Print Page | Close Window

How to PvP

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Politics & Diplomacy
Forum Description: If you run an alliance on Elgea, here's where you should make your intentions public.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=3552
Printed Date: 24 Oct 2020 at 07:13
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: How to PvP
Posted By: abstractdream
Subject: How to PvP
Date Posted: 13 May 2012 at 23:45
Originally posted by Garth Garth wrote:

When SC and Cerberus were in San Fran last year, I talked with SC about "3rd party" instigators, in a sense. IOW, non-player devices that would give players a reason for PvP, without the need for arguing, discussion, or even diplomacy, really. I mean, that's why we all love the Tourneys, right? It gives us all a reason to use those armies, delve into strategy and tactics, all that fun stuff. And ideally there are no hard feelings and no permanent damage at the end.

Most of the time in Illy, it seems we are all too conscientious about certain standards to allow free-form PvP, at least on a visible/public level. We have too many NAPs, Confeds, player-created rules, etc. And if something *does* spark up, we tend to talk it out...and out...and out...

Not that any of this is bad; it's one of the things I like about Illy, an intelligent, multifaceted community playing an intelligent, multifaceted game. This is where the stagnancy comes in, though; we talk, we work it out, as a community we have a very narrow range of what is acceptable and what is not, even if we have various individual opinions.

SC shared a few ideas the devs were working on, though as we all know, the timeline of releases in Illy can feel sluggish. I also have a few ideas about "non-personal" PvP, and I'm sure others do too. Perhaps we should start a thread on various ways of enjoying PvP in Illy?


-------------
Bonfyr Verboo



Replies:
Posted By: Garth
Date Posted: 13 May 2012 at 23:56
Well, okay, lol. Thanks, Bonfyr.

I'll start by putting forward one of GM Stormcrow's ideas, which is that Factions would be used to give players or groups quests; and two sides might be given opposing goals, and thus have to compete to achieve their objective. As I remember, this was an addendum to the "side-quest" update Stormcrow described.

Obviously, Factions aren't live; Alliances or players could certainly set this up, though. Would just take some balancing, clear rules, and participants :)


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 00:24
Opposing goals.

It's Sunday and my brain is lazy. Can someone give me a good example of opposing goals that could be the foundation of a fun round of PvP?


-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Cerex Flikex
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 00:49
Ok so I mentioned player-run tournaments in that other thread. I'll continue here with it.

Here is my basic idea/outline of a tournament. Feel free to add to it, or critique.

PVP Tournament Idea:

No sieging will be part of this tournament.

All participating players will have to sign up at the tournament sign up thread.

All participants will need to be able to attack each other. So NAP and Confed would need to be removed in some manner for the participant. One way for this would be to leave the alliance you are in for the duration of the tournament.

Attacks included will be diplomatic, spells, and armies.

Tournament will be duration based. Any participant is able to surrender and leave the tournament by posting in the tournament thread.

No winners or prizes will be awarded. What do you gain for participating? You get experience, and get to try out PVP!


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/149824" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 01:32
Brilliant.

Some kind of sign-up sheet is required, no?


-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Cerex Flikex
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 02:19
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

Brilliant.

Some kind of sign-up sheet is required, no?

Which was why I said "All participating players will have to sign up at the tournament sign up thread." lol


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/149824" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 03:12
Confused lol
I did miss that.


-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 03:17
...and is a duration really required?



-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Magnificence
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 03:57
Caution leads to death by boredom. Just start a war and quit with all the he said she said palava.

It really is great fun.

"You cant spend your whole life wrapped in cotton wool little rabbit"

I wuv you guys *snuggles*

kthxbye

Mag. 

Smile



Posted By: Cerex Flikex
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 04:13
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

...and is a duration really required?


The idea of the duration is so that there can be an established amount of time to participate, and then when it's over, new sign-ups can be done. I was thinking about how to award a prize at the end, but that became a stumbling block for me.


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/149824" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Dew
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 04:18
one thing we may want to talk about in this thread is for "small" players who cant maintain 10's of thousands of troops having a way to participate if for no other reason then to keep their commanders leveling. 


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 04:51
I have been working on developing an inter-alliance competition for a while now.  I will contribute in-game prizes such as gold and saddles, and other players have also expressed a desire to contribute.  I envision this as a competition between relatively evenly matched alliances, although it could also be engaged in between "sides" made up of multiple alliances as long as the alliances were NAP'd/confed with other alliances on the same "side" and NOT NAP'd/confed with other alliances NOT on the same side.

