please go multi-guild

Exactly, this could work great. Then people that wanted to join various other "towns" for trade and what not could multi guild on that level, and not worry about the pvp part. The pvp would be at a lower level and more secure.

 

oh, someone mentioned secret societies - i'd love to see one that REQUIRED them to not ever represent that association on name tags - maybe even a setting the leader could set to simply turn them off entirely.

or for avatars radio, you can represent it, but you can also have an *ON AIR* tag of sorts glowing in red, like you see in radio studios..

 

Customised chat channels seem like a great idea, but multi-guild membership would actually completely ruin the entire experience for me as it is what i focus on in any game i play. It would likely upset me to the point of regretting my purchase and i have not said that about anything else that i disagree with.

 

Just to throw my perspective in as a guild leader.

We are an order of knights. As such we adhere to a code of conduct appropriate for knights of the realm. So when you join you are agreeing to adhere to that conduct. So long as you do that, it doesn't matter what other affiliations you may have. You would be representing us well by being out in the world and conducting yourself as in a 'knightly' manner. So long as other guild memberships do not require you to break that code it's all good.

If you want to advance within the guild.. you need to participate.

All in all it's pretty simple.

As been pointed out.. in RL we may have any number of groups we are in and we can be equally dedicated to them all.. and I'm happy to have quality members who are out in the world representing us who are also within other guilds.

I am a firm believer that guilds should be responsible for their own policies and policing themselves. In a previous discussion on the matter I suggested that guild leaders be able to see the memberships of their members and also being able to 'lock' your own guild to enforce a single membership policy is also a worthwhile idea.. but I see no reason for the game itself to universally enforce single guild membership.

In the case of a guild war.. you could perhaps not let guilds declare war while there are shared members.

 

Wow. In the last day, this thread has achieved that rarest of things found on a gaming forum.

Consensus​

And now it's progressing even further into brainstorming. This is why I love this community and I tip my cowl to all those that participated or read along.

So, that suggests that we find a way to progress the conversation further: by escalating the thread to the Dev Team. Are there any suggestions or processes for doing this?

 

We actually do that in one form or another. On more contentious issues either one side gets tired of arguing or someone ends up making things personal. Fortunately, that does not happen too often. Anyway, consensus does not mean it will go in game.

 

Well in theory.. someone could put together a design doc on addressing how a multi-guild system would function and offer ideas about any technical concerns that might come up.

It's rare but it's not unheard of for someone to send a doc in to the team. However, don't expect direct feedback.

Or you can trust someone on the team is going to read the thread sooner or later.

Someone can also make sure to bring it up during a live chat. That might get a more immediate response.

 

Yes, i suggest not being so hasty in declaring consensus lol

 

At the risk of breaching the consensus that I just wrote of, could you be ok with other non-guild communities, such as town militias? Or nations? Again, the "group type" concept discussed on the previous page may be the compromise we seek.

EDIT: We were writing simultaneously.

 

what precisely would piss you off so much about it?
the ability to have it at all for you, or the ability for ANYONE to have it?

what if by default it isn't turned on for the player, and you have to do something to enable it, like a mini-quest or something, then the option is in your settings panel or something?


i'd also love to know WHY it would potentially upset you so much that you think it may destroy your ENTIRE gaming experience, in a game that is socially based in the first place? no joke, no patronizing there, i just can't wrap my mind around that severe of a negative reaction to it, and want to be able to (hopefully) see it from your perspective.

is it because thats how you were "brought up" in gaming, single guilds? have you had specific situations crop up that just turned you completely off of the idea? have you given it an honest chance to see if it COULD work for you? are you so against it, that just the thought of it being an option disgusts you from the other aspects? how, if at all, could it be made palatable for you to remain in the game with us, if it were to be implemented?

just waxing philosophical tonight - but please, indulge me!

and before i forget - thanks for the opinion, themo. means a lot to get all sides on this type of topic, instead of just a one-sided conversation, no balance without it.

 

I agree with the suggestion of a tiered system yes, with guilds forming into a parent group like an alliance or nation.

 

I can. I do this at work on a regular basis. But it'll take eme a couple of days, due to IRL deadlines.

If I did write something up, I'd be glad to run it by the participants of this thread for feedback.

 

Before anything like that, i'd love to hear themo's response to my questions, so we can have a solid understanding of both sides here, and possibly come to a proper consensus and compromise based on the entirety of the subject at hand.

