Renewal WoE Revitalization Project V2 Update 5-16 - Page 2 - Renewal Foundry - WarpPortal Community Forums

Jump to content


Photo

Renewal WoE Revitalization Project V2 Update 5-16


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
247 replies to this topic

#26 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1894 posts
  • LocationSan Diego California
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 07:01 PM

What we are doing is making assumptions. If we do this it might do this, if we do that might make this happen. We are making woe changes but I think this might help revitalize woe as well. I hope all these changes fix woe I want a reason to log in.
  • 1

#27 Hissis

Hissis

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 3901 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 16 May 2016 - 07:15 PM

This is going to be good. Just saying :3

 

:gg:


  • 1

#28 iamAJ

iamAJ

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 81 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 07:22 PM

ok! let's get this started! lemme get some popcorn  :ok:


Edited by iamAJ, 16 May 2016 - 07:25 PM.

  • 0

#29 MilkyThief

MilkyThief

    Guide Master

  • Members
  • 873 posts
  • LocationMassachusetts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Renewal/Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 07:25 PM

 

There are guilds growing. Just because YOU don't think so or do not see it, is a very ignorant view. Other guild's incapability of drawing in new WoErs should not be penalized to other guilds who can. I can easily name 3 guilds on the top of my head that has seen net positive guild growth from PVMers or past-non WoErs.

 

 

Our guild has been growing somewhat over the last few months. (5-6 people average last December to 10-15 a woe as of May)

 

The major problem is getting people to attend. We have had countless people join us for one WoE then never log in again. Part of it is that WoE is not noob friendly and people have gear issues. People can get discouraged easily, we try to help but can only do oh so much.

 

I think most of these changes in the thread are good, but only for the existing population. I think the focus should also include attracting new players to RO.

 

Then again, discussing WoE is hard, as people take this game very seriously. While that is not necessarily a bad thing, it leads to a lot of "you're just salty" and "your class is OP stop acting in self interest." It is good that people care about this game, but we need change and more players.  


Edited by MilkyThief, 16 May 2016 - 07:29 PM.

  • 4

#30 smokerofweed

smokerofweed

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 312 posts
  • LocationThe Smokey Colorado
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 07:36 PM

^ im with this guy. no one can compete with older richass guild. new guilds just gets stomped on that's why there's "no growth" in woe population. people just gets discouraged woeing. i would just disable all gears in woe make it equal for everyone? lol use "skills" not "gears". ahh the good ole days when RO first introduced woe. rip


  • 2

#31 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1894 posts
  • LocationSan Diego California
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 07:38 PM

Our guild has been growing somewhat over the last few months. (5-6 people average last December to 10-15 a woe as of May)

The major problem is getting people to attend. We have had countless people join us for one WoE then never log in again. Part of it is that WoE is not noob friendly and people have gear issues. People can get discouraged easily, we try to help but can only do oh so much.

I think most of these changes in the thread are good, but only for the existing population. I think the focus should also include attracting new players to RO.

Then again, discussing WoE is hard, as people take this game very seriously. While that is not necessarily a bad thing, it leads to a lot of "you're just salty" and "your class is OP stop acting in self interest." It is good that people care about this game, but we need change and more players.

Lowering guild size could give a realistic lvl to grow to creating more fair fights. Right now 50 people to be competitive is unrealistic for new guild thus turning people off from trying to start new guild/keep playing. Also for leaders would be easier to maintain supplying as well lowing overall cost per woe. Spreading out competition rather then centralizing.

Edited by miliardo, 16 May 2016 - 07:45 PM.

  • 1

#32 MilkyThief

MilkyThief

    Guide Master

  • Members
  • 873 posts
  • LocationMassachusetts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Renewal/Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 07:50 PM

Lowering guild size could give a realistic lvl to grow to creating more fair fights. Right now 50 people to be competitive is unrealistic for new guild thus turning people off from trying to start new guild/keep playing. Also for leaders would be easier to maintain supplying as well lowing overall cost per woe. Preparing out competition rather then centralizing.

 

Lowering guild size would indeed help WoE, but where do we draw the line? Also would alliances be allowed? Personally I am at about 30 people and there should be no alliances until the WoE population recovers.

