21 replies to this topic

[mattaangel]

I'm not an expert of woe 2, so I want to know your opinion guys:

 

We don't have enough guilds/players to fit all the castles with decent fights.

During woe 1 most of the castles are left empty for the whole woe or held by guilds with 3-4 members. Having so many castles just split the players and inevitably reduces the 'action'/fun/quantity of the fights and the 'dinamicity' of the woe. I think we all agree that defending an empty castle for 2 hours is just not funny at all.

 

In woe 2 I guess this is going to be even worse because castles are MUCH larger in size. Moreover, due to the strong defenses that can be built, for a medium-size guild it would take more time to kill the guardians than actually gvging against a small guild that took an empty castle.

 

 

 4 castles (or even less!) should be enough with the actual population this server has, what do you think?

[Renaru]

No.

 

It gives smaller guilds with only 12ish members a chance to take a castle. if there were only 4, It'd permanently be big guild territory with no opportunities for smaller guilds.

[OrionSlayeer]

Smaller guild shoud merge or recruit more.

 

If you are small and dont hav the quality, you should not be given a castle for free.

WoE 2.0 is about GvG excellence. The best guilds, with the best compositions will win. If they are all split on several castles, it´s bad.

 

Big guilds will simply build up a defense, and leave to siege your smaller Guild castles and build up a def there too.

 

I would love to see 2 Castles on WoE 2.0. We would have WoE A, Big guilds and possibly WoE B, with smaller sized guilds. At least in the first hours.

 

As for smaller guilds. Get bigger and stronger.

[mattxor]

Just another case of the bigger guilds wanting to stay in control and force the small guilds out.

[OrionSlayeer]

Just another case of the bigger guilds wanting to stay in control and force the small guilds out.

 

Din´t you quit? lol

 

It´s not dude. SU is not really big.

 

But 2.0 castles should not be something easy for you to get, only because there are not many players in the server! If you want it, get stronger. Stop crying for free -_-.

[mattxor]

Quitting is for losers and you know right now in light of everything, I don't mind being a loser.

 

Keep the castles open so that other guilds can get what they need to for free so that one day they can run people like ^ into the ground.

[Renaru]

Smaller Guilds shouldn't be forced to merge just to participate in WoE 2.

 

If you can participate in WoE 1 and get castles as a small guild, WoE 2 should be no difference. This isn't about swinging your 30 active members with 20 alt tab characters dick in everyone's face, this is about a fair WoE.

[mattxor]

We lost fair WoE when I was ignored. I can say that I tried.

[Stephcake]

Ah yes, GM presence deterring people from cheating = "losing fair WoE". My god, you're delusional.

 

Though, considering how many weird thoughts you've been spouting, it's hard to guess what else you feel you were "ignored" about, I guess.

Edited by Stephcake, 11 February 2018 - 07:18 AM.

[mattaangel]

No.

 

It gives smaller guilds with only 12ish members a chance to take a castle. if there were only 4, It'd permanently be big guild territory with no opportunities for smaller guilds.

 

This sounds like 'we want an empty castle so that we can be sure to conquer it and get his treasures/show the world how strong we are every week'.

 

Yesterday 3/4  of the 'big guilds' fit well inside one woe 1 castle; with four woe2 castles opened you would have enough space to fight against guilds of your same size anyway.

 

Getting a castle should be an hard achievement to be proud of, atm is just enter in the first empty castle you can find and hope none enters in it.

I want to avoid to give a free castle every woe to whatever guild manages to gather toghether 5 ppl. You already have woe 1 to do that.

If killing the guardians in your woe2 castle takes more time than wiping your guild then you don't deserve a castle.

[umizu]

don't even know how to delete this

Edited by umizu, 11 February 2018 - 09:56 AM.

[MyVictories]

5-6 WoE2 castles would be appropriate for our current server size. Enough room for big as well as smaller guilds to have room to do dance. But this is Re:start, the chances of this happening are... 

Edited by MyVictories, 11 February 2018 - 02:25 PM.

[OrionSlayeer]

Smaller Guilds shouldn't be forced to merge just to participate in WoE 2.

 

If you can participate in WoE 1 and get castles as a small guild, WoE 2 should be no difference. This isn't about swinging your 30 active members with 20 alt tab characters dick in everyone's face, this is about a fair WoE.

 

WoE 1 having this many castles is wrong in the first place! Don´t you realize Big guilds get 2-3 castles every single WOE1? You wonder then about the flooding of godly itens and OCAS. Give me a break.

