Classic WoE how and when - Page 2 - Loki Classic Patch Notes - WarpPortal Community Forums

Jump to content


Photo

Classic WoE how and when


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

#26 Virtuelol

Virtuelol

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:26 PM

but even if you limit them to 2, faction + sugar won't beat insur + anyother.


Currently, they won't, but if they're all 36 attendance based guilds, I don't see why not. Guild cap and alliance restriction need to be both applied for this to make sense.

For them, fighting NET, Insur, Sugar, etc. in three castles is a total waste of time because they don't have a chance.


This is the main problem I have with the server right now. It's not only going to be the PVM people that believe they don't have a chance, it'll also be smaller WoE serious guilds. You can't have a chance when you're outnumbered, it's why the sides need to have balanced numbers and disadvantages (friendly fire) if they want to zerg.

--

If "real WoE" ends up being a better experience for the smaller guilds I mentioned earlier, then good, this thread doesn't even need to exist, but I have my doubts. I just have a feeling it won't be fun for neither side until things get balanced and guilds can focus on becoming organized instead of having to worry about who outnumbers who.

Edit: Though, I think it's quite selfish to just come in and say Valhalla has no problem hitting 40+ players, but what do you make of the other guilds? You're basically putting you in the position Insurr and NET is in right now, while saying it would be nice if NET and Insurr were smaller. Don't you see the contradiction? You have to see this for the server as whole. It is easier for guilds to hit 36 players than it is to hit 56 with the current server population.

Edited by Virtuelol, 25 September 2012 - 07:31 PM.

  • 0

#27 Amis

Amis

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 337 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Loki>Ymir>Classic

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:30 PM

Putting in artificial limitations by "removing" alliances just makes it harder on smaller guilds and startup guilds. Larger organizations WILL find ways to make it work. Back in 2007 we used to NAP other guilds and alliances to get around it.

The mechanics of pre-renewal WoE don't need modification. These were put together back when Gravity cared enough to pay game designers to think these things through. Modifications are more likely to cause things to be worse instead of better.
  • 0

#28 Xellie

Xellie

    Valkyrie

  • RO Fungineering
  • 18610 posts
  • Twitter:@nekoxellie
  • LocationValhalla
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Europe ban!

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:31 PM

Smaller guilds can go play in undesirable castles. Insur and NET can go slap eachother silly over brit 3/4/5. That's why I'm ok with not every castle being action packed. Small guilds will have their own pecking order too. I know when I first started Val as a 5 person guild, I ran scared from the alliances, picked on other small guilds and edged my way in to the action.
Then I got an alliance with other little guilds.
Then that alliance grew.
Then I allied bigger guilds.
Then I got into Big boys WoE.

And that's how guilds natural grow. Nobody starts out knowing what to do, how to fight. They have to learn against other scrubs.

aside that :

I don't think guild sizes can feasibly be reduced. We've been working hard to get levels the last few weeks, don't undo that plz!

Edit: Though, I think it's quite selfish to just come in and say Valhalla has no problem hitting 40+ players, but what do you make of the other guilds? You're basically putting you in the position Insurr and NET is in right now, while saying it would be nice if NET and Insurr were smaller. Don't you see the contradiction? You have to see this for the server as whole. It is easier for guilds to hit 36 players than it is to hit 56 with the current server population.


Uh not exactly. Even with equal numbers, I don't think VH can put a dent in insur/NET because we have a large number of casuals in guild. I have to work very hard to maintain this... would I be happier if I only had to worry about a 36 people guild? HELL YES I WOULD.

Point : some guilds will only be able to compete through numbers, because they don't have the hardcore levellers/ kp buyers / mvpers etc that the bigger guilds do. Some people just don't have 10 hours a day for ragnarok.

Edited by Xellie, 25 September 2012 - 07:35 PM.

  • 0

#29 cybernetic

cybernetic

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 2300 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:31 PM

You can't have a chance when you're outnumbered.


