247 replies to this topic

[Necrohealiac]

• ​Treasure
• Divide the god item pieces by realm with each castle receiving a unique peace
  Left over god item piece needs to be assign to a different realm so that guilds will branch into other realms in order to complete their set.

No comment on my previous notes on this? The proposed system will have multiple castles with more than one god piece assigned to them, thus making certain castles more desirable than others. You already have god piece boxes in game that reward a random god piece, why can't you do realm-specific god piece boxes? And keep in mind once again that the original WoE castle drop distribution already forced people to visit multiple realms to obtain the pieces for creating a god item, so the desired result is still the same.

https://forums.warpp...ject/?p=2449200

Edited by Necrohealiac, 17 May 2016 - 06:26 AM.

[ChakriGuard]

Typical peruvians from (dot) A2 invading iRO. It's really pointless to argue over the thread. Everyone is acting on their self interest. I wonder if Campitor and GM team ever WoEs or visit WoE realm during WoE time to see what current WoE is really like. If you at least observes during WoE, you might actually get the idea of what is going ie what side has more people, what side abuses skills, etc. You might even eventually perceive the real problems that are driving people away. Just saying :v

I think you''re just making things difficult, really lol

[Hissis]

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.

 

I don't think WL should have this set,they can support and kill but most people are using the class to kill or alt stasis >x>

[Haro]

As a filthy casual, I feel class skill balances should be prioritized first and shard implementation last. And if kRO gives it an ok on these suggestions, can we get a roadmap of development on how you are going to implement these changes?

[Undying]

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.

Agreed and supported.

[miliardo]

I sure hope you guys consider all options put on table as there is lagit reasons against disabling alliance. I don't want gms to just be doing this because they can without knowing the consequences of what will lead too. The problem is not one side working together it's the lack of players/guilds on server. imagine a server to where we have 7+ guilds fighting. There won't be any gvg unless one side of 25-30 merges together. So rather then promote more guilds we are going to force even less guilds cause of how easy # advantage will give you once guild alliance is disabled. It's not the fault of ones recruiting as much it is the fault of our side working together. Let's disable alliance cap guilds so we can have a few guilds that can fight eachother rather then LR vs animosity and LYC merged fighting eachother woe after woe. Either keep alliances way are and implement shards see if woe grows or disable alliance and cap guilds should be how done.

Edited by miliardo, 17 May 2016 - 07:11 AM.

[Hissis]

As a filthy casual, I feel class skill balances should be prioritized first and shard implementation last. And if kRO gives it an ok on these suggestions, can we get a roadmap of development on how you are going to implement these changes?

 

I'm saying this for months.

 

Balance the Game first,then start making changes.

 

It's more easy and effective.

[Dreimdal]

Spoiler

• 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
    • Tokens can be exchanged for the following​
      • Consumables useful in WoE
        • 100% Chance, second chance scrolls (10 min cool down)
        • Breaking out of Status effect consumables (10 min cool down)
      • Large amounts of tokens can be converted to a small amount of emperium shards
        

I'm going to be blunt. This is a dumb idea. Not everyone in WoE is a killer class, or even if they are, they might have their skills and stats set as more of a supporter. Just scrap this plan completely.

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

Already addressed this in a previous post in this thread. I won't say anything more about it.
 

Changing the Meta

• Introduction of the Doram Cat Race
  Only if it's made demi-human race and other broken aspects of it fixed first. We don't need more imbalanced garbage introduced to iRO. We already know kRO's developers are clinically brain dead. You don't need to foist their "ingenious" ideas upon us against our will in order to remind us of that fact.
• Suicidal destruction needs gain a fixed unreducible medium length cast time where caster defense is increased but they cannot move as they are overloading the Mado suit. Ideally the animation needs to include effects where the suit starts to flash faster and faster.A solution to this needs to be reworked. Perhaps there needs to be a cool down applied to the skill upon logging in or some other lock down timer to prevent the constant switching of alts.
  Just make Suicide Destruction interruptable by damage and give it an extra 0.5 irreducible cast amount that can't be lowered by any method.
   
• Stasis should no longer go through walls.
  Agreed. In fact, no skill should be able to affect enemy players if it can be casted through a wall and leave the caster in a relatively safe position for doing it repeatedly, so add Mandragora Howling and Hallucination Drug to that list. Also Unbarring Octave and Dazzler, among other skills. All skills should require line of sight.
  
