27 replies to this topic

[flukeSG2]

I suggest removing the points system from castle ownership.  This would require constant vigilance from any guild owning the castle, making defense necessary at all times through out WoE and not just for the first ~40 minutes to secure a point lead.

 

This has the potential to keep the maps more active for attackers and defenders alike.  A downside is worrying about strong guilds waiting to the last minute to make a move.  If that were the case, there are two castles and two maps.  Any reset of castle ownerships also respawns the emps on the corresponding maps, new castle owners would also have to defend what they just took.

 

There is potential with the removal of the points system if coupled properly with the removal of the Prontera main gate.  Not to say neither alone wouldn't be an improvement but doubly so if both applied.

Edited by flukeSG2, 03 February 2016 - 10:39 PM.

[Meddric]

Siapa engkau?

[xkennyS]

ROFL

 

[5318130516144610857]

- Removing points sytem from castle ownership: yes! because of the reason you mentioned, 40min cap is way too short to take the Prontera castle and sometimes even for Morroc. I agree with you that it shortens the duration of the main objective too much, this system was good (or at at least it worked) when there was a lot of guilds contesting a single castle on a single map.

 

- Removing Prontera's main gate: no.

Edited by 5318130516144610857, 04 February 2016 - 03:27 PM.

[jesseclane]

Removing points sytem

 

Agree this idea, it much easier to take castle last 5/10 min from weak/small guild than defending it for 40mins. Defending boring. The best thing is attacking weak/small guild and see their hard work defending castle/fort for 40-50mins gone in just one swept.

 

I really like this idea, honestly writing.

[5318130516144610857]

Yeah, that can be a problem and I have thought of it. The main reason I agree with removing the points system is because of the 40min cap when WOE is supposed to last one hour, nowadays it doesn't make sense anymore imo.

 

If the new system is whoever owns the Emp last that keeps the castle, maybe increasing the castles Emp's HP would prevent last 5-7min zerging from happening. The Emps currently are made for fast ownership switches, they would have to be meaningful again.

[crafter4epics]

the resources for getting this done should be allotted to a main problem like fixing BT & making PVP fun by not getting 1shotted. the root of this certain problem is the 100 guild cap w/c is too much as of today. it is acceptable when we have more players attending WOE but since BNS. and in 1-3months by Terms of Service these numbers will eventually go down again. What happens is the guild who owns most forts will be more superior, most will transfer to said guild. For example, Guild A has 70, Guild B has 40, others have 10-15. Later lets say each has decreased like 20 members(A down to 50, B to 20) most will transfer to A. A acquiring lets say 15 from B or etc will have 65 & there will be no opposing or less as expected.

 

1. Make different pront & morroc WOE schedules(winner should not get 2 castles-pront winner cant attend morroc)

2. balance the game (so players can make a stand against a guild w/ most OP classes & power 40 & armor 25 runes)

3. an interesting & enjoyable feature at WOE w/c can be programmed easily by the devs - so the players will join

[Cartian]

Not going to put much thought into this suggestion, it has its pros and cons depend which side you are in.  One thing that could be in the blind spot of some people is you are not going to be always on the same side of the coin.  If like it said nobody will bother to attack or defend castle for the first 55 mins, a guild that took the castle in the previous woe session will be stuck with it in the next woe and be the one defending in the last 5 mins.  Of course hostage can happen too or split a big guild into small one to take advantage of the situation could be possible.

 

The opposite to this suggestion, which we can also consider, is add a point system to forts.  If part of the problem we are trying to resolve is castle ownership allows to be secured with 1/3 time left in the woe session while castle owning guilds are allowed to leave castle defenseless and still be able to compete for other forts.

Edited by Cartian, 05 February 2016 - 09:56 AM.

[flukeSG2]

Later lets say each has decreased like 20 members(A down to 50, B to 20) most will transfer to A. A acquiring lets say 15 from B or etc will have 65 & there will be no opposing or less as expected.

 

You mean to say "what is happening already", right?

