please go multi-guild

I want to name these guilds, "the wishy washies" or "peasants for a day". Seriously what is the point of being in a guild if you can just hop around. Lets have no guilds and just be able to pick up tags randomly to who you want to associate with. I want to be a "Joe Shmoe" today, but tomorrow I want to be a "Rag Tag Ruffian".

 

Under the current system, i use the identifier for my Towns .Phoenix Republic. I also belong to MGT , and Knights of New Britannia.
I do not see any of these Guilds Warring against one another.If they do I will drop all but one.
It is not a problem at this Time.

 

So the IT guy in me keyed in on this as a potential Requirement. I think we may be hung-up in the semantics of the word "Guild". If we separate ourselves from this verbiage, by thinking of IRL clubs and associations, an elegant solution presents itself.

Essentially, that what are now Guilds be redefined as "Groups" and allowed to define their "Group Type". I'd leave it to the Dev Team to determine the type values, say a total of 3-5, since these Types may influence SotA's storytelling. For example:

• Guild
• Town
• Nation
• Faction
• and so on

Then, characters would have Group slots, with each slot being hardcoded to a specific Group Type. For titles, one could have the option to select which slot value was displayed from the Configuration or Character windows. Guild chats for each slot could be on separate tabs. The result would allow the environment to fully support some of the different types of groups that the OP suggested. Done.

Metaguilds, such as BMC, should easily be able to adapt to this environment, as they are already forming POTs and nations. Truly devoted followers could simply join every one of the Group Types offered by a Metaguild. I could see some of today's Guilds even requiring this for membership.

I appreciate, and am sympathetic to, the calls for Guild loyalty. But I believe that the argument for enhanced player communication far outweighs older, more restrictive norms. The question is how to do it in a manner that enhances the overall experience.

 

A Guild Title is NOT communication, it shows you; Belong too, are supported by and of, and LOYAL too a Unit (Guild)

 

Yes, I'm aware of that. Perhaps player select-able titles is a bridge too far.

But let's envision a Metaguild, like BMC (I'm picking on them because I saw their membership debating the subject), simply inserting their initials into their name in each Group Type. If a player was a member of each Type of Group managed by the Metaguild, wouldn't that establish their loyalty? And keep in mind, Guild Masters could easily compare rosters between Groups to enforce a loyalty policy.

All I'm suggesting is that we consider opening channels of communication, without handcuffing ourselves to being defined as only ever belonging to a single group. After all, isn't there a precedent for this in UO? The Factions system didn't interfere with Guild affiliation. The OP, and I, are simply suggesting that this precedent be taken to the next logical step in order to support POTs and Player Nations.

 

I am mainly after chat channels. If a bunch of players from different guilds are into acting, then they would want to be able to talk to each other during the performance to coordinate efforts. That is just one valid example.

 

I quoted myself here because this solution seems to fit, and will give everyone the chat channel they need and still maintian guild loyalty.

This could be if one guild does not want to completely alliance themselves with another guild, but the guild person could be theoretically involved with the other guild he wants to be in.

 

This topic has come up before - please forgive me for being lazy and not pointing to old threads, and besides, some great new points have been brought up here.

I do understand guild loyalty and for some guilds exclusion is the only way to go. Nevertheless, in RL I can be a marine AND a baptist. If you challenge my commitment to either, I have every right to be offended. I can also belong to the PTA and Boy Scouts and be serious about every one of them. My loyalty to my church does not impact my loyalty to the Boy Scouts. So, why should my loyalty to a Role Playing guild affect my loyalty to a Crafting guild?

What I would like to see is flexibility in guild management to the point where we can differentiate between recruits and members of course, but further between those who are "friends of the guild", "allies of the guild", "axillary members of the guild" and "primary members of the guild" (and probably a dozen more). None of these options prevents someone from forming a guild that requires exclusive membership. Ideally game mechanics will support such options. Something like ... if you join this guild you can be a member of up to 2 other guilds excluding Screaming Monkey Stick and Furlongs Per Fortnight. To be an officer you must have this be your primary guild and to be a high officer this must be your only guild. (and of course to be a guild leader you must have a room temperature IQ and a very thick skin)

Great discussion thread and I look forward to see what more comes out.

