TW ~ Nov. 11th - Nov. 13th

grats thriv on over 1 year of TW reports

I'm excited about gladio, dynasty and spades TW. Dynasty in the second slot presents a big logistical complication, to say the least.

It's a shame that FAMINE ruins the fun for booty and Tempest. This is proof of the scavenger mentality of this server, sadly. FAMINE could've tried to repossess their land of Devoted, or even try for Spades or Dyna or just join the gank on Regenesis, if they actually were looking for the TW challenge, but since they just want the land, so they go for an easy target. No faction in this server has enough numbers to play 2 way defenses. When people attacks spades, we just wait inside our base until they sort out their other defense or until we get bored of waiting, but at least try to give them a fair chance.

Then again we have always said, a land that you can't defend is a land that you don't deserve. I hope we can defend all our lands this weekend. Good luck everyone!

Gladio Attacking Regen =O

I really tried to understand that last post.

Ds, although I agree with you that if it's about the fun and not the land, Booty should gO for tempest and not famine, I think that the scavenging needs to stop. I'd try to keep 1 land this weekend and next weekend I'd fight my last land against tempest. Or If Famine really wants it, then they'll bid on it again. Then maybe tempest will decide to let those 2 fight, and bid on Regenesis. All In all it could all work out I guess.

Still seems like the **** move to just join the gankwagon, whether it was to gank IT, Catface, Spades or any other faction. I always spoke against it, because it kills the enjoyment of the other 2. I'd have enjoyed cracking IT alone a lot more, and it sure appears as if ganking IT benefit us more than The rest of this server. Honestly, I wanted to finish IT alone as many regens did, but sadly in this server you get what you give.

i wouldnt read what jsteno says b:chuckle

Map looks like doop with 'hundreds and thousands' in it XD (you know the pretty sprinklings you put on cakes and 'stuff')

p.s also one of the reasons why cake>pie

All i can say to this, Dyna has really improved, was a great tw last night!! Can't wait to fight the rest of you

Ooolala - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Oh how I love it when people try to interpret the motivations of others.

Andres... FAMINE TW's for fun! Having land is just a bonus that means we don't have to pay to do it!!

Far from "scavenger's", FAMINE is a faction led by two bad assed Mama's and made up of phenomenal players who game for the sheer love of it.

I see according to your post and core that you belong to Spades, Booty, and Regen; however, you try to have insights about FAMINE as if you know us.



We have friends all across the server, including many in Booty. Which is one reason we chose to Bid on them - we were looking for a fun fight b:chuckle. It would have been easy to jump in on the Regen bandwagon (easy but boring), and honestly we thought Spades would have enjoyed a battle with Devoted. We're just looking to mix it up a bit and keep the game enjoyable for our faction members.

And next time you want to post a novel JS, please let me edit it first!! b:kiss

Looking forward to some fun this evening!

XOXOXOXOXOXOXO,
Lala

^ I heart me some Lala pride.

snufalufaguss wrote: »

He basically said that FAMINE can't take any lands 1v1 now, so they have to be opportunistic TWers.

didnt they 1v1 and won a while ago?

Berserker_ - Dreamweaver wrote: »

didnt they 1v1 and won a while ago?

is irrelevant now. The weakest factions left on the map may not be able to take FAMINE's crystal, but they can successfully turtle FAMINE 1v1. However, I do not know how weak IT or EQ have become since they have both lost many well geared players. EQ and FAMINE both lost to Kindrid so they may be more closely matched now.

Thanks for the battle Booty!!

We had a great time - good to see you all in TW and hope to face you again sometime.

XOXOXOXOXOXOXO,
Lala

LonelySpaced - Dreamweaver wrote: »

at least Booty got a good fight on a weekend where a number of their TWers were not available.

Is that because their main faction had a three way?

Awww no land for famine

I could try writing another novel about that, but TW was too short to even scrape 2 paragraphs of it.

I hope this answer is short enough for you dear. Don't troll a troll :P or they might start making Alts to post from, like Ds

Andres - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Awww no land for famine

I could try writing another novel about that, but TW was too short to even scrape 2 paragraphs of it.

I hope this answer is short enough for you dear. Don't troll a troll :P or they might start making Alts to post from, like Ds

Ikr? Ds is awesome and one of the greatest players I have ever seen, but he needs to stop the nonsense.

manamaoli1 wrote: »

(cross posted to General)

As it stands now, any faction (ie Regen) which has enough high-geared players to to field 60+ of them in 3 different trade wars is able to take the map.

Here is a fix for the developers to consider:

Own 0 to 2 territories: one attack on the faction's lands allowed per day, this prevents those with 2 territories from losing both at once.

Own 3 to 4 territories: 2 attacks allowed at once

Own 5 to 6: 3 attacks allowed at once

Own 7 to 8: 4 allowed at once

Own 9 to 10: 5 allowed at once

Own > 10 : 6 allowed at once.

This would keep most OP factions from ever getting even half the map.

That is what I was thinking. It makes sense to have more people available to attack a faction as they get stronger. And I still can't figure out why the wraiths just gave up. Once players take the lands I guess they are like, "OP cash shoppers are OP" and they give up. They should have some kind of wraith attacks in addition to PvP TW.

There's a few fixes that I've liked, the problem with more TWs per time slot is mostly that I cannot think of one faction that can survive Regenesis over 5 minutes, other than maybe Dynasty and Spades. So 6 TWs with 3 minutes break in between them would still mean just 1 faction gets land (the one that does defend the 5 minutes) while other 5 get stomped in under 5 minutes... Eventually they'll give up, get fed up, and join either the "big bully" or the "stronger" underdogs, which still kills the concept of small TWs.

Instead,(or maybe combined with your idea) I would expand the concept of alliances into TW. Making both factions able to invite "allied" guests into TW and bring them to the battlefield. Limit the amount of allied forces per faction to 40 (half) of the maximum TW roster allowed in instance. How would allies benefit from helping would be a problem though.

Balancing isn't about nerfing only. Yes Regen is a big faction and they might be looked at as bullies, but believe me trials in medium and hard mode are made for factions like Regen to complete. Smaller factions had a hard time completing easy mode, I can't even imagine how much it'll take them to do medium or hard mode, and this game does not revolve solely around TW.

We have to find a way of balancing TWs so that it doesn't affect the established factions, and so it also involves growing factions. I'd very much agree that you shouldn't need a land to TW. You should be able to declare a war against another faction without land and set some sort of spoil from within the banks of both factions. I also think that TW should happen on more regular basis rather than only in the weekends, that would hurt us much more than 6 TWs a week.

I think the game needs to take the concept of PvE TW and turn it into a raid-like instance where you can get the drops to build your faction base. It is unfair that you have to pay like 500(?)m for it.

The game says its anti-big factions, but faction trials and faction rewards in general are aimed to elite factions and players, I understand that small factions have a hard time getting to this points, specially when the game itself it's designed for players to leave small factions and join bigger ones consistently until you reach the "bully". But the solution isn't to kill the bully, it's to request for better content for smaller groups.