The format of the competition would be as follows:

1)  The tournament objective would be to "siege" and "capture" designated cities from the other alliance.  This would be done using the fact that it is possible to siege WITHOUT the use of siege engines so that no actual damage to the city takes place.  

My idea would be that certain players from each alliance would volunteer to have their cities be "targets."  Limitations could include only players with 4 or more cities as targets and only cities over 1k population targeted, or no limitations.  The reason to limit it to only the cities of certain players is that alliances might have players on leave or inactive or who don't want to put in the time commitment, and we don't want to make this less fun for those players.

2)  One point would be awarded for each hour of siege on any target city beyond the 12-hour set-up period.

3)  Sieges that were maintained beyond a 48-hour period would result in a city being declared "razed." 50 points would be awarded to the sieging side and troops and diplos from that city could no longer be used in the competition.

4)  Scouts and spies could be used against any player or encampment (or to protect any player or encampment) of alliances participating in the competition.

5)  Assassins could be used only against encamped forces (when this feature becomes available) or the cities of the players designated as "targets."

6)  Thieves and saboteurs would not be a part of the tournament

7)  "Sieges" would be required to travel a maximum of 10 squares per hour (no sieges using swiftsteeds, lol).  This is faster than sieges would travel in practice, but in my mind would increase the fun quotient a bit by increasing the pace without making it overly difficult to reinforce other players.

8)  Alliances not involved in the competition cannot help with military or diplomatic attacks, but can contribute resources to underdogs and cheer or mock from the sidelines.

Anyway, that's the basic outlines of a challenge I think would be fun, and of course all the rules are just preliminary thoughts and subject to negotiation by participating alliances.  The goal would be to maximize fun for all.

If your alliance is interested in participating in such a tournament, please contact me by in-game mail or just post here.


Posted By: Rasak
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 04:58
As far as rewards go each participant could be required to pay the author of the tournament a fee to enter and that fee could be used as a reward at the end. Whether that is a winner takes all or tiered payout or some other method would be up to the owner of the tournament. It would be nice if this fee were designed to cover all of the winners cost in troops lost by the end of the tourney. That way there would be a drive to win to recover your losses :D


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:02
Originally posted by Rasak Rasak wrote:

As far as rewards go each participant could be required to pay the author of the tournament a fee to enter and that fee could be used as a reward at the end. Whether that is a winner takes all or tiered payout or some other method would be up to the owner of the tournament. It would be nice if this fee were designed to cover all of the winners cost in troops lost by the end of the tourney. That way there would be a drive to win to recover your losses :D

In my experience player challenges are similar to server tournaments, in which the main prize is bragging rights.  Players will usually throw far more troops into this than could possibly be merited by actual prizes.  I definitely don't want to get into the business of "charging" anyone to enter a challenge I help set up.  But others can if they want.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:05
Originally posted by Dew Dew wrote:

one thing we may want to talk about in this thread is for "small" players who cant maintain 10's of thousands of troops having a way to participate if for no other reason then to keep their commanders leveling. 

This is one of the ways in which alliance-based tournaments can be a win for big players and small players alike.  In the Christmas Challenge and the most recent alliance tournament, even complete newbs could participate by scouting targets and keeping their eyes on the map.  Although commander stacking does not have the power it did before combat calculation changes, small players can certainly participate in reinforcing cities, siege camps and the like -- and the experience and particularly the "fun" is not necessarily proportional to the size of the army.  My 10 militia from my baby cities cry for blood with the same vigor as my largest cav army.


Posted By: Rasak
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:12
Originally posted by Dew Dew wrote:

one thing we may want to talk about in this thread is for "small" players who cant maintain 10's of thousands of troops having a way to participate if for no other reason then to keep their commanders leveling. 

Since the size of the siege party is irrelevant to "raze" a city in this setup it would be just as easy for smaller members as it would be for larger members. They may not be able to remove sieges already in progress by the bigger guys, but they might wanna instead focus on sending as many "sieges" as possible and hope that 1 or 2 make it under the bigger guys radar. Also since they are smaller their commanders will be significantly cheaper to rebuild in both time and gold cost, again adding to the effect of lots of small sieges everywhere that have to be picked off.

The bigger guys would of course go for quality and not quantity and create large siege armies that are difficult to remove so that they have an advantage, the downside to this would be if they are destroyed the army would take a more significant amount of time to rebuild.


Posted By: Cerex Flikex
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:47
Originally posted by Dew Dew wrote:

one thing we may want to talk about in this thread is for "small" players who cant maintain 10's of thousands of troops having a way to participate if for no other reason then to keep their commanders leveling. 

With this in mind, this leads me to edit my idea so that there are leagues within the tournament. One league can be the smaller player group, another for the higher level player. It would need some work to determine what levels would be in each league, but it's a start.