 

100% support a chat group for associations

 

agreed, for some it is the way to go, just like for others it is the exact opposite of the way to go. whichever makes them stronger, in my opinion, based on THEIR definition of 'stronger'.

completely agree with this. there must be a way for the communication to flow, for those that need it. for the exclusionists, let them isolate themselves and demand complete loyalty to their single cause. hey, its what works for them.

correct. a guild title is just a way to say "i'm representing this guild, while doing this activity" - some people like to do many activities with like-minded people. sometimes, those groups focus on that, and there are other groups you too can connect with, to do a seperate activity. you should by all means represent THAT second guild while performing THEIR activities. both actions for both guilds, show loyalty to both without detracting from either.

i understand your motivations there, licemeat. ask yourself this, if you ran a guild could you be all things to all members at all times? or would your time be better spent focusing on your primary interest and intent for having the guild in the first place, allowing the members to off and do different things that are not of your interests in the first place, keeping them happy? that, in my opinion inspires loyalty, so you do not have to enforce it.

saved this one for last, it is going to take some 'splainin...

the point? loyalty. friendship, camaraderie. fun. here is a link to my guilds charter. as you notice, we value individuality and maturity and respect for each other. we have players who love hardcore pvp with a passion, however we are a fairly casual guild. if they want to join another guild that can cater to their hardcore raiding or pvp desires. great! maybe when they come back to hang out, they can teach us some of the more advanced techniques they learned, or just hang out and chat amongst equals.

we've had members express a desire to go elsewhere, but did not wish to leave the guild, for fear that where they chose to go they would not feel welcome or..well...honestly for any number of reasons. - 90% of those members who have left, have come back in time. they know they have a home here, and they know they'd be welcomed warmly when they do return. - day, week, month, year later.. whatever, they're family, of course we'll welcome them home.

it is of our experience, that having this environment, inspires a stronger sense of loyalty than any requirement or demand for it. if anything, a demand for loyalty will receive it grudgingly, and that does not create a lasting foundation for survival. i do not know that many people who have survived as a member of a guild, happily, that required such things, nor have i known that many guilds to have survived either. - note that i am excluding hardcore raiding and hardcore pvp guilds - those are militaristic in nature and that rigidity is required for it to function effectively. those are honestly, the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

Oh I understand your point. I am in the camp however of doing it a bit different. This has been discussed many times in previous threads and has been hashed over before. I am not against people doing different things. I would like to have a, lets call it, a "unit" that is a core though. Maybe we should brand a new labeling system because myself, and many others find it hared to digest disloyalty to a guild. In the past guilds have worked to strive for things, for goals. They have set tasks and duties for things to be accomplished and such. In the kickstart for Sota and maybe for a bit afterwords, Chris has talked about how guilds can work toward guild housing and even guild castles, but it takes a great effort to get these and it will be a competition to get them before another claims one for the town. There are things in the works that a system that you propose might hinder, I am not against what you say, really. But I am for specific named guilds to be solo and not be able to multi guild. I would however like to make different associations or what not. Town associations, crafting associations, and what not. Or replace the term guild with maybe with another tag, like "Army" or "clan" or something and use guild for all the other types of crafting and roleplaying and such. But there needs to be one group that has solo membership. I hope you understand what I am saying.

 

I agree with the OP. There are good reasons why guilds have required solitary membership in the past. However, as a 25+ year gaming veteran I think MMOs have outgrown that social model. It stifles creativity. No guild can be all things to all people. So why not allow someone to have a membership in an adventuring guild, but also a social networking guild, and a theatrical guild, and a secret society guild....all that specialize....and all at the same time. Guilds that worry about lack of participation from members being distracted perhaps just need to work harder at being the team that a member wants to participate with.

