+- heRO-Server Forum (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Game Related (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Suggestions/Questions (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? (/showthread.php?tid=11287)
RE: Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - mahawirasd - 09-04-2009
non-trans woe-ers use resources too, don't they?
the regular blue gems and traps, as well as slim pots/fish.
Course chemists can also use plants and marine spheres if needs be.
Dunno much about how people WOE really, but from the little i know i am quite sure people like indra and corp likes to guzzle slims and fish like no tomorrow...
are they not using resources?
ok, so eco is not the issue. Now what other possible solutions can we come up with to spur interest in alde?
furthermore, if you're really interested in retro woe that you feel a different schedule would make you inclined to participate, what about proving first that currently alde is too easy and abuse-able?
missing a few trans WOEs shouldn't hurt your guild's resources if it means that in the long run you could move trans WOE to another day so that you may participate in retro woe without missing trans woe right?
-w-
RE: Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Nidsrule - 09-04-2009
mahawirasd Wrote:non-trans woe-ers use resources too, don't they?
the regular blue gems and traps, as well as slim pots/fish.
Course chemists can also use plants and marine spheres if needs be.
Dunno much about how people WOE really, but from the little i know i am quite sure people like indra and corp likes to guzzle slims and fish like no tomorrow...
are they not using resources?
Of course you would use resources in Alde, assuming you are under heavy fire. That's the problem. There is no "other guild" that gives BS any direct competition in Alde as STD, NE, behe and Revenga are all busy in trans WoE. Stop saying it's a simple choice to give trans WoE a break and shift over to Alde WoE as that does nothing but shift the imbalance from Alde into trans WoE. Suggestions such as increasing the econ cap in Alde does nothing to fix the underlying issue, as there aren't enough guilds to keep competition fierce in both forms of WoE when they are both run at the same time.
mahawirasd Wrote:furthermore, if you're really interested in retro woe that you feel a different schedule would make you inclined to participate, what about proving first that currently alde is too easy and abuse-able?
missing a few trans WOEs shouldn't hurt your guild's resources if it means that in the long run you could move trans WOE to another day so that you may participate in retro woe without missing trans woe right?
Why do people keep stating this like its an ultimatum? If BS suddenly has the attitude that it would have no problem fighting off a non trans equivalent of STD/NE/Revenga (which is the attitude that comes across in comments such as the one shown above), wheres the problem in shifting Alde to a new time slot? Why is BS so against a suggestion that would make WoE even more interesting for not only them but for everyone interested in participating in retro WoE? Are you trying to say it should only be decided by the guild holding the castle? If so, why?
Stop bringing up the same tired argument that it gives ONE guild the chance to dominate both trans and retro WoE, allowing them a double shot at econing. There have been suggestions and arguments made against this complaint that makes it a non issue.
RE:??Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Force-Attuned Krogoth - 09-04-2009
nidsrule Wrote:Why do people keep stating this like its an ultimatum? If BS suddenly has the attitude that it would have no problem fighting off a non trans equivalent of STD/NE/Revenga (which is the attitude that comes across in comments such as the one shown above), wheres the problem in shifting Alde to a new time slot? Why is BS so against a suggestion that would make WoE even more interesting for not only them but for everyone interested in participating in retro WoE? Are you trying to say it should only be decided by the guild holding the castle? If so, why?One issue here is, you're arguing to change the system that's currently in place. In such cases, the burden of proof lies with those advocating change. Asking "Why shouldn't we change it?" is a logical fallacy, as it assumes the outcome of the subject under debate. You still have yet to explain what, other than your own personal decision willingly renewed twice a week, makes the current system unfair or unbalanced. The option is there, for anyone to take. That one group has chosen to take it, far from what your words imply, proves that it can be done. Just because you and your friends don't want to do something doesn't make it wrong. If you believe castles should be closed, I'd like to see you volunteer. If you believe the aldebaran system is broken, I'd like to see you break it.
