Alliances Between Guilds

[The Big Weezy]

I know the point of guilds is destroy one another during crusade time while scratching and clawing our way to the next big ranking. I also know there will be viciously underhanded guild strategy, as well as those who adhere to strict codes of honor and conduct.

I'm wondering if there would be any benefit to declaring no-fire pacts/truces with other guilds whose philosophy or in-game conduct mirror that of your own. For example, I think the Dragon Warrior conglomerate is great, and I suspect that our two guilds are so disparately numbered that we will never go head to head in a crusade war.

Would a so-called United Guild Nation be appropriate? Not necessarily agreeing to never attack one another during crusades, but perhaps agreeing to never go down the path of poor gamesmanship...

[Zenobia]

I have not yet made my choice of guilds but I think this is a fantastic idea and I hope a lot of guilds agree to this. Maybe come up with some sort of pact that guild leaders "sign" with some simple standards agreed to adhere to.

[Mr.Grumpy]

we should get all guilds to agree to this. that would be fun.

[The Big Weezy]

It would be nice. But I think there are some very competitive players in KA who live by the "All's fair in love and war" credo who would never agree to play above the belt.

I want a Geneva Conference of honor-bound guilds who aren't interested in being one the axis of underhanded evil. Some semblance of a nuclear armistice. You agree to play fair, bottom line.

And this may well be some pie-in-the-sky stuff right here...but I guess that's why they call me a dreamer. :D

[Jixx]

this type of suggestions makes me proud to be in your guild :)

[The_Legend_Shall_Live_On]

I also like the sound of this. However, isn't it true that during a Guild War (at least from the description given in another thread, of how it works with other Gree games) you get randomly paired up against another guild of similar strengths and weaknesses?

If this is taken into account, I'm also for it.

[Sgt Maj]

I was wondering the same thing myself. I am sure the Golden Horde would be interested in this.

[jonny0284]

Deleted by me.

[Jeshu]

I know the point of guilds is destroy one another during crusade time while scratching and clawing our way to the next big ranking. I also know there will be viciously underhanded guild strategy, as well as those who adhere to strict codes of honor and conduct.

I'm wondering if there would be any benefit to declaring no-fire pacts/truces with other guilds whose philosophy or in-game conduct mirror that of your own. For example, I think the Dragon Warrior conglomerate is great, and I suspect that our two guilds are so disparately numbered that we will never go head to head in a crusade war.

Would a so-called United Guild Nation be appropriate? Not necessarily agreeing to never attack one another during crusades, but perhaps agreeing to never go down the path of poor gamesmanship...

I like the United Guild Nation idea a lot. I've been thinking about a few things...

1. Have a forum thread listing all the guilds that are part of this treaty. The treaty will consist on a "cease fire mode/forbidden to attack" another member of a participating guild unless randomly paired during an on-going crusade/campaign. That includes not hitting users of participating guild for gold/stones.

2. If a member of a participating guild fails to obey and attacks another participaing guild member, the offender will have a 3 strike system, after 3 strikes, he/she will have to be excommunicated from their guild and forbidden to join any participating guild. He/she will be added in the offender's list. If a guild does not want to remove the offending member, then the guild will have to be removed from the pact.

3. A player in the offender's list will get the chance to reapply to a participating guild after a period of time, perhaps 1-3 month ban. Offender's list should be kept active by a designated President of the United Guild Nation. The President should be elected by general elections. Each participating guild should have 1 vote. President should overseen any issues between guild and help remediate them.

4. All players will need to create a ticket with support to show their guild TAGs plus a symbol, this is to help avoid making any mistakes and attacking a member of a participating guild. Something like (FBI*), the * would help participating players know not to attack them.

So far those are my comments...

If anyone wants to go for it, we can add/modify it...

[The Big Weezy]

All's fair in love & war.

My original post in this thread was made with you specifically in mind, jonny boy.



I like the United Guild Nation idea a lot. I've been thinking about a few things...

That's a good start, Jeshu! I like the idea of a treaty thread. I think with the exception of a couple troll guilds, this should be adopted pretty unanimously by people who believe in fair play. If they don't want to play fair, then never engage or be engaged with that guild in a crusade battle, period. A version of sanctioning, if you will.


As an aside, contrary to what some on this forum would like us all to believe, the line in the sand doesn't exist between free and gem players; the only line I know of separates the proud and honourable from the cowardly and avaricious.

[Perfuzzie]

jonny`s the bad boy everywhere :))

big weezy good luck with that... and be careful who`s joining your guild , remember there`s gonna be a war... one member can screw everything

[Winstrol]

jonny`s the bad boy everywhere :))

big weezy good luck with that... and be careful who`s joining your guild , remember there`s gonna be a war... one member can screw everything
For example , you ?

[Perfuzzie]

For example , you ?

im loyal to my guild winstrol , unlike others i know my place .

