Single Player and PvE Discussion, 2013 - 2015

[FLGibsonJr]

I like the idea of ladders, ratings and tournaments.  I personally do not like the idea of unlocking.  In many battles during a competiton you would want exactly even ships available to everybody.  It seems like by having to unlock something, you may end up with many who would not have the required ship.

 

Regards,

[Kala4]

Kala4,

 

I think part of it is we are trying to actually figure out what is planned by the developers, and secondly we are offerring our opinions and feedback to the developers to improve game play, at least from our individual perspectives.

 

Regards,

 

i know that. but i don`t like attitude of some people.

 

It`s really easy to say how it should be done from your point of view, but developers have more info & a bigger view on game.

 

 

Sory if my previous answer was rude.

[admin]

We believe based on our development and game play experience, that games with great progression are just better. We know that there are other opinions on this, which we respect. 

On the special and separate AOS2 clone with no progression you have enough time to persuade us to the opposite, while we are polishing combat. If there is no peace by then, we can run a quick kickstarter to fund the cost of such special game. 

 

At this time I suggest that we all point energy on getting the combat right.

[FLGibsonJr]

i know that. but i don`t like attitude of some people.

 

It`s really easy to say how it should be done from your point of view, but developers have more info & a bigger view on game.

 

 

Sory if my previous answer was rude.

 

Kala4,

 

Well I think sometimes there are translation issues which cause misunderstandings.  There are a lot of us who have played every age of sail game imaginable as well as many other war games.  We are just trying to offer the best advice we can.

 

Best Regards,

 

Gibson

[CJFlint]

Like I said earlier you want a flexible game. 

 

I think ships should be earned, with ranking. This is indeed a MMO or open world game.

 

Sorry, that game is absolutely not for me. Its grinding and its World of Tanks. You just lost another customer.

 

Now I understand why you are not interested in a realistic combat model and damage model, because you have no intention of making a realistic game.

 

If your combat model was realistic and would just allow a battle creation game in the exact same way Total War does with a lobby front end only with a choice of ships and map and a group of players can recreate a hstorical encounter you would get a LOT of support for YEARS from the Sea Lords group. We've been waiting 12+ years for a successor to Akella's Age of Sail II and we hoped this was it. Sadly, it seems that's not the case.

 

You guys just dropped the ball in a big way with that decision.

 

EDIT: I have a feeling there is a disconnect here and we are not understanding each other. At least I hope so. I don't understand your thinking when you ask us "Why should a captain command a 1st rate straight away?" Our answer is "We are not playing a captain who commands a 1st rate straight away. We're not playing ANYONE specific. We are not in a competitive ship advancement model of a game at all."

 

For the alternative type of game we would like to pay look at your own forums where Darth Vader of TW mod fame is making a scenario-based and historic battle driven RTS of Gettysburg. That's the exact game model we are talking about, where a community of players gather together, agree a date and time to meet, choose a scenario (say Battle of the Nile 1798), each picks a ship and we refight a historical real battle. Its wargaming using model ships (or tanks, or soldiers) on a table top with dice and paper rules but converted to a computer online. That is all it is. Its simple and fun and we enjoy it. The ships we fight with one day are not "earned" and we don't keep them. I could play a Spanish frigate one day and a French 74 the next and a British 64 the next. The ships aren't mine.

 

Are you understanding that kind of game? I ask, in all seriousness, because I am not even sure you are.

 

Ok. We keep referencing TW. 1st off TW is a RTS, Naval action is going to be more of a MMO game were you command a ship. MMOs and most games you have to earn things. In TW if you would have played the campaign you would know 1st rates are NOT free. They are the most expensive items a nation could afford at the time. I read non fiction books about naval warfare it shows that most super power nations only had one or 2 1st rates. They required intire forests to build, an epic undertaking just to build one. So you don't just get one. Now I see we you don't like playing campaign mode lol to much work for you.  So you play battle mode LOL good lord!

 

On a good note, I can appreciate your interest in recreating a battle. That's a cool side feature in a games like TW. But its just a small piece of the game. Maybe they could add some side feature like that. It should not be all the game is about.  

[BullpupBarrie]

Don't Panic.  I'm in the realism camp, but I am also a realist and completely understand the game needs to appeal to a wide audience.

