Also your test plan is lacking many elements, this is what is going to happen and it really doesn't relate to this discussion you might as well cut it off.
1) Prontera is free for all, guilds will go there ? or not?
2) Your guild will take all of Morroc forts/castle.
3) Your guild will defend Morroc for that WoE.
But while half of the people, even smaller guilds, could be going to the buffet at Prontera, you can't test the "hard to defend MF and subject to many attacks" part. Because in the days when a lot of action going on in Morroc the Prontera main gate is closed (as we seen last WoE the Prontera main gate was opened Morroc WoE immediately took a turn for the boring one).
I shall call this a controlled experiment, not the usual way of action. It will favor your desirable result to "show" that you can defend MF but the fact is there will not be as many attack as when the Prontera main gate is closed. The result, whatever it is, will be deemed as invalid..
Then when it comes to the next WoE:
4) Your guild will try to take back all of Prontera.
Yes, but you can't control the result of the previous WoE. If a few rival guilds got different forts and castle in Prontera, they will definitely not work together as one guild/alliance to defend the main gate and the orb at south fort. In fact, they will want to pour boiling oil into each other such as opening the gate at the start to shift the load to the inner forts and castle.
In 2 WoE, not a single point can be proven. Don't think your plan will work at all, don't think too big or important of yourself neither. Only the devs have the power.
Thank you for your kind highlighting, it appears that you have finally understood my point and I appreciate that, except for how is this a controlled experiment when we certainly does not control anybody's movement.
Of course, that is the scenario if comparing like to like. I would disagree on this, as what I think is the problem strongly lies with the players themselves, not the map. You can't possibly compare 20 person hitting on 60 person and blame the map mechanic saying "its too advantageous for the defender", or comparing army of Serenia well-geared players against casual Eddga-geared players, as well as comparing an IQ 160 WoE Commander with another IQ 90 WoE Commander, these are elements that got nothing to do with the map design.
As for the "Server vs Prontera" scenario, of course it is not out of the picture. But the thing is, whether is that really the whole "Server's" intention to go all out against Prontera, or not. Therefore it really lies with the players to do what they want. The latest "Server vs Prontera" that I recalled was somewhere in the mid of October, where the other 3 big WoE guilds joint hands to contest us in PF. While the result is that the castle remain defended by us, but we did suffer major losses by losing two forts in PF. Then, probably a side or two realized that the Cons outweight the Pros to go "Server vs Prontera" when they could achieve conquering much more castle or fortresses if they don't. Hence, it's really a matter of choice. Not because it will not happen again, but whether people want to do it or not.
As I have previously stated, the direction of WoE is not determined merely by one NPC gate, but the players and people as a whole. It seems like you finally get the point that whether they want to do something or not, or whether they can do something or not.
Does guilds want to attack MF or PF? It's all decided by their respective leaders.
Can a guild control whole PF? It's all depended on their force. Result of a WoE was never meant to be and can never be controlled by anyone in any mean, to begin with.