roll back to LoS pls
Lol. I've suggested a complete roll-back more than half a year ago, I would even be a bit more specific and state: "Revert to pre-pet, pre-socketed costumes LotS". And I had a lot of discussions with the VCRs, fanboys and other players about how many things got worse, not better.
Makes me wonder why it takes some buffed guardians to see some similar suggestions.
reason to not even try to go woe if you are a new player and don't have a lot of money:
+20 refining .........................needed KP needed
+25-30 blue seedrunes .......needed
+10 green seed runes .........needed
3s costumes ........................needed KP needed
3s accessories ....................needed KP needed
+10 runes ................ ...........needed KP needed
at last 3 stars gears ............needed VIP (heavily reccomended)
a good honing ....................needed KP needed
a good set of card................needed
Optional but reccomended
An epic set of cards.......................................KP needed
+10 runes in every slot..................................KP needed
3s costumes with stats...................................KP needed
and so on
Enhanced normal runes (+10 runes) are quite ok as they only affect a single stat. Socketed costumes might be an issue, but the current +10 maximum is irrelevant to bonuses granted by other means. I would remove them rune and give the player more statpoints or to push the buff food / potions instead.
Most Himmelmez gear parts offer ~200pts to a primary stat (twice as much for the weapon).
Blue seed runes grant a higher stat bonus, but in case of STR, that still wouldn't result in more than +0.4% more damage per rune. These seeds aren't such an issue, but I would still remove all of them because they contradict the rule of being level-dependant. A +50% rune would therefore stay valid forever, no matter how much the game progresses.
Red seeds are a more problematic, mostly due to the broken Vigor formula. Fix that one or remove vigor and players would lose interest on red seeds. I would start and change the allocation of which stats get boosted. Even before AoV was introduced, I recommended the following options:
Set 1: Dodge + Critical + Haste (+ Cast Speed)
Set 2: Hit + Parry + Vigor
In this way, the runes would better oppose each other: "speed vs. expertise":
Hit vs. dodge, parry vs. crit and cast speed vs. vigor.
Green seeds on contrast are definitely inbalanced and have to be removed. A power rune is more important than a good red or blue one. And all of them bypass the stat system. F.e. an armor rune is better than additional defense as it doesn't get scaled down the higher your defense already is.
A shock rune is broken with high-frequency attacks and/or AoEs like Brandish Storm, Arrow Shower, etc. and could perma-stun in PvP (Brandish Storm = 10 chances to trigger a 10% Shock rune.
Final note on seed runes:
Most of them are especially broken because Gravity / WarpPortal was greedy and implemented rune-removers (and therefore made them tradeable). And if the gear tokens would be bound as well, those runes would e much more balanced.
Only Epic cards or are a real issue, because they can offer you vigor, armor penetration and a percentual damage bonus... and then try to you enhance a full set of Osiris cards to +10.
Get rid of these benefits and cards aren't an issue anymore.
I would prefer cards over any other form of stat bonus commented here (runes, seed runes, set bonuses, hones) to keep a reference to RO1, but I would overhaul the system completely.
Beside seeds and cards, honing is another broken thing. Although it gives gear tokens variable/random stats, but the numbers are an issue. IMO, lower values might be ok.
However the worst part is the new refinement system. Sometimes I wish I could slap that manager / developer who created this. A system that can increase the base value by more than 100% is just ridiculous. So we're not just talking about a 20% power rune here. That's a hard p2w limit unless you're lucky and WP runs an event again. But anyone who misses that... good luck with buying overprized powders / infinium instead. WP guys, instead of starting these events, simply FIX IT. It would be even better to replace the refinement by green seed runes (+1% damage per refinement level), specific hones, etc.
And I still wait for an answer, why there has to be a refinement system at all, IF everyone runs around with a +20 weapon and these weapons are a hard requirement for most of the content ingame lately?
But to sum it up: Refinement is a strict requirement no matter if we're talking about WoE or other things. Slightly less important are green seeds and a good honing, but the rest is purely optional.
There are still unmentioned things. F.e. the absense and the effect of elementals to amplify the damage... and of course the general "effectiveness" of players. If an opponent can kill you within a blink of an eye, there's no much strategy involved and all the discussion about whether a player has a +35% rune or a +50% one gets almost insignificant.
So it would be advisable to give that the highest priority .
now say me again that the lag, bugs and the too buffed guardians are the woe problems.
Since most players in WoE will have +20 gear, at least mediocre seeds & hones, the mentioned issues ARE really severe. If you can't kill the guardians efficiently with these powerful gear, how would you perform with lesser gear?
