Guild Warfare Feedback

Sorry for jumping into this thread. I don't post a lot as you can see, and my testing/playtime is very limited these days, but I do tend to read a lot of the discussions here, so I am about....even if I don't appear to be . I just have a quick question about the "blue healer" topic.

I was under the assumption that a blue player "would" lose his blue status if he attacked or healed someone that was pvp flagged, thus making them a target as well. Is this how it currently works? If that's not the case, does remaining blue have to do with how parties/groups work and having a pvp flagged person in your party or group? (so as not to flag yourself pvp for healing/buffing...etc?)

Just some clarification please. Evidently I wasn't sure how it all works out.

 

But this is not a pvp only game, it's also a social and friends game.

My vote keep the blue healer mechanic, but as soon as they throw in its on them thier flagged. They other way is boring and opens up grief ing senrios and I'll pass.

 

Ur right that's how it should work but some people don't want non pvp people to heal pvp flagged people no matter what.

 

Yes, you're absolutely correct. The non-flagged player will become flagged if they attack or heal, until they leave the scene.

The problem with this is players can literally walk up next to someone can stab them in the back while being unflagged. Imagine walking into Owl's Head flagged for pvp and every person walking around decides to attack you. You have no defense against that, you don't know they're waiting for someone to walk through their flagged for pvp. How is that a fair or compelling pvp environment? How does that encourage people to be flagged for pvp?

In the case of healing, I see this as an opportunistic crime as well. You're fighting one RED and one BLUE, but you can't attack the BLUE until they engage the fight? What sense does that make? Advantage RED and BLUE team.

 

Nobody warned those who joined a guild before this mechanism was announced that if their guild went to war they could be flagged for PVP without seeking their consent. So yes, for them PVP is no longer consensual. They did not know that joining a guild meant giving up the option to always refuse PVP.

As for me, I am strictly non-PVP. You probably guessed that. Now that I know how the guild warfare system works I have left my guild. Not because I think my guild leader will engage in guild warfare (he won't), but because joining any guild means implicit consent for PVP, no matter how unlikely. It's the principle.

However, the suggestion in your last paragraph is interesting. I presume I could set up a single person guild and ally myself with my former guild to avoid all the nasty stuff that I object to.

 

I understand it a little better now. Thank you both for the replies.

 

I think warring guild leaders should post a list of guild members who will participate in the war once every 24 hours or so. When that list is posted, no other members can join the fight until the next day. Healing must come from this group also. Anyone trying to heal combatants who are not combatants will fail. Perhaps the list choices could be number limited. You could choose from 5 max, 10 max, and so forth so that there is a limit for both guilds. When at war, instancing will always choose at war people into the same scene instance.

 

If i as a giuld member would not like to be flagged pvp because my guild is at war, I simply go to an oracle confirmatory. That way i am blessed for x amont of time and stay unflagged...

 

The intention of the devs is that every guild member is flagged, with no option to opt out. I strongly suspect that what you suggest won't work, or if it does it will be treated as a bug and "fixed".

 

I would like that very much!

 

It's true there are many edge cases i wasn't considering when i talked in favour of guild dueling in the other thread, but even so PVP is treated as an optional feature from the very start. If different PVP modes are implemented, i think what's fair is to allow people to participate in some kind of PVP without participating in the other. That makes me wonder... is Guild warfare intended to be a different kind of way to engage into PVP? Or it's just system to track how groups of PVPers deal against each other?

Assuming we're in the first case, proposed system is not inclusive because there's a group of people that may participate in a Guild war event but still don't want to be exposed to the chance of getting murdered by people passing by (open PVP). I think that's discouraging and don't push people into PVP, but out of the guild. SotA's been going down the road of "everyone can choose the kind of game he wants to play" for too long to suddenly say "Glad you're happy with your guild but since your mates want to engage in Guild warfare, you may stay and participate in what you didn't wanted to or leave and find another guild" and expect people to be ok with it.

Assuming it's just the second, it's working from the assumption of every guild member objectives being the same, when i'd say there's plenty of guilds that are just bunch of people that have fun together hanging out, but each having their own tastes. That kind of guilds flourish even in goal oriented MMO's like WoW, so i'm sure there's (and there will be) more here in SotA with it's "build your own path" structure. Why it is Guild warfare then? why not call it "Party warfare" and make PVPers create PVP groups where they declare wars against each other?

I can see how this is the easiest way into the concept, and i acknowledge not everybody can be pleased... but from my point of view the suggested implementation goes against the design philosophy the game has been following until now. Alliance system between guilds sounds great even as a mechanic on it's own, but on the current subject only works towards achieving the second case... and personally i find the first more appealing. Edge cases will be there, but it's the price to pay for expanding the options.

 

Its just a scenario of a possible option that came to my mind. This should not reflect an actual game mechanic. Anyway i would like to have an option to opt out even if the opt out will bring other (penalizing) consquences.

 

An Alliance system solves the guild warfare concept for me, and enables a number of other mechanics:

For example:

• PaxLair Town is the alliance leader guild helping tie our guilds together.
  • PaxLair Guards - PVP focused guild - Guild Warfare - consent to go to war/PVP flagged at guild leader's discretion
  • PaxLair Bandits - PVP focused guild - Guild Warfare - consent to go to war/PVP flagged at guild leader's discretion
  • Guards and Bandits fight each other, rack up statistics and trophies - makes for good organized PVP fun
  • PaxLair Mercenaries - always PVP flagged - generally don't go to war themselves, but train well together, are very involved in daily PVP, and can switch to guilds inside/outside PaxLair when fighters are needed in the realm (even for someone else's guild war).
    
  • PaxLair Crafters is a non-PVP crafting guild - never go to war (per guild master's promise) - if any want to be involved in PVP wars, they switch to Guards or Bandits for a time period.
• Alliance system can also allow:
  • An Alliance Hall (all guilds and members have kindred access to an Alliance hall, like for a common warehouse).
  • Each guild still has their own Guild Hall for their weapons stashes, crafting warehouse, etc.
  • All allied guilds have an Alliance Chat Channel, but still have their own guild chat channel.
  • Multiple guild leaders in an alliance allows for more decision makers, leaders, and opportunities to move around without breaking ties with the larger community (alliance).

I do not wish to de-rail this thread into an Alliance discussion unless it relates to the OP topic -- I believe an alliance system helps us manage large communities of multiple interests.

Thanks!

 

What if...

When a guild leader declares war and another guild leader accepts... both guilds members have 24 hours to either flag or unflag for pvp (warning and count down visible). The guild leader would always be flagged for war and perhaps worth more points for a kill. When the war starts they can not unflag via the oracle and any form of temp flag is permanent for the duration of the war?

EDIT: The thing is, we are not a guild.. we are a clan. We would really prefer to not see a situation where we need to separate into subgroups over PVP.

 

I respect the clan thing, a person mentioned role playing or something earlier. I look at it as if you guld/clan has a beef with another or several other clans your clan should be united in your decision to goto war. If it's not that's is an internal issue with in the clan.

I would love an additional mechanic like a BG event not to be mixed with this guild warfare thing. Like a warsong gulch or arathi basin. That way people can get the group pvp experience without much of a comitment. I realy realy love this guild on guild thing, I'd hate to see it ruined by trying to meet all needs when the concept should be simple. A beef between two clans and bragging rights.

 

I apologize if it seams like I am flooding this thread. I did start it with passion and after waiting for the guild system, the single most important thing to me in the game for over 2.5 years I got a little excited. Not to take to much of your time I will list what I think is wrong and why.
I played UO from about 02 til probably 06. I dabbled with it randomly later on but not probably in the last couple years for sure. One thing about UO back then is that when you had guild warfare you could declare war on other guilds. If you stayed in trammel and you were flagged for guild warfare you would not be flagged to other people outside the people you were warring. That led to the perfect environment for me as a role player who loves RP/PVP. There was no outside griefing/ganking. Everyone in the war had to use gm armor and nothing above it. Fighters could not heal unless they had bandages. The mage healers would stand behind them in the battles healing and casting other spells. Reagents were limited also. Now you cannot have any of this in this system. You have other people that can jump in to your war and grief your RP hardcore. Mess with your battles, kill you on your diplomatic missions. Anyways I thought that this would have been considered and right now am fairly heartbroken because this is the whole reason I backed Shroud to the level I have.
So to list specifically:
1. The making you flag for World pvp when you do a guild war breaks RP/PVP for me do to outside griefing.
1. The auto flagging from out of combat to some one who is in combat makes the oracle pretty much worthless. It also is in my view a major exploit as you can jump in from a safe advantage on a whim, creating imbalance. I do not know how it even came to being in the game, I have seen no survey or poll on the implementation.
The rest of the implementation of the guild warfare does not really affect me to much. The people that have to leave a guild because of open pvp bothers me, but it is not my main concern. It could be alleviated though if you could set war terms at the time of declaration to perhaps sway them from being attacked. (Diplomacy through RP)
Thanks @Chris I mean nothing directly toward you personally, This is how I feel and I have asked for information on this many times over the years so I would have a clue to how this would be. I do think you are trying very hard and this might be something you overlooked. I guess I will take what I can get. Just know why this is so passionate to me. I am sorry for taking up so much of your time.1

 

this would be awesome!

 

Thank you for this response Chris. It is well received and acknowledgment from you on this means a great deal.

 

Thank you for your considered response, Chris. Obviously you are listening, and I have renewed confidence that you will come up with something that we can all accept.