Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-04-2010 @ 2:01PM
TR said...
@yarf
That's the most ridiculous analogy I've ever heard. Few people are asking it to be made easier, and even fewer are asking for the PvP element to be removed. It's the way it's implemented and forcing everyone to work in a way that disrupts an aspect of the game. Even PvP players say it goes against the principle of battlegrounds. You know, last time I looked they involve competing until one side /wins/, not sits around while each side takes turns getting the flag, node, etc. It's called a battleground, not pass the joint.
Let's try a real world analogy. During football season there's a series of games where each player has to be the QB /and/ score a TD to fill some requirement that has little to do with football at all. Oh, and many of the players have little experience playing football other than it's what other kids did in school. Would that even make sense? It's annoying to the players who don't even /want/ to play football, let alone be the QB, the player who has trained for and is the QB, and everyone else who just wants to play the damn game the way it was meant to be played.