Jump to content

Balance in the Castle Wars.


Andlu

Recommended Posts

Currently guilds of all levels from the allowed in the castle can participate in the attack on castles. This causes a great imbalance in the confrontations. Example: A level 3 guild has no chance against a level 10 guild in the castle "Forest’s Heart", or a level 4 guild against a level 12 guild in the castle "Jaguar's Den".

 It doesn't make sense to enroll level 3 to 6 guilds in the castle attack, as they will not be able to take over due to lack of balance in the matchup. Besides the number of players, passive and active skills make a lot of difference.

 What can be changed to have balance.

 1. The easiest way to equalize the confrontation is to disable the passive and active skills of guilds of higher level than allowed to enter the castle. Example:

 

Castle "Forest’s Heart" - Level 6 passives and actives.

Castle "Jaguar's Den" - Passive and active skills of level 7.

Castle "Dragon Ness" - Passives and Actives of level 8.

Castle "Sky Sanctuary" - Passives and Actives of level 9.

Castle "Sea Turtle" - Passives and Actives of level 10.

 2. Another more competitive option is to restrict the level and number of guilds allowed to participate in the raid. There are 8 camps, so only 8 guilds could go in each castle. Based on the level of the guild and its placement in the "Guild Tournament" it would earn the right to go to the castle.

 - Guild levels per castle -

 Forest’s Heart: Levels 3-6.

Jaguar's Den: Levels 6-8.

Dragon Ness: Levels 8-10.

Sky Sanctuary: Levels 10-12.

Sea Turtle: Levels 10-12.

 The guild that the commander defeats the "Guild Guardian" will have to match the level of the guild that has the castle. Example:

 If a level 8 guild is in possession of the "Dragon Ness" and the commander of a level 10 guild defeats the “Guild Guardian”, passive and active abilities would be restricted to level 8. This would be similar to what already happens in the "Mermen Trials".

 Thank you for your attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Andlu said:

1. The easiest way to equalize the confrontation is to disable the passive and active skills of guilds of higher level than allowed to enter the castle. Example:

 

Castle "Forest’s Heart" - Level 6 passives and actives.

Castle "Jaguar's Den" - Passive and active skills of level 7.

Castle "Dragon Ness" - Passives and Actives of level 8.

Castle "Sky Sanctuary" - Passives and Actives of level 9.

Castle "Sea Turtle" - Passives and Actives of level 10.

 

I highly disagree with this. For the sake of "fairness" only a set ammount of ppl can run for a castle siege depending on the tier of the castle. Conquering a castle means that you will have to face the owning guild with its full strenght. You aren't facing a guild for the sake of an event, but you're trying to conquer a castle, and it's fair enough at my eyes that the strongest wins, even if the attacking guild is higher lv than the defending one.

 

1 hour ago, Andlu said:

2. Another more competitive option is to restrict the level and number of guilds allowed to participate in the raid. There are 8 camps, so only 8 guilds could go in each castle. Based on the level of the guild and its placement in the "Guild Tournament" it would earn the right to go to the castle.

 

It would be logic but also easy to abuse; several guilds have got members who own low lv guilds. They could just demand with them to take one of the limited places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andlu said:

 If a level 8 guild is in possession of the "Dragon Ness" and the commander of a level 10 guild defeats the “Guild Guardian”, passive and active abilities would be restricted to level 8. This would be similar to what already happens in the "Mermen Trials"

but what if it's the other way around, that level 10 guild owns the castle and level 8 guild defeats commander, would defending guild have level 9 and 10 buffs and skills disabled or would there only be handicap on high level guild if they were the attackers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jcbreff said:

but what if it's the other way around, that level 10 guild owns the castle and level 8 guild defeats commander, would defending guild have level 9 and 10 buffs and skills disabled or would there only be handicap on high level guild if they were the attackers

 

If a lv12 guild conquers a castle and eventually levels it up, I think it's right that said guild defends it with everything they got at their disposal. Attackers have got a relatively easy life already when it comes to attack; further advantages are not necessary in my opinion

 

Don't forget that if the defenders lose, they lose a castle. If attackers lose, they waste time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Higgings said:

 

If a lv12 guild conquers a castle and eventually levels it up, I think it's right that said guild defends it with everything they got at their disposal. Attackers have got a relatively easy life already when it comes to attack; further advantages are not necessary in my opinion

 

Don't forget that if the defenders lose, they lose a castle. If attackers lose, they waste time. 