   
• Masquerade line of skills needs to cost SP every time an attempt to made to cast the skill even if the target is not a valid target Certain users are constantly spamming the server with attempts to mask certain targets even when it should otherwise be impossible to do so. The goal behind this proposal is to drain their resources and punish bad behavior versus nerfing the skill.
  Just give masquerades an irreducible cooldown (individual skills, not global delay). Perhaps 200 or more milliseconds. Test various numbers until a balanced one is found. Don't harm chasers too much, but don't make it overly easy for them to masquerade within 0.5 second by mashing a macro button.
   
• Potions need a fixed cool down of about 200 150 miliseconds to compensate there should be a 25% increase to potion healing ability. Testing the items this seems to be the best that can be obtained without some extreme shenanigans in regards to making unusual changes to the computer and how it handles game data.
  Very stupid. I already addressed this in the last thread, but any added delay would necessitate that potion power be increased by much more than a measly 25%
  
  As I said before, if you're going to introduce a cooldown, then you need to make condensed slims have a percentage healing effect within castles and PVP zones. Otherwise it gives an out-sized advantage to Flamel card users.
  
  Disable Flamel card in WoE and PVP.
  
  Regardless of the exact cooldown chosen, every class should be able to pot to full HP in 2-seconds. If it's 150ms, then ranked slim whites need to give 7.5% of max HP per slim. If it's 200ms, then it needs to be 10% per potion. If it's 100ms, then it needs to be 5% per potion. And so on...
  
  Raise their weight accordingly to compensate for making them have higher healing power from being percentage based.
   
• Disable monster transformation on WoE Maps
  
  Yes. It should not have been enabled in the first place. Keep the effect, but eliminate the sprite change.
   
• 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,
  
  It's normal for old status effects to be less effective with time. We already have new status effects from third classes, such as Howling and Masquerades, Freezing and Burning, and those are effective.
  
  My own feelings are that no alteration is needed to the status effect system. It's not normal for something like Poison or Sleep to still be effective against 3rd class characters.
  
  We don't need to make old stuff that has naturally gained obsolescence with the passage of time to become effective once again.

[meditation]

 

[spoiler]

Disable Flamel card in WoE and PVP.

Regardless of the exact cooldown chosen, every class should be able to pot to full HP in 2-seconds. If it's 150ms, then ranked slim whites need to give 7.5% of max HP per slim. If it's 200ms, then it needs to be 10% per potion. If it's 100ms, then it needs to be 5% per potion. And so on...

Raise their weight accordingly to compensate for making them have higher healing power from being percentage based.
 

• Disable monster transformation on WoE Maps
  
  Yes. It should not have been enabled in the first place. Keep the effect, but eliminate the sprite change.

 

 

 

Using flamel card in woe means no reduction card (no marse, no myst, no raydric, no deviling), no damage cards (menblatt etc.). You are sacrificing a really important card slot (garment) to get more heal from ranked slims. Just delete the card from server database i guess?

 

Also do you really think people are using small sprites scrolls to get buffs? So first milk players to buy porings/deviruchi scrolls to woe and then disable them! I'm a Dragon Breath rune knight, if i'm not using scrolls in woe i'm getting dismounted as soon as i see a shadow chaser on my screen (and i have really high agi and i'm not overweight). Guess is time to switch class, right?

Edited by meditation, 17 May 2016 - 07:21 AM.

[Dreimdal]

I'd say we're overdue for another castle reduction in WoE 1. Reduce it to 3 castles per realm instead of the current 4. Have some kind of polling done on which one to eliminate from each realm.

Fewer castles = more competitive. And less easy "free" castles for guilds to just suck up near the end of WoE with minimal competition.

 

Perhaps even in WoE 2 a reduction could be beneficial. Cut one castle in each realm. God item pieces would have to be re-finagled for Brynhild, but they could just make one Nithafjoll castle have a chance to drop 2 pieces (one of which would come from the eliminated castle). Also makes that one castle with double piece drop extra special to hold and more competitive. Either Nithafjoll 1, 4, or 5 should be the double piece drop (and the eliminated castle should also be from one of those 3), since those castles are the more difficult to defend castles due to the layout of their emperium areas. Also, Nithafjoll 2 and 3 each have unique designs, so eliminating one of those would be a shame for aesthetic reasons.
 

Valfreyja realm already has 2 castles that drop Cold Moonlight, so we could get rid of either Valfreyja 3 or 5, both of which have the same castle layout, and nothing would have to be adjusted as far as Asprika pieces go.

 

[Ashuckel]

Ever heard of WoE Whites?

Also, changing slims to heal a % is a nerf to low HP pool classes, healing 10% of 35k hp, while they could heal 6k with flamel card, but for that they sacrifice an impotant reduction card slot wich can save lifes many times.

To implement this 150ms cooldown is only to hinder the abusive advantage that autopotters and macro users have over players that use their own hands.

