Goblin Squad Member
|
Please allow a single character to be an active member simultaneously in a large number of guilds. This will allow the player base to naturally form hierarchies and very large, loose organizations.
Also, please allow each guild to create and distribute it's own money in whatever way that guild leadership sees fit, and which can be accepted by any other guild that chooses to accept it. This will give guild leaders a very powerful tool to reward guild members and allow them to "buy" not only items but access to higher membership ranks as well. In fact, it would be really nice if you could allow each guild to create several denominations of guild money, that are not necessarily related. If it's easier, you can think of this in terms of "Guild Points" instead of "Guild Money".
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I love the idea of 'guild script', but only if a guild can buy and sell that script for coinage as well as merchandise/resources.
People who hold it do run the risk of the guild going bankrupt, and leaving them with paper valuable only to collectors.
I like the idea of counterfeiting said script being possible, but I can't figure out any way to make counterfeiting possible without it making the script worthless; the primary deterrent in reality is the threat of imprisonment, or in some cases execution, but I don't think that deleting a character for being the second-best counterfeiter is appropriate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The 'guild script' needs to be totally fiat money, and totally managed by the guild leadership.
A friend and co-worker tells me there will likely be a lot of resistance to talking about this as money, and it's really just DKP, or Guild Points. That's probably true, but I'm a true-believer in markets, so I call it money :)
The whole point is to give the guild leadership ways to create incentive structures that are based on in-game activity that they don't have to micromanage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Please allow a single character to be an active member simultaneously in a large number of guilds. This will allow the player base to naturally form hierarchies and very large, loose organizations.
My experience is that while this sounds interesting, in practice it will not be acceptable to a wide range of organizations. Guilds want commitment from their members. They want them to focus on the Guild to the exclusion of other activities. Many guilds do not even permit their members to have alt characters.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If it can be exchanged for goods and/or services, it is money. I would like it to be handled in-game, rather than having to have a guild officer go to the guild website and log each transaction as it comes; far simpler to have a guild accountant set the rates for buying and selling, or approve a buy or sell request from within the in-game guild interface.
If it is already handled in-game, why not allow transactions between unaffiliated players? If a mining guild has promised that their script will always be redeemable for ore at the mines (either at a fixed rate or at a floating rate), that script goes from fiat currency to a backed currency. Other players can then use a backed currency as a medium of exchange- and if the rates and volume is high enough, a merchant will start offering to buy that script for gold in town, exchange the script for ore at the mine, transport the ore back to town and sell the ore for gold at a greater profit.
It does require that merchants who wish to engage in such trade keep track of the various guild scripts, their value, and the creditworthiness of each guild. A guild which took advantage of that system by printing loads of script and unloading it before the market adjusted would make a quick buck, but would be utterly annihilated once the merchants collectively announced that whoever did damage to the rogue traders would be given favorable rates on all products, in proportion to the damage documented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope that Ryan's comment is only with respect to a single character belonging to multiple guilds, and not to the Guild Money idea :)
But I have to ask, Ryan, is there room for non-Guild associations which are functionally equivalent to guilds, but where a character can only be in one "Guild"?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
My experience is that while this sounds interesting, in practice it will not be acceptable to a wide range of organizations. Guilds want commitment from their members. They want them to focus on the Guild to the exclusion of other activities. Many guilds do not even permit their members to have alt characters.Please allow a single character to be an active member simultaneously in a large number of guilds. This will allow the player base to naturally form hierarchies and very large, loose organizations.
There will also be a lot of guilds that don't demand exclusive membership. Churches and trade organizations won't need or expect the same level of dedication from all of their members as those guilds which demand that members have only one character.
Please, let the guilds determine what the qualifications for entry are, not the middleware vendor...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope that Ryan's comment is only with respect to a single character belonging to multiple guilds, and not to the Guild Money idea :)
But I have to ask, Ryan, is there room for non-Guild associations which are functionally equivalent to guilds, but where a character can only be in one "Guild"?
Seconded there, I'd also be interested in Ryan's opinion on the possibility of guilds possibly having multiple tiers, or the ability for guilds to combine to form alliances or other things of that nature (possibly with an alliance channel or something of that nature).