The last issue I wrote about might be interesting for a lower level guild to be able to defend itself. I agree that if a larger guild has the castle, it can defend itself with everything it has.

 

But the main point that I want to draw attention to is, to make it meaningful for lower level guilds to go to the castle. Because currently no level 3 to 6 guilds can compete. So I have no reason to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheForlorn is level 7 and we cannot even consider taking Jaguars Den. A less desired castle but it's a castle so of course a level 10 guild has it. We have no ways to compete with them but I do agree with higgins. 

3 hours ago, Higgings said:

 

If a lv12 guild conquers a castle and eventually levels it up, I think it's right that said guild defends it with everything they got at their disposal. Attackers have got a relatively easy life already when it comes to attack; further advantages are not necessary in my opinion

 

Don't forget that if the defenders lose, they lose a castle. If attackers lose, they waste time. 

It's all about what it takes to hold it and take it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Andlu said:

But the main point that I want to draw attention to is, to make it meaningful for lower level guilds to go to the castle. Because currently no level 3 to 6 guilds can compete. So I have no reason to try.

 

Lower level guilds have to keep in mind that if they plan to stay low level, they will have to face another guild which is eventually (and most probably) stronger than them. Not for this, higher level guilds should be penalized when fighting against a lower level guild. In my opinion, having a castle should be a mean to incentivise the development of a guild; we have got Mermen's Event which already "forces" players to stay in a low level guild and this is more than enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Andlu said:

But the main point that I want to draw attention to is, to make it meaningful for lower level guilds to go to the castle. Because currently no level 3 to 6 guilds can compete. So I have no reason to try.

this is completely wrong and i cant agree with it in the slightest.

are you telling me to disregard all the time, money, guild point and effort a lv12 worked toward for it to be disabled when fighting a lower level guild? if we are doing this for the sake of fairness. where is the fairness for the lv12 guild in that case? why would people care to even level up their guild if its gonna be disabled when fighting a lower guild? castles are end game content.

i can't believe this is even an argument to be had lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ogull said:

this is completely wrong and i cant agree with it in the slightest.

are you telling me to disregard all the time, money, guild point and effort a lv12 worked toward for it to be disabled when fighting a lower level guild? if we are doing this for the sake of fairness. where is the fairness for the lv12 guild in that case? why would people care to even level up their guild if its gonna be disabled when fighting a lower guild? castles are end game content.

i can't believe this is even an argument to be had lmao

Or just use the same system that's in place for 5v5 arena and make the attackers a temporary level 12 guild (buffs and stuff like that) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Drakoknight said:

Or just use the same system that's in place for 5v5 arena and make the attackers a temporary level 12 guild (buffs and stuff like that) 

same problem. why would i level up a guild if i can just get a lv3 guild and the system amp my guild to be equal with a lv12 one?

castle wars are not arena, the stakes are different and the rewards are different. if u want to compete for castle capture simply level up your guild

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ogull said:

same problem. why would i level up a guild if i can just get a lv3 guild and the system amp my guild to be equal with a lv12 one?

castle wars are not arena, the stakes are different and the rewards are different. if u want to compete for castle capture simply level up your guild

Not evolving a guild is the worst possible option. The game is competitive, I agree that a level 12 guild can fight with all the forces it has conquered.

But we come back to the same argument, what is the point of a level 3 guild signing up for a castle?

The way it is now, let only level 10 and 12 guilds fight. And block all other levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ogull said:

same problem. why would i level up a guild if i can just get a lv3 guild and the system amp my guild to be equal with a lv12 one?

castle wars are not arena, the stakes are different and the rewards are different. if u want to compete for castle capture simply level up your guild

That's entirely easier said than done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Andlu said:

what is the point of a level 3 guild signing up for a castle?

