If you really want to take a larger guild out and you don't have the numbers to do it yourself that's fine, just team up with some other guild(s) and i'm sure you can make it an even fight that way of not tilt the odds in your favor and beat them.
To all the retarded people saying "recruit more"You all seem to be in same guild which recruited any person active pk wise
What tws do u see latelyHave u seen any challenging tw these daysAll u can see is how artifex can outnumber any guild in tw (80)Warning being 2nd with 50-60 then guilds with less than 40
No guild can fight against eachother in these conditions and get a tw longer than 15minutes
For the past months(quite a few) the tws have been boring
What does it actually hurt u to not outnumber enemy? I actually had fun in tw when it was taking more than a baselock 60vs 40(warning vs ducks) "Go recruit more"
Don't think you can talk about this ,considering you recruit everything that moves aswell , insta invite any ex-artifex, allied 4 guilds , list goes on. Only difference is we invite people who are clearly better then the ones you find on WC.Good joke, you trully implying warning had 50-60 people when other warning people admited to have over 70.I'm sure you also beat 40 Ducks, 30 ArchEnemy and 30 HellRazor within 15mins , with 50 people all split. Damm Warning players must be amazing LMAO dont make me laugh.We have had several 80vs80 TW's vs your guild which ended in 9minutes. Due to honestly stupid lack of strategy and ending on a complete faceroll. 40vs40 Won't change anything, and if you really wanna prove this we can manage a GvG with 4 PT's on each side and see how fast it ends.You probably mean Warning TW's. There was plenty good smaller scale TW's in fact. Hard to get a better TW going with Warning when you guys ruin all your chances of improving constantly by suddenly not showing for a month , and losing 20 + people , which end up beeing replaced by randoms of WC that you guys found out.No one really needs to outnumber Warning to win , you were already offered a GvG consisting of 4 actual PT's , if you wanna do that with a GM hosting , i'm all up for it and prove my point.You shouldn't make it an Artifex vs Warning thread, specially when Warning outnumbers every other guild every single time, and once they lose against Artifex they pull the "omg outnumbered" card. Funny stuff dude.
Youre right, 40v40 in main map is the same as 40v40 TW...Don't make it a warning v arti thread yet you challenge them for a 40v40 you sir are absolutely not clueless
The problem with this is the bigger guilds, if they do have a multi-attack on the same day, either go to one or the other (most cases they just go to one of the active guilds they know they can beat, if the other is still going, then they do that one). In a case where a bigger guild does go to multiple TW's, they will just send enough into one battle to hold the opponent back while the majority of the rest are dominating the other. It only takes a few minutes to beat a guild you heavily outnumber in TW, so you have plenty of time to get into the second TW and massacre in there too. Thus, it deems worthless.
So many essays...and here I can barely write two sentences without proper grammar... Tbh the idea of a lower tw limit isn't bad. But I believe it should be based on the land level. For exampleLevel 1 which are major cities should have 80Level 2 which are idk should have 40-60 And level 3 should have 40.Limiting the lands themselves with a limit is more tedious but if you think about it, the TWs that people go all out on would be a city one, was in a tw only guild last year, they pretty much did that. Went full out ham during the level one lands but easiest up on the higher leveled ones.