And yeah as Nihimon was asking, what about things like orders of bounty hunters, followers of X deity, economists etc... Things that in theory should not contradict a guilds goals, but grant other goals and responsibilities to characters separate from their guild.
Please allow a single character to be an active member simultaneously in a large number of guilds. This will allow the player base to naturally form hierarchies and very large, loose organizations.
My experience is that while this sounds interesting, in practice it will not be acceptable to a wide range of organizations. Guilds want commitment from their members. They want them to focus on the Guild to the exclusion of other activities. Many guilds do not even permit their members to have alt characters.
Second to the idea of multiple guilds. Let the guilds themselves decide how they want to organize themselves, and get away from a guild just being another chat channel.
To that end, I'd also like my character to be able to hide his guild affiliations. I don't really want to walk around with a sign above my head saying I'm part of the Robber Barons. How am I going to get hired as a caravan guard like that? ;)
It would also promote more conspiracies and fourth-column type activities. Sure, I could do this outside of a formal game structure - but I'd like the game social structure to mimic what it is that we as players have formed. And that is liable to be much more complex than just a tag by my name.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope that Ryan's comment is only with respect to a single character belonging to multiple guilds, and not to the Guild Money idea :)
But I have to ask, Ryan, is there room for non-Guild associations which are functionally equivalent to guilds, but where a character can only be in one "Guild"?
From reading the latest blog post, it seems that there is a framework for something of this sort.
Chartered Companies are in essense a group of players with similar goals. More like a club than a guild
A Settlement Charter seems like a larger commitment and would be a 1/player thing, more like a guild.
Then you have Kingdoms that are akin to an Alliance you would see in some MMO's.
Pulled from LFG! (Looking for Group!)"These parties can become chartered companies. Each member agrees to certain terms and obligations as set forth in their charter, and the group as a whole gains some benefits, like shared storage, private communication channels, and the ability to share information about locations on the world map."
...
"You'll have to create a settlement charter, and that charter must be signed by a fairly large number of characters who pledge their support and loyalty to the new settlement."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Valkenr, actually Ryan answered very clearly that he sees Chartered Companies as essentially the same thing that Guilds are in other games.
As for Settlements, I agree it sounds like there will be a core group of players that sign the Settlement Charter, but I'm not sure it's clear that they'll only be able to sign one. In fact, I'm holding out hope that we'll be able to, with the Settlement's permission, construct buildings in multiple Settlements. This could support Mercantile Organizations, Religions, or even function as Embassies.
And, even though Ryan seemed to be trying to let me down gently, I am going to hold out hope that there will be formally structured Associations that can include an arbitrary number of Characters, Chartered Companies, and other Associations.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think that characters should belong to only one settlement, but that organizations should be able to have buildings in multiple settlements, under the conditions defined by the settlement.
A character should certainly be able to be a member of a chartered company (or companies?) and a settlement, but he can only homestead in one place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree, I am all for allowing players to organize themselves...build us the tools and let us do with them as we will. The more opportunities we have to use our imagination and creativity, the more of a sandbox the game truly will be. The more opportunities we have to do something original, the more connected to what we do we will feel.
If exclusiveness is required in an association idea (such as a guild), just allow us to select that this is the case on the guild UI. But, I guarantee you once the guilds have to decide between not having any decent crafters and opening up their guild to cross associations to their crafters can also be part of a trade guild...or, not allowing clerics because their clerics cannot also be members of their church...well, I don't think you will not have near as many guilds that want to be exclusive as you think.
I suggest some sort of investigation (or gather information) skill. Use of this skill allows the ability to "see" more character information than is normally available...such as associations. This could be used to weed out moles and spies...just like in RL. This alone (based on your logical claim about guilds wanting to be exclusive) would make a person who even just specializes in this in demand for any level of associations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do agree with you Valkenr.
On the other hand, if I own a town and an individual or chartered group wants to "rent" a building...as long as they pay their bills, I would not really care if they have another home or not...in my town or another. Of course, I would prefer to fill my town with my people.