 

War Thunder, however, at least attempted to please all camps with both arcade and hardcore realism modes so it's perfectly possible to do both at the same time.

 

If there was a way like in Rise of Flight to just purchase various types of ships rather than "earn" them then I'm sure a lot of the hardcore crowd would be prepared to just spend one big lump sum to get the whole game from the start.  Some kind of "instanced" skirmish mode seems to be on offer so that base is covered too.

 

The main problem would come if, like World of Tanks or indeed War Thunder, you have to keep paying to repair your ship or for ammunition (I believe people actually pay for upgraded bullets in WoT, so desperate are they to win).  That model I think would kill it for the wargaming crowd.

[Adair]

i know that. but i don`t like attitude of some people.

 

It`s really easy to say how it should be done from your point of view, but developers have more info & a bigger view on game.

 

 

Sory if my previous answer was rude.

 

No worries, Kala, my skin is pretty thick.

 

What Gibson said is correct. We're all offering perspectives based on a lot of experience and our desires to see this game succeed.

 

For my part, I experienced the slow death of POTBS, and I want to bold this for emphasis:

 

Their biggest flaw was in creating a pvp-centric game where new players were useless in pvp.

 

In fact, you couldn't even try to venture into the red until you were level 50, and the only way to reach level 50 was through grinding out missions or fleeting on the open sea. Now, I'm a PVE type of player, so this didn't bother me at all, but most pvp players only want to kill NPCs in the tutorial. Beyond that, once they've learned the basics, they want all PVP all the time.

 

This is why I keep harping on Planetside's model. It's brilliant. New players are immediately useful. If Game-Labs can figure out how to do that, I think they'll do extremely well.

 

Also, not every game is going to have every feature we'd like. I fully recognize some things won't make it in that I'd have liked to see. That's why I dislike the attitude of taking one's toys and going home. Hell, we haven't even seen a gameplay video yet, and there are folks threatening a boycott. That's crazy. I appreciate Game-Labs's commitment to listening to the community, but I fully recognize that they'll have to make some tough decisions. The only way I'm going anywhere is if the core gameplay is bad. And, thus far, the core sounds very good.

[FLGibsonJr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m_EzMZ0wMEc#at=88

 

 

 

CJFlint and everyone else,

 

There are many of us who are very much into fighting realistic tactical battles.  I put a link up above of a flyover and a second video of one of those games, those are all units that are being controlled by up to 24 players (12 vs 12).  These are well thought out battles where players are all working together to defeat the other side.  I realize this link is to a land battle, but many of us would like to have a version of Naval Action that would provide a similar age of sail experience.  We are not saying there shouldn' be a grinder version of the game or a MMO "world" version of the game, we are just saying in the combat version that was alluded to by the Admin, there are many of us that would like a version where we control many of the aspects of the battle so that we could have organized battles between dozens if not hundreds of different squadrons.  We would be more than willing to pay top dollar in a Rise of Flight method in order to get that game.  We want the developers to be aware of that.

 

Best Regards,

 

F.L. Gibson

[admin]

Hot topic huh!))

 

Again i remind you all this. We can come back to this discussion a bit later. We all want good combat and lets get it done first.

 

We believe based on our development and game play experience, that games with great progression are just better. We know that there are other opinions on this, which we respect. 

On the special and separate AOS2 clone with no progression you have enough time to persuade us to the opposite, while we are polishing combat. If there is no peace by then, we can run a quick kickstarter to fund the cost of such special game. 

 

At this time I suggest that we all point energy on getting the combat right.

[CJFlint]

One of the things that gets me about this thread is we keep referring back to RTS games, and the TW series. Were off base, I'm guilty too. Were taking apples and oranges here.

 

Every thing I have read about naval action says its going to be an MMO, or a ship simulator, not an RTS. 

 

Don't get me wrong I a huge fan of the TW series and I am counting the days til Rome 2! 

 

But Naval Action is going to be a game were you play the role of captain of a ship in 3rd our 1st person. And you work with other players. If you want to make reference, would prob compare it too POTBS, age of pirates 2 or even the silent hunter series. Not an RTS were you command 1000 of men or 20 ships.

 

Wrong genre folks lol 

[Verhoeven]

The assumption that gamers need progress in the form of perks and ships in order to keep them attracted to the game is absolutely not a must. There are many games out there that maybe give you an increase in rank but the in game stuff remains the same for everyone. 

