edges_endgame wrote: »Changes are welcome for sure but not faction locks.
My favorite fraction (yes I have one) is 355/113.acknowledge they are playing for the other fraction..
edges_endgame wrote: »I totally disagree. Faction locks are preventing a quick response to a faction outnumbering another.
Changes are welcome for sure but not faction locks.
edges_endgame wrote: »I totally disagree. Faction locks are preventing a quick response to a faction outnumbering another.
Changes are welcome for sure but not faction locks.
I am yet to see EVEN ONCE a group switch factions to the underdog for any other reason than trolling or AP feeding.
People give this reason every time but it just something that never happens.
edges_endgame wrote: »I totally disagree. Faction locks are preventing a quick response to a faction outnumbering another.
Changes are welcome for sure but not faction locks.
I am yet to see EVEN ONCE a group switch factions to the underdog for any other reason than trolling or AP feeding.
People give this reason every time but it just something that never happens.
edges_endgame wrote: »edges_endgame wrote: »I totally disagree. Faction locks are preventing a quick response to a faction outnumbering another.
Changes are welcome for sure but not faction locks.
I am yet to see EVEN ONCE a group switch factions to the underdog for any other reason than trolling or AP feeding.
People give this reason every time but it just something that never happens.
My friends and I do that. So your statement is invalid imo.
edges_endgame wrote: »edges_endgame wrote: »I totally disagree. Faction locks are preventing a quick response to a faction outnumbering another.
Changes are welcome for sure but not faction locks.
I am yet to see EVEN ONCE a group switch factions to the underdog for any other reason than trolling or AP feeding.
People give this reason every time but it just something that never happens.
My friends and I do that. So your statement is invalid imo.
You and 4-5 friends? I'm talking about about group of 30-50.