I really hope they leave this open to the players too...If my guild wants to buy a small house to start with...and this house is all of our home...where we keep our belongings. Allow us to do so.
Two things (deep breath)...
First, I would like to see charter companies, guilds, settlements, kingdoms handled through a core Leadership skill. The more you train in the skill, the more people you can group with at once. Also, the skill could be used as a prerequisite to founding your own guild. This, in turn, leads to skills that allow you to found your own settlement, and ultimately takes you into skills that allow you to found your own kingdom.
Second, why not have community housing, like an inn, where players can "live." Honestly, the logistics of individual player houses would be a nightmare. However, maybe guilds could "rent" space in town or use a permanent area (former monster lair) in a hex as their base of operation. Player's could certainly "crash" at their guild hall or what-have-you. Perhaps it is from this base of operation that a new player settlement will arise?
Just a thought.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Two things (deep breath)...
First, I would like to see charter companies, guilds, settlements, kingdoms handled through a core Leadership skill. The more you train in the skill, the more people you can group with at once. Also, the skill could be used as a prerequisite to founding your own guild. This, in turn, leads to skills that allow you to found your own settlement, and ultimately takes you into skills that allow you to found your own kingdom.
I disagree with this part. Party size should be uncapped and unlocked for everyone. The game should never limit players ability to play with eachother. Having a leadership skill means that someone would have to take time out of progressing their archetype to train leadership, and either everyone has to do it, or the success of grouping is determined by a certain player being online. If you ever run into a skill that everyone would be stupid not to train, it should be automatic, or exceptionally fast to train(all training for the skill in 24 hours).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Pheoran Armiez, it's never going to fly to require a certain Skill in order to found a Chartered Company because people are going to demand to be able to form their company the instant they log in to the game.
However, I think a Leadership skill that grants certain benefits to leading groups is a great thing. I doubt I'll see it in PFO, but I always thought it would be better to have group hierarchies instead of the flat groups we usually see. Basically, each group leader could be a member in another group, so that you might have a dozen levels down from the absolute top leader. I've personally been involved in truly massive events in Rift, and I think it would have made things a lot simpler to manage.=
(In case there's someone who is trying to read this like a demonic lawyer - Yes, I realize that Skills won't "grant" any direct benefits. It's just easier to write it that way rather than having to spell out every minute detail.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Pheoran Armiez, it's never going to fly to require a certain Skill in order to found a Chartered Company because people are going to demand to be able to form their company the instant they log in to the game.
Actually I'm not sure about that one, many many games have gotten by just fine with fairly high requirements to found a guild. Quite a few games put in either a level requirement, or a reasonably noticable money requirement.
The debatable part however is it being a skill, considering if a group of friends starts at the same time, and lets say it takes 24 hours to get the skill to found a guild, that means the leader is actually going to be a day weaker than his followers, then say you need more levels in leadership as time goes on, say he needs to raise it for another week to found a town, and then a month to create a kingdom... and longterm the position of king results in being the weakest of your group.
The nice thing about money/resources as a requirement, is that is something very easilly for a group to pool so that no one person is far ahead or behind the rest.
@Pheoran Armiez, it's never going to fly to require a certain Skill in order to found a Chartered Company because people are going to demand to be able to form their company the instant they log in to the game.
Actually I'm not sure about that one, many many games have gotten by just fine with fairly high requirements to found a guild. Quite a few games put in either a level requirement, or a reasonably noticable money requirement.
The debatable part however is it being a skill, considering if a group of friends starts at the same time, and lets say it takes 24 hours to get the skill to found a guild, that means the leader is actually going to be a day weaker than his followers, then say you need more levels in leadership as time goes on, say he needs to raise it for another week to found a town, and then a month to create a kingdom... and longterm the position of king results in being the weakest of your group.
The nice thing about money/resources as a requirement, is that is something very easilly for a group to pool so that no one person is far ahead or behind the rest.