 

I guess it is ok and individual guilds can specify if they allow multi guilding and what not. For me I think I would want a dedicated few spending there time working for the benefit of the guild, instead of somewhere else when they are needed. I can see both sides. I would hate to have to be defending a guild castle and you call for your guildmates to come help and they reply back that they are busy doing something else. That is just my opinion though and to each there own. There are perks on both sides I guess.

 

Filthy Peasant,

i certainly do understand what you are saying, and i applaud it in fact. there should always be a way for a community, association, guild, group, clan...whatever you want to call it really, to be all-or-nothing with its membership requirements. especially those that wish to participate in guild vs guild wars that are to come. - maybe those that allow for multiguilding, can also set rights individual players to set alliances to specific guilds that ARE participating in those systems - of course with leadership of the other guilds having final say if they wish to allow 'freelancers' to sometimes join their ranks. that would bolster the ranks for those wars, allow for espionage, as well as simply bringing more people together for the ultimate goal of this game: having a positive gaming experience for as many people as possible.

as far as the re-branding of guild clan association, society, or whatever - I'm all for it. i don't think there should ever be a 'one way or the highway' approach to this type thing, it is the diversity of our opinions and personal standards that make this community even possible in the first place.

heck, I'd love to see a leadership structure that fits my guilds needs: we have at any given time, somewhere between 5 and 7 leaders (the council), who handle the top-level strategic issues, and whichever operational issues that are not handled by those below us. - then we have two types of officers. those that are just awesome people (exemplars), and those that are just awesome people who also asked for more responsibility (Thanes)..we give them whichever operational controls we can, so we focus on the top-level stuff, and can still have fun in-game too.

as I've said before - whatever works for us, works for us. certainly may not work for others, and I'd hate to see this method forced on everyone's institutions. Bad Times would ensue very quickly for some.

 

haha very good point there about defending the keep and they go "nope, busy" - kind of reminds me of the movie Idiocracy when the main character crashes through the wall of some dudes house..
sorry, back to point here: in the less militaristic (usually casual) guilds, that would be less of an issue anyway if you are multi-guilding.. in fact it may even be a boon to have multi-guilding.

here's an example:
i specialized as a high-damage mage-ish in ESO. was a member of the guild i founded, the moot, casual folks just tabbling in many things. but also a member of another guild that required certain builds for their pvp - they were all mages. all of them. just think of the mass-destruction that could be made there. ack, back to point again sorry: so the moot was out trying to claim a keep, to teach some guildies a new tactic i learned - and we get overrun by a hoard of an opposing faction.. very ragtag bunch and just so many of them.

i hop onto the channel for my mage guild and call out the batsignal. let them know that my casual guild just got ambushed and is in dire need of help. within 2 minutes, 350 mages just storm the castle and just come to help out. - after that, we all had a party in the keep.. our guild consummate crafters that we are, got quite a few orders for special equipment sets during the party and gave a hefty discount in thanks for saving our butts.

not to mention..half of my guild just DIED laughing on teamspeak when a tidal wave of mages come though, lightening a-cracking, fire wheels a rollin, atronochs running rampant, and i start playing flight of the valkries over the air. they all joined the other guild for fun and antics too!

in my opinion, that is the pinnacle of loyalty all-round.

 

If I ran a guild I couldn't be all things to all members at all times. However, I can make a hierarchy of officers that can try and fulfill those roles. Every guild I've been in seems to basically be broken down into about 3-7 smaller groups with fairly different interest that usually play together. When needed they can collectively work together to get larger goals accomplished and overall be self sufficient. I like to see a guild name and instantly know what kind of people I'm dealing with. If you saw 30 dudes with blue bandanas, actin' all gansta... would you walk right through the middle of them the same way you might walk through the middle of 30 dudes with peace banners? I feel the name should represent who you are. Like I said though, I'm not against mixing of guilds and don't really care if people do it. I won't because it seems like one must set a pecking order with loyalty within those guilds. That's grounds for drama and fracturing guild worth. IMO.

