1165 replies to this topic

[Alaska]

Thread will remain open during the night. But as a reminder please keep it Civil, Clean, and On Topic. Tomorrow Morning Oda will will be reviewing the entire thread. - Campitor

 

Despite my better judgement, I'd like to open up a discussion about the current state of Renewal WoE 1 and 2. For the past while, particularly the past few months, I've been hearing complaints from friends and general players alike about WoE - it isn't really fun anymore, but no one wants to start a topic about it.

 

To start, I suppose I'll list some things I dislike:

• Competition is stale - for the most part, it's generally the same guilds that consistently get castles/compete, and there aren't many new guilds being created because of how hard it is to keep up with the bigger ones.
• Cheating - this one has been brought up time and time again, it's almost redundant. Cheaters need to be more severely punished, or punished at all for that matter.
• Alliances - I personally think alliances need to be more limited than they are currently because of how little the number of people  WoEing is. It's kind of silly that there are only really 2 - and correct me if I'm wrong - alliances right now.
• Guild sizes - "Another concern I often hear from people is the size of the guilds, 56 members in 1 guild is too much, and there's only 1-2 guilds who actually do have a full 56 person attendance (and that's not always either) whereas all other guilds have about 20~30 on average during WoE." - Akreis
• Castle loots - "One of the biggest problems in WoE is Castle Drops. Currently there is no way for a new WoE Guild to form since they will die out within a week of taking a castle. Currently the only way to have supplies for WoE is to already have the money. If a new Guild were to take a castle they would quickly learn that the cost to take a Castle far outways the rewards provided by a Castle. All the Guilds currently competing in WoE are self funded." - Riakuta
• God Items/MVP Cards - There's an abundance of them on the server, making it more difficult for new competition to come forth because they can't compete in terms of sheer power. - (sorry, couldn't find the original post that brought this point up)
• God pieces - Reinstate the disabled castles, and assign god pieces to each WoE fort again. Randomized god pieces has taken absolutely ALL the strategy out of which fort a guild would be going after. No longer does a guild work their hardest to keep a fort that has a piece they need. If they're able to defend it and keep the number of breaks down and keep the econ as high as they can, that's great. And when the piece/s they need drop, burn it. It's such a fundamental aspect of what WoE used to be and what WoE isn't anymore. A lot of the problems that we have with huge alliances and unfair fights would change if the huge alliances had castles that they NEEDED to be in for their strategy of which gods they needed to make, which would balance in the aspect that the bigger guilds would need to keep defense there as well to fend off attacks as well as rolling through whatever castle they decide to roll through for fights. - Jaelynn

Alternative suggestions:

Spoiler

• Rather than limiting size of guild and alliances we can limit the size of castle, that will make fixed number of people can enter woe castle, equal from both parties aka (attacking 40 vs defending 40).  So like if 40/40 ( 40 attackers / 40 defenders) enters castle then that  castles woe starts.  Here problem will be selecting who can go in. Only guild leaders can register for particular castle. Or for fair chances we can set  following - guild or party doing fastest instace ( smaller ones like Faceworm) can register 1st according to their timer. For multiple parties can we can keep options like parties finishing in 1st 10 timers of same guild or things like that. Once a guild owns that castle other guilds will try to take over it during next part. - lylylight

 

• 2. We can introduce timed entry instance to access to WoE maps. Like, if we say woe is 2 hours, it should begin with instance costing around 30 mins or so.  So parties doing fastest instance can access woe map earlier than other ( this will promote lots of team play /party work in the guild on the both sides aka Bigger / smaller alliance).  If GMs/ WP is not having time to make these instance - we can take 2 instances ( ET or Malangdo hard mode) as pre -req to entry WOE map every siege woe1/2 we do ( this will promote team play and important will for sure increase woe population as guild will need more members, better organization and woe dead / pvm portion of server will also join cz of ZENY they can make and also have FUN alongside. - lylylight

 

• 3. We can turn whole Castle Realm map into PVP and when u enter woe realm ur party is spawned at random position.  So u have to reach guild castle  and secure it on ur own or allying and teaming up with random people u can find. This helps in dispersing ppl with Big allaince and small guild ppl can have opportunity for the FAIR game play and tactics. Turing Realm map into PvP will also prevent zerg rushes from particular guild and zerg defenses from particular guild cz it wnt be easy to team and group in a map, where ur spawning randomly. Basically when things dnt work …. Throw in RANDOM summation in it. - lylylight