If there's one, and only one place where Flamel is excessively powerfull that place is in TE.

Edited by Ashuckel, 17 May 2016 - 07:39 AM.

[Dreimdal]

And gfist becomes useless

I take back what I wrote in this reply earlier.
 

The whole point is to stop full health one-shots. Why should Guillotine Fist be any exception?

 

In any case, an enemy getting hit with multiple sources of damage will still die. And that's partly the goal with what I had suggested.

Edited by Dreimdal, 18 May 2016 - 02:50 AM.

[Ashuckel]

Confirmed this is a convention now

[Hissis]

Solution, separate it into 2 distinct hits?

Or better yet, we can don't have to rely on a monk class skill being over-powered all these years later.

Or we could eliminate the "no SP restoration after GFist for 10-seconds" cooldown that's currently in place.


There are quite a few ways this could be remedied, so I don't see it as a bad thing.

 

I would love if they could remove the GFIST delay,the skill is not strong and you need to go full damage to kill someone(almost no reductions).

 

If they really implement this ''bad idea armor'',GF is 'dead' for WoE Scenario.

[meli]

What the funk are you talkin about. The armor should only work for the lowest hp classes (which are mostly support), plus using these shard gears would break woe set anyways.

[sheepmia]

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:

 

 

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.

By reducing guild size cap, disabling alliance in the same time new guilds will have more chance to compete because they have a better chance to defeat 30 people vs 56 people.

 

This doesn't harm the new guilds because they will never have 56 players online for woe.

 

From gathering members point of view, getting 30 people is much more realistic than 50 people currently. In this sense it brings in equality to smaller guilds vs larger guilds.

 

True you can say that people can still work together but the big guilds do split up and can possibly be wipe by a small guild now, that brings fun for new players.

 

But that only solve one problem. Imagine 30 people having OP items vs 0 people having OP items (i.e TAO).

 

Using TAO as an example

 

So the equalization principle should be: Creating a "TAO" alike card which is

 

1. somewhat less powerful as TAO.

2. acceptable replacement of TAO.

3. much easier to acquire.

 

Instead of completely removing the OP items people take years to acquire, you can soften their OPness by introducing new items to make everyone else happy. 

 

i.e. A RK dragon box which allows RK to regain their dragon in WoE map as an attempt to soften masq gloomy one click OPness

But do it with a 8 sec cost time which can be interrupted.

with a box limit like 2.

Otherwise this idea makes masq gloomy completely pointless, useless, imagine you can get your dragon back instantly after masq, and with no limits on how many times you can do it.

[WolfTri]

About the guild size reduction. Guilds are something that take time to grow, and require a lot of effort to nurture and hold together so many people. It definitely is difficult for anyone to get 50+ active members in one guild, but it is also the one true objective that every guild should strive for. You can't extend the argument from Alliances to Guilds, because they just aren't the same. Alliances can be (and often are) made or broken on a weekly basis depending on the need of that particular WoE and their plans. Guilds on the other hand actually have relatively permanent members who need to get accustomed to each other, learn to work together and grow as a group. You can't really draw a comparison between a guild as a unit and an alliance as a whole, especially as alliances stand right now where the reason for allying up is usually coz "X guild has held that castle for too long", or "X guild wants to break my castle", and then next week you're at each other's throats again. So reducing guild size would mean limiting the growth of every guild, cutting away from the very basis of what a guild is: several many people working together. And frankly, if two guilds wish to be together, and both are ~20 people each, it is much better for them to merge rather than to have 2 guilds and ally up. Doing the latter provides the arguably unfair advantage of two Urgent Calls and a lot of additional space for alts. Disabling alliances will mean that while you could still have another guild as a strategic ally, you'll have to control your fire and not accidentally kill them. The point of an alliance is to increase your strength further beyond a guild's maximum capacity. Adding a tradeoff to that doesn't seem like a bad idea. 

Also right now the argument for reducing guild caps seems to only be that "alliances are being removed". Smells a lot like "I'm losing something, so they should lose something too" kind of arguments. 

[meditation]

 

i.e. A RK dragon box which allows RK to regain their dragon in WoE map as an attempt to soften masq gloomy one click OPness

But do it with a 8 sec cost time which can be interrupted.

with a box limit like 2.

Otherwise this idea makes masq gloomy completely pointless, useless, imagine you can get your dragon back instantly after masq, and with no limits on how many times you can do it.

 

So, help me understand: RK dragon box = 8 seconds interruptable (almost like a soul linker urgent call lol). Shadow Chasers with cheats = 1912929129122919 attempts per second to completely disable a class = fine.