 

This makes me smile Good times!

Now upon research I have come to the conclusion that maybe there should be a faction underneath guilds. Here me out please. I googled the definition of guilds and have placed it below. Now if we have guilds as what you say they are, such as merchant guilds, crafting guilds, and role play guilds, these should be the top of the food chain and everyone can be included in them. But beneath them we could have our (synonyms listed below) "armys". Now our armies could be specific to towns or just to the types of guilds and a player might have to choose loyalty to what ever pvp army they want to be in, and hopefully you cannot join more than one, for lack of a better word until decided on the term, "army". This would allow everyone to be inclusive from the top down and not the bottom up. Just an idea and it needs great revision I am sure so tell me what you think. Here is the definition of "Guild", and the synonyms of "army" :



guild

1. An association of persons of the same trade or pursuits, formed to protect mutual interests and maintain standards.
2. A similar association, as of merchants or artisans, in medieval times.
3. A group of species in a community that use similar environmental resources in a similar way, such as a group of songbirds that all glean insects from leaves.

Synonyms of Army:

array, battalion, host, legion, militia, national guard, standing army; infantry, ranks, regulars, soldiers, troopers, troops

 

i personally don't' think they've/we've completely outgrown that older social model, but i do believe they are greatly expanding on it as a wonderful baseline and foundation. i'm hoping a game like this will be able to expand it further and help evolve gaming to an even greater social level, without impeding on the rest of the fun we all like to have here...like slapping each other with live fish for fun and profit.

 

If we have a regional market and trade, I would assume every town will be somewhat of a hub. It would make sense for the crafters to be in guilds, and the warriors defend the crafters and the town. It is kind of the basis for SotA in a sense. The towns will be under siege at times, and would need protection. The crafters would employ warriors (in a role play sense) so they would be some what of a boss to the warriors. Hence the hierarchy i probably dismally described above. I know there will be "armies" (guilds that will not want to do this stuff) that would not want to follow this storyline but it could work in the sense that at a social level people could be in different crafting role playing guilds and when war came they could be called to protect. Its way out there but I might be on to something that can be manipulated into something worthwhile with a little more thought.

*edit
This would also empower crafting guilds to employ people to gather in dangerous areas. (pve focused and not worried about warring guilds really, but can go into pvp zones to try to gather)

 

YES YES YES! now this i can get around. having a militia for port phoenix, that has an alliance with sawtooth hollow and can come to their aid against oh say those evil minions in..uh..paxlair! yeah, those barstools. *cough*

technical side of that:
kazyn phoenixfyre would have to "authorize" the creation of that chat channel, and assign someone to run it. as the leader of port phoenix he should have final say on at least that much, with a defacto veto-power on some rights/permissions settings. honestly, that and a faction system between similar groups where the leaders create said alliance, would be "all that's needed" - it could be fairly basic at first, to facilitate the selective-pvp for this, then expand further with possible barracks that only militia members can enter, etc based on a permissions system that the PoT owner sets up on the plot of land.

just thinking out loud here:
i'm leader of the elder moot, - a guild.
a citizen of port phoenix, a town, maybe just announcements from the PoT owner and designated others.
a member of its militia, needed for faction and localized militia chatter only
somewhere low in the leadership of the phoenix republic, needed for private communications at top-level.
and possibly later on time permitting, maybe even a DJ on avatars radio. -needed for "guild" title while on-air.

that's five for me, max. at least one of those would need only a chat channel, another an alliance channel with faction loyalties, another i'd represent when i'm on-air only, and my home guild. so i certainly wouldn't need a full-fledged guild configuration for them all.

---

would anyone need more than five?
I've seen multiple games go as high as that, but they only had full-fledged guilds. i haven't seen anyone go higher than that, but recently it seems multi-guild is the way to go on this..

always thought it was kinda clunky though - maybe separating it like this only allowing one trade alliance, for example..

but who would police these association types and confirm if they are in fact under that guise and not bending the "rules" to have access to multiple of the same restricted organization limits?