[crafter4epics]

Not going to put much thought into this suggestion, it has its pros and cons depend which side you are in.  One thing that could be in the blind spot of some people is you are not going to be always on the same side of the coin.  If like it said nobody will bother to attack or defend castle for the first 55 mins, a guild that took the castle in the previous woe session will be stuck with it in the next woe and be the one defending in the last 5 mins.  Of course hostage can happen too or split a big guild into small one to take advantage of the situation could be possible.

 

The opposite to this suggestion, which we can also consider, is add a point system to forts.  If part of the problem we are trying to resolve is castle ownership allows to be secured with 1/3 time left in the woe session while castle owning guilds are allowed to leave castle defenseless and still be able to compete for other forts.

stagnant WOE this is, will not benefit from this castle point removal. if this is implemented, Big guild who got the castle will just transfer next WOE to an extension guild and make a 50% dmg to the castle to secure it & so on.

 

Making forts generate fort pts as it may seem will just make more complicated computation & cloggy GUI - where to put fort pts or will be confusing w/ so many numbers.

 

Thus there should be a fun idea that will make non-WOE players to attend WOE, of course if it is balanced where you see a variety of players & not w/ only knights, priests, hiders & sms. the game has 12 classes & only a few are being played, wonder that pvp of Terms of Service w/ 80+ classes

[xkazehanax]

[removed - CM Varitas]

 

Not so sure regarding your definition of QQ, but I'm just simply amazed at how people trying their very best to change every single aspect of WoE they can possibly think of just because they could not deal with enemy strategy and thought that the current system doesn't favor them and so on, it's really funny to watch. Or, "we've quit from participating WoE but we didn't want anyone else to have fun so let's kill it for others".

 

Pretty sure this is gonna be Gravity's expression as well when they actually hear this.

 

Well, I don't actually push for the point system in particular nor I am actually against it, doubt there's gonna be any changes of result in the WoE scenes as well if this is actually a certain group's mindset. If you actually think that this is a very brilliant idea, please go ahead.

 

What I can say is, kindly give a thorough thought about what you're about to suggest beforehand, not simply posting/suggesting because a random dude thinks its a good idea and the groupthink effect strikes. Or in another word, think of what you will QQ about if let's say this got implemented and it turned out being worse for your end. I can already help you think of at least 5 things that people would QQ if things go wrong for them.

[flukeSG2]

Yeah I'm really not sure what would ever change that certain groups mindset, they seem very greedy, always shooting down suggestions of balance, asking for buffs on classes that are already strong needlessly.  Always talking about "unlocking new achievements" that have already been accomplished.  Claiming to be the best when most of their competition has left the game.  Didn't seem to be a very healthy mindset on Vanir.  How is Vanir by the way?

[Meddric]

You dont have any right to laugh or comment about peoples dream or achievements. Whats wrong even not as many ppl as before? Ppl come and go anyway. Pala ko.

[5318130516144610857]

 

Not so sure regarding your definition of QQ, but I'm just simply amazed at how people trying their very best to change every single aspect of WoE they can possibly think of just because they could not deal with enemy strategy and thought that the current system doesn't favor them and so on, it's really funny to watch. Or, "we've quit from participating WoE but we didn't want anyone else to have fun so let's kill it for others".

 

Pretty sure this is gonna be Gravity's expression as well when they actually hear this.

 

Well, I don't actually push for the point system in particular nor I am actually against it, doubt there's gonna be any changes of result in the WoE scenes as well if this is actually a certain group's mindset. If you actually think that this is a very brilliant idea, please go ahead. 

 

What I can say is, kindly give a thorough thought about what you're about to suggest beforehand, not simply posting/suggesting because a random dude thinks its a good idea and the groupthink effect strikes. Or in another word, think of what you will QQ about if let's say this got implemented and it turned out being worse for your end. I can already help you think of at least 5 things that people would QQ if things go wrong for them.

 

 I didn't like the point system since the very beginning speaking for myself, and now it's a good opportunity to change the system again because this one doesn't make much sense to me currently. Just for your info, this system of points was suggested by one Odin guild long time ago when Prontera was the only WoE map and there was no forts, and bases were giving buffs.