 

I hope this doesn't come off as aggressive, I am just trying to get realistic numbers.


  • 1

#33 Demeris

Demeris

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 2204 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 16 May 2016 - 07:59 PM

^ im with this guy. no one can compete with older richass guild. new guilds just gets stomped on that's why there's "no growth" in woe population. people just gets discouraged woeing. i would just disable all gears in woe make it equal for everyone? lol use "skills" not "gears". ahh the good ole days when RO first introduced woe. rip

Unfortunately this change will never happen because this has always been how WoE worked.

Almost everything you ever had in PvM could be used for WoE. I remember the day when Kiriyu used the first GTB in pre-renewal WoE. It was completely broken becauase an assassin cross could've just speed potted with a GTB on, EDP, and break the emp before people could react (the emp didn't have plant status).

Now in WoE you see majority of players in these big guilds wearing Tao, a +12-14 KvM weapon, Kiels, and GTB. No one wants to compete against that. All of these "shard gears" won't change the level of competition unless they're made unslotted, which isn't going to happen.

We can't normalize pvp like other games do so that people are always playing on near an equal field. Guilds will always find a way to advance themselves in WoE by either abusing bugs (healing emp bug), cheating with 3rd party programs (ROHook), or utilizing cheap tactics (emblemless and portal recall).

This is the nature for a lot of WoE and it's honestly a toxic environment and I've seen people in big guilds quit because they don't want to log on to WoE.

I rather just keep fightings dragons and more inhumane creations made by the Rekenbar corportation.


Edited by Demeris, 16 May 2016 - 07:59 PM.

  • 1

#34 Demeris

Demeris

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 2204 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:03 PM

Lowering guild size would indeed help WoE, but where do we draw the line? Also would alliances be allowed? Personally I am at about 30 people and there should be no alliances until the WoE population recovers.

 

I hope this doesn't come off as aggressive, I am just trying to get realistic numbers.

I feel alliances are actually important not because I'm in a guild with one.

You'll see it in WoE TE where small guilds are joining other small guilds to take on big guilds and do things they normally wouldn't have been able to on their own. An alliance allows small guilds to have a chance and that's what it has always been there for. There is really no other reason other than a self interest for the guild seeing 50+ attendance vs having 3 guilds with 20 players each.

It's important to promote and allow teamwork rather than punish players for it. Seems like a move in the wrong direction.


Edited by Demeris, 16 May 2016 - 08:06 PM.

  • 2

#35 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1894 posts
  • LocationSan Diego California
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:06 PM

I feel alliances are actually important not because I'm in a guild with one.

You'll see it in WoE TE where small guilds are joining other small guilds to take on big guilds and do things they normally wouldn't have been able to. An alliance allows small guilds to have a chance and that's what it has always been there for. There is really no other reason other than a self interest for the guild seeing 50+ attendance vs having 3 guilds with 20 players each.

It's important to promote and allow teamwork rather than punish players for it. Seems like a move in the wrong direction.

You actually have a great point there rather then make woe about a # advantage allow alliance and fix other stuff first would be a good idea.

I remember back in valk server days our guild was small we joined an alliance and went vs valkyrie guild dominance on the server. If we did not ally they would of keep beating everyone with ease with there # and gear advantage.

Edited by miliardo, 16 May 2016 - 08:10 PM.

  • 0

#36 foxySox

foxySox

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1373 posts
  • LocationOhio
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:10 PM

Lowering guild size could give a realistic lvl to grow to creating more fair fights. Right now 50 people to be competitive is unrealistic for new guild thus turning people off from trying to start new guild/keep playing. Also for leaders would be easier to maintain supplying as well lowing overall cost per woe. Spreading out competition rather then centralizing.


But the big guilds will just split into 2 smaller guilds. Supply cost will still be the same. Just because we get a guild cap doesn't mean new guilds will all of a sudden pop up.

Also as for gear just for support classes: what makes a class support? Is it the build? If so how do you keep non-offensive builds such as pure sac/battle chant RG, support warlock, and touch suras the only ones who can use it? What's to prevent somebody resetting to a support build to get the gear, then resetting back? Also chasers have no killing skills and can only disable the enemy, so do they count as support? That idea is nice in theory about letting support classes live longer against being one shotted, but I don't see it being limited to just the support builds honestly.

