Woe is descrimination!

[RoChickita]

This poll is to see what people think of woe in general. I used to enjoy woe more (elsewhere) when we had a LOT more castles open. This gives smaller guilds the chance to become active in the woe scene. Otherwise, the top dogs (Behe vs Robots and their alt guilds...not allies) have all the reign on castles, treasure boxes and "good items" which creates a kind of favoritism in game. Furthermore, more castles means more strategy rather than just sheer numbers. I noticed woe is more of a 3-4 big guild vs each other kind of thing rather than a huge pvp for all guilds equally. As long as these guilds keep getting more items, they will remain top dogs and usurp all castles all the time. Bigger guilds don't necessarily want to give a castle to their allies bc that gives them control over the boxes and as human nature dictates, they WILL keep the good items and give a list of items they don't want. When I was woeing (elsewhere) I was giving items out in their pure form (OCA and OPB) as opposed to rejected items I didnt need. Give your input. I'm interested to know what SMALLER guilds think because for obvious reasons (maintaining power), bigger guilds will shoot this down.

[Namine]

Quote:I noticed woe is more of a 3-4 big guild vs each other kind of thing rather than a huge pvp for all guilds equally.

To me, nothing wrong with seeing that to be honest... naturally things will always spiral back to this way, because it's the easiest way to secure victory allying one another until it's 2 giant conglomerate against each other. No matter how you get it, it'll probably spiral down to this situation.

As for not liking picking card out of list or 'request system' that's strictly how your guild/allies chose to handle chests, not really a fault with the GM team or WoE system.

[thecursed]

Just thought it would be funny to note that when server population was around 100 with merchants we had 4 castles open (including retro). And WoE was fairly populated. If you open more castles for newer guilds stronger guilds can still spare 2-3 good players to rush in and capture it last minute. Wont comment on anything else though since im not from a small guild and such.

[Antimind]

The WoE loots are crap anyway. They should just open all the forts or at least all forts in a few realms. Even something as simple as giving certain realms access to certain guild dungeons would make for better comp.

Official WoE isn't much different from heRO WoE in the respect of having a few guilds really controlling. The big difference is that with all realms open, every WoEing guild DOES have a fair shot at gettin a fort. Usually the larger guilds are too busy fighting each other to bother with smaller. While we will ninja some forts last minute we don't bother with all of them.

Even with the diff in population the loots aren't anything market damaging. Even if every single fort was open and there were plenty of forts to loot it wouldn't hurt. The chance of gettin god item parts isn't that great. It would force the controlling guilds to pay attention and fight each other to eco break.

IMO best way to "fix" WoE on heRO: de-randomize chests and open more forts. Giving the smaller, poorer guilds a chance to get some loots and "show them the money" could push them to get better at WoEing

[thecursed]

I love the idea of opening up more castles but i would be worried that castles would be empty and new WoEers dont come. Having a high enough number of castles so taht new guilds can end with one might increase participation. Of course some will lose the castle at the end to a few strong players but the majority of the time the stronger guilds are probably busy fighting eachother. Personally dont think having more castles open is a big deal. I've said it before i'll say it again, we've had 4 castles open for a regular WoE when our population was around 100, and now what are we at?

[Aaronock]

I will just go with +1ing Xev's post. <_>

[Rankin]

Thing I see is if people will leave nameless to go WoE? Thats the biggest thing I see, "oh I find WoE boring" or "I don't like loosing" or even "I'm not gonna WoE if so and so isnt going to WoE." Just makes me wonder if opening more castles will get people interested. Only way I see it working is if people go out and try, not go out, die a few minutes and give up "oh I tried, I'm done."

[Namine]

thecursed Wrote:we've had 4 castles open for a regular WoE when our population was around 100, and now what are we at?

Because back then you have outcries of closing castle to condense people into 2 or 3 castles, which GMs "listened to the players" and followed through. Then the demand continues and retro moved to its own timeslot so there's effective 2 castles at a time only. To go "back" doesn't do much in the GMs perspective but have their backs to the wall with knives at their throat for breaking old promises, and you get the same "ignoring players' pleads" just like right now, only the group of people changed.

So regardless of the "best way to fix WoE" (which I know nothing about, cause if I do know one, would've done it when I got the power to), the approach for number of castles has always been a lose-lose thing for GMs. GMs never win on that one. From GM perspective, it's a better way out especially for the PR-GM to change WoE from other ways and not touch the number of castles. Can try changing chests, de-randomizing them, change GD access, whatever, but for GM it's the absolute pits to even debate and think about increasing/decreasing number of castles.

Chest review may not be bad. The last one done is 2 years ago, and while you have to derandomize the chest, you might as well use that time to do a new analysis of chest drops.

[The Legendary Joe]

*is gonna get flamed for this post*


Or we could remove woe entirely! GD's could be accessed by everyone since no castle is going to be used. Nobody would be able to complain about guild treasures (except for people with god item ingredients)??because there would be no treasures!

There wouldn't be any whining about fairness due to the strong being strong and the underdogs getting their ass handed to them on a regular basis (unless they do PVP regularly).

And overall, people would have more time and zenny to farm/buy stuff and party, they wouldn't waste trillions of zenny on??supplies for woe, The Healer wouldn't have those hours of increased Healing costs, the priests (especially in weaker guilds) wouldn't need as many B-gems And we can all gather around and do our CAREBEAR STARE at the computer screen.



RO is a strange game where the older players will almost always have advantages like better gears and/or skills that they've developed from wasting years of their life playing a pointless and never ending game. Even if there were more castles, the allies of the current guild would move over and take them from any new people.

Now unless we have GM's go back and delete inactive accounts, and destoy items and such (these things they've outright stated that they'll never do), I honestly don't think it'll get much better.

[pnutbuttajelly]

The Legendary Joe Wrote:*is gonna get flamed for this post*


Or we could remove woe entirely!

Oh man, you're lucky you aren't within 3 feet of me mate.

Also, I'd like to know which "smaller" or "PvM" guilds are willing to step up and WoE seriously if anything were to happen to the castle numbers. Other than that, I'm all for opening ONE more castle. Any more than that at this point would be stupid.

( just putting it out there), I also vote for a castle-ground warp NPC, does anyone else?