 

So that it has got a chance (although low) to conquer a castle. Odds are against you if you face a stronger guild (as it should be) but you still can sign for the siege. 

 

It is simply the way it is, I suppose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andlu said:

Not evolving a guild is the worst possible option. The game is competitive, I agree that a level 12 guild can fight with all the forces it has conquered.

But we come back to the same argument, what is the point of a level 3 guild signing up for a castle?

The way it is now, let only level 10 and 12 guilds fight. And block all other levels.

Castle is just another poorly designed feature this game has to offer. The idea of limiting important game content (castle pots, castle buffs, ...) to a few heirs of the best guilds is plain dumb. When they announced castles everyone thought that each guild could have its own instanced castle but it turned out to be way different.

If you really think about it everything related to guilds is so boring that if you removed the incentives (passive buffs and active guild skills) I doubt anyone would participate in GvG events. Hope they rework it in the future though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Higgings said:

 

So that it has got a chance (although low) to conquer a castle. Odds are against you if you face a stronger guild (as it should be) but you still can sign for the siege. 

 

It is simply the way it is, I suppose. 

Imagine a scenario: Castle "Forest’s Heart"

30 players from a level 3 guild, against 30 from a level 12 guild. All with arena equipment.
Can you believe that a guild with only one active skill, invisibility, can fight against Guild Blessing, Patronage, Totem, Fury, Globe?
I ask again, why try? We already know the result.
Why allow level 3 to 6 guilds to participate in the Castle Wars if they don't have a chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Andlu said:

Imagine a scenario: Castle "Forest’s Heart"

30 players from a level 3 guild, against 30 from a level 12 guild. All with arena equipment.
Can you believe that a guild with only one active skill, invisibility, can fight against Guild Blessing, Patronage, Totem, Fury, Globe?
I ask again, why try? We already know the result.
Why allow level 3 to 6 guilds to participate in the Castle Wars if they don't have a chance?

 

Imagine another scenario: said guild levels up and eventually wins. Isn't that possible too?

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but this measure you proposed is simply unfair to higu lv guilds bud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, triggeredAF said:

Castle is just another poorly designed feature this game has to offer. The idea of limiting important game content (castle pots, castle buffs, ...) to a few heirs of the best guilds is plain dumb. When they announced castles everyone thought that each guild could have its own instanced castle but it turned out to be way different.

If you really think about it everything related to guilds is so boring that if you removed the incentives (passive buffs and active guild skills) I doubt anyone would participate in GvG events. Hope they rework it in the future though.

The instance castle idea I already made a suggestion about. I have seen the idea of current castles done quite a bit better in the game New World. I do think that the current castles should be revamped. Maybe add something like a system that allows alliance members to buy scrolls and pots (for a price) or even add castles on Irselnort and Norlant Swamps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andlu said:

Not evolving a guild is the worst possible option. The game is competitive, I agree that a level 12 guild can fight with all the forces it has conquered.

But we come back to the same argument, what is the point of a level 3 guild signing up for a castle?

The way it is now, let only level 10 and 12 guilds fight. And block all other levels.

imagine creating a new character. working on it for years. leveling it up, buying gear for it, investing time on it. for then a new/weaker player to be like "Hey! that guy should be nerfed so that i can compete against him in the game content!" what the point of the time u spent? the work u did? just because a level 3 guild can participate in castle capture. doesn't mean all other guild must bend for that guild... seems extremely unreasonable to me

Edited by Ogull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ogull said:

imagine creating a new character. working on it for years. leveling it up, buying gear for it, investing time on it. for then a new/weaker player to be like "Hey! that guy should be nerfed so that i can compete against him in the game content!" what the point of the time u spent? the work u did? just because a level 3 guild can participate in castle capture. doesn't mean all other guild must bend for that guild... seems extremely unreasonable to me

