Guild Declare War Feature For No Reputation Loss PVP

    • FashoBro schrieb:

      Grimfest schrieb:

      Blackboa schrieb:

      FashoBro schrieb:

      So you played in the blackzone for 2 weeks and quit the game? So you assumed the population of bb died out in 2 weeks?
      @FashoBro he has a point to be honest. As a member of both @Grimfest guild and of Bunch of Monkies, I see where Jackal had a tough time trying to rush the blackzone as a non zerg guild and how Bunch of Monkies had success after a month of the beta had gone on and a lot of the more competitive guilds left. It is nothing to take away from what Bunch of Monkies did, but it does support my overall suggestion as to the realities of who is the most successful in the black zones.
      For the record I wasn't taking anything from Bunch of Monkeys, I am just saying, if they rushed out on beta launch, took a territory like we did, and swam with the sharks and made it longer then we did, than I would be the first one to tell you they did something amazing, but the facts are the facts, its much easier to achieve something after hunger dies down and population is lower. We did get gobbled by the Exodia alliance but to be fair we had a fraction of the numbers. Lessons were learned, adapt and move on is what we will do. But still as for this feature, I don't see it hurting anyone, only offering a quality of life for many of us.
      If you're a good guild then you won't get gobbled by numbers.
      Out numbered fights happen.
      If it would do any good I would debunk this statement but it wont so i'll keep it short, "math and common sense. = debunked"

      FashoBro schrieb:

      If people are so worried about not being prepared pvp wise why not set up fights with guilds? There's PLENTY of guilds who are willing to gear cap and match numbers.
      This may be true in the current state of the game when fights are scares, but you are not going to get this in a active game with a healthy amount of PvP encounters. The feature being discussed in this thread is to address the active game not the dead one that is currently running.
    • FashoBro schrieb:

      If you're a good guild then you won't get gobbled by numbers.
      Out numbered fights happen.
      you sir are smoking some good shit......

      EoS and Red Army both with multiple raids.... and you are saying you won't be gobbled by numbers if you good lol.

      at the very least link a real video showcasing people beating out numbered groups.
      HCN wrote:
      Hello,
      While I do agree with you (I miss the good old days of UO when we didn't have to deal with the instant-gratification-cry-baby generation)
    • @Blackboa Those are incentives for war declaration but not reasons why the system should exist. In addition to that all those incentives are already present in the Outlands.

      You can fight without the reputation system getting in the way already.

      You can also already gain experience in the Outlands, you just have to be mindful about who you challenge. There were plenty of lower tier guilds (with less skill/time/effort/organization) in Outland cities alreadty. With the new Outland design aiming to provide specific high level and lower level area's it really shouldn't be a problem for up and coming guilds to get going in the Outlands.

      Having fun is of course subjective and I'm personally not in favor of the bottom-top approach where you provide fun to the lower tiers of the playerbase and hope that they'll eventually go on to the Outlands. Improving the end-game and creating ways for everyone to be a part of it is the way to go for Albion Online, in my eyes. There definitely has to be a solid base for new players to get into without losing their shit every time they go out into the world but I think we have plenty of it with the green, yellow and red zones.

      Finally, the strategical and role-play elements are already present in Outland guild warfare and to an even greater extent. Guild vs Guild rivalries can be interesting but taking your place between countless of guilds fighting for their own interests provides many more strategical challenges.

      I understand what you said about the reputation system still being in effect but that was precisely my point. Two guilds will be free to fight each other with a lot less interference from other guilds. Firstly because there are way less organized guilds in the red zones, but also because the reputation system will still provide some barrier to prevent others from getting in on the action.