[Zenobia]

As an aside, contrary to what some on this forum would like us all to believe, the line in the sand doesn't exist between free and gem players; the only line I know of separates the proud and honourable from the cowardly and avaricious.
This! And the similar line that divides those who care about the greater good and those who care only about themselves (or about the very few, who are basically an extension of the self).

[jonny0284]

Deleted by me.

[echus14]

Nice idea. Unsure how feasible it will be, though.

[Ak-Manin]

You pose an interesting idea, and something similar to some other discussions Dragon Warriors are involved in with other groups. I'll ask our Ambassador, Lord Black Adder to visit with you to discuss. AK

Ak-Manin
Dragon Warrior Clan Councilmember
Level 96 A/D 208/168

[Mr.Grumpy]

i propose that during the guild wars, no guild should declare war whatsoever. except the one i'm in.

[The Big Weezy]

It would be most appreciated, Ak- Manin. Thank you. Please let us know what the official Dragon Warriors stance on guild alliances is if you can. At very least, it is an honorable proposal to consider, and could have a very positive impact on gameplay if implemented correctly.


You pose an interesting idea, and something similar to some other discussions Dragon Warriors are involved in with other groups. I'll ask our Ambassador, Lord Black Adder to visit with you to discuss. AK

Ak-Manin
Dragon Warrior Clan Councilmember
Level 96 A/D 208/168

[[DW] Black Adder]

Greeting Lords & Ladies, I come on behalf of the DW Clan & Lord Guy. First off let me say we are honored to have Lord P3 in our Guild.

[[DW] Black Adder]

I have read your post Lord Weezy, you speak with wisdom.

[Q-Ball]

Nice idea. Unsure how feasible it will be, though.

Have to agree. While it sounds nice, based on how the MW Faction Wars have gone it doesn't seem feasible. I don't know that there could be any poor gamesmanship that doesn't already exist. Somebody has to win. Teams need to place in Top 3, 10, 25, 100, 250, 500 and 1000. You will need to accrue points to place and get some seriously good prizes. You will be pitted against each other. So you will have to attack your opponent during battles. (If this goes anything like the MW World Domination.) It's not for lack of caring about the greater good. It's how GREE is changing the gameplay and strategy.

I could be wrong on feasibility though. Perhaps I'm not creative enough to see how an alliance would work and what terms of an alliance would be.

[MaverickMunkey]

Nice idea. Unsure how feasible it will be, though.

I agree echus14.

Nice idea like the UN but not practical in reality.

If a large enough number of guilds join this treaty and agree not to attack each others memeber between crusades, where are people going to get their gold and stones from?

I know that there are alot of people out there who are not on the forum or may be in a guild where no one knows about this treaty but if they are solely the ones getting attacked day in and out by everyone else, how long do you think that they will either stay playing the game or join a guild who are part of the treaty. (and don't forget that they would only be able to be attacked a limited number of times a day).

Finally, alot of people enjoy this game for the PvP side of the game and this could again put people off.

Personally, I think that people should take the rough with the smooth. I am at a high enough level where I get hammered everyday by RKs and have just had to take two days off from donating so that I could rebreed my lost units. Am I pissed off - yes - but I have to live with it and hey I also have to feel sorry for those with lower stats than me who I do the same to.

This is war people and this is how it is going to remain until Gree changes things or the game folds:

"Cry Havoc! and let slip the dogs of war....."

[Timbathia]

I actually disagree with the notion of a complete truce where guilds wouldnt fight at all against each other at all in an event. To hard to manage and the point of this is to fight.

The agreement that is worth considering, however, is on gem use during wars/crusades with particular guilds you are friendly with. With each player getting say around 6 free hits in during a war, there really isnt THAT much damage you can do to someone. If all the gem spenders in a guild decide to unload a mountain or two on a few players in a war, then the casualties could be significant. Why not work on arrangements that gem spenders only use up all their gems on guilds they are not friendly with? It wont affect the overall points totals since most likely everyone will spend the same number of gems, but it will help prevent friends/allies in different guilds falling out with one another.

[Berneburg]

So everyone is scrambling to join the best, most power guilds in the hopes of attaining world domination and you want to sit around a campfire with your "enemies" singing Kumbayah?

I don't get it...

[Ak-Manin]

I don't think anyone is suggesting an alliance that is tantamount to a total truce. In this game, that would be silly, and leech all the fun out of the game.

The Geneva Conventions have worked for many years in the real world...at least with honorable allies and rivals. (Sadly ignored by terrorist groups). I'm not in the military any longer, but I carry my card to this day.

An agreement on an honorable code of conduct can be beneficial to both sides. I find many people in this forum to be fair and honest players, and trust that they would honor agreements made.

Johnny the badboy in the forum said all is fair in love and war. Sounds like love and war are the same thing for him! (I confess that does sound kinda fun).

AK

Ak-Manin
Dragon Warrior Clan
Level 97 A/D 211/180

[The Big Weezy]

I don't think anyone is suggesting an alliance that is tantamount to a total truce. In this game, that would be silly, and leech all the fun out of the game.

