Renewal WoE Revitalization Project V2 Update 5-16 - Page 3 - 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

#51 Myzery

Myzery

    They pay me to post.

  • Banned
  • 6670 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 16 May 2016 - 09:25 PM

Balancing is fine and delays for some skills are fine. Making up things like shard quests is over complicating things and I'm actually quite sure that most people think the same.
Changing guild size won't do anything but handicap the guilds that can actually pull the numbers. Having no alliances is a positive thing, but it won't stop guilds from working together, which isn't a bad thing. I'm very skeptical about the resist changes and the anti one shot for support classes.

What do you define as a support class though? Chasers are support.
Bishops arguably don't need a second life, they are pretty important.
Things that would change the meta in a positive way would be allowing classes like soul linker to achieve stat immunity.
Soul linkers are still amazing if played properly, but they are too easily shut down.

Please don't make random changes that you think of in the back of your mind on a Saturday evening.

 


  • 0

#52 KamiKali

KamiKali

    They pay me to post.

  • Members
  • 5139 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 16 May 2016 - 09:37 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.

 

Since you decided to bring up guild names and instigate something that Campitor did not want to involve this thread in. Let me make this very very clear to you. Firstly to forum mods, I'm not bringing up guild drama. I'm only presenting facts that are available on choobs and on warpportal forums. People can interpret it however they want to.

 

November 15, 2015

 

https://forums.warpp...changes-cm-aid/

 

5fd213a08d28145b33dce61d8716579e.png

 

a344e634424a73ff322d6ef76c982d6a.png

8fce02150bc64b17f24bfdef1a9103aa.png

9cc54c2a4f1ad3463fe247bdcc0c1045.png

ebfef3ad8935ad18620d0a8e015b0a9b.png

33fc5a3518a3fa7d09443abb4c0c92e3.png

 

So please, tell me, as I am the one who instigated this entire project on November 15th, 2015, when we were able to completely dominate entire WoE realms on whim, to decide to burn it because it became boring, that we needed GM help to "win"? I haven't changed any of my stances back then in that thread regardless whether or not the situation has changed. Your feelings of "me having an agenda" is due to the fact that you guys do not have the capacity in your cranium to accept any other justification.

 

Why would I propose something that could potentially be harmful to my guild, but still theoretically revitalize the server if I had a self-benefiting agenda? Sorry but I care more about WoE health than who wins and who loses, which is apparently something you are unable to transcend.

 

So pot, stop calling the kettle black.

 

This was only officially rolled out to the public recently because they had so much other stuff on their plates and weren't able to get this in on time (Last year December).

 

I haven't posted my stance on the guild cap / alliance proposal yet in this thread.

I don't mind 0 alliance, and I do not mind 1 alliance, but there are caveats to both options.


Edited by KamiKali, 16 May 2016 - 10:07 PM.

  • 8

#53 Mayhem

Mayhem

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • RO Fungineering
  • 885 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 16 May 2016 - 10:28 PM

I dont feel up to this point anyone is bringing up guild drama yet. Although people may want to cool down a bit before posting more. Because a couple are getting on the verge of being touchy.

 

 

There isnt a good arguement to keep alliances. Having no alliances means more fighting and with the new system a lot more action. Until you come up with a reason that we should have alliances then I think that subject is kinda mute.

 

We didnt have alliances at first (when woe started) and people made thier own "alliances". (and thinking about it the only reason it was really put in was because the woe scene got so large, which of course now isnt the case)

All you are really losing is the ability to not get hit by your "alliances" spells/etc.

 

So feel free to work together but this makes woe more interesting,


Edited by Mayhem, 16 May 2016 - 10:31 PM.

  • 0

#54 Mayhem

Mayhem

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • RO Fungineering
  • 885 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 16 May 2016 - 10:39 PM

(sorry for double post but I dont want this point to be missed)

 

Ok so a HUGE problem Is see with all of this is this.

