221 replies to this topic

[Rhein14]

Uhmm how many you think still playing in RO2?

 

^ UP

[magpi]

 

 

 

 

This picture is exactly the problem that people keep talking around. All a guild needs to do is defend south and the gate and they can own the map entire map. Guilds needing to "git gud" is not the problem. The game's population today does not require this crowd control mechanism anymore. 

[xkazehanax]

Actually I am not the one assuming, you are.  Read it again if you don't understand.

 

1.  The 100 member reference coming out of the post I quoted.  I did not assume it.

 

2.  When there is the presence of the main gate: There aren't 'real' people defending east/west forts/caslte, nor there are any 'fake' people.   You don't understand the purpose of the gate and you are making an opinion.  I stated this point a number of times, early in the topic.

 

Here let me show you, just in case you are sleeping in WoE because the gate is promoting lazy defending:

 

 

Look inside the red circles, do you see a single person real or fake in the castle? east fort? west fort?  Where are the 'real' people you said that exists?  When the gate blocks access to the upper part of the map, all the defense can be focused at the gate and south fort.  You cannot find a single person at the upper part of the map.  That is what I mean, humans that are supposed to spread to defend 5 points (east fort / west fort / south fort / left castle gate / right castle gate) are lazily allowed to put into defending 2 points (south / main gate).  I wouldn't expect someone would take it as I mean something else when I said 'no real people'.  Unless there is something else.

 

If you are wondering why the upper forts HP are low it's because of the situation I outlined here.

 

I think you are just promoting lazy attacks. You are simply crying for the gate to be removed so that you have a chance to sit in these empty forts because your enemy decided to focus on strengthening their first line of defense at the expense of other inner area, and you simply can't beat that.

 

Your guild is so disorganized, there is only 10 of you scattered around the map. And you expect to take on a well-organised enemy like that? Not to mention that you don't even party all the 10 dots on the map.

 

Now I know why the defender can leave those points empty. Because there is not a single chance that the gate or South Fortress is expected to fall based on what I can tell on this map movement. Because if the enemy is strong enough to breach through the first line of defense, expected with the capability to down the gate, I doubt the defender will ever leave these area empty and undefended. Defense will definitely be put up there.

 

Defender are focusing on first line of defense at the expense of inner defense. It is a risk undertaken by them, if the gate is to be opened despite their full force defense on the main gate, a fort or second gate will indefinitely easily fall to an ecall, or even the castle might face danger.

[flukeSG2]

I think you are just promoting lazy attacks. You are simply crying for the gate to be removed so that you have a chance to sit in these empty forts because your enemy decided to focus on strengthening their first line of defense at the expense of other inner area, and you simply can't beat that.

 

Your guild is so disorganized, there is only 10 of you scattered around the map. And you expect to take on a well-organised enemy like that? Not to mention that you don't even party all the 10 dots on the map.

 

Now I know why the defender can leave those points empty. Because there is not a single chance that the gate or South Fortress is expected to fall based on what I can tell on this map movement. Because if the enemy is strong enough to breach through the first line of defense, expected with the capability to down the gate, I doubt the defender will ever leave these area empty and undefended. Defense will definitely be put up there.

 

Defender are focusing on first line of defense at the expense of inner defense. It is a risk undertaken by them, if the gate is to be opened despite their full force defense on the main gate, a fort or second gate will indefinitely easily fall to an ecall, or even the castle might face danger.

 

You sure make a lot of huge assumptions don't you?  How many times to I have to tell you get off that -_- high horse of yours?  Listen to how -_-y and full of yourself you are.  Do you even read the -_- you write?  You think you are better than anyone else?  If you are so good, why do you have to QQ about buffing an already OP class?  If you aren't any good at it, go play another one.  Seriously dude, wow, how the -_- do you know whether or not they are regrouping or even in Ghost Palanquin for that matter.

 

"First line of defense" L O -_- L  This is exactly what we are talking about, WHERE IS MORROC'S FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE?  Why doesn't anyone bother attacking the "first line of defense" in Prontera?  Oh gee doesn't take a -_- tactical wizard to figure that one out smart guy.  Funny it still needs to be explained to you though (lel).  They don't attack because it would leave a gaping hole in THEIR DEFENSE!  They don't have a fall back point unlike you do.  They don't get to sit on a gate or an orb and not have to assign people to defend the forts or castle like Prontera holders do.

 

The only reason you are against this is because of your own self interest and that's completely obvious.

[crafter4epics]

 

 

ok we have a lawyer that could see the tiny bits of error we got in this picture. But look at the big picture. Imbalanced scenario where a knight w/ 2 x power 40 could easily kill said 10 players or more. That's not PVP, that's more of a who uses imbalanced classes w/ runes not available anymore abuse. W/ this defending is so easy. Even if an organized raid w/c landed a nice setup ecall in south or gate, could be easily wipe out by said imbalanced knight. Of course it's not practical to main a knight & abandon you're fave class when BT is about to get nerfed. Also nerfed seed runes & max if you want would just be available thru illegal means.

 

2 things why players want to remove the gate

1.) lack of players at WOE (players who want to play are wiped easily coz of class imbalance - don't want to make a knight or buy power 40 thru the black market) - solution : balance the game(devs are working on this)

2.) prontera woe map gets advantage over morroc - solution : seperate WOE times in each map(devs need time to work on this)

 

thus

 

Just think about it this way, if you have the choice to climb one wall or two walls for one million dollars, which one would you choose if they both have the same prize and one is less work?  The choice is obvious.

I agree w/ this only because at this time devs could not move different schedules for only 1 map opened for WOE - sched 1 : pront WOE, sched 2 : morroc WOE. i've onced stated in one of the first pages of this thread that if WOE times could be seperated for each map w/c is for example the owner of pront castle or WOE winner will not be able to join morroc siege

 

Now, for simulation Guild A owns all prontera forts & castle while B owns morroc castle. Simulate if A attacks castle owned by B. they could destroy morroc main gate or if the orb was opened ecall and land exactly or near morroc gold emp. If B counters as their castle is soon to be taken, they need to destroy 1.) prontera gate & 2.) another prontera castle gate & no orb to instanly open any pront castle gate.

 

We know most movement w/in WOE is during the first & the last few minutes & in between is the boring part - you can watch lets say a movie & return only if such fort or gate gets attacked or at the end of WOE.

One strat for A could be walk at the mid w/ hide or ghost (but if also can have a well put kafra save, hard to accomplish)then dmg the gate as much as they can then ecall to pront gate while full defending both gate & south orb. They can do this all hour, A reserves an ecall at pront gate defense & just walk w/ ghosts to morroc main gate. If they could dmg the emp or w/ a greater force & leave as half & w8 the time where 2nd flip will make them morroc castle owner, they could get both pront & morroc castle when correctly computed enough morroc points. For points formula there should be some computation here at the forums (owned forts give extra pts) but for quick sample 4th flip gets you around 30k pts/min so in 10mins that's ave 300k pts.

 

There are lots of scenarios where pront gets much more advantage than morroc not including pront defense is much easier due to choke points, a good ecall spot at pront forts require the ecaller (especially south) to run thru narrow passages w/c can easily be countered by macroed aoe's, no flying kafra at the start to get back fast(morroc has 3 options to fly), etc

[DietSodaa]

2 things why players want to remove the gate

1.) lack of players at WOE (players who want to play are wiped easily coz of class imbalance - don't want to make a knight or buy power 40 thru the black market) - solution : balance the game(devs are working on this)

2.) prontera woe map gets advantage over morroc - solution : seperate WOE times in each map(devs need time to work on this)

 

Basically thats why players are supporting this idea. Thread itself wasnt made by a big woe guild, mentioning this again. Also, woe is so much fun when that orb is actually open, obviously noticeable as past 2-3 woe's . =D

[Sowlemia]

 why do you have to QQ about buffing an already OP class?  If you aren't any good at it, go play another one. 

 

 

 

Aren't you the one who quit ranger to play OP classes in WOE such as "Sin or Knight" ? for now several months i no longer see your ranger in WOE. So basiclaly talking about OP classes when you are playing one of these is kinda ironic.

Edited by Sowlemia, 13 January 2016 - 06:06 AM.

[flukeSG2]

Aren't you the one who quit ranger to play OP classes in WOE such as "Sin or Knight" ? for now several months i no longer see your ranger in WOE. So basiclaly talking about OP classes when you are playing one of these is kinda ironic.

 

What class did I play after my ranger Solemia?  I guess you just forgot.  Just for your information I deleted my original ranger and am in the slow process of remaking her.  Also you obviously have no idea to what I was referring, not unusual there either, so any sense of irony you have is misplaced.

Edited by flukeSG2, 13 January 2016 - 08:28 AM.

[donchan]

Aren't you the one who quit ranger to play OP classes in WOE such as "Sin or Knight" ? for now several months i no longer see your ranger in WOE. So basiclaly talking about OP classes when you are playing one of these is kinda ironic.

 

If you are going to QQ about people not contributing to a thread or flamebaiting... please don't be a hypocrite and do it yourself.  Thanks~ <3 :3

[Sowlemia]

Aren't you guys QQins as well ? Well some say we have to remove the gate and some say we don't so what's next ? want to keep on saying WE DO HAVE TO and WE DON'T HAVE TO.

 

so who has the last word ?

[donchan]

Aren't you guys QQins as well ? Well some say we have to remove the gate and some say we don't so what's next ? want to keep on saying WE DO HAVE TO and WE DON'T HAVE TO.

 

so who has the last word ?

 

Two flamebaits in one thread?  Nice try, but I'm not falling for it   I'm not trying to imply if anybody is QQing or not. I am simply pointing out your comment has no value on this thread and your flamebaiting is not welcome here.  Just thought you'd stop if I pointed out your hypocrisy since you regularly protest unneeded comments in other threads on the forums... I guess I was wrong.

Edited by donchan, 13 January 2016 - 10:18 AM.

[GarudaBlack]

Aren't you guys QQins as well ? Well some say we have to remove the gate and some say we don't so what's next ? want to keep on saying WE DO HAVE TO and WE DON'T HAVE TO.

so who has the last word ?

No one have the last word here. I have to remind this is a feedback topic and not a fight to see which statement is right. In the end only Gravity will decide if the gate remain, will be removed or if they will try a different aproach.

Edited by GarudaBlack, 13 January 2016 - 01:32 PM.

[Sowlemia]

Yeah  then guess what you're not QQing, neither is Fluke, but at the begining, who complained about the gate ?  So yeah you guys are alright, i'malways the oen who QQ and for sure you guys are not, that's why we are here anyway.

 

About the topic itself:

 

Something has to change but maybe not the removal of the gate. When there were so many players in RO2, this gate was needed, so what i see is "Because of the lack of players" we remove it, so what if so many players come back , we bring it back and so on and so forth ? Maybe another solution is needed such as decreasing gate's HP ?

 

 

Edited by Sowlemia, 13 January 2016 - 10:33 AM.

[DietSodaa]

To be honest, I cant really see anyone complaining about the gate. This is a feedback thread, have to mention its not brought up by those players u mentioned, therefore, we support our ideas with good feedbacks. There's nothing wrong about that. 

[donchan]

Yeah  then guess what you're not QQing, neither is Fluke, but at the begining, who complained about the gate ?  So yeah you guys are alright, i'malways the oen who QQ and for sure you guys are not, that's why we are here anyway.

 

Like diet says, we may be contesting the existence of the gate, but nobody is really complaining about it.

 

 

Maybe another solution is needed such as decreasing gate's HP ?

 

Problem with the gate is not solely how hard it is to bring down, it's the fact that PF has that extra layer of defense that MF doesn't have is the bottom lining issue.  Although making the main gate easier to bring down may not be a bad idea imo, if the castle gates got some kind of nerf as well.  Maybe the castle gates can simply have their HP reduced or have an orb at east and west forts to open the respective gates like MF has. 

Edited by donchan, 13 January 2016 - 11:13 AM.

[Cartian]

Every time someone come up with legit reasons to remove the gate, it is flooded with replies that say it is "QQ to remove the gate because you can't break it down".  Anyone isn't brain dead can take a step back and look at Morroc compare to Prontera.  Then it became obvious that it is "QQ to keep the gate because you can't win fair game".  

 

I don't even know commenting on a guild based on a screenshot taken in a spilt second can make a valid point.  Nor do I know there is expense to not defending the upper forts when nobody can get up there (it is 100% safe at 0 expense) while the gate is blocking access.  Great way to tell who is brain dead and who isn't.

Edited by Cartian, 13 January 2016 - 11:52 AM.

[7843140731162112220]

One screenshoot taken in a split second can be used to argue about no defense in Upper fort and such, which maybe it not showing because of lag and taken right after warp but then the same screenshoot can't be used to argue the own's wrong - "can't make valid point". How double standard is that

Edited by 7843140731162112220, 13 January 2016 - 01:18 PM.

[Cartian]

How many more do you want?

 

http://imgur.com/KaK0SGM.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/c6ElEzc.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/BfEdYe1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/b5ls4IX.jpg

 

Stop picking on the irrelevant details in my posts to use as distraction to cover your lack of reasoning in this discussion.  You are not contributing to any reason to remove/keep the gate as the first post asks you to.

 

Any of these screenshots will do, without attracting trashtalk on guilds that you know nothing about.  That just shows the verbal violation on people (aka trashtalk) is unnecessary.  Was it my bad to leave irrelevant details uncovered which give trashtalker a chance to make a scene?  Didn't expect people have no argument to bring up have to use those as smoke to fill a page.

 

 

 

Edited by Cartian, 13 January 2016 - 05:45 PM.

[jesseclane]

Every time someone come up with legit reasons to remove the gate, it is flooded with replies that say it is "QQ to remove the gate because you can't break it down".  Anyone isn't brain dead can take a step back and look at Morroc compare to Prontera.  Then it became obvious that it is "QQ to keep the gate because you can't win fair game".  

 

I don't even know commenting on a guild based on a screenshot taken in a spilt second can make a valid point.  Nor do I know there is expense to not defending the upper forts when nobody can get up there (it is 100% safe at 0 expense) while the gate is blocking access.  Great way to tell who is brain dead and who isn't.

 

QQ to remove the gate because you can't break it down

[jesseclane]

applaud to R-guild that manage catch PF gate unguarded last WoE. great tactic indeed. waiting the right time to strike

[DietSodaa]

Sir vau plz share popcorn

[StormHaven]

Locked this topic since it's devolved into flame baiting, harassment, etc.