Guild Warfare Feedback

I LOVE the alliance/league suggestion and I think it has many applications beyond the open pvp/guild warfare issue. It could definitely answer some of the concerns people have over flagging the crafters/non-combat guild members, and allow them to remain included in alliance chat, guild housing, etc.

 

Towns should be safe havens, since they are guarded, unless it is a known open PVP town. Blue healers should flag open PVP for 24 hours following an interference.. go back to UO's rule set somewhat. Make the guild war coding, turn off guard interference, while in town. (Only for the guild members at war.) So if you blue heal someone in town, you also have to worry about getting guard wacked. (Blue to grey flag theory.) So in closing if you are Flagged Open and not in a war, you are safe for the most part while you stand at the trainer. You are not in a war, you interfere, you get penalized

 

i would not mind an alliance system, but I question the wisdom of using it for guild segmenting. Things like chat and permissions would need to be different implementations for mulipart guilds versus alliances and building that into a single system seems like a mess to me.

Personally, I really like Themo's suggestion with one caveat. There needs to be a system in place to handle players that are not active during the window. I would advocate a default setting, that only goes into effect if the player does not log in during the window. If they log in, they should be informed of the war(in a LOUD way), warned that they are currently toggled to take part in the war and must manually opt out.

 

I agree with your thinking. The one part I feel is missing in your logic is the allowance of opportunistic attacking and healing. It's just like if we had a pvp areas where once you entered you got to first walk around invulnerable to attacks until you found someone that you could beat, you'd then flag yourself and proceed to kill that person. It doesn't make sense to allow this kind of behavior.

Griefers will love it if we keep it in the game like this though. It's going to be great for those guys.

 

Don't have the time right now to write this as well as it should be, but if you, @Chris, are interested in the idea I could make a much deeper analysis/document.

In my opinion the inherent problems with the planned system doesn't come from your Warfare solution which is great since it is clean and simple. Instead the root cause isn't the warfare part but the 'Guild' trope and your diverse target audience.

Having a single type of 'Guild' with the same feature sets/requirements regardless of the 'Guild's purpose is too blunt a tool for your sandbox design and thus too blunt for all the potential use cases of your diverse player demographics. (Maslow's hammer). This creates not only this drama regarding Warfare but a host of other inherent problems as well.
This is because everyone has their own preconcieved notion what the 'Guild' trope should do for them, while you only have one thing to offer them which will make you either have to make the 'Guilds' feature sets too complex or too simple to try to cater to the largest demographic. While if you were a different type of game trying to cater to only one demographic you could design your version of the 'Guild' trope to that demographic only.

Now if instead you expand the 'Guild' concept to a Groups object with different inherited Group types (oop for the audience) then you can cater your feature sets specifically only to the appriopriate Group types.

For instance, the Warfare feature fits perfectly for a "Clan" (Competetive fighting Group type), but doesn't fit the "Club" (Social interaction Group type), nor the "Company" (Industrial/Commercial interest Group type), nor the "Citizens" (Inhabitants of a town Group type), nor the "List" (Permissions Group type). So if the only choice is the 'Guild' trope you will have a nightmare trying to design your feature sets to make your diverse range of player demographics happy. While if each feature set only affects the Group type it fits it will be more of a choice on which of them to Enable each feature on.
Since they inherit the base the extra overhead will cost you extra work initially but will architecturally save you a lot of work over time (since you plan a continuous development cycle).

Now if you make some of those Group types "exclusive" to fit intended features, like you can only be in one "Clan" due to your PvP structure, then you can make others "non-exclusive", like you can be in multiple "Lists" for permissions to different objects.
This then enables emergent game play. (...and potential addon store revenue).

It is also much easier to describe such purpose fit Group types, than what you'd otherwise have to do with with the generic "Guild" trope, or with the Alliance model. Which saves time for the project through documentation, tutorials and support tickets (and reduces drama).

Case in point; try explaining in a PR positive way that if you are part of a "Guild" trope you implicitly agree to potential Open PvP in a game that states that PvP is consensual.

I'm stopping here to keep the post relatively KISS friendly.

For those who are new to the guild discussion (not Chris) here is an old post of mine with multiple links to several different guild discussions.
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...wns-vs-guilds-vs-societies.17545/#post-273607

 

Thanks for that valuable insight Spoon... this has been somewhat of an "eternal question".

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/whats-a-guild.2457/

 

my complaint about the entire concept is my fear of forcing a guildie into a situation they are not comfortable in, which will basically force them to leave the guild. - i understand the "then don't accept it" but you are recommending that we simply boycott an entire system in the game, for that. - there will be very large guilds out there that have a few players who don't wanna pvp that week/month/day, let them opt out. there will be players in any size guild that just detest pvp but don't want to force the rest of the guild to NOT utilize the system. an opt-out system per player, brings consent back into the system, and makes it fun again.

as for your option there with guild alliances - lets do that. once allied, lets let the player choose WHICH guild mantle they want to show off, and let the leader of the guild approve or disapprove that title for allies.. that will FIX any issues i forsee with multiguilding desires in the game. here's a perfectl example:

wrathphoenix is figurehead for the phoenix republic, but he's one of my guild members in Elder Moot. he can maintain the TPR chat channels via the guild structure system, for those in TPR that with to remain solo. he can also tag EM, during non-working-hours. - as the elder moot is a member of TPR, we then have access to the TPR chat channel, alongside the other guilds that are setup and allied with TPR.

Chris, if this gets implemented, and i think it is a fantastic idea by the way, in my scenario above, i'm also on a council with some of the TPR folks..technically we'd be considered officers in TPR. could wrath set me up as an officer, because my guild is allied with his, giving me access to (maybe) an officer channel to chat? (an overlay channel so to speak, like the discorse orb provides nobles)

 

I really think you're heavily undervaluing the concern of split loyalties. Commercial organizations have major housing interests and may have military branches. If you split all of these systems it becomes logistically unfeasibe to manage guild member associations in a way that avoids conflicts of interest.

I understand that other groups are more open, but I think it is more feasible to build from more limited to less limited, instead of trying to implement an open system from the start and later add restrictions.

 

Don't have to go much further - If this stays we will NEVER N E V E R go to war as most people who are NOT open PvP are there as they do NOT want to have to deal with the greater percentage of that type of player who is there just to find other players so they can Harass and / or exploit them in one way or another !!!!!

I tried to start this to test some stuff out tne the commant came across that ALL would leave the guild so they don't have to deal with the Losers out there - Sorry Not every PvPer is a loser but . . . . . .

 

Nope I don't and no it doesn't.
The conflicts of interest is already in the 'Guild' trope solution so doesn't manifest by itself. Games which does have the 'Guild' trope solution has huge problems with conflicts of interest within their Guilds. This is human nature and the limits of a trope solution nurture that inherent drama and you have imploding/splitting Guilds etc.


Your claim that a Guild system would prevent human nature doesn't fit the data.

 

i don't think port would want to be known as a "Guild Killer" - i know of many small groups of friends who have become VERY close over the years, almost like an online family, and sometimes EXACTLY like family.. if a game has a reputation like that, all of those guilds will see it as such and avoid the game entirely. small groups like that, are extremely loyal to each other, and tend to extend that loyalty to any game that embraces their values (allowing guilds to remain together, and wanting them to continue to do so) - an all-or-nothing approach to this side of guild warfare will alienate that entire subsect of potential/actual customers. - so the question is: how many more pledges will be up for sale if it continues? gods, do i hate that type of statement, but having loyal customers is very important to an indy game company, and should NEVER be overlooked.

 

+1 for guild alliances, I wanted to be able to join multiple guilds but an alliance feature would work just as well.

 

ok, say this opt-out system at the player level goes though (fingers crossed) - how would it work if a player opts out and then goes to flag themselves pvp?

i think those stats should ONLY count towards their personal statistics, and they still cannot participate in that declared war due to the opt-out.

i do not htink opting out should let you come into the fold at any time you choose during that war - guilds could use that 'feature' to bring in new and fresh waves of more fighters, giving them an unfare tactical advantage, over those that just go whole hog into the fight.

 

My opinion of the impact is not so negative as this, but I do think there are cultural ties within the playerbase that may strongly favor the older guild model.

 

If your guild is warring another guild and you are flagged for PVP, will your second character also be flagged if that character is also in the guild but ops out of PVP? Thanks.

 

i've been here a while now and i was surprised to find that most of the active forum goers tend to prefer a single guild system, as opposed to a multiguild system (like guildwars2 style). the absolute best compromise we could come up with was optional affiliations and/or alliances within a single guild - which would help facilitate the guild wars that Port had introduced, and make that code easier for them to implement, instead of starting it all from scratch.

 

1. Player picks the guild based on thier play style and what they want out of a guild.
2. Guild as a whole and or leadership decide what thier charter will include. I expect some guild will become infamous and war everyone and be exceptional at it and others will dabble and decide it's not for them. These things should be under the control of the guild and it's people. The less you try and force one side or the other and let free will rein the better for the overall health of pvp in sota. With the possible additions of BG many soft core people will be satisfied by that system entirely.
3. Guild warfare must be allowed anywhere and not in controlled zones. If you worried about being ganked you should decide these things as a guild and before going to war. It would be a travesty to force squabbles into small zones. Yes thus will promote ganking, but deciding to war vrs ur rival what do you expect to happen. Accidental pvp situations are a blast and hunting party's so much fun.
4. Blue healers with the pvp flag on action is needed. Otherwise there will be a grief mechanic added to the game there is no counter for. My previous example u and a few friends not in your guild are doing something cool togther and a single guy or a pair of guys attack your tank while in a big fight. You would be forced to watch him die and wipe your group or massively time sink it over and over. By being able to assist your fellow u would flag but could possible salvage your quest ( or let him die the choice is then yours.)

These are my major thoughts on the subject.

 

I don't see how the guild wars can be exploited. If you join a guild you know if it's pvp or not.

If your guild is not PVP and your leader wants to do the guild wars he/she should get the consent of all the guild before declaring war. If one rejects it then the guild should not war. However, if your guild leader declares war or accepts without the whole guilds consent, then you should reconsider if you want that person as your guild leader and/or find another guild.

 

I think you are correct that we need to start with the single guild system and expand rather than start with the multi guild system and specialize.

 

@Chris,

I feel the need to speak up as I don't think Ravicus is alone in his concern.

I don't expect complete a carbon copy of UO or UO's PVP style. But what I do want is control over who my guild is PVPing against. My guild is very much a PVP/light RP group, I don't want to put my members in a position that they will be griefed, trolled, or res killed multiple times by a random just cuz. Based on the current system I am forced to either accept all the griefing that will come with full release or just not PVP at all. Not a choice that I should have to make.

Point by point my ask is this....

1: Maintain full PVP flagging as it was pre r25, this allows the really hard core folks the ability to fight with the added bonus that they don't even require a guild.
2: Implement Guild Warfare (guild vs guild) WITHOUT flagging the guild full open PVP(folks in point 1), And allow the individuals in the guild the ability to flag full PVP at their discretion. Give us the ability to manage our wars and play with those that share our play-styles. Don't force us to play/fight against those that have a different idea of play that could potentially/will drive us away from enjoying the game.
3: Allow blue healing, but as soon as they heal a warring individual they become temporally flagged in the war until they leave the scene. Blue healing is a fact of life, it will always exist when PVP/PVE coexist otherwise PVPers and PVE's will never travel together. This would further divide the community.
4: I have no issue with a guild having two stones, one for PVP one for PVE, as a community we can manage it.

I have tons more to say on the subject but in order to keep it brief ill stop there.