9/10 Gunpei Yokoi Birthday Maintenance - Page 4 - Loki Classic Patch Notes - WarpPortal Community Forums

Jump to content


Photo

9/10 Gunpei Yokoi Birthday Maintenance


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#76 needmorezleep

needmorezleep

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1013 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Classic

Posted 12 September 2014 - 05:29 PM

Don't think they can do that for most things the best they can do is probably make consumable items that have a linked skill to them but it would have to be class restricted and I'm not sure if that's possible to do with consumables lol.


  • 0

#77 Hrishi

Hrishi

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 2189 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 12 September 2014 - 07:31 PM

Reducing castle numbers will not do much except force people to fight even if they don't want to, which might not be desirable. Rather, a better solution would be to have a rotating schedule of "super castles". For example, for this week Brit 4 is the target and the guild that owns it at the end gets some sort of reward. That would bring conflict onto a specific castle while not forcing it down people's throats. This is essentially creating an artificial high econ castle that people want to break, rather than relying on guilds defending and building their own econ.

 

Also 2 big guilds fighting is much less fun than 5 small guilds fighting. Eventually it gets old.


Edited by Hrishi, 12 September 2014 - 08:12 PM.

  • 0

#78 ClickyHpen

ClickyHpen

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 321 posts
  • Locationtwitch.tv/chpenn
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 12 September 2014 - 09:49 PM

is it possible to alter guilds to have pvm benefits or will they only, mechanically speaking, ever be used for siege things? by mechanically speaking, i mean skills and such, and so help me lord satan if you claim the stat skills help pvm i'll cut you

 

what i'm wondering here is if we can make pvm guilds actually benefit members beyond organization and such. bonuses to leveling with guild members on the same map or just being in a guild with some sort of weird exp bonus skill or ??? make exp bonuses not work on spotlight maps/TI maps/event maps so yeah you get some sizable bonus exp for exploring! i'm pipe dreamin' here but maybe by grouping up for pvm they'll notice the siege skills and then you siege people can toss them around until they go back to pvm or get better or whatever happens these days

 

i just notice that all of the proposed fixes seem to be helping provide a better woe environment for the present guilds or making siege better for new guilds. enticing new players AND giving them incentives to join a guild seems like a better idea, assuming it's even possible. by new players, i mean mostly returning players, and i know it's not in wild swarms, but every one of them helps!


  • 1

#79 Kailash

Kailash

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 176 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:30 AM

Reducing castle numbers will not do much except force people to fight even if they don't want to, which might not be desirable. Rather, a better solution would be to have a rotating schedule of "super castles". For example, for this week Brit 4 is the target and the guild that owns it at the end gets some sort of reward. That would bring conflict onto a specific castle while not forcing it down people's throats. This is essentially creating an artificial high econ castle that people want to break, rather than relying on guilds defending and building their own econ.

 

Also 2 big guilds fighting is much less fun than 5 small guilds fighting. Eventually it gets old.

Agree with this, would definitely add a bit more interest towards WoE. Although again, the issue would be people allying or working together to get the "super castle" and people allying up or merging to defend it.


Edited by Kailash, 13 September 2014 - 01:30 AM.

  • 0

#80 Xellie

Xellie

    Valkyrie

  • RO Fungineering
  • 18610 posts
  • Twitter:@nekoxellie
  • LocationValhalla
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Europe ban!

Posted 13 September 2014 - 02:25 AM

make WOE only supplies obtainable from BG, instead of making people hunt and pot for woe might actually bring guilds back, right now NOBODY wants to hunt or run a guild because it is to much effort and not that rewarding

 

So people can farm more. Bg is already required in addition to regular box supplies. RO is a big game, use the rest of it.

 

 

Reducing castle numbers will not do much except force people to fight even if they don't want to, which might not be desirable. Rather, a better solution would be to have a rotating schedule of "super castles". For example, for this week Brit 4 is the target and the guild that owns it at the end gets some sort of reward. That would bring conflict onto a specific castle while not forcing it down people's throats. This is essentially creating an artificial high econ castle that people want to break, rather than relying on guilds defending and building their own econ.

 

Also 2 big guilds fighting is much less fun than 5 small guilds fighting. Eventually it gets old.

