1165 replies to this topic

[Sirolrex]

We had 31 with 5 alts.  LR had 20.  soooo...

[LivinLyfe]

I'm pretty sure I saw ani+ani+CS+sinergia vs Smokies alone at the end, I may have been hallucinating though. I'll book myself in for a CAT scan, brb.

yeah you really do need a cat scan cause it was just CS in Lunia 1 after it broke, smokies and lr both had to take it from our 20 ppl. Good job!!

[Xellie]

That was the only time we used them

 

...
Poor cs

[LivinLyfe]

You guys get along just fine. Woe was fun.

Edited by Inubashiri, 12 November 2014 - 06:00 PM.

[KiyokoHasami]

You guys get along just fine. Woe was fun.

 

It was fun, with even numbers!

[Mulder1]

We had less people... but everything got better once I got back home... =)

[miliardo]

We had less people... but everything got better once I got back home... =)

 

 

oh no don't talk numbers will start a flame of war we all know what happened just need to wait till vids come out.

Edited by miliardo, 12 November 2014 - 05:52 PM.

[KamiKali]

We had 14 people in alt guild and full main it was Lr smokies vs us fair fight I must say

 

 

We had 31 with 5 alts.  LR had 20.  soooo...

 

 

if you think was even numbers you were not fighting same fight i think smokies side had like 20-30 more poeple then us. If that is what it takes to fight us i hope that it keeps up.

 

Alright, let's do some basic math here.

Ani +Ani 2: 14 alt guild + 56 full main guild = 70 people

 

LR & Smokies 31 with alts + 20 = 51

 

70 - 51 = 19, so that means 70 is 19 more than 51. Meaning Animosity 1 and 2 had _____ people than LR and Smokies. Fill out the blanks, children!

[Easyy]

9+10 =

Edited by Easyy, 12 November 2014 - 06:09 PM.

[Myzery]

Some people learned math. I learned that reality is a perception.

[miliardo]

Haha Lr is what a small guild now?

[Azyrk]

Haha Lr is what a small guild now?

what are you even saying?

 

 

 

Some people learned math. I learned that reality is a perception.

i learned you need to stop playing wow with that she devil  maggie and play fun games.

 

Edited by Azyrk, 12 November 2014 - 07:19 PM.

[Akreis]

I understand that guild sizes may be a concern for WoE. However, you may want to also consider that not every guild does compete in WoE. If you reduce the max guild size, you would be reducing it for EVERY guild including the guilds that are established just for social reasons. This would cause a problem for my guild which is just a social/leveling/instance guild because we would have less members to find parties with, complete ET with, socialize with/help new members, complete quests/instances with, etc.

 

I don't know if you saw another post in regards to this, but we also suggested that there would be a skill called Official WoE Guild and Official Social Guild and getting the Social guild skill will enable a guild to get the last x skill levels of Extension which allows them to keep their 56 non-woe players; but they would have to remake the guild if they wanted to start WoE'ing

[Scrapie]

Look on the bright side though, lots of guilds (Smaller Guilds that aren't apart of the "Alliance War") took a lot of castles today. That is kind of considering that WoE is not actually dead(?). If the smaller guilds could comply, was there any action for you guys or was it fun?

 

I have a question on what was suggested in this thread a few weeks ago. 

1. If we all insisted on changing the alliance settings (less guild member capacity, alliance limitations, etc.), would that consider as a temporary thing until WoE comes back alive and healthy, OR, would it be a permanent thing?

 

 

[Alaska]

Seems like it would be fine to have it be temporary until things got better, but there needs to be a method to decide when it's considered "fixed", for lack of a better work.

[Sirolrex]

I don't see how you would change something, watch it get better, then put it back in the same state that made it so bad to begin with. 

[FrostKing]

If we are talking about flexible caps. If what am saying is not past iRO and into kRO realm. Might sound little far fetched, but still..

We could make a voting system, thats flexible. Obviously, judging from all the voting system hacks our guys has :3
Make a voting system that could be accessed by guild leaders those actually owns a castle within particular time period.

P.S: Its a start. So, If you want to say faults in it.. Give a better alternative without pointing fingers ?
Also this is to answer the cap being temporary or permanent. To be considered if GMs were actually going to do something about the cap.

Edited by FrostKing, 12 November 2014 - 11:44 PM.

[Alaska]

I'm guessing maybe cause the server population would be able to handle it, idk. 

Edited by Alaska, 12 November 2014 - 11:51 PM.

