Change the Length of Sunday WoE

[Nidsrule]

Proxyt Wrote:I wasn't on the server when LW had to defend for 2 hours of empty castles, but they should've asked for a time change then.
If you're going to argue a point use better ones.

Thing is, it wasn't an issue at the time and I still stick by the opinion that it still isn't an issue. We had a scout at the front of the castle, a small precast and the rest of the guild messing around in the other castles. When there was any threat of people attacking, we recalled. The attacking/defending teams were rotated so nearly everyone got a shot at some action. Hell, if your main focus is looking for action, forget raising econ entirely and just go around breaking forts. The fact is there is plenty of ways to maintain an enjoyable WoE but these options may not always coincide with your guilds overall goal in WoE.

Proxyt Wrote:Unlike certain concepts in RO... WoE is one server-customizable event that entices or pushes away players. When I search for a server, if I find one that has little to no WoE, I don't even bother with it. WoE to myself and a lot of people is the end game. And I've played a lot of MMORPG's in my life. If the end game is not fun, then the game is not fun, and it's time to move on. Some people find alternatives like socializing or MvP'ing, but I'm sure there is a large population of serious WoE players here.

What exactly gives you that impression? heRO may have a lot of people who are enthusiastic about WoE, but for the most part I wouldn't describe the majority of heRO's WoEing population as being "serious".

I'm still not seeing how reducing Sunday WoE down to 1 hour is going to make things any more exciting. Guilds aren't suddenly going to become more motivated just because it's one hour. I don't remember ever treating a Wednesday WoE any differently to Sunday just because it's shorter. If you claim attackers are only WoEing for the last hour, it's still going to result in the same outcome for them.

The issues you are talking about with heRO's current WoE situation all come down to there being no guild who is making a legitimate effort to hold a castle. If you had a guild sitting on a nice chunk of econ and reaping the rewards from the new castle drops, you'd have every guild on the server at their doorstep until the castle falls. If everyone is sitting on rubbish amounts of econ, what's the motivation for attacking guilds to attack for the full duration of WoE outside of the fact that they might enjoy WoE for the PvP action (once again we come back to the "serious WoEr" issue)?

With the way heRO's guilds are structured currently, there will never be consistent action at both castles at all times. Maybe if NE and Revenga were both at a similiar level to DD/LoA and Behe/Apoc we'd see some more fierce battles but the fact remains, DD/LoA and Behe/Apoc are generally the ones that end up with castles (assuming it's not a last minute rush) because the power gap between guilds/alliances is just that big.

Once again, I still think having only one open castle would lead to the most interesting, consistent and exciting WoEs possible. Fates made the point earlier about this being detrimental to smaller guilds. How is it any different to what we are seeing now? Maybe if NE and Revenga were at least coming out of WoE with a castle half the time this would be true but it is still the 2 biggest alliances that hold the monopoly on the two trans castles. With only one open castle however, you'd end up with a similar result, with a lot more ferocity. That's not to say it'd be any easier on a small guild but don't try to make the claim that the current WoE situation on heRO benefits smaller guilds in any way.

Once again, Ardney makes a good point. You talk about serious WoEr's and yet in my opinion, Ardney is an example of the serious WoEr; they don't want to see what little time WoE consumes during the week reduced just because people are unable/unwilling to change the way they approach it to make it fun.