Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

  • Havn't bothered with forums in ages as I was more or less done with the same old same old. First news in more than a year that has me excited and you manage to roll back in what 2 days? Fucking fuck.

    How absolutely horrible. Do you play your own game or are you full time theory crafters? I'm truely disappointed. Back to the old burned out with SBI feeling and low hopes.
  • Dadice wrote:

    Actually changes nothing. They will breat up into 3-4 alliance and still achieve the same thing. Nothings going to change with this. As they already have the workaround in their problem/solution.
    If they break up though, the net effect is the same as forcefully breaking them up via a hard cap. The key difference is that it would only be the power block who'd break up, the casual guilds and alliances can keep playing as they have been playing before.
  • Spineless ba**ards.

    Literally the ONLY big meaningful change you ever suggested making and you have been put of by the false tears from the big 4.

    The suggested patch wont make a dam bit of difference, all it will do is force the large alliances to split the territorys up between holding guilds that are still defended by the same zerg as before, its the biggest load of garbage ive ever heard.
  • Korn wrote:

    Brobacca wrote:

    I just dont get it casual players are not even in the mega alliances..... so how does it hurt them?
    Also going back on an official post? When your previous poll shows 80% of players do not want the mega alliances in the game. Why run a poll if it isn't going to be listened to.
    There are a lot of casual alliances with more than 300 members.
    The problem is that if we do a higher cap, say, 1000, the impact on the power blocks would have been close to 0. With 1.000 slots, we are pretty sure that the power blocks could have done close to perfect workarounds. So that wasn't an option, either.

    We absolutely did not want casual guilds and alliances to purge their less hardcore players. We are a bit surprised when we got more and more reports of that already happening, despite the test not even having started. So we took a step back. The real issue is with the power blocks. Can we tackle that problem without doing permanent damage to more casual players and guilds?

    We think that we can, through the steps outlined above. We also think it would be crazy not to give this a try first before doing a more drastic change which could cause permanent damage to the game. As stated above, we are not backtracking on fixing the power block issue. Not all all.

    That issue will be fixed. We just want to do this in the smartest way possible - in a way that does not hurt casual players and alliances.
    This changes nothing.

    You can make an alliance with 5 people in it and hold the territory for the actual alliance.
    Rent it out to gatherers and have GVG alts in them.

    "Our expectation would be that this causes alliances to focus on quality of territories and defense of mages over quantity at some point, potentially breaking existing large alliances into multiple strong groups which own 10-20 territories each."

    You already suggest a workaround in ur own solution to the problem. This is plain stupid and doesnt punish mega alliances in any way. This doesnt stop them from just rolling tru the map and mopping down anything.
  • Actually this change would be good only with 300 man limit. Even if people will make pacts or split Big Zerg Ally into several guilds - they would not be able to concentrate the whole profit/glory via one "main guild" , which can lead to Drama or to anything else. It will create more "Correct" in-game issues and challanges , that must be in the game for healthy, smooth and enjoyable gameplay.

    Otherwise - it is a bad idea.

    Casual players will suffer.... oh my god..can't bealive i read this. Casual players are casual players, and they will find a guild that fit their gameplay if they really want it and enjoy the game. And will do the same as they were doing before 90% of their gameplay time. "Hurting feelings of "some" people to make overall gameplay better for everyone? - Yes please, give me that"

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Equart ().

  • Korn wrote:

    Dadice wrote:

    Actually changes nothing. They will breat up into 3-4 alliance and still achieve the same thing. Nothings going to change with this. As they already have the workaround in their problem/solution.
    If they break up though, the net effect is the same as forcefully breaking them up via a hard cap. The key difference is that it would only be the power block who'd break up, the casual guilds and alliances can keep playing as they have been playing before.
    Forcefully breaking them up might turn them agains each other. Just like POE is made out of different groups from different Countries.
    Giving them a workaround while keeping hteir numbers doesnt actually break them apart.

