DW to try to lock it. Had been running around t3 capping keeps there as well, mostly undefended but still, during the day.
All in all a fun day in war, though rather unorganized on a larger scale.

1849

Warhammer Online / Re: ORvR - Coming changes

« on: November 28, 2008, 07:20:17 AM »

all sounds great!

only downside:

but we will also add the ability for people to have a second bind point to make it even easier for players to move around the maps.

this isnt startrek... (beam me up scotty!) one bindpoint is enough IMHO

In a way yes, what they should do is have more flightpoints. At the very least one per zone.

1850

Warhammer Online / Re: Fortress Seiges may become instanced?

« on: November 28, 2008, 07:18:55 AM »

Hmm... removing even more people from the open world is beyond stupid. If you want instanced pvp go to wow.

True open RvR is the selling point of the game not instanced so lets hope they come to their senses.

1851

Warhammer Online / Re: Inactivity Purge

« on: November 24, 2008, 09:39:04 AM »

And to challenge the 'it's too quiet' way of thinking: tonight the server moaned under the heavy load of A LOT OF PEOPLE in oRvR. Spells didnt fire, mounts didnt appear, the lot. How's that for low activity?? (and plz flame GOA in some other thread )

I play for my amusement. Noone elses. If I don't find it fun to run around alone I'm not likely going to play. Grinding battlegrounds and quests I got sick of in wow doing it again in war doesn't amuse me the least bit and since there hasn't been any open rvr action anywhere close to my tier since the included month ended well you do the math.

1852

Warhammer Online / Re: Inactivity Purge

« on: November 23, 2008, 11:41:57 AM »

I haven't been online mainly since there haven't been anyone or anything going on when i log on.
I can only grind TA for so long before I get bored and the pve isn't particularly interesting for me due to the stupidly annoying runs there and there with the stupid flightpoints being nowhere.

1853

General Gaming / Re: Warhammer TT Balancing

« on: November 11, 2008, 09:14:13 AM »

Problem was I never got to buy an entire army only have a "regiment" or what to call it. But lost the will to get a new army after that.
But going to get one when I get a job, dwarfs here i come

1854

General Gaming / Re: Warhammer TT Balancing

« on: November 11, 2008, 08:06:57 AM »

Can't say to much, even if I love warhammer I lack both an army (damn cancellation of chaos dwarfs) and people to play with.
But having read several army books and managed to win a game against my brother with my miniscule chaos dwarf army by maxing out Astragoth with items it seems to be wise to rebalance the game reasonably to be focused on tactics and "rank and file" instead of superheros and special regiments.
They had a inflation in power for each army book, a clear example is the difference between the elf and dwarf books where elfs got their Ithilmar armour. Why should HE with their already extreme movement get to have heavy armour without the penalty at a quite low cost when the dwarfs already pay for the "bonus" of carrying heavy armour by their statline?
Also dwarf cannons, worse than empire? wierd.
Although from what I've read the best change of all must be the ones affecting frenzy and chaos.
Old Khorne lord(iirc):
ws:8, 6str, 6 thoughness and 5 attacks (with frenzy 10 attacks!!!)
With a save of 1+ usually.
New one (afaik):
ws:8, str 5, 5 thoughness and 5 attacks (if they have frenzy which i don't know it should be 6 attacks or something)

So balancing is a good thing and needed to keep the game unpredictable and fun imo.
I just wish I had more of an army and someone to fight *sob*

1855

Warhammer Online / Re: Help boost the EU argument

« on: November 11, 2008, 07:45:39 AM »

I've long since given up on influencing GoA.
I gave up when I got to know that I'm going to subsidize the UK players and have currency risk involved in my payments.

1856

Warhammer Online / Entering things into the book of grudges.

« on: October 08, 2008, 12:26:22 PM »

Found this on GW dwarf site

http://uk.games-workshop.com/dwarfs/grudges/assets/book-of-grudges.pdf

1857

Warhammer Online / Re: First day defending Reikwald

« on: October 07, 2008, 04:24:26 AM »

Nice so Altdorf will still be rank3 when I can log on tonight

1858

Warhammer Online / AP Regen Issues

« on: October 03, 2008, 08:02:19 AM »

I suspect AP starvation might become less of a deal with a IB that has the 11point brotherhood tactic "Told Ya So!" which gives 25AP every time the IB critically hits a opponent to all groupmembers. (at most every 3 sec but considering a 1.5sec cooldown and a crit rate of lets say 25% I would assume you get it perhaps every 4-5 sec)

1859

Warhammer Online / Re: Regimented Alts

« on: October 03, 2008, 07:56:30 AM »

I have Ansgar the Runepriest who I hope I'll get online when someone can invite him in

1860

Warhammer Online / Re: 1st Altdorf Sacking?

« on: October 02, 2008, 07:54:56 AM »

Seems that it isn't a bug really.
Just the use of no resistance.