Guild Competition in WoE

[Aaronock]

LOL I almost half like Fates' idea about a random timer to when WoE would end. Kind of makes those last 20 possible minutes random as heck and could allow for a lot of tension.~

[GT-Hiro]

On an older server I played on, they capped how many castles a single guild could hold =/ this means that no matter how many castles were open, if a guild already had the capped number of castles, they could not take another one as they would not be able to break the emp.

(Sorry if this was already suggested, I didn't read the whole thread)

[Amara]

I was on a server that did this as well. At one point, it got even more boring. The powerful guilds were able to hold the maximum number of castles, couldn't take more, didn't bother fighting. I didn't really like this artificial cap on the how many castles a guild could hold. I prefer the guild trying to make that call, trying to stretch it as much as they can and possibly take the risks and suffer the consequences of what could happen.

I don't really like the random timer, either. It removes a huge part of a lot of strategy in the game. If you don't know when its going to end, timing pushes, timing when to pull out, timing when to make a last minute break, timing even final recalls would all be thrown off kilter. I don't know as this is the answer.

The mention of a gentleman's agreement to keep certain guilds out of castles is also a bad idea, in my opinion. Who makes the call of what guild is too powerful to fight the newer guilds? What criteria is that judged on? If a guild takes a hit in power, do they get to move down that list? And what is to prevent gear being passed around, or guild members joining the less powerful guilds to be allowed in these other castles? I know gentleman's agreement would kind of imply that we'd all play fair in this. I also think that is too much restriction to place on a WoE atmosphere and have it work out well.

I agree with Sakurato to a point. I don't think, without a huge influx of really determined people (that, face it, RO isn't going to draw in) and several months for them to farm and level and gear, that WoE will change drastically here. I don't think the answer in this is to toughen up and allow trash talk and bashing people, though. I don't understand why people feel the need to speak poorly of others, or draw them into battles of words. The fights end for me when WoE ends, I see no reason that it needs to be brought up anywhere else. I know others don't feel that way, though.

I know I've basically said I don't like your ideas without offering my own options. That's really because I am not sure how (if anything could do it) to 'fix' WoE on HeRO. I think on a server that's been around as long as HeRO has, with people who have been here from early on and worked hard to build up a base of guild members and gear, its just going to be very tough for new groups to break into the WoE scene.

[Kakiro]

I've WoE'd on dozens of servers, I've seen what works and what doesn't, and I can easily say what things would help boost WoE.

- Open castles up to 3 or 4, probably 4

- DISABLE alliances. It's possible, some servers do this. In RO you can have 3 allied guilds, this was meant for IRO where there were HUNDREDS of other guilds and THOUSANDS of other players, and dozens of other castles. I really think unless a private server has a MASSIVE WoE community, alliances should just be turned off. It also requires better communication and skill if two guilds want to work together, but can't officially ally. It's called vent, get a f-ing headset and use it.

- Random start and end timer +/- 30 min. Because zerging the last 5 minutes isn't strategy despite popular belief. This actually promotes better strategy, keeps you on your toes, keeps it less boring. Last minute emp breaking isn't strategy, its cheap. People get bored, sloppy at the end of WoE because they know when it ends.

- A single guild can't hold more than one castle. Nothing you can really do in the system for this, its just something the GM's would have to enforce, letting people know a SEVERE penalty would be given to guilds who break this rule.

- Guild incentives. I'm not sure if HeRo has this, but give guilds incentive to join, especially WoE guilds. Give the GM so many items per guild member coming with him.

- Give castles better loot, and truly unique loot. Because if only one of the castle has super high tier loot, all the high tier guilds will go for that, and leave the rest of the castles alone for the most part.

- Weekly GvG event. It may not sound like this would help woe, but it does. If you loose, it really motivates your guild to get better and prove to the other party that your guild is better in a more practical setting (i.e. woe) And if you win, you want to further cement your victory at WoE, by taking their castle, or holding your own against them.

-Unspecifically, any PvP event that involves groups of people. Dueling tournament, 2v2 tourney, 5v5, tag team, anything you can think of. Scheduled events like this, weather by GM or Players will encourage a competitive environment (which is sounds like this server doesn't have much of) and that will spill over into better WoEs. A good WoE stems from the height of competitiveness.

Its not like you could really pick and choose only some of these things to put in effect to further better WoE. You'd have to put in effect all of those changes to balance things out. The thing is, some of those require a bit of honor from the players, and some work and policing from the GM. Thats the thing, I know on some servers, the GM's refuse to get in community politics of the server like this, but in reality, it's needed. Like I said, just my opinion.

[Avalon_Fates]

I don't really like the random timer, either.??It removes a huge part of a lot of strategy in the game.??If you don't know when its going to end, timing pushes, timing when to pull out, timing when to make a last minute break, timing even final recalls would all be thrown off kilter.??I don't know as this is the answer.

It does not remove the strategy at all it would just make it more chaotic at the *luck* element to the strategy. It doesn't need to be a huge gap in choices for the ending timer. Just anywhere between 5 minutes early and 15 minutes late. As Aaron said the tension would go up alot and make for more fun.


@Kakiro - Hmm I think random start timers will just annoy people. Also if only a single guild can own a single castle then the point of opening more castles is pointless everyone would just stick to 1. The Trick is opening enough so its impossible for one guild to hold them all realistically.

[Kakiro]

Random start timers is meant to annoy people, its to add unpredictability to WoE.

I'm not really going to refute your opinion on the castles and guilds because you were looking at those ideas as individual ideas. Which I said, picking and choosing the suggestions wouldn't work, but if they were all implimented, they all balance eachother out. It's a package idea, all or nothing. I mean, I know nothing is going to change, but people were talking about how to better WoE, and so I thought I'd tell them how to do it.

[Landon]

If you open 4 castles, and say only a guild can hold one castle, everyone would be in a stalemate.

[Avalon_Fates]

Yeh, even with the package deal one guilder per castle is the worst thing you could implement.

*Hey do you want to attack FN*

**Naaaah we already are defending we cant take their castle**

*Hey you want to attack Behe*

**Oh cant since we have a castle we cant take theirs**

Oh...so what now..? Want to go pvp at behe's castle while actually achieving nothing of any real value and wasting supplys?

*death of WoE*

[proto]

My suggestion is... only have one trans castle and have no alliances =O!

[Hiroishime]

i support random end time of woe from 50min to 60min mark!