Tree of Savior Forum

Neutrality is a griefing tool

The new guild neutrality system is a mistake which tries to solve a non-existent problem and instead harms GvG and facilitates griefing by guilds who will abuse the system. The 3 war limit severely limits agreed-upon PvP. As you may recall from other games, PvE servers were usually more prone to passive-aggressive harassment because troublemakers could hide behind the system’s protection to avoid retaliation. In a PvP environment, they just fight it out directly and anyone who runs away is considered defeated. Similarly, some guilds in this game will take advantage of immunity to wars to be jerks without giving other players a way to retaliate.

-Guilds can place their towers in annoying locations, like on quest objectives. Other players can’t remove them anymore, and IMC doesn’t have enough staff to move them all (see shops on the Orsha statue).

-Currently, guilds who piss a lot of people off get dogpiled by other guilds, who form alliances to counter provocateurs. This is an exciting form of gameplay which brings servers together. Now guilds can avoid counterattacks by hiding behind neutrality without any cost.

-Warmongers can swap back and forth into alt guilds to kill towers and gank people without letting the opponent hit back. Alt guilds can evade the 3 war limit, but that limit may prevent counter alliances from declaring war on them.

-The 3 war limit promotes talking trash and being provocative against guilds who are already at the limit and can’t add a new war.

-The 3 war limit blocks off large scale PvP from guilds who want agreed-upon massive battles. Is this measure just an admission the game’s code has failed and they want to cut down a feature to limit server load?

We already had a way for guilds to opt out of warfare: Don’t leave a tower out. You could remove a tower quickly after using it for functions like depositing talt, and the more permanent features (which were minor enough that PvE players often questioned whether there was any reason to bother joining a guild to begin with instead of vendoring talt) served as rewards for PvP. For those who wanted to farm dilgele, alternative ideas were already suggested such as a designated safe zone within which you can pay an extra price to have a hangout which lacks PvP features.

These new changes, taken together, badly harm PvP, one of the most interesting and social aspects of a game which is struggling to keep high level players engaged, and the only “benefit” is people can get PvP rewards like a hangout and dilgele farm without participating.

7 Likes

Agreed on PvP… Like what Synapse is doing all over Telsiai? >_>There is no “Agreed upon large-scale” PvP in this game. Never was. The only “Large scale” wars are griefing tools.

1 Like

I’ve already seen agreed upon large-scale PvP happen. How can a large scale war be a griefing tool when guilds aren’t forced to keep towers out and the scale means individuals aren’t being singled out for ganking? I’m not familiar with Telsiai, so please explain in detail what Synapse is doing. Let’s use it as a case study for how these rules could affect things in practice.

Why is everyone thinking that ToS is focused on PvP… when it’s more on PvE than PvP… This is not RO where its main focus is PvP and less PvE

We dont have arena PVP and now they implement neutrality. So just boooring grind then ok.

The guilds that want “Large -scale agreed upon PvP” won’t declare themselves as Neutral. Why is this a hard thing to grasp?

2 Likes

IMO if a guild is set to neutral it should be neutral forever as a consequence of having guild benefits. This gives satisfaction to both PVE and PVP sides, no hiding if you started some war bullcrap and cannot get out of it.

1 Like

What part of this are you failing to understand? Do you see “neutral” in this sentence?

3 guilds, all at max, is 105 people. The server will crash, burn, and form a singularity if you try to go more “massive”.

I was hoping they’d implement neutrality the same time they bring in the Guild battles system in Ktos…

https://fanoftreeofsavior.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/tree-of-savior-preview-guild-vs-guild-cross-server-mode/

neutral guilds shouldn’t be able to build towers.

In a massively multiplayer game, 100 isn’t enough, so they could at least say the limit is temporary while they work on performance improvements. That’s assuming performance is the reason, which is possible but only our speculation.

100 isn’t enough? Really? X_x Have you tried how “Enjoyable” such a fight is with that many people?

