(+) Baby WoE

Accepted suggestions because we like you so much.
Post Reply
User avatar
Koma
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 708
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:05 pm

Re: Baby WoE

Post by Koma »

This is now marked "Approved", however, please continue to discuss how it should be setup and organized as these are necessary for me to make the necessary lines of code.
cometodru
Poporing
Poporing
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:31 am

Re: Baby WoE

Post by cometodru »

I'm pretty sure I speak for most people when I say, make it work like normal woe, just baby classes only.

I'm even tempted to say allow extended classes below level 90 (not including level 90).
User avatar
GDRAGON
Poporing
Poporing
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:33 pm

Re: Baby WoE

Post by GDRAGON »

The restrictions on novice castles are severely limiting certain players/classes due to it being novice WoE. I don't think these should be followed through into baby WoE. Baby WoE pretty much has everything normal classes should have except for the slightly lower hp/sp, and limit on stat placement along with certain other skills.

With that said, there should be no limit on the guild level since it should be like any other WoE. Restricting this WoE to strictly baby classes only should be kind of implied, hence "Baby WoE". Spawned treasure boxes should be half of of the number of spawned boxes in FE/SE castles (ie. Two boxes at 0 economical invests, +1 box at every 10 investment interval). All transcendent buffs as well as spirit link effects should be dispelled upon entering the said castle. I'm not sure how the emperium is looking at this point as I have not participated in Novice WoE before. But if they are the default Emperium with 68k HP, I think it should maybe be cut down to 40k. It shouldn't really make much of a difference if the decrease in Emp HP is implemented or not, but considering the stat is capped at 80 base, and babies don't have skills such as EDP, or Frenzy, it might take them quite a while to break.

The last thing would be to either:
A. Have a script to check (OnTouch) if the baby guild ecalls someone into the castle who isn't a baby class and have them warped out of the castle (only during WoE times for obvious reasons).
B. Or... just not have recall at all. Modifying the ECall skill to check if the guild leader is a baby, then check if there are any non-babies in the guild, then check if those non-babies are online might take too much time.
Deathvader
Poporing
Poporing
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:10 am

Re: Baby WoE

Post by Deathvader »

I also feel that many of the supportive skills which are relating to only Baby shoudl be allowed. Although i m up for not allowing trans buffs, but i think spirit links should be allowed and not debuffed when entering castle. With sages around peopel are gonna get dispelled anyways, so why remove links upon enterign castle.

For the emp, lower HP to 40k as GDRAGOn said, so that it can be cracked in few seconds and doesnt takes few mins. Also i would like to suggest if a script could be made that would allow only babies to enter the castle, and to be ecalled (if ecall is allowed), so that no normal/ trans jobs playign for a seperate guidl altogether, interfere and disrupt the flow of Baby WoE
quit
User avatar
GDRAGON
Poporing
Poporing
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:33 pm

Re: Baby WoE

Post by GDRAGON »

Deathvader wrote:I also feel that many of the supportive skills which are relating to only Baby shoudl be allowed.
Which would these be? Like blessing and increase agi? If so, then I agree. If not, then... not so much.
Deathvader wrote:Although i m up for not allowing trans buffs, but i think spirit links should be allowed and not debuffed when entering castle. With sages around peopel are gonna get dispelled anyways, so why remove links upon enterign castle.
The reason why I said links shouldn't be allowed is because the linker class isn't allowed. That would count as an "outside" buff from characters who do not count as baby. It is no different than going into baby WoE with assumptio.
Deathvader wrote:For the emp, lower HP to 40k as GDRAGOn said, so that it can be cracked in few seconds and doesnt takes few mins.
This small decrease in hp will not go down from a minute to a few seconds. You will still need about a minute to break the castle with a few characters. WoE damage physical reduction (-40% close range/skills, -60% ranged) along with no power-up skills such as Frenzy or EDP, which are normally used to break normal FE/SE castles, will take a longer time.
cometodru
Poporing
Poporing
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:31 am

Re: Baby WoE

Post by cometodru »

Taking half is a bit much.... I'd say reduce the emp life by about 30-40%. Anything beyond that gets a bit easy. Gotta keep in mind how fast we broke the emp with everyone in our guild hitting a regular emp. Took us an all of about 5 seconds from start to finish. Granted that was with massive buffs from all of us, but still. It's still not impossible to do about 1K dmg a hit to the emp. With three or four people doing that much dmg, even in baby woe, the emp will fall fairly quickly.
User avatar
Dowe
Pouring
Pouring
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:11 am

Re: Baby WoE

Post by Dowe »

Id say leave the emp at the HP it is at until Baby WoE is actually held. Although you might not believe me, but people use to break emperiums even BEFORE trans characters came along!! /heh

A 2 minute break time was never even a problem in the past, and even with just babies, the break speed should very easily be under a minute for a single "purpose built" character.

Players will just have to adapt to different tactics.




Conclusion: Just wait until we see how it pans out. Last thing we should be doing is implementing changes before we even know what it is going to be like overall. The default WoE system, have non-babies force warped from the castle and trans or particular buffs removed upon entry to the castle.

If anything else more specific needs to be changed based upon player experiences, then it can be done. The only question I think still needs to be answered is if guild skills and/or E-Call should be allowed.
/right
Phaiyte
Metaling
Metaling
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:23 am
Contact:

Re: Baby WoE

Post by Phaiyte »

The Emperium has also been changed a lot since then.
Everything in the entire game has.
Had to have been to deal with the changes coming with trans classes.
I don't remember what the stats were since there's no longer any resource I can fetch it from,
but the emp's hp was definitely a lot lower back in the day.

Given estimate:
45k hp
50 def

You must also keep in mind that this will be done with babies.
You cannot have edp, berserk, or gospel.
The only attack raising buff I can think of for now is a single duet song
that very few people want to get because they don't want to get the "bad" single songs.
With that duet, you will probably not have Bragi, SP song, Assassin Cross of Sunset, or Slow Grace.
And people just don't like that idea.

The estimates given above are great.
Especially given the fact that since you're a baby,
your base stat cap is 80.
You can't have the 130-140 str anymore.
Instead you must find a way to balance str and agi,
and still have vit to keep you alive with,
AND have enough dex to hit with,
AND have enough luk to crit with if that's what you're doing.

BRILLIANT!!!!!

Also, with everyone being babies,
Rogues become WAY thousands times more useful than ever before.
You'll see <3
Image
Pull the trigger and the nightmare stops.

To be the hero is all I'll ask.
Deathvader
Poporing
Poporing
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:10 am

Re: Baby WoE

Post by Deathvader »

Even Kyrie. although that skill wouldnt be of much use i think, but still

It ll be sad if few classes wont have link eg. sin,bard/dancer. Anyways lets see how the first woe goes
quit
Phaiyte
Metaling
Metaling
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:23 am
Contact:

Re: Baby WoE

Post by Phaiyte »

Links can still be used because baby linkers exist.
Image
Pull the trigger and the nightmare stops.

To be the hero is all I'll ask.
Post Reply