Not exactly
  • 0

#30 Virtuelol

Virtuelol

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:37 PM

Insur and NET can go slap eachother silly over brit 3/4/5.


Well if that's how you see this situation, then I can tell you right now that I won't be playing any longer as soon as I know for sure it will come down to this. I mean, why stay? 1v1 (the same guilds, that is) is dull for me. I came to WoE on iRO Classic expecting old WoEs, that's what people are here for.

I'm all for woe competition, but 1v1 isn't competition, so if guilds don't step up, then like I said many times before, the administration needs to make a change for there to be competition (guild limit), which I'm glad they took notice of.

Not exactly


Insurrection and NET are not trash guilds. You're not going to beat them in a 1v1 legit guild fight while being outnumbered, be realistic. There is no chance for Faction, Sugar or Valkyrie to overtake NET or Insurr, until their players start quitting because it's so boring.

Edited by Virtuelol, 25 September 2012 - 07:40 PM.

  • 0

#31 Kuropi

Kuropi

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 841 posts
  • LocationRight behind you.
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Valkyrie, Classic

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:39 PM

This is the main problem I have with the server right now. It's not only going to be the PVM people that believe they don't have a chance, it'll also be smaller WoE serious guilds. You can't have a chance when you're outnumbered, it's why the sides need to have balanced numbers and disadvantages (friendly fire) if they want to zerg.

I do NOT think guild/alliance sizes should be limited. This is all solved by leaving all the castles open. The big guilds are all going to be fighting over the hammer and belt forts, leaving the other forts for the smaller guilds who are just getting into WoE, or just not big enough to compete with the powerhouse guilds yet. Yes the big guilds might try to ninja these as second castle, but with a half decent set up and hostaging a castle, this shouldn't be *too* much of a problem.
  • 0

#32 Pistola22

Pistola22

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 64 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:39 PM

The guild I joined in Valk server is an excellent example of this. A tiny pvm guild with like, 15-20 active members, that was just beginning to transition into WoE. Over time, it became one of the major players in WoE for quite some time. But if there had been a limited number of castles to fight over to begin with, there is no way in hell we would've had a chance, being forced to fight against the likes of Smokies, Valk, Disso, Rambo Crew etc. and Immaculate would've died off long before it ever began.


Well said! Disabling forts and forcing people to fight battles they can't match up to is going to deter the smaller guilds from either attending or even logging onto classic. At least with more forts available to play in/end with, smaller guilds have the option of fighting other smaller guilds or just taking a last minute fort without much (if any) competition.
  • 0

#33 cybernetic

cybernetic

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 2300 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:41 PM

Insurrection and NET are not trash guilds. You're not going to beat them in a 1v1 legit guild fight while being outnumbered, be realistic. There is no chance for Faction, Sugar or Valkyrie to overtake NET or Insurr, until their players start quitting because it's so boring.


Oh you were talking about smalls fighting us? Nevermind.

I was talking about a few from NET and/or Insur being able to take down half the server.

Maybe!

Edited by cybernetic, 25 September 2012 - 07:41 PM.

  • 0

#34 Xellie

Xellie

    Valkyrie

  • RO Fungineering
  • 18610 posts
  • Twitter:@nekoxellie
  • LocationValhalla
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Europe ban!

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:43 PM

Well if that's how you see this situation, then I can tell you right now that I won't be playing any longer as soon as I know for sure it will come down to this. I mean, why stay? 1v1 (the same guilds, that is) is dull for me. I came to WoE on iRO Classic expecting old WoEs, that's what people are here for.


Nah I'll be around, someone will f up somewhere. I'm sure that other guilds will be attempting to get a sniff in on brit action too. I don't think it'll fall down to just insur vs NET every WoE. I know that as soon as one side starts getting butthurt, they'll ally someone. Then the other side will ally someone.

And I'll accept the first request I recieve because I'm a doochebag like that.

But it WILL happen. This is how iRO works.

Edited by Xellie, 25 September 2012 - 07:43 PM.

