+- 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? - Aaronock - 09-29-2009
Yah NE has already talked of plans of what each will be playing when we Non Trans WoE.
We're excited, we have the time too to prepare ^_^
RE: Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Indra - 09-30-2009
There are two issues I have with the updated plan for Alde castle. Both can be addressed by the same fix as well.
1. One WoE a week for retro WoE. A guild should not be able to have a full weeks worth of eco/benefits from a single WoE session.
2. With the proposed plan, there is still the problem of the 'double eco' effect. That being, that a single guild can hold two castles while only putting forth the immediate effort of holding one castle.
Solution: Keep Sunday as it is, with the two WoE's separate, but recombine them on Wednesday. (Meaning both in the same time slot)
That way, those that wish to participate in non-trans woe, but feel that trans-woe distracts them, can (on sunday), but can not abuse it in the ways stated above. It will force anyone who wishes to hold the castle for longer than a single WoE to actually allot resources and time to it. Rather than breaking a castle in the last 10 minutes, and having eco and benefits for a full week as well as the ability to hold a second castle in trans woe unfettered.
RE: Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Général_Argos - 09-30-2009
It is useless because of the formula I have proposed
G?n?ral_Argos Wrote:Suggestion : [(Eco/4) +0] cap : 60 eco
The maximum number of chest would go 8->15 but the formula forces to invest to get rewards
Since the retro-woe will occur once a week only I think it is a good idea to make guilds having to invest instead of getting a flat minimum number of chests
Flat minimum = Big guild X breaks emp at 5 min before the end of the woe but don't really care about that retro woe and they get 4 chests * 7 = 28 per week without much time/effort investment.
No flat minimum = Big guild X have nothing to win unless they invest. Having invested gives an incentive to then defend the castle. Much better balance.
That is why I suggest [(Eco/4) +0] cap : 60 eco
A guild that would want to get both benefit would have to invest but doing so they would have to defend.
What you are suggesting just bring us back to the old problem.
RE: Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Indra - 09-30-2009
That doesn't address either of my concerns. Other guilds with interest in non-trans woe should not have to wait an entire week to prevent the other guild from gaining eco and accessing guild dungeon.
The 'double eco' effect, being the name given to the effect (eco not being the sole thing of value) that one guild can -defend- two castles without splitting their resources would still be there.
RE: Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Astroboi - 09-30-2009
A guild holding a castle for 1 week is still better than a guild holding a castle for 2 years don't you think?
RE: Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - Indra - 09-30-2009
Everyone had the opportunity to hold or take Alde castle twice a week, just like every other castle. Some took that opportunity, others did not. You say it is broken, I say lets make sure its fixed so we don't have problems down the road.
RE: ??Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There? - ShadesOfBlue - 10-03-2009
Yuriohs Wrote:[quote=Adrillf]
Give me names of guilds that have came into alde the past months plz MONTHS.
Besides STD/DD/LoA
theres really a STD guild?