Stop bringing up the same tired argument that it gives ONE guild the chance to dominate both trans and retro WoE, allowing them a double shot at econing. There have been suggestions and arguments made against this complaint that makes it a non issue.
As it appears right now, all you think this issue is worth is words. If you really think this is a serious problem, your actions should be in line with your speeches. If you can't be bothered, then it's not worth changing.
RE: ??Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Yuriohs - 09-04-2009
Force-Attuned Krogoth Wrote:nidsrule Wrote:Why do people keep stating this like its an ultimatum? If BS suddenly has the attitude that it would have no problem fighting off a non trans equivalent of STD/NE/Revenga (which is the attitude that comes across in comments such as the one shown above), wheres the problem in shifting Alde to a new time slot? Why is BS so against a suggestion that would make WoE even more interesting for not only them but for everyone interested in participating in retro WoE? Are you trying to say it should only be decided by the guild holding the castle? If so, why?One issue here is, you're arguing to change the system that's currently in place.??In such cases, the burden of proof lies with those advocating change.??Asking "Why shouldn't we change it?" is a logical fallacy, as it assumes the outcome of the subject under debate.??You still have yet to explain what, other than your own personal decision willingly renewed twice a week, makes the current system unfair or unbalanced.??The option is there, for anyone to take.??That one group has chosen to take it, far from what your words imply, proves that it can be done.??Just because you and your friends don't want to do something doesn't make it wrong.??If you believe castles should be closed, I'd like to see you volunteer.??If you believe the aldebaran system is broken, I'd like to see you break it.
Stop bringing up the same tired argument that it gives ONE guild the chance to dominate both trans and retro WoE, allowing them a double shot at econing. There have been suggestions and arguments made against this complaint that makes it a non issue.
As it appears right now, all you think this issue is worth is words.??If you really think this is a serious problem, your actions should be in line with your speeches.??If you can't be bothered, then it's not worth changing.
Krog man,
A few questions for you bro.
Do you think its fair, that the guild who are fighting right now (everyone who isn't allied with BS) have to sacrifice doing what they normally do, to give bamboo competition? to break there castle?
Do you think ithat just because alde gets no competition from non trans woe, that people from trans woe have to come and compete?
I see, that your saying we shouldn't complain because we arn't doing anything about it, but that is still beating around the bush.
Alde is there for non trans WoE. WOE not pvp time, not sit around chatting time WOE.
Why do you think geffen was closed? Not enough competition? Not enough players? The community can't handle more than 2 castles.
There is no non trans community.
Therefore, Aldeberran should be closed or moved to another day to give other guilds a chance to crack at it.
And im not talking about STD/Revenga/NE, they can do whatever they want but im talking about new guilds that might decide hey! this isn't out of our way anymore, lets do this!
Thats what you can have from moving it to another day.
Yes bla bla, people can manipulate it but look! That is something we can actually prevent, if other guilds are attacking alde.
Look at this, Geffen was closed because of lack of community to support it.
DD were the last people to have it.
We didn't whine about it, we knew that it was truth and we wanted more competition anyway.
If Trans WoE can't support 2 castles, then how the hell can Non Trans WoE support 1 with 1 guild?
RE: Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Pistis_Sophia - 09-04-2009
Jasper Wrote:I totally remember when LW held the Pront's castle economy to 100. They did take Alde after (few WoE after) they lost their Pront castle, just to prove how easy it was to keep it. They kept it for 4 WoE and then quit because it wasn't worth their time.mahawirasd Wrote:Astroboi Wrote:Please find a valid point other than "If a guild comes to a domination standard , then they can own 2 castle, increasing their wealth limit." which is a disguised "I don't even like WoE, I just want to reap easy rewards and If something changes I will lose my easy revenue." WoE is war, the strongest guild wins. Suck it up.*
then perhaps one should read one's word first before posting... Perhaps one should prove that one COULD take alde to show one's strength before telling the ones who lost the castle to suck it up...