And if most classes can kill you within 3~5 seconds, how much worth is it to play WoE if you have a 3+ second server lag regularly, especially in larger group fights?
You see, it's more than just the stats. But still, some players can't stop to polish their ego here:
i get no fps issues in woe so l0l0l0l
So much QQ NOOB
LOL QQ cuz you can't take enemy's fort !
Professional players => qualified replies.
In fact, most of the original suggestions aren't that bad and don't even affect the PvP situation.
"Once again with the new guardian and emp changes, it's proving that defending has oh-so-many advantages over offense."
Assuming both sides can bring the same number of players to WoE, all with maxed out gear and with the same player "skills", it's still a castle siege not a pure PvP scenario. That's quite an easy analysis. So where's the "noob" or "QQing" part here? He then get's into more detail, comparing PvP damage vs. NPC damage, talks about choke points, etc. Everything is well done to build up a legimite chain of thoughts that leads to his suggestions. There are no words about being frustrated or that guild X can't do what guild Y does.
- Tone down the guardians in both health and damage, or even better just remove them.
Lol People wanted WoE npcs/buildings buffed up. Now we realize devs went out of hand with it and its too much xD
The question would be which sort of player asked for that buff? How significant should the changes have been? Did the original request contain other changes that would have formed a package? Was the change accepted by those who requested it?
But beside all that, it's still about three seperate changes: gates, guardians, empellium... and the original post is only about the guardians.
A simple questions would be, why there aren't any attacking "guardians" as well? Why are the guardians placed there in advance and don't have to be (temporarily) summoned or controlled? And more generally spoken - like in the original post - does WoE need any PvE elements?
- Bring back base buffs to super-charge a guild for a push on a fort/the castle and actually give them an advantage.
Why would you bring back base buffs, so a sin can one shot people even more?
There is no real comment about how the bonus would have look like.Instead, he is talking explicitely about an advantage for the attacking side. I guess that's also meant to balance out the advantages of the defending side. A speed bonus, vigor bonus, HP or damage reduction bonus would also fulfill that criteria and wouldn't make it easier to one-shot players in WoE.
- Open up more access points to the (east and west) fort so defense groups have to plan and spread their forces while offense groups can try pushing in different methods.
Generally spoken about having a "variety" in strategy. Although many see themself as strategic WoE experts, it's strange that noone commented that one. Maybe there is no other known strategy than to push by numbers... No comments about how Siege Weapons could be used to "lure" defenders out on the field just by giving some of them a higher range (and a minimum range) that would eventually destroy a fort easily if left unchecked. No words about the possibilities to include back-doors // situational entrances, etc.
IMO the forts are too small no matter what to justify multiple main entrances. Then, the "fight" would be directly clustered around the Empellium. So IMO there are two other promising options: Either force the defenders out of the choke point or introduce situational balance shifting events. See Jehoon's "stunning" "polymorph" towers, a siege weapon lock-down or a switching guardian alignment would do the trick. A short window of opportunity that would force a unique reaction and that would alter the gameplay might suffice.
- Mortar silence should not last as long as it does / there should be a limit to how many mortars a guild can place.
No comments on that part either.... strange, isn't it.
The mortars share the same issues as stun effects: Given enough activations per time, there is no real way to prevent a permanental outcome. And that issue gets amplyfied if it affects multiple targets (AoE). A few Priests f.e. could also easily perma-stun a whole group of targets. A group of 3~4 Crecentias casting the sleep debuff in a well timed sequence (given a certain amount of vigor) could lock down up to 10 targets indefinitely.
An easy way of course is to ensure that you won't get affected in the first place. And there are several ways to do that, including a temporary immunity towards silence, making the effect "dodgeable" by adding a hint where it will hit next, etc. or simply introducing an option to destroy the mortars before they can stun you (f.e. by weapons with a higher range, a temporary "lockdown", etc.)
There are also a few ways to reduce the impact of the mortars. Restricting the number of mortars per guild might be a way, but players would bypass that via "fake" guilds & alliances. So we need other ways is to limit the number of activations within a certain period. Reducing the attack speed of mortars, the duration of the silence effect, as well as lowering the chances that the silence effect triggers are all viable options. You could reduce the area of effect, etc. etc.
But first, the developers have to decide how WoE should lbe played. If it should be a siege, then the game has to prevent that too many players join the defending side. Otherwise the game is decided before it started. One way would be to enforce that every guild only opposes the castle holder and are neutral against the rest. Then of course, the defender ought to get bonuses to ensure that they aren't crushed easily either.
If it ought to be a free-for-all multiplayer battle (like in Game of Thrones board game (or risk)), then there is no reason to buff one specific side only.