 

This is not realistic for the current server situation. Multiple guilds have been defending multiple castles in WoE 1... why would you want to discourage that? Last week was ridiculous because one guild sported 40+ people vs a max of 19 in any other guild. Whilst I can't entirely assure people it won't happen again, it looks extremely unlikely.

 

Also in FE there aren't 2 big guilds. There's 1 big guild (sometimes but more often not than actually big), 1 medium-strong guild and 4 small guilds (3 of which are allied). and then there is 3 < 10 person guilds.

All the big guild would have to do is put out the bat signal and they would steamroll even the alliance. People would refuse to take part because of the imbalance and it would become the same two guilds fighting as it always does.

 

I dislike the mentality of making the strong stronger. If a guild is rolling around with 40 God items and everybody else has ....5 including 2.0s, rewarding them further by forcing the other guilds to fight them or ignore them and make them stronger is a really, really, really, really bad idea.

 

What needs to happen is that the level of commitment involved in running and managing a guild needs to be reduced. On top of that, we need a population boost preferably from people being able to move characters from renewal and being given a very basic gear set.

 

I'll say straight up, leading is sh!t. Not very many people want to contribute. There's a lot of people who want to treat RO like a MOBA and not do any prep or work in the week. Not because they don't have the time, but because guildleaders are held hostage to this mentality and will do it just to compete.

 

So once you've supplied these people who never log in outside of WoE, or help hunt the mats, then you face a WoE with 3 guilds allied who will give up/run away if they start to lose. Guilds who have refused to take part in the PVM aspect of the game to be on par with the guilds they are fighting, because they have the option to run. Look at WoE SE. You are REWARDED FOR LOSING. Yes! you can stay in one castle and defend it, wasting time as long as you can, then move to the next empty 60+ econ fort. Do this 3 times and something will have held under your alliance because WoE is over!

 

This very mentality is enough to put off those who actually put in the work to become strong, organize themselves and play. There is no reason to compete. You should not win for losing. You should not be able to run away to empty castles. In SE there are 5 guilds exactly. 3 are allied, one is 40+ people from what I can tell and then there's one more which is low-mid 20s and outnumbered by both sides.

 

Unfortunately, even if encouraging more people to step up and create extra factions happened, it won't really help because there isn't he population to support it. If the population can go up, then WoE will naturally get a boost. That and people already have set allegiances and they would find excuses to work with the same people they already do. Whilst you can continue to gain through poor performance, this will never, ever change.

 

 

I think it's really important to pay attention to what actually has been happening in WoE before making suggestions that could affect it in that kind of way. I personally think its great that guilds are actually starting to try and achieve some goals in WoE. WoE is not about gvging in 1 castle all woe (nor is it about sitting in empty ones). It has a system that produces rewards that we should not ignore through a fanciful desire to just sit around sandwiching other guilds whilst one farms god parts for weeks.

 

When one guild gets unbalanced with god items, the repercussions affect the whole server. Even if it is just psychologically. It is not something to be nurtured, it is something to be discouraged. The last thing that should be done is to cater to that one guild and make them stronger and discourage others from fighting them. I'm not saying the other guilds should be given free passes either, but you shouldn't feel obligated to fight them because not engaging them will make them stronger than the game's natural progression.

 

That's a lot of words but yeah, I don't like the idea because I feel like my guild would probably abuse it if the status of guilds remains as it is right now.


  • 0

#81 Xellie

Xellie

    Valkyrie

  • RO Fungineering
  • 18610 posts
  • Twitter:@nekoxellie
  • LocationValhalla
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Europe ban!

Posted 13 September 2014 - 02:28 AM

the tl;dr is that I don't blame guilds for just saying eff it last Saturday when Valhalla rolled around with 42 people vs everyone else with 19.

It wasn't something we intended to do btw, but any boredom inflicted upon ourselves during that WoE was our own fault.

 

Introspectively, I know that it

 

  • won't happen this week
  • we need to think carefully about doing as such in FE in the future
  • it happens because it's hard to balance 1 guild vs an alliance
  • and 1 guild vs another that pulls massive attendance one week and low the next
  • that is I think I need to talk to showstopper to avoid this in the future

 


Edited by Xellie, 13 September 2014 - 02:31 AM.

  • 0

#82 TheSputnik

TheSputnik

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 121 posts

Posted 13 September 2014 - 07:05 AM

Guild cap should be in mid 20's with 1 alliance spot. I know for a fact that people would rise up and make/lead guilds. This would bring a ton more actual competition to the table and make WoE's more interesting. 

