Hideout Home Changes (Power Projection)

    • Jacqora wrote:

      Diplomacy is for people scared to actually fight to keep what they have because they know they would lose in a fair fight because in reality they suck. Nobody wants fights where you easily win every time because you have unfair advantages. A true zvz guild considers a good fight to be a fight where your opponent is tough to beat because you're evenly matched but you end up coming out on top. That's a good fight. Like I said before, diplomacy is for cowards and this is a full-loot pvp game. All diplomacy does is kill the thrill of pvp in this game.
      The only reason I see you whining about these suggestions is that you're scared what it would do to your guild that apparently can't do well in a fight on it's own if you need "diplomacy". If this isn't the case, you should all about the things I've suggested, which will even the playing field and make vying for supremacy a real clash between titans rather than this stagnant, monopolized soup that the black zone has become. My suggestions would make being top guild worth it and satisfying, because you would have to bathe in the blood of your strongest foes in order to attain it.

      Also, don't equate this to real life. In real life the world is about making peace and quelling wars rather than creating them. SBI wants more fights and so do pvpers, diplomacy is not the way to go to increase conflict.
      That's YOUR opinion about "Diplomacy" but it isn't a fact. If diplomacy is for people scared to actually fight then what would that make all the countries in the world? Would you say the country you live in is scared to fight because they make good diplomatic relations? The world does not think so, and lions do not care about the opinions of sheep, new players should stay away from making suggestions that impact the well-being of the game in the "long-run" especially if they have no idea what they are talking about.
    • j0ei wrote:

      Jacqora wrote:

      Diplomacy is for people scared to actually fight to keep what they have because they know they would lose in a fair fight because in reality they suck. Nobody wants fights where you easily win every time because you have unfair advantages. A true zvz guild considers a good fight to be a fight where your opponent is tough to beat because you're evenly matched but you end up coming out on top. That's a good fight. Like I said before, diplomacy is for cowards and this is a full-loot pvp game. All diplomacy does is kill the thrill of pvp in this game.
      The only reason I see you whining about these suggestions is that you're scared what it would do to your guild that apparently can't do well in a fight on it's own if you need "diplomacy". If this isn't the case, you should all about the things I've suggested, which will even the playing field and make vying for supremacy a real clash between titans rather than this stagnant, monopolized soup that the black zone has become. My suggestions would make being top guild worth it and satisfying, because you would have to bathe in the blood of your strongest foes in order to attain it.

      Also, don't equate this to real life. In real life the world is about making peace and quelling wars rather than creating them. SBI wants more fights and so do pvpers, diplomacy is not the way to go to increase conflict.
      That's YOUR opinion about "Diplomacy" but it isn't a fact. If diplomacy is for people scared to actually fight then what would that make all the countries in the world? Would you say the country you live in is scared to fight because they make good diplomatic relations? The world does not think so, and lions do not care about the opinions of sheep, new players should stay away from making suggestions that impact the well-being of the game in the "long-run" especially if they have no idea what they are talking about.
      Again you equate this to real life which is not the same by a long shot. SBI and Albion pvpers have stated they want more conflict and diplomacy kills the pvp in this game, point blank. Obviously what I said is true about your guild being afraid to fight for what it has if you are still desperately trying to cling to handholding in Albion lmao. Looks like you are the sheep among lions, or rather a chicken because you are afraid to fight on an even playing field. XD
    • Jacqora wrote:

      Again you equate this to real life which is not the same by a long shot. SBI and Albion pvpers have stated they want more conflict and diplomacy kills the pvp in this game, point blank. Obviously what I said is true about your guild being afraid to fight for what it has if you are still desperately trying to cling to handholding in Albion lmao. Looks like you are the sheep among lions, or rather a chicken because you are afraid to fight on an even playing field. XD
      You can say what you want, but my guild fights 1v1s and has won plenty 1v1s fair and square. You are too new to the game to understand lmfao, you want an Albion online where every guild in the outlands is a solo guild - but this will never happen. People are smart, they simply won't bow to your ideals.