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/149824" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Cerex Flikex
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:49
Originally posted by Rasak Rasak wrote:

As far as rewards go each participant could be required to pay the author of the tournament a fee to enter and that fee could be used as a reward at the end. Whether that is a winner takes all or tiered payout or some other method would be up to the owner of the tournament. It would be nice if this fee were designed to cover all of the winners cost in troops lost by the end of the tourney. That way there would be a drive to win to recover your losses :D

Interesting, however I do not plan to charge an entry fee on my idea of a tournament. I suppose someone else could do something like that though.


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/149824" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Cerex Flikex
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 05:52
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I have been working on developing an inter-alliance competition for a while now.  I will contribute in-game prizes such as gold and saddles, and other players have also expressed a desire to contribute.  I envision this as a competition between relatively evenly matched alliances, although it could also be engaged in between "sides" made up of multiple alliances as long as the alliances were NAP'd/confed with other alliances on the same "side" and NOT NAP'd/confed with other alliances NOT on the same side.

The format of the competition would be as follows:

1)  The tournament objective would be to "siege" and "capture" designated cities from the other alliance.  This would be done using the fact that it is possible to siege WITHOUT the use of siege engines so that no actual damage to the city takes place.  

My idea would be that certain players from each alliance would volunteer to have their cities be "targets."  Limitations could include only players with 4 or more cities as targets and only cities over 1k population targeted, or no limitations.  The reason to limit it to only the cities of certain players is that alliances might have players on leave or inactive or who don't want to put in the time commitment, and we don't want to make this less fun for those players.

2)  One point would be awarded for each hour of siege on any target city beyond the 12-hour set-up period.

3)  Sieges that were maintained beyond a 48-hour period would result in a city being declared "razed." 50 points would be awarded to the sieging side and troops and diplos from that city could no longer be used in the competition.

4)  Scouts and spies could be used against any player or encampment (or to protect any player or encampment) of alliances participating in the competition.

5)  Assassins could be used only against encamped forces (when this feature becomes available) or the cities of the players designated as "targets."

6)  Thieves and saboteurs would not be a part of the tournament

7)  "Sieges" would be required to travel a maximum of 10 squares per hour (no sieges using swiftsteeds, lol).  This is faster than sieges would travel in practice, but in my mind would increase the fun quotient a bit by increasing the pace without making it overly difficult to reinforce other players.

8)  Alliances not involved in the competition cannot help with military or diplomatic attacks, but can contribute resources to underdogs and cheer or mock from the sidelines.

Anyway, that's the basic outlines of a challenge I think would be fun, and of course all the rules are just preliminary thoughts and subject to negotiation by participating alliances.  The goal would be to maximize fun for all.

If your alliance is interested in participating in such a tournament, please contact me by in-game mail or just post here.

This looks like a great idea for a tournament, and I hope this can be tried out sometime!


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/149824" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 06:07
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

7)  "Sieges" would be required to travel a maximum of 10 squares per hour (no sieges using swiftsteeds, lol).  This is faster than sieges would travel in practice, but in my mind would increase the fun quotient a bit by increasing the pace without making it overly difficult to reinforce other players.

The slowest units for dwarves are halbardier (6+50%=9.5) and yeoman (7+50%=10.5), the latter is already too fast.  Dwarves will need a halbardier in a participating army, if their commanders have forced march at 100%.  

Now where in the wiki does it show me how this works for other races?  Ermm 


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 06:17
Originally posted by dunnoob dunnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

7)  "Sieges" would be required to travel a maximum of 10 squares per hour (no sieges using swiftsteeds, lol).  This is faster than sieges would travel in practice, but in my mind would increase the fun quotient a bit by increasing the pace without making it overly difficult to reinforce other players.

The slowest units for dwarves are halbardier (6+50%=9.5) and yeoman (7+50%=10.5), the latter is already too fast.  Dwarves will need a halbardier in a participating army, if their commanders have forced march at 100%.  

Now where in the wiki does it show me how this works for other races?  Ermm 

Pretty much all races will have to put in one or more units to "slow down" their siege armies, but if 10 squares were too much of a burden for dwarves it could be 12 squares or whatever; this limitation would only apply to armies doing actual "sieges" and not to reinforcing armies, raiding armies or whatever.


Posted By: Rasak
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 06:21
Originally posted by dunnoob dunnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

7)  "Sieges" would be required to travel a maximum of 10 squares per hour (no sieges using swiftsteeds, lol).  This is faster than sieges would travel in practice, but in my mind would increase the fun quotient a bit by increasing the pace without making it overly difficult to reinforce other players.