 

What if something doesnt work? What if one of these ideas just totally doesnt work with woe? What if you break woe more with this "support" armor than fix it"

Honestly the gms arent known for being quick to fix things. Which is part of the problem in the first thing.

Thats blunt and thats honest.

 

So what if this doesnt work?

Can we get some feed back of how your going to handle that I dont really like the "we will cross that bridge when we get there" because obviously that means you arent lookiing at the future as you do this.

 

Just like my proposal of we need the gms to have the ability to balance skills, We also need the gms to be able to edit this items/quests/skill nerfs/stat status nerf/ as needed on a weekly or bi weekly schedule.

 

I dont want us to get some update from kro and basically be stuck with what we have. Then we might end up with an even more broken woe.


  • 1

#55 Mulder1

Mulder1

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1610 posts

Posted 16 May 2016 - 11:12 PM

Ok boys and girls...

 

I think it's for me to show up and use my counter logic.

 

As always... most people (for not saying everyone), fails to understand the problem prior looking for a solution. You just don't go cut the tree branches if you want to get rid of the tree... that's just illogical and waste of time and in a world where your time is my money... you guys are making me waste mine.

 

Let's see... I see people complaining about guild size but the only thing I find related to it is the following:

 

 

 

  • Disable formal guild alliances. If guilds want to work together that is fine but they should be careful of friendly fire.

 

Now, if guild cap is not even being discussed... why people complaining about it??

 

Moving on, Disable formal guild alliances:

 

Prior trying to comment about this point, first understand your "Current State".

 

Current State:

 

To have a better grasp of current state, we, SSBBs (you can google it) have several ways to understand and elaborate a problem Statement but for this case, let's make a simple tree diagram as root cause analysis (similar to a 5 Why's):

 

- 2 big alliances:

  - 5 guilds involved within the 2 alliances (correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we have LR, CS, Anim, LYC & Tacobell):

    - Average players per guild (just using 4 random data points and extrapolating it to a 52 weeks per year and using average instead of P-50 to take into consideration possible outliers):

      - LR -> 48 players

        - CS -> 12 players

          - Smokies -> (no longer around, players will be accounted into LR headcount as positive variation)

            - LYC -> 23 players (negative variation)

              - Animosity -> 29 players

                - Sinergia -> 30 players

 

If we see it from that angle, an alliance of 60 players (+15 variation from smokies) will go against a 82 players alliance, so we can worded like this:

 

"Currently, since Jan of 2015, WoE scenario has been decaying due to several guilds with an average of 27 player per guild forming alliances to benefit and defend against other guilds/alliances leading small guilds with an average of 20 players or below to quit due to not being able to take on an entire alliance by themselves"

 

By looking at data above, the simplest solution will be to just get rid of alliances while giving a better chance to smaller guilds. Also, we can see that each alliance has a 25~27 players per guild on average; therefore, balancing numbers to reduce variation between guilds is the best solution as of right now.

 

First task should be to reduce variation between guilds and that is made by setting up caps that at least, reaches P-95 of data. By reducing the amount of players on guilds with high number of players, it will force them to create an extra guild which, after not having enough people, will recruit more players and so on reaping itself every now and then.  After variation is down, we will be able to see other issues and perhaps, even reduce cap even further.

 

Thank you.


  • 4

#56 meli

meli

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 2688 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 17 May 2016 - 12:40 AM

I guess it's impossible for some people to not bring drama and specific guild names to these kind of threads.
  • 2

#57 randstad

randstad

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 17 May 2016 - 02:08 AM

To every one

 

Winners take responsibility for their own while losers point the finger elsewhere/has some reason to blame others


  • 0

#58 Ashuckel

Ashuckel

    '-' intensifies

  • Members
  • 16623 posts
  • LocationJohto, Hoenn, Unova, Kalos, Alola
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 17 May 2016 - 02:48 AM

Expanded(K/O,SL,etc) could have their own version of woe set, wich has effect only in woe, and grant status immunity when you reach X base stat.
Like, when vit is 90 or higher, gives stun immunity. For all stats. Since this kind of immunity cant be disabled by lvl difference.