[WarlockFier]

WOE 1.0 maps have a lot of portals and realms that forces the guild population to be spread out all across, so lag isn't quite as bad or existence from what I heard. I can't participate in WOE 1.0 due to work.. So I can't quite tell.

 

WOE 2.0 though, we will see. I don't see how feasible it is to allow a guild alliance hold up to 200 people on one side and expect the other side to have as many people to rise up against them with the same numbers without having a lag fest WOE. As it has been all already discussed.

[Anshin]

yeah you really do need a cat scan cause it was just CS in Lunia 1 after it broke, smokies and lr both had to take it from our 20 ppl. Good job!!

 

You forgot the "with alts" part. lol

[Oda]

Ok, it looks like folks have definitely had the chance to put their ideas on what changes can be made to make WoE on Renewal a fairer, more fun experience. For the next day, please give your "closing arguements" about what needs to be changed and how you would like to see that change come about. The thread will be closed at the end of my shift Friday so please be detailed! 

[Sirolrex]

I'll go ahead and kick it off then.

 

It's been proposed that a more limited guild number of 36 would help create more variety in siege.  More guilds, fewer people involved in one fight. Less lag.

Players from both sides agree with this, not all but it would appear to be the majority.

 

A limited alliance numbers has been suggest at 2 guilds max.

This doesn't hurt anyone, all it will do is once again limit numbers and give more variety in siege.

 

The above suggestions are very important because the population of the server is no longer what it was 10 years ago when 4 x 56 guilds were common for an alliance. All games must adapt to the current state of their population.

 

Last 1.0 for the majority of siege,  We were able to fight Animosity 2v2.  The numbers were well within reason to be considered even and fair.  Both sides had a very fun siege it would seem, I know from our side we did.  Just further proof that when one side does not out number the other side, that both of them can enjoy siege because it's not about winning or losing, it's about the enjoyment of the fight.  When there is a zerg rush, there is no enjoyment and there is no fight.

Edited by Sirolrex, 13 November 2014 - 03:00 PM.

[Pred]

Lowering the guild cap hurts hurts every guild EXCEPT Animosity.  We're the only guild that's so far over 36 that we could easily sustain two separate guilds, and because of that we'd have more room to grow than any other guild on the server.  All it does is limit's a guild's ability to grow if they're currently under 36 (everyone else) as they won't be able to easily populate a second guild for recruits #37+.

 

Disabling/limiting alliances could be interesting.  It would personally make my WoE a lot more fun as an alliance leader with all the extra organization and planning and macro strategy involved with what will simply amount to turning friendly fire on.  If nothing else, this one could help with the lag in WoE2.  It will not, however, stop us from working as an alliance with our friends, which is the effect some people seem to think it will have.

 

(btw, since you guys haven't noticed this, we mostly call it in allies when you're defending an econ or attacking ours.  When there's literally nothing on the line, we'll gladly fight you without allies, it has been that way since well before this thread was created).

 

Anyways, personally, I don't think there is much of anything iRO can do to "fix" the state of WoE.  There's nothing within iRO's ability to change that would make people want to make their own guild.  Which is exactly what needs to happen if we want to see a diversification of guilds.  It takes time, determination, passion, and a touch of insanity, to lead a guild these days, and there just aren't a lot of people that meet those qualifications.

 

And let's assume there ARE people willing to step up and lead in the first place...  Why would they?  There's currently ZERO reason to start your own guild, as opposed to just joining an already established one, which is why the server is the way it is now.  Renewal hit, and almost everything in the game is soloable (besides WoE).  There's hasn't been any non-WoE content released that gives a guild something to do together that actually requires a decently sized group of people to do for far too long.

 

We need harder, bigger, better, end-game content.  Guilds will form if people have a reason to form them.  And once they grow off this other end-game content, they'll want to start to WoE.  Very few, if any, guilds started off as a WoE guild and survived.  They all started as a group of friends that did things together in game, and eventually started WoEing as something else to do together.

 

 

Unless something like that happens, WoE will continue on it's current course.  Which honestly may not be that bad of an option.  A meteor of change hit the WoE scene when Juno2 broke, and LYC joined Animosity not even a month ago (October 18th according to choobs).  Everyone threw their arms up in a panic with let loose all these ridiculous doomsday predictions, and throwing blame all over the place.  Now that the dust has settled everyone has seemed to have calmed down and realized that WoE is no different than it has ever been, and people were all up in a tizzy for nothing.