The Geneva Conventions have worked for many years in the real world...at least with honorable allies and rivals.

An agreement on an honorable code of conduct can be beneficial to both sides. I find many people in this forum to be fair and honest players, and trust that they would honor agreements made.


Ak-Manin, you are spot-on as usual.

The Geneva Conventions (mentioned in my original post on this thread) are not a peace agreement. Here is a link describing the Geneva Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions), so that forumites might better acquaint themselves with the concept I am proposing. It is a standard of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war.

This is not a declaration of peace in times of imminent war. It is a set of protocols to be adhered during wartime, predictably sounding nothing like kumbayah around a campfire. I will let Wikipedia hold hands with whomever needs further explanation of the reference. ;)

[Ak-Manin]

Sir Weezy:

Would you honor me with your hand in alliance? AK

Give me your number big guy!!

[[MoC] Ian McGrath]

I know the point of guilds is destroy one another during crusade time while scratching and clawing our way to the next big ranking. I also know there will be viciously underhanded guild strategy, as well as those who adhere to strict codes of honor and conduct.

I'm wondering if there would be any benefit to declaring no-fire pacts/truces with other guilds whose philosophy or in-game conduct mirror that of your own. For example, I think the Dragon Warrior conglomerate is great, and I suspect that our two guilds are so disparately numbered that we will never go head to head in a crusade war.

Would a so-called United Guild Nation be appropriate? Not necessarily agreeing to never attack one another during crusades, but perhaps agreeing to never go down the path of poor gamesmanship...

We may need such a thing is the disparity between gem guilds, mixed guilds, and free guilds grows.

[Sir Marcus]

I agree. We'll be competing against each other in the guild wars, but that doesn't mean we have to be complete bastards out to ruin each others fun. Everyone will enjoy the game and the guild events more if we respect each other and behave well from the get-go.

It is a lot easier to start a community with good etiquette than it is to build up good community etiquette from bad etiquette. And the whole guild experience is going to be its own new community.

[BarnOwl]

This is actually an interesting debate . How do you justify going to war? In this instance it seems we are all eyeing up the prizes. The greater the reward the greater the risk and given the fact that our motives are less than altruistic it would seem to me if Armageddon is a possibility then so be it.If this unpalatable then don't go to war .i don't think imposing 20th century morality on the dark ages is ever going to work - it is as it has been always - all about fear and greed.?????

[TempusDA]

First of all as a person I don't believe in fighting or war and prefer peace. I do believe in standing up for and defending the things that I love, and abstain from aggressive violent behavior to get what I wan't. In real life and in general.

This is a game of conquest and war where we set out to destroy monsters and battle for territory and gold. "Battle for Dragon's Roost" is a war, a conquest of kings and kingdoms.

A Geneva type convention of allied groups is intended for humanitarian support during times of wars and to agree to not participate in extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. Refraining from using cruel and in-humain weapons and tactics that bring unnecessary suffering.

A group of countries that agree to not attack each other but agree that it is ok to attack other countries not in the group is defined as allied. This is not in spirit of the Geneva convention. Geneva convention is designed as a guideline for humanitarian conduct during war, to be applied to all nations that are or are not within the alliance. It is about how we conduct ourselves during war not who we choose to attack or not attack. For example if a group of guilds got together and agreed by terms of fighting honorably. To attack without intent to decimate or unnecessarily destroy any kingdom to rubles whether they are in an alliance or not, would be a bit more towards the Geneva spirit. To help protect kingdoms unable to protect themselves from inhumane attacks and to work together to bring down a kingdom that sets out to destroy and bully smaller kingdoms, would also follow along in the spirit of the Geneva convention.

If an an alliance is formed it should be called an alliance. Traditionally alliance's are formed by smaller countries to help protect themselves during conflict against larger countries or countries to align themselves to ensure success.



During the conquest of kings it will be difficult to follow the Geneva type guidelines, we are pitted at one another and decide if we want to go to war or not. The point is to gain as many points as possible by killing units defeating Heroes and destroying walls. The more we kill and the more we destroy the more points we get. Based on the nature of it difficult to form a Geneva style conduct during wars. But in these form of wars it is not between unwilling and innocent by standers both kingdoms agree to go to war are are intent on causing as much damage and to kill as many units as possible.

What does sound good would be for an alliance of guilds that group together to refrain from less than honorable tactics out side of the war events. To stand up against individuals and Guilds that unnecessarily bully and decimate to ruin other guilds and individuals, whether they are in alliance or not. Knights of the Round Table. With great power comes great responsibility. A group of individuals or guilds that have the strength in numbers or ability to attack the players or guilds that bully beyond honor other players in the game. It would kinda make the game a bit more fun in a way. :)

If honor is in question then honor should be built into the guidelines for behavior towards all.

My 2 gold pieces :)