It was quite a rough slideshow but still enough fun to be worth joining. hkkim himself said they’re working on improving it, which will probably take a long time, but it’s something IMC wants to do.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

16 Likes

They declared war on every tower they saw and players in that guild were camping and killing random people who were in queue / lower level queue.

  1. You’re going to make an r7 swordsman and spend how much just to put down a guild tower that can only be placed in channel 1. If they were really blocking NPCs we can just report it or just move to another channel.

  2. This is basically feeding the trolls, if you really want to war with another guild because they piss you off then ask for a formal war “oh wait even formal wars before were just a disguise to hunt people in queues and grind spots”. If they decline then just don’t bother with them.

  3. If your tower is up and is not in neutrality that means that you can readily defend yourself from enemy attack. You also have the option to just swap to your own alt guild that is also in neutrality if this is really even a thing.

  4. A player doesn’t need to know if the guild is already on their limit in war to trash talk there will always be trash talkers regardless of what you do.

  5. We will have guild battle implemented soon you can have all the mass battles you want there. If we say that all 6 guilds (say a mass war is going on) and all of them have 35 members, do you really think everyone is going to fit in a single channel? The way TOS is at the moment its not built for those kinds of events.

Half of the points you wanted to address are pointed towards those who want to be as.sholes and be immune to any kind of “punishment”. So what if I don’t join a guild? is it still the fault of neutrality because I can be an as.shat all day and not be retaliated.

War is pointless at the moment other than for the arranged ones simply for both the guilds enjoyment. Not every guild is going to set their towers to neutral so if you want to wage war ask it formally with another guild who also wants it.

7 Likes

Come on, we all loved how GvG and WoE works in RO, can’t we just implant that here haha.

Indeed, that has nothing to do with neutrality, and it’s another issue entirely. Probably introduced for performance reasons.

Anyway, neutrality is a good addition to the game. Who wants to fight can have their squabbles, and people that don’t want to partake on it can stay peaceful and retain their guild.
Guilds were never supposed to be a PvP only thing, anyway. I can’t see why someone would think so.

2 Likes

Totally agree with what you’re saying here. I’m really disappointed with this action, it pretty much makes the whole GvG system worthless.

Without any real means to GvG, no battlegrounds, and no instanced GvG implemented yet, I don’t really have much motivation to keep lvling. Might as well take a break until they implement it.

Your point about guilds pissing people off and hiding behind neutrality is 100% true. We’ve been building up to war a guild like this, as a proper means of retaliation, but it’s assured that they will just set neutral on, while continuing to piss people off in PvE.

There was nothing wrong with the tower system, as it didn’t really benefit a guild that much to leave their tower up. If you didn’t want war, it was easy to just not have a tower out.

This also, as you mentioned, removes the social PvP that exists in the game. There’s nothing social about queueing up for instanced PvP/GvG, the open world GvG was where that would happen. Now again, IMC is moving everything out of the open world and into instances, where social interaction is reserved to people complaining about how bad their team is.

Heck, a smaller group of guilds were bullied by two larger PvP guilds. And then they formed an alliance and fought them off, and we joined them too. Would we even have had a reason to talk or to come together if this hadn’t happened? People don’t understand that good things come from the difficulty of war too.

3 Likes

IMC has an arena type pvp system they didn’t bring over to the international version yet and they are also in the middle of making a type of WoE GvG system.

If you are a Templar you should be allowed to build a tower and have a hang out if you want to. Why do you care if other guilds that don’t want to go to war have a tower?

You can also do like what my guild I belong to is planning. We’re trying to organize arena type battles with another guild for practice and for fun without having to wrap up our other members that don’t want to participate or aren’t ready yet due to level difference.

You could also plan arenas or fighting contests among your own members of your guild and fight in the guild tower hall or wherever else.

This isn’t the end of pvp. It’s the end of people forcing others into pvp that do not wish to participate.

1 Like