I agree with you that players or a group of players giving suggestions and pretending to be devs can be somewhat dangerous to the game, but keep in mind in the end it is Gravity's job to make sure everything is balanced and fun for everyone. They don't have to implement everything everyone says, we as players are doing our "job" and providing feedbacks and giving suggestions of what we would like to see, and giving our opinions on what we like and don't like in the game, something I'm sure they are happy about to hear.

 

You as guild leader of the dominant guild shouldn't worry too much about these suggested changes, you will rolfstomp every guild anyway.

 

stagnant WOE this is, will not benefit from this castle point removal. if this is implemented, Big guild who got the castle will just transfer next WOE to an extension guild and make a 50% dmg to the castle to secure it & so on.

 

 

 I have not thought about it. I find it unlikely to happen if castles work like forts instead of with points (that guild owning everything doesn't really need to do that), but if it does it should be addressed for the new system to work properly.

[xkazehanax]

 

 

 I didn't like the point system since the very beginning speaking for myself, and now it's a good opportunity to change the system again because this one doesn't make much sense to me currently. Just for your info, this system of points was suggested by one Odin guild long time ago when Prontera was the only WoE map and there was no forts, and bases were giving buffs.

I agree with you that players or a group of players giving suggestions and pretending to be devs can be somewhat dangerous to the game, but keep in mind in the end it is Gravity's job to make sure everything is balanced and fun for everyone. They don't have to implement everything everyone says, we as players are doing our "job" and providing feedbacks and giving suggestions of what we would like to see, and giving our opinions on what we like and don't like in the game, something I'm sure they are happy about to hear.

 

You as guild leader of the dominant guild shouldn't worry too much about these suggested changes, you will rolfstomp every guild anyway.

 

 

 I have not thought about it. I find it unlikely to happen if castles work like forts instead of with points (that guild owning everything doesn't really need to do that), but if it does it should be addressed for the new system to work properly.

 

 

Yup, there's no concern at all. I was just concerned of others, worrying they might walk a on a road to self-destruct by their fail leads or lead-wannabe. As I said I only find it very funny that people trying to change every single aspect of WoE that they could think of, not that I'm against this suggestion or whatsoever.

 

The point system was somehow implemented to nerf a SEA guild dominating in Vanir server back then because nobody will bother about defending castles and its only endless PVP slaughter on the enemy until the last 2 minutes they retake the castle, and also securing the castle through DPSing more than 50% of the Emperium HP. With its implementation of point system, it forces the defending guild to have to defend it a minimum amount of time in order to secure the castle, and if you don't give a sh*t to the castles, people might end up flipping it and points multiplying, making it impossible for someone who want to use the last minute castle-ninja tactic unable to get the castle due to lack of points. And the so-called 40 minutes secured castle, only happens when the attackers are not competent enough and unable to break through the castle defense. Not that anyone who owns the castle will indefinitely get a secured castle. Also, 40 minutes is only secure, provided the castle got broken down less than 4 times. If the castle was flipped 4 times and above, there's a chance that the castle will still falls to the other attacking guild (Happened in PF for one WoE somewhere in early January, where Renascent was the initial castle holder, PF got flipped 4 times and BB point exceeded Rena point with the slightest difference at the end of WoE).

 

When it was introduced in SEA, although this was a nerf to the dominating guild at that point of time, there wasn't much complain and well-received because we see where Gravity is coming from and just switched strategy in accordance to the system.

 

Well, both system has its pros and cons. But generally I do think that point system is much more balanced. Sooner or later nobody will be bothered about the castle as well until like last 5 minutes of WoE, rather than a minimum-40-minutes WoE. Suggesting this is like "oh we previously nerfed them, now let's un-nerf that certain guild again." Point system is more towards defensive, and current meta is defending using the siege weapons, a smaller size/less geared guild will still be able to withstand an attack against a stronger guild. Also each time castle got broken, lesser time you need to defense to secure it. Non-point system is more towards aggression, will be in favor of whichever guild that can brings out the best attack or has more numbers to DPS.