(...)
Street bro, again, sorry but your being outnumbered isn't anyone's fault but yourself. IF you want alde, then don't do trans WOE, dedicate yourself to alde. If you feel undermanned to go against STD and apoc and behe, why don't just go against BS? I'm sure you won't be the undermanned side in that fight if you dedicate all your personnel there...
Aaronock, i agree with your view on the situation. There is a lack of interest, but whose fault is it?
Must majority rule always steer a p-server?
funny thing is, if all the people who posted here talking like they give a damn actually went up against Alde together, i'm pretty sure you guys can give BS a run for their money. But why are you guys just talking here and not really channeling all that energy to conquer alde, keep it for a few months, show that you can dominate, and THEN say to the GM's "hey, alde is too easy for us to keep, we feel like we're abusing it, so what say we relinquish control of this castle so that you guys can move it to another day so that other people may compete and we'll have more fun?"
-w-
I think youre missing the point....
If a guild can hold a trans castle to 100, I don't see how the same guild can not end-up holding the non-trans castle in the same time with different schedule. Of course changing the schedule will bring more people to Alde. I won't deny it.
I also totally remember the whining about LW holding the eco to 100 over a long period of time. GM's just turned around and claimed "hey, it's the game as is, it's not our job to do something against it, they're not cheating". Now Bamboo hold Alde to it's max eco (20) for a long period of time without anyone trying to take it seriously (since a short time, we got some serious guild to defend from here and there, just like Guillermo's side guild). Now you're asking out of the game to make this case be threatened differently.
If WoE is split-up, lets says wednesday non-trans and sunday trans, then we might even see a need to open a 2nd non-trans castle. And if Bamboo is pushed to trans WoE that way on the sundays, then there might be a need for a 3rd trans castle.
Now's a brand new proposal
Lots of people claim that they don't have a quick team readied to take Alde on the basis they have to choose what type of WoE they do.
I've heard a lot of ideas suggested, but not this one.
Solution involes:
+ Prontera, Payon and Aldebaran switch to sunday WoE only.
+ Open a brand new Castle for non-trans wednesday, with an incitative limit of eco in between 50 to 100.
Effects expected:
* Incitate players to raise-up competitive non-trans characters. Thereafter solves the issue players aren't readied to attack Alde.
* Doesn't steal Bamboo's non-trans castle with out of game manoeuvers.
* Doesn't implement even more hours of WoE. I know for some players 3 is too much, and for some, 3 isn't enough.
RE: Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Force-Attuned Krogoth - 09-04-2009
To answer your questions succinctly:
Yes, if they think it's unfair there's no competition.
No, if they they don't want to.
My point is, you want it changed, but are UNWILLING to make the effort to change it. There exists a method within the system to break their monopoly, even you cannot deny this. But because you don't think it's worth your time, you undermine your own argument that it's worth changing the whole system. It is what it is, and you have the power to change it. Until you actually make that effort, your actions speak louder than your words.
In summary: you talk a big game but only if the GMs are doing your work for you.
RE:??Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Jasper - 09-04-2009
Pistis_Sophia Wrote:I totally remember when LW held the Pront's castle economy to 100. They did take Alde after (few WoE after) they lost their Pront castle, just to prove how easy it was to keep it. They kept it for 4 WoE and then quit because it wasn't worth their time.
If a guild can hold a trans castle to 100, I don't see how the same guild can not end-up holding the non-trans castle in the same time with different schedule. Of course changing the schedule will bring more people to Alde. I won't deny it.
I also totally remember the whining about LW holding the eco to 100 over a long period of time. GM's just turned around and claimed "hey, it's the game as is, it's not our job to do something against it, they're not cheating". Now Bamboo hold Alde to it's max eco (20) for a long period of time without anyone trying to take it seriously (since a short time, we got some serious guild to defend from here and there, just like Guillermo's side guild). Now you're asking out of the game to make this case be threatened differently.