 

• 4. Finally, We can turn Guardian Stones / Barricades/ Emperium into MVP actually ( i mean turn emperium into Emprium MVP who will attack only attacking guild and he will not attack defending guild). So defending party can heal and take care of that MVP. MVP will roam freely in the particular room like emp room or stone room. This will get rid of stupid precast set up and tactics and also it will give attacking  Guilds more fair chance of since attacking  stone who is MVP now needs to be taken down and he is not into fixed setup …. Also same time defending party can still protect it. This throw up mix of things for both parties and they will have more fair chances of breaking castles and defending it. This will also promote peoples gameplay and positioning skills, gear switching skills … than age old precast setups with fixed mobility and fixed tactics.- lylylight]

 

This thread isn't intended to start any sort of guild drama, and I'd very much appreciate it if it could remain that way. Its sole purpose is to encourage discussion about about WoE these days, and possible ways to improve it - feasible ways.

 

Edit:

I made this some time ago with logs from Choobs, if anyone is interested in seeing the recent decline.

http://www.alaska.ae...et/woe/woe.html

 

tl;dr courtesy of DarkGazer 

Spoiler

Edited by Alaska, 13 November 2014 - 11:16 PM.

[ilovemilk]

Its hard to accuse others of cheating when there is a well known cheater in your guild. He has already been reported multiple times by multiple different people. Its just a matter of time before gm catches up to him.

[Myzery]

Its as bad as it is because the current big alliance has this fetish for trying to make Kali quit playing.

She's not going anywhere, so the bullying of the server probably won't ever end if they keep using this as an excuse.

I'm not sure how any of them have fun running over guilds with lesser numbers.

I sure as hell never had fun most of the time I was in that alliance.

 

 

Its hard to accuse others of cheating when there is a well known cheater in your guild. He has already been reported multiple times by multiple different people. Its just a matter of time before gm catches up to him.

 

She said cheaters in general. Show me where she accused anyone.

[Alaska]

Its hard to accuse others of cheating when there is a well known cheater in your guild. He has already been reported multiple times by multiple different people. Its just a matter of time before gm catches up to him.

 

I'm not accusing anyone, am I? I'm well aware cheaters can be in any guild, and they should be punished appropriately.

[Akreis]

Yeah I'm not too fond of the WoE scene myself, and I often hear about people from many guilds-- big and small complain about how lopsided it is in regards to concerns such as 4 guilds being in 1 alliance is quite unnecessary

 

Another concern I often hear from people is the size of the guilds, 56 members in 1 guild is too much, and there's only 1-2 guilds who actually do have a full 56 person attendance (and that's not always either) whereas all other guilds have about 20~30 on average during WoE. 

 

Considering both common concerns, I do believe that 2 guilds in 1 alliance is reasonable, as well as lowering the number of members a guild can have to 36. It may make things a bit more fair in terms of competition and whatnot, but that's just my own opinion and maybe something GMs should consider.

[Viri]

Every guild has cheaters. Doesn't mean you can't call out cheating.

[ilovemilk]

Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and yet I can't express mine even though I've mentioned no name.

Edited by ilovemilk, 28 October 2014 - 04:02 PM.

[Oda]

It's specific enough: "your guild"

 

The thread is about the general state of Renewal's WoE. Let's stay on topic and avoid posting that will derail the discussion. 

[Inubashiri]

Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and yet I can't express mine even though I've mentioned no name.

 

Not on a company owned forums you don't. Terms of service and the forum stated rules and consequences.  Just like you can be refused service for not wearing shoes in just about any establishment.

[meli]

Alliance limit should be reduced because the server just can't handle 8 guilds in one castle without having seizures and making it impossible to play properly.

[Frike]

I blame the servers merge, thats the major reason I quitted woe .I've been thinking a lot about getting back to woe with Maestro, its something I really want to try one day.

 

But sadly, seeing these threads makes me wonder If I really want to get back into all that drama.

[Divine]

Its as bad as it is because the current big alliance has this fetish for trying to make Kali quit playing.

