Why is Alde/Nontrans Castles There?

[mahawirasd]

<3 Nids and Pistis.

I understand where you're coming from Nids. But in the case non-trans WOE is moved to another day, don't you think it would allow the chance for a guild to have even more dominance?

then perhaps upping the eco of alde could nudge people who view alde as "easy eco" to actually WOE there?

if you say that "it seems to be a far more steady source of econ compared to trans castles.", why don't those guilds who want a steady source of econ go and pawn alde as it is now?

again, my main point about "sacrifice" is to understand that in life you can't always have your cake and eat it too. If you want a "steady source of econ" then go to alde and forgo trans woe that day. If you want retro woe action, then go to alde and forgo trans woe.


-w-

[Diallo]

I agree with Nids totally. Those castle drops are what it should be. Especially the whole NO GOD items part. If you want god items, go woe with the big boys :>

[Nidsrule]

I understand where you're coming from Nids. But in the case non-trans WOE is moved to another day, don't you think it would allow the chance for a guild to have even more dominance?

By limiting all the action to one castle, no, I don't think it allows for dominance by one guild. If people are THAT worried about that possibility, remove all drops (which would get rid of the need to balance drops/econ). Only problem I have with removing econ/drops entirely is there is would no longer be any incentive to WoE. Guilds would be spending money on pots and other supplies without any chance of recouping those losses (regardless of their magnitude).

[GM-Aki]

blah blah blah, since no one read it anyway...

The Poll?

The idea here is not to vote on what you decided is right or wrong or the best ideas but to make a list of ALL the ideas thrown out.

[Diallo]

EDIT.

Nidsrule is fat.

[Proxyt]

@Krim, since you are obviously an old and godly player of great experience and knowledge- and I being a lowly beginner of nothingness, I should know my place and not bother talking to you (:

@AldeWoE
I suggest!
Making an event!
For 1 month, if a guild can capture Alde and hold it for 7 days- then they can decide to
a) close it
b) increase eco
c) other options that people are suggesting

[Diallo]

@Krim, since you are obviously an old and godly player of great experience and knowledge- and I being a lowly beginner of nothingness, I should know my place and not bother talking to you (:

@AldeWoE
I suggest!
Making an event!
For 1 month, if a guild can capture Alde and hold it for 7 days- then they can decide to
a) close it
b) increase eco
c) other options that people are suggesting

lol @ attempt to sound like a tough guy.



@aldeWoE
1) Fun idea for an event.
A) Close it? nope. Too much QQ
b) increase eco? lol. stop it, thats too funny xD
c) other options. +1, depends on whos options though.

[Yuriohs]

blah blah blah, since no one read it anyway...

The Poll?

The idea here is not to vote on what you decided is right or wrong or the best ideas but to make a list of ALL the ideas thrown out.

I will look then

[Pistis_Sophia]

2) If you want to increase/decrease eco formula, what should be the new formula? Do take into account that increasing eco cap doesn't always mean an increase in chest, because you can change the equation for number of eco to constitute a chest. Vice versa is also true that lowering the cap isn't always an end to chests. So, give an actual formula if you want to change how eco works in Aldebaran. (note: it is hard coded 12 AM of every day, you *will* get some number of chests. It's not possible within our limits to change this rule. Likewise the guild ability of eco development for 2 points instead of 1 is also not going to change.)

2b) If you also want to change the content of the chests, what should they be? Do trans chests need to change to accommodate the changes?

3) If you think that Aldebaran castle is fine in design and the problem lies outside of the design, then what is the problem (if any)? How should we solve it?

6) For any sort of change related to this castle, *when* should the change take place? When to execute the plan? How do we choose the date of executing the plans so that it is fair for all guilds (especially if there's a "nerf" or "buff" in prizes/chests?)

I'd rather have Alde closed than moving it to another schedule. I already explained the whole thing about a single's guild dominance possibility. Now the reply for Namine:

-- 3 --
People are not interested to WoE in Alde because they just like to use their SinX, Creator and else. They don't want to farm non-wool and non-tidal to equip a character because...
* It's not reliable to participate. Retro-WoE isn't enough rewarding.
* They fell in love with their trans character.
* They are too lazy to set a squad to attack Alde. Using the "not splitting the team" argument doesn't work for me. If you come to retro-WoE to make the eco down once or twice then everyone come, not just split the guild staff.
* They purposefully ignore Alde in their WoE to make aditionnal pressure to prove their point in the lack of interest.

-- 2(a&b) --
I suggest to change the whole formula so the raising of eco isn't a nearly-instant pattern to 20. Set the formulea to a max of 100 just like a regular castle. There, change the amount of reward so it correspond to half its trans worth (ie 100 eco => 50 eco chests). Its as easy to break the eco, and harder to build-up. This can eventually be changed again if we see it's not well balanced.

I like pretty much the idea about removing the god items from non-trans WoE chests if (and only if) it implies to upgrade the other rewards. Just taking them off without balancing will just take the interest of playing in Alde to a lower level.