      I never was a fan of the reputation system and I think the strict separation between the red zones and the Outlands does indeed make for a gap between red zone guilds and Outland guilds that could use some bridging but here's hoping that better accessibility and a more concise map layout will make the Outlands less of a mountain to climb and more of a challenging slope for up and coming guilds. Something I think was fantastic about Beta1's map design and something that's missing now is a border area between the red zones and the Outlands but that's really a topic for a different discussion, I suppose.
    • By declaring war I see boas point. IF you declare war its kind of like playing how it was in Alpha and early beta. I don't get what gank and fashbro are talking about. black zones were never the big base pvp fights it was always redzones and blue dungeons. you kids must be new. all the war would do is clearly let larger guilds battle in any zone really without rep loss still keeping Civilian players not in the war exempt still get rep loss and if u killed them you would gain rep loss. this will keep larger guilds pvp blood lust satisfied
    • Blackboa schrieb:

      Wadefu schrieb:

      This is just a work around for the poor rep system in place. When I take a small group to a raidzone in red (5-10) and another group of 10 is there. If we wipe the group and they are not flagged this is basically an auto kick from any town on royals.

      I realize SBI is trying to have some sort of negative impact for randomly killing "high rep" players, but forcing a small guild of 10 players to the outlands because they decide to pvp on royals is absurd.

      The war system will not prevent this.
      @Wadefu you are correct. In a way this is a work around for the current reputation system which is way too punitive in my opinion, but at the same time, the care-bear community still needs to be protected to some extent, so allowing a "loop hole" in the system through consensual war declarations I believe solves the problem in a very simple and easy to implement way.
      This doesn't fix it... You think that pve guild is going to accept any wardec? SBI would never allow one sided wardecs. This doesn't solve the main issue.

      What would solve it - allow people to enter the red zone town just like a blackzone town, but have them constantly flagged. Since that person enjoys pking he shouldn't have the luxury of deflagging until his karma is back to 0. But, don't disallow me from entering town.
      and/or put a longer cooldown on how fast I can enter town after we pk people.
      Cheerleader for Guild: Virtuous
    • Wadefu schrieb:

      Blackboa schrieb:

      Wadefu schrieb:

      This is just a work around for the poor rep system in place. When I take a small group to a raidzone in red (5-10) and another group of 10 is there. If we wipe the group and they are not flagged this is basically an auto kick from any town on royals.

      I realize SBI is trying to have some sort of negative impact for randomly killing "high rep" players, but forcing a small guild of 10 players to the outlands because they decide to pvp on royals is absurd.

      The war system will not prevent this.
      @Wadefu you are correct. In a way this is a work around for the current reputation system which is way too punitive in my opinion, but at the same time, the care-bear community still needs to be protected to some extent, so allowing a "loop hole" in the system through consensual war declarations I believe solves the problem in a very simple and easy to implement way.
      This doesn't fix it... You think that pve guild is going to accept any wardec? SBI would never allow one sided wardecs. This doesn't solve the main issue.
      What would solve it - allow people to enter the red zone town just like a blackzone town, but have them constantly flagged. Since that person enjoys pking he shouldn't have the luxury of deflagging until his karma is back to 0. But, don't disallow me from entering town.
      and/or put a longer cooldown on how fast I can enter town after we pk people.
      really think some people aren't understanding the primary point of such a feature... It's about small-scale PvP centric guilds having a place in the world. With a two sided wardec guild can't grief PvEr or gathering guilds but can fight on the royals with other small or large PvP guilds w/o getting banished to black. Cause let's be honest... If a 10-20 man guild gets pushed out to black at high pop wipe or release, they aren't going to stand a chance if any of the mega guilds decide to set their sights on them. Now I'm not saying they should be able to compete, quite the opposite. They don't have the numbers, time or resources, they should get their shit pushed in out in the blackzones. With that said, small-scale PvP centric guilds(that aren't in a mega alliance) have no place in the world of Albion ATM, one would think that it would be the redzones but that isn't the case, just my $.02
    • I would argue against having Only 2 sided.


      Reason being sure 2 sided if fine to have but 1 sided with a large silver cost would add a silver sink to game.


      I also think wardecking should be hard to get started i.e. having to go to city to set one and wait a period of time (maybe next day) before it kicks off to prevent exploiting.

      --In doing this you should be able to FULLY kill people in Red and Yellow zones with no rep loss. Would be a system similar to that of what Eve-Online has.

      --Also think red zone cities should not lock people out at all. Reason: pirates need a home too. 90% of population will be around red so that is where the targets are.


