Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Siege on Fury

  1. #11

    Default

    Zero spikes for the first time , only the typical delay , but rly performance on playfield improved
    Fury:
    Etheecx -Necrow R5
    Ebedokles -Priest of Agrigento [threw himself into the volcano!]
    Teargarden -Sin R8
    Teagarden -Ranger R7
    Tempgarden - DeaTea R8
    Teadealer -ToS R3

    Crom:
    Ethicx -Demonologist R10
    Bedtime -Guardian R5
    SponsoredHox R3 delight

    *Chaotic gooD*

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Audrey- View Post
    Zero spikes for the first time , only the typical delay , but rly performance on playfield improved
    Players have been shouting for years that the issue had to be hardware related on the server side. Funcom always denied these claims and deflected the problem with fancy talk about game code and how they couldnt fix it because the way the game was coded in the begining it just couldnt handle massive fights.

    They also disregarded our feedback on how the fact that the siege crashes started on the exact same day they did the first batch of server merges (the one they merged Wildsoul, Battlescar, Soulstorm and Twilight into Fury), this coincidence alone should be raising some red flags when the first crash hapened. Who doesnt remember sieging before the mentioned merges without a single red bar? I sure do.

    Anyway glad you finnaly figured it out (by accident but who cares right lol). If only you listened to your community more often, maybe just maybe we wouldnt have a train wreck of a game in our hands.

    PS: I do have to giggle though when i remember Sillirion actually mentioning they were investigating the possibility of players crashing sieges on purpose, that made sence...lol. Priceless.
    Last edited by stuntdragon; 21st May 2013 at 03:31.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stuntdragon View Post
    ...

    PS: I do have to giggle though when i remember Sillirion actually mentioning they were investigating the possibility of players crashing sieges on purpose, that made sence...lol. Priceless.
    good performance and no crashes at all? seems like all (ok, most of) the evul haxorz left the game already

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Argantes View Post
    seems like all (ok, most of) the evul haxorz left the game already
    You are underestimating Iron Will's online
    Cripples gonna cripple

  5. #15

    Default

    yep! the second lagless siege in a row - gj!

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shmyak View Post
    yep! the second lagless siege in a row - gj!
    Funcom finally managed to fix sieges, they needed only 5 years, it's so nice, they fixed 1 thing and broke the other, latency. GJ funcom

  7. #17

    Default

    26.05 siege on Fury. Fort Bein. Keep t2.
    NightWatch attack, Black-Steel+IronWill def.
    NightWatch win. Ping green, no lags.

  8. #18

    Default

    11.06 Stonehammer (T3 BK).
    IW+BS (attackers) VS WN.
    IW wins.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •