Oh, what do we have here? I actually didn't even bother, until now, to answer to the trolls that tried to spin the news as a terribad thing, but since we have a pathetic excuse for a wow fanboy that goes as far as openly ASKING me to school him around, so be it.

First of all, it's pretty easy to see that you haven't the slightest idea of what Warhammer is. You don't even know the difference between a keep and a fortress. We're talking about fortresses here, so your idea of "instancing keep sieges" doesn't even apply. keep sieges never had the slightest problem.
Second, no one at mythic talked about instancing. They talked about a level-based population cap, which is a MUCH different thing. What they did was simply to weed out those MANY lowbies that went to fortress sieges just to leech xp and rps, and that took as much server resources as a level 40, while not contributing at all to the fight. I've been in several fortress sieges, and the amount of level 20 (or lower) people you see leeching during the siege is a very sizeable percentage of the total. A sizeable amount that the battle can definately do without.

Does it take away from the "massiveness" of the battle? Not one bit. The caps are still very high, and let in a number of people in that can be easily defined "massive".

It's fun how the poor sod that wrote the article accused others to be "PR monkeys", while he's the one that tries (and fails miserably, it seems, looking at the comments on his blog) to spin around the facts.
As James not very smartly quoted, he tries to point down a lack of coherence between "capping a zone" and "allowing more people to partecipate". Too bad that the idiot evidently and purposedly cut the sentence, warping it's meaning. The complete quote qould be: "allowing more people to partecipate to capital city sieges", not to fortress battles.

It's pretty evident how cutting down the lag (which favors the defenders a lot) and removing the crashes problem makes successfully attacking fortresses much more viable and doable (even for the underdog realm, numbers-wise), and increases the number of city sieges considerably, thus making them much more accessible to more people.

The conclusion is even more laughable, as he compares warhammer to age of conan. Too bad that in age of conan ALL sieges are limited to 48 vs 48 people. In Warhammer the limits are a ton less restrictive and ONLY applied to fortress sieges. All things summed up, the only result he attains with his pathetic attempt to a PR spin is making a fool of himself.

In the end, Holgar, feel free to stuff yourself in that pathetic attempt at an RvR ripoff (which in the end is just a meaningless minigame, not to mention absolutely laggy) that is lake wintergrasp, if that floats your leaky boat. If you ever feel the need to be scooled again, gimme a call.