please go multi-guild

not exactly an option for my guild yet - we only have a couple members who've pledged here already with more to come later once they get bored enough with ESO after the new patch coming out soon, and when they change to b2p... i figure once we hit a critical mass of players jumping through the anchors to land near the rifts here, the rest will come in droves. i already plan on having a barricks-style basement for them with their own lockboxes and permissions for when they do come over, so they can either live there or get their own place once they get their feet under them.

i know 3 who specifically said they won't start playing (2 of which already pledged to ancestor or higher) until we get word that there will only be one more wipe until the game goes live.
yeah, they're a stubborn bunch - but we do live by two rules: he's doing it wrong, and you are not the boss of me.

 

ok back to point - does anyone have any other suggestions or ideas we coudl toss into the document Ghost said they'd build sometime around friday?

 

I would be sure to include management for guild leaders.. like being able to lock their guild to 1 guild membership.. possibly ban members from specific guilds from joining.. viewing the guild/group memberships of their members.. stuff like that.

 

yeah, management for all this, for guild leaders is going to be paramount if there is ANY sort of compromise between the two schools here, to be had.

 

Alliance​

​

I would consider alliances to be temporary in times of war, but there are those that combine and continue to work side-by-side ensuring that peace continues to reign in their region. If OoV is under attack and needs assistance (i doubt they will need it, but you get the point) who is going to come to their aid? Will there be a system in place where guilds can communicate (in-game?).​

 

I would also like to name-drop a few guild leaders to get in on this, since there was the talk of consensus and getting together..
Vallas
Duke Violation
Sir Stile Teckel
Duke Ezekiel Cooper BMC

this is just off the top of my head. help me out here people.

 

Don't forget Amber Raine too. from what i've heard, she has a stake in this debate as well. Winfield may wish to poke his head in as well, to say hi. Ravicus Domdred also.

it isn't just about guilds anyway, its about communications between municipalities, land owners, factions, allies, all sorts of places.

 

Definitely. This deserves attention if we're talking about consensus.

 

Definitely interested in seeing this get some traction, if such a thing is possible. Can't wait for Friday, Ghost!


I'll bring this up with the folks I know. Aside from the BMC, there's also a few POT owners I know that may want to contribute feedback to this.

 

I personally don't like the idea of Multi-Guild, I think the multi-guild idea is very 2015, you find it in a lot of games such as GW and ESO etc, but in my experience with them their individual communities in a multi guild game they are completely different to that of a single guild game.

It makes perfect sense, why would you put a lot of effort into one guild when you know you have others to play along with, why would the guild leader put a lot of effort into their guild if they know members are participating with other guilds and might value theirs less, all these are very real concerns, and I think you'd probably find people leave guilds more in multi-guild based games then they do with single as they don't feel as if they need to be loyal because they have other options, I know I did. You can relate to this by imagining someone with one job, or with one hobby such as going to a karate class, that person will be very loyal to that job or karate class and be able to make a lot of close friends, but if they have a few others jobs, or they are a part of the swimming club, the local craft club, the football club, they don't have the time, or energy to make great social connections in every club, how can you maintain a good social standing when between the clubs there may be a hundred people, so this to me is why I think multi guild doesn't work, and from my experience in games such as GW and ESO it has been terrible.

And I thought the idea of this game was to bring back a very community based game, where social value is one of the key elements, and to me going multi guild would really ruin that experience due to that stated above, I am all for being able to join another guild on another character but think im against multi guild for one.

It doesn't fit into the game realistically, I always consider if elements are realistic or not and being able to fit into a game which would work in real life, and being loyal to a few groups at the same time wouldn't work due to guild wars etc, as was stated about being able to participate with different groups... make some friends... but these are Guilds not social groups.

 

Not multi-guild. Multi-Guild Alliance, Community Alliance, and the facilitation of alliances.

 

Thanks for the feedback, Tobias!

There's merit to your concerns. It's been voiced by several folks on this thread, myself included!

One of the biggest reasons I've been able to get behind this idea is because of how it's evolved beyond needing to be attached to guilds. The observations about GW and ESO's struggle with multi-guild seems rather astute. And you're correct, this is a very community based game! For that reason, though, I think that SotA has an opportunity to make something really great of the networking opportunities given by a multi-guild or tiered community system, even where other games may have faltered. If you need any proof of that, check out the fansites that have grown from this community, and see how they all interact (frankly, that's what had me excited before I even picked up a copy of the game!)!

This is all personal opinion, of course. If you haven't already looked closely at this thread (and the others I've heard about), you should! There's some real potential here, IMO.

 

I'm no PoT Owner or Guild Leader, just Member.
I second the post of Tobias because I'm not a friend of multi-guilding and share his opinion about that.
Think I spend a lot of time ingame but I'm not able to support a bunch of guilds like I can support one.
I have friends in various guilds and I think I can group up or help easily without beeing in their guilds too.

What I really would like to see too are kind of Guild Alliances, supported by Portalarium with some tools to make it easy to communicate ingame or such.

 

Great, so there's no pressure.

In the meantime, two items:

1. Does anyone have suggestions on a good way to link .DOCs or .PDFs to the forum, in order to share the write-up? Or an alternative medium similar to Google Docs? I don't care to expose my Google accounts to a public forum.
2. For folks just joining, let me be clear: The write-up will be focused on the technical portion of the multi-group concept. Not the social challenges, which I'll leave to this thread. Further, the write-up will be a narrative storyboard intended to fit the existing Agile Development methodology. (As opposed to a more traditional Technical Specification.) I see no need to tell the Dev Team the details of how to do a job that they clearly already know.