The idea of a 2nd chance should also be limited to SLs in my opinion. Even if other classes are not killers, and can be 1shoted, in general they offer much more utility on a guild than a linker. Killing the enemy support is also a key move to win a fight. SLs on the other hand are just caught in the crossed fire and completely wiped.
Why SL btw? I think most of us agree that it is an effective class, and the easiest to lvl and relatively simple to gear up. Also the unlimited skill reset makes them able to adatp to every week class composition. It's a relatively common choice when ppl just want to join woe for fun/dont have funds/high lvl 3rds, kinda welcoming for new players in the woe scene.

GoH missing HP part should be affected by woe reductions imo(-50%), not all reductions. The fact is that currently suras can achieve 130k+ hp by their own, if you are missing 100k, thats pretty much able to kill anyone. Reducing it by half would reduce it's dumbness a bit, while still being rewarding to use againts those very high reduc enemies.
I still don't have a fixed position for TC. Making it work as a regular AoE skill has it's ups and downs. While you cant no more target the enemy squishy class for a complete wipe, it makes it's use more simple, as you just target anyone, and some die and some not. While reducing it's splash damage would keep the reward on being able to find and target the squishy, but reduce when targeting a mid reduction enemy, like RKs.

Edited by Ashuckel, 17 May 2016 - 02:53 AM.

  • 1

#59 louisn1234

louisn1234

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 457 posts

Posted 17 May 2016 - 03:02 AM

actually they have each other evidence of cheating. Both "Pro" side have the way to act innocence anyway (get away from being caught).  both sides do cheat ( all the cheat u can think of). I was in both side before. You guys keep mentioning we need to remove alliance , downside the guild etc etc.

 

But the fact is, imbalance of character in WOE , Cheating , the amount of gods & MVPs in veteran players made new ppl not really interested to play WOE.

 

Imagine a Sura let say from those big guild ( true case is not a story), can wipe a whole small guild ( 8-12 number of people), I assume this Sura have all the gods & Mvps + he cheat ( autopot, auto etc).

 

What my point

 

if our GM couldnt solve the problem of

 

1)Over powered Character ( Sura )

2) Imbalance mechanic ( Tiger Cannon Formula , NL Formula etc , Stasis , Immunity Stat Etc)

3) cheating issue  (Autopot, Automasq , NDL)

4)  over powered Gears like MVPs and gods (Kiels , Tao , GTB , Thanatos , Samurai , Megingjard , Mjolnir , FBH , Fenrir )

 

Before we could even solve the issue above,

downsizing a guild size / disable alliance for me would be second priority issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by louisn1234, 17 May 2016 - 03:02 AM.

  • 1

#60 hellmageddon

hellmageddon

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 81 posts

Posted 17 May 2016 - 03:46 AM

I see some positive changes here. I'm just glad someone over at Warpportal is finally realizing that woe is important to some players.


  • 0

#61 VModCinnamon

VModCinnamon

    Tranquility

  • Senior Warpportal VM
  • 13581 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 17 May 2016 - 04:37 AM

Please excel in restraining yourself from posting drama, you can do it.

 

DO NOT ENGAGE IN GUILD DRAMA IN THIS THREAD.


  • 2

#62 WarlockFier

WarlockFier

    Too Legit To Quit

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

Posted 17 May 2016 - 04:49 AM

- 2 big alliances:

  - 5 guilds involved within the 2 alliances (correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we have LR, CS, Anim, LYC & Tacobell):

    - Average players per guild (just using 4 random data points and extrapolating it to a 52 weeks per year and using average instead of P-50 to take into consideration possible outliers):

      - LR -> 48 players

        - CS -> 12 players

          - Smokies -> (no longer around, players will be accounted into LR headcount as positive variation)

            - LYC -> 23 players (negative variation)

              - Animosity -> 29 players

                - Sinergia -> 30 players

 

If we see it from that angle, an alliance of 60 players (+15 variation from smokies) will go against a 82 players alliance, so we can worded like this:

 

If you think the remaining members of Smokies merged into LR, sorry you are wrong. Your data is inaccurate and just an assumption base on what you see from the outside.