Also the bounty/kill quest thing kinda shafts support characters. They're not ones usually breaking the cades or stones.

I do like making the status immunity at 110 of a stat though, as well as the debuff weapons. Would definitely be fun to play around with.
  • 1

#37 WarlockFier

WarlockFier

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 3395 posts
  • Playing:Nothing
  • Server:Silph Road

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:15 PM

Hi Campitor, a lot of the proposals are mostly focused on regular WOE1/ WOE2. Are any of these proposed changes going to affect WOE TE? Or are they going to be different? Things like guild cap/ alliance etc.


  • 0

#38 KamiKali

KamiKali

    They pay me to post.

  • Members
  • 5139 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:16 PM

In a woe with 15 med-large guilds, allying is reasonable, in a woe with 4 guilds, allying is not.

 

Pretty sure this is a thread about the current situation, not projecting past situations of healthy WoE servers onto the current one, so stay on topic. But if you insist on just posting to get post counts, by all means, spam this thread with nonsensical things as some of you are now.

 

@Milky: Try to reach out to them via non in game methods. Some people just need that push. I've recently had gotten two returning members, four new WoErs into the guild in the past month. All of which have been decently active on either in game / forums / on mumble. If I only had in game to contact, I believe I would also have a lot of people go MIA as well.

 

It's great to hear that you guys have been recruiting! I think Windy has been doing a great job on promoting the guild as well. : )


Edited by KamiKali, 16 May 2016 - 08:22 PM.

  • 0

#39 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1894 posts
  • LocationSan Diego California
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:23 PM

In a woe with 15 med-large guilds, allying is reasonable, in a woe with 4 guilds, allying is not.

Pretty sure this is a thread about the current situation, not projecting past situations of healthy WoE servers onto the current one, so stay on topic. But if you insist on just posting to get post counts, by all means, spam this thread with nonsensical things as some of you are now.

But a server with 7 guilds capped at 30 people will allow alliance.


Also what happens to fixing frost joke from going over walls?

Edited by miliardo, 16 May 2016 - 08:28 PM.

  • 0

#40 KamiKali

KamiKali

    They pay me to post.

  • Members
  • 5139 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:29 PM

wat


  • 0

#41 Mayhem

Mayhem

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • RO Fungineering
  • 885 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:30 PM

I dont think guild caps should be changed at all. I know some guilds are at max anyways for woe, so now they cant alliance, so you will see people maybe filling in permanantly in other guilds.

The fact that woe might be more active and fun after this will attract new people so that will increase woers, so we should keep the same limit so we can put them in our guilds.

 

 

I am going to state the same thing as last time. I want there to be a way for our gms to edit skills individually so they can class balance for woe on a weekly balance. That would lead to a very fun experience as each class would have more range or a more balanced skill set.

 

 

I am all for status being back in game.

 

 

If the arguement about skills over walls is coming back up, I just want to state that SCREENWIDE Skills I think should remain screenwide. It wasnt a cell issue like things that can be cast on a certain cell, its just the fact that its screenwide and that is how those skills work. I dont think there is a way to calculate that your screenwide skill shouldnt hit certain parts of the screen because it doesnt calculate from a cast point like other skills.

Leave screenwide skills alone.


Edited by Mayhem, 16 May 2016 - 08:33 PM.

  • 2

#42 KamiKali

KamiKali

    They pay me to post.

  • Members
  • 5139 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:32 PM

I dont think guild caps should be changed at all. I know some guilds are at max anyways for woe, so now they cant alliance, so you will see people maybe filling in permanantly in other guilds.

The fact that woe might be more active and fun after this will attract new people so that will increase woers, so we should keep the same limit so we can put them in our guilds.

 

 

I am going to state the same thing as last time. I want there to be a way for our gms to edit skills individually so they can class balance for woe on a weekly balance. That would lead to a very fun experience as each class would have more range or a more balanced skill set.

