[mikelee]

Hi -- I'm posting this knowing full well that since I'm new here that people might not care for my opinion, but please hear me out. I've been playing RO for a while, and while I'm not terribly good at it, I've seen servers from almost empty to 1000 members, and using anywhere from 1 to all 20 castles.

Seeing as we had some drama come after today's WoE, I don't want to keep playing on a server where people are getting unhappy. So I'd like to suggest that a second castle be added.

A lot of people hate this idea because it spreads people out and a lot of people are used to 1 castle servers even up to 500 members. But the reason I suggest this I've found that the server balances out best with somewhere around 20-30 people in each castle during WoE. Why? Here's a bunch of reasons

- Lots of people in one castle often results in people weakening each other before they storm the emp room; it's a huge advantage for defense
- There's a major barrier to entry; you pretty much have to be a high level trans to make any impact whatsoever in WoE
- Because of the difficult of leveling and gears (especially on a low-rate), guilds tend to be larger and fewer on servers with one castle
- The way human nature works, there's always going to be one dominant guild, and having only one castle makes it even more polarized
- People will get frustrated and leave (it always happens on RO servers), and since small guilds don't stand a chance, only a small handful of servers get past this point
- Going to the same castle over and over again is not only repetitive, but it also removes a dimension from the game; forcing guilds to choose which castles to defend makes for a more open, mobile game (I've been on both sides of this before -- attacking and dying a lot, or defending and not having much to do)

I hope people will actually discuss this -- I don't want this to trigger any flames or anything. I also hope I don't come off as being a know-it-all or anything, because I'm really not; I just didn't like seeing the drama play out today and would love to see what people think would help the situation.

It makes sense for a server to start with one castle. But our population is growing and it may be time to add a new castle. If you're in a big guild, does this idea appeal to you? If you're in a small one or looking to start/join one, would this be encouraging to you?

Thanks for reading.

[Lord Lancelot]

I agree with Mike.,

Having more than one castle even in a small server works well. Not that there will no longer be massive drama and a concentrated mass warfare in one building. Imagine a flexible less dramatic (or more dramatic) warfare separated in two buildings. Baekdosan can conquer two castles ! or, Some other guilds can take the other.

The point does not lay in the drama and warfare but on the fact that people could leave this server because of the obvious inferiority in between newer guilds and older guilds.

Sure, there are players with souls of fire, who literally do not give up. However, there are people out there who lack the fire in their hearts and decide there are better servers out there.

For the best of the server and for the server's woe'ers, I have a feeling that two castles (or more) can work and may work well. Well, if this discussion has an interesting amount of good reviews, perhaps, we could do a vote.

No offenses are intended to be made in my discussion reply. Though if anyone is offended by this reply, I sincerely apologize.

[Buddhist]

I don't disagree. WoE was originally 2 castles, and was a lot of fun.

[Romance is Dead]

the only thing that makes me disagree is lack of small guilds that actually woe. besides wws/bds/and those 4 members of nuetral no one really seems to be interested in woe, which is a shame. if any more/smaller guilds actually participated 2 castles would be epic

[Love]

Hi everyone,

I agree with mikelee. <3 you for being the one posting this discussion.
I would <3 to see more guilds joining the woe.
I think some guilds do care, but they just don't think they stand a chance.

Giving another castle available for woe will encourage smaller guilds to join woe while
the dominant guild can still defend whatever they have. Also, smaller guilds can recruit
more members as they become woe actives and perhaps actually own a castle.
The dominant guild can send some scouts or a squad of attacking players to try take both castles,
but this will leave their main castle with fewer people to defend.

Okay, I shouldn't make this any longer, I just wanted to say I support mikelee's suggestion.

p.s. Lord Lancelot > Your sincere apology offended me /sob /sob j/k xD

[Reyne]

Romance is Dead, on 31 July 2010 - 05:48 AM, said:

the only thing that makes me disagree is lack of small guilds that actually woe. besides wws/bds/and those 4 members of nuetral no one really seems to be interested in woe, which is a shame. if any more/smaller guilds actually participated 2 castles would be epic

What is easier for a new guild to compete with? Neutral/WWS and BDS or just Neutral/WWS OR BDS?
I think it's really time to get two castles.