 

The one thing that iRO MAY have the ability to change, is to implement some way to prevent/stop cheating.  Encrypting packets would be an interesting first step, but the servers would have to be able to to decrypt them (maybe we need more blades behind the VM cloud in your datacenter?  I don't know what your budget is for that sort of thing, or how the server software runs), at the same time though, encrypting packets would make packet injection/interception impossible, or at least incredibly easily detectable/stoppable, that in itself may free up the processing power required to handle encrypted packets.  Finding some way of detecting client modifications would go a long way too.  Checking the grf files for edits on client load or something like that could help in that regards.

 

Sorry for the long ass post, Oda.  I hope at least some of it helps.

 

[KiyokoHasami]

Lowering the guild cap hurts hurts every guild EXCEPT Animosity.  We're the only guild that's so far over 36 that we could easily sustain two separate guilds, and because of that we'd have more room to grow than any other guild on the server.  All it does is limit's a guild's ability to grow if they're currently under 36 (everyone else) as they won't be able to easily populate a second guild for recruits #37+.

 

Oda has already stated that non woe guilds more than likely won't be affected. Also, the population doesn't nearly have as many players as it used to so it should be scaled down to fit.

 

Disabling/limiting alliances could be interesting.  It would personally make my WoE a lot more fun as an alliance leader with all the extra organization and planning and macro strategy involved with what will simply amount to turning friendly fire on.  If nothing else, this one could help with the lag in WoE2.  It will not, however, stop us from working as an alliance with our friends, which is the effect some people seem to think it will have.

 

Nope, but you'll be guessing more now than before and let's not forget it affects both sides.

 

We need harder, bigger, better, end-game content.  Guilds will form if people have a reason to form them.  And once they grow off this other end-game content, they'll want to start to WoE.  Very few, if any, guilds started off as a WoE guild and survived.  They all started as a group of friends that did things together in game, and eventually started WoEing as something else to do together.

 

Bigger and better castle drops maybe? Or close 1 or 2 of the castles? or have Battlegrounds help with woe supplies? One of the biggest problems is funding and we need to close the gap somehow between the rich and the poor. I also propose that there should be a pinned thread in the Creative Contraptions area where we can come up more ideas to make woe more fun!

 

 

Edited by KiyokoHasami, 13 November 2014 - 05:29 PM.

[Tofu]

All modern MMOs evolve over time. The evolution of the game is what keeps the game alive. Not only do the rules of the game, or the pieces to play with within the game change, but the players also change. Guilds come and go, and that's a natural part of any game.

However, the BIGGEST problem iRO's WoE scene is having right now is the lack of new guilds starting up. There are not enough guilds popping up to take the place of those that disappear. One of the biggest reasons of this is the extremely high barrier of entry to be competitive in WoE, and the biggest barrier being enough people to be competitive with others.

Large guilds are not inherently bad, just like large companies are not inherently bad. However, it is a problem when those large guilds, whether intentionally or unintentionally stifle all current and future competition. The breakup of AT&T's monopoly in 1982 is a real example that has a lot of parallels to the current state of WoE.
 

And let's assume there ARE people willing to step up and lead in the first place... Why would they? There's currently ZERO reason to start your own guild, as opposed to just joining an already established one, which is why the server is the way it is now.

Pred already said it, there's no reason to start your own guild right now. However, the reason being there's no place for a new guild in the current WoE scene. A new guild has no one to fight against, and no one to recruit. Why would someone go to a new guild, when there's plenty of room for them in an already established large guild?


Putting a cap on the number of people within a single guild/alliance has a number of benefits:

1. It reduces the lag everyone hates. With less people per "team", there will be less stress on the server. Less people per team, but more teams.

2. More guilds will pop up, because guilds cannot accept everyone and their mother, which means the same people playing right now may not all fit onto the same team.

3. With less people per team, more importance is placed on each individual player. This raises the potential skill cap of the game, as "zerg rushing" will be much more difficult to accomplish.

4. It eases the barrier of entry for new guilds. You won't need to find and fund 50+ people to participate.

5. Funding WoE becomes less costly. Many guilds have already died out, because of how expensive it is to fund a guild of 50+ members, in order to participate. Reducing the "cost" of WoE by ~40% can dramatically increase the longevity of a guild.

6. More variety. People grow tired of doing the same thing every day, every week. Fighting against the same exact people is no different. With more guilds means more variety of fights.