Is this true?Alliance test cancelled?

  • Eltharyon wrote:

    he probably doesn't care because its their choice lol. they just want to avoid blame/backlash,
    Actually we think it makes a huge difference why and how a player quits playing with an Alliance.

    If we simply restrict the number of players in an Alliance, we create a single "super group", which will consist of the most active, combat focused players. This group will then attempt to retain as much territory as possible, likely succeeding in holding large chunks of land. Everyone else who was previously in the Alliance will have no leadership and generally fewer active players around them, effectively losing their reason to play.

    On the other hand, if we offer strong incentives for an Alliance to split into multiple groups which each hold territory and need to maintain a fighting force, players can more freely choose which of these groups they want to continue to play with, based on their friendships and playstyle preferences.

    This is why we're convinced a soft cap on alliances is a much better approach than a hard cap. In neither case will you stop former Alliance members from co-operating with each other, but in the second case you break them down into multiple more healthy groups, instead of a few "super guilds" and a lot of dropped players.
    You are so close......

    Your idea of cost per territory(I think 10 is too large) for the alliance is a good change, that along with a 300 (I think 3000 is also too large) player cap is a great change toward removing the projection of power by a few alliances.

    I could make a couple other suggestions such as making the zones more timezone centric. Anybody feel the world bosses appearing at the same time a problem?

    Attacking the mages should give more season points and give more energy. It really is not worth the reward now, and yes we tried it. The mages should only be active during the time zone. You shouldn't have to guard them 24/7.

    It would be interesting if the territory battle could be instanced when the guild defending could put an upper limit on the number of people could be included at any one time. with a minimum number of N. Could also be based on the size of the alliance for the territory).

    Your portal zones are too close to each other, the BZ is pretty much "portal gank wars". All you have to do is get beyond the portal, get on your horse simulator to your hideout, feed your hideout/gather a bit, and suicide back.

    Ask yourself what are you doing to keep players coming to the game, without getting frustrated after getting out of the yellow zones. I got some ideas for this but I don't have the time for it, and need to bash my head against the mega-alliances with my 70 member solo guild in the BZ.
  • Unfkingbelievable!

    SO what if there will be purges?
    If I am kicked from a guild cause of cap so what? I can find another guild or create new one with mates which i like to play with. Its just a GAME omg.
    New guilds/aliances will be formed and BZ is big enough that no 300 party can control much of it....
    Hell cap it at 100 .... more mess the better! It would make the GAME more FUN.

    If you dont have balls to cap alliance at least enable friendly fire... give it few days and alliances will split by themselves cause of all the drama caused by FF.
    Your current change doesnt solve anything.

    Next time think it over before you officially announce some change please.
    "Montaron, you are so aggravating! 'Tis disturbing to my demeanor!" - Xzar
  • Korn the big issue there is sbi don't understand that most small guild/alliance don't give sh.. about terry. What we want is to have hideout in bz and fair fight to defend it. All the solution you bring right now will change absolutely NOTHING for small alliance. Poe will keep bringing 400 people vs 100 ( like they did constently for the last week everyday ) to destroy everyone hide out. Small guild will still be kick outside blackzone and all their members will be disgust and stop playing the game or merge with the big power block ( because thats the only way to play in bz and have acces to albion end game content) . The big one will just split in 2 big alliance and nothing will change. You need to seriously find a solution to allow small guild to have a fair chance to fight and put ho . Same time PLEASE CAP ALLIANCE HO TOTAL , its ridiculous that poe can have like fucking 30 ho + even with all the change you talk about. Small guild/alliance care about ho not about season point and " maybe getting a avatar ring in 3 month ... '' If you really want to make serious pain to big alliance start by caping max Hideout to 3 per alliance instead of 3 per guild. Hideout are 100 x more valuable to any serious player in blackzone right now then getting ''season point and 6 carrot farm terry ''. When trying to destroy an hideout , forget about smart queue . Make hard cap t8 : 200 , 150 player for t7 zone per alliance , t6 100 , t5 50etc..

