Skip to Content
1-03-2011 @ 5:04PM
Granted it's less than the 1800 honor, but it's still more than a defense. Why are people going to stop win trading if it's still better to win on O than to win on D?
1-03-2011 @ 5:06PM
Because its not so much OMFGLETTHEMWINBBQ! anymore, and there will be plenty of players that won't be able to resist putting up an actual defense anymore. The fools.
1-03-2011 @ 5:08PM
There won't be win trading anymore because now if you defend twice you get the same honor as if you won once and lost once, but the enemy doesn't.
Because now alternating winning on offense and losing on defense gives 360 honor per two fights, and winning on defense multiple times in a row gives 360 honor per two fights. So...we're going back to one faction having it for a week, I guess.
1-03-2011 @ 5:41PM
@SarducciYea, basically there was a week of free honor, and we're back to where we started - one faction owning it.Looks like you have to plan a 4 AM coup d' etat to capture it and hold it for a week.
1-03-2011 @ 6:43PM
I went in with the intention of letting the horde win attack, but I couldn't resist :(
1-04-2011 @ 4:28PM
Because 360 honor isn't enough to counter having it for two and a half hours more, letting you do dailies and a raid. Also, you still get more commendations, which for me is worth more than 360 honor.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.