Why The Triple Alliance Is Bs

UXs is not in an alliance with Hax and Lir anymore so we're no longer on of the strongest guild .

We don't give a damn about guild wars and territories as usual anymore .

Although we're not in an alliance , I still love to make friends with Hax and Lir members :)

 

This is the other latin alliance thing from last time all over again lol

 

I don't think I've ever heard of the guild blacklisted. Your all like ye the best guild r Has Lir and "Blacklisted" but its actually Has Lir and Uxs.

 

Hes talking about triple alliance,we are not allied with UXs.Its Hax Lir and BLA.

 

Man, I love reading these, lol.

 

Yea down with Tripple Alliances we from Valkyrie [4 Members] hate smaller aliances down with them!
no this shouldn't be against alliances but against no attack packts between the top 5 guilds [only rank whise not through territorry boost]

 

Alliances really do nothing, every single one of them is a friendship club without needing the matching tattoos. They do not "gang up" on you, they just wait for territory to be conquered by someone not in their alliance so they can take it WITHOUT violating the alliance with the other guilds.

 

The top guilds already "took" a large chunk of the highly active players so in fact he needs to work harder.

 

Talks about how bad triple alliance is notices that he is in a quad alliance

 

Those were the days, eh? Legio Praetoria FTW

 

Why not having a limited amount of territories that a guild can own? The higher the level of a guild is, the more territories they can hold at the same time. I thought of something like:

• Level 0: 10 territories
• Level 20: 15 territories
• Level 40: 20 territories
• Level 60: 25 territories

If this was implemented into the game, the smaller guilds would at least have a chance to gain some levels without being constantly attacked by a big alliance. The advantage of this idea: The big guilds could still control larger areas of the map than the smaller ones - but without owning everything.
This would also create a new goal to level up a guild besides the ability to have more space for new players.

 

1.Thats stupid,guild wouldnt get any xp,hax had like 50 territories in wynn at lvl 58 and we were getting 2% per day
2.Nice necropost.

 

n

not a necro, its only been 20 days

 

2% per day is fast and now it will be faster when they own 130 territories with all the xp multiplied by 3-4 times.

 

Preach.

 

"The enemy of your enemy is your friend" WW1 quote

 

How much experience did the smaller guilds get when HackForums had 50 territories? Probably 0% because they and their allies controlled entire map. Those guilds already have enough levels but want even more, while others don't even get anything. The fact that the territory-map looks like this is enough to prove that something is wrong with the guild-system.

The problem is that small guilds don't have as many slots for players as big guilds do. They are simply outnumbered, even if the players are as active as their counterparts in HackForums for example. They can't simply attack the big guilds because their territories will be taken back within seconds, since they have way less members.

I agree that larger guilds should have more territories - that's why I suggested the "level your guild to have more territories at the same time"-thing in the first place. However, the map shouldn't be controlled by a single alliance.

 

You can easily get guild to lvl 30 (and then you get a lot of slots) in 2 days of grinding with /Guild xp 100 if you are lvl 70+,if you are not you shouldnt even try to attack a guild because the mobs are too strong for you.

And I really like your signature,that alliance probably had 70+ territories too,and Im sure that you didnt want limited territories.

 

someone get this guy a drink his salt is turning the pacific ocean into the dead sea

 

I agree if anyone of you are that salty stop making these stupid threads and join them