I was mostly going off of how things are run in EVE Online. You have a Leadership skill, and if you train in the first rank (typically 6-12 minutes), you can "lead" a group of up to 5 others. Now, that entire skill line also powers party buffs, corporations (guilds), and player owned stations (settlements). For a leadership oriented character (say a bard), it wouldn't "weaken" their character's effectiveness to train the Leadership skill. In fact, it would be a natural extension of their class features, and make them more desirable to partner with.
Now, if a fighter decides they want to train up Leadership, I'm sure they can without drastically affecting their playability. Granted, they might not be EXACTLY the same as a fighter who, say, trained only in armor and weapon skills, but he could still stand toe to toe with said fighter.
From what I understand about the system, the biggest difference between someone who is 2 months in compared to someone 2 years in is flexibility, not overall power. If a fighter wants to have the flexibility to boost his party, how is that making him weaker?
My experience is that while this sounds interesting, in practice it will not be acceptable to a wide range of organizations. Guilds want commitment from their members. They want them to focus on the Guild to the exclusion of other activities. Many guilds do not even permit their members to have alt characters.
I have to say that I agree with Ryan on this one. Most of the time multi-guilding in the MMOs that I have played has been severely frowned upon. If it is a feature that will be frowned upon by the majority then I would them focus their efforts elsewhere. Especially in Pathfinder Online were you settlement is your home, I just cannot see it logistically working out. Now that said, a system of guild points would be very nice!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer a system that allows a Dwarven bladesmith residing in Smalltown to belong to the Dwarven Expatriate League and The Smiths Guild, while being a resident of Smalltown. He also is in a guild/group that represents his church and secretly belongs to one of the Thieves' Guilds as a fence.
Real people have such association circles in society. If some guild wants to require that members will exclusively belong to and play within one organization, that's fine. Let the players decide, though. If it is set up so that players can only belong to one guild, we might miss out on a lot of possible richness and diversity in roleplaying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally agree, Urman. But I'm also 100% on board with GW doing this as cost-effectively as possible.
It'd be nice to have associations that could contain an arbitrary number of characters and/or other associations, with no limit on hierarchical depth. It's not more important than making a stable, fun game :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It'd be nice to have associations that could contain an arbitrary number of characters and/or other associations, with no limit on hierarchical depth.
I wasn't sure if my example was confusing; I was suggesting one character belonging to 5 different guilds/associations, no nesting of guilds. I played A Tale in the Desert several years back - players could belong to a large number of guilds, though the cost of founding each guild increased exponentially with the (max) number of members.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If possible I would like to see charters be able to assign themselves a more thorough type. For instance I think it could make both sides happy (not multiguilding but also multiguilding) by allowing a character to be in multiple types.
Type Ideas:
+ Guilds: Official organization of like minded individuals. Traditional guilds. Limit 1. Loyalty based on brotherhood.
+ Trade Associations: Groups dedicated to their craft and the growth and progression there of. Limit debatable. The forgers guild would strike me as a trade association. Loyalty based on improved relations in trade.
+ Co-operative: This one is optional really. This is a group who has concluded they do not want to be a full fledged guild but plan to raise a settlement. This seems more likely for people who want a common home but who are not necessarily loyal to each other. Say if the outlaws form a town.
Feel free to add new types, adjust, critique, yada yada. Tried to make everyone happy and it makes sense in my mind. The tricky part is where things cross lines. Is the Assassins guild a guild or a trade association for death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Assassins guilds could be either, depending on how it is founded.
Some assassins might belong to either a death cult or be subordinate to a feudal/family structure. Those are exclusive - people who join one cannot join another organization that requires total commitment.
Other assassins might have a looser structure, an association. Say, a 3-5 agents in each city. Contacts take and forward contracts, but each assassin is on his own.
I think the idea of a co-operative guild is interesting. When an exclusive guild, "The Brotherhood of Iron", decides to capitalize on their PvE successes and build a bunker, they might want it done a bit faster than they can with their own labor. With a co-op ability, they can bring in characters from the resource and construction trades, maybe even other guilds?
Why not just make it player run guilds/factions/settlements (limit 1) and you can be associated with any number of NPC associations? Maybe NPC associations (like temples) can give you quests (like in EVE). As you do stuff for one association, you gain rