Guild War System - Virtue and PvP

I agree with all these being added, but having declaration of war terms and ability to form alliances adds much needed and wanted content. Thank you for adding constructive ideas this is the type of feedback needed, i'm not here to argue and bicker. It's just fact, what i'm presenting was in UO and worked extremely well, no reason to not implement that here.

- Different ways of combat give different outcomes... faction vs faction, order vs chaos, guild vs guild, flagging vs flagging, unflagged engaging a flagged.

More options on any type of PvP is always a bonus in a game so heavily catered to no PvP and able to avoid it so easily.

There is also benefits of this to forge allainces for roleplayers, not just PvPrs. Giving them more options for socializing and events, whatever they dream of.

I will make a section on the topic post for the suggestions that would add more features, thanks.

 

I think it would be great as an option within the guild war mechanics that the guild master can decide to not include lower level players essentially adding a bracket to be included in the war. This would help negate some of the most common complaints about this system. Another nice improvement to the system would be an opt in option where players actually have to opt in then the total number of players that opt in is sent to the guild master who then can decide if they still want to proceed with the war including these members.

I honestly don't think a guild war system will actually work in SOTA. The main issue being no caps on guild sizes(and no I don't want any please!). Yes this is slightly mitigated by an alliance system between guilds but not really. All that does is make you have to ally into a massive group. I'm not sure what the solution of this will be but I look forward to seeing Port figure it out.

The thing is that all of the systems you have described are not even necessary there is nothing stopping guild masters from making arrangements with each other to pvp on sight members from a different alliance. What is missing is the actual players that want to do it. I say this from experience being in pvp mode while farming every day for the last 6 months. I would be great if some of the forum pvpers would actually play the game instead of playing the forums.

I'm in the planning stages of a big capture the flag pvp event. I'll be announcing it on the forums soon hope to see some of you attend.

 

I think the easiest way to counter this would be a "combantant" option i guess for lower tier players ? (Honestly, its easy enough to communicate with members and be like, hey do we want to war dec these people or accept this?) something similar to this, i just want o get away from this only flagging for PvP bussiness or atleast have one option that isn't forced for PvPrs.

I mean... every game has zergs, if you PvP people just tend to do that (I am one that is against anti zergs, every game i've ever played). Then you have people that want to test their will against 5v20 fighting zergs etc (which would be me, lol).

There is a HUGE difference between flagging for PvP and being in a war at all times with a guild. It introduces different risks, makes you look over your back. This also allows you to not be flagged and still fight a certain group, since you are at war - additionally you have the option to fight in cities where people feel safe, or invade a guilds city at will. etc.

- Different ways of combat give different outcomes... faction vs faction, order vs chaos, guild vs guild, flagging vs flagging, unflagged engaging a flagged.

More options on any type of PvP is always a bonus in a game so heavily catered to no PvP and able to avoid it so easily.

 

I'd be fine with that if there was a voting mechanic that requires it to be unanimous (or some high percentage). Then, the guild can kick those remaining naysayers who aren't compatible with the majority view, if needed. Citing communication within the guild doesn't guarantee consensus.

But there would be an effect. Either I'm forced to PVP, forced to quit the guild, or forced to quit the game.

 

Everyone seems to think every declaration of war has to be accepted or there is no earthly way people can make a Omega and Alpha guild and ally them? The same guild having a main guild that wants to have combat and a smaller leveling guild/non pvprs that are doing other tasks (Form a Alliance). It's really not that hard of a concept to get around.

all this topic is doing is giving more options and a different type of PvP.

 

Except, I wasn't thinking anything like that, nor have I said anything even remotely like that. Please try to refrain from trying to read people's minds.

I'm thinking of my guild leader(s) deciding, against my will, to either forcing me into PVP, or causing me to have to leave the guild. That's an effect - and a negative one.

I'm all for the PVPers going off and doing their PVP stuff. They just can't seem to conceive a way of doing it that doesn't rope me in on it too.

 

I will say that if this system is implemented, I could probably live with it.

 

There are many benefits from it other than PvP that i do want you to think about, i mentioned earlier my friend.