The slowest units for dwarves are halbardier (6+50%=9.5) and yeoman (7+50%=10.5), the latter is already too fast.  Dwarves will need a halbardier in a participating army, if their commanders have forced march at 100%.  

Now where in the wiki does it show me how this works for other races?  Ermm 

What if instead we made it so that you have to have at least 1 non cav unit in your army instead of limiting it to 10 sq per hour. We get roughly the same results but it allows everyone to use armies and commanders already on hand.

Edit: Lol. Rill beat me to it.


Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 07:39
Originally posted by Rasak Rasak wrote:

What if instead we made it so that you have to have at least 1 non cav unit in your army instead of limiting it to 10 sq per hour.
Yeah, "not only cav" for a mock siege army could be a simpler rule.Thumbs Up 




Posted By: Garth
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 08:52
This sounds pretty cool. It also sounds fairly involved. It also precludes a player needing to be in an Alliance (is that MicroMe I hear complaining?). That being said, it's a great idea!

What's been kicking around my head lately, though, is a simpler, easier to setup and less involved activity. One that could be done between any two players any time they want. Real direct PvP, and more than just "I attack you, who wins?" Something like this:

Player A puts 100 troops on a square
Player B attacks (intention to occupy) with 75 troops
A counters with 75
... going back and forth a couple of rounds
A finishes with 50 troops, trying to take back the square

The odd numbers at beginning and end are meant to even out the general advantage troops have on offense. Other balancing factors might include rules about troop variety, such as: total troop deployment must consist of a minimum of 20% of each troop type. This would put a lot more skill and suspense into the endeavor. The whole question of Commanders is another matter, and would require some deliberation.
This sort of game would be eminently scalable; ie, small players could do troop amounts of 25 and 50, large players could do 5k and 10k (though I doubt anyone would risk that many troops at a single time just for a little sport). There are also a practically unlimited number of "stipulations" the players could agree to (no cav; cap on commander level; troops from one city only...) and multi-player teams could be set up as well.

Using Tourney squares would be great for this, as the normal NAP and Confed rules don't apply there. The only thing that might get in the way would be matches overlapping and voiding each other. Perhaps we could form a sign up sheet of sorts, or even get our wonderful Devs to set something up...



Posted By: Cerex Flikex
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 09:14
Garth, I'm not sure which one you are referring to. I assume you mean Rill's?

-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/149824" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Garth
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 09:41
Oh, right, Cerex. Eh, I'm a little foggy right now, just got in from a 400 mile drive. I was indeed referring to Rill's idea, it's a big contrast to what I've been envisioning.
What do you think? What specifics have you been toying around yourself?


Posted By: Rorgash
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 15:05
Originally posted by Magnificence Magnificence wrote:

Caution leads to death by boredom. Just start a war and quit with all the he said she said palava.

It really is great fun.

"You cant spend your whole life wrapped in cotton wool little rabbit"

I wuv you guys *snuggles*

kthxbye

Mag. 

Smile


Listen to this guy he knows what he's talking about


Posted By: GnuTri
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 18:49
There is a still a big emphasis on military in these ideas - can we throw a little more diplo action into the mix?

For example, points awarded for each type of resource stolen over a fixed period of time. This is the only thing I can think of right now as my brain is a little fried but there must be better ideas.


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 20:42
Assassins, Scouts and Spies can be used with no real lasting damage (the cost of resurrecting?) and a point system could be set up for that as well. Thieves and Sabs are probably best kept out of it.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Cerex Flikex
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 21:26
Originally posted by Garth Garth wrote:

Oh, right, Cerex. Eh, I'm a little foggy right now, just got in from a 400 mile drive. I was indeed referring to Rill's idea, it's a big contrast to what I've been envisioning.
What do you think? What specifics have you been toying around yourself?

All good, no worries. Sounds like a very long drive.
Rill's idea is AvA. And I had been trying to go with PvP. Two different approaches.

Now Rill's tournament suggestion is very nice.
And I do look forward to seeing it happen.

I was hoping for some more feedback for a more PvP style tournament. I'll be working up more details of my own on it, hopefully I can post it. 


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/149824" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Rasak
Date Posted: 14 May 2012 at 22:51
Originally posted by Cerex Flikex Cerex Flikex wrote:

I was hoping for some more feedback for a more PvP style tournament. I'll be working up more details of my own on it, hopefully I can post it. 

Easy enough... modify that last tourney idea with a last man standing sort of objective. Everyone attempts to "raze" each other's towns while attempting to defend their own. Last man standing wins. However, we would really need some sort of pvp flag that we can turn on and off that makes us attackable by even our own alliance mates. This sort of thing will prob fail if it requires that we leave our alliances.