TTFN

 

I think allowing more than one guild makes only sense.
While one may be committed to a community project manifested in one guild, he might want to be member of another guild, which focuses on whatever ingame task ... or consists from real world friends or family, or simply all own characters of all own accounts.

Loyalty is not gained with a guild tag - also in a one guild per character setting you can have spies, thieves and other people who have not the best for the guild in mind as members of the guild.

And we should not forget - in other games you can eventually agree to make another guild on another server - which is no option in SotA. And finally - do you really think that unnecessary restrictions of playstyles will make people want to play this game for a long time?

One compromise has been mentioned somewhere in this thread: Allow multiple guild memberships, but give a guild leader the option to enforce a single guild membership on entire guild or on selected members.

*Salute*
Olahorand

 

I completely understand this thinking, but with that for me comes concern.

When I joined other games such as ESO, and GW, I joined a guild at first that had a good social scene, but then I wanted another to gain info and be more tailored about crafting, then I joined a 3rd for PVP, then I left the first one as that chatter could be found elsewhere, then I left the second as a better crafting guild came along, then I left... and so on, because I felt no loyalty because it was a tiny bit of what I was after as a whole.

There is a saying that you can be a jack of all trades but a master of none, and what you find with multi guilds, is they mostly seems to specialise in one or a few areas, and this I find really disappointing.

If you have one guild, then the active members all push together and make the guild what they want it to be, they build their own connections within the guild to have regulars who PVP, craft, and quest, and knowing that you can only have one guild pushes the players to make the most of that guild. Everquest anyone? Their guilds were second to none because they were almost a family.

If we have multi guilds or alliances or whatever you wish to name it players join other guilds on the side to replace what they are missing from their original guild, INSTEAD of trying to push or make their original guild grow and develop into what they want.

And for me this enthusiasm for players to want their guild to grow, develop, and even the game to grow and develop is highly important and think this is why this game is as good as it is already because we are not looking for what already exists, we are wishing to expand, and develop game concepts into something that comes together as a greater experience at the end.

 

Here is a Quote from a previous thread from Jack Knyfe:

I quoted this because this is basically how I feel about it. I am more in favor of different labels than actually multi-guilding. I think Jack sums it up pretty well here. Town, Society, Guild (could be more than one guild at this level but not multi-guilding, but they could communicate through the various other chats listed above, or they could meet up in person in secret and do their business. One other possibility is for these guilds they could do an alliance at this level also. This could be a strong structure possibly and also maintain guild loyalty, withing a grande Umbrella. These guilds could then have their crafters be in the societies and do the role play.

 

There are some groups that are more communities that will likely cross guild lines (Poets' Circle, New Britannia Theatre Troupe, Paxlair, etc).

What if you can only belong to one guild, but there are also Organizations in game. An Organization has a member list and a tag you can display, but it can't partake in guild PvP warfare, have shared guild storage, etc.

 

@Ravicus

Thank you for the post. We appear to have a case of multiple discovery. This thread has presented many valid opinions on the spectrum of response to your quote from Jack Knyfe. It's good to know that others are considering much the same concepts.

The technical solution proposed on pg2 should enable the Dev Team to easily implement a structure that supports the concept outline in the quote. I've bowed out of the social/ethical portion, until we can write it up, and leave it to the contributors to hash out the whys and wherefores. The how is easy as pi.

 

1. if you have a website, link it there, and post the direct URL link. - or create a new google account just for this purpose, and use a google doc. in my experience with collaberation over forums as a medium, having a google doc is the best way to go, as you can also set permissions as needed.

 

tobias, thank you for your input on this. quite helpful here..

i can't, however, wrap my mind around your opinion on this because my experiences have been quite different.

when i was in single-guild games, i would jump around more until i found a fit for me. then i'd stay for a while. especially in EQ at first, till i said the heck with it and made my own. even then i knew i couldn't be everything to everyone, and catered to what i knew best at the time, which was hardcore raiding.

however, no single guild can be everything for everyone. haven't seen one, ever, that could, unless if what they are a guild for is a very limited venue in and of itself. thats the whole purpose behind multi-guilding in the first place, to fill those gaps.. because if guildA does one thing VERY well, that will inspire loyalty from people who greatly value that one thing. some will remain, others will go elsewhere for the other Things out there, probably to guildB who focuses on something else. neither is a wrong choice, just a preference.

as far as ESO. there were trade alliances because of the guild stores. i know peole who left my guild because they wanted to make as much money as possible playing one alliance off another, buying low and selling high... inevitably EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM came back to us, because we encouraged them to do what the felt was best for themselves, if it doesn't jive with our ethos, then they're free to head out if they wish. if it screams defiance against our charter, we hand them an apple, and escort them out. only did that once. extreme circumstance, as it was.

the culture in my guild is VERY open, we invite and encourage people to fill out those gaps elsewhere. it works very well for us. not saying it'll work at all for you and yours, if you do not have an open mentality like that, that values total transparency in all things.

say you go to the grocery store. and want cookies.
in the cookie aisle you have many choices. oreos chips-ahoy, milanos, mint-milanos, double-stuffed-oreos, ginger-snaps...
you aren't relegated to just ONE cookie. you can't buy only one type. if you choose only one, that is your choice to make. if you choose three, that is your choice to make. all three will make you happy, while just the one may also make you happy.
or maybe you found a new cookie you had never had before and wished to try it out - but you were afraid you wouldn't like what it has to offer, and didn't want to lose out on a delectable milano that is a tried-and-true dessert for you. what's stopping you?

tag, you are it. try and let me see your perspective. i wanna be able to, if it is even possible for me.