Company of heroes 1 is an excellent example. Everybody has the same stuff. The rest is skill and experience. The only real reason for rankings, is for automactching. So you won't have real newbies fighting level 16's IF they don't want to. Still you have smurfs, experience players with double accounts pretending to be newbies. But so what? I play COH and TW with my friends. If you wan the 1st rate in NTW, just make a game with lots of money to spend. In Company of Heroes 2 they changed lots of this. Equally inspired by commercial trends. You can buy (euros or dollars) more doctrines and you have all these weird achievements in order to get a tiger tank.... (what happens is that friends grind up levels and get the Tiger in no time, so what is the adde value?). There is no lobby anymore and you will end up in games you dont want to be in. The result: Well just go to their forums. It is a disaster. With numbers of active players dropping rapidly only 2 months after release. This is likely the end of the CoH series. Keep in mind. The stand alone, highly moddable (and new maps) COH1 survived 7 years with many thousands of players. Many going back to CoH1 (though they also killed the servers and brought out a buggy version of the old game to the steam servers, people still play COH1 a lot!).

 

I am a succesful marketing strategy advisor by profession (been doing this for the last 25 years). I run a consultancy firm with 16 people. I give you a free of charge advice, you did not ask for. Forgive me the lecturing

 

Superior strategy is all about claiming and occupying an Unique strategic position. A position that is and can not be claimed by competition. And a position from which you can offer clients a sustainable offer that fullfils their demands and wishes. In todays markets managers and entrepreneurs are fanatically trying to re-invent their business. As 'me-too' is the way most business are going, more and more they run out of options how to become succesful.

 

If you look at truly succesful companies, you will see that most often they do not come from the direction you were thinking most companies are operating. They came with something new, something else. These companies are succesful because they change the game. Actually they changed the rules game, making the game theirs.

 

My simple advise. Dont look at your competitors and say "well it was succesful for others, so we have to do it too". Don't try to be better ---- BE DIFFERENT.

As you are a small company you may not have the resources and stamina to attack your succesful competitors. Think out of the box.

Go for the niche, and after that the next market segment.

It's like a beachhead strategy. Use a lesser defended, unguarded market segment with potential as a beachhead and secure it. From there you fight your way into the mainstream market.

 

Now I am not saying you are going to fail. The argument that triggered my advice is building a bussiness case based on what competition does.

 

Why could a Turkish couple (man & wive) become highly succesful with Mount & Blade selling millions of copies? Because it was so completely different! And... they almost went open source. The amount of mods is enourmous and they truly listen to their communities. Just google Taleworlds. Google will probably already autosuggest forums.talewords.com on the first letters "tale". Then they made a very clever choice to work with Paradox. One of the better niche market game publishers. A Dutch modder made M&B Napoleonic Wars selling 150.000 copies as a dlc for $10,-....

 

 

[CJFlint]

Hot topic huh!))

 

Again i remind you all this. We can come back to this discussion a bit later. We all want good combat and lets get it done first.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m_EzMZ0wMEc#at=88

 

 

 

CJFlint and everyone else,

 

There are many of us who are very much into fighting realistic tactical battles.  I put a link up above of a flyover and a second video of one of those games, those are all units that are being controlled by up to 24 players (12 vs 12).  These are well thought out battles where players are all working together to defeat the other side.  I realize this link is to a land battle, but many of us would like to have a version of Naval Action that would provide a similar age of sail experience.  We are not saying there shouldn' be a grinder version of the game or a MMO "world" version of the game, we are just saying in the combat version that was alluded to by the Admin, there are many of us that would like a version where we control many of the aspects of the battle so that we could have organized battles between dozens if not hundreds of different squadrons.  We would be more than willing to pay top dollar in a Rise of Flight method in order to get that game.  We want the developers to be aware of that.

 

Best Regards,

 

F.L. Gibson

Sure me too.  I agree.....Ill have to check out that game in your video looks sharp.

 

That's why in TW Empires I do the campaigns. There 100s of battles like that land and sea. You don't just control the battle you control you respective country too. I used quick battle mode for practice for campaigns. Historical battles to me was a nice little feature.

