Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 170.

  • Quote from Malicious: “Quote from Idebenn: “Quote from Guilefulwolf: “The higher the reputation rank the bigger deffense bonus vs players u get. Thats the reward for keeping it high. ” It does nothing in BZ though and that little bonus isn't really going to save you from getting zerged in RZ. ” It shouldn't do anything in bz. The whole point of reputation is to add a pk penalty in the red/yellow zones. ” THIS.

  • The higher the reputation rank the bigger deffense bonus vs players u get. Thats the reward for keeping it high.

  • What if loot in DGs worked alike to resources? I.E. T8 DGs dropping T6-T8 stuff, T7 dropping T5-T7 and so on.

  • Red zones r more dangerous than black zones because there r only 18 of them. The black zone is much much bigger so people is very spread everywhere. Thus gankes dont bother to go and find victims deep inside but rather to stay around the portals. The portals r far the most dangerous areas in the BZ but that is mostly for the moment u r coming back to the city because when u r joining in u can just see if there r gankers around and go back in with the protection bubble.

  • @scions Go and read my last posts and find out what is my oponion about this issue. I am for somehow limitting the hyper expansion power of a single guild/alliance. Im just pointing that the measures devs have taken will make near to zero effect and that some of us knew this was going to happen, people complaining of guilds working together under the upcoming mechanics. It is not unfair as long as players dont use any kind of cheat or abuse of any bug, it is just how it is and if devs want it to…

  • Quote from scions: “Quote from Gerrit: “Quote from scions: “Are you doing something against Disaray abuse ? Because BA use it very efficient, atm moment Disaray punish only guy that play fair, so dev maybe do something , no ? ” Define fair play. ” when you don't kick some guild of your alliance for don't have any disaray. When you don't abuse game mechnaic for killing the fun ” Big alliances r braking up as u all wated, what r u complaining now about? that former alliated guilds r still working …

  • Quote from blappo: “Quote from Guilefulwolf: “I dont like the idea of punishing people just because of being part of a big alliance since being big is not the real problem ” what? yes it is. Reguardless of territories and season points big is the problem. Territories and points are just Points of Interest nothing more. they create tension = fights The problem is size. because there is no cap the way to win is N+1 having more people means you win. No Dissarray buff will stop that either, because …

  • I dont like the idea of punishing people just because of being part of a big alliance since being big is not the real problem but the hyper expansion ability. I will put ARCH alliance as an example to explain this. Regardless of what many people may think about them, they r the perfect example of a huge alliance without a big expansion power. The last time i checked alliances´ amount of territories, ARCH had 40-45 and even if it could look as a lot u can notice it really is not that much since t…

  • One thing u must understand is Albion world is not big enough for every single guild to control at least one territory. Even if each full 300 players guild were limited to only one cluster, there would be a lot more guilds without access to any cluster because simply there r too many more guilds than available territories. Thus it will always feel like not everyone have the posibility of getting a part of the pie.

  • I agree with the increase of attack declarations costs depending on how many cluster the alliance controls but WTF with the retard idea of increasing repairing and market costs? The size of the alliances is not the problem in itself but the hyper expansion ability and the huge zergs being able to overwhelm so hard to the smaller ones. Devs r looking for a way to deal with these issues not to punish people just for being part of a big alliance.

  • @Gugusteh The main reason why SBI decided to move from 5v5 to ZvZ conquering system was to avoid a single guild/alliance being able to get so many territories by having a relatively small group of 20-25 good 5v5 players. The same is now possible to happen with good ZvZ guilds, the ability to hyper expand undisputedly. The problem is not being too good at ZvZ or too big in numbers but the ability to conquer so much without brake. This is happening because bigger alliances can mass up more players…

  • Lets wait and see what happens. I personally think it wont make a big change for current small guilds/alliances. Yes former alliated guilds will gank, dive, kill each other in small scale encounters and clusters controls will probably be fought by themselve without back up of other guilds but GMs will also sit and talk about land distribution and say "Okay, these are mine and those are yours. We dont raid your mages, outposts or castles and you dont raid ours". At the end, most clusters will be …

  • Since devs seem to not wanting to implement an IP debuff system like it should be to affect everything and stick to only damage dealt and received, here is another simple idea for debuffing that could fit what they look for. Just make the debuff % bonus equal to the amount of players zergs have over 20 men. Starting at 1% for a 21 players zerg and growing 1% more per every additional player. I.E. an 80 men zerg would get a 60% debuff bonus. This would set the optimal zergs size somewhere around …

  • Quote from Roccandil: “Quote from Guilefulwolf: “@Roccandil That would take the zvz skill away of the game and would become a matter of having more active players along the day. Basically that idea sounds like a paradise for an alliance like ARCH that even not being good at big scale fights they could have a bounch of people 24/7 to do quick hit and run attacks over and over again. Instead of this, why not change the conquering mecanic and make every cluster claimable every day at its prime time…

  • @Roccandil That would take the zvz skill away of the game and would become a matter of having more active players along the day. Basically that idea sounds like a paradise for an alliance like ARCH that even not being good at big scale fights they could have a bounch of people 24/7 to do quick hit and run attacks over and over again. Instead of this, why not change the conquering mecanic and make every cluster claimable every day at its prime time without any previus attack declaration required,…

  • Quote from UNFM: “Quote from Guilefulwolf: “Quote from Fred_the_Barbarian: “Dumb idea for a disarray buff: As your zerg size increases you start to deal friendly fire at an increasing amount of damage to allies. Bring 50 people and your siegebow is going to annoy your tank. Bring 300 and it'll deal full damage to him. Numbers are tweakable. ” That idea was already given. ” That's why my proposal was debuff of numbers in alliances1k - 10% debuff 2k - 20% debuff Debuff will be for dmg deal,cc dura…

  • Quote from Fred_the_Barbarian: “Ok, didn't see it. ” It wasnt in this thread but in the zerg debuff one. I actually think it wouldnt be a bad idea for discouraging big numbers. Something like a % of friendly fire received depending on our zergs zise.

  • Quote from Fred_the_Barbarian: “Dumb idea for a disarray buff: As your zerg size increases you start to deal friendly fire at an increasing amount of damage to allies. Bring 50 people and your siegebow is going to annoy your tank. Bring 300 and it'll deal full damage to him. Numbers are tweakable. ” That idea was already given.

  • Quote from Neef: “Quote from Guilefulwolf: “Perhaps a simpler solution would be to change the regions´ population cap from 300 to 200 or 150 players max. Regions could also have different caps depending on their tier. Like 150 max. for T5, 200 max. for T6, 250 max. for T7 and 300 max. for T8. This way smaller tier regions would be disputed by smaller forces. ” I don't think an overall cap it the way to go, If anything the cap should be alliance caps for zones, Like only 150 from the same allianc…

  • Perhaps a simpler solution for the whole problem could be to change the regions´ population cap from 300 to 200 or 150 players max. Regions could also have different caps depending on their tier. Like 150 max. for T5, 200 max. for T6, 250 max. for T7 and 300 max. for T8. This way smaller tier regions would be disputed by smaller forces.