She's not going anywhere, so the bullying of the server probably won't ever end if they keep using this as an excuse.

I'm not sure how any of them have fun running over guilds with lesser numbers.

I sure as hell never had fun most of the time I was in that alliance.

 

 

Yeah thats one of my biggest problems with WoE right now aside from the cheating. A guild using an entire alliance to outnumber and zerg another guild OFF the server just so they can farm it freely. 

[RaveMaster]

 

I blame the servers merge, thats the major reason I quitted woe .I've been thinking a lot about getting back to woe with Maestro, its something I really want to try one day.

 

But sadly, seeing these threads makes me wonder If I really want to get back into all that drama.

 

 

xD 

[Alaska]

 

I blame the servers merge, thats the major reason I quitted woe .I've been thinking a lot about getting back to woe with Maestro, its something I really want to try one day.

 

But sadly, seeing these threads makes me wonder If I really want to get back into all that drama.

 

 

Yeah, unfortunately the server merge did seem to have an overall negative effect on WoE at least as far as Valkyrie server was concerned. But that's in the past and hopefully there are things we can do now to liven it up a little before it's too late. :/

[Akreis]

Alliance limit should be reduced because the server just can't handle 8 guilds in one castle without having seizures and making it impossible to play properly.

 

Agreed, 4v4 is way too much, especially since in the current 2 main alliances fighting each other, it's 100+ people vs 100 people. 200+ people in 1 castle is way too much to even walk straight because of the lag and disconnections.

 

 

Yeah thats one of my biggest problems with WoE right now aside from the cheating. A guild using an entire alliance to outnumber and zerg another guild OFF the server just so they can farm it freely. 

 

Another reason why a 4-guild alliance is unnecessary, it'll get boring after awhile once all that's left is small guilds consisting of 10-25 people vs an alliance consisting of 100+ people

Edited by Akreis, 28 October 2014 - 04:25 PM.

[Leodls]

If its alright, I'd like to give my opinion on the matter. As much as the alliance is a problem with the fun involved in the woe scene, I honestly think these things are beyond our control. The best we small guilds can do is find fun for the members where we can and when we can. In our guild we try to find ways to learn in defeat. The alliance is there, and they're there to stay unless they decide otherwise. Complaining about it accomplishes nothing. Find an alliance to combat them. Or find another fight altogether. Don't half ass it with a 2 guild alliance against a 3 guild and complain until the server conforms to what fits best for your guild. It just doesn't work that way. You're fighting fire with fire. I love WoE and I'll continue to love it until the server bites the dust, I would hope my members feel the same way regardless of when we lose or not. I implore you to have the same mentality. I'm sorry to take it off topic but I just wanted to share how i felt about the current WoE scene.

 

As for the lag. Man, I dunno. C'mon GMs I'm fighting a guild 1v1 in a castle and I'm rubber banding all over the place. Butts.

[Divine]

If its alright, I'd like to give my opinion on the matter. As much as the alliance is a problem with the fun involved in the woe scene, I honestly think these things are beyond our control. The best we small guilds can do is find fun for the members where we can and when we can. In our guild we try to find ways to learn in defeat. The alliance is there, and they're there to stay unless they decide otherwise. Complaining about it accomplishes nothing. Find an alliance to combat them. Or find another fight altogether. Don't half ass it with a 2 guild alliance against a 3 guild and complain until the server conforms to what fits best for your guild. It just doesn't work that way. You're fighting fire with fire. I love WoE and I'll continue to love it until the server bites the dust, I would hope my members feel the same way regardless of when we lose or not. I implore you to have the same mentality. I'm sorry to take it off topic but I just wanted to share how i felt about the current WoE scene.

 

As for the lag. Man, I dunno. C'mon GMs I'm fighting a guild 1v1 in a castle and I'm rubber banding all over the place. Butts.

 

Well the issue is that this alliance is trying to chase a single guild off the server entirely. Imagine trying to have "fun" in WoE when 3 or 4 guilds spend all their time hunting you down just so that you stop WoEing, I really dont see the point in that. Btw I am not in either guild.

