Griefing the flagging system, and a solution.

Scenario:

Guild 1 and Guild 2 are having a big open world PvP fight. 80 Players in the same area with damage and healing going all over the place.

50% of Griefing Guild 3 joints the battle naked flagged as Green, while Guild 1 and 2 are flagged as Purple. Their mission is to not heal each other to get flagged Purple themselves, but to run into the fight to get people in Guild 1 and 2 flagged Red.

Once enough players are flagged Red, the rest of the Griefing Guild 3 joins the battle and strategically picks off those flagged Red players to get free loot without much penalty.

Solution:
We know the game have systems to track player movement and actions through the node system. A solution to this would be to also track damage to make a heat-map for the world. If a Green player enters an area that have a lot of damage going on between two guilds, they are flagged as Purple as entering the battle, and can not grief by purposely dying while not fighting back to flag people Red.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

Warth wrote: »

you clearly misunderstoos what he meant by that.

Disbanding the guild wouldn't be an actively used way to stop the war. Surrendering would be.

Even if this were the case, there are a LOT of guild leaders (especially in a PvP setting) that would disband a guild before admitting defeat.

A system like this absolutely needs a timer.

Xyls

Noaani wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

you clearly misunderstoos what he meant by that.

Disbanding the guild wouldn't be an actively used way to stop the war. Surrendering would be.

Even if this were the case, there are a LOT of guild leaders (especially in a PvP setting) that would disband a guild before admitting defeat.

A system like this absolutely needs a timer.

It absolutely does not need a timer. Lol your entire point of view is based on the possibility of a guild disbanding over it.... Whelp better get rid of loot, raids, guild chat, trade chat, etc, etc, etc.... Hell lets just make the game without guilds period so Noaani never has to worry about guilds disbanding. So dumb.

Xyls

Warth wrote: »

[

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

At the very least I think there needs to be an option where two guilds can go to war indefinitely with the only way to end it is surrendering or a guild disbanding...

The more I think about this, the less sense it makes to me.

My first thing for not liking it is any game system where a guild disbanding is one of the potential designed outcomes is a bad system to have in a game. Players and thus subscriptions, leave the game when guilds disband, so it is in any game developers best interest - and in the best interest of their game and every player in that game - to encourage guilds to stay together.

The second reason I don't see a need for this any longer is that I just don't see a game system requirement in regards to guilds wanting to dislike each other.

If there is a guild that I and my guild actively dislike, we don't need a game system to tell us what to do. Nor do we need to avoid corruption when fighting them - in fact inflicting corruption on that rival guild seems to me to be a valid tactic.

I just don't see the up-side to a system like this, and see many downsides (most notably, people leaving the game due to their guild disbanding, which is one of only two ways to end a war). I mean, why do you need a system to remind you what guild you are supposed to not like?

you clearly misunderstoos what he meant by that.

Disbanding the guild wouldn't be an actively used way to stop the war. Surrendering would be.
A guild disbanding would however clear all the wars they are a part of... duh. Otgerwise the opposing guild would be stuck in an indefinite unwinnable war.

Lol so ridiculous. Some people man...

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

you clearly misunderstoos what he meant by that.

Disbanding the guild wouldn't be an actively used way to stop the war. Surrendering would be.

Even if this were the case, there are a LOT of guild leaders (especially in a PvP setting) that would disband a guild before admitting defeat.

A system like this absolutely needs a timer.

It absolutely does not need a timer. Lol your entire point of view is based on the possibility of a guild disbanding over it.... Whelp better get rid of loot, raids, guild chat, trade chat, etc, etc, etc.... Hell lets just make the game without guilds period so Noaani never has to worry about guilds disbanding. So dumb.

I mean, if you think this is just me not being keen on that idea rather than it being bad in terms of general game design, by all means put up a Q&A question as to what Steven thinks of a potential game system that is all encompassing in terms of the players involved, and can only ever be exited if a guild leader admits defeat or disbands the guild.

I am not looking at your suggestion from the perspective of whether I like it or not, I am looking at it from the perspective of whether I can see it being a good thing for the game or not.

All I see is a system that doesn't need to be used, and that if used would most likely result in fewer subscribers for the game.

The other examples you give are not overly good analogies to this situation. Raiding may well be, but only if the guild were locked in an instance with the raid encounter and could only leave if the guild leader decided that the encounter was too tough for the guild to take on, or the guild disbanded. Fortunately, no raid content is designed like this, guilds can leave the encounter without any negative effects other than time lost.

Child Item