  • 0

#35 Virtuelol

Virtuelol

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 08:01 PM

I don't think it'll fall down to just insur vs NET every WoE. I


I hope not, but it's good to see that you agree it would be easier to maintain a 36 player guild. It just makes sense, the pool of players that want to join "smaller" guilds is different when the server has 1.7k players and 6k players. Hence why I'm all for changing the guild sizes, but I don't see where people get the idea that it's going to even out in the end. You can only hope it will, I'm sure that's what people did when chaos and loki got merged.

Just realize that making such change doesn't really cost you much if anything (some lost guild exp, big deal, you get to sacrifice that for better balanced WoEs). I haven't really seen a valid reason not to limit guilds in relation to a healthier WoE. The initial sizes were specific numbers for a reason because on kRO the limit is 76 and on iRO it's 56 because it never had the players kRO had. It's a matter of proportions.
  • 0

#36 Heimdallr

Heimdallr

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Community Managers
  • 3654 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online

Posted 25 September 2012 - 08:19 PM

I did look at the expanding guild size ability, and I'm not sure if it would be a detriment or a betterment for WoE. Certainly it would make the PVM guild activities better because more people is a better chance of having multiple people on when you are, but for WoE it may just allow for more power to be brought in during a scenario where it is already 1 sided.

We may still be changing the way god items are made and how long they live (like our renewal proposal). But that won't be a concern for a while, you all need to collect pieces for a while before god item quest is even a factor.

I do appreciate the considerate discussion going on in this thread.
  • 0

#37 Amis

Amis

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 337 posts
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Loki>Ymir>Classic

Posted 25 September 2012 - 08:24 PM

I haven't really seen a valid reason not to limit guilds in relation to a healthier WoE. The initial sizes were specific numbers for a reason because on kRO the limit is 76 and on iRO it's 56 because it never had the players kRO had. It's a matter of proportions.


Limit guilds does not make healthier woe. You won't limit NET from being massive just because you remove a mechanic that lets them have people in their guild/alliance. Friendly fire is NOT that big of a deal. All it does is add more overhead to the management.
  • 0

#38 Virtuelol

Virtuelol

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 25 September 2012 - 08:37 PM

In competitive WoE, I would say it is a big deal if they're all on the same battlefield. If you were to have "friendly allies" on the same ME as you, you wouldn't be able to target apart parasites.

Here's an example: Two guilds are fighting each other, one has that "ally" with friendly fire. A bunch of knights and/or Sages run into the enemy ME and start creating a havoc. Do you know what pain it is to get rid of them? Wizards have to JT spam them, if they fail at spamming correctly (because of "friendly allies"), it's a breeze to outpot and that's bad. Monks start misclick fisting one of their "allies" instead of killing parasites on the mob. Knights can't BB or they'll kill their allies, etc.

It just makes a difference and I'm not sorry you can't see it. It's good that it adds overhead to the guilds that decide to outnumber the others by creating fake alliances, with that they have to deal with a whole lot of other problems.

In the end, it's really not worth it and any respectable guild will not bother with it. And if they do, good for them, they managed to beat a guild 2v1. but like I explained before, defending with friendly fire against 2 other guilds that decide to gang up on you takes away that "allying" advantage because you can't both precast on CP, so that means those 2 other guilds will rush past your precast easier. gg at that point.

Anyways, I think I made my point here and some people just don't like the idea I guess, maybe some may like it.

It's ok, I'm done trying to elaborate. c u in WoE

Edited by Virtuelol, 25 September 2012 - 08:39 PM.

  • 0

#39 whitewalker

whitewalker

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 88 posts
  • LocationWest Pront~
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:classic/valk

Posted 25 September 2012 - 08:48 PM

i thought WoE was fun.... if the smaller guilds want more "fair" opportunities then i think the best option would be to open more castles. leave the guild skills/caps etc alone they are fine as is.
thats my 2 cents ^^
  • 0

#40 Xellie

Xellie

    Valkyrie

  • RO Fungineering
  • 18610 posts
  • Twitter:@nekoxellie
  • LocationValhalla
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Europe ban!