 

 

I am all for status being back in game

 

Homg someone that understands logic and the point of having a revitalization proposal !!! <3


  • 0

#43 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1894 posts
  • LocationSan Diego California
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:49 PM

I dont think guild caps should be changed at all. I know some guilds are at max anyways for woe, so now they cant alliance, so you will see people maybe filling in permanantly in other guilds.
The fact that woe might be more active and fun after this will attract new people so that will increase woers, so we should keep the same limit so we can put them in our guilds.


I am going to state the same thing as last time. I want there to be a way for our gms to edit skills individually so they can class balance for woe on a weekly balance. That would lead to a very fun experience as each class would have more range or a more balanced skill set.


I am all for status being back in game


You could say keep same guild size but then why are we disabling alliance? The changes being made are going to help balance woe battles. The only reason to disable alliance is because people are unwilling to try and compete. If these changes are going to bring more people to woe then woe should be fine. We are killing big fights. I know it's been said but this change only benefits one guild on server. Killing a small guilds ability to compete vs strong guilds sounds like woe going to be fun.
  • 0

#44 Mayhem

Mayhem

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • RO Fungineering
  • 885 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:51 PM

Armor

  • Focus on survivability in WoE only. With a function when upgraded similar to the Sara card. Gives players a second chance in WoE when one shotted.This ability would have a 1 minute cool down. Its not fun to be one shotted, you have no chance to respond at all. The armor should be limited to support classes that are not generally in the "killer" role.

 

 

This seems kinda unfair to me. How are you going to determine "support" classes? (as more people post I realize this is becoming an important quesiton) So this armor will basically be like the woe set but with a chance ability of rebirth?

 

Emperium Armor [1]

*Stats during WoE & PVP

Defense 50 <-- so would it have more defence and MDEF??
MDEF +10.
Reduces damage taken from enemy players by 2%.
Refined to +6 or higher, MDEF +10, reduces ranged damage taken by enemy players by 20%. Chance to rebirth 5%
Refined to +9 or higher, MaxHP +15%. Chance to rebirth 10%
[WoE set] <-- can it be used like this with the rest of the woe set? or will it be its on set on its own?
WoE Boots
WoE Manteau
WoE Suits
Reduces damage from players by 25%

 

But if its anything like this, the "support" classes might find themselves being a game changer due just to all the armor buffs.

 

 

Increasing Combat Introduce WoE Bounty Tokens

  • Tokens earned for killing players near your character level
  • Kill quests for tokens.​ The goal behind this is to give a reason to fight or defend outside the last 15 minutes of WoE. Yes players can run around killing barricades, guardians, guardians etc but you can also kill those players by defending your castle.
    • Targets would be
      • Barricades
      • Guardians
      • Guardian Stones

 

 

Can you please create new monsters for the guardians and just buff the hell out of  them. They pretty much just pick off new players as is (which should be harder after the update) but barely pose a threat anymore in the castle to veterans. It would be nice if these "Guardians" actually were something to be feared in a castle.

 

 

  • Adjust the stats required in order to reach 100% resist  upwards slightly thinking about 110 stat points. This would require players to have to choose their resists versus being resistant to everything,

     

I think 110 stat points is still to easy for a lvl 175 character to hit. Can it be higher like 120 to make sure that people have to choose between certain resists?


Edited by Mayhem, 16 May 2016 - 10:34 PM.

  • 1

#45 Mayhem

Mayhem

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • RO Fungineering
  • 885 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:54 PM

You could say keep same guild size but then why are we disabling alliance? The changes being made are going to help balance woe battles. The only reason to disable alliance is because people are unwilling to try and compete. If these changes are going to bring more people to woe then woe should be fine. We are killing big fights. I know it's been said but this change only benefits one guild on server. Killing a small guilds ability to compete vs strong guilds sounds like woe going to be fun.

 

The reason is like he states before. We just dont have a lot of guilds on server. They have already taken out some castles to try to account for that. EVEN with the revitalization project we still dont have enough active guilds out there. So with no alliances now we will have "backdoor alliances" were people help (most likely who they were allianced with) but they cant just stand in precast.

 

They will have defend the door for them, or many other things. Its so that we can have more battles and more active woe. Old alliances wont be the safety net that it was before. It means basically just more people doing battle which is nice.