I have to agree. Warspear is really more competitive than other games in the genre and there is more things we as a community have to worry about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ogull said:

imagine criar um novo personagem. trabalhando nisso há anos. nivelando-o, comprando equipamento para ele, investindo tempo nisso. para então um jogador novo / mais fraco dizer "Ei! aquele cara deve ser nerfado para que eu possa competir contra ele no conteúdo do jogo!" qual o ponto do tempo que você gastou? o trabalho que você fez? só porque uma guilda de nível 3 pode participar da captura do castelo. não significa que todas as outras guildas devem se dobrar por aquela guilda ... parece extremamente irracional para mim

The open thread is a pointless discussion. I don't believe in changing the current system.
I agree that the greatest achievement for a guild at max level is to conquer a castle, and that it can fight with all its might.
But the current way the battles are organized doesn't make sense, the amount and level of guilds allowed. Thank you all for your attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think any of this is needed for Castle.

What really is needed for Castle is a rework.

I understand that inside Castle (Forest Heart) the gates got 250k hp and the Throne has 50k hp. Thats fair cause its 30vs30, but then, if you look at t2 castle, t3, t4 and T5.. 

In t4 Castle are 60 players allowed to participate.. The Gates are 250k hp and they got 0 def, as well the throne with 50k hp.


As far as I saw, most t5 (70 Players allowed) (Sea turtle Castles) are being captured by the first wave.. The gates die in less than 10 secs if the attacking group reaches it. The attacker wave gets through and the defending guild cant do anything. They can just watch people walking to throne.

The game should increase the HP of inside Gates and Throne. It makes no sense that The Sky Sanctuary(T4) or Sea turtle(T5) Castle has exact the same Gates and Throne HP like in Forest heart (T1). I understand having a Castle, upgrading it, is a risk of your own cost, but.. I dont know how fair it is for the defending guild, to have the exact Hp the same hp at gates and throne as in Forest Heart.

My suggestion is. If you level up your Castle, The HP & Def of Gates  and Throne should increase. as well the strength of the npcs helping you to defend it.

My guild has successfully defended sea turtle Castle, but still.. it was a sweat defending the 0 def gates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Babocool said:

I dont think any of this is needed for Castle.

What really is needed for Castle is a rework.

I understand that inside Castle (Forest Heart) the gates got 250k hp and the Throne has 50k hp. Thats fair cause its 30vs30, but then, if you look at t2 castle, t3, t4 and T5.. 

In t4 Castle are 60 players allowed to participate.. The Gates are 250k hp and they got 0 def, as well the throne with 50k hp.


As far as I saw, most t5 (70 Players allowed) (Sea turtle Castles) are being captured by the first wave.. The gates die in less than 10 secs if the attacking group reaches it. The attacker wave gets through and the defending guild cant do anything. They can just watch people walking to throne.

The game should increase the HP of inside Gates and Throne. It makes no sense that The Sky Sanctuary(T4) or Sea turtle(T5) Castle has exact the same Gates and Throne HP like in Forest heart (T1). I understand having a Castle, upgrading it, is a risk of your own cost, but.. I dont know how fair it is for the defending guild, to have the exact Hp the same hp at gates and throne as in Forest Heart.

My suggestion is. If you level up your Castle, The HP & Def of Gates  and Throne should increase. as well the strength of the npcs helping you to defend it.

My guild has successfully defended sea turtle Castle, but still.. it was a sweat defending the 0 def gates.

 

I agree. 50k hps 0 def throne vs 70 people... it's a lost battle even before even trying defending. Too many classes which turn invisible. Too many high damage classes. 

 

Such features deserve a "buff". And that's honestly the only rework I would do to Castles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure i understood your issue, that a castle can be captured too fast by a guild or that it is hard as a weaker guild to take part at siege castles. But anyway, my suggestion that i have been holding for months was to make a simple change in the castle siege system. If i'm not mistaken and if i do i apologise, every gate has same hp (250k) and every throne has 50k hp no matter the castle, t1-t5. 

