coffee break Posted October 21, 2012 Report Posted October 21, 2012 i have a question. why you didn't suggest it before when the motto has it. DO you have an issue with the castle holder? Compare to motto's defense. the defense of osfa is nothing. and that time there is a breakneck. so what's your problem with osfa? just being owned by nood players is hard to accept? and for the GM that will reviewed it. DON'T BE BIAS PLEASE. the suggestion is nothing to do with OSFA guild o.o
Beautiful Posted October 21, 2012 Author Report Posted October 21, 2012 So basically the point of the suggestion is that you every Guild can only hold the WoE 2.0 Castle for 2 weeks streak, if more than that, the current guild which is holding the castle should be abandoned? Yes the suggestion is to re impliment the 2 week 2.0 castle. - If the castle has not changed HANDS in 2 weeks the gms should take the castle friday morning and it becomes a free for all ( keep in mind ) there are cool downs to repairing certain items so this forces a chance for multipul breaks more hen just 1 or 2 of them - Veracity suggested maybe the castle isnt right for our server. i agree to an extent i think the castle is amazing, but the Hp and the cool downs i think are a little to long. along with the time of this woe no one is ever on it. its usually The guild defending on for woe and like 4 other plays trolling around the map. the suggestion is nothing to do with OSFA guild o.o exactly the only bias person is the one calling people bias. but thats the beauty of the forums. players try to protect there boyfriends
Boklek Posted October 22, 2012 Report Posted October 22, 2012 hey guys,. the 2 weeks unbreak is still on. if you can see. every week or 2 weeks. the castle break. but they still get the castle back. so there is no reason to change the castle's holder to the GM. since the emp always break. >.> i'm agree with the change of time. probably 9-10 or 8-9 of that day.
Beautiful Posted October 22, 2012 Author Report Posted October 22, 2012 hey guys,. the 2 weeks unbreak is still on. if you can see. every week or 2 weeks. the castle break. but they still get the castle back. so there is no reason to change the castle's holder to the GM. since the emp always break. >.> i'm agree with the change of time. probably 9-10 or 8-9 of that day. Its change hands not just break lol. but ya the time change might be a small factor but changing 1 more hour dunno if thats gonna make a huge difference
pukamon Posted October 23, 2012 Report Posted October 23, 2012 What does "change of hands" mean in 2.0? Is it... -For the castle to simply be broken by other guilds? (even if at the end of woe the same guild that had it for 2 weeks still gets it at last minute) -Or that by the end of woe a different guild should be holding the castle? And yeah when i suggested change of time, it may also include days, change it from Friday to some other day, depends on the players (poll maybe?). 1 hour might not make that much difference.
Leo `D Posted October 23, 2012 Report Posted October 23, 2012 Having a good strategy and cooperation you can break the castle must have a great leader that support the member so that member can have confidence
coffee break Posted October 23, 2012 Report Posted October 23, 2012 +1 with the re-implementation of 2 week ownership then break (or 2+ weeks), anything else than that like reducing the hp of the barricades and stones is just a no for me. (Sorry GMs more job for you guys). Or how about increasing the time delay on fixing the barricades and stones instead. Or can't the time the woe 2.0 is held just be changed instead, it's not that less people are playing 2.0 at first because its defense is hard(barricades/stones too much hp etc...), it is because there's really not that many people logged on during this time of woe which makes it hard for the opposing players (not enough manpower to break through) which leads to those players getting discouraged on playing at 2.0 which leads people to think that 2.0 defenses are OP. If placed in a better time slot we may get more players participating in 2.0(Like U.S. woe time). This woe is supposed to be more about defense isn't it? If it keeps breaking all the time then its just gonna be the same as other woes. So since the castle is not breaking all the time should be a good thing, but of course if the castle doesn't break for a long time then the GM breaking rule should be done. It was the same situation before when different guilds had it, A guild held the castle for weeks so a couple of adjustments were made(HP of barricades and stones), after this the guild was still able to hold it for weeks until the 2 week rule was implemented. TL;DR : Change time slot of 2.0 to a better time to get more players to participate in 2.0 -having re-implement of 2 week ownership would have a chance to defend the other guild. Not just the woe 2.0 is started, the owner guild will already on their spot and defend the castle. That will be harder (for the offense guild) , yah, i guess. -extension time of the woe 2.0 is a good idea. And also how about if we don't know what time the woe 2.0 will be ended. The time ended will be randomized, so that this will be more challenging. - +1 also with change time slot. In my case(others also), that will be too early for me too wake up. i usually wake up late.
ScarletDevilmoon Posted October 23, 2012 Report Posted October 23, 2012 I want it to rain gummy bears *^*!!!' Lol
coffee break Posted October 23, 2012 Report Posted October 23, 2012 I want it to rain gummy bears *^*!!!' Lol Hahaha! what? these post #33 should be move in Off Topic. /gg Scarlet hahaha!!
ScarletDevilmoon Posted October 23, 2012 Report Posted October 23, 2012 Hahaha! what? these post #33 should be move in Off Topic. /gg Scarlet hahaha!! I'm just saying it should rain gummy bears in woe 2.0 or at least something to make it dramatic >:3
Boklek Posted October 23, 2012 Report Posted October 23, 2012 lol. woe 2 rules. in changing holder. if it DOESN'T break
Veracity Posted December 25, 2012 Report Posted December 25, 2012 We're not going to take the castle back since we shouldn't have to, the fact we would even need to indicates that there's a problem we need to resolve with WoE 2.0. We're going to look into this more and start getting more community feedback concerning WoE 2.0. Thanks!