    The post was edited 7 times, last by Headquake ().

  • blappo wrote:

    Eltharyon wrote:

    Actually we think it makes a huge difference why and how a player quits playing with an Alliance.

    If we simply restrict the number of players in an Alliance, we create a single "super group", which will consist of the most active, combat focused players. This group will then attempt to retain as much territory as possible, likely succeeding in holding large chunks of land. Everyone else who was previously in the Alliance will have no leadership and generally fewer active players around them, effectively losing their reason to play.

    On the other hand, if we offer strong incentives for an Alliance to split into multiple groups which each hold territory and need to maintain a fighting force, players can more freely choose which of these groups they want to continue to play with, based on their friendships and playstyle preferences.

    This is why we're convinced a soft cap on alliances is a much better approach than a hard cap. In neither case will you stop former Alliance members from co-operating with each other, but in the second case you break them down into multiple more healthy groups, instead of a few "super guilds" and a lot of dropped players
    as a member of an alliance - I hate it, we want to be competitive so we are forced into making Fight Club Season 8. We - Black Flag - wanted to go Solo, because we didnt want to stay in EGO. The second we did we lost all content because only alliances get to play your game.
    I know 3 players in my alliance the rest are just tools for having any chance at playing the game.

    I want to play with my guild, they are all my friends and i know them all.

    Alliances owning territories is NOOOOOTTTT the problem.
    Nothing you proposed in that post remotely will help the problems.

    You MUST STOP listening to the ROUND TABLE they are lying to you telling you it will hurt casuals

    THERE ARE NO CASUALS IN THE TOP ALLIANCES - those guilds are charged per member millions of silver to stay in the alliance

    They are twisting your arm to stay in power your players voted and 100% mean our votes. At this point avoiding the test is simply a recipe for killing the game.

    as of this morning we already had 2 members announce they are leaving for a 1 month + absence from the game.

    everyone with solo guilds and alliances do not play the same game as the members of the ROUND TABLE.

    Anyone in Mega alliances doesnt know what your game is actually like. they are handed everything safety, high tier gear, and so many members that they never really fight anyone.
    Everytime a guild or small alliance leaves portal is a battle because 1941 can mass 50 people in an instant and drop your caravan.



    twitch.tv/videos/545464938?t=33m47s

    Listen in to what they say about black flag hideout, - its a role play hideout - these guys have no right to be here

    Look at how we played NA reset, trapped inside our hideout because Cluster Queue was active when there was no fight in our zone.
    - update we are still there, have no ability to play, so if you watch up north you can see us fight up there,

    We are named Fight Club Season 8 because we literally had to reach out to so many other guilds, form up some forces, and agree to have fun this season, and stop those assholes in big alliances. We Just Want To Play. We are a fight club because we literally stage fights and agree on how to push out the Megas, its just stupid. Kill the megas

    I dont care if they all quit! they are like 10k players you just announced you have 350k subs, so 10k players are ruining your game for 340k players

    AND YOU SIDE WITH THEM, REFUSING TO TEST why should we 340k keep playing your game?

    WHY either @ me or PM i need a direct answer this is absurd.
    You just said everything!

    Holy shit SBI, I can't believe your CEO posted a date and proposed a test and now you just turn around! Taxing billionaires, seriously? I feel backstabbed right now. Me(solos) and the casuals are not on the round table to hear or defend our point of view. I guess the only ones who matter are those who by gold. It is sad to see a game with such potential slowly crumble down. Nice job SBI...

    Fuck Alliances!
  • Montaron wrote:

    Unfkingbelievable!

    SO what if there will be purges?
    If I am kicked from a guild cause of cap so what? I can find another guild or create new one with mates which i like to play with. Its just a GAME omg.
    New guilds/aliances will be formed and BZ is big enough that no 300 party can control much of it....
    Hell cap it at 100 .... more mess the better! It would make the GAME more FUN.