 

I will do my best to explain my feelings on the subject ,though i find it hard to put into words.
Decades ago guilds and clans had a very different feel to them than they do now in what i like to refer to as post-WoW. They were online families with very close bonds formed by its members and things like loyalty and trust valued very highly. Games were played as a community and not as an individual, even in situations where almost no guild support was implemented into the games. In the case of our online group, which has stayed in contact for 20 years or so now, members even moved countries to live near or even marry each other. We could share resources and information with no fears of betrayal. People that switched guilds often for personal gain quickly become widely known as untrustworthy and found it hard to ever regain that trust. We were more than guild-mates, we were (and still are) friends and family. I guess i just saw potential in recreating that here with all the advertising of "back to roots RPG experience " which is why i am so passionate about contributing and spreading the SotA word to all who will listen. I want to see a return of guilds that actually hold more meaning than bragging rights and a label.

 

If you do write something up I think it needs to focus on the technical rather than making an argument. How should it work.. or not work.. if any issues come to mind.. how would those be dealt with? ie guild wars..

Well.. I guess if you do it at work all the time you probably don't need lecturing. Will be happy to give feedback.

 

I think this has everything to do with the people in a guild.. and just as importantly the guild leadership and not necessarily anything beyond that.

A guild's leadership sets the tone for the guild and after that, that guild attracts a certain type of person and to me, that sounds like exactly what you experienced. Good people, setting up a good guild that attracted good people. You have certain standards you want to see in any guild you're in. That isn't something that can controlled with game mechanics but by setting those standards for a guild or community and sticking to them.

 

Thermo, I couldn't agree with your sentiment more. Which is why the "Group Type" concept seemed an elegant compromise. (I happen to run into a LOT if similar issues at work, and this approach solve most of them.)

I want, hell I need guilds to remain the close knit communities that they best represent. I think we (mostly) agree that the community is evolving, and so I'd like voices like ours to evolve it the right way. A tiered approach might be that. It might not. (The Factions system was abused by folks flipping guild or running multiple characters.)

That said, let's write up a doc that makes sense. Again, I can't focus on that till Friday. But I feel I owe it to you at this point.

Yep. Gotcha. And don't sweat it. I'm not your average ghost.

 

Perhaps yes, i still feel that multiple guild tags severely detract from their value though. But as i said, i do think the tiered system is a great idea.

 

you played guild wars 2?
they only let you "represent" one guild at a time, so you only have the one tag under your name. - or none if you choose not to.
but they also let you be in five guilds if you choose to. works great in my opinion. was in a faction vs faction pvp guild, a crafting guild, a raiding guild, a dungeon run guild, and my home guild, there. each time i did something with each guild i represented it. - i think it was a good system but also lacking some depth.. and this is where i think we can all do wonders together to hopefully evolve the system in a way that just makes sense and is fluid.

i know the feeling oh so well, man. i think it is why i've founded so many different configurations of guilds, to see if that bedrock and foundation can be created, ever again. it is something i miss dearly. for me, the turning point wasn't wow, but was EQ1 with Club Fu, on bristlebane...the cookie-cutter-ness of it was a first for me, and opened my eyes to the way things were morphing, in my opinion for the worse.

i think I've hit on a good thing with my current guild though. we may be fairly new, but we've done all of that you spoke of already. and we all genuinely enjoy each others friendship. i don't see us going anywhere near the way of the dodo for years to come.

what we did was created a flat structure for leadership, we're equals. we do the top-level administrative duties and do everything we possibly can to not infringe on the play styles of our members, ourselves included. basically, follow Wheatens Rule, and we'll all get along. - we also have decided because we have such a great core of awesomeness together, that we encourage people to go and have fun with other guilds. more often than not, they come back, and bring friends with them.
at the same time, we don't advertise, we're fairly selective in the vetting process, and most of our recruitment is done on the personal level - player to player based on getting to know the applicant first.

oddly, all of that is very inclusive, except the encouragement to enjoy other guilds too, but it seems to work fairly well together and instills a very strong level of loyalty where we KNOW this is our home even if we frequent other specialized guilds for other events. in fact, the sense of loyalty we have for each other, is the strongest I've ever seen in any guild I've been a part of, and is something i am immensely proud of.

he themo, based on our conversation here alone, i think you'd be mootly material. wanna join my guild?

 

Heh wheatons rule is our only guild rule so far. Also it seems our guilds have a very similar structure, though i have enacted an open door policy pre-release to try and lend a positive experience to as many new players as possible.