      My guild even fights OUTNUMBERED and wins lmfao, you're way outta your head newbie.
    • j0ei wrote:

      Jacqora wrote:

      Again you equate this to real life which is not the same by a long shot. SBI and Albion pvpers have stated they want more conflict and diplomacy kills the pvp in this game, point blank. Obviously what I said is true about your guild being afraid to fight for what it has if you are still desperately trying to cling to handholding in Albion lmao. Looks like you are the sheep among lions, or rather a chicken because you are afraid to fight on an even playing field. XD
      You can say what you want, but my guild fights 1v1s and has won plenty 1v1s fair and square. You are too new to the game to understand lmfao, you want an Albion online where every guild in the outlands is a solo guild - but this will never happen. People are smart, they simply won't bow to your ideals.
      My guild even fights OUTNUMBERED and wins lmfao, you're way outta your head newbie.
      Obviously what I'm saying makes sense to players who've been playing far longer than you, "newbie" lmao. Even Shozen, the AlbionTV coordinator agrees with what I've been saying. Call me a noob all you want when you deny what the game is actually about, pvp. I've done zvz, lived in the black zone just like every other zvzer.
    • Jacqora wrote:

      Obviously what I'm saying makes sense to players who've been playing far longer than you, "newbie" lmao. Even Shozen, the AlbionTV coordinator agrees with what I've been saying. Call me a noob all you want when you deny what the game is actually about, pvp. I've done zvz, lived in the black zone just like every other zvzer.
      I'm sorry, can you post here your character stats and show us how much "experience" you have? Very doubtful that you've "ACTUALLY" played the game long enough. Your opinions are flawed and biased, you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about and you are merely using one albion online entity's opinion regarding the whole game? Godbless and may Albion bless your soul with more PvP experience, because it certainly looks like you have too little.
    • j0ei wrote:

      Jacqora wrote:

      Obviously what I'm saying makes sense to players who've been playing far longer than you, "newbie" lmao. Even Shozen, the AlbionTV coordinator agrees with what I've been saying. Call me a noob all you want when you deny what the game is actually about, pvp. I've done zvz, lived in the black zone just like every other zvzer.
      I'm sorry, can you post here your character stats and show us how much "experience" you have? Very doubtful that you've "ACTUALLY" played the game long enough. Your opinions are flawed and biased, you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about and you are merely using one albion online entity's opinion regarding the whole game? Godbless and may Albion bless your soul with more PvP experience, because it certainly looks like you have too little.
      The same can be said about you, your opinions are flawed and biased, if you really think about it everyone's opinions are flawed and biased. And character's stats really doesn't make one's opinion better than another's, you can still learn and gain information from players who are better off stat-wise without being the best yourself. I'll post my stats all day, doesn't discredit the facts I've learned and gained from players I've fought alongside in zvzs. I talk to people in several different zvz guilds because I network, that is my special skill. I know leaders in guilds like The Oasis, PR0T0TYPE, DOJO, Wolf Warbands, Menace, Different Cloth, and so on and so forth and I plan to know more as I continue to network.

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

    • Jacqora wrote:

      The same can be said about you, your opinions are flawed and biased, if you really think about it everyone's opinions are flawed and biased. And character's stats really doesn't make one's opinion better than another's, you can still learn and gain information from players who are better off stat-wise without being the best yourself. I'll post my stats all day, doesn't discredit the facts I've learned and gained from players I've fought alongside in zvzs. I talk to people in several different zvz guilds because I network, that is my special skill. I know leaders in guilds like The Oasis, PR0T0TYPE, DOJO, Wolf Warbands, Menace, Different Cloth, and so on and so forth and I plan to know more as I continue to network.
      Not true, you cannot compare my opinions to be flawed and biased as I have ACTUAL experience, and unlike you, I do not need to ask another player about what they think about the game because I can experience it for myself and actually know what's going on and how things work. Unlike you, I am a player that adapts no matter what changes SBI has made throughout the game - both pre-queen and post-queen. A newbie using another character as a reference for his own opinion specially if said player has insufficient experience in the game has no say in how the game should be in any way shape or form.

      Lmao and can you find a guild whom you've networked with in your list that "ACTUALLY" won a season? Or is ATLEAST a guild that has been ZvZing since the beginning of Albion?