 

Just to be clear I was being saying what I said because people who play TW series just for the quick battles are missing allot of the game. Not because I don't like the battles...I love the battles that happen. I also like to see what lead up too the battle, politics economics, beliefs and so forth. If that makes since. It becomes much more massive in my mind that way. The TW series did a great job showing why wars happen in the 1st place in campaign.....we don't live in a world were every one plays by the rules and plays nice. In TW series shows even if you do not intend on being in a war sometimes its not your choice and it comes to you. 

 

I play Rise of Flight too. An absolute master piece, wonderful attention to historical detail. A master piece of a game amazing. I when I heard some of the developers of Il2 and Rise of Flight were working, I about fell over. 

 

I believe this Naval Action will be a hit no doupt.

[CJFlint]

Sounds like were all a bunch of RTS fans, and mount and blade fans on here! lol. And disgruntal POTBS fans! lol 

 

I feel sorry for the forum moderator lolol

[Flip]

The assumption that gamers need progress in the form of perks and ships in order to keep them attracted to the game is absolutely not a must. There are many games out there that maybe give you an increase in rank but the in game stuff remains the same for everyone. 

Company of heroes 1 is an excellent example. Everybody has the same stuff. The rest is skill and experience. The only real reason for rankings, is for automactching. So you won't have real newbies fighting level 16's IF they don't want to. Still you have smurfs, experience players with double accounts pretending to be newbies. But so what? I play COH and TW with my friends. If you wan the 1st rate in NTW, just make a game with lots of money to spend. In Company of Heroes 2 they changed lots of this. Equally inspired by commercial trends. You can buy (euros or dollars) more doctrines and you have all these weird achievements in order to get a tiger tank.... (what happens is that friends grind up levels and get the Tiger in no time, so what is the adde value?). There is no lobby anymore and you will end up in games you dont want to be in. The result: Well just go to their forums. It is a disaster. With numbers of active players dropping rapidly only 2 months after release. This is likely the end of the CoH series. Keep in mind. The stand alone, highly moddable (and new maps) COH1 survived 7 years with many thousands of players. Many going back to CoH1 (though they also killed the servers and brought out a buggy version of the old game to the steam servers, people still play COH1 a lot!).

 

I am a succesful marketing strategy advisor by profession (been doing this for the last 25 years). I run a consultancy firm with 16 people. I give you a free of charge advice, you did not ask for. Forgive me the lecturing

 

Superior strategy is all about claiming and occupying an Unique strategic position. A position that is and can not be claimed by competition. And a position from which you can offer clients a sustainable offer that fullfils their demands and wishes. In todays markets managers and entrepreneurs are fanatically trying to re-invent their business. As 'me-too' is the way most business are going, more and more they run out of options how to become succesful.

 

If you look at truly succesful companies, you will see that most often they do not come from the direction you were thinking most companies are operating. They came with something new, something else. These companies are succesful because they change the game. Actually they changed the rules game, making the game theirs.

 

My simple advise. Dont look at your competitors and say "well it was succesful for others, so we have to do it too". Don't try to be better ---- BE DIFFERENT.

As you are a small company you may not have the resources and stamina to attack your succesful competitors. Think out of the box.

Go for the niche, and after that the next market segment.

It's like a beachhead strategy. Use a lesser defended, unguarded market segment with potential as a beachhead and secure it. From there you fight your way into the mainstream market.

 

Now I am not saying you are going to fail. The argument that triggered my advice is building a bussiness case based on what competition does.

 

Why could a Turkish couple (man & wive) become highly succesful with Mount & Blade selling millions of copies? Because it was so completely different! And... they almost went open source. The amount of mods is enourmous and they truly listen to their communities. Just google Taleworlds. Google will probably already autosuggest forums.talewords.com on the first letters "tale". Then they made a very clever choice to work with Paradox. One of the better niche market game publishers. A Dutch modder made M&B Napoleonic Wars selling 150.000 copies as a dlc for $10,-....

 

 

 

Is there really much competition? The main issue is people who want a sailing game will be interested in this game, while people who do not want a sailing game won't be interested... they are not making some generic FPS where you need to stand out. You will never get people who have no care for sailing games to play one.

[Barberouge]

Their biggest flaw was in creating a pvp-centric game where new players were useless in pvp.

 

PotBS wasn't PvP centric. There were NPCs, missions, 90% of the world map was PvE only, creating PvP zones involved PvE, participating to Port Battles required PvE grinding. FLS created a PvE game and added PvP here and there.