 

 

@Campitor Increase dragon breath cooldown to 250ms so you will be able to use 4db per second at most and you will get rid of those nodelayers. Put a cooldown on masquerades of 0.2/0.25seconds to defeat cheaters the same way

 

I'm getting istant 3 masq most of the time (groomy, ignorance, weakness).

Edited by meditation, 17 May 2016 - 08:52 AM.

[Sewasan]

I dont get how people think we are going to have 10 guilds of 50+ people when players are quitting, the cap thing is not a "im losing something" i saw it as a realistic "we dont have enough players" so basically, if you keep the same cap you are going to have a guild who can reach 40-50+ with smaller guilds wich not get to 30, and pretty much the other guilds of 15 people or less, that is the reality of actual woe, so what is going to happen, guilds will start to merge and then you will have fewer guilds and things will be the same, 2 big guilds fighting for all the castles, and thats it. People doesnt appear from the thin air.

 

Also about the alliance thing, is not like that really, maybe your experiences about that part of the game but, for example the animosity alliance has at least 2 years till now, you can actually grow up as an alliance, imagine like a big guild where everyone is coordinated and look toward common goals and try to improve, of course there will be moments were you don tagree with the other guy, but, not like we ally because this and then we try to cut our throats XD.

[miliardo]

About the guild size reduction. Guilds are something that take time to grow, and require a lot of effort to nurture and hold together so many people. It definitely is difficult for anyone to get 50+ active members in one guild, but it is also the one true objective that every guild should strive for. You can't extend the argument from Alliances to Guilds, because they just aren't the same. Alliances can be (and often are) made or broken on a weekly basis depending on the need of that particular WoE and their plans. Guilds on the other hand actually have relatively permanent members who need to get accustomed to each other, learn to work together and grow as a group. You can't really draw a comparison between a guild as a unit and an alliance as a whole, especially as alliances stand right now where the reason for allying up is usually coz "X guild has held that castle for too long", or "X guild wants to break my castle", and then next week you're at each other's throats again. So reducing guild size would mean limiting the growth of every guild, cutting away from the very basis of what a guild is: several many people working together. And frankly, if two guilds wish to be together, and both are ~20 people each, it is much better for them to merge rather than to have 2 guilds and ally up. Doing the latter provides the arguably unfair advantage of two Urgent Calls and a lot of additional space for alts. Disabling alliances will mean that while you could still have another guild as a strategic ally, you'll have to control your fire and not accidentally kill them. The point of an alliance is to increase your strength further beyond a guild's maximum capacity. Adding a tradeoff to that doesn't seem like a bad idea.
Also right now the argument for reducing guild caps seems to only be that "alliances are being removed". Smells a lot like "I'm losing something, so they should lose something too" kind of arguments.

Forcing guilds to merge is the same thing as forcing to work together. We are going to be in the same situation except your way means we only have 3 guilds on server fighting. This is not to target your guild this is targeted to help create more guilds rather then bigger superpowers.

[Hissis]

What about putting a 0.5 sec cooldown on DB (for WoE/PVM/PVP/MVP health) and create a new item like the Wolf Flute.

 

Done.

Edited by Hissis, 17 May 2016 - 09:31 AM.

[Ashuckel]

Nao

[sheepmia]

Reducing guild size would mean limiting the growth of every one guild (Loki's Realm), cutting away from the very basis of LR is: 50+ people working together. 

 

which is beneficial to any other guilds in the server, btw big guilds can always work together anyway.

 

And I thought the thread is about revitalizing woe, not about empowering big guilds to destroy small guilds (i.e. breaking alliance) easier.

Edited by sheepmia, 17 May 2016 - 09:53 AM.

[Ashuckel]

So you guys dont want to ever increase on members? ok

[Myzery]

I agree with Ash and that's why I mentioned linkers earlier. I also kind of blamed Campitor for mistake son Classic and that's not really fair since he's just the face of implementation.

Anyway, performers, linkers, and other expanded classes should really be the focus here in terms of changing the meta.
These classes are really important and provide invaluable buffs. Giving status immunity in the form of accessories for expanded classes would go a long way.
The WoE set is at this point, too precious to give up. I would love to play a soul linker if they were viable.

 

Instead of giving people items that prevent being one shot, how about accessories that reduce ranged damage by an absurd amount?
These would only be active during WoE and only usable by the "support" classes. I think that would fix a lot of the problems.

Providing rental gear similar to the TE items that give the same reduction as a WoE set would be amazing for a newer player.
It would be something they could use each week until they are able to purchase their own.



The whole numbers argument is a bad one. If you're able to recruit that many people, you should be rewarded.