Edit: Also LR and CS isn't allied.


Edited by WarlockFier, 17 May 2016 - 04:52 AM.

  • 0

#63 KamiKali

KamiKali

    They pay me to post.

  • Members
  • 5139 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 17 May 2016 - 05:07 AM

<>

Also Haseo, do you not recall that a certain guild merges into another each woe? Wouldn't that decease your guild count to 4 and increase your average to 40? What's the point in separating the guilds when it doesn't reflect reality and only there to support your skewed data?Ouch shooting yourself in the foot sure hurts.


Edited by VModCinnamon, 17 May 2016 - 06:43 AM.
Removed, the post is no longer there.

  • 0

#64 Mulder1

Mulder1

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1610 posts

Posted 17 May 2016 - 05:25 AM

If you think the remaining members of Smokies merged into LR, sorry you are wrong. Your data is inaccurate and just an assumption base on what you see from the outside.

Edit: Also LR and CS isn't allied.

 

That's why is called a "positive variation"... variation? hello?

 

CS and LR used to fight together but at the end of the day, results are the same if you use the other alliance as reference.

 

Thank you.


  • 1

#65 Dreimdal

Dreimdal

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 541 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 17 May 2016 - 05:26 AM

Spoiler

 

This proposed "shard system" idea just further incentivizes unusual or deviant behaviors by small guilds that don't WoE for fights. There are already some guilds whose only goal in WoE is to go around breaking empty castles. WoE should not be strictly about breaking castles, but fighting other guilds in order to gain castles.

We already have WoE sets. We don't need new WoE gears. I'd honestly scrap the whole "shard system" idea.

Regarding One-Shots

If you want to do something about one-shots, just change the game mechanics underlying WoE such that: If a players takes a hit that would do damage equal to or exceeding their maxHP at the time of the hit, then their HP is set to 1% of their maxHP, Current HP would have no effect on the formula.

So say a player has 50k as their maxHP. They take a hit that does 60k. They survive with 1% and have an opportunity to quickly pot back up before getting hit by some other attack.


This would only eliminate some one-shots, which is fine. What I mean by that is, let's say the same example player above, with their 50k maxHP, is hit by an attack that does 45k, but their current HP is only 35k. They die immediately because they chose not to keep their HP up at a sufficient level.

This method would eliminate brokenly over-powered full health one-shots that exceed a player's maxHP, but still make opponents reasonably killable in 2 or 3 shots, or from multiple damage sources.


  • 0

#66 Ashuckel

Ashuckel

    '-' intensifies

  • Members
  • 16623 posts
  • LocationJohto, Hoenn, Unova, Kalos, Alola
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 17 May 2016 - 05:32 AM

And gfist becomes useless
  • 2

#67 Mulder1

Mulder1

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1610 posts

Posted 17 May 2016 - 05:33 AM

Also Haseo, do you not recall that a certain guild merges into another each woe? Wouldn't that decease your guild count to 4 and increase your average to 40? What's the point in separating the guilds when it doesn't reflect reality and only there to support your skewed data?Ouch shooting yourself in the foot sure hurts.

 

You are correct Kamicchi... guilds do merge into other... from both sides.

 

So now, by taking that into consideration, first you need to understand the reasoning behind it.

 

Is there a motive to do so? Is that something that happens all the time?

 

By looking into past data, LYC alliance started having Anim merge into them when: 1. Anim numbers were smaller than needed to perform or 2. When defending a castle for flag advantage (no flag, no WoE like lagarto says).

 

We also recognize that it happen on the other side as well... and again, usually for the reasons stated above.

 

Since it's not a recurrent event but a event dictated by circumstances, then we should label them as outliers and remove them due to us understanding these separate incidents.