-- 6 --
Announce the change with a date, with explanations of what it will involve. The date should leave enough time for a bunch of people to make a devoted 90+ character for non-trans WoE. If for some this can be done within 3 days, for most of us it will be around 3-4 weeks.

That's a fair delay for that buff change. God items can be taken-out off the chests right now though (before next sunday's WoE). The other drop changes will need more reflection. Chest item list : (http://pandoraonline.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=10691).

[Nidsrule]

This is a summary of the discussion that has taken place between the original Alde Woe Discussion thread and the related poll. I'll present the proposed courses of action along with the "For" and "Against" arguments for each; there won't be any discussion about rebuttals for the aforementioned arguments as that would make things messy. Let me know if any of the points come across as being biased and I'll try to word them differently if need be.

The "Issue"

The original thread started off as discussion on what role Alde WoE fills within heRO's community and more so, the complaint that Alde Woe doesn't seem to fill this role. There was a brief discussion about whether Alde WoE served a purpose as a way for new players to the server to be introduced to the WoE environment or if it was intended to be a place for players to relive the concept of retro WoE. The conclusion was made that Alde was designed to fill the later role.

This sparked discussion of changing Alde WoE so that it has it's own time slot, allowing all guilds to be able to participate in both trans and Alde WoEs.

Proposed Solutions

• Leave Alde WoE as it is (or possibly change the econ mechanics)
  
• Give Alde WoE it's own time slot, with changes made to the econ mechanics to balance it out.
  
• Get rid of Alde WoE entirely.
  
• Get rid of econ/castle drops from Alde Woe.
  

The two most popular choices at this stage are between leaving it as it is or giving it it's own time slot.

Leaving Alde WoE as it is

Pretty straightforward. Alde WoE would continue to run alongside trans WoE with possible changes made to the econ system. So far there have been suggestions to either raise the econ limit of Alde to attract more interest from the other guilds or to remove god items from the Alde chests along with a restructuring of the other drops to make up for their removal.

Proposal to leave Alde as it is.

For:

• An increase of econ would promote more competition in Alde due to boosted incentive to attend.
  
• Removing the god items would invalidate part of the original argument that Alde WoE should be removed/given it's own time slot, which claimed that Alde is an easy source of items due to lack of competition.
  
• Requires the least amount of effort in terms of "fixing" Alde WoE.
  

Against:

• Increasing the econ limit wouldn't address the original argument that Alde is an easy source of econ (compared to trans WoE) and it is only speculation and not factual that increasing the econ limit would increase competition in Alde.
  
• As it is currently implemented, Alde WoE doesn't allow all guilds a fair go at retro WoE as their attention is divided by trans WoE being held at the same time as retro WoE.
  
• Even with the removal of god item pieces from Alde treasure boxes, the issue remains that Alde is an easy source of castle loots compared to trans WoE castles, due to a lack of competition.
  

Giving Alde WoE it's own time slot

Alde WoE would be moved to another time slot, separating it from trans WoE. The econ mechanics and castle drops would be adjusted (if deemed necessary) so that while there would be incentive to hold Alde, the drops from trans castles would be much more favorable. God item pieces could be removed from Alde chests as it seems more fitting for them to be trans WoE only drops.

Proposal to give Alde its own time slot.

For:

• Giving Alde it's own time slot would allow all guilds that usually participate in WoE an opportunity to participate in both trans and retro WoE, without one getting in the way of the other (as is the case with how it is currently implemented).
  
• The server could officially advertise retro WoE as a standalone feature (once again, the current implementation causes trans WoE to completely overshadow retro WoE).
  
• The drops could be modified so that they aren't seen as being broken by focusing more on dropping supplies used for trans WoE instead of only gears, if necessary.
  
• Competition in both trans and retro WoEs would increase due to focusing the WoE community into a smaller number of castles.
  

Against:

• It gives the opportunity for one guild to dominate both trans and retro WoEs, allowing said guild to amass a greater amount of econ than they would otherwise be able to control with the way Alde Woe is currently implemented.
  
• It is a choice whether a guild participates in retro and/or trans WoE. The system shouldn't be changed just because the bigger guilds don't have the players to do both at once.
  
• Hardest proposal to implement.
  

Removing econ from Alde castle

Alde WoE would be left to run alongside trans WoE as it is currently implemented but the econ system would be removed.

For:

• People would still be able to participate in retro WoE but it would no longer provide easy econ due to lack of competition.
  
• Easy to implement.
  

Against:

• Lack of rewards would essentially make it a waste of time. It would essentially become a non trans version of the GvG arena with WoE mechanics.
  

Removing retro WoE completely

Self-explanatory. Retro WoE would be removed completely and everyone would be forced to participate in trans WoE only.

For:

• Easy to implement.
  
• Solves the issue that some claim that Alde is easy econ compared to trans WoE.
  

Against:

• Retro WoE would no longer be a feature, which there seems to be a fairly strong interest in. It has the potential to attract players who prefer non trans mechanics over trans WoE and it would be a waste to merely throw away that potential.
  

Let me know if I have missed anything.