 

I've been in a full hardcore PvP society, and I've been in a diversified society. In the PvP society, we still had to play against new players, to fleet grind against new players, to participate to PBs with and against new players. In the diversified society, new players gave us more groups on the open sea.

[Barberouge]

If there is a mode where a battle is created with a map, weather conditions, number of players, ship types, spawn points - wouldn't a mode where those parameters can be chosen by players be easy to code ?

Or is that about funding the game ? I read somewhere that there would be LoL-like funding with maybe having to buy the game. In LoL, players can buy things with either a money created by battles results or with real money. If ships can be bought with real money, players could create their battles for players who bought the ships.

[Adair]

When your endgame is entirely pvp, that's pvp-centric. And yes, you had to do all those pve things, which was annoying to pvp'ers, no?

 

But I don't really care about the definitions. It doesn't change the fact that new players were STILL useless in pvp, especially if you fleet-ground them up to top level. It was an annoying waste of time that taught them nothing about playing the game. Which is another annoyance about games of that sort, where pvp and pve are very different creatures. If there's a level grind, it should be teaching you how to play in the endgame. Some games do, and do it well. Other games don't, and POTBS is one of them.

[Barberouge]

It's not about definitions, it's about facts. The endgame (winning a map) seemed to be PvP on paper, but in reality not only did it require mostly PvE (generating cash, hauling goods, generating unrest, generating contention), but PvE could circumvent PvP (avoiding fights, attacking when everybody slept). 80% of the maps were won by the best PvE grinding nations.

 

Grinding to 50 for the first time was about learning the physics and the skills. PvP started after joining a PvP society and actually learning how to use the skills and perform the group maneuvers. I agree leveling up was annoying, but it only took 3 days. Still 3 excessive days.

 

I've been playing PS2, and the new players ("the zergs") were "useless" aswell. They needed to actually learn the tactics and strategies by joining an outfit and being taught everything. That's inherent to any PvP game.

[admin]

 

But I don't really care about the definitions. It doesn't change the fact that new players were STILL useless in pvp, especially if you fleet-ground them up to top level. It was an annoying waste of time that taught them nothing about playing the game. Which is another annoyance about games of that sort, where pvp and pve are very different creatures. If there's a level grind, it should be teaching you how to play in the endgame. Some games do, and do it well. Other games don't, and POTBS is one of them.

 

That was a major problem in Potbs. Their progression was level based. We are against player levels.

Another problem was useless (fake) content. Most ships were not usable at pvp and had no purpose. 

[CJFlint]

That was a major problem in Potbs. Their progression was level based. We are against player levels.

Another problem was useless (fake) content. Most ships were not usable at pvp and had no purpose. 

I agree, to a degree

 

Please hear me on this one too. 

 

Another thing POTBS has an issue with that was a big one in my eyes, was player classes and class balance. I'm sure when they designed POTBS they had no idea how much forums fighting and how much of there time they would spent putting out patches to so called "balance" the classes. It created a really bad cycle, and caused allot of since less bickering among players. One party would complain, they would then so called balance the classes, then a new party would complain their class wasn't strong enough. It was annoying to see. They spent more time trying to "balance" when they could have been improving the game and adding content. This was a serous flaw in the game. Probably the most counter productive thing I witnessed with POTBS.

 

There is def lessons to be learned both good and bad from the POTBS formula.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I did love allot of things about POTBS. That's what made it even more hard to watch.

[Flip]

When your endgame is entirely pvp, that's pvp-centric. And yes, you had to do all those pve things, which was annoying to pvp'ers, no?

 

But I don't really care about the definitions. It doesn't change the fact that new players were STILL useless in pvp, especially if you fleet-ground them up to top level. It was an annoying waste of time that taught them nothing about playing the game. Which is another annoyance about games of that sort, where pvp and pve are very different creatures. If there's a level grind, it should be teaching you how to play in the endgame. Some games do, and do it well. Other games don't, and POTBS is one of them.

 

Isnt that where community comes into play, to teach and foster?

[Barberouge]

That was a major problem in Potbs. Their progression was level based. We are against player levels.

Another problem was useless (fake) content. Most ships were not usable at pvp and had no purpose. 

 

Will the Faction Warfare and Open World have different progression types ? Because you just said:

Also a player to join the organised battle will still have to actually level up the crew and his rank to be able to sail the ship he wants.