Thank you for not coming here blasting me, i get enough of that with hate messages in my inbox. lmao

 

The biggest issue I have with guild wars ( I am a guild master or a large active guild and yes many of us enjoy pvping) is that it is actually restricting to the player base as a whole that can then be in my guild. I really don't like that. I want as many types of play styles possible in my guild because sometimes we feel like pvping and other times not. Some of us would enjoy a nice guild war but many would not. I don't want any system that forces members to act in a specific way out in the world without there being an opt in item similar to flagging. Like a guild war opt in flag within the guild. Like Oplek said

These are not acceptable options to me so I would not support an exactly UO style system here. If you think that communication is ok to accept a guild war forced on all it's members by an option then you must also not need any sort of system cause you can already communicate a guild war within the current system?

 

I will link you something i posted earlier

The system would have to modified to work here, really i'm looking for constructive ideas that the staff may look at and implement tbh. There are soooo many ways around avoiding PvP, the issue to me is creating more ways to make PvP. The other aspects of the game are constantly being improved, PvP should be improved also

 

Yes its a tricky one finding the right balance. Personally I am not interested in open world Pvp like Dreadnought is. My interest is in RPvp where conflict may break out between guilds as part of a scenario or plot line.

In that instance the guilds are permanently "at war" though not actually fighting unless story dictates the rest of the time peace reigns....

This is what I experienced and loved in UO. Elgarion is planning this very thing in Kahli and I am going to be a part of that, though at the moment the only way to do that is to have Kahli as Pvp zone which is not ideal because

a) It runs the risk of griefing from hardcore pvpers
b) It runs the risk of disuading no pvping rpers from getting involved there which would be a big shame.

Finding systems that accomodate many divergent guild and individual wishes on this subject is a challenge but I do think there are better ways than what SOTA has in place at present.

For what its worth back in UO before I got involved in RP etc I ran a large non rp guild some of whom wanted to get involved in Order v Chaos while some did not, so we ended up running two parallel guilds to account for that wish. Not the most elegant of solutions but it worked rather well.

 

I would be completely happy with this.

but because the devs have deprioritized pvp stuff so heavily due to the loud whines, I don't think there is momentum to get something which is integrated with guilds done.

I am instead in favor of a faction (4 teams) or order/chaos system (2 teams), which is isolated from guild membership, making it far easier to implement. Also, because it is constrained, i think the devs could afford more powerful mechanics/reward system etc. An open-ended system with any number of teams would be harder to incentivize with town mechanics etc.

Also because of our anemic pvp playerbase, the limited number of teams would mean way more combat. Telling guild masters they need to make an all-or-nothing decision for pvp of all their current and potential future members just means that next to no guilds will opt-in.

 

In the idea proposed by the OP, you have the option to set the terms of war. In a rp scenario this is ideal because you can work out the terms between the guild management. You could have terms set to only attack militia and not citizens. You can have a set of colored armor that sets the militia apart from civilians. Rule breakers that grief would be expelled from the guild.

 

So if a member of guild A griefs a member of guild B. the guild B victim is going to drama alert guild A's guild leader, who is going to make a decision for Guild A based upon an outsider's hearsay about what color of gear someone had equipped and who attacked first?

Even in the idealistic scenario where that works, it is too much drama for most guilds.

 

Still a huge counter to these issues is an opt in system that maybe once u confirm you cant opt out.
Or an instance being designated purely for the 2 guilds involved.

Need something like this or your right, new players get fked by basicslly being forced into open pvp.

Still a simple mechanic that adds a huge variety of enjoyment to game, and appeal to guilds.

 

Wow, I hate PvP and even I am excited by this idea. I think it sounds really cool, if it were possible.

 

Oh mortals of little faith, why do you have to be so heavy with ultimatums.... this is ultima not ultimatum.

Portalarium is brillant enough to make guilds splittable into sub-components or as its been said many times over the years we discussed this subject guilds can create sub-guilds and theres tons of ways to make sure things are fair.

 

yes, It worked wonderfully for RP/PvP. We where able to war other rp guilds with no outside griefing. You would love it Cordelayne.

 

there is going to be drama everyone and in anything. We had a long list of rules to be read before we actually put people in the guild. To be able to kick some one was voted on by the hierarchy in the guild and not by one player. It was always discussed. The drama can be minimized by having mature people in the guild and not people who are drama queens or people who play the victim all the time.

 

I think new guilds that would be orientated around RP/PvP would spring up, not the existing guilds per say. Well some of the existing ones might. But the new guilds would be formed for this very purpose and people would know what they where getting into.