Posted 25 September 2012 - 08:59 PM

Also unallied allies... not an issue in WoE 1

Scenario. (assume guilds are capped at 36 people and all guilds have equal attendance)

Insur is in the emp room.
NET is grouping pre-emp.
Insur's unofficial ally attacks from behind.

In this scenario, insur never crosses its unallied ally. NET has to fight 2 guilds. They cannot have an ally with them without a great deal of difficulty.

this is a problem unique to WoE 1, when your unallied allies can be seperated from eachother by portals.
  • 0

#41 Exvee

Exvee

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1777 posts
  • LocationZaius (Magma Fire)
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Chaos/Odin

Posted 26 September 2012 - 03:28 AM

As all of you have realized there are pros and cons to the choices here. We cannot allow the WoE to get one sided as that assures that WoE participation will decline and with it many other game interests. I do expect WoE to pick up when it starts since many don't want to do WoEs that "don't count".


yeah, you think renewal woe is not one sided? surprised about that lol...

and Xellie is right, just leave most things alone, don't take too much change and see feedback first. I think any custom change basically just like turning Ranger and Wanderer's usefulness pre-balancing to balancing patch... Don't expect any solution that won't make new problem. complain and critic will always be there...

Edited by Exvee, 26 September 2012 - 03:29 AM.

  • 0

#42 afterbreeze

afterbreeze

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 96 posts
  • Playing:Nothing

Posted 26 September 2012 - 04:16 AM

rip classic rip ro
  • 0

#43 Sagarinha

Sagarinha

    Awarded #1 Troll

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

Posted 26 September 2012 - 04:35 AM

Yeah I agree with Xellie-the way guild drops are need to be changed. Maybe it would even be a good idea to drop things like multiples of bombs/acids/gems/starsands/etc. Guild dungeons also need to be hella buffed through EXP and/or monster spawns. Everyone knows Geffen GD is pretty damn good, but Payon, Luina, and Valk should be on par with it. Oh, and they need to be PK maps where insurance has no effect.

The old Luina was better than Geffen. The number of monsters there was 2x more than now.

About Allies, attendence:.
U dont need to reduce, afterwall if u have 3x players and want to fight against an ally (2 guilds w/ 6x players ea), u'll need 3 ~ 4 allies. And thats the fun of the game.

Today, Sugar has 3x players, and i'm sure if we make an ally with a guild w/ 2x players, we can fight against Insurrction. If insur gets an ally, i'll need 1 more allies too.
And i'm sure everyone will agree, Numbers isnt everything, and sometimes to fight against a good guild, even u have the same attendence u'll need an ally.

Oh, dont put random godly boxs, please.
  • 0

#44 RonSilver

RonSilver

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 644 posts

Posted 26 September 2012 - 04:45 AM

xellie president!!!
when all castles are open there's more long term strategic decisions to make.
if more powered guilds want to compete to each other in the short term, all they have to do is attack each other.
to quote president Xellie, If it ain't broke don't fix it.
limiting the castle number just make woe turn into a GVG, wich is fun for a while, but leave guilds with no long term goals.
  • 0

#45 vetter

vetter

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 142 posts

Posted 26 September 2012 - 04:59 AM

numbers isnt anything. Make net/insur smaller and we could still slap the rest around. The small guild just needs to man up
  • 0

#46 Morlord

Morlord

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1433 posts
  • LocationOver There-->
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Odin

Posted 26 September 2012 - 05:03 AM

Deactivate the alliance function until trans, or leave it deactivated forever OR limit it to 1 - 2 alliance(s) max.

As far as the guild size goes, I agree with Virtuelol's suggested amount of 36 members max (Guild Extension Lv. 5), adjusted accordingly, depending on how many alliances you will allow in the end.

Edited by Morlord, 26 September 2012 - 05:13 AM.