 

Of course, I haven't been able to play much aggressive WoE lately as compared to the days in September-October. It's always more fun to be on the aggressive side especially when you strategize on a planned attack. So, I wouldn't mind. Just change the system. But Gravity will surely facepalm, and I can rest assure you that the same people who pushed to the change of WoE point system will complain about every single possible downside of the "non-point system" has.

[adamch]

Indeed a brilliant idea to make WoE livelier. The removal of the point system will keep the castle defending guild busy throughout their rein. This will prevent them from having resources to acquire more properties thus giving more opportunity to others to conquer forts.

The chances for different guilds in owning the castles will also be increased as it does not depends on the duration of time defended. This will encourage participation of more guilds big or small to test their abilities and strategy in attacking and defending.

New participating guilds will have a less complicated learning curve in understanding the point system and be successful easier in comparison to the current system.

It is definitely sound and feasible in theory considering the current woe situation. I do hope that both warp portal and gravity will seriously consider the removal of the point system as I'm very interested to find out the actual outcome of this suggestion.

[flukeSG2]

Indeed a brilliant idea to make WoE livelier. The removal of the point system will keep the castle defending guild busy throughout their rein. This will prevent them from having resources to acquire more properties thus giving more opportunity to others to conquer forts.

The chances for different guilds in owning the castles will also be increased as it does not depends on the duration of time defended. This will encourage participation of more guilds big or small to test their abilities and strategy in attacking and defending.

New participating guilds will have a less complicated learning curve in understanding the point system and be successful easier in comparison to the current system.

It is definitely sound and feasible in theory considering the current woe situation. I do hope that both warp portal and gravity will seriously consider the removal of the point system as I'm very interested to find out the actual outcome of this suggestion.

 

Thank you for taking the suggestion seriously, I appreciate it.  What you said is what I hope would be "best of" scenario, but it's by no means a guarantee that would happen obviously we all know better and things can go any direction.  I think like you said, in current woe situation, it's more favorable for anyone participating.  Like yourself and someone else said, all we can do is make suggestions and let the developers know what we are thinking, it's up them in the long run to decide if what we say has merit to work with what they have planned ultimately.

[5318130516144610857]

Yup, there's no concern at all. I was just concerned of others, worrying they might walk a on a road to self-destruct by their fail leads or lead-wannabe. As I said I only find it very funny that people trying to change every single aspect of WoE that they could think of, not that I'm against this suggestion or whatsoever.

 

The point system was somehow implemented to nerf a SEA guild dominating in Vanir server back then because nobody will bother about defending castles and its only endless PVP slaughter on the enemy until the last 2 minutes they retake the castle, and also securing the castle through DPSing more than 50% of the Emperium HP. With its implementation of point system, it forces the defending guild to have to defend it a minimum amount of time in order to secure the castle, and if you don't give a sh*t to the castles, people might end up flipping it and points multiplying, making it impossible for someone who want to use the last minute castle-ninja tactic unable to get the castle due to lack of points. And the so-called 40 minutes secured castle, only happens when the attackers are not competent enough and unable to break through the castle defense. Not that anyone who owns the castle will indefinitely get a secured castle. Also, 40 minutes is only secure, provided the castle got broken down less than 4 times. If the castle was flipped 4 times and above, there's a chance that the castle will still falls to the other attacking guild (Happened in PF for one WoE somewhere in early January, where Renascent was the initial castle holder, PF got flipped 4 times and BB point exceeded Rena point with the slightest difference at the end of WoE).

 

When it was introduced in SEA, although this was a nerf to the dominating guild at that point of time, there wasn't much complain and well-received because we see where Gravity is coming from and just switched strategy in accordance to the system.