 

The schedule is always, Have gvGs in the first 1,5 hours and then rush teams to secure as many empty castles as possible. This completely beats the purpose.

 

You really think, your average 5-man guild should have a castle, only cuz^?? This is a joke.

[mattaangel]

not to mention the fact that we have enough OCAs  in game (most of them dropped from treasure boxes),  and reducing the number of castles would reduce the number of miniboss cards dropped every week from them.

 

 

Edited by mattaangel, 13 February 2018 - 03:18 AM.

[mattaangel]

5-6 WoE2 castles would be appropriate for our current server size. Enough room for big as well as smaller guilds to have room to do dance. But this is Re:start, the chances of this happening are... 

 

I agree, WP will do nothing about that just like they did with woe 1.  They are probably not even reading this post.

Edited by mattaangel, 13 February 2018 - 03:18 AM.

[belld1711]

Din´t you quit? lol

 

It´s not dude. SU is not really big.

 

But 2.0 castles should not be something easy for you to get, only because there are not many players in the server! If you want it, get stronger. Stop crying for free .

 

I quit too. And that's where your problem lies. Personally, I never participated in WoE when I played any of the servers, but people on this server are quitting on a daily basis. So who are the smaller guilds supposed to recruit? Keeping all of the castles open would encourage the remaining people to keep participating. Yeah, this would inject OCAs and other things into the server, but if you close castles to adjust to population size, you'll eventually be fighting over 2 or 3 castles. It's WAR of Emperium. Not Skirmish of Emperium where only the biggest alliances fight each other.

 

This sounds like 'we want an empty castle so that we can be sure to conquer it and get his treasures/show the world how strong we are every week'.

 

Yesterday 3/4  of the 'big guilds' fit well inside one woe 1 castle; with four woe2 castles opened you would have enough space to fight against guilds of your same size anyway.

 

Getting a castle should be an hard achievement to be proud of, atm is just enter in the first empty castle you can find and hope none enters in it.

I want to avoid to give a free castle every woe to whatever guild manages to gather toghether 5 ppl. You already have woe 1 to do that.

If killing the guardians in your woe2 castle takes more time than wiping your guild then you don't deserve a castle.

 

What better way to get more competition and stronger guilds than to let a few smaller guilds get castles each week and get stronger through the "treasures" and practice? It's not like your massive alliances can't roll through them any time you choose, anyway. Or would you prefer a dead server where it's the same 3 guilds fighting every week because smaller guilds get discouraged and quit?

[mattaangel]

I quit too. And that's where your problem lies. Personally, I never participated in WoE when I played any of the servers, but people on this server are quitting on a daily basis. So who are the smaller guilds supposed to recruit? Keeping all of the castles open would encourage the remaining people to keep participating. Yeah, this would inject OCAs and other things into the server, but if you close castles to adjust to population size, you'll eventually be fighting over 2 or 3 castles. It's WAR of Emperium. Not Skirmish of Emperium where only the biggest alliances fight each other.

 

 

What better way to get more competition and stronger guilds than to let a few smaller guilds get castles each week and get stronger through the "treasures" and practice? It's not like your massive alliances can't roll through them any time you choose, anyway. Or would you prefer a dead server where it's the same 3 guilds fighting every week because smaller guilds get discouraged and quit?

 

yeah it's WAR of emperium. It's not a war if you don't have to fight anyone because your castle is empty. Probably to open just 2 castles is too extreme, but keep them all opened is even worse. 

 

Btw for every person quitting because their small guild can't take a castle (how the -_- is it possible to not be able to take a castle when half of them are empty lol) there are 10 players from medium/big guilds that quit because woes atm are simply BORING (and everything else, MVP PVM etc., is dead).

[mattxor]

Yea, I agree with you matt that WoE started to get boring.

I was never advocating for people to cheat. From my point of view, it would have improved your server in the long run.

All the newer servers have anti cheat and it prevents a small player base from having fun with low numbers.

You have it good here because macros are legal to use. That is a big + for your community and I think everyone here should embrace that.

 

I will give it to you from my point of view on how I imagined things would be if I got my way. I have never been able to explain this because no one has asked the right questions even though I put it all in plain view and preached it to my hearts content.

 

Your server has small numbers now and you want the big battles so WoE is not boring. I totally get that.

My vision would have been to have every guild be able to defend. If this was the case, it would have added so much more strategy to WoE. There would be so many more guilds to attack because it would attract people to your server.

 

I preached for a section on this forums for quality of life edits/macros that we could all share and be on the same playing field.

This was all rejected and I understand the community concerns but I only did what I did to better my server. We all take claim to this if we really care. I just wish everyone here would say how they feel rather than pushing each other all the time. It has been great with some of you discussing these topics. This is a community that cares and that is great. I do wish you the best of luck! Fight for what you believe in so that you can be proud to call this home.

 

[belld1711]

yeah it's WAR of emperium. It's not a war if you don't have to fight anyone because your castle is empty. Probably to open just 2 castles is too extreme, but keep them all opened is even worse. 

 

Btw for every person quitting because their small guild can't take a castle (how the is it possible to not be able to take a castle when half of them are empty lol) there are 10 players from medium/big guilds that quit because woes atm are simply BORING (and everything else, MVP PVM etc., is dead).

 

If it's fighting you want, go look for one. In the renewal forums, people were always complaining how no one defends a castle because "it's so boring". If it's anything like the other servers, most fights only happen in the last 5 minutes of WoE anyway.

 

Besides, how quickly would God Items be made if half the castles are closed? The GMs would need to adjust the treasure drops to include a chance for multiple types of components per castle (or are they random? idk) That would be more detrimental to the server than an over-abundance of OCAs or your boredom imo.

 

I just wish everyone here would say how they feel rather than pushing each other all the time.

 

You honestly want to know what I think? Personally, I think allowing ANY kind of edits and the use of macros was the WORST thing WP has done. Yeah, charging 500 KP for an item, then charging 300 KP for a SLOTTED version of the same item a week later was pretty tasteless. Implementing new content with little to no testing is frustrating, telling people what the GMs will do if you send a ticket in for certain issues then making it a "case by case basis" (example decarding VIA ticket submission in Renewal). And then there's a thousand other things that they do that get under my skin. But the worst was allowing edits and macros. May as well just make a 1 player version of this game so that there's no need for hosting servers and such.

[mattxor]

Thank you belld1711 for being the example. You do not give any constructive criticism. All I saw was "allowing ANY kind of edits and the use of macros was the WORST thing WP has done." Why is it the worst idea? I am not asking you that question. I am just saying what would be the correct type of response to your post. I should not have to be teaching adults how to debate by using something as simple as pros and cons. Simply stating you do not want something or that it was "the WORST" is not a way to communicate with your community. Everyone here owes it to each other to toughly explain them self if they are going to speak on an issue. You guys are doing a great job in the maint thread btw.

Edited by mattxor, 14 February 2018 - 05:42 AM.

[xeebx]

5-6 WoE2 castles would be appropriate for our current server size. Enough room for big as well as smaller guilds to have room to do dance. But this is Re:start, the chances of this happening are... 

 

I like this logic.  If small guilds can't compete to bigger guilds then they need to merg with other small guilds or just continue getting face roll.  What other people have said before, either adapt or just disband.  Why should the game put handicaps for small guilds?  If they do so they should implement castles where only small guilds can fight over for.  But that's prolly too hard for them

[belld1711]

Thank you belld1711 for being the example. You do not give any constructive criticism. All I saw was "allowing ANY kind of edits and the use of macros was the WORST thing WP has done." Why is it the worst idea? I am not asking you that question. I am just saying what would be the correct type of response to your post. I should not have to be teaching adults how to debate by using something as simple as pros and cons. Simply stating you do not want something or that it was "the WORST" is not a way to communicate with your community. Everyone here owes it to each other to toughly explain them self if they are going to speak on an issue. You guys are doing a great job in the maint thread btw.

You said you wanted people to state how they felt, so I stated an opinion. You may retort or not. Despite how negative it was, that's my opinion. And I stated why. If you wish to argue my opinion, your free to do so. That's how a debate works.

 

As for "constructive criticism" goes, find someone else to blow sunshine up your arse. In the past, I've participated in discussions and gave "constructed criticism" to Oda, Campitor and the community. But I've been shafted by WP and could care less about the game any more. As stated before, I only come here to keep up to date for my wife who still plays. If/When I can get her to quit the game, I'll never come back. While I'm here, I figure I may as well post an opinion or whatever every now and then and chat with the few friends I've made.

Edited by belld1711, 14 February 2018 - 07:38 PM.