Posted By: Magnificence
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 03:53
haha dine on pole rogash...

we lost, i'll admit that, but that wasn't the point, the point was the war was fun. People here are far to over protective when it comes to their accounts and alliances etc, whats the use in having a race car if you never drive it fast?

Just saying, its just a game kids.

I mean, we are all here to enjoy ourselves right?

Mag.


Posted By: Magnificence
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 03:56
Put it this way, we picked a fight with an alliance combo with more than 4 times our combined population...

We all gained immense enjoyment from our game play for a good two months...

And all we lost was an alliance ticker and a few towns....

This isn't RL, illy war isnt that dangerous...live a little, you might enjoy it!!

Mag


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 05:50
Originally posted by Magnificence Magnificence wrote:

haha dine on pole rogash...

we lost, i'll admit that, but that wasn't the point, the point was the war was fun. People here are far to over protective when it comes to their accounts and alliances etc, whats the use in having a race car if you never drive it fast?

Just saying, its just a game kids.

I mean, we are all here to enjoy ourselves right?

Mag.


Thanks for the perspective.

It does strike me as odd that there isn't more going on since we don't even need seat belts here.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Rasak
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 06:28
Originally posted by abstractdream abstractdream wrote:

Originally posted by Magnificence Magnificence wrote:

haha dine on pole rogash...

we lost, i'll admit that, but that wasn't the point, the point was the war was fun. People here are far to over protective when it comes to their accounts and alliances etc, whats the use in having a race car if you never drive it fast?

Just saying, its just a game kids.

I mean, we are all here to enjoy ourselves right?

Mag.


Thanks for the perspective.

It does strike me as odd that there isn't more going on since we don't even need seat belts here.

Guess you've never seen a dwarf ride a horse.


Posted By: Rasak
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 09:10
  Hope this doesn't count as double posting. It's been a long time since my last post. I've been thinking and I think the pvp flag idea is the problem. It can be really simple. Allow us a simple pvp option that makes us attackable by anyone. That one item alone would allow us enough freedom to do alot more in terms of creating player driven events. In an ideal world there would be more options:
  
  1. An option to  allow ourselves to be attacked by naped alliances. 
  2. An option to allow ourselves to be attacked by confeds
  3. An option to allow ourselves to be attacked by our own alliances. 

If we had just the one option it would open up alot of doors in terms of player driven events... if we had all these options it would allow much more refined creativity and selective objectives (ie. alliance events)

If this has been mention before, I'm sorry for stepping on your feet (feel free to mention yourself here).


Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 14:19
Originally posted by Rasak Rasak wrote:

Guess you've never seen a dwarf ride a horse.

You mean "pony" right? 


Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 14:22
Originally posted by Ander Ander wrote:

Originally posted by Rasak Rasak wrote:

Guess you've never seen a dwarf ride a horse.

You mean "pony" right? 


Runeriders are comprised of wild Dwarves from the mountain reaches who ride warhorses of astonishing size and ferocity.



Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 14:25
Originally posted by Anjire Anjire wrote:

Originally posted by Ander Ander wrote:

Originally posted by Rasak Rasak wrote:

Guess you've never seen a dwarf ride a horse.

You mean "pony" right? 


Runeriders are comprised of wild Dwarves from the mountain reaches who ride warhorses of astonishing size and ferocity.


Are there warhorses in mountain reaches? See, there is a reason why nobody(except dwarves) has ever seen a dwarf ride a horse!




Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 15:05
I thought each Runerider was riding some fierce Battle Ass! ;)


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 15:13
I came here expecting some kind of guide to beasting it at PvP...

Instead it turns out it is just a discussion of how to enable more PvP. Embarrassed


Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 15:42
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

I thought each Runerider was riding some fierce Battle Ass! ;)


No - that's just the way the normally smell.


-------------
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 15:59
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

I thought each Runerider was riding some fierce Battle Ass! ;)

Apparently Kumomoto has been watching KP put HM through his paces again.

Edited:  Or perhaps it was Anjire, since he is after all a dwarf.

Wink


Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 15 May 2012 at 22:27
Originally posted by Anjire Anjire wrote:

Originally posted by Ander Ander wrote:

Originally posted by Rasak Rasak wrote:

Guess you've never seen a dwarf ride a horse.

You mean "pony" right? 


Runeriders are comprised of wild Dwarves from the mountain reaches who ride warhorses of astonishing size and ferocity.



Three feet is a pretty astonishing size for a warhorse.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net