[ Renewal ] Current State of WoE - Page 47 - Ragnarok 1 Community Chat - WarpPortal Community Forums

Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 12 votes

[ Renewal ] Current State of WoE


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1165 replies to this topic

#1151 Sirolrex

Sirolrex

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 94 posts

Posted 13 November 2014 - 07:10 PM

Lowering the cap from 56 to 48 isn't enough of a change to impact siege in any tangible way.   At this point something drastic needs to be done because there is no where else to go, there is no other server to merge with when and if WoE dies.  This is it. 


  • 0

#1152 Falcifer

Falcifer

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 355 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:RE:Start

Posted 13 November 2014 - 07:27 PM

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.

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.

 

3. If guilds/teams become smaller, sure you'll have more 'every individual counts' mentality, but there's only so much individual skill can do if you have a mechanic sliding into you (or even a stasis warlock to some extent). If anything, just having one or two mechs in these smaller guilds can determine an entire gvg fight, by taking out a large portion of the guild in one go, rather than taking out only 10~20 out of 56.

 

Granted, SD is one of those controversial skills balance-wise, so my point might be moot.

 

6. Unless guilds are forming and reforming rapidly, I think fighting the same people over and over again is inevitable, and this same issue be found later on. Within a few weeks of attendance stabilizing, your guild will know what guilds to fight, and what guilds to avoid, based on size/gear/skill difference (Classic server has this too). 

 

I highly doubt X guild(s) will be able to maintain 50s+ attendance every week; people get bored and don't show up eventually. It's just that right now guild(s) are in a 'recovery' phase where interest in gvg surged, and thereby attendance shoots up.

 

I like everything else.


Edited by Falcifer, 13 November 2014 - 07:30 PM.

  • 0

#1153 FrostKing

FrostKing

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1018 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos Renewal

Posted 13 November 2014 - 08:44 PM

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.
 

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.

right on spot +1


  • 0

#1154 Alicesaurus

Alicesaurus

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 491 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos Renewal

Posted 13 November 2014 - 11:04 PM

36 member Guild Cap combined with only two guilds per alliance would really make a huge positive difference to the woe environment. As a Guild leader I support this idea as it will make a much more close knit team, and planning will be emphasized more than numbers. This allows smaller guilds to not only stand a better chance but it also encourages smaller alliances which should encourage at least more than two main factions, I can even imagine there being a 3 or 4 way fight between multiple groups. It would address the currently malaise that the server has been suffering from.

 

Improving woe 1.0 and 2.0 treasures would also go a long way to helping smaller guilds fund and supply themselves. One of the big problems is that to even run a small guild it bankrupts it's leaders.

 

You should copy the WoE TE treasure rewards, WoE TE treasure should be the EXAMPLE and STANDARD for 1.0 and 2.0.  Basically WoE TE treasures dwarf 1.0 + 2.0 combined so if you want a model to copy for use with the old 1.0 + 2.0 loots, take a leaf from the WoE TE treasure loots.


Edited by Alicesaurus, 13 November 2014 - 11:22 PM.

  • 9

#1155 KamiKali

KamiKali

    They pay me to post.

  • Members
  • 5137 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 13 November 2014 - 11:11 PM

Why not lower the guild cap to 48 members? Makes more sense than the current 56, as the remainder usually get thrown into a "leftovers" party (if the player pool allows it), while still allowing the guild to grow and not be limited to 36 members or a mere 3 full parties.

 

1 Full Party = 12 people

 

4 Full Parties = 48 people

 

 

I agree with this, I personally don't like such a limit to the numbers to 36, but 48 is a better number. I also would like alliances limited to 1 or nothing.

 

Guild treasures needs to be updated to include things that are more beneficial. When you guys changed the drops, you only lowered drop rates and everything else stayed crap. Adding more WPS Tokens, WoE White Box, WoE Blue Box, WoE Weapon Box, WoE Violet Box in bulk, and more WSS (Treasure boxes like in WoETE) would be highly beneficial.
 

edit: Also, Itachi for president!


