Changes to WoE

[Matrim Cauthon Jr]

Nidsrule Wrote:Regarding the God Item Quest, why isn't it merely modified by replacing the rewards which are seen as being over powered (although I dont agree with this view) and replace them with something that is deemed to be more appropriate?

As a quest it is fairly well structured and (in my opinion) is fitting of the concept of god items. Surely it's easier to just modify the original quest to fit in with what the GM team deems as being well balanced for heRO, rather than trying to make an entirely custom quest which would accommodate the lack of the original quest.

As for the main topic, I still disagree with the use of even more castles. I only see two reasons for people to WoE; to get their fix of PvP and to obtain God Items. Basically everything else coming from those chests can be obtained from PvM and for the most part, smaller guilds have a much higher chance of obtaining items by farming for them (either solo or as a group) than by hoping for a lucky break (or lucky hold depending on how you look at it).

This idea of having large numbers of castles is basically what is used on iRO. There are a number of larger alliances which keep each other in check (which in the case of WoE 1 each take multiple castles) and then a few smaller guilds. These smaller guilds might be able to take a hold a castle but in most cases, assuming the bigger guilds don't have other bigger guilds to mess with at the time, they wont be holding the castle for long enough to make it worth it.

These smaller guilds are ultimately left with the options of continuing to WoE by themselves (I guess for the PvP aspect/challenge) or are forced to form alliances amongst themselves/with larger guilds. Assuming they have any aspirations of attaining god items soloing surely isnt an option (especially on a server like heRO).

To sum it up, I see opening more castles ultimately favoring larger existing guilds even more, rather than giving newer guilds a welcoming environment to ease their way into the WoE scene.

I'll have to continue this later on...

Then how would you propose they ease into WoE?

[Matrim Cauthon Jr]

exwing Wrote:

Matsu Wrote:And IMO you don't need really SOMEONE in general, but just Officers with your account details, if that's needed. If you can't trust your officers, than rather just disband >_>;
Also filling your guild with new people who say they are going to WoE isnt the best way to go either - proven - But you never know what it could become...

The point still stands, even with 1 person or a group of people leading, you still need someone willing to take the time and effort, how many guild leaders have commanders they can trust to do what needs to be done? My point still stands that you need a figure head to lead them with the intent of doing something.

In what way was that proven? because I recall when I started my Guild going into war, I did just add any new person wanting to play, wanting to get better, and being semi active, and we worked our way to the top by working as a team, making allies, and we got things done. Your theory about filling your guild with new people who say they are going to WoE isn't the best way to go hold's no water, because I did that and it worked because I put in the time effort and had the general knowledge of what the hell I was doing and what I wanted.


To albus: What I was saying is that, when a small guild gets constantly destroyed by a bigger, more skilled, and more often then not, better geared small team. it will lead to discouragement of said small guild, unless they have the leadership to bring the morale and re-group. With time they can get better and they could fend them off, but more often then anything, the guild dies out or people start to quit on them leaving for a better chance of doing what they were set out to do.These people who go into war do NOT last long, they quit because they lose too many people or cannot give the guild the attention it needs, because of that, most people become "Social Plague's" that just sit around or join one of the already large forces that fight each other.

In the end the Leader(s) of the guild are what make it or break it in terms of going to war.

As hard as this is for some to grasp...Social guilds are actually not to blame for WoE issues.

[Matrim Cauthon Jr]

Ok now that I have fully read the entire thread...here are my thoughts and ideas.

As said above, social guilds are not a factor in WoE discussions. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant. The people in them enjoy them.

Now yes I have only appeared in WoE a few times on Hero (helping Sugar Rush many moons ago), but I know several that WoE frequently and I keep up on the info & such. I don't WoE yet but I may join in non-trans at some point.

That brings up point number 2. Non-Trans WoE is imo a great idea. It sounds fun. And that is the point of the game.

Now to my ideas. I say open 10 Castles. 5 Trans & 5 Non-Trans. The Trans Castles only would have access to God Item Drops. Somewhat limit access to Guild Dungeons based on which castle you currently own. You could change or customize the Chest drops for the castles that didn't give God Items or had no guild dungeon (or crappy guild dungeon). Just something to entice people.

Now for the trickier parts, Implement a rule that a guild can only have one castle at a time. And if possible, limit the number of allied guilds that can help per WoE.