 

 

Another thing POTBS has an issue with that was a big one in my eyes, was player classes and class balance. I'm sure when they designed POTBS they had no idea how much forums fighting and how much of there time they would spent putting out patches to so called "balance" the classes. It created a really bad cycle, and caused allot of since less bickering among players. One party would complain, they would then so called balance the classes, then a new party would complain their class wasn't strong enough. It was annoying to see. They spent more time trying to "balance" when they could have been improving the game and adding content. This was a serous flaw in the game. Probably the most counter productive thing I witnessed with POTBS.

 

A friend of mines used to summarize PotBS patches:

"

- balance the classes

- balance the ships

- balance the weighing unit

- balance gravity

"

 

xD

[CJFlint]

Flip I aggree in the case of POTBS. In a prefect world, if a player did do all his or missions to get to 50 and not grind for exp points. It was like a really good education about the game. Also it the new player was to join a society were there salty players willing to teach, it was also good. So I agree leveling was a good thing in POTBS when it was done right. So leveling I in POTBS I don't was a bad thing, a good way to learn the game. Lazy new players, would often try to grind to 50. 

 

Barberouge I agree..so true lol

 

Also POTBS is not dead yet. The new owners seem to be trying to make good. They could have a come back, you never know. It would require them to address allot of the issues, and fix the once and for all. Which is probably allot easier to say then do at this point.

 

I pretty much played on a much more limited basis after 2.11 patch. I really didn't agree with some of allot of the changes. It seemed to me after in the fall 2011 that's when POTBS started to go down hill with allot of game killing changes. Many people do not agree with me on this, group strength change was not the right way to cut down on "ganking". It made group pvp encounters become a pain in the ***. What they should have done is just not give out rewards to gankers and or seal clubbers (people who attacked low level players for stats). Just don't give incentive to do it. The red zones were clear as day on the map, and you should know the risk if you went in them. Its like a war zone it should be no holds bar, no rules. That was my thoughts on it.

[Flip]

Flip I aggree in the case of POTBS. In a prefect world, if a player did do all his or missions to get to 50 and not grind for exp points. It was like a really good education about the game. Also it the new player was to join a society were there salty players willing to teach, it was also good. So I agree leveling was a good thing in POTBS when it was done right. So leveling I in POTBS I don't was a bad thing, a good way to learn the game. Lazy new players, would often try to grind to 50. 

 

Barberouge I agree..so true lol

 

Also POTBS is not dead yet. The new owners seem to be trying to make good. They could have a come back, you never know. It would require them to address allot of the issues, and fix the once and for all. Which is probably allot easier to say then do at this point.

 

I pretty much played on a much more limited basis after 2.11 patch. I really didn't agree with some of allot of the changes. It seemed to me after in the fall 2011 that's when POTBS started to go down hill with allot of game killing changes. Many people do not agree with me on this, group strength change was not the right way to cut down on "ganking". It made group pvp encounters become a pain in the ***. What they should have done is just not give out rewards to gankers and or seal clubbers (people who attacked low level players for stats). Just don't give incentive to do it. The red zones were clear as day on the map, and you should know the risk if you went in them. Its like a war zone it should be no holds bar, no rules. That was my thoughts on it.

 

Im still enjoying 24 v 24 pbs 6 yrs later.

[Adair]

It's not about definitions, it's about facts. The endgame (winning a map) seemed to be PvP on paper, but in reality not only did it require mostly PvE (generating cash, hauling goods, generating unrest, generating contention), but PvE could circumvent PvP (avoiding fights, attacking when everybody slept). 80% of the maps were won by the best PvE grinding nations.

 

Look. No. I was with Sturmgrenadier for the early days of Antigua/Spain, and the subsequent societies after they 'officially' quit POTBS. PVE played a role (which was good!) but it didn't make more than 20% difference once it came to a port battle. And one need only look to the map chats and vent logs for how well 'newbie' players were received in a port battle. I swear, half of them quit because of derision alone. It was awful, despite what most of us could do.

Especially hilarious were when you had the squeaky-voiced 14 year olds telling people they didn't know what the fuck they were doing. Always a hoot. But, in all truth, sometimes it was true. And why? Because POTBS taught you NOTHING about pvp as you leveled. 

 

I honestly dare anyone to contradict the statement.