    I feel like you misunderstand the problem here. Which is 1500 players killing off everything they touch without giving any chance to anyone else. Can they do that after theese cahnges? YES. Did anything change then? NO.
  • Korn wrote:

    Dadice wrote:

    Actually changes nothing. They will breat up into 3-4 alliance and still achieve the same thing. Nothings going to change with this. As they already have the workaround in their problem/solution.
    If they break up though, the net effect is the same as forcefully breaking them up via a hard cap. The key difference is that it would only be the power block who'd break up, the casual guilds and alliances can keep playing as they have been playing before.
    @Korn it wont break them up at all, this system can be easily gotten around by spreading territories between holding guilds and smaller guilds within the alliance, it does NOTHING to break down the large alliance's, which is the main problem. it's as if you think the community has a problem ONLY because of territory ownership, most of the smaller groups honestly couldn't give a dam about territory they just want good fights and a map that isn't owned 90% by 4 alliances. I actually cant believe what I've read.
  • ye, top guilds really gets hurt by a pve fame debuff, and since silver comes in purses the silver debuf also really hurts.
    Most players with economy play has it on alts who absolutely dont need to be in a guild, except they now could be in a alt guild getting the territories for seasonal mount.

    The logic is mindbogling.

    I love you guys, and your game - but one of you really need to play it some day.

    /Frank
  • The game is most fun in small/mid sale pvp which means 20-50 vs similar number of enemy. Balance the debuff to the point where bring 60 man zerg is stupid and ineffective, then you can decide what the soft cap for terri is.

    If you want to have a group of 40 zvzers, then you can expect a zvz rouster of 50-60 so ppl can have time to do irl stuff. then you have about 10-15 gathers/crafter to support the zvz. give some room for more casual players of 30-50 space for short-term afk/simi afk and new player in training. then you can see a real small guild only need about 150 members to function. you can have 2 strong guilds in an alliance and meet the 300 man alliance cap.

    Now you can estimate how much terri does these 300 members need in the open world. I will say 2-3 is good enough. 4-5 is pretty big, 5-10 is way too much. if your goal is to break up the big power block, then you need to break them into a lof of pieces. otherwise, new/small guilds wont stand a chance.
  • Korn wrote:

    Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members per territory above 10, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories?
    What % of anyone's income actually comes from silver pickups, I wonder? I get most of my money from selling loot drops or crafted products.

    I would think about some alternatives maybe... Bigger alliances result in:
    • Less loot from chests
    • More enemy gear breaks when you kill them so you get more trash and less gear
    • Repair bills cost more
    • You take more equipment durability damage over time and being downed does more damage
    • Focus costs go up for you
    • Enchantment costs more runes for you
    Just off the top of my head, stuff like that could really kick them where it hurts, if that's the goal.
  • Lofthild wrote:

    EiindyinScythe wrote:

    Lofthild wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Headquake wrote:

    they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small aliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday .
    Here is a breakdown of the current territory holdings per alliance taken a few days ago:
    AllianceTerritoriesMembers
    Squak912382
    1941571906
    POE552826
    Arch456295
    Valon17859
    Surf12675
    Rang12827
    Ego121946
    Lions7571
    Bee71161
    Mobs51025
    R4044661
    S84756
    Solid4493
    Sea31393
    DONT4901
    AGS3383
    3002133
    Bacon12574
    Chime1217
    Bruv149

    Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members per territory above 10, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories? Then, in terms of siphoned energy drain, the upkeep would be exponential and would very quickly become higher than what the territory actually produces each day. Siphoned energy is a hard cap resource in the game. Through that mechanism, a too large concentration of territories in a single alliance would become mathematically impossible.

    If we decide - due to being concerned about the irreversible purge of more casual players and guilds that would likely to be triggered by a 300 character cap - to adjust the test based on the above, you can be 100% certain that it will be equally impactful on large scale fights and territory holdings.

    Ultimately, the key question for us is: can we achieve the same results of limiting the power of large alliances without harming casual players and guilds as a side effect. It's definitely worth thinking about. If for whatever reason that does not work out, we can always easily follow up with the cap idea.