    If you dont have balls to cap alliance at least enable friendly fire... give it few days and alliances will split by themselves cause of all the drama caused by FF.
    Your current change doesnt solve anything.

    Next time think it over before you officially announce some change please.
    This leaked out. They didnt announce it yet.
  • Dadice wrote:

    Montaron wrote:

    Unfkingbelievable!

    SO what if there will be purges?
    If I am kicked from a guild cause of cap so what? I can find another guild or create new one with mates which i like to play with. Its just a GAME omg.
    New guilds/aliances will be formed and BZ is big enough that no 300 party can control much of it....
    Hell cap it at 100 .... more mess the better! It would make the GAME more FUN.

    If you dont have balls to cap alliance at least enable friendly fire... give it few days and alliances will split by themselves cause of all the drama caused by FF.
    Your current change doesnt solve anything.

    Next time think it over before you officially announce some change please.
    This leaked out. They didnt announce it yet.
    I meant the cap change. That was offi
    "Montaron, you are so aggravating! 'Tis disturbing to my demeanor!" - Xzar
  • Korn wrote:

    The siphoned energy upkeep mentioned in the OP would be harsh. If you go significantly above 10 (or whatever soft cap we set
    Start the cap at 1 please .

    costs say 20 siphoned per day, then add a food multiplier for all buildings, hideouts, and terri
    # of terrisiphoned per dayFood multiplier
    1201
    2401.1
    3601.2
    4801.4
    51201.6
    61601.8
    72002
    82502.5
    93003


    Something similar to this would be better 10 is too many. Much like the Disarray you must be harsh to have any effect because numbers are more powerful than anything. numbers mean siphoned production, food production, zvz power, ganking power, terri control, gear, gathering, each player contributes to anything so numbers always win.

    That is why a hard cap is the simple route nothing short will be effective without it seeming punitive.
  • Eltharyon wrote:

    he probably doesn't care because its their choice lol. they just want to avoid blame/backlash,
    Actually we think it makes a huge difference why and how a player quits playing with an Alliance.

    If we simply restrict the number of players in an Alliance, we create a single "super group", which will consist of the most active, combat focused players. This group will then attempt to retain as much territory as possible, likely succeeding in holding large chunks of land. Everyone else who was previously in the Alliance will have no leadership and generally fewer active players around them, effectively losing their reason to play.

    On the other hand, if we offer strong incentives for an Alliance to split into multiple groups which each hold territory and need to maintain a fighting force, players can more freely choose which of these groups they want to continue to play with, based on their friendships and playstyle preferences.

    This is why we're convinced a soft cap on alliances is a much better approach than a hard cap. In neither case will you stop former Alliance members from co-operating with each other, but in the second case you break them down into multiple more healthy groups, instead of a few "super guilds" and a lot of dropped players.
    The single "super groups" you mention already exists as the top guilds in mega alliances. A hard cap of players in alliances only affect the alliances themselves, as some inactive players who fill up guild slots can always be invited back when they become more active. Everyone who was previously in the mega Alliance will still have leadership and can still be "allied" and working together with other guilds, they just have friendly fire in the Open World.

    Literally what you are changing is that different guilds can hit each other in the Open World and are more independent. It doesn't affect the casual players that much at all.

    EDIT: On another note, players in guilds like Blue Army don't care about some fame debuff since most of them are already maxed at what they play, so your territory debuff doesn't even affect them (only the newer players who haven't famed up their gear yet). Also, who really cares about holding mass territories nowadays? Idk why you think mega alliances care so much about territories. All they care about is their active control of the open world. This means ZvZ fights, which are not going to be affected at all by the changes, but were definitely going to be affected by an alliance cap.

    You could still fix this situation by enabling friendly fire between Alliance guilds to differentiate Guilds from Alliances. It also makes coordinating massive amounts of players from different Guilds more difficult, while still keeping whatever "casual" players you're talking about in the Alliance.

