221 replies to this topic

[flukeSG2]

The problem lies in you not taking another individual's opinion seriously, or with respect. Your ability to understand conversations is unbelievably low. You were asking "why these guild doesn't attack PF" a PVE guild that doesn't attack in WOE/PF falls right in this category, and the link to WOE is there. I cant do anything about your ability to comprehend simple Q's and A's, but do try re-read say 10 times, if you don't get it.

 

Of course it is good to share what you know to someone who appeared to not know, this is called knowledge sharing. Good Quote anyway, in my interpretation that is GM will see these suggestion, and it will still be up to them to decide on making any appropriate changes.

 

That is an absurd answer.  You really believe I was referring to PvE guilds and why they do not attack Prontera WoE map which happens to be a PvP map during the hours of a PvP contest, all which is being discussed in the PvP Discussion, Sub-forum War of Emperium?

Your ability to make sense in conversations is what is unbelievable here.  That you think that is an actual explanation for anything is mind bending.

[5318130516144610857]

If you don't believe it go ask him yourself.  I don't know what to tell you, you don't believe much except what comes out of your own mouth.

 

 You missed my point you schmuck, I'm questioning the fact it takes a lot of time and coding to have different WoE taking turns, not what you said is true or not. But that doesn't surprise me much coming from you at this point.

 

Disclaimer : I'm not a programmer, I can not judge objectively without full knowledge of how to code RO2, it was simply an observation stated in the form of an opinion expressing doubts about a statement given as a fact.

[TomatoChan]

I agree with changing WoE maps time tables to not occur on the same day and time.  That said, I will repeat that Njoror has stated an implement like that would take a great deal of time and coding and wouldn't be likely seen soon. 

 

Your agreement in this issue seems to me like an acknowledgement of the underlying problem which you also state in your comment "insufficient number of people."  You agree that changing WoE maps to alternate times would reduce the case whereby one map is abandoned while another if more favored.  Yet you disagree with the fact that removing the main gate would in fact promote activity on both maps simultaneously as seen today, because the main gate was controlled often by opposing guilds to that of the castle holder.  Interesting contradiction if I may say so.

 

Your clarification on how to open the main gate is unnecessary as it's been stated several times, however it seems that you and several others think simply explaining how it's done changes the fact that the orb, south fortress, the castle and remaining forts can all be defended by one choke point.  And that simply explaining this gives the guilds who choose to stay in the safety of the other map, the needed incentive to come and attack it.  When sadly this is not the case as I explained in my last post.

 

Great, finally we came eye-to-eye on something.

 

Having more guilds (in regardless of size) attacking can divide the force of said "defending guild", To put it simply, allow me to use another figurative examples:

 

There's 4 team in a contest (given these four teams are each an independent guild) contesting fairly for the prize, respective teams should figure out legitimate ways to overcome given obstacles, instead of asking for the removal of such obstacles . and

In a war, if the geographic design does not favours you, you find ways to overcome it, you don't simply change an obstacles just to win a war.

 

coming back to the topic, by having more guilds continuously aiming for the gate/ south fort with the right strategy will greatly reduce the power and force of said defending guild. I'm saying it is possible to bypass the choke point.

 

My stand is still on the adjustment of WOE openings for both map, but I disagree on removing the main gate as I don't see it being there as a problem, and removing it will just make PF lost it's distinctive value. Challenges are what makes life interesting, such as talking to you.

[5318130516144610857]

Gate opened most of the time and the result is amazing. PVP in whole map, more action, and can move in a large area of map. 

 

Final Result is WOE is great, everyone having a good time, participation of players increased. If these events continues opening the gate most of the time more players will be spreading the news to come and join WOE means more participants. Was reading and monitoring Pub chat as well and guild recruitment.

 

But please put your comments more and suggestion on this thread. Thank you for participating and replying my on my thread. 

 

 

Assassin VCR

 

Well, GG. Guilds were finally able to keep that gate open throughout WoE and it was fun and all what you said. If this can be achieved, there are no valid reasons to remove the gate that has been part of Prontera mechanism since forever, no matter what reasons you can come up with. Like it or not, this is how Prontera is and you abide to the fact the main gate can create unbalance by playing it. Some players dislike it very much, others appreciate that extra difficulty and want to preserve it.

 

To me there are no right or wrongs, but clearly the side that wants to remove the gate only sees their own navel and think their point of view is owner of the objective truth where there isn't any.

Edited by 5318130516144610857, 10 January 2016 - 01:05 AM.

[flukeSG2]

Great, finally we came eye-to-eye on something.

 

Having more guilds (in regardless of size) attacking can divide the force of said "defending guild", To put it simply, allow me to use another figurative examples:

 

There's 4 team in a contest (given these four teams are each an independent guild) contesting fairly for the prize, respective teams should figure out legitimate ways to overcome given obstacles, instead of asking for the removal of such obstacles . and

In a war, if the geographic design does not favours you, you find ways to overcome it, you don't simply change an obstacles just to win a war.

 

coming back to the topic, by having more guilds continuously aiming for the gate/ south fort with the right strategy will greatly reduce the power and force of said defending guild. I'm saying it is possible to bypass the choke point.

 

My stand is still on the adjustment of WOE openings for both map, but I disagree on removing the main gate as I don't see it being there as a problem, and removing it will just make PF lost it's distinctive value. Challenges are what makes life interesting, such as talking to you.

 

That is the entire point here.  Where are you going to conjure up these guilds to attack Prontera and open the main gate when there is a second map free of such obstacles?  You've already agreed to the problem.  You've already agreed that changing schedules for each map would be the solution to this problem.  This distinct value you place upon this gate causes more issues than it solves now.  You can not deny that both maps were fraught with action and much more movement during times when the gate isn't closed.  So under what rationalization do you believe that it should remain, knowing the fact that most guilds will choose to remain in Morroc in an effort to defend their conquests, to which they have no fall back line such as Prontera owners do?  Do the owners of Morroc castle get to /escape and re-enter their castle at a spot they can immediately defend the entrance?  No, they do not.  Do other guilds have to break down another layer of defense in Morroc to get to the two fortresses that are behind the castle?  No, they do not.  Now why, does anyone have to do this in Prontera?  Why as you've stated yourself does the main holding force of Prontera NOT have to divide to protect?

Edited by flukeSG2, 10 January 2016 - 01:16 AM.

[flukeSG2]

Well, GG. Guilds were finally able to keep that gate open throughout WoE and it was fun and all what you said. If this can be achieved, there is no valid reasons to remove the gate that has been part of Prontera mechanism since forever, no matter what reasons you can come up with. Like it or not, this is how Prontera is and you abide to the fact the main gate can create unbalance by playing it. Some players dislike it very much, others appreciate that extra difficulty and want to preserve it.

 

To me there are no right or wrongs, but clearly the side that wants to remove the gate only sees their own navel and think their point of view is owner of the objective truth where there isn't any.

 

Why don't you ask yourself why that was able to happen in the first place?  Perhaps if you were more observant you'd see what went on and know why the gate was able to remain open. The  castle owner decided to forsake Prontera and left the map empty for the taking.  They in turn decided to attack Morroc.  Now because of the lack of defense, the gate was able to be opened (as if it wasn't there) and the map was mostly free for the taking.  The following WoE continued to see other guilds owning forts in Prontera and the southern fort wasn't heavily defended or defended at all in most cases, leaving it easily accessible to those opposing the castle holder or upper fort owners.

[5318130516144610857]

So you acknowledge the main problem here is, one guild is too strong for the others and can take all of Prontera and lock up that map (most of WoEs during that reign however, the main gate has been opened one way or another). Your suggestion is straight forward remove completely the gate to fix this issue, I and others are not keen on this idea and prefer to try other options first, such as lowereing even more gate's hp, increasing mortars cd or make WoE take turns on what map it is played to have more guilds in a same place and thus making WoE more prolific in terms of action and movement.

[flukeSG2]

So you acknowledge the main problem here is, one guild is too strong for the others and can take all of Prontera and lock up that map (most of WoEs during that reign however, the main gate has been opened one way or another). Your suggestion is straight forward remove completely the gate to fix this issue, I and others are not keen on this idea and prefer to try other options first, such as lowereing even more gate's hp, increasing mortars cd or make WoE take turns on what map it is played to have more guilds in a same place and thus making WoE more prolific in terms of action and movement.

 

No I acknowledge no such thing.  I acknowledge that the once and current owner is stronger, at least in numbers, than a guild.  Not others as in plural, just a single attacking guild which is often the scenario because of the Morroc map being a presence.

[5318130516144610857]

Right. Numbers is part of the strenght of a guild, and a guild is too strong for the other single attacking guild, which is often the scenario in Prontera, that makes PF locked up of access. You suggest removing the main gate completely to fix this problem, I advise to try other things first for all the reasons I stated and that you blindly and arrogantly dismiss.

[flukeSG2]

Right. Numbers is part of the strenght of a guild, and a guild is too strong for the other single attacking guild, which is often the scenario in Prontera, that makes PF locked up of access. You suggest removing the main gate completely to fix this problem, I advise to try other things first for all the reasons I stated and that you blindly and arrogantly dismiss.

 

Making the HP of the gate to 1/2 doesn't change the fact that there is this extra line of defense between the forts and players that is not there in Morroc, so again the incentive to leave what you own in Morroc to risk an attempt at opening it and subsequently leaving a gaping hole in your defense, is not there.

 

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.

[Rhein14]

Hmmm the good deed that I did turned bad to test the Prontera map when I open the gate and roam all over the map. Is it a bad thing to see another guild trying their very best to participate in WOE or making WOE free for all players? Am I just being greedy to let others enjoy the game to the fullest? I strongly suggest for the removal of the gate to the fact that I want other players to enjoy PVP and increase our numbers playing the event which is WOE. I just want to see different guild names and players who enjoy PVP and not the same name of guilds over and over again. I always have a feeling when I see the same guild name I say "MEH" because it's them again. But then I saw this new rising guilds (small/ medium) it made me happy to see someone/other new guilds participating. If you're watching GOT I have a reference for you for I think you're thinking highly of yourself. Any man who must say " I am the king" is no true king. If this hits your ego so hard well I am not sorry, I am just trying to help the game and doing my job as VCR. If you want to help us to improve in game please apply to us and we discuss everything under the sun and asked my fellow VCRs about ideas on how to improve the game.

 

I'm speaking only the fact that WOE players are smaller in numbers and inviting for other guilds to participate and ENJOY the event. I am promoting WOE not for my own good but for the game. 

 

Thank you for quoting my comment. 

[Maharaorajah]

 If this hits your ego so hard well I am not sorry, I am just trying to help the game and doing my job as VCR. If you want to help us to improve in game please apply to us and we discuss everything under the sun and asked my fellow VCRs about ideas on how to improve the game.

 

I'm speaking only the fact that WOE players are smaller in numbers and inviting for other guilds to participate and ENJOY the event. I am promoting WOE not for my own good but for the game. 

 

 

I can respect the fact that everyone has different viewpoints and pretty much everything that I think can be said of has been said for why the gate should or shouldn't be there. (Which is why I won't bring up anything about the gate) However, the only reason I am even bothering to quote/type in this thread is because I am confused of something you said and would like clarification from you. As a VCR, are you not a volunteer COMMUNITY representative, meaning you "represent" the community and therefore the players that play this game? Why should we be have to apply to being a VCR in order to help improve this game? Can we not just submit our opinions/suggestions to the current VCR's (or even in the threads like these) and know that we ordinary players will have our voices heard that way, regardless if the certain VCR agrees/disagrees with said individual's opinion/suggestion?

 

Of course if VCR means something else entirely different today, then forget I even posted this. 

[DietSodaa]

I can respect the fact that everyone has different viewpoints and pretty much everything that I think can be said of has been said for why the gate should or shouldn't be there. (Which is why I won't bring up anything about the gate) However, the only reason I am even bothering to quote/type in this thread is because I am confused of something you said and would like clarification from you. As a VCR, are you not a volunteer COMMUNITY representative, meaning you "represent" the community and therefore the players that play this game? Why should we be have to apply to being a VCR in order to help improve this game? Can we not just submit our opinions/suggestions to the current VCR's (or even in the threads like these) and know that we ordinary players will have our voices heard that way, regardless if the certain VCR agrees/disagrees with said individual's opinion/suggestion?

 

Of course if VCR means something else entirely different today, then forget I even posted this. 

 

Of course VCR's supposed to represent community. But that doesnt mean VCR's has powers to make instant changes in game such as this gate removal suggestion. We push the stuff we discuss on chat here to get feedbacks from community how they would react to it.

 

The reason he made such reply is , on a feedback thread, u most certainly have to support your opinions . Just saying "I want this to be changed" is not a real feedback, therefore, some players from big guilds are using this thread for their own good, not for the game, "" Without "" giving any feedbacks, just trolling the thread and flamebaiting in purpose. 

Edited by DietSodaa, 11 January 2016 - 12:30 PM.

[7843140731162112220]

Of course VCR's supposed to represent community. But that doesnt mean VCR's has powers to make instant changes in game such as this gate removal suggestion. We push the stuff we discuss on chat here to get feedbacks from community how they would react to it.

The reason he made such reply is , on a feedback thread, u most certainly have to support your opinions . Just saying "I want this to be changed" is not a real feedback, therefore, some players from big guilds are using this thread for their own good, not for the game, "" Without "" giving any feedbacks, just trolling the thread and flamebaiting in purpose.

Those who not agree also stated their reason too, maybe for you it not a reason because you support for the remove of gate, same to them that think removing gate reason is just unacceptable.

Fellow vcr should just submit this feedback for discussion not to push and force your own opinion to the community. If you disagree just keep it and be professional

Edited by 7843140731162112220, 11 January 2016 - 02:08 PM.

[Vau]

Too much QQ

Too much RMT

Too much class imbalance

Too much bug exploits

Too much Hypocrisy

 

And Gravity gives 0 F

 

Is just RO2.

 

Close the thread, please and thank you.

[Mugenjou88]

I just want to see different guild names and players who enjoy PVP and not the same name of guilds over and over again. I always have a feeling when I see the same guild name I say "MEH" because it's them again.

Don't you know? Big guild consisted of several guilds who fight under one emblem, they share the same vision and mission. just because you "MEH" and you want to see different guild name then you made such a brilliant thread? SMH

if you wants to enjoy PvP there's a place named colosseum or you could visit PF/MF aside from WoE, you don't need siege weapon or strategy to enjoy pvp. 

 

just my two cents

[iamcrow]

If you can't even break a tiny piece of wooden gate, then you are not worthy owning a fort or even a castle. Stop whining and try to improve your strategy. 100 members each guild, if only 10 players attend on your woe, maybe something is wrong with your guild, don't blame if others have big numbers of people. If you don't like the build of this game, you can just quit and play other games. It is not improvements what you aim, it is the lazyness you promote. 

[Rhein14]

Actually I know that big guilds are compose of different guilds to join WOE, but you're missing the point of having or carrying the same guild name makes ME feel "MEH" same guild again and I recognize names of players from other guilds that only joins every WOE. What I want is to see other guilds to participate and to increase our numbers during WOE. More players = more lag = more fun = more PVP in a large area of the map. If we have Alliance system in the game sure I will not suggest to not remove the gate and invite more guild to avoid friendly fire while destroying the gate but unfortunately we don't have have that, so I am suggesting. We know all the fact and that is the fact that guild leaders are stubborn and will not cooperate and that main gate covering almost half of the map unscathed is a big main joke in RO2's main condition now. Can you tell me how many small and big guilds participating when gate's close versus to the gate's open all the time or most the time? Surely you agree that the number of participating guild increased. I am speaking and suggesting on how to improve the game even more and our current number of players participating the event. My main point of suggesting this to increase our numbers in PVP and guilds to join WOE and get good feedback from players winner or loose they still enjoy it roaming and competing with other players free inside the map. I am promoting WOE as friendly competition and not run by greed. Ok you can take forts and castles whatever you want and take bases too but I only want is to improve the map and use the half of it to be a battleground not hiding in main gate and tall walls of the map. 

 

And yes we discuss about this but don't make this personal I'mm just thinking of the game that is slowly dying and trying to improve it by discussing some changes. 

 

 

 

Please feel free to comment again and would love to hear your thoughts regarding the main gate and improving the game. 

 

Thank you.

 

VCR

[Rhein14]

If you can't even break a tiny piece of wooden gate, then you are not worthy owning a fort or even a castle. Stop whining and try to improve your strategy. 100 members each guild, if only 10 players attend on your woe, maybe something is wrong with your guild, don't blame if others have big numbers of people. If you don't like the build of this game, you can just quit and play other games. It is not improvements what you aim, it is the lazyness you promote. 

 

 

Uhmm how many you think still playing in RO2?

[flukeSG2]

Don't you know? Big guild consisted of several guilds who fight under one emblem, they share the same vision and mission. just because you "MEH" and you want to see different guild name then you made such a brilliant thread? SMH

if you wants to enjoy PvP there's a place named colosseum or you could visit PF/MF aside from WoE, you don't need siege weapon or strategy to enjoy pvp. 

 

just my two cents

 

Kind of sounds like they weren't able to accomplish anything alone and had to jump on the bandwagon to win.  No pride in their own guild.  Do you have room in your guild to welcome 50 more active pvp players with the "same vision and mission"?  I doubt it.  So it's sad that they, even being of like mind, can't partake in the spoils of your victory.  Now, if your guild was actually compromised of several smaller guilds, like those which you've absorbed, perhaps everyone could share in the spoils together.  Just because you are in different guilds doesn't mean you can't fly the same colors or wear the same emblem.

 

This is why the OP suggested the removal, because he knows how WoE is currently that the "super" guilds large occupying presence creates an atmosphere that dissuades smaller guilds from even trying and less people end up participating.  So his "meh" feeling he has, he is not alone.  Not everyone wants to join a "super" guild, that doesn't mean that aren't interested in going to WoE.

 

That's my two cents.

 

If you can't even break a tiny piece of wooden gate, then you are not worthy owning a fort or even a castle. Stop whining and try to improve your strategy. 100 members each guild, if only 10 players attend on your woe, maybe something is wrong with your guild, don't blame if others have big numbers of people. If you don't like the build of this game, you can just quit and play other games. It is not improvements what you aim, it is the lazyness you promote. 

 

The brilliant minds of logic and reasoning have surfaced, beware his keen intellectual prowess and sharp observations!

[Cartian]

If you can't even break a tiny piece of wooden gate, then you are not worthy owning a fort or even a castle. Stop whining and try to improve your strategy. 100 members each guild, if only 10 players attend on your woe, maybe something is wrong with your guild, don't blame if others have big numbers of people. If you don't like the build of this game, you can just quit and play other games. It is not improvements what you aim, it is the lazyness you promote. 

 

To put it your way:

 

If you can't even defend 2+1 forts and a castle without a tiny piece of wooden gate, then you are not worthy owning them neither.  Stop whining and try to put real people inside forts to defend them.  Are you admitting that 100 members a guild cannot defend 2+1 forts and a castle if each forts/castle require real people defending?  If you are afraid the removal of the gate will make defending 2+1 forts and a castle give you a hard time, I can understand or maybe something is wrong with your guild.  Don't blame others for giving you a harder life, if you don't want to be inside a fort to defend it you can choose to quit.  After all, it is what is happening in Morroc people do need to be inside forts to protect it.  It is because of your laziness you are promoting the gate to be there to protect your things instead of protecting them yourself.

[quickiee]

To put it your way:

 

If you can't even defend 2+1 forts and a castle without a tiny piece of wooden gate, then you are not worthy owning them neither.  Stop whining and try to put real people inside forts to defend them.  Are you admitting that 100 members a guild cannot defend 2+1 forts and a castle if each forts/castle require real people defending?  If you are afraid the removal of the gate will make defending 2+1 forts and a castle give you a hard time, I can understand or maybe something is wrong with your guild.  Don't blame others for giving you a harder life, if you don't want to be inside a fort to defend it you can choose to quit.  After all, it is what is happening in Morroc people do need to be inside forts to protect it.  It is because of your laziness you are promoting the gate to be there to protect your things instead of protecting them yourself.

 

 

Actually, he wasnt the one whining tho, you are. And stop assuming that said stronk guild has 100members every woe and that there arent 'real' people defending.

[Cartian]

Actually, he wasnt the one whining tho, you are. And stop assuming that said stronk guild has 100members every woe and that there arent 'real' people defending.

 

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.

Edited by Cartian, 11 January 2016 - 09:35 PM.

[7843140731162112220]

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

"Stop whining and try to improve your strategy. 100 members each guild, if only 10 players attend on your woe, maybe something is wrong with your guild, don't blame if others have big numbers of people."
As far I understand, the one you quoted want to say out of 100 max in guild, only 10 can attend it, then whining when other guild overpowered them by number. He never said the other guild have max 100 people attend woe.

[Cartian]

You may apply the same thing to my post if it will make you feel better by picking on a single number that I don't really care.

Edited by Cartian, 11 January 2016 - 09:48 PM.