 

It should be done, but it probably "can't" or more importantly it just flat out wont happen.

 

Edit: Of course the game was never designed for a server like "classic"! The game was made a decade ago and times have changed in 10 years. 10 years ago the most popular cellphone was the Razor phone, times change... However things like guild size camp and alliance cap on such a low population server have stayed the same. Major flaws in the game have stayed without anything done about it. If nobody bring it up then why would they ever do anything about it?

 

We need to update and bring these things up to the times to reflect the server...

 

-Guild cap

-Number of allies

-The potting system should have been redone YEARS ago

-Anti cheat programs (need to get better servers first lol)

 

ect ect

^


  • 0

#83 IcedCafeMocha

IcedCafeMocha

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • LocationEngland
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 13 September 2014 - 07:21 AM

Given most guilds in WoE rely on the *must log alt xx class* to make up numbers and to throw more bodies/fodder at the enemy I'd go with a guild cap of 20, it minimizes dual clienting so that people are actually required to play and contribute. It'd definitely bring some excitement and "skill" back into it with such smaller numbers.

 

Having to walk through an entire alliance just to reach the main goal seems too much like hard work apparently?

 

No alliances would be fun but when it boils down to it if a guild of size 15 or so cant defend against the much larger guilds because they're "picked" on for being small that's when alliances really help *shrug* The guilds that are large tend to only fight one another when they have to, they'll always pick off the weaker guilds first. Always.


  • 0

#84 Xellie

Xellie

    Valkyrie

  • RO Fungineering
  • 18610 posts
  • Twitter:@nekoxellie
  • LocationValhalla
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Europe ban!

Posted 13 September 2014 - 07:53 AM

We can talk about guildcaps until everyone is blue in the face, it doesn't change their inability to make it happen.

 

Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't tell me what my priorities are in WoE. I actually go after guilds that have given me reason (either by allying vs a 10 man guild, talking complete crap or both) or I avoid hatebreed because they outnumber my guild. Valhalla discourages dual logged players aside of a secondary linker and warper.

 

My choices are my 25 vs 50 or my 25 vs an alliance. I choose the alliance because even though they outnumber my group, I can still win. The fact that they fall into all categories above just makes it more certain. Well that and there's nobody else anyway, but even if there was.... ya know?


Edited by Xellie, 13 September 2014 - 07:54 AM.

  • 0

#85 IcedCafeMocha

IcedCafeMocha

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • LocationEngland
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 13 September 2014 - 11:35 AM

Talking crap best reason to attack a dual logged guild... yup  (dem school yard bullies so stronk). The "alliance" as you call it is much smaller than you think but who cares,  easy pickins eh~


Edited by IcedCafeMocha, 13 September 2014 - 11:37 AM.

  • 0

#86 Xellie

Xellie

    Valkyrie

  • RO Fungineering
  • 18610 posts
  • Twitter:@nekoxellie
  • LocationValhalla
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Europe ban!

Posted 13 September 2014 - 12:22 PM

The alliance outnumbers us when we run 19-23 so yeah.

 

You calling Aurora dual logged?


  • 0

#87 IcedCafeMocha

IcedCafeMocha

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 285 posts
  • LocationEngland
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 13 September 2014 - 12:45 PM

I guess that's what you want to make of what i said o_O i'm stating the alliance has less active players than you think... obviously logged players = active right. You fail to realize you have a major advantage if you truly have 0 dual logged people. Keep arguing though i'm sure it keeps you warm at night.  :p_sleep:


Edited by IcedCafeMocha, 13 September 2014 - 12:49 PM.

  • 0

#88 needmorezleep

needmorezleep

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1013 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Classic

Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:04 PM

Most dual logged characters don't constantly move or cast skills/pot unless there's something else going on tho


  • 0

#89 Xellie

Xellie

    Valkyrie

  • RO Fungineering
  • 18610 posts
  • Twitter:@nekoxellie
  • LocationValhalla
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Europe ban!

Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:06 PM

if each guild has less than 7 active players, I'm not sure why you'd bother to dual log anyway....