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

  • 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.
    absolute trash if you guys back out of what was already planned.
  • 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.

    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.
    Pretty much confirmed that we won't get the cap for a long time still(anyone with half a brain knows those changes won't do shit to big alliances)....

    Extremely disappointed. I hope you guys understand that trying to cater to some people in hopes of retaining the playerbase and making the game worse as a result it's not as safe of an option as you might think. There are always new games coming out who could potentially take your players away on this stale state.
  • LordZetta wrote:

    making the game worse

    How would the territory capping system make the game worse? The "worst" outcome I see is that the number of territories controlled by the big alliances (BA/1941/PoE/etc.) doesn't change at all, and SBI decides to do something more drastic.

    I do find it interesting how many people believe that capping alliances will magically balance the Outlands. I'm not a member of a big alliance, and while capping might help my guild in the short term, the long-term damage to the game isn't worth it.
  • blappo wrote:

    Korn wrote:

    The siphoned energy upkeep mentioned in the OP would be harsh. If you go significantly above 10 (or whatever soft cap we set
    Start the cap at 1 please .
    costs say 20 siphoned per day, then add a food multiplier for all buildings, hideouts, and terri
    # of terrisiphoned per dayFood multiplier
    1201
    2401.1
    3601.2
    4801.4
    51201.6
    61601.8
    72002
    82502.5
    93003


    Something similar to this would be better 10 is too many. Much like the Disarray you must be harsh to have any effect because numbers are more powerful than anything. numbers mean siphoned production, food production, zvz power, ganking power, terri control, gear, gathering, each player contributes to anything so numbers always win.

    That is why a hard cap is the simple route nothing short will be effective without it seeming punitive.
    I get where you're going with this but it doesn't really make sense if the food multiplier scales with the reward... You want the "tax" to be punitive. Not something that just offsets the reward.

    If you set the "mark" at 10 territories per alliance as "healthy" then the scaling starts there and ramps hard and exponentially from there.

    # of terrinutrition multiplier
    11
    21.1
    51.5
    102
    154
    208
    3016
    5032
    7564

    Imagine if BA had to supply 640 soups per tower right now. Or POE supply 320 per tower. And if I'm being honest, the nutrition multipler could scale even harder and faster than this tbh.

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

  • Random idea of the moment:

    Suppose we do all of this and maybe even harsher to soft-force alliances to, at the very least, split into "allied but not officially" sub-groups.

    Additionally, however, there are penalties for wandering too far away from your "Outlands home".

    Your outlands home is the most significant of whichever of these applies to you:
    • The Royal gate you last went through
    • The Outlands city that you have set as your home
    • Your guild's hideout
    • Your alliance's territory
    The idea being you are "soft-restricted" to areas of the Outlands where you have a home, investment or origin. The further you go away from this, the more penalties start to kick in. You can follow your meta-alliance's meta-zerg to the far corners of the map but you're going to be debuffed there and you're not going to get much out of it.

    You're encouraged to have a "home territory" and fight around there.

    So you can still break MegaAlliance into cooperative sub-groups but sub-group A will have a harder time aiding sub-group D because of the physical distance between them. Members of A arriving at D will be debuffed and ideally it's not worth the logistical nightmare trying to throw members around to get around the debuff.
  • I genuenly don't know what to say...wow...

    Like... you're playing sea battle, you want to hit a square but you aimed the cat that was randomly lying on the couch 6m away from the game.

    You doesn't solve any problems by making harder to hold terries, you ironically will make the life of casuals way harder, the same casuals you want to save from "the purge" as you call it. The veterans has 36 ways of generating enough silver to not get fucked by that and get good fame. You will also ironically maintain the clusterfuck gameplay that is 250vs250, still no mainstrean PC can hold this type of fights without having huge fps drops.