      Don't think so, goodluck on your survey though.
    • j0ei wrote:

      Jacqora wrote:

      The same can be said about you, your opinions are flawed and biased, if you really think about it everyone's opinions are flawed and biased. And character's stats really doesn't make one's opinion better than another's, you can still learn and gain information from players who are better off stat-wise without being the best yourself. I'll post my stats all day, doesn't discredit the facts I've learned and gained from players I've fought alongside in zvzs. I talk to people in several different zvz guilds because I network, that is my special skill. I know leaders in guilds like The Oasis, PR0T0TYPE, DOJO, Wolf Warbands, Menace, Different Cloth, and so on and so forth and I plan to know more as I continue to network.
      Not true, you cannot compare my opinions to be flawed and biased as I have ACTUAL experience, and unlike you, I do not need to ask another player about what they think about the game because I can experience it for myself and actually know what's going on and how things work. Unlike you, I am a player that adapts no matter what changes SBI has made throughout the game - both pre-queen and post-queen. A newbie using another character as a reference for his own opinion specially if said player has insufficient experience in the game has no say in how the game should be in any way shape or form.
      Lmao and can you find a guild whom you've networked with in your list that "ACTUALLY" won a season? Or is ATLEAST a guild that has been ZvZing since the beginning of Albion?

      Don't think so, goodluck on your survey though.
      That's your "opinion" haha see what I did there? Also if you are a player adapts to changes than why are you griping about a few suggestions to change the game hmmm? Also if you read what I wrote "carefully" you would see that I have said I've played alongside some of these guilds. Go ahead and callously dismiss me, I honestly don't care because you are not the first. Won't stop me from posting my suggestions :P Honestly I think it's funny to irritate pompous "I'm holier than thou" players like yourself.

      As an added measure, you technically are flawed and biased in your opinion as well, because your bias stems from your guild and your standpoint that diplomacy and not fighting is better for the game that is a "pvp" game. That SBI itself has stated that they want more conflict. Your opinion will continue to still be flawed and biased now matter how much "experience" you have because 1. No one is perfect hence everyone is flawed and 2. The fact you have a different standpoint that you aggressively defend due to your so-called "experience" means you are biased since you only see from your point of view and not the view of many. That is why I like to network and why it's important to use those adorable listening ears to take in new information to lessen your own bias.

      "drops mic"

      The post was edited 6 times, last by Jacqora ().

    • This big guilds problems and why they criying is simple, they get payed in real life and is their way to not have a real job outside btw, they do their best for keep this guild alliances infinite hideouts alive for pay their rents.

      Albion DEVS should cut this because that money is not going to them.
    • Jacqora wrote:

      That's your "opinion" haha see what I did there? Also if you are a player adapts to changes than why are you griping about a few suggestions to change the game hmmm? Also if you read what I wrote "carefully" you would see that I have said I've played alongside some of these guilds. Go ahead and callously dismiss me, I honestly don't care because you are not the first. Won't stop me from posting my suggestions :P Honestly I think it's funny to irritate pompous "I'm holier than thou" players like yourself.
      As an added measure, you technically are flawed and biased in your opinion as well, because your bias stems from your guild and your standpoint that diplomacy and not fighting is better for the game that is a "pvp" game. That SBI itself has stated that they want more conflict. Your opinion will continue to still be flawed and biased now matter how much "experience" you have because 1. No one is perfect hence everyone is flawed and 2. The fact you have a different standpoint that you aggressively defend due to your so-called "experience" means you are biased since you only see from your point of view and not the view of many. That is why I like to network and why it's important to use those adorable listening ears to take in new information to lessen your own bias.

      "drops mic"
      Well, let me feed you something from our alliance "SQUAD"

      When BA was in ARCH, we fight against our own allies in "SQUAD" for "content", sort of what people would see as a "friendly fight". And we do this a lot of the times with them and our other allies, but since you don't know crap about how we operate, you assume that we are scared of taking fights when in reality, we fight pretty much every single day / week of the season plus, we help each other specially when they have goals for the season such as Gold / Crystal.

      The same goes for POE, we also fought POE sometimes for "content" but that doesn't mean we have to go to war with each other for no reason? Our leaders are not as shallow as you, they know what they're doing.

      What happened in Thetford when SQUAD took over and evicted SURF? There was a lack of content as a result of evicting all enemies in thetford = this was terrible for both sides, surf lost their home, SQUAD lacked content and people to gank or kill hence, arranged fights were a thing.

      We do NOT need "CONFLICT" to fight. We can FIGHT without conflict period.

      And also, before you assume that these are just my "opinions" of the matter, these are not, these are verified facts.

      And what happened with the FE4R alliance? (MENACE was recently part of) SQUAD gave them their home over at sandmount ascent and they grew in numbers, as their numbers grew they became arrogant and launched on SQUAD.

