Non-consensual PVP Now Possible

Some people refuse to live in POTs because, even though it is highly unlikely to ever happen, they don't like the idea that they can be booted out by the owner on a whim. For them it is a matter of principle.

Similarly, some PVE-only players will refuse to join a guild because, even though it is highly unlikely to ever happen, they don't like the idea that they can be flagged PVP by their leader on a whim. For them it is a matter of principle.

 

Well, sometimes being rigidly principled means not enjoying all the options that are presented. Not necessarily a bad thing. Your other choice to to MAKE a guild, and since you would be the guild leader, you wouldn't have to worry about someone going behind your back and declaring war. (unless you have multiple personalities)

 

The consent is given by belonging to a guild that wars.......you can always leave the guild. If a player isn't interested in PvP then joining a PvP/War guild probably isn't for them.

So the people who are flagged as PvP are already at war so this technically makes guild warring meaningless.

 

All I will contribute is to say THANK GOODNESS there is a NEW aspect of PvP to talk about and not the same old rants...

/me runs away before getting ganked...

 

No, I wrote "those members who have opted in to guild war participation". Opting in to guild war participation would not mean that you are currently flagged for PVP. That would only happen if and when your guild was involved in a guild war. Those who hadn't opted in to guild war participation would be immune.

 

Your either part of a guild or your not........the hint is in the design......Guild War.

 

I believe the 'guilds' of our irl streets don't allow you to opt out of their war.. if my vast experience of american movies is anything to draw from. I like this plan.

 

I am still a member of a guild. I can post on the guild forums, participate in guild events, join the guild TeamSpeak - but the game does not know that I am a guild member. As far as the game is concerned, I'm not. That's fine, because the game doesn't need to know. The only downside is not being able to use in-game guild chat - and there are workarounds for that.

 

Choise your guild dude or start your own guild. Be the change you want to see in New Britannia.

It's a Guild WAR !!!!!!!!!

 

Up to your guild leader then really.........all I can say is if you were in my guild the moment you refused to take part in a war you would be removed and rez killed many times should the mechanics be there.

 

ROFL

Have a nice day

 

Yup those are the words I would use after the 3rd rez kill

 

That's what happens to deserters.

 

Out of curiosity, if a guild member of a guild which is at war encounters a member of the opposing guild in a non-PVP POT -what happens? Is a PvP encounter right there and then even possible?

 

But I understand correct, that 2 guilds can declare war to each other, in both guilds all members become open pvp, so every pvper can than go against those guilds. So to win the war I can invite many open PVPers in a group and all members do the same, so their kills count also for me and so for the guild and let them do the work while my guild hides in SPOnline? This way I would also take part in guildwarfare.
Or will it be the other way round that let the kills on me be stolen by not guildmembers of the other guild so they get no kill?
Both is not a guildwarfare for me, it is guild against open PVP world. It is the same as if I would say on a tournament this is 1:1, but then close my eyes and only see the result who is still standing.

 

People flagged PVP have always been able to have at each other in a POT that is not flagged for PVP. You can't flag a POT "No PVP". The closest you can get is to not flag it for PVP, which still allows PVP between individuals who are flagged for PVP.

 

The only reasonable alternative I could see is a voting system where the entire guild would vote on whether or not to go to war.

But then, I suppose the guild leader could just remove those who voted against going to war and try again couldn't he?

In Meridian 59 there was a system where you could actually initiate a mutiny and attempt to remove the current guild leader by way of votes. It did provide some course of action should the guild leader make decisions that went against the majority.

Even as a strict PvE player myself I think guild wars have to be all or nothing. You can't have untouchable targets in a war. Guilds have to mean something other than just a shared chat channel.

This brings to mind a larger potential topic. Perhaps guilds could have different leadership structures? As it stands they are essentially dictatorships with the leader holding absolute power. But I could see guilds having the option of being formed with a structure that allowed for checks and balances. Beyond declaring war this could apply to things like recruitment and removal of guild members so that no one "leader" has absolute power.

 

i did make my own guild. it's a guild of one, and i'm happy with that, but i made it because i was tired of being spammed with guild invites by people who hadn't so much as said hi to me, much less discussed their guild and my potential place within it. ...and i shouldn't have had to do that to stop the spam: it devalues the meaning of guilds.

we need autodecline for war invites (and for guild invites in the first place) but i have to say, i don't trust that a leader that would invite without talking about it with a potential member would bother to talk about a war invite with current members.

 

Currently guild leaders are not electable. Guilds are not a democracy. Given that guild leaders are unelected, some (particularly those who live in functioning democracies IRL) may object to being flagged PVP by someone they weren't given the opportunity to vote for. If we can't vote for our leader, then to maintain even a veneer of democracy all major decisions should be subject to a democratic process. That is not enforced by the game, however.

I have no doubt that many people enjoy role playing powerless minions who can be dragged into war at the whim of an unelected leader. It does seem to fit in with the general medieval theme. Some, however, will not accept that, so maybe they should also be catered for.

 

This is one of the reasons I don't join guilds. I find that the leadership, made up of random people on the internet, usually leaves a lot to be desired. Some guild structures attempt to govern in a way that prevents one person from just blindly making unilateral decisions, and sometimes that works. But often that's just window dressing and there's no way to actually remove a leader without them volunteering to step down. The result is usually a fractured guild population and a lot of drama most people didn't sign up for.

In my opinion this is a perfect example of a need that is rarely filled by developers. Players should have tools to set up guilds and organizations where the members (if inclined to set up their guild this way) can form true governing bodies that have triggers to vote on leaders or remove them after a period of time while not requiring the formation of a completely new guild. I believe Shadowbane was one of the firsts to have Republics, Democracies, Oligarchies, and Dictatorships as base guild options. I wish we had the same type of functionality here, I think it would help a lot of players.