126 replies to this topic

[Rayea]

So if I make a random guild, put thirty alts in it and stand it around outside a castle, then I may walk in and take the empty emperium?

 

I understand what you are saying about previous allegiances, but those should be broken for the benefit of all. I would guess that an alliance is not needed to fight a guild such as Sons of the south Sea.

 

You refer to yourselves as smaller/casual (I am assuming you are from Aurora) - but compared to many the guilds in your alliance are strong, large, with Boss cards and Godlike items. This imaginary one guild you speak of is probably how small guilds view yourselves, but this is worse, because you are allianced.

[Heart]

I actually thought they were talking about the other alliance that popped up last week.

 

The alliance you're talking about has been present for a fairly long time, initially created when there were two very big, very strong groups of players on the server and the three smaller/more casual guilds needed to band together to even consider existing (one has since essentially disappeared). Those guilds on their own can happily exist alone and participate in 1.0 against a majority of guilds (except one obviously) which we tend to do, the only time we work together is to defend an econ, like we had been doing, because if it was just either of the two guilds the one guild would just walk in and take it.

 

However at the beginning of last weekends 1.0 we realised that we were heavily outnumbered and our guild leader wasnt present so we didnt bother. Sorry you guys missed out, but honestly nothing would have happened, it would have broken before we could have even got set up in there. What happened after that was quite obnoxious, I really didnt enjoy being followed around by a character placed in our inn scouting, we had 12 players and no leader/recaller. We would have been happy to fight on our own terms, unfortunately we never really got the opportunity.

 

Well its good to know your side of it, explains what happened in brit last weekends, I was very disappointed by how it turned out, but atleast you people had a legitimate for doing so.

[dennischopper]

By Any chance did the they change the treasure box spawn time?

[Themes]

I'm from Valk for reference for the following.

 

There's a difference between 30 players and 30 alts.

 

But removing our ability to ally wouldnt make things any better for this situation. If we wanted to work together we would either be forced to be more creative in our setup or put our players into one guild. Lately outside of defending in 1.0 we havent been working "together" it may seem like it as there's just not enough guilds or locations for us to fight separately but we're not going to throw supplies at each other for no reason.

 

You're right though, there shouldnt be any reason that we should be fighting some of the smaller guilds and we make a point of trying to avoid pushing too hard on small guilds. We tend to focus on the guilds that outnumber us and are more organised/prepared. However due to server size and the current situation we're probably going to run into each other at some point, we're not out to get you or any other guild and we're definitely not interested in destroying any progress you've made. I've often and repeatedly said that the server needs more guilds of varying sizes to help prevent mismatches like that from being commonplace.

 

We definitely consider ourselves a small guild, we average around 12-14 people on for each siege. We have an advantage in that we're the only guild that has sieged the full duration on the server and have accumulated a wide range of gear including some Gods and MVPs. We also tend to run a fair number of alts to make up for our smaller numbers and we can easily look larger than we actually are.

 

I dont want to speak for Aurora, but from what I understand they dont have any MVP cards and havent made any 1.0 gods (I dont think they have access to AnOs items and AnO is like 3 people at this point). They also generally have more players than we do.

 

But like I said earlier, outside of defending an econ fort, we dont work directly together in 1.0. There's almost no communication between our guilds and any situation recently that has ended up with both our guilds in the same fort has just been because that's where the other guilds are.

 

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding from people about a lot of things. Everyone has a different interpretation of guild size and what they consider small or medium sized. There's also guilds with varying amounts of RMT items that havent been discovered or handled by the GMs and there's also people still doing a bit of cheating. However everyone's ready to believe the worst about their opponents, adding on a few extra emblems when counting, seeing a few more cheaters or a handful more MVP/Gods. Because of how bad the forums have been over the last couple of years the sense of community has taken a pretty big hit, BGs are mostly AFKs and PvP is barely active. There's not enough opportunities for people from different groups to interact right now, it'd be cool for there to be more ways than just AL3/ID3.

 

I'm hoping people will show up for the event sieges this year, last year it was a wasteland and we didnt really have many people to play with. But they have potential for a lot of fun and will definitely even out the playing field in some aspects.

[Hrishi]

Is launching a new server still not something WP would be willing to consider?

 

^

[Rayea]

I'm from Valk for reference for the following.

 

There's a difference between 30 players and 30 alts.