 

And now, even if we use that information towards this discussion, a cap limit and no alliances will definitely stop guilds from doing the merge and willpush them to defend with their original numbers... also, it will limit their ability to use alt classes such as Alt Stasis Warlock or Alt Mechs and again, force actual people to play those classes while losing advantage else where.

 

Since Alt Stasis and Alt Mechs were pointed as a recurrent problem for Chaos WoE... wouldn't this cap in alliance/guild benefit towards the goal of eradicating that issue?

 

Thank you.


  • 2

#68 Hissis

Hissis

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 3901 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 17 May 2016 - 05:33 AM

Expanded(K/O,SL,etc) could have their own version of woe set, wich has effect only in woe, and grant status immunity when you reach X base stat.
Like, when vit is 90 or higher, gives stun immunity. For all stats. Since this kind of immunity cant be disabled by lvl difference.

The idea of a 2nd chance should also be limited to SLs in my opinion. Even if other classes are not killers, and can be 1shoted, in general they offer much more utility on a guild than a linker. Killing the enemy support is also a key move to win a fight. SLs on the other hand are just caught in the crossed fire and completely wiped.
Why SL btw? I think most of us agree that it is an effective class, and the easiest to lvl and relatively simple to gear up. Also the unlimited skill reset makes them able to adatp to every week class composition. It's a relatively common choice when ppl just want to join woe for fun/dont have funds/high lvl 3rds, kinda welcoming for new players in the woe scene.

GoH missing HP part should be affected by woe reductions imo(-50%), not all reductions. The fact is that currently suras can achieve 130k+ hp by their own, if you are missing 100k, thats pretty much able to kill anyone. Reducing it by half would reduce it's dumbness a bit, while still being rewarding to use againts those very high reduc enemies.
I still don't have a fixed position for TC. Making it work as a regular AoE skill has it's ups and downs. While you cant no more target the enemy squishy class for a complete wipe, it makes it's use more simple, as you just target anyone, and some die and some not. While reducing it's splash damage would keep the reward on being able to find and target the squishy, but reduce when targeting a mid reduction enemy, like RKs.

 

Listen him please.

 

I still think we should get 175 for K/O/REBEL+Rebel Awakening+ HP Increase instead of a new WoE SET for them.


  • 1

#69 Dreimdal

Dreimdal

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 541 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 17 May 2016 - 05:37 AM

 

 

  • Disable formal guild alliances. If guilds want to work together that is fine but they should be careful of friendly fire.

 

This action only benefits large guilds. Especially those that don't wish to ally or have no incentive to ally with other guilds. Unduly punishes small to mid sized guilds that might want to work together to overcome the larger numbers of a larger opponent..

An alternative option would be to cut guild size to 36, and allow only one ally per guild. But some might say that would punish large guilds.

My point in saying both of these things is to demonstrate that no matter which path you take, someone will benefit and another will suffer as a result of any such change. Not very fair either way...

Think carefully before any alteration to the alliance system.

 


  • 2

#70 Mulder1

Mulder1

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1610 posts

Posted 17 May 2016 - 05:46 AM

 

 

 

This action only benefits large guilds. Especially those that don't wish to ally or have no incentive to ally with other guilds. Unduly punishes small to mid sized guilds that might want to work together to overcome the larger numbers of a larger opponent..

An alternative option would be to cut guild size to 36, and allow only one ally per guild. But some might say that would punish large guilds.

My point in saying both of these things is to demonstrate that no matter which path you take, someone will benefit and another will suffer as a result of any such change. Not very fair either way...

Think carefully before any alteration to the alliance system.

 

 

I believe both changes go together.

 

If you see it from a different point of view, reducing the guild cap will make big guilds to make more guilds... which is not a bad thing, specially if a 56 player guild goes against a 30 something guild.

 

Also, the friendly fire change, that's something it should've done a while ago... if you want to defend with a big alliance, that's fine, but hey, you may kill each other if you are not careful. That will limit their ability to use AoEs since you may kill allies as well. It's a pretty good idea to restrict top guilds and making it fair for small or new guilds (if any) to join and fight competitively and not just that but it will make it easier for merged guild to remake their own guilds since now they will have a fair chance to fight.