 

Well, both system has its pros and cons. But generally I do think that point system is much more balanced. Sooner or later nobody will be bothered about the castle as well until like last 5 minutes of WoE, rather than a minimum-40-minutes WoE. Suggesting this is like "oh we previously nerfed them, now let's un-nerf that certain guild again." Point system is more towards defensive, and current meta is defending using the siege weapons, a smaller size/less geared guild will still be able to withstand an attack against a stronger guild. Also each time castle got broken, lesser time you need to defense to secure it. Non-point system is more towards aggression, will be in favor of whichever guild that can brings out the best attack or has more numbers to DPS.

 

Of course, I haven't been able to play much aggressive WoE lately as compared to the days in September-October. It's always more fun to be on the aggressive side especially when you strategize on a planned attack. So, I wouldn't mind. Just change the system. But Gravity will surely facepalm, and I can rest assure you that the same people who pushed to the change of WoE point system will complain about every single possible downside of the "non-point system" has.

 

Aye, I got your point. And when you say guilds will only take care of castle emps until last 5min of WoE, it is why I suggest the castle emps should have their HP raised to the optimum balance between HP and fairness to smaller guilds in a way that prevents last 5-10min take downs from 100% to 0. It should take longer, something to work throughout the whole hour and not in a single one shot recall. That's how I envision anyway to make the game more fun and address the last minute attack tactic issue, I'm not sure if it's going to be successful with the attendances there is currently, I leave that to the game developers for appreciation.

 

[kingkingkingking]

Sense

[Greven79]

The important question wasn't addressed: Can WoE ever be 'fair' or 'balanced'?

 

It's a game mode with varying guild sizes, character strengths and switching alliances.

How could this be fair in all the cases?

 

Let's simplfify things and imagine two perfectly balanced guilds fighting for one castle.

Let's also assume that it takes approx. 40min for either side to take the castle down.

Would the last 20min be interesting?

 

Potential fix 1 - make it easier to grind a castle until it takes 20~25min instead:

Would it be 'fair' then?

 

Isn't it more likely that the castle-less guild would delay their attacks for at least 20min,

until the opposing guild wouldn't have enough time to retake the castle?

 

Potential fix 2 - make it harder to grind a castle until it takes ~55min instead:

WoE might stay interesting the whole time, right? But what, if there's a slight change?

 

F.e. if the devs assumed 100, but there are 80 members//participants on each side?

Both guilds would still be perfectly balanced, but it would take longer to raze the Emp.

 

And what happens, if the attacking guild realizes that they won't make it in time?

Wouldn't they stop their assault, making the last 20min boring as well?

 

So even for this simplified scenario with two balanced guilds, there's no good solution!

How likely is it, once more variables are added?

• different guild sizes
• more than two guilds
• alliances vs. open slaughter
• class & siege weapon inbalances
• entrance camping // castle swaps

Maybe the whole game mode is hopelessly flawed!

___________

 

I believe, WoE should be less about the castle ownership and more about the fights.

The latter should only define the 'engagement rules' and encourage players & guilds.

But ownership shouldn't be the only thing of interest.

 

So it's less about the existence of a point-based system and more about the 'how?':

 

F.e. is it really fair and wise that damaging the Emp is the only thing of importance?

What if one guild destroys all the gates, guardians, defending players & siege weapons,

whereas another destroys the emp? Who should then be the next owner of the castle?

Why shouldn't all of it grant 'victory' or 'ownership' points?

 

But these thoughts & ideas would lead to a personal or guild-based blood point system,

Owning or destroying a castle might then grant an additional BP bonus or special trophies,

supplies could have a blood point cost and the ownership reward could be replaced by a

special BP merchant  selling the items instead (may or may not require trophies)...

 

... But the fights would still be main aspect!

 

Edited by Greven79, 08 February 2016 - 11:22 AM.

[DietSodaa]

The important question wasn't addressed: Can WoE ever be 'fair' or 'balanced'?

 

It's a game mode with varying guild sizes, character strengths and switching alliances.

How could this be fair in all the cases?

 

Let's simplfify things and imagine two perfectly balanced guilds fighting for one castle.

Let's also assume that it takes approx. 40min for either side to take the castle down.

Would the last 20min be interesting?