      The result of that war has already concluded, their hideouts have been demolished, their alliance has DISBANDED as they lost the WAR.
    • @Jacqora , so before you call my opinion flawed. Make sure you have "fought" enough battles in Albion to know what you're arguing for or who you're arguing against. Because you do not have "sufficient" information on any of the matters you are tackling (networking information from a bunch of small guilds won't give you the perspective you're looking for), you do NOT know how much ZvZs these ALLIANCES have done, how much blood was shed, how many hideouts were destroyed and how many guilds were evicted because of conflict.
    • j0ei wrote:

      @Jacqora , so before you call my opinion flawed. Make sure you have "fought" enough battles in Albion to know what you're arguing for or who you're arguing against. Because you do not have "sufficient" information on any of the matters you are tackling (networking information from a bunch of small guilds won't give you the perspective you're looking for), you do NOT know how much ZvZs these ALLIANCES have done, how much blood was shed, how many hideouts were destroyed and how many guilds were evicted because of conflict.
      *slowly claps*

      So you're part of SQUAD. All I have to say to that is: BIG WHOOPDEE DOO. So to sum up that whole spiel is you think the only content there should be is between you and your buddies in the form of arranged fights. That is the most absurd and extremely self-centered idea I've ever heard. Seriously. It is. It makes me giggle.

      I've seen good alliances like yours, with amazing fighters and shotcallers take on the same alliances yours has, POE, SURF, NOPE, VENMO, etc without losing anyone or hardly losing anyone, but my point I'm trying to make is that the outlands is not an even playing field and it needs to be so that the fights aren't boring as hell. The same conflicts between the same people over and over and over. I'm sure you can agree with that. I want more content as do other zvzers than just the same old coalitions doing the rounds, fighting the same fights against the same people holding onto the same zones like a dragon coveting its hoard. Fighting where there is no guarantee of victory is where the fun is at. Outnumbering opponents by "calling the whole server" kills that fun. Having a chance at being the top guild gives new guilds the motivation to jump into outlands to give continuous new content zvzers seek. I understand a lot more than you give me credit for, I've been on both sides. I've been in badass zvz guilds that gave guilds like Blue Army a run for their money, I've also been in guilds that were small and wanted a foothold out there so they can play with the big boys. I've gotten to see both sides, which gives me a better understanding of how things work and what is making most players unsatisfied.

      Long story short. Albion does not, or should not, revolve around the same boring coalitions who've been around since the dawn of time. Point blank. If there isn't circulation, new people don't play because there is absolutely no way to win for them and therefore no reason for them to continue playing. This cuts funding for the very game you love playing because every player has the dream of winning and wants a crack at it. The devs want new people to take to the scene, not just the same ones who've been hanging around forever. You even said it yourself that it gets boring when there is no content because you get all your little buddies together and gang up on up-and-coming guilds that pose a threat to you. You give them no chance to give you real content and long and drawn out fights, and you may say it's still content but it's super brief and then it's done isn't it? And then it's back to arranged fights and boredom is it not?

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Jacqora ().

    • The outlands will continue to be dead and lacking in fresh and new content until the battlefield has been balanced. That is what I've been trying to say that you seem to continue to deny although you just blatantly admitted it gets boring because coalitions like yours continue to call upon several other alliances to help you when the going gets tough and you obliterate the only sources of content you have aside from yourselves. My suggestions will help to limit coalitions from overextending their reach, limiting their control and hold on the outlands. Because it makes it super tough for other guilds to find a foothold or get big enough so they can give you awesome battles. Because you don't go attacking the guilds that pay you rent do you? No, you don't because that's a source of income for you. That kills conflict. Ruling the outlands and making it peaceful by controlling everything is not what players want. They do not want diplomacy. They want a chance to win. They want fights, they want content. SBI wants conflict not peace. Taking those small guilds out of the outlands will cripple if not eliminate that source of taxes. Leaving it to be a clash between the strongest guilds with no unfair monetary advantages to fund endless regears. Limiting alliances to 4 guilds may not eliminate temporary alliances, but it will definitely make it tougher to fight together when you all are flagged as red and can't really see who's who in the jumbled mass of the fight. Limiting it to 1 hideout per guild will help A TON with overextending. Each alliance will only be able to place and use a max of 4 hideouts if the alliance limit is 4 guilds, leaving most of the rest of the map to fill up with new guilds that want a piece of the action.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Jacqora ().