Edited by KamiKali, 13 November 2014 - 11:14 PM.

  • 4

#1156 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1894 posts
  • LocationSan Diego California
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 14 November 2014 - 01:17 AM

Lowering the cap from 56 to 48 isn't enough of a change to impact siege in any tangible way. At this point something drastic needs to be done because there is no where else to go, there is no other server to merge with when and if WoE dies. This is it.


I agree to this makes way more since then 36 number.
  • 0

#1157 Mulder1

Mulder1

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1610 posts

Posted 14 November 2014 - 01:26 AM

I agree to this makes way more since then 36 number.

 

It will make it more fun indeed... then again, it has been fun lately so I'm looking forward to these changes =)

 


  • 0

#1158 LivinLyfe

LivinLyfe

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 970 posts
  • LocationFlorida
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 14 November 2014 - 06:12 AM

I agree with this, I personally don't like such a limit to the numbers to 36, but 48 is a better number. I also would like alliances limited to 1 or nothing.

 

Guild treasures needs to be updated to include things that are more beneficial. When you guys changed the drops, you only lowered drop rates and everything else stayed crap. Adding more WPS Tokens, WoE White Box, WoE Blue Box, WoE Weapon Box, WoE Violet Box in bulk, and more WSS (Treasure boxes like in WoETE) would be highly beneficial.
 

edit: Also, Itachi for president!

 

Agree!!


  • 0

#1159 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1894 posts
  • LocationSan Diego California
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 14 November 2014 - 12:04 PM

1) Put guild cap 48

2) alliance cap at 1-2

3) create and event day every other month where we would have a no god items, no mvp cards woe. During this time would freeze castle econ and ownership.

4) increase woe castle drops to woe supplies boxes should be easiest way of doing it. take out useless items.


  • 0

#1160 Sirolrex

Sirolrex

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 94 posts

Posted 14 November 2014 - 12:16 PM

You know, a 48 guild cap does absolutely nothing to help or fix the current situation, It's absolutely stupid.  The point of lowering the cap to 36 is to stop a guild in a 1v1 situation from being able to out number every other guild 2v1 and force more guilds to be created, thus creating more variety in siege.  48cap does nothing to address that as most guilds out there only get 20-25 people.   News flash, the game does NOT have the population to handle large -_- guilds.

 

 


Edited by Sirolrex, 14 November 2014 - 12:42 PM.

  • 8

#1161 Kerb

Kerb

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 161 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Ygg

Posted 14 November 2014 - 12:20 PM

1) put the cap at 36 (48 honestly isn't going to change much because most guilds get lucky if they go over 48 anyway making more guilds form)

2) NO alliance (everyone is going to NAP anyway why allow for any sort of zerg to happen?)

3) I like the even woe Miliardo is talking about with no gods or MVPs but DO NOT make it freeze castle econ this will just mean guilds have to supply for an extra woe without any benifit to woeing which ultimately will kill that "event" woe just make it a normal woe with no MVPs or gods everyone is still on an equal playing field.

4) and of course give these "new guilds" that will pop up a way to get started so increase castle drops.

 

ultimately if you do this you will have a lot more smaller guilds running around, and it changes some of the elements of woe to help support the new guilds that are trying to form. The bigger guilds will always be able to be successful so if we make some changes we need to make them to allow for smaller guilds to be able to survive and grow.


  • 4

#1162 Divine

Divine

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 190 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 14 November 2014 - 12:51 PM

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.

 

I completely agree with this. 

 

Guild and Alliance cap would stop the lag in WoE because we wouldnt have huge alliances in one castle. A majority of people quit when the Ymir / Ygg / Valkyrie merged because the lag in WoE was unbearable and for the most part its never gone away. The server cannot even handle the huge alliance fights, so why do we have them in the first place?