 

An amount of 30 people can destroy a gate that has 250k hp in less than 20 minutes, imagine 70 people that have to defend the same gate with 250k against 70 other people that could just nuke the gate pretty easy. We all know that a castle defence is much harder than attacking and capturing a castle. There is no point in changing or limiting the skill of any guild because it does not change the play style... after all, the best guilds should have their castles, no point in making it fair for example a level 3 guild is trying to attack a level 12 guild and for that the skills should be limited. It has nothing to do with Mermen or any other event where the skills are really limited. In my opinion Castles are a much more serious subject than Mermen and other stuff and guilds shouldn't be touched, what should be changed is the hp of the gates, making it fair for 70 people to defend a gate (t5 castle) the same way 30 people (t1 castle) would defend. In my opinion the gates should be changed and would make a big difference in the Castle Siege System in a good way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ogull said:

imagine creating a new character. working on it for years. leveling it up, buying gear for it, investing time on it. for then a new/weaker player to be like "Hey! that guy should be nerfed so that i can compete against him in the game content!" what the point of the time u spent? the work u did? just because a level 3 guild can participate in castle capture. doesn't mean all other guild must bend for that guild... seems extremely unreasonable to me

Guild level 12 has a maximum capacity of 100 players. Based on the argument that it can use its full strength, in Castle "Forest’s Heart" all 100 players could enter. In all castles level 12 guilds should take all their players.

 

Why is there a player limit in each castle? Why do thrones have low hp?

 

In my opinion castles are an old idea, and when they were implemented the current reality of max level guilds no longer fit.

Allowing only 30 players in Castle "Forest’s Heart", or 40 in the "Jaguar's Den" is a flawed attempt by the game to say that lower level guilds could also try.

 

It is almost impossible to defend a castle based on the current abilities of the guilds, whether it is in Castle "Forest’s Heart" with 30 players, or in the Sea Turtle with 70 players.

 

The certainty we have is that the current system is flawed, and needs to be changed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Andlu said:

Guild level 12 has a maximum capacity of 100 players. Based on the argument that it can use its full strength, in Castle "Forest’s Heart" all 100 players could enter. In all castles level 12 guilds should take all their players.

 

Why is there a player limit in each castle? Why do thrones have low hp?

 

In my opinion castles are an old idea, and when they were implemented the current reality of max level guilds no longer fit.

Allowing only 30 players in Castle "Forest’s Heart", or 40 in the "Jaguar's Den" is a flawed attempt by the game to say that lower level guilds could also try.

 

It is almost impossible to defend a castle based on the current abilities of the guilds, whether it is in Castle "Forest’s Heart" with 30 players, or in the Sea Turtle with 70 players.

 

The certainty we have is that the current system is flawed, and needs to be changed.

 

I do think they should upgrade the higher level castles gates and throne 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Andlu said:

Why is there a player limit in each castle? Why do thrones have low hp?

well in that case, like you saw a couple replays above, we need to buff the castles. both in gates hp and throne hp as well as the mobs protecting the castle so that each castle represent the weight of the task and reward for capturing it

 

again. the point we are discussing is whether its "fair" to nerf higher level guilds and disable some of their abilities for the sake of a lower level guild, which i completely disagree with

Edited by Ogull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ogull said:

well in that case, like you saw a couple replays above, we need to buff the castles. both in gates hp and throne hp as well as the mobs protecting the castle so that each castle represent the weight of the task and reward for capturing it

 

again. the point we are discussing is whether its "fair" to nerf higher level guilds and disable some of their abilities for the sake of a lower level guild, which i completely disagree with

Don't nerf the skills. Just strengthen the doors, throne, and npc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i remember at first days of castle development devopers said there will be way later to update the castle defenses like door hp, power and hp of the main guardian, also they promes more interactive things such as castle spacific bosses and mobs for the defenders to farm witch i thought its cool but those ideas never got released, castles are horribly outdated and they are nothing more than vendig machines for lifeforece pots and op scrools.

Oke so as the main theme of the thread, i feel everyone think that high lvl guilds become what they are in a blink of an eye, like bunch of +10 players decided to make guild and they are instant 12lvl, nope my dudes max lvl guild is only possible with good team work, hard farming and investing tons of time and will to sacrifice alot of your own income, there is no reason for restrictions during caslte deff if the guild worked hard to be high lvl then it shouid have all the power on her desposal, and the guild who want castle should work for it and not asking the system do it for them.

As my dear friend higgy said patience is the key for great success.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...