    We are 100% determined to address this issue once and for all, that you can be sure of, but we absolutely must do everything we can to find the solution that's best for the game.
    I'm a new solo player since ~2 weeks:
    • I can't venture into red/black zones as there are gank/zerg squads everywhere
    • PvE content above yellow zones is almost non-existent, as I have to risk dying every time I set foot into a solo dungeon - and blue dungeons in a black zone are straight suicide as the chances of getting scouted by a big guild + annihilated is way too high
    • Hideouts did sound decent on paper, but now big guilds have save zones everywhere in the black zone, and smaller guilds have close to no chance of even constructing one, even less defending it
    I ask again: how many solo gatherers/PvE/PvP players are on that round table/council, because it's quite obvious the only voice you're hearing are big alliances.
    Why do people act like there are gank and zergs on every portal and in every zone at all times? You're lying or you're incredibly unaware of your surroundings. Zergs show up as blobs on the map, deaths show up on the maps. If you're not avoiding those areas then it's your fault.I LIVE in the blackzone and farm in the blackzone and I'm not in a mega alliance and I have been ganked a handful of times. RED ZONES are worse, it shows how many gankers are in the zone. Stop saying something that happened like once to you happens every day at all hours. Screenshot and post your death log, I guarantee its not consistent with your presentation.
    • Only 3 portals per city to Outlands which in itself already promotes camping the portals
    • A few people on Swiftclaws are enough to hunt solo players like myself
    • You admit not being in a mega alliance, but in an alliance nonetheless - but I am playing solo, on my own, with neither guild nor alliance
    • I see plenty of gank quads running around, which forces me to always go the long way through obstacles on every map to minimize dying
    • Rather interesting how you ignore every other point I made to focus on that one point

    Oh my god, you're a solo and you're forced to go OUT of your way and not take a safer path? There's your problem bro, you're not aware of your surroundings.
  • Throatcutter wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Dadice wrote:

    Actually changes nothing. They will breat up into 3-4 alliance and still achieve the same thing. Nothings going to change with this. As they already have the workaround in their problem/solution.
    If they break up though, the net effect is the same as forcefully breaking them up via a hard cap. The key difference is that it would only be the power block who'd break up, the casual guilds and alliances can keep playing as they have been playing before.
    @Korn it wont break them up at all, this system can be easily gotten around by spreading territories between holding guilds and smaller guilds within the alliance, it does NOTHING to break down the large alliance's, which is the main problem. it's as if you think the community has a problem ONLY because of territory ownership, most of the smaller groups honestly couldn't give a dam about territory they just want good fights and a map that isn't owned 90% by 4 alliances. I actually cant believe what I've read.

    Generally, alliance like their season points. If you assign territories to dummy alliances, those would go to waste.

    Also, there is going to be a very strong buff to disarray that will have a significantly stronger impact on zerg fights than it has right now.

    However: There is a chance that you are right. It very well could be that the modified test we are planning won't work. Or some elements will work and other won't.

    In such a case, we can still reconsider the cap idea. We have had the large alliance issue for years, we should try to get it right without impacting more casual alliances and players who are simply not part of the problem.
  • Korn wrote:

    Throatcutter wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Dadice wrote:

    Actually changes nothing. They will breat up into 3-4 alliance and still achieve the same thing. Nothings going to change with this. As they already have the workaround in their problem/solution.
    If they break up though, the net effect is the same as forcefully breaking them up via a hard cap. The key difference is that it would only be the power block who'd break up, the casual guilds and alliances can keep playing as they have been playing before.
    @Korn it wont break them up at all, this system can be easily gotten around by spreading territories between holding guilds and smaller guilds within the alliance, it does NOTHING to break down the large alliance's, which is the main problem. it's as if you think the community has a problem ONLY because of territory ownership, most of the smaller groups honestly couldn't give a dam about territory they just want good fights and a map that isn't owned 90% by 4 alliances. I actually cant believe what I've read.
    Generally, alliance like their season points. If you assign territories to dummy alliances, those would go to waste.

    Also, there is going to be a very strong buff to disarray that will have a significantly stronger impact on zerg fights than it has right now.