 

WoE becomes stagnant when its one alliance dominating the server and not giving other guilds a chance at all to fight, always calling allies just so that they can break or secure a castle. This has created a very unhealthy environment similar to the dead WoE scene on Ymir. We do not want another Ymir server where there is noone left to fight and one alliance farms the server.

 

I think just about everyone is starting to agree that :

 

- We need 36 member guild cap

 

- Alliances need to be reduced to 1 or 0.

 

- Increase castle drops to support newer guilds.


Edited by Divine, 14 November 2014 - 12:56 PM.

  • 4

#1163 Narzziza

Narzziza

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 221 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 14 November 2014 - 01:10 PM

I support the idea of having a guild cap of 36 players, it is the right way to go, as it is really important for a game to adapt it's rules and environment to it's playerbase. 

- We don't have that many players as 6 or 7 years ago, this should finally be considered.

 

This goes in hand with the numbers of alliances a guild can have. I think reducing it to 1 or 0 ensures even fights, and in the same sense a healthy, competitive WoE scene. It also opens up new ways for guild leaders to think out strategies and maybe manage their other teams in an effective way while still being vulnerable to every other guild.

 

To make the WoE scene more healthy for newer guilds, and support players even creating a guild and participating in WoE, it is important to give them a reason to. So it is a given Castle drops should be looked over, since for WoE 1 and 2.0 they are long overdue of being upgraded.


  • 1

#1164 Hakobune

Hakobune

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 365 posts
  • LocationNowhere I want to be that's for sure
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:The mismanaged cashgrab

Posted 14 November 2014 - 01:44 PM

I think WoE on iRo is long overdue for an overhaul, seeing as it has nowhere near the population it held in the old days. With the way things are currently both inside and outside of WoE, that will probably only get worse. Mega Alliances aren't just a one time recent occurrence on this one particular server, they are a constant on small servers and always lead to dead servers (looking back at you Iris and Ymir). So if you guys want to stop losing money through loss of player base you need to address the WoE issue now. Be it an alliance cap, no alliances, a guild member cap, castle treasure improvements or whatever, something needs to be done and fast.


  • 0

#1165 Alaska

Alaska

    Too Legit To Quit

  • RO Fungineering
  • 4793 posts
  • LocationMontreal, Canada
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 14 November 2014 - 04:28 PM

Since we're needing to give our "final" statements, here goes mine:
 
I don't believe the server population for Chaos can support the current alliance and guild caps, as it's simply too small. Lowering the guild cap to 36 and the keeping the alliance cap at either 0 or 1 would be beneficial to not only a majority of the current guilds, but as well as any future guilds that may actually be able to start up (and keep up) should these changes go through. Yes, I don't doubt there will be NAPs, and yes I don't doubt people will go out of there way to keep more than the allotted number of alliances. but it will be more difficult and quite possibly be more trouble than it's worth.
 
As it stands now, there's barely a handful of strong and competitive guilds because a majority of the previously existing ones have been killed off, and the barrier of entry for newer ones is simply too high, and not at all worth the effort, time and funds required. Should Chaos continue down its current path we'll end up with another Ymir server, and everyone saw how that ended up, and it's not in anyone's best interest.
 
tl;dr The population can't support our current caps and they need to be downsized to accommodate so a more even playing field for all guilds can be maintained, as well as make it easier for new guilds to not only form, but keep up and remain a competitive force in the WoE scene.

Edited by Inubashiri, 14 November 2014 - 05:34 PM.
typo requested changed.

  • 6

#1166 Oda

Oda

    Overseas

  • Community Managers
  • 10111 posts
  • Twitter:@Oda_CM
  • LocationAmatsu
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 14 November 2014 - 05:05 PM

Thank you everyone for your feedback and passion. We will be going through these suggestions and will likely be testing out some event WoEs during the latter part of December and looking at the suggestions of limiting guild and alliance size through development requests or things we are able to change from our end. We will keep you guys in the loop about what we will be proposing, and you will be hearing news on this project soon!


  • 14




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users