    The most cuckery move you could have done is to back off canceling a test about a change because "some reports" stated a purge is already on going... like cancelling it will not make all what happened Ctrl+Z man. Commit to the testing at least. That move you have done is just blatentely disrecpectfull to everyone.

    Hilarously, the hard cap suggestion you proposed would tackle every issues, yes ok it would make some guild and alliance "super groups" i get it. The casuals will be hurt by this change i get it but so the new proposition and you won't solve any issues at all.

    I'm gonna stop to even criticise any longer about this...it's legit depressing to see a turn-around this ridicule from you SBI

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

  • One day SBI you might realise that the casual players your so concerned about not upsetting wont be around in the long turn and aren't the players keeping your game active and appealing to new players. If they quit the game because they unfortunately get gkick for not being active enough then they wouldnt have been around long anyway. However, i do think that due to your games business model these are the players keeping the lights on at SBI HQ and stopping your business going under, as the casuals are your premium purchasers. So i understand why you have made the u-turn, just dont feed us crap that its about solving the large alliance issue... it isnt. You have viable options to trial with a view of solving the alliances issue which have majority community backing and you wont make the changes.

    This change will make the casuals happier for sure, it will keep them paying premium and in the short term you will all pat yourselves on the back for a job well done. In the long term your lack of fixing the real issues (which you know about but are too scared to implements i.e. alliance cap and friendly fire) is alienating your core players a lot of whom will no doubt be quitting en-mass.
  • Lofthild wrote:

    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

    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

    There I bolded, and underlined the part where you sounded like a moron so you could see it again. Wahhh I have a minor inconvenience because I choose to play solo...cater to me!
    You literally made that your argument, not me. Mega Alliances should break up, but don't pretend like you're getting ganked 24/7 and dying. Yeah portals are camped because they're PVP hotspots. If people are catching you on a swiftclaw then use a swiftclaw?

    What points were it that you wanted me to hit on? You're literally crying because you play solo and have to be careful maneuvering around the map.


    • I can't venture into red/black zones as there are gank/zerg squads everywhere
      • 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.

    • 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
      • My alliance doesn't hold any territories in the t8 solos I farm all day and don't get ganked, don't know what to tell you. Red zone dungeons GIVE YOU A MARKER ON HOW MANY FLAGGED THEY'RE ARE IN YOUR ZONE. Be more aware of your surroundings? Again as a solo player what are you doing in group dungeons? Right, you're not solo.
    • 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
      • Talk to the neighboring alliances in the area? We didn't attack multiple hideouts in lymhurst area because they had conversations with us and they now have BZ hideouts.
    • Only 3 portals per city to Outlands which in itself already promotes camping the portals
      • Yes, and it's a PVP hot spot. What you want is a PVE server it sounds like. That will happen regardless of mega alliances, people don't do gank squads in above 10 because they're going to blob and not catch any targets.
    • A few people on Swiftclaws are enough to hunt solo players like myself
      • Use a swiftclaw, panther, or direwolf
    • 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
      • Congrats, you want to be treated as an equal and be able to do all the content in a group oriented game because you want to play solo? Nah bro
    • 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
      • See above, this is how it should be.
    • Rather interesting how you ignore every other point I made to focus on that one point
    You're just being a giant baby about getting ganked a few times and acting like it was a massive blob that follows you around wherever you go. You've proven time and time again in your responses that you have little awareness of your surroundings by complaining about getting ganked in red zones.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Evas_Flarelight: Edited font size of the post's first line. ().

  • Roccandil wrote:

    LordZetta wrote:

    making the game worse
    How would the territory capping system make the game worse? The "worst" outcome I see is that the number of territories controlled by the big alliances (BA/1941/PoE/etc.) doesn't change at all, and SBI decides to do something more drastic.

    I do find it interesting how many people believe that capping alliances will magically balance the Outlands. I'm not a member of a big alliance, and while capping might help my guild in the short term, the long-term damage to the game isn't worth it.
    Worse in comparison to the original plan. Please, enlighten me, what long-term damage would we have?