 

Thank you.


  • 0

#71 Haro

Haro

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 258 posts
  • LocationFlorida
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos

Posted 17 May 2016 - 06:01 AM

I assume all these new items and consumables are account bound, in order to prevent them from being farmed by bots. If that is the case, how would guilds supply their members with these items? If you want to re-roll a class, do you have to collect x amount of shards/tokens on your other account? Will these new items be easily obtained?


  • 0

#72 KamiKali

KamiKali

    They pay me to post.

  • Members
  • 5139 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 17 May 2016 - 06:04 AM

I don't support the Shard implementation and what it targets because castle breaking mid-WoE does not need an incentive. As Dreimdal has said, there are guilds that only break already without fighting. There's no point in this for the reason stated "To incentivize castle breaking mid WoE" unless the only purpose was to roll out new gear. If Campitor insists on pursuing this. Here is a list of 3rd classes and their HP, so that we have an easier time classifying what is "support" and what the Sarah effect can fairly apply to.

 

RK: 23356

RG: 21942

GX: 21430

Mech: 20988

SC: 19972

Sura: 18287

Ranger: 17592

Wanderer and Maestro: 17586

Geneticist: 15781

Sorc 14940

AB: 14688

Warlock: 14202

 

Because Rangers are clearly not a support class, the gear can apply to all classes below and including Wanderer and Maestro - and I guess Extended.


  • 1

#73 randstad

randstad

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 17 May 2016 - 06:12 AM

If gm disable formal guild alliances.lets says LYC 23 &  Animosity 29  23+29= 52 think as 55 only both merge into 1 guild while fighting LR to bad idea disable formal guild alliances still loser is loser  :blahblah:  :blahblah:  :blahblah: 

 


  • 0

#74 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

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

Posted 17 May 2016 - 06:18 AM

You are correct Kamicchi... guilds do merge into other... from both sides.

So now, by taking that into consideration, first you need to understand the reasoning behind it.

Is there a motive to do so? Is that something that happens all the time?

By looking into past data, LYC alliance started having Anim merge into them when: 1. Anim numbers were smaller than needed to perform or 2. When defending a castle for flag advantage (no flag, no WoE like lagarto says).

We also recognize that it happen on the other side as well... and again, usually for the reasons stated above.

Since it's not a recurrent event but a event dictated by circumstances, then we should label them as outliers and remove them due to us understanding these separate incidents.

And now, even if we use that information towards this discussion, a cap limit and no alliances will definitely stop guilds from doing the merge and willpush them to defend with their original numbers... also, it will limit their ability to use alt classes such as Alt Stasis Warlock or Alt Mechs and again, force actual people to play those classes while losing advantage else where.

Since Alt Stasis and Alt Mechs were pointed as a recurrent problem for Chaos WoE... wouldn't this cap in alliance/guild benefit towards the goal of eradicating that issue?

Thank you.

Wise words and well said. Getting down to how if will benefit overall woe stability rather then create another current woe situation. Disabling guild alliance while capping guild size should go hand in hand. The other side would rather force guilds to grow to their size almost sounds like forcing guilds to work together. So rather then help revitalize woe would rather it stay in its current stale state of 4 guild server. A healthy server is one with lots of competition lots of competition can only be done by having more guilds. It's only logical way of making more guilds is to limit guild size to force more guilds rather then force merge to play.

Edited by miliardo, 17 May 2016 - 06:18 AM.

  • 0

#75 miliardo

miliardo

    Too Legit To Quit

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

Posted 17 May 2016 - 06:23 AM

If gm disable formal guild alliances.lets says LYC 23 & Animosity 29 23+29= 52 think as 55 only both merge into 1 guild while fighting LR to bad idea disable formal guild alliances still loser is loser :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:


So rather then fix main problems in woe would rather force to merge into eachother and fight eachother woe after woe. I mean this sounds boring to me.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users