Seraph & Behemoth could still hold a castle each, but the other three Trans castles would get competition. And the non-trans (while not dropping God Item pieces and maybe having limited GD acces, could still get some useful items and experience).

I think it mostly comes down to learning & feeling like you have a serious chance.

Anyway, those are my ideas. I would definitely WoE if I didn't have to butt heads with Behe & Seraph.

[Ultima_Pi]

1) Social guilds keep thinking they know WoE better than WoE guilds do. I find that entertaining, yet annoying as all hell. Social guilds have no impact on WoE? Fine. Then why are they the ones bitching?

2) If each guild can only hold one castle, and there's only 5 castles, what's the point? Do you ban alliances at this point? We could have an alternate guild just go take another castle. Sure, Behe and Seraph could attack each other, but they can't each others castles. They may very well pave the way for another guild, but as it stands, there are 4 WoE guilds.

Now what?

[Matrim Cauthon Jr]

Well I see alot of WoErs complaining about WoE being lame and needs more action.

If we aren't opening other castles then it boils down to...things stay like they are until/unless one guild attacks the other or splits up.

[azurerogue]

Matrim Cauthon Jr Wrote:Implement a rule that a guild can only have one castle at a time. And if possible, limit the number of allied guilds that can help per WoE.

How would that make WoE better in any way???It would, in fact, lower the amount of conflict/competition in WoE (or at least keep it at the same near-zero level that it's at now).??That's not interesting, and it's not fun.??WoE is about guilds competing to accomplish long-term goals - not about building a system to ensure that everyone has a chance to build up eco.??

We don't need more babying, we need things that encourage people to try to compete.??

EDIT: To illustrate my point:

You open five castles, Behemoth and Seraph already have one each. They're not allowed to take another one while they own one. They have even LESS reason to leave their castle now than they did before. Just build up to 100 eco and turtle since, according to this hypothetical rule, they're not even allowed to break another castle's eco down because they would have more than one castle then. So, basically, you'd just be handing three other guilds a castle and encouraging them to allow WoE to remain stagnant as well.

[exwing]

When in the hell did i say that social guilds where the problem? if you actually did read what I wrote, I said:

These people who go into war do NOT last long, they quit because they lose too many people or cannot give the guild the attention it needs, because of that, most people become "Social Plague's" that just sit around or join one of the already large forces that fight each other.

i didn't say they are the problem, i said that's what they become after. Think a bit before you reply wont you?

And as albus said, if you can only take 1 castle, where is the fighting going to take place? you cant kill the other peoples econ, so you are just wasting your supply's on a pointless fight, where at the end IF you do make it to the emp, you just get to watch it spin and do... well not a damn thing. Of course to that, you could always get a side guild, but that is still the same thing as having one guild in the end.

[Session]

takhara Wrote:Just...after reading all this, I thought of a small suggestion...

How about, if more castles are opened, guilds that own a castle at the time not be allowed to take them? Is this even a feasible suggestion?

I'm positive if it is, more immediate competition will result from it.

This ^. Again. Just giving this out, because maybe it could be used the first two WoE's after the new castles are opened (Assuming any are opened, of course.) Just to have people say, "Omg they cant get to these castles" and swarm to them. Which, it could have drawbacks at some point...but eh, its an idea nonetheless.

@Exwing- You should really quit trying to turn a good thread into an argument, with putting down people, insulting...etc.

Its not very becoming at all. /swt

[azurerogue]

Takhara, please stop posting "^ this" at the same suggestion. Especially when we are discussing that very subject right now. Read Matrim, mine, and Ex's posts clearly and you'll see that your suggestion is exactly what we are discussing right now. And, as I said in my post, that eliminates not only the motivation to compete for castles but also the possibility of competing for castles. So no, imo, it's not a good idea.

[cosmopolite]

I am suggesting new WoE:Nursery System.
๐Remove current non-tran WoE and choose any GvG map other than Geffen/Prontera to implement this system.
๐Give new guilds immunity to be attacked by other older guild if they(the new guilds) are occupying a castle in the chosen map from above paragraph.
-How to judge any guild being new.
1)Open registration. Leave to GM to decide. Give guild skill/item/script that indicate they are new guilds.
or
2)Check organized date by using script at castle entrance.
-They can still attack a castle occupied by old guild.
๐Lower the reward from the said castle.
๐What if a new guild is organized from old players?
-Make them disqualify from this system(unable to enter said castle).
๐to any point of time(yet to decide), Removed them from this system.

Don't know if it is possible script wise.