 

I like your enthusiasm and thats what alot of people try to do! Its not always fun because theres very few options in woe. 1) Fight the bigger guild alliance and be outnumbered or 2) Fight smaller guilds and completely dominate them. The community tried to work something out, where the other alliance wouldnt ally during WoE 1, but we found that to be a sham where they just merged into 1 guild and fought us all the same. It is sort of out of our control, but I dont see any of this complaining. The current state of WoE isnt all that great because you see less people from one alliance, and you even see the other alliance making videos and talking about how "boring" WoE is.

 

From what I can tell Classic is in the same situation, so I think GMs really should look into what its players are telling them.

[belld1711]

 

Its sole purpose is to encourage discussion about about WoE these days, and possible ways to improve it - feasible ways.

 

 

Try as you might, there won't be any solution to the problem. You can cut down the guild sizes, you can cut down on number of guild members... hell, you can even throw ALL of the guild castles into play. But honestly, until you can match the resources, man power, and experience of a guild which has been around for the better part of the server's life, there really aren't any possible improvements that can be made. And this thread will end up in an endless discussion about who's idea is right, who cheats, what's not fair, etc.

 

And sadly, that's the reason why I'll probably never WoE.

 

Besides, don't skill changes have to go through kRO? We can't even get updates fully and in a timely manor. Would they even agree to the reduction in alliances and guilds?

[Alaska]

Maybe you're right, hell you probably are, but that doesn't mean we can't try. There's a 100% chance nothing will happen if everyone sits around complaining and just waiting for a miracle. I made this thread because a lot of people are unhappy with how things are now, so at the very least now they'll have somewhere to speak up and vent their frustrations if they so wish.

 

And I'm hoping this thread will be modded properly because I don't care for specific guild discussions. 

Edited by Alaska, 28 October 2014 - 05:26 PM.

[Riakuta]

One of the biggest problems in WoE is Castle Drops. Currently there is no way for a new WoE Guild to form since they will die out within a week of taking a castle. Currently the only way to have supplies for WoE is to already have the money. If a new Guild were to take a castle they would quickly learn that the cost to take a Castle far outways the rewards provided by a Castle. All the Guilds currently competing in WoE are self funded.

 

I remember in Pre-Renewal when I attended WoE we were well funded for at least 2 weeks of WoE if we captured One Castle which kept us going strong. Now with the current Drop system for Castles you'd need to take all Castles and then some to have enough supplies for 2 weeks.

Edited by Riakuta, 28 October 2014 - 06:25 PM.

[Alaska]

That's definitely another problem... back when I co-owned an up and coming guild, we had to scramble and hope we managed to snag a castle to ease the cost of actually maintaining a WoE guild, and even when we ended with a castle or two most of the funds still came from our pockets. It's been a while since I was in that position but I'm sure a lot of the current guilds still run that way.

 

Of course I don't think castle loots should be the sole source of funds for guild leaders but it would be nice if they helped more than they do now... most of the castle drops are junk, aside from the occasional God piece.

[Sirolrex]

Smokies usually runs with about 25~ people.   Would lowering the max capacity of a guild to 36 help us run with a max guild? Maybe and here's why.

 

When your guild isn't being ran over by pure numbers, people tend to enjoy siege a lot more, hence more people show up more often. 

 

There could probably easily be another 6~ guilds made out of the current population of WoE guilds if the Capacity was lowered to 36.  That's more variatey, less boredom and ultimately more fun.

 

Another thought, If you fixed the absolutely terrible 1.0 and 2.0 castle drops so that new guilds could actually have help supplying themselves, doing that along with the lowering of the guild cap could really make for a huge boon to the woe scene. 

 

Oh ya, lower the alliance cap from 4 to 2.  Hell, 0 Allies might even be best.  about 12 guilds running around without an alliance? yea, that could be hella fun.

[Xellie]

If some of these issues were looked at seriously, I would consider coming back to renewal for the mid week woes at least.

[djxstatik]

remove alliances and see if this helps. its a free for all. Guilds with more than 56 couldn't ally themselves and so they would kill there own excess amount of players. strategy would change significantly.

[Alaska]

I think the only real problem with removing alliances is that guilds would probably form NAPs, although I suppose those at least require more coordination to maintain.

Edited by Alaska, 28 October 2014 - 08:00 PM.