    • Jacqora wrote:

      The outlands will continue to be dead and lacking in fresh and new content until the battlefield has been balanced. That is what I've been trying to say that you seem to continue to deny although you just blatantly admitted it gets boring because coalitions like yours continue to call upon several other alliances to help you when the going gets tough and you obliterate the only sources of content you have aside from yourselves. My suggestions will help to limit coalitions from overextending their reach, limiting their control and hold on the outlands. Because it makes it super tough for other guilds to find a foothold or get big enough so they can give you awesome battles. Because you don't go attacking the guilds that pay you rent do you? No, you don't because that's a source of income for you. That kills conflict. Ruling the outlands and making it peaceful by controlling everything is not what players want. They do not want diplomacy. They want a chance to win. They want fights, they want content. SBI wants conflict not peace. Taking those small guilds out of the outlands will cripple if not eliminate that source of taxes. Leaving it to be a clash between the strongest guilds with no unfair monetary advantages to fund endless regears. Limiting alliances to 4 guilds may not eliminate temporary alliances, but it will definitely make it tougher to fight together when you all are flagged as red and can't really see who's who in the jumbled mass of the fight. Limiting it to 1 hideout per guild will help A TON with overextending. Each alliance will only be able to place and use a max of 4 hideouts if the alliance limit is 4 guilds, leaving most of the rest of the map to fill up with new guilds that want a piece of the action.
      The problem is though, you think its self-centered but in reality, we fought for these lands. Did you? Do you really believe 1 solo guild should deserve to live in the blackzone without them fighting hard for it? That's not how the game works, and SBI listens to player feedback and despite the debuff mechanics, the hideout home-set permissions limited to players in the same alliance with the requirement of being a level 2 hideout. The coalitions will still remain, diplomacy will prevail. We fight with friendly-fire in complete consideration and people die from both sides. Besides, how do YOU know what SBI wants? You speak from the underdog perspective, not from a developer's perspective because you do NOT represent SBI.

      You cannot use Shozen as the only reference to represent SBI through his opinions regarding in-game politics. The only solution to your problems is for the rest of the playerbase to agree with you - create an alliance and band up together and fight for your OWN spot in the blackzone. Many new alliances and coalitions have sprouted and have done this for years and they have failed if they don't resort to diplomacy.
    • Unfortunately, the coalitions whom have lived in the outlands for so long have suffered from success through lack of content. You do not have sufficient data to argue that what you're suggesting will make the game alive again. Any efforts towards weakening larger groups of players won't result into the game having more players or the outlands being better.

      What needs to change is for the outlands to provide even more rewards in terms of (fame, silver, and resources) more objectives in each outland map in order to encourage players to actually leave the royal cities. It's not SBI or the coalitions' problem if the players are too scared to lose their gear, they have to man up and treat gear as consumables that they will never permanently have if they wish for pvp content.
    • I can assure you that if the royal players actually want to take a shot at the blackzone if the rewards far outweigh the risks, you will have different guilds left and right fighting for objectives. Tons of players doing open world content objectives completely signing up for the PvP that it can potentially lead to. PVE groups making their way cautiously towards the blackzone static dungeons for the insane amount of fame it can potentially offer. Gatherers everywhere due to better node respawn timers and enchantment rates...It'll all be there.
    • j0ei wrote:

      Jacqora wrote:

      The outlands will continue to be dead and lacking in fresh and new content until the battlefield has been balanced. That is what I've been trying to say that you seem to continue to deny although you just blatantly admitted it gets boring because coalitions like yours continue to call upon several other alliances to help you when the going gets tough and you obliterate the only sources of content you have aside from yourselves. My suggestions will help to limit coalitions from overextending their reach, limiting their control and hold on the outlands. Because it makes it super tough for other guilds to find a foothold or get big enough so they can give you awesome battles. Because you don't go attacking the guilds that pay you rent do you? No, you don't because that's a source of income for you. That kills conflict. Ruling the outlands and making it peaceful by controlling everything is not what players want. They do not want diplomacy. They want a chance to win. They want fights, they want content. SBI wants conflict not peace. Taking those small guilds out of the outlands will cripple if not eliminate that source of taxes. Leaving it to be a clash between the strongest guilds with no unfair monetary advantages to fund endless regears. Limiting alliances to 4 guilds may not eliminate temporary alliances, but it will definitely make it tougher to fight together when you all are flagged as red and can't really see who's who in the jumbled mass of the fight. Limiting it to 1 hideout per guild will help A TON with overextending. Each alliance will only be able to place and use a max of 4 hideouts if the alliance limit is 4 guilds, leaving most of the rest of the map to fill up with new guilds that want a piece of the action.
      The problem is though, you think its self-centered but in reality, we fought for these lands. Did you? Do you really believe 1 solo guild should deserve to live in the blackzone without them fighting hard for it? That's not how the game works, and SBI listens to player feedback and despite the debuff mechanics, the hideout home-set permissions limited to players in the same alliance with the requirement of being a level 2 hideout. The coalitions will still remain, diplomacy will prevail. We fight with friendly-fire in complete consideration and people die from both sides. Besides, how do YOU know what SBI wants? You speak from the underdog perspective, not from a developer's perspective because you do NOT represent SBI.
      You cannot use Shozen as the only reference to represent SBI through his opinions regarding in-game politics. The only solution to your problems is for the rest of the playerbase to agree with you - create an alliance and band up together and fight for your OWN spot in the blackzone. Many new alliances and coalitions have sprouted and have done this for years and they have failed if they don't resort to diplomacy.
      Definition of self centered: preoccupied with oneself and one's affairs. You only care about your guild and your buddie's guilds. That is self-centered. I get your guild may have fought to get to where you are at. But you have hit a point where no one else can do the same. The coalitions that have been around since the beginning of Albion are too powerful. Too powerful and taking the fun out of the game because no one else can join in outlands content unless they join one of those major coalitions or become a tax slave. You are driving out any competition and therefore any new pvp content the outlands could have unless SBI evens out the playing field. And no, I don't go off what Shozen said to know what SBI wants because I've read it in their own words in their posts. Which you would know if you did the same.

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

    • j0ei wrote:

      I can assure you that if the royal players actually want to take a shot at the blackzone if the rewards far outweigh the risks, you will have different guilds left and right fighting for objectives. Tons of players doing open world content objectives completely signing up for the PvP that it can potentially lead to. PVE groups making their way cautiously towards the blackzone static dungeons for the insane amount of fame it can potentially offer. Gatherers everywhere due to better node respawn timers and enchantment rates...It'll all be there.
      For solo players yes or PvE guilds, that concept works and draws them out there to gather and do PvE content but they end up as slave guilds out there and that money is then gone. For guilds who want to partake in zvz? Not really. The rewards will never outweigh the risks so long as things stay as they are where coalitions can continue doing what they have been doing. It's "easy" for you to push any competition out before they get big enough to where they are truly a threat. That's why I still argue there needs to be some changes so those large coalitions can't overextend.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Jacqora ().

    • j0ei wrote:

      Unfortunately, the coalitions whom have lived in the outlands for so long have suffered from success through lack of content. You do not have sufficient data to argue that what you're suggesting will make the game alive again. Any efforts towards weakening larger groups of players won't result into the game having more players or the outlands being better.

      What needs to change is for the outlands to provide even more rewards in terms of (fame, silver, and resources) more objectives in each outland map in order to encourage players to actually leave the royal cities. It's not SBI or the coalitions' problem if the players are too scared to lose their gear, they have to man up and treat gear as consumables that they will never permanently have if they wish for pvp content.
      I can't guarantee my suggestions won't "fix" anything, you're right on that. But, I do know if things don't change the game is going to continue to suck for the vast majority, and it will suck for your coalition as well because you will be doing the same stuff over and over. Repetition gets boring.

      As for increasing rewards for the outlands, SBI has already done that time and time again. I honestly could care less about players with gear fear, that's not what my suggestions are about. I'm talking about guilds that live for the fight and will throw themselves at the enemy till they can't regear anymore. There is not enough reward for them out there because they get easily overpowered when the fight is 15 zergs versus 4. This is what I want SBI to curb. Like I said, the coalitions that have been around forever are too powerful and need to be kept in check. There's actually a saying that too much of a good thing is a bad thing. I get wanting to stay on top, but you all need to give other guilds a chance. The way things are now are not balanced. Increasing rewards of the outlands is only going to prolong that imbalance rather than bring more zvz guilds out there. All it might do is bring more tax slaves out there and increase the imbalance rather than correct it.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Jacqora ().