      Regardless even though ^^all of this is right^^ it will be ignored a shit system will be added and people who kill 24/7 will get shafted because we have to either go to black zones where nobody will fight unless they are 500 deep or have to run 10+ map tiles to leave the city we are allowed in.
      HCN wrote:
      Hello,
      While I do agree with you (I miss the good old days of UO when we didn't have to deal with the instant-gratification-cry-baby generation)
    • Alright @Blackboa ,

      After having read through all of the thread, I will put some thoughts down.

      In 2014 I suggested an alliance-level and alliance-initiated event called Ultimatum. If the terms were not met or were rejected within X or XX hours, a state of total war began between only those alliances. (Source: World events). Will touch on this more below...

      Thoughts if a war mechanic is to be added:
      1. War should be between alliances, not just guilds. This would perhaps strengthen use of alliance mechanics.
      2. The agreement process needs a bit more immersion. Say Issuing an ultimatum against another alliance should have a cost in silver. The offer is sent to the potential enemy, where that alliance must agree to the terms of the ultimatum or go to war. Expiration of time on the ultimatum is the same as not agreeing to the terms. Terms might be like your territories will require 100% more food for the next X days or something like that. The percentage increase should not stack in cases of multiple ultimatums. The duration applied should max at X days if a new ultimatum is accepted.
      3. A section should be added to the kickboard to track the war's stats. This should show
      4. Enemies of war should show as black or dark red to a player. Reputation loss is only against blue players anyway. :) This helps to identify the enemy in possible cases where you encounter a party containing both enemies of war and other players.
      5. Wars should be of limited duration. Once war begins, perhaps it lasts X days, or until one alliance surrenders (should be an option). This is to aid with the killboard idea from point 3. In line with point 2, should either side surrender before the war's duration has expired, they would be subject to the terms of the ultimatum, including the declaring alliance, should they surrender.
      6. To prevent abuse, say declaring war on all others at once to avoid the reputation system in the royal continent, an alliance should only be able declare this war state against a limited number of alliances at a time. I am not sure only 1 is good due to possible alt guild use to avoid a state of war.Perhaps the costs escalate exponentially as the number of active wars your alliance has started increases
      7. Wars should only be fought in regions or zones where PvP is allowed.
      8. Multiple wars can be declared against the same alliance at one time, to prevent alt alliance use. To prevent a constant state of war, the expotential escalation mentioned in step 6 might not reset to 0 until X days after the last war your alliance declared is over.
      9. Consider a soft cap on alliance ability to issue ultimatums, similar to territory ownership minimum fame requirements, yet scaled for an alliance.
      10. A guild dropping from an alliance in a state of war should be subject to the same detriments as surrender.


      The idea behind war events is that it should be an event, not a constant war. In these points, X days are all the same, thinking 7. It is not polished, nor is it without issues, however, I think it may move the discussion along more than discussions about the merits of the reputation system or trying to agree on an identity for what the Outlands are.

      -Zetecua
    • my opinion is still no. hardcore pvp zone all the way.

      all that is pvp zone needs to be hardcore. and the reputation system is brilliant, because it gives value to what you do.

      when you get barred from that city, your pvp stuff gets value. It gets a meaning.

      I like the current reputation system so much. I say.. good work devs and definitely keep it for the most part as it is.
    • Zetecua schrieb:

      Alright @Blackboa ,

      After having read through all of the thread, I will put some thoughts down.

      In 2014 I suggested an alliance-level and alliance-initiated event called Ultimatum. If the terms were not met or were rejected within X or XX hours, a state of total war began between only those alliances. (Source: World events). Will touch on this more below...

      Thoughts if a war mechanic is to be added:
      1. War should be between alliances, not just guilds. This would perhaps strengthen use of alliance mechanics.
      2. The agreement process needs a bit more immersion. Say Issuing an ultimatum against another alliance should have a cost in silver. The offer is sent to the potential enemy, where that alliance must agree to the terms of the ultimatum or go to war. Expiration of time on the ultimatum is the same as not agreeing to the terms. Terms might be like your territories will require 100% more food for the next X days or something like that. The percentage increase should not stack in cases of multiple ultimatums. The duration applied should max at X days if a new ultimatum is accepted.
      3. A section should be added to the kickboard to track the war's stats. This should show
      4. Enemies of war should show as black or dark red to a player. Reputation loss is only against blue players anyway. :) This helps to identify the enemy in possible cases where you encounter a party containing both enemies of war and other players.
      5. Wars should be of limited duration. Once war begins, perhaps it lasts X days, or until one alliance surrenders (should be an option). This is to aid with the killboard idea from point 3. In line with point 2, should either side surrender before the war's duration has expired, they would be subject to the terms of the ultimatum, including the declaring alliance, should they surrender.
      6. To prevent abuse, say declaring war on all others at once to avoid the reputation system in the royal continent, an alliance should only be able declare this war state against a limited number of alliances at a time. I am not sure only 1 is good due to possible alt guild use to avoid a state of war.Perhaps the costs escalate exponentially as the number of active wars your alliance has started increases
      7. Wars should only be fought in regions or zones where PvP is allowed.
      8. Multiple wars can be declared against the same alliance at one time, to prevent alt alliance use. To prevent a constant state of war, the expotential escalation mentioned in step 6 might not reset to 0 until X days after the last war your alliance declared is over.
      9. Consider a soft cap on alliance ability to issue ultimatums, similar to territory ownership minimum fame requirements, yet scaled for an alliance.
      10. A guild dropping from an alliance in a state of war should be subject to the same detriments as surrender.


      The idea behind war events is that it should be an event, not a constant war. In these points, X days are all the same, thinking 7. It is not polished, nor is it without issues, however, I think it may move the discussion along more than discussions about the merits of the reputation system or trying to agree on an identity for what the Outlands are.

      -Zetecua
      @Zetecua thank you very much for your detailed response. I will give you my feedback on your idea on a point by point basis:

      1. I like the option of having alliances involved as well. This could help up the larger guilds more than the smaller however to have more pvp in the game. I still think the smaller guilds will not have alliances, so they should still be able to declare war on each other without have to be part of an alliance.

      2. That ultimatum sounds interesting, but again, the only guilds that would be able to afford such a high price would be the larger guilds. My suggestion of Guild War Declarations are truly for smaller guilds in the royal land to use as a steppiing stone to one day make it into the blackzone.

      3. Killboard wars sounds awesome.

      4. Love the red / black coloration to distinguish war targets

      5. Love the limited duration part

      6. Limiting the number of war decks seems fine to me

      7. Agreed, Green Zones should still remain sacred

      8. Agreed, sounds good

      9. Agreed, sounds good

      10. Agreed, sounds good

      I do enjoy the event standpoint rather than the constant war standpoint. Seems very interesting indeed. Although your description / suggestion is much more in depth, I do believe that some sort of system would be beneficial to implement. My hope in this suggestion was to give a very simple and basic suggestion that could be built upon. Thank you all for supplying these suggestions and keep them coming!
      Kind Regards,

      Blackboa / MannyMoments

      Follow my Stream on Twitch---> http://twitch.tv/blackboagaming

      Streaming Albion Online Everyday!
    • I don't see how this solves any problems.... your warring guilds who want to go to war... the guild you go to war with is already probably flagged most of the time and you don't solve the issue of:

      When a flagged guild clears a "pve" guild from a raidzone and getting unfairly penalized from entering a red zone town.
      Cheerleader for Guild: Virtuous
    • Blackboa schrieb:

      Dear Albion Community,

      After having a nice conversation with PVP veterans, we have come up with an idea that I believe PVP guilds would be willing to support.

      Guilds should be able to "Declare War" on each other so that if both guilds agree to the war, they will be able to kill members of opposing guilds ANYWHERE in the world and not suffer any reputation loss as a result.

      This I believe would be a nice balance for the PVP community who feels like the reputation system is too punitive for their play-style and if both guilds agree, why not let them PVP without consequence on a massive scale?

      Looking forward to your thoughts and opinions on this potential modification to the PVP / Reputation system in the game.
      This 100% needs to happen. This was in UO in its early days and was amazing and it was anywhere. So you had guilds at war with each other who mostly lived in different cities. We would create war parties and all ride to enemy cities looking for fights in addition to fighting in the open world. I made a post about this early last beta and would love to see this incorporated.