 

But removing our ability to ally wouldnt make things any better for this situation. If we wanted to work together we would either be forced to be more creative in our setup or put our players into one guild. Lately outside of defending in 1.0 we havent been working "together" it may seem like it as there's just not enough guilds or locations for us to fight separately but we're not going to throw supplies at each other for no reason.

 

You're right though, there shouldnt be any reason that we should be fighting some of the smaller guilds and we make a point of trying to avoid pushing too hard on small guilds. We tend to focus on the guilds that outnumber us and are more organised/prepared. However due to server size and the current situation we're probably going to run into each other at some point, we're not out to get you or any other guild and we're definitely not interested in destroying any progress you've made. I've often and repeatedly said that the server needs more guilds of varying sizes to help prevent mismatches like that from being commonplace.

 

We definitely consider ourselves a small guild, we average around 12-14 people on for each siege. We have an advantage in that we're the only guild that has sieged the full duration on the server and have accumulated a wide range of gear including some Gods and MVPs. We also tend to run a fair number of alts to make up for our smaller numbers and we can easily look larger than we actually are.

 

I dont want to speak for Aurora, but from what I understand they dont have any MVP cards and havent made any 1.0 gods (I dont think they have access to AnOs items and AnO is like 3 people at this point). They also generally have more players than we do.

 

But like I said earlier, outside of defending an econ fort, we dont work directly together in 1.0. There's almost no communication between our guilds and any situation recently that has ended up with both our guilds in the same fort has just been because that's where the other guilds are.

 

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding from people about a lot of things. Everyone has a different interpretation of guild size and what they consider small or medium sized. There's also guilds with varying amounts of RMT items that havent been discovered or handled by the GMs and there's also people still doing a bit of cheating. However everyone's ready to believe the worst about their opponents, adding on a few extra emblems when counting, seeing a few more cheaters or a handful more MVP/Gods. Because of how bad the forums have been over the last couple of years the sense of community has taken a pretty big hit, BGs are mostly AFKs and PvP is barely active. There's not enough opportunities for people from different groups to interact right now, it'd be cool for there to be more ways than just AL3/ID3.

 

I'm hoping people will show up for the event sieges this year, last year it was a wasteland and we didnt really have many people to play with. But they have potential for a lot of fun and will definitely even out the playing field in some aspects.

 

That makes a lot of sense but it doesn't make the situation any different.

 

Does your alliance make a difference against the "big guild"?

Or is it really just only effective against small guilds, still resulting in losses against the big one?

If so, I say to hell with the big guild. Ignore it.
 

[Themes]

@Hrishi - I'm too lazy to see if I can find any links, but they've said that they didnt want to start something new as there's absolutely no guarantee that a new server would actually last and are focusing their efforts on the three servers they're already struggling to manage.

 

That makes a lot of sense but it doesn't make the situation any different.

 

Does your alliance make a difference against the "big guild"?

Or is it really just only effective against small guilds, still resulting in losses against the big one?

If so, I say to hell with the big guild. Ignore it.
 

 

Yes, it often does. It's not a 100% thing, but we have held econs in the past. We really only work as allies when required, we're never going to rush a small guild in a fort together, it's possible that players from each guild might be in the same place, but it's never intentional or coordinated.

 

Unfortunately ignoring them is not always an option, as I said earlier, this week there was a character in our inn hopping warps and it made things very difficult to go anywhere as a group without being followed especially with no recaller.

 

I've said it before and I'll probably say it again, the biggest problem with this server is number of players. Instead of focusing on things that arent actually a problem (like alliances) what can we do to boost player numbers and participation? What would bring old players back? What would keep new players from leaving? What would get people normally not interested in siege to log on in the weekends? What would get the siege only pals to log on during the week?

 

If we can answer some of these questions and we can push changes through to the server, the scene will grow. There will be more guilds at all levels of size/skill/gear/commitment and the only reason for alliances is so that smaller groups can take an opportunity to try their hands in the higher tiers.

 

Unfortunately development time for new projects on Classic is very limited and it takes quite a while to get things done. The things that are getting worked on can also get dumped or set aside while fires get put out on the two other servers.

Edited by Themes, 19 November 2015 - 12:12 AM.

[Rayea]

My fear would be that you encourage the big guild to become allianced too - that would be harmful to everybody if they are as powerful as claimed.

 

e: spelling.

Edited by Rayea, 19 November 2015 - 12:11 AM.

[needmorezleep]

no alliances/working together

no mvps/minis/gods

easier barrier to entry

better rewards

funner battlegrounds

minigames like other servers

more encouraged pvm

less server lag

 

those are generally all the things that turn people away from the server whenever asked to play or starting

 

oh and less castles thats a pretty big thing as well

Edited by needmorezleep, 19 November 2015 - 12:16 AM.

[Themes]

no alliances/working together

no mvps/minis/gods

easier barrier to entry

better rewards

funner battlegrounds

minigames like other servers

more encouraged pvm

less server lag

 

those are generally all the things that turn people away from the server whenever asked to play or starting

 

Could you elaborate on some of those?

• Easier barrier to entry to what? Siege? End game?
• Better rewards from what? Siege? PvM? MvP? BGs? Quests?
• What sorts of minigames exist on the other servers?
• What would encourage people to PvM? Are we talking about more fun things to do? More difficult things to do? More experience? More drops? More group friendly options?

It'd be cool to be able to have a discussion about the problems with the server that slowly moved towards talking about solutions and improving the experience for a wider group of players. But I'm just not sure we could keep it clean enough or that we could get proper support from the GM team about implementing the changes we want/need. It also feels awkward with so much work being done on the forums and people who dont read/post here not getting any input. But if someone wants to give it a shot I'd be happy to write far too many words.

[needmorezleep]

giving a guild of x number of people real gears that will expire will help greatly in another thread people tried suggesting nerfed items which no guild will join for since they need to get to see if woe will be worth it before having dedication to the server

 

the rewards from woe are terrible mufflers, shoes wat? this stuff is useful in pretrans adding better rewards will help fund smaller guilds and help back guilds that are fresh with a guild pack to get real perm gear to continue to fight

 

they can generally just look at about any other server for minigames to find them there is a bit 2 much variety but devil's square is usually the most populated one and non afked one that people will play as long as it eventually leads to rewards

 

pvm is sort of discouraged in this server it ends up being janeway/anubis/acidus so people that enjoy casual pvm are sort of forced into the same old boring thing with little variety/reward constantly perhaps greatly increasing the exp of old leveling grounds like seals, niff, majourous, stings, bathories/alarms, magma 1/2, abbey 2/3

Edited by needmorezleep, 19 November 2015 - 12:35 AM.

[Kebtung]

No alliance. Reduce castles, Reduce guild member limit.

[Kebtung]

Zeny inflation is also a problem in Classic.

[AlmrOfAtlas]

No alliance. Reduce castles, Reduce guild member limit.

iirc they're unable to reduce the guild member cap unless they somehow remove extension, though the others should be possible, and welcome changes!

[needmorezleep]

dat script in every castle that autokicks members when they exceed x value forever the best

wont prevent people from having 20 people in one castle and 20 in another but hey better than nothing

Edited by needmorezleep, 19 November 2015 - 01:37 AM.

[AlmrOfAtlas]

dat script in every castle that autokicks members when they exceed x value forever the best
wont prevent people from having 20 people in one castle and 20 in another but hey better than nothing

Can they do that? If they can, hell yes! ^o^

[Heart]

dat script in every castle that autokicks members when they exceed x value forever the best

wont prevent people from having 20 people in one castle and 20 in another but hey better than nothing

 

but can it handle 20 people in 2 alt guilds?

[needmorezleep]

probably not since people dont do that in other places lol im sure if something like this happens the iro community can surely be kind and not do things like that which will just make people want to quit instead of playing

[AlmrOfAtlas]

The sarcasm is palpable.

[rojoky113]

Limiting the number of castles is a significant step number one IMO, currently there is just FAR too much empty space in both woe's. An entire guild shouldn't have to spend half an hour running around trying to find a fight, nor should it be so easy for 1-3 players to find an empty castle to take uncontested at the end of woe. Cut the number of castles so that the people sieging run into each other and fight naturally in actual competition over limited castles. Cut the number of castles in half, double up relevant castle drops, reset econ/ownership when you put it in.

 

I think alliances being disabled is something to discuss/consider, though guilds can still just merge into one and with the guild limit staying the same few guilds ever get close to full capacity during woe anyway. In addition, guilds who want to work together will work together allied or not, even if friendly fire might keep them from standing directly together.

 

The real problem really is just lack of population, and while limiting castles will help mask and mitigate that problem somewhat in the meantime, it doesn't solve it. Making woe more rewarding and getting new guilds/players geared easier will help lower the barrier to entry and offer greater incentive, which may help. Maybe a revision of castle drops to include more relevant gear to help starting guilds get themselves outfitted and make getting into woe to compete for castles more attractive could help? Though I'm not sure if this is possible without also pushing the larger established guilds even further ahead.

