Why Alliance Win All AV's - In One Picture.

Discussion forum related to PVP Server.

Re: Why Alliance Win All AV's - In One Picture.

by Kaytie » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:45 pm

Don't forget this juicy tactic!
Alliance can spawn whole forests!

Image
Kaytie
Grunt
Grunt
 

Re: Why Alliance Win All AV's - In One Picture.

by Sethzer » Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:27 am

Yeah, I wasn't in mid when it happened but someone found the recipe to increase vegetation in AV.

Still lost that game tho since they were only wandering in mid after a quick visit to Frostwolf GY.

Image
User avatar
Sethzer
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 

Re: Why Alliance Win All AV's - In One Picture.

by Hackwork » Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:51 am

Was just in a game where some alliance warlock bugged out the wolf riders by exploiting some safe spot inside a bunker. Tried taking screenshots, but they didn't go through for some reason.
User avatar
Hackwork
Grunt
Grunt
 

Re: Why Alliance Win All AV's - In One Picture.

by Drain » Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:15 am

Ana wrote:
Drain wrote:AV has always been rigged for the Alliance.


Uh...
- put 5-10 people at IBT choke
- eat the initial ally zerg
- kill Vann before they touch RH
- win

Alliance doesn't defend the bridge. They're zerging, remember?
So much for terrain favoring one faction when nobody uses the advantage... you guys lose because Alliance has faster mounts, or something. Fix it. Duh.


Defending at chokepoint is what I already suggest myself for Horde. But to be fair, I didn't post that in this thread.
As for them defending, smart Alliance will defend. While they do have offense much easier than us, it's still a risk to fully focus on it when a good 5-10 can stall base caps for an incredibly long time at aid station. It's always a risk to go full offense with no defense. It's just that it's much less a risk for Alliance to do it, and pretty damn stupid for Horde to do it. Alliance don't crutch on defense as much, where as Horde rarely wins without it.
R I P: Untoten(29d, 12h), Schuss(54d, 10h), Bluten(27d, 8h), Angst(9d, 11h), Zauber(23d, 5h)
Retired from the Nost forums. Moved to Elysium. https://forum.elysium-project.org/index ... user=45003
User avatar
Drain
Stone Guard
Stone Guard
 

Re: Why Alliance Win All AV's - In One Picture.

by Kaytie » Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:48 am

Haha Sethzer! ^_^
The forest I had steam rolled *everything* ;_;
Kaytie
Grunt
Grunt
 

Re: Why Alliance Win All AV's - In One Picture.

by Viper » Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:03 am

This issue should be fixed in 10 hours.
User avatar
Viper
Administrator
Administrator
 

Re: Why Alliance Win All AV's - In One Picture.

by keharia » Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:57 am

Admin actually posted instead of deleting/locking the thread?

Are we on opposite land?
keharia
Private
Private
 

Re: Why Alliance Win All AV's - In One Picture.

by Lompcent » Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:04 am

i call bullshit, because as an ally trust me, your archers do in fact shred plenty of allies.
Lompcent
Senior Sergeant
Senior Sergeant
 

Re: Why Alliance Win All AV's - In One Picture.

by vytiokas » Fri Jul 24, 2015 10:57 am

Another topic from horde kid so shut up noobs horde whitout premade you lose all bg's ... its not for you player vs player go play only PVE.
vytiokas
Senior Sergeant
Senior Sergeant
 

Re: Why Alliance Win All AV's - In One Picture.

by Lompcent » Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:07 am

Sethzer wrote:Yeah, I wasn't in mid when it happened but someone found the recipe to increase vegetation in AV.

Still lost that game tho since they were only wandering in mid after a quick visit to Frostwolf GY.

Image



i get the point having 4 due to an bug is op. but you msut realize alliance summons also are bugged so hard they just fail to move when they reach TP. and even when we had 4, i noticed the icelord does more dmg than ivus maybe even 4 ivuses together. so 4 trees arent the only problem.


instead i would like it they fixed the TP bug so ramriders and ivus actually become useful for allies and they would be able to push south.
Lompcent
Senior Sergeant
Senior Sergeant
 

PreviousNext

Return to PVP Server Specific discussion