RMS Home | Guide Writing | Test Server | New Servers | Latest Reviews

Author Topic: fake reviews AND info <_<  (Read 712 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kendrion

fake reviews AND info <_<
« on: Oct 07, 2009, 04:51 am »
The server is DreamRO... mid rate 100/100/75, other than 2 obviously fake reviews with 100% rating (the reviewers don't tell pretty much anything about their experience on the server, so I guess they are against the rules), the server language is advertised as english, but all of the staff and the community are italian, with VERY few exceptions - take a look at the message board, sometimes the news aren't even written in english... if you are italian, you have a server with an italian community and you don't care about non-italian people, why advertise your server as an english one then?  ???
They also keep on promoting their balance, when they're using the 3rd classes/skille with the pre-renewal mechanics (wich everyone that tried it can tell, it messes everything up: there's warlocks soloing ifrit, valk and/or beel) and one of the GMs even dared to deny what I said in my review about the un-balance, when in PvP room there's only cross slash spamming guillotines that don't even need EDP to one-shot full geared players...
Lastly, they keep on "granting" a 24/7 uptime, but it's been almost a month since the server keeps on going down for days... you can check their board as proof.

An overall rating of 83 thanks to a couple of (probably self-done) 100% ratings is not acceptable on a server like this one. Thanks in advance!
« Last Edit: Oct 07, 2009, 05:15 am by Kendrion »

RateMyServer Ragnarok Community

fake reviews AND info <_<
« on: Oct 07, 2009, 04:51 am »

Offline yC

Re: fake reviews AND info <_<
« Reply #1 on: Oct 07, 2009, 10:04 pm »
If you have nothing to support your claim we can't take action.

A check on the reviews doesn't make me see anything is 'obviously fake'.  If you are going to share your experience of the server in details, you can use the server review section instead.