  • 0

#47 Kuropi

Kuropi

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 841 posts
  • LocationRight behind you.
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Valkyrie, Classic

Posted 26 September 2012 - 07:09 AM

xellie president!!!
when all castles are open there's more long term strategic decisions to make.
if more powered guilds want to compete to each other in the short term, all they have to do is attack each other.
to quote president Xellie, If it ain't broke don't fix it.
limiting the castle number just make woe turn into a GVG, wich is fun for a while, but leave guilds with no long term goals.

100% agree. Leave alliance and guild caps alone. GVG gets old fast. The best fights we ever had on Valk with immac were when it was embrace, SMB, OPC, and Immac vs. Smokies, Valk and Unbound. By far. I'd love to see classic woe get to that scale of fights. And the big upside here is that all the really big guilds are so busy in one or 2 forts that it really gives the little guys a chance to get started without having to worry too much about being rolled by one of the powerhouse guilds.

Deactivate the alliance function until trans, or leave it deactivated forever OR limit it to 1 - 2 alliance(s) max.

As far as the guild size goes, I agree with Virtuelol's suggested amount of 36 members max (Guild Extension Lv. 5), adjusted accordingly, depending on how many alliances you will allow in the end.


Forget it. Too many easy ways to get around having to officially be allies. If people want to ally, they're going to, even if the option is entirely removed from the game. And alliances make things interesting and fun.

Edited by Kuropi, 26 September 2012 - 07:20 AM.

  • 0

#48 NoSecks2day

NoSecks2day

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 69 posts
  • LocationGermany
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Classic

Posted 26 September 2012 - 08:16 AM

Forget it. Too many easy ways to get around having to officially be allies. If people want to ally, they're going to, even if the option is entirely removed from the game. And alliances make things interesting and fun.

+1

why gms want to punish/nerf the strong guilds- because they're strong?:

if weak guilds cant win - they should ally and team up, thats RO, thats woe since the very beginning.
we all knew that as we joined this server.
small / weaker guilds- doesnt deserve to win against bigger / stronger guilds for like "no reason".
(or get equal benefits like castles and tresures same "easy").
Eat or die.
thats how a game works.
even life is like that....

it whould also hurt some less pvm/fun guilds (that dont giv a -_- bout woe)

Make the castle numbers flexible- depending on the competition (set it at 3 or 4 max. and increase it by time/need ) is maybe ok.
but limit the guildmembers is defenetly the wrong way.


quotes from IG i want to trow in, i kinda like some parts :D

Edited by NoSecks2day, 26 September 2012 - 08:27 AM.

  • 0

#49 Aaronnn

Aaronnn

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 752 posts
  • LocationUSA
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Classic

Posted 26 September 2012 - 08:32 AM

1. My idea for reducing the amount of castles:

1. Take one castle out of every town (4 total)
2. Add the god item piece, and all unique drops to another castle in the same town which will sort of make a "super" castle that people would have more desire to fight over and econ.

And / Or

1. WoE Twice a week
2. Two towns on each day. For example, on saturday you have geffen and luina open, and on wednesday you have prontera and payon open.,

2. Guild size and Alliances:

1. Don't see a problem with guild size.
2. Reduce total allies to 2-3.

Edited by Aaronnn, 26 September 2012 - 08:40 AM.

  • 1

#50 Aaronnn

Aaronnn

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 752 posts
  • LocationUSA
  • Playing:Ragnarok Online
  • Server:Classic

Posted 26 September 2012 - 08:34 AM

Deactivate the alliance function until trans, or leave it deactivated forever OR limit it to 1 - 2 alliance(s) max.

As far as the guild size goes, I agree with Virtuelol's suggested amount of 36 members max (Guild Extension Lv. 5), adjusted accordingly, depending on how many alliances you will allow in the end.


So what about all the effort and work we put into getting higher extension? Do we get a free guild skill reset or something?Sh1t, I wouldn't of even made a rogue if the guild size gets reduced, do I get a free guild leader transfer as well?

Edited by Aaronnn, 26 September 2012 - 08:35 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users