[Inception]

If competition is a problem for the smaller guilds, WWS will split into 2 seperate guild and WoE seperately, so we'll have cut numbers and more action.

[SUPERFOB]

where is this smaller guilds?...show up and wel talk

[mikelee]

SUPERFOB, on 31 July 2010 - 09:20 AM, said:

where is this smaller guilds?...show up and wel talk

This is a classic chicken and egg problem. The guilds won't show up so long as we have one castle.

[SUPERFOB]

mikelee, on 31 July 2010 - 10:50 AM, said:

This is a classic chicken and egg problem. The guilds won't show up so long as we have one castle.

well i just dont want a bitch castle

you know what a bitch castle is right? well if you don't, A bitch castle is a castle who gets taken over and over the whole woe because there is no decent guild that can properly defend it. Its basically a lottery whoever wins in the end.

[Love]

That's another chicken or the egg problem.
Will we have decent enough guilds first, or will 2 castles motivate guilds to become more decent?

I think it's almost inevitable for a small server like this one to begin woe with a ***** castle.
Players need to support server too to get more people coming,
exempli gratiā vote for servers, post pvp and woe videos on YouTube, et cetera.

[mikelee]

Love, on 31 July 2010 - 12:42 PM, said:

That's another chicken or the egg problem.
Will we have decent enough guilds first, or will 2 castles motivate guilds to become more decent?

I think it's almost inevitable for a small server like this one to begin woe with a ***** castle.
Players need to support server too to get more people coming,
exempli gratiā vote for servers, post pvp and woe videos on YouTube, et cetera.

Couldn't have said it better! If you don't like a castle being taken over and over again, don't go there. You can stick with your "better" castle and be happy too. Nobody ever said a "proper" WoE absolutely has to have every emp room filled to the brim with defenders. I understand for people who think they're better than everybody else it makes sense, but there are more casual players out there too who'd like to have a shot.

You can't please everybody but it'd be nice if the small guilds actually had an incentive to get better, rather than just sticking themselves onto an existing, large guild.

[Etchel]

There are barely 30 people per castle in WoE right now. We can add a second after we change WoE times, and see how it goes.

[Love]

Yes, let's see how it goes <3
A good server has a responsive Admin.
<3 Etchel.

[Highkick]

Ahhhhh time to farm speed pots like crazy T.T

+1 lets try it out id love to see more variety of guild emblems for
woe !

[SUPERFOB]

sigh emp breaking = skills here we go

[Soju1up]

It'll be exactly like YggRO.

[Highkick]

omg choe wrote something on forums
lulz

[Chireru]

Soju1up, on 01 August 2010 - 09:50 AM, said:

It'll be exactly like YggRO.

Just that not EVERYONE will be a scrub.

[Arirang]

Soju1up, on 01 August 2010 - 11:50 AM, said:

It'll be exactly like YggRO.

HE HAS SPOKEN.

http://rapturero.com...ible-2-castles/ <-for more references

+1, there's NO reason not to TRY it (like I said on the other post)

mikelee, on 31 July 2010 - 02:05 AM, said:

You're thinking along the lines of 2 castles -- and yes, if there are two guilds way stronger than the rest they could do what you said. But that's exactly the argument against 1 castle, and if that's a problem, why not go with 3? Spread the big guilds out so they can't dominate as much. Make them actually think about what to do. Maybe BDS people won't like it because it'll be become "speed pot ping pong," but what's the alternative? Sit there and precast all day each week? I guarantee it'll be more fun for everybody if we get this right.

I agree completely. I think smaller guilds need an INCENTIVE to woe (because some gears have the lvl, players, and skills to do it but just don't). More variables in woe = more fun for everyone. Obviously too much of a good thing is a bad thing in this case. But only 2 castles for Friday woes on this server would be gold.