LOL. Way to overreact. There's really no comparison with AoC's sieges, which still are a failing borefest 5 months after release.

Interesting, though, to see the usual wowtrolls criticizing without the slightest idea of what happened.

It just happened that in that server some destro player nerded their way to tier 4 faster than the opposition, and managed to conquer tier 4 because there was no one opposing them. It's pretty normal, and it's a completely non-issue as soon as more people get up there.
Even because there are clear signals for when the fortresses are under attack or are about to be, meaning that, as soon as people are stably in tier 4, there will always be defenders, and anyone that ever played warhammer online knows very well how hard it is to take a defended keep.

The glitch that allowed the enemy to take the forstress easily is just a minor one that takes nothing to fix.

The city siege itself (which is a completely separate event from the fortress siege) shown no problems, and is actually very fun, so maybe people should try things instead of talking without having the slightest idea of what they're talking about.

The article itself clearly overexaggerates the problems, showing, in the end, as pretty misinformed. I'd get my facts straight before making completely skewed comparisons.