 

Potential fix 1 - make it easier to grind a castle until it takes 20~25min instead:

Would it be 'fair' now?

 

Isn't it more likely that the castle-less guild would delay their attack for at least 20min,

until the opposing guild wouldn't have enough time to retake it?

 

Potential fix 2 - make it harder to grind a castle until it takes ~55min instead:

WoE might stay interesting the whole time, right? But what, if there's a slight change?

 

F.e. if the devs assumed 100, but there are 80 members//participants on each side?

Both guilds would still be balanced, but it would take much longer to raze the Emp.

And what happens, if the attacking guild realizes that they won't make it in time?

Wouldn't it be likely, they stop their assault, making the last 20min boring as well?

 

So even for this simplified scenario with balanced guilds, there's no real solution!

How likely is it that there will be a true balance once more variables are added:

• different guild sizes
• more than two guilds
• alliances vs. open slaughter
• class & siege weapon inbalances
• entrance camping // castle swaps

Maybe the whole game mode is flawed and hopelessly inbalanced.

 

I believe, WoE should be less about the castle ownership and more about the fights.

The latter should only define the engagement 'rules' and encourage players to do so.

But it shouldn't be the only thing of interest.

 

So maybe it's less about the existence of a point-system and more about the 'how':

 

F.e. is it really fair and wise that damaging the Emp is the only thing of importance?

What if one guild destroys all the gates, guardians, defending players & siege weapons,

whereas another destroys the emp? Who should then be the next owner of the castle?

Why shouldn't the rest grant 'victory' or 'ownership' points as well?

 

But these ideas would lead to a personal or guild-based blood point system,

not a true ownership system. Owning or destroying a castle might then grant an

additional BP bonus or special trophies, but the fights would still be main aspect.

 

Supplies could then have a BP cost and the ownership reward could be replaced by a

special Blood Point merchant  selling the items instead (may or may not require trophies).

 

Coolest idea so far .

[flukeSG2]

The current answer we get from some of the owners who perceive every suggestion in our attempts to improve or balance WoE game play is to "get stronger".  When they say stronger it's often referring to "getting more players" because yes numbers are a strength.  So in the current state of the game is to get more members for our guilds, well let me ask you, where are we going to get these players from?  There are more people leaving the game than there are new ones joining it.  So, in order to "get more" we'd have to consolidate our forces to create and equally large force as our opposition.  So then I ask, when did this become the meta of the game?  Wasn't WoE supposed to be a fight between many guilds and not just two?  Shouldn't we be doing something to enable more guilds to join in and not less?  All we can do is to try and improve what we have now.  The changes I've suggested, the points system removal and the removal of the main gate, where both meant as fixes for what we have right now.  If things improve and maybe more people start playing again, some of these changes can be reversed or altered.  This game is as living and breathing as we make it.  Yes, game play mechanics need to change and adapt to the player base.  For those in the opposition who keep saying "get stronger", "get more coordinated", "get better leaders" these suggestions should be more challenges and lead to more "achievements" that you so love to boast about.  Now, it's not only game play mechanics that make or break a game, it's also attitude.  However that's not something a developer can impart upon you.  It's the demeanor in which you treat others in this game that also makes people leave.  Unless your ultimate goal is to just run all of your competition out of the game so you have no one left to fight, don't worry, you are almost there.

[Vau]

All these WoE suggestions will take 1-2 years development and we all know it's not gonna happen or the game won't survive that long. Some things need to be fixed in a short term. Just make it like RO1:

 

- Fixed WoE roster for every guild = 39? members per guild.

- Fix Leadership transfer during WoE.

- Server stabilization, a.k.a FPS drop.

 

 

Stop with the hatred towards the Guilds, it's like the third thread that's about to close because of stupid drama/flame bait. Njoror should show up and at least say something if he ever cares of the future of RO2.