Edited by rojoky113, 19 November 2015 - 06:39 AM.

[Rayea]

Reducing guild cap does nothing when the majority of guilds claim to have twelve people. At this point the combat physics may as well be party PvP.

Much how Themes mentioned earlier if Alliancing is disabled the guilds will get creative, then it goes to reason that a smaller guildcap will just lead to alt guilds collaborating. Handing large guilds the ability to use multiple UCs might end up being a lot more scary.

 

For this reason alone there should be an effort focused on talking to those guildmasters.

 

If castle rewards are bolstered, measures should be put in place to make sure that those rewards remain valuable and do not saturate the server, otherwise they will very quickly end up as worthless as the current drops; meaning that entire discussion must happen again.

 

I am really interested to know which guilds are talking. Could you please append that information to your posts?

Edited by Rayea, 19 November 2015 - 07:54 AM.

[Heart]

It may seem like it as there's just not enough guilds or locations for us to fight separately but we're not going to throw supplies at each other for no reason.

 

I dont want to speak for Aurora, but from what I understand they dont have any MVP cards and havent made any 1.0 gods (I dont think they have access to AnOs items and AnO is like 3 people at this point). They also generally have more players than we do.

 

But like I said earlier, outside of defending an econ fort, we dont work directly together in 1.0. There's almost no communication between our guilds and any situation recently that has ended up with both our guilds in the same fort has just been because that's where the other guilds are.

 

 

Let me take you on those 3 points.

 

First, theres one good way to get more guilds to fight is probably but not having the alliance.

I am not very sure what you mean by "we are not gonna throw supplies at each other for no reason" 

maybe a good reason for doing that maybe to actually have people to fight and have GVG against?

Aurora as you say has more people, wouldn't it be more fun to actually fight them instead of small/larger guilds?

 

 

Second, AnO is just 3 people?  They must be very very skilled players to hold more castles than total online players.

http://choobs.org/cl.../index/20151108

 

Third, defending an econ, for what purpose exactly, I mean afaik I know, the valk alliance hasn't really been rolling the seals, so what exactly do you do with the god pieces, basically I am asking is why are you econing so hard. Trading off fun GvG and fun of woe for something that nothing but merely a token of great value, but frankly is useless isn't something I really get.

 

Edit: Typo

Edited by Heart, 19 November 2015 - 09:38 AM.

[Themes]

giving a guild of x number of people real gears that will expire will help greatly in another thread people tried suggesting nerfed items which no guild will join for since they need to get to see if woe will be worth it before having dedication to the server

 

the rewards from woe are terrible mufflers, shoes wat? this stuff is useful in pretrans adding better rewards will help fund smaller guilds and help back guilds that are fresh with a guild pack to get real perm gear to continue to fight

 

they can generally just look at about any other server for minigames to find them there is a bit 2 much variety but devil's square is usually the most populated one and non afked one that people will play as long as it eventually leads to rewards

 

pvm is sort of discouraged in this server it ends up being janeway/anubis/acidus so people that enjoy casual pvm are sort of forced into the same old boring thing with little variety/reward constantly perhaps greatly increasing the exp of old leveling grounds like seals, niff, majourous, stings, bathories/alarms, magma 1/2, abbey 2/3

 

Ok cool.

 

The GMs have definitely expressed an interest at creating welcome packs for new groups of players, but they dont know what people want or need and nobody has seriously approached them about it. I'm sure if someone wrote up a reasonable proposal it could be done.

 

Yeah treasure has been a constant annoyance for every guild leader, we've frequently complained about the amount/type of stuff you get because it's miserable to deal with. Drop rates for pieces and such are also a big concern, but it's hard to justifiably reduce them now as all its doing is punishing new guilds and rewarding guilds that have been here all along.

 

If you want to PM me some servers that run these types of events or link me to any descriptions I'd like to see them, I have no exposure to the pserver scene and wouldnt know where to start.

 

Agreed there, there needs to be more reasons for people to visit the other maps, but I'm not sure how to do it. There's a lot of cool places that could be used to encourage people to get out and about, one thing I've mentioned before is turning Bio2 into a good place for pre-trans characters to go and level. It doesnt offer job experience so doing crazy things to the experience doesnt help trans characters.

 

Limiting the number of castles is a significant step number one IMO, currently there is just FAR too much empty space in both woe's. An entire guild shouldn't have to spend half an hour running around trying to find a fight, nor should it be so easy for 1-3 players to find an empty castle to take uncontested at the end of woe. Cut the number of castles so that the people sieging run into each other and fight naturally in actual competition over limited castles. Cut the number of castles in half, double up relevant castle drops, reset econ/ownership when you put it in.

 

I think alliances being disabled is something to discuss/consider, though guilds can still just merge into one and with the guild limit staying the same few guilds ever get close to full capacity during woe anyway. In addition, guilds who want to work together will work together allied or not, even if friendly fire might keep them from standing directly together.

 

The real problem really is just lack of population, and while limiting castles will help mask and mitigate that problem somewhat in the meantime, it doesn't solve it. Making woe more rewarding and getting new guilds/players geared easier will help lower the barrier to entry and offer greater incentive, which may help. Maybe a revision of castle drops to include more relevant gear to help starting guilds get themselves outfitted and make getting into woe to compete for castles more attractive could help? Though I'm not sure if this is possible without also pushing the larger established guilds even further ahead.

 

I agree with a lot of this, especially the bolded. But like I've said it's easy to say do <thing> because it solves <problem> but in the example of reducing forts what happens to god pieces? Do we get the random box Renewal has?

 

I'm all for a reduction in the number of forts, but you've also got to keep in mind that depending on how low you reduce the numbers, smaller guilds/groups are going to hurt. If you knock out lets say, two forts from each realm, that leaves us with 12 forts. VH will probably still attempt to take one in each realm, leaving 8 forts, right now that's probably about right for the number of guilds/groups we have (Valk, Aurora, Sons, Rampage, 5O, Terms of Service, RO2, Iron Maiden, sorry if I forgot anyone it's early!) but what happens when a new guild wants to join in or one guild wants to push for multiple? It's very hard to suddenly tell people "Ok well before there was a high chance of getting an end fort, so you can use those to help supply your guild for the next week" and then changing the tune to "Ok so we reduced the number of forts, hopefully you can find one that doesnt have big guilds rushing through it at the end!". There's also the fact that people are used to ending with forts, having access to a Guild Dungeon is still almost essential for a lot of groups to supply themselves, removing their access could potentially prevent them from being involved next week if they're only supplying themselves on a week by week basis.

 

There's a lot of problems, but solving them is going to take creative solutions, it'll probably be up to us to propose and push to get them implemented.

 

Edit: post while I was posting

Let me take you on those 3 points.

 

First, theres one good way to get more guilds to fight is probably but not having the alliance.

I am not very sure what you mean by "we are not gonna throw supplies at each other for no reason" 

maybe a good reason for doing that maybe to actually have people to fight and have GVG against?

Aurora as you say has more people, wouldn't it be more fun to actually fight them instead of small/larger guilds?

 

 

Second, AnO is just 3 people?  They must be very very skilled players to hold more castles than total online players.

http://choobs.org/cl.../index/20151108

 

Third, defending an econ, for what purpose exactly, I mean afaik I know, the valk alliance hasn't really been rolling the seals, so what exactly do you do with the god pieces, basically I am asking is why are you econing so hard. Trading off fun GvG and fun of woe for something that nothing but merely a token of great value, but frankly is useless isn't something I really get.

 

Edit: Typo

We've had plenty of fights the last three or four weeks in 1.0 and almost none of those have been as an alliance, I do get frustrated when we're doing things and a couple of people from Aurora show up and interfere but it's not my place to tell them to leave.

 

We have no interest in fighting Aurora, we've worked together and share some common goals. It's a waste of supplies for us. I dont think it would be fun or interesting, they dont have any Gods or MVPs, if we're looking for a fair fight it's easier to look to some of these guilds with RMTed MVP cards as they generally have higher numbers and better gear.

 

Yes, AnO is somewhere between 3-4 people every week. We never see or hear from them as "an alliance". The fact that they were able to break so many forts in 2.0 is dumb and speaks towards the idea of reducing the number of forts, maybe some of the 1.0 guilds should come check out 2.0! Hopefully the time isnt too miserable for you.

 

We defend because we like to defend, it generally guarantees us a fight. Fighting over nothing, in empty forts with no econ is boring and means nothing to us. However competing for something is more rewarding when you're successfully able to defend or take it. As long as there's a guild like VH, who have an interest in controlling item gain for other guilds we're always going to have someone attempting to stop what we do, so we dont really have to go looking for a fight, we just take a fort and they'll be at our doorstep. We also dont really enjoy the current "GvG" style of play, we're happy to fight over objectives, but we're never going to build a ~*perfect lineup*~ and then stand 9 tiles away throwing bombs and taroting each other because that doesnt appeal to us at all.

 

As for what we do with god pieces? They just sit there, they dont really matter at all, it's highly unlikely we're ever going to make another 1.0 item and people who want to make 2.0 items get them done whenever we get the opportunity.

Edited by Themes, 19 November 2015 - 09:59 AM.

[Heart]

IMO they should leave woe1 forts as it is, really, sundays are a much bigger issue.

Reducing woe1 forts is gonna hurt newer guilds much more than help, where as woe2 forts will barely effect them, it will just make woe2 not sleepy.

 

How about a new system to give guild's access to guild dungeons? Its one of the best ways to get GSBs that can make supplying much much easier.

Frankly I dont think anyone will have issues if , for example, guild who don't have castles also farm GSB.

Why? Because as much as it may look like GSBs are farmed alot and frankly the amount I see on the market is huge.

But I almost never see anyone there (atleast not in luina) I have leveled my LK from 95-99 in GD farming GSB, and the only time I saw anyone was an Hwiz and a pally taking Dopple. Maybe its different scene in other realm GD.

 

Or maybe create an alternate map with GD monsters with lower spawns, but easier to access by everyone.

 

Yes it will hurt GSB farmers(like me), since the prices will drop significantly but it will allow newer guildleaders access to more supplies.

 

Edit :

 

 

We've had plenty of fights the last three or four weeks in 1.0 and almost none of those have been as an alliance, I do get frustrated when we're doing things and a couple of people from Aurora show up and interfere but it's not my place to tell them to leave.

 

We have no interest in fighting Aurora, we've worked together and share some common goals. It's a waste of supplies for us. I dont think it would be fun or interesting, they dont have any Gods or MVPs, if we're looking for a fair fight it's easier to look to some of these guilds with RMTed MVP cards as they generally have higher numbers and better gear.

 

What goals might that be? I am curious, really.

 

Yes, AnO is somewhere between 3-4 people every week. We never see or hear from them as "an alliance". The fact that they were able to break so many forts in 2.0 is dumb and speaks towards the idea of reducing the number of forts, maybe some of the 1.0 guilds should come check out 2.0! Hopefully the time isnt too miserable for you.

 

The entry point for woe2 is much harder than 1.0, its understandable that most newer guild dont even attempt it. The few reasons for that I think is :

 

1) Uses much more supplies.

2) Its actually much harder to just rush and get a "lucky" break.

3) Its quite hard for newer guilds to do Okol runs, also to get the econ required for it.

4) The castle drops on woe2 are not worth it, theres just too many peices on the market. Especially Byrns.

 

I would suggest reducing the number of castles, until the number of guilds for 2.0 increase somehow.

 

We defend because we like to defend, it generally guarantees us a fight. Fighting over nothing, in empty forts with no econ is boring and means nothing to us. However competing for something is more rewarding when you're successfully able to defend or take it. As long as there's a guild like VH, who have an interest in controlling item gain for other guilds we're always going to have someone attempting to stop what we do, so we dont really have to go looking for a fight, we just take a fort and they'll be at our doorstep. We also dont really enjoy the current "GvG" style of play, we're happy to fight over objectives, but we're never going to build a ~*perfect lineup*~ and then stand 9 tiles away throwing bombs and taroting each other because that doesnt appeal to us at all.

 

Thats pretty much understandable, having a different play style is not something wrong. Also the reason why VH is at your door step is because, frankly there is no other alliance that can even remotely come close to Valk alliance, going for any other guild is just ...being mean to them as they really can't fight back, at all. Except the RMT guilds, but they don't usually show up on saturdays for some reason. Hell, we even ally newer guilds if they share the GD so that there is no conflict and they can farm in peace.

 

Edited by Heart, 19 November 2015 - 10:28 AM.

[rojoky113]

I agree with a lot of this, especially the bolded. But like I've said it's easy to say do <thing> because it solves <problem> but in the example of reducing forts what happens to god pieces? Do we get the random box Renewal has?