    Even more important: It very well could be that the modified test we are planning won't work. Or some elements will work and other won't. In such a case, nothing stops us from taking further steps. Nothing stops us from still following up with a cap idea. The key benefit from running the modified first is that it won't have the massive negative impact on casual guilds and alliances that a 300 cap for all would have.
    How about this change + friendly fire?
  • Korn wrote:

    Headquake wrote:

    they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small aliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday .
    Here is a breakdown of the current territory holdings per alliance taken a few days ago:

    AllianceTerritoriesMembers
    Squak912382
    1941571906
    POE552826
    Arch456295
    Valon17859
    Surf12675
    Rang12827
    Ego121946
    Lions7571
    Bee71161
    Mobs51025
    R4044661
    S84756
    Solid4493
    Sea31393
    DONT4901
    AGS3383
    3002133
    Bacon12574
    Chime1217
    Bruv149


    Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members per territory above 10, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories? Then, in terms of siphoned energy drain, the upkeep would be exponential and would very quickly become higher than what the territory actually produces each day. Siphoned energy is a hard cap resource in the game. Through that mechanism, a too large concentration of territories in a single alliance would become mathematically impossible.

    If we decide - due to being concerned about the irreversible purge of more casual players and guilds that would likely to be triggered by a 300 character cap - to adjust the test based on the above, you can be 100% certain that it will be equally impactful on large scale fights and territory holdings.

    Ultimately, the key question for us is: can we achieve the same results of limiting the power of large alliances without harming casual players and guilds as a side effect. It's definitely worth thinking about. If for whatever reason that does not work out, we can always easily follow up with the cap idea.

    We are 100% determined to address this issue once and for all, that you can be sure of, but we absolutely must do everything we can to find the solution that's best for the game.
    @Korn don't you think casual players would form new guilds and find areas to live that would be more to their level of competition? I agree with earlier posts saying this will just cause a renter system to pop up outside of the tribute system. I don't really think it's healthy for the game even to have alliances like arch which is packed with thousands of new players. They'd have more fun and learn the game more quickly being in a guild focused specifically on their level of gameplay. I don't really understand how you think catering to the few members who consider themselves casual in hardcore guilds is going to be better for the game than forcibly scaling down fights. The worst part of the game right now is that people are bringing "n times 2" players to fights. I'm in a solo guild that holds terris and we're FORCED to work with neighbors to even exist right now purely because of the numbers we have to go against. If you must do this inane micro test first, please hardcore raise the debuff zergs get. Nobody enjoys those 30% debuff fights, so don't make us join alliances to survive. Poll it if you don't believe me.

    edit: final thought. terri cap limits really don't effect power projection at all. people will just move where they want to destroy hideouts/get content etc. it will still just be monging people with numbers and griefing.
  • Korn wrote:

    Throatcutter wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Dadice wrote:

    Actually changes nothing. They will breat up into 3-4 alliance and still achieve the same thing. Nothings going to change with this. As they already have the workaround in their problem/solution.
    If they break up though, the net effect is the same as forcefully breaking them up via a hard cap. The key difference is that it would only be the power block who'd break up, the casual guilds and alliances can keep playing as they have been playing before.
    @Korn it wont break them up at all, this system can be easily gotten around by spreading territories between holding guilds and smaller guilds within the alliance, it does NOTHING to break down the large alliance's, which is the main problem. it's as if you think the community has a problem ONLY because of territory ownership, most of the smaller groups honestly couldn't give a dam about territory they just want good fights and a map that isn't owned 90% by 4 alliances. I actually cant believe what I've read.
    Generally, alliance like their season points. If you assign territories to dummy alliances, those would go to waste.

    Also, there is going to be a very strong buff to disarray that will have a significantly stronger impact on zerg fights than it has right now.

    Even more important: It very well could be that the modified test we are planning won't work. Or some elements will work and other won't. In such a case, nothing stops us from taking further steps. Nothing stops us from still following up with a cap idea. The key benefit from running the modified first is that it won't have the massive negative impact on casual guilds and alliances that a 300 cap for all would have.
    "Even more important: It very well could be that the modified test we are planning won't work. Or some elements will work and other won't. In such a case, nothing stops us from taking further steps. Nothing stops us from still following up with a cap idea. The key benefit from running the modified first is that it won't have the massive negative impact on casual guilds and alliances that a 300 cap for all would have."

    So you are telling me this doesnt have any effect on the Casual players of the Mega Alliances. 80x% reductions? And you mean to tell me this will retain thoose casuals in their current MegaAlliances. When their gameprogress is slowed by 80x%? And when they leave because of that the guild will gladly accept them back as soon the alliance drops 80 of their 90x territory without any hard feeling.