  • 0

#90 zerowon

zerowon

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 941 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 13 September 2014 - 01:38 PM

Had a friend from a fps team play woe today in a rival guild . said he would rather spend two hours in a Guatemala prison then woe here no competitiveness
  • 0

#91 Themes

Themes

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1405 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 13 September 2014 - 05:01 PM

Reducing castle numbers will not do much except force people to fight even if they don't want to, which might not be desirable. Rather, a better solution would be to have a rotating schedule of "super castles". For example, for this week Brit 4 is the target and the guild that owns it at the end gets some sort of reward. That would bring conflict onto a specific castle while not forcing it down people's throats. This is essentially creating an artificial high econ castle that people want to break, rather than relying on guilds defending and building their own econ.

 

Also 2 big guilds fighting is much less fun than 5 small guilds fighting. Eventually it gets old.

 

The only thing I dont like about it is that whatever happens throughout siege has no bearing on the end result, as long as you end with the one fort you "win". If a fort had some econ/defense added before siege for example, the guild holding it would have a good reason to try defend it and the ~*we dont care about econ we just want to fight*~ guilds can run and try break the fort or even just hold it so that everyone spends two hours fighting them. But if its ignored or has plenty of breaks, then there's no bonuses for anyone.

 

What we really need to do though is probably get the guild size/alliance -_- cleared up so people stop asking for it and just saying "well if you fixed those things everything would be fine!" (it wouldnt). The GMs have said that they will not be changing castle numbers, guild sizes or alliances. But it seems that a lot of people missed it or just dont understand why.


  • 0

#92 Xellie

Xellie

    Valkyrie

  • RO Fungineering
  • 18610 posts
  • Twitter:@nekoxellie
  • LocationValhalla
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Europe ban!

Posted 13 September 2014 - 05:08 PM

Remember when they put all the castles to 100 econ and guilds sat around to defend them whilst the empty ones got broken down?

 

Could be an idea maybe.

 

(did you guys know frost joke affects your own party, but not allies?)

 

I think I'm going to put this in writing so everyone can see it.

 

Econ is worthless. It does not bring about any added benefit until 70+

In FE you're better to run around fighting, practicing, getting better and then sniping as many castles as you can. That is how you get maximum reward. Pigeonholing yourself into one fort will slow down any god item creation you're planning on as you're gathering only one component at a time and it makes leaving the econ to take others more risky. Sharing god component drops will also slow you down.

Attacking econs of alliances is simply a move to slow their progress, they are enemies. Don't you forget that your ability to fight another guild is directly related to your ability to hamper their progress.

 

There's the issue. Don't tell me I'm wrong, I will post my god item list in retaliation.


Edited by Xellie, 13 September 2014 - 05:15 PM.

  • 0

#93 Melancholfy

Melancholfy

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 305 posts
  • LocationOrlando,Florida
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Classic

Posted 15 September 2014 - 03:04 AM

I enjoy woeing by myself but thats because  most of my friends left ro and i dont like taking orders if someone is aggrasive, just waiting for the right person to woo me.Also i want good fights and people that i can become friends with. 


Edited by Melancholfy, 15 September 2014 - 03:09 AM.

  • 0

#94 Xellie

Xellie

    Valkyrie

  • RO Fungineering
  • 18610 posts
  • Twitter:@nekoxellie
  • LocationValhalla
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Europe ban!

Posted 15 September 2014 - 04:58 AM

I only bite if you're a horrible sinx


  • 0

#95 AlmrOfAtlas

AlmrOfAtlas

    They pay me to post.

  • Members
  • 6533 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 15 September 2014 - 05:08 AM

I only bite if you're a horrible sinx

 

I'll have you know I am an absolutely GODAWFUL SinX <3


  • 0

#96 Melancholfy

Melancholfy

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 305 posts
  • LocationOrlando,Florida
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Classic

Posted 15 September 2014 - 05:41 AM

I only bite if you're a horrible sinx

:x I wish i wasnt a horrible sinx im not ready


  • 0

#97 Xellie

Xellie

    Valkyrie

  • RO Fungineering
  • 18610 posts
  • Twitter:@nekoxellie
  • LocationValhalla
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Europe ban!

Posted 15 September 2014 - 05:46 AM

don't be silly :p_laugh:


  • 0

#98 Melancholfy

Melancholfy

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 305 posts
  • LocationOrlando,Florida
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Classic

Posted 15 September 2014 - 07:14 AM

maybe you should train me :)


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users