 

Tip: There's an option to ignore posts and people on forums either. If you don't like something or someone, just block, problem solved. (Account - > Manage Ignore Pref )

 

[edited by CM Varitas]

[Amilus]

i would suggest an expedition system, where as to participate in each fortress you have to pre-register in order to enter the map.

it will limit the participants in each guild for each fortress to 40~50 for the max. guild members can only register in either one of the fortress, but have the option to switch by quitting one to join another. i know it will requires a lot of works from developer, but it should minimize the chances of monopoly in woe by a large guild, and at the same time make guilds learn how to manage a team, which i think guild blueblood has done it better than other guild for its success. 

 

siege items may get its boost to make it more relevant, and strategy base game rather than just plain slaying.

[5318130516144610857]

i would suggest an expedition system, where as to participate in each fortress you have to pre-register in order to enter the map.

it will limit the participants in each guild for each fortress to 40~50 for the max. guild members can only register in either one of the fortress, but have the option to switch by quitting one to join another. i know it will requires a lot of works from developer, but it should minimize the chances of monopoly in woe by a large guild, and at the same time make guilds learn how to manage a team, which i think guild blueblood has done it better than other guild for its success. 

 

siege items may get its boost to make it more relevant, and strategy base game rather than just plain slaying.

 

This could be interesting, but it won't change much the final outcome of ownerships with the attending guilds there is currently. It would require for them a bit more of exercise to run from one place to another, it could be fun.

 

The important question wasn't addressed: Can WoE ever be 'fair' or 'balanced'?

 

It's a game mode with varying guild sizes, character strengths and switching alliances.

How could this be fair in all the cases?

 

Let's simplfify things and imagine two perfectly balanced guilds fighting for one castle.

Let's also assume that it takes approx. 40min for either side to take the castle down.

Would the last 20min be interesting?

 

Potential fix 1 - make it easier to grind a castle until it takes 20~25min instead:

Would it be 'fair' then?

 

Isn't it more likely that the castle-less guild would delay their attacks for at least 20min,

until the opposing guild wouldn't have enough time to retake the castle?

 

Potential fix 2 - make it harder to grind a castle until it takes ~55min instead:

WoE might stay interesting the whole time, right? But what, if there's a slight change?

 

F.e. if the devs assumed 100, but there are 80 members//participants on each side?

Both guilds would still be perfectly balanced, but it would take longer to raze the Emp.

 

And what happens, if the attacking guild realizes that they won't make it in time?

Wouldn't they stop their assault, making the last 20min boring as well?

 

So even for this simplified scenario with two balanced guilds, there's no good solution!

How likely is it, once more variables are added?

• different guild sizes
• more than two guilds
• alliances vs. open slaughter
• class & siege weapon inbalances
• entrance camping // castle swaps

Maybe the whole game mode is hopelessly flawed!

___________

 

I believe, WoE should be less about the castle ownership and more about the fights.

The latter should only define the 'engagement rules' and encourage players & guilds.

But ownership shouldn't be the only thing of interest.

 

So it's less about the existence of a point-based system and more about the 'how?':

 

F.e. is it really fair and wise that damaging the Emp is the only thing of importance?

What if one guild destroys all the gates, guardians, defending players & siege weapons,

whereas another destroys the emp? Who should then be the next owner of the castle?

Why shouldn't all of it grant 'victory' or 'ownership' points?

 

But these thoughts & ideas would lead to a personal or guild-based blood point system,

Owning or destroying a castle might then grant an additional BP bonus or special trophies,

supplies could have a blood point cost and the ownership reward could be replaced by a

special BP merchant  selling the items instead (may or may not require trophies)...

 

... But the fights would still be main aspect!

 

 I agree, there is no good solution at this point of the game! We can change all the tracks we want and how we want them to be but we can't change the horses running them.

 About the guild-based blood point system, it seems to me to be a good idea, fun to play and it might work (the gameplay would change a bit and i don't know if it fits in Gravity's definition of what WoE is supposed to be) but a similar exploit to what was told earlier in the thread can arise of one dummy guild being there to give easy kills to another, main guild. A bit like what sometimes happens in colosseum where someone sacrifices himself in loop for the other to get the kills and win.