 

I'm all for a reduction in the number of forts, but you've also got to keep in mind that depending on how low you reduce the numbers, smaller guilds/groups are going to hurt. If you knock out lets say, two forts from each realm, that leaves us with 12 forts. VH will probably still attempt to take one in each realm, leaving 8 forts, right now that's probably about right for the number of guilds/groups we have (Valk, Aurora, Sons, Rampage, 5O, Terms of Service, RO2, Iron Maiden, sorry if I forgot anyone it's early!) but what happens when a new guild wants to join in or one guild wants to push for multiple? It's very hard to suddenly tell people "Ok well before there was a high chance of getting an end fort, so you can use those to help supply your guild for the next week" and then changing the tune to "Ok so we reduced the number of forts, hopefully you can find one that doesnt have big guilds rushing through it at the end!". There's also the fact that people are used to ending with forts, having access to a Guild Dungeon is still almost essential for a lot of groups to supply themselves, removing their access could potentially prevent them from being involved next week if they're only supplying themselves on a week by week basis.

 

There's a lot of problems, but solving them is going to take creative solutions, it'll probably be up to us to propose and push to get them implemented.

 

Well my basic suggestion was cut castles in half, and by double up relevant drops I meant redistribute each of the drop pools of the removed castles into one of the remaining castles. Of course, removing half of the castles might not be the optimum number in which case the math doesn't make it so simple, but I am a fan of particular castles having relevance due to their drops and wouldn't want randomized boxes. That encourages guilds to just get any castle and hole up instead of branching out to get particular drops they need, when the whole point is to encourage more activity and competition to make woe more interesting and have more action. If drops would be uneven, perhaps meg castles would be the ones to not get double drops due to their value vs other god items and their pieces. Just spitballing here, really. Nobody has the definitive answers but we won't find them without brainstorming and discussion.

 

I don't think participating in woe as a small guild should necessarily mean a significant chance of getting a castle due to them being overabundant. The whole point of reducing castles is to increase their scarcity and the competition for them, meaning guilds have to fight more in order to take them and the stakes are higher. What would make this an issue is how classic currently ties ease of acquiring woe supplies to having a castle in the first place, which leads to a "rich get richer" sort of scenario if castle scarcity is increased. A possible tandem solution might be needed to detach woe supplies from necessarily needing a castle, while making taking a castle still rewarding. This way smaller guilds or guilds supplying week to week don't NEED to get a castle just to keep woeing, but they should still WANT to because holding a castle should be rewarding. Currently making 1.0 gods has such a barrier unrelated to woe that I'm not sure god pieces are incentive enough for that on their own since currently not many people make effort to create with them, so getting a castle should be significantly rewarding outside of god pieces without that reward being necessary to continue participating or keep up with guilds that do take castles.

 

Perhaps the challenge dungeon could be a source of GSBs or other woe supplies, or one GD could be opened up (or created) to those without a castle. Having it pvp enabled could depend on whether you are trying to make things interesting or fun during non-woe times at the risk of making it too much effort or obnoxious for people just wanting to woe to get supplies, or if you just want to cater to people wanting to put in an effortless grind to get their supplies so they can focus on woe. GD wars are cool, but we are trying to lower barrier to entry so making it less obnoxious might be better. Idk.

 

I also wonder if it might be worth the god creation getting overhauled some, to make getting the drops much harder (require a high econ before they even drop, make them more rare, etc.) but maybe the creation easier to give guilds incentive to woe hard in order to get gods but still keep them difficult to make. The difficulty should be in woe effort, not the horribly boring rolling of seals through tedious leveling and questing of dozens of characters. The problem is that so many pieces and sets exist in storage now, and if the creation becomes harder overall people will whine about the gods already made, though I'm not sure if the solution is really to keep the broken system because its been broken, letting things get even worse instead of enacting any change or damage control. Also, it's really hard to think of a way to make woe effort matter without creating another "powerful get more powerful" scenario so idk, though that's kinda how it is now anyway. But currently VH puts in so much more effort into creation that the gap is only going to get worse if nothing is done.

 

A god/god piece wipe to go with the overhaul might not be fair or the way to do it but at the same time, I'm really not sure how it should be gone about. But I feel like there needs to be effort to figure it out. Woe should be low barrier to entry, high competition, and rewarding without unbalancing things too much in favor of the victors. God creation should be reasonable and tied more to woe, but obviously much harder to do than the woe related parts are now.

Edited by rojoky113, 19 November 2015 - 12:00 PM.