  • 1

#46 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1894 posts
  • LocationSan Diego California
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 09:01 PM

The reason is like he states before. We just dont have a lot of guilds on server. They have already taken out some castles to try to account for that. EVEN with the revitalization project we still dont have enough active guilds out there. So with no alliances now we will have "backdoor alliances" were people help (most likely who they were allianced with) but they cant just stand in precast.

They will have defend the door for them, or many other things. Its so that we can have more battles and more active woe. Old alliances wont be the safety net that it was before. It means basically just more people doing battle which is nice.

If more people are woeing then why are we changing alliances? More people should create more action more guilds. Only reason given is to make it harder for people to work together. It does not change current situation. The real problem is lack of people woeing what is preventing that? Well only a few things were brought up (stasis/sd/frost joke over wall effects/lack of inventive). So the problem is not alliances so why are we disabling alliances? You think that this change would come after the rest of the changes to see if it works.

Edited by miliardo, 16 May 2016 - 09:03 PM.

  • 0

#47 KamiKali

KamiKali

    They pay me to post.

  • Members
  • 5139 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 16 May 2016 - 09:04 PM

Hypothetically speaking, please justify to me the purpose of the past allying of three guilds when two had beyond 40-50, whereas other guilds do not want to ally up. Was this to "help balance woe battles"? to "try and compete"? to "fix problems"? to "creating more fair fights" to "Spreading out competition rather then centralizing"? - all quotes by Vierma btw.

 

I'm just wondering if you are so for all these things, why do the actions of hypothetical situation say otherwise? Or are you just saying these things now when the proposal is not in your favor anymore because the hypothetical guilds are sub 40 attendance?

 

It's hard to judge sincerity and true intentions when one flops sides so often.

 

Anyway, can't argue with people of lower acumen when they are so logically inept. pz out


Edited by KamiKali, 16 May 2016 - 09:05 PM.

  • 0

#48 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1894 posts
  • LocationSan Diego California
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 09:17 PM

LR only chance to get advantage is to disable ones side ability work with eachother. This is all in an attempt to stop us not in game but by making gms. It's funny no threads like this came up when you were winning its only a problem when your losing. This is how a lot feel with this change. Weather you like it or not it's hard not to see your agenda here. Either way we won't stop us working together and does not change the current situation.
  • 0

#49 MilkyThief

MilkyThief

    Guide Master

  • Members
  • 873 posts
  • LocationMassachusetts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Renewal/Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 09:17 PM

I feel alliances are actually important not because I'm in a guild with one.

You'll see it in WoE TE where small guilds are joining other small guilds to take on big guilds and do things they normally wouldn't have been able to on their own. An alliance allows small guilds to have a chance and that's what it has always been there for. There is really no other reason other than a self interest for the guild seeing 50+ attendance vs having 3 guilds with 20 players each.

It's important to promote and allow teamwork rather than punish players for it. Seems like a move in the wrong direction.

 

 

I'm neither for nor against limiting guild members/alliances, but in the servers current state I don't think they are worth it. 

 

If the population were to increase, I would be all for it. Looking at the current WoE scenario, there are 2 alliances and 3 small guilds. Now, as someone who has experience fighting in a small guild, I can say fighting these super alliances is not viable due to numbers. You can only tank so many curse circled gates of hells/katz/ w.e they use to kill you.

 

There is a limited amount of possible allies in WoE right now, seeing as when the two big alliances are not fighting each other, they can only fight the small guilds.

 

Now I am not saying leave the small guilds alone they are a part of woe and the big guilds can fight them, but more people to fight may help other small guilds get established. Especially if the castle treasures are re-done to make them worth the effort. Ideally we get more guilds involved in WoE and can dispel the stigma that you need to be a giant guild with tons of gods to compete in WoE.

 

 

Also, TE has its own different set of problems IMHO.


  • 1

#50 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1894 posts
  • LocationSan Diego California
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 16 May 2016 - 09:25 PM

Let me put up a new reason of having guilds work together because God peices are going to be castle spacific again. This will give people a reason to work together to get the castle. There was no problem before with action when this system was active. So if there is no alliances how will a small guild ever have a chance to get a castle?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users