    Seems like ur main concers stays the same with both options let it be a %nerf to fame and silver or a player cap. Just go tell any casual in a top4 mega to play the game with a 80% debuff for a couple of weeks. They will drop guild in 3 days. Compared to getting kicked due to cap.
  • Dadice wrote:

    You can make an alliance with 5 people in it and hold the territory for the actual alliance.

    Why go to the trouble? The big alliance won't get season points.

    Also, if castles and outposts aren't included in the cap, we're likely to see the big alliances growing to max territories (whatever that is), and then going at castles hammer and tongs for the season points.

    That will leave many territories up for grabs by smaller alliances.
  • Korn wrote:

    Brobacca wrote:

    I just dont get it casual players are not even in the mega alliances..... so how does it hurt them?
    Also going back on an official post? When your previous poll shows 80% of players do not want the mega alliances in the game. Why run a poll if it isn't going to be listened to.
    There are a lot of casual alliances with more than 300 members.
    The problem is that if we do a higher cap, say, 1000, the impact on the power blocks would have been close to 0. With 1.000 slots, we are pretty sure that the power blocks could have done close to perfect workarounds. So that wasn't an option, either.

    We absolutely did not want casual guilds and alliances to purge their less hardcore players. We are a bit surprised when we got more and more reports of that already happening, despite the test not even having started. So we took a step back. The real issue is with the power blocks. Can we tackle that problem without doing permanent damage to more casual players and guilds?

    We think that we can, through the steps outlined above. We also think it would be crazy not to give this a try first before doing a more drastic change which could cause permanent damage to the game. As stated above, we are not backtracking on fixing the power block issue. Not all all.

    That issue will be fixed. We just want to do this in the smartest way possible - in a way that does not hurt casual players and alliances.
    • Limiting alliance size to an arbitrary number won't achieve a thing: the currently big ones have all the resources to uphold the status quo of how territories are held, but now with a different structure
    • Utterly spineless and clueless that you 1. declare a change with a set date just to 2. back-paddle under the guise of "oh our precious casual players" when the majority of content is focused on group-oriented PvP activities to which a casual player won't have much access to or even desire - or did those ominous round-table alliance leaders have you at your balls with the threat of cutting casual players if a cap is introduced, or they lower their gold purchases?
    • According to you it "would be crazy to not give it a try" and yet you're totally fine to "take a step back"? Those 2 are contrary actions which don't go together
    • To me your concern with casual players sounds like a pretense, as the big alliance leader most definitely have you at your balls one way or another, because if you really were concerned about casual player, and the solo casual player, the in-game world would look a lot more different.
  • Dadice wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Throatcutter wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Dadice wrote:

    Actually changes nothing. They will breat up into 3-4 alliance and still achieve the same thing. Nothings going to change with this. As they already have the workaround in their problem/solution.
    If they break up though, the net effect is the same as forcefully breaking them up via a hard cap. The key difference is that it would only be the power block who'd break up, the casual guilds and alliances can keep playing as they have been playing before.
    @Korn it wont break them up at all, this system can be easily gotten around by spreading territories between holding guilds and smaller guilds within the alliance, it does NOTHING to break down the large alliance's, which is the main problem. it's as if you think the community has a problem ONLY because of territory ownership, most of the smaller groups honestly couldn't give a dam about territory they just want good fights and a map that isn't owned 90% by 4 alliances. I actually cant believe what I've read.
    Generally, alliance like their season points. If you assign territories to dummy alliances, those would go to waste.
    Also, there is going to be a very strong buff to disarray that will have a significantly stronger impact on zerg fights than it has right now.

    Even more important: It very well could be that the modified test we are planning won't work. Or some elements will work and other won't. In such a case, nothing stops us from taking further steps. Nothing stops us from still following up with a cap idea. The key benefit from running the modified first is that it won't have the massive negative impact on casual guilds and alliances that a 300 cap for all would have.
    "Even more important: It very well could be that the modified test we are planning won't work. Or some elements will work and other won't. In such a case, nothing stops us from taking further steps. Nothing stops us from still following up with a cap idea. The key benefit from running the modified first is that it won't have the massive negative impact on casual guilds and alliances that a 300 cap for all would have."
    So you are telling me this doesnt have any effect on the Casual players of the Mega Alliances. 80x% reductions? And you mean to tell me this will retain thoose casuals in their current MegaAlliances. When their gameprogress is slowed by 80x%? And when they leave because of that the guild will gladly accept them back as soon the alliance drops 80 of their 90x territory without any hard feeling.

    Seems like ur main concers stays the same with both options let it be a %nerf to fame and silver or a player cap. Just go tell any casual in a top4 mega to play the game with a 80% debuff for a couple of weeks. They will drop guild in 3 days. Compared to getting kicked due to cap.
    he probably doesn't care because its their choice lol. they just want to avoid blame/backlash,
  • EiindyinScythe wrote:

    Lofthild wrote:

    EiindyinScythe wrote:

    Lofthild wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    Headquake wrote:

    they can put 100 % silver debuff all serious player will not give a fuck anyway . We make money from crafting , ganking , loot in dungeon etc.. 20 % fame debuff . Run one avalonian dungeon all 7 day pouf its 10 % wich is a fucking joke in exchange of owning all the t8 -t7 farming zone of the map. This round table is ridiculous , they probably ask the same player that are disgusting all small aliance rolling 400 vs 100 everyday .
    Here is a breakdown of the current territory holdings per alliance taken a few days ago:
    AllianceTerritoriesMembers
    Squak912382
    1941571906
    POE552826
    Arch456295
    Valon17859
    Surf12675
    Rang12827
    Ego121946
    Lions7571
    Bee71161
    Mobs51025
    R4044661
    S84756
    Solid4493
    Sea31393
    DONT4901
    AGS3383
    3002133
    Bacon12574
    Chime1217
    Bruv149

    Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members per territory above 10, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories? Then, in terms of siphoned energy drain, the upkeep would be exponential and would very quickly become higher than what the territory actually produces each day. Siphoned energy is a hard cap resource in the game. Through that mechanism, a too large concentration of territories in a single alliance would become mathematically impossible.

    If we decide - due to being concerned about the irreversible purge of more casual players and guilds that would likely to be triggered by a 300 character cap - to adjust the test based on the above, you can be 100% certain that it will be equally impactful on large scale fights and territory holdings.

    Ultimately, the key question for us is: can we achieve the same results of limiting the power of large alliances without harming casual players and guilds as a side effect. It's definitely worth thinking about. If for whatever reason that does not work out, we can always easily follow up with the cap idea.

    We are 100% determined to address this issue once and for all, that you can be sure of, but we absolutely must do everything we can to find the solution that's best for the game.
    I'm a new solo player since ~2 weeks:
    • I can't venture into red/black zones as there are gank/zerg squads everywhere
    • PvE content above yellow zones is almost non-existent, as I have to risk dying every time I set foot into a solo dungeon - and blue dungeons in a black zone are straight suicide as the chances of getting scouted by a big guild + annihilated is way too high
    • Hideouts did sound decent on paper, but now big guilds have save zones everywhere in the black zone, and smaller guilds have close to no chance of even constructing one, even less defending it
    I ask again: how many solo gatherers/PvE/PvP players are on that round table/council, because it's quite obvious the only voice you're hearing are big alliances.
    Why do people act like there are gank and zergs on every portal and in every zone at all times? You're lying or you're incredibly unaware of your surroundings. Zergs show up as blobs on the map, deaths show up on the maps. If you're not avoiding those areas then it's your fault.I LIVE in the blackzone and farm in the blackzone and I'm not in a mega alliance and I have been ganked a handful of times. RED ZONES are worse, it shows how many gankers are in the zone. Stop saying something that happened like once to you happens every day at all hours. Screenshot and post your death log, I guarantee its not consistent with your presentation.
    • Only 3 portals per city to Outlands which in itself already promotes camping the portals
    • A few people on Swiftclaws are enough to hunt solo players like myself
    • You admit not being in a mega alliance, but in an alliance nonetheless - but I am playing solo, on my own, with neither guild nor alliance
    • I see plenty of gank quads running around, which forces me to always go the long way through obstacles on every map to minimize dying
    • Rather interesting how you ignore every other point I made to focus on that one point

    Oh my god, you're a solo and you're forced to go OUT of your way and not take a safer path? There's your problem bro, you're not aware of your surroundings.
    • That response proves you didn't read a single thing I wrote, thus q.e.d