But no one stopped attacking LW when they had 100 eco. Of course there was whining, but they had to fight every woe to maintain their 100 eco. Alde on the other had does not have to move a finger to maintain their eco due to the lack of players for non-trans woe.
As for LW moving to alde to prove a point, they moved to alde after their 100 eco castle was broken, not while it had 100 eco.
As for the new proposal, just keeping alde the way it is on Wednesday is just pretty much a "reset" button for eco. Sure, youll have good competition on Wednesday but you'll end up going to the way it was on Sunday. Also, going a week without having to defend a trans-castle is a lot of eco, making it MUCH easier to reach 100 eco. That removes competition from trans-woe as well. 100 eco should not be a walk in the park to obtain.
EDIT:
@Krogoth: You claim that there is alternative methods, please tell. If you say people need to make the "decision" to move to alde, that I regard as an invalid solution. You have to remember that trans-guild have a defense and attack set up the past woes. This goes for the attackers as well they all have a limited amount of players, and sacrificing a group of 8+ members just to "break" alde would be a horrible strategy.
You just have to accept the fact that there is not enough players to hold both trans/non trans woe in the same day and something needs to be done about it.
EDIT:
AND also the problem here is not "we must break alde its eco is too high." The problem here is that there is not enough people to hold alde woe.
RE: ??Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Nidsrule - 09-04-2009
Force-Attuned Krogoth Wrote:As it appears right now, all you think this issue is worth is words.??If you really think this is a serious problem, your actions should be in line with your speeches.??If you can't be bothered, then it's not worth changing.
I can't see any way any of the current guilds can change their approach to WoE which will not only maintain the balance of power in trans WoE but fix the issues being presented with Alde. If people make the changes you suggest and one guild does step up to take on Alde, the underlying problem shifts from one form of WoE to the other and we end up back at where we started.
Force-Attuned Krogoth Wrote:Asking "Why shouldn't we change it?" is a logical fallacy, as it assumes the outcome of the subject under debate.
And yet if we change that question to "Why should we change it?" the same thing applies. Where is the argument supporting that Alde is both a fair system and is working as intended in it's current implementation? Don't just say that it's been around for a long time and therefore it works. Compare the amount of support Krim received when he was arguing against Alde in the thread he posted and compare it to the support there is to have changes made to Alde now.
Going back to Krim's thread, it's funny seeing the same for and against arguments being made.
GM-Pandora Wrote:Force-Attuned Krogoth Wrote:The point you're not seeing is that it's not restricted by account, but by character.??It is possible to make a character and get it to lv 90+ without transcending.??I've seen it.??And it isn't like you don't still have the gear you did before.??If you take offense to a monopoly, then go break it.??If you think it's unfair that they only need half their guild to defend a castle, then break their defense.??If you just want to sit on your ass and whine about it, then make a thread in the appropriate section.
Namine Wrote:Indeed... forget not that the point of heRO and this new castle is that the GMs want everyone to have fun more than have a few items... Namin? firmly believes that the entire point of the castle is to hope for a higher turnout rate for WoE in heRO, so that more people can participate in a major event for the server. While discussing the future or minor adjustments to Aldebaran, let's keep this focus in mind~
Amen to both I think it sums up what I think on the matter.
As for Alde building up eco, if it's the case more people will attack it, all in all I think it will balance itself out.
As for emergency recall, like Ex mentionned, this skill is far in the guild skill tree, requires to be guild level 10+ at least, only a handful of guild have it and those guild are usually full of trans.
Are we done with the complaints? Live and let live.
Look at Alde now and tell me that either of these points apply. Alde doesn't promote a larger WoEing population (in it's current implementation) and as such the only guild that does attend it on a regular basis gets to sit on a constant supply of econ.
Alde may have been good in concept when heRO was a new server, when not as many people had trans chars to use but since that is obviously no longer the case, those against it's current implementation feel that changes are required since heRO's population/WoEing community has changed since it was first implemented.
GM-Pandora Wrote:Big news! I'd like to announce the (re-)opening of Aldebaran castle on Sunday may 6th!
However, we decided to make this castle a little different from the 3 others. This castle will only allow first and second jobs, both normal and baby + super novice.
Are allowed:
Novice, baby novice, super novice and super baby.
Swordsman, Mage, Acolyte, Archer, Merchant, thief, and baby of same classes.
Knight, Crusader, Wizard, Sage, Priest, Monk, Hunter, Bard, Dancer, Blackmisth, Alchemist, Assassin, Rogue and baby of same classes.
That means, no reborn classes can enter, no new jobs (taekwon, star gladiator, soul linker or ninja/gunsligner).
The warp at the entrance of the castle will take care of letting in / keeping out classes that are allowed or not. Of course, the use of recall skill to get trans/new classes inside is forbidden!
I thought of making a baby-only castle as well, but I feel we do not yet have enough baby guild or baby player that woe to justify a castle only for them, if we eventually have more I'll consider it (in which case baby would no longer be permitted in the no-trans castle)
I think this should be a good news to newcomer or casual players, and it does not take anything away from veteran or hardcore levelers. ^_^
As a special event, GMs might be defending on sunday, with second jobs, 99 stats and normal equips (no GM clip), if we cant make it then castle is up for grabs!
Culex Wrote:And Krim, for me aldebaran castle was always about "retro woe", not "a training place for newbie".
Once again, Alde's current situation doesn't match up with what was intended. Cucu made the claim Alde was designed for retro WoE instead of a training place for new players, yet the original post about Alde WoE says otherwise. It no longer serves the purpose it was designed for.
Force-Attuned Krogoth Wrote:To answer your questions succinctly:
Yes, if they think it's unfair there's no competition.
No, if they they don't want to.
My point is, you want it changed, but are UNWILLING to make the effort to change it.??There exists a method within the system to break their monopoly, even you cannot deny this.??But because you don't think it's worth your time, you undermine your own argument that it's worth changing the whole system.??It is what it is, and you have the power to change it.??Until you actually make that effort, your actions speak louder than your words.
In summary: you talk a big game but only if the GMs are doing your work for you.
Pistis_Sophia Wrote:* Doesn't steal Bamboo's non-trans castle with out of game manoeuvers.
This discussion started off as a complaint about the concept of Alde. Whether or not BS is the guild holding it, the same underlying problems remain with Alde's current implementation. Stop talking as if BS is the the root of all problems here when it clearly isn't.
RE:????Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Pistis_Sophia - 09-04-2009
Nidsrule Wrote:It ends up as this because Bamboo is interested into keeping Alde while you aren't because they chose to invest themselves into it.Pistis_Sophia Wrote:* Doesn't steal Bamboo's non-trans castle with out of game manoeuvers.This discussion started off as a complaint about the concept of Alde. Whether or not BS is the guild holding it, the same underlying problems remain with Alde's current implementation. Stop talking as if BS is the the root of all problems here when it clearly isn't.
RE: ????Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Yuriohs - 09-04-2009
Pistis_Sophia Wrote:Nidsrule Wrote:It ends up as this because Bamboo is interested into keeping Alde while you aren't because they chose to invest themselves into it.Pistis_Sophia Wrote:* Doesn't steal Bamboo's non-trans castle with out of game manoeuvers.This discussion started off as a complaint about the concept of Alde. Whether or not BS is the guild holding it, the same underlying problems remain with Alde's current implementation. Stop talking as if BS is the the root of all problems here when it clearly isn't.
If DD had a non trans guild, if NE had a non trans guild, if any other Reg WoE guild had a non trans guild it would be the same situation, same arguments.