Player Associations Archive

Yeah, we all know it sucks. Thought I would share this thread with you guys though;

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Scylla&message.id=88662

Clickable Link

Thanks for this link.Is all fair in war when one guild keeps the war proposal open, thus keeping themselves open for grief? Or, should guildwar be changed to prevent such a thing?

Obviously it should prevent it.

I remember KOTOR was at war with an Imperial guild in Beta, and I tested this out to see if was possible. Long story short, I declared war back and killed someone AFK on our steps from the other guild(they didn't have business there anyway! ). I reported it afterwards.

I never heard or seen anything about PA wars, but vaguely remember reading about it... how underused is this system? Seems to be rather lame the way it's set up now, IMO of course.

How should it be prevented?

When an abuse is present, sometimes it takes quite a bit of thought to put in a solution that doesn't just end up spawningnew abuses.

Should there be a time limit on a proposal of guildwar, such that the proposal automatically expires after a set amount of time? Should guildwar begin a set time AFTER both PAs have declared it?

PA One initiates the war, PA Two accepts it, the actual war begins one hour later. If any PA wants out of the war, the war will end one hour later. Take that apart and see how it could be abused.

Well, if we figured out a way to make PA wars non-griefable, such as the overt/covert thing, a new system like this would work very well; Have two PAs agree to the terms of war, such as how long the war will be, what the objectives will be (most kills, first to "capture" the others PA Hall, etc.), and what percentage of their members are allowed to be covert. At that point, once the war begins, both sides cannot back out of the war. Perhaps we could allow for one side to surrender, and in that case the winning PA should get both the spoils that were put up for the winner as well as a percentage of the money in the PA Hall treasury, that way the surrendering team loses something for backing out.

However, this is still exploitable, because even if you didn't allow for money to be removed from the treasury during a war, they could always take it out beforehand incase they had to resign.

I am thinking maybe the surrendering side would get a heavy debt to pay on their PA Hall, such in the form of damage or something, that they have to pay or else the hall would be unuseable until they did. The cash would be based on the amount of members, how long the war was, or perhaps how many players were overt/covert. That money would go to the team that didn't surrender.

wait wait wait, go back. I missed the part where guild wars were a good idea in the first place.

It borderlines on non-consentual PvP. You have no control over if your PA leader accepts the war. (are you even notified?) Sure you can leave the guild, but why should you have to? If the people in the guild really want to engage in PvP with each other, then this system does nothing that /duel couldn't do better.

I believe most players are in aPA where they agree their Leader's judgement in use of the guildwar tool (andguildwar permissions)in accordance with the theme of their PA. I just think the options are so exploitable at this point that guildwar is not acceptable to the majority of players, even players who do enjoy PvP.

Ialso agree entirely thatevery member ofan involvedPAshould beinformedwhen a guildwar policy is initiated, received, accepted, and refused.

If my guild ever wants to declare war we make a second guild with only the members that want to partipate in the war elave our entertainers and artisans out of it

Okay, first I want to make clear, that I'm not a part of a PA, and have only been in a small PA. Never been in a guild war, and never been the leader. Well that on place, I'll move on to something that have more relevance to the subject.

For the guild war system to be effective, theoretical, it need a complete overhaul. First of, I agree that a war is not engaged, unless both sides agrees. Here I would recommend that if one side won't engage in a war, they should pay a tribute of 10k, but it's to exploitable, so that we have to look away from, but it would have given some realistic meaning to it... but anyway to exploitable (if no one can see how it can be exploited, I'll tell you in another post).Before both sides agrees on the war, there should be set a timer (at least one week, and an ongoing war) and a fine to pay if you want to withdraw from the war (At least 10k). When terms are agreed, then the war initiates 1 hourlater. Now, to make sure that people that don't want to fight for their guild and die (or can't fight), isn't drawn into the war, there should be a system, where a member of a PA can declare themself for soldier for the PA (docs that want to heal soldiers in a guild war, have to be declared soldier themself), for honestly... we have to have some honor in those war... no civilian casualties. Next thing we need to make this guild war system better, is that you can form alliances with other PA's, and they'll get a message when your PA goes to war, with who, and what the terms are (The leader of a allied PA), then they can enter the war, and fight on which side they want (and so on). For example my PA is allied with PA-A and PA-B, which again is allied withPA-C, and my PA declares war with PA-D, which also are allied with PA-A. PA-Bgets the oppurtunity to join the side of my PA, and if they do, PA-C gets a message and oppurtunity to join on my PA's side, while PA-A have to decide if they want to withhold their alliance to both sides (not participating in the war), or help one of the sides... (I'm sorry if it's confussing, but can't find a better way to explain it... ).

That should be it. My opinion to make the whole thing more exciting and effective... but what the hell... it's only my opinion...

I believe the best system is also the most simple.

After you declare war against another guild, you should be able to attack them, reguardless. In the strategy guide, under guilds, it says your guild could theoretically take on the entire galaxy. So the guild getting picked on gets a few other guilds on their side, and then you really have a guild war. if you hate someone, you're not going to wait to accept their battle invitation before you fight them. As soon, as you declare war, attack. it's their call to stay nonviolent, recruit allies, or fight back....making the game more interesting!

No, that is a bad idea. They took citywarn out (I objected to that, btw) because it forced people into non-consentual PvP. There are many neutral and crafting guilds out there that would be bullied around and griefed by that.

i don't think it would be too bad of an idea. the crafters would either have to beg for mercy, go into hiding, ask another warrior guild for help, or become warriors themselves, or submit. There may be bullies, but there's always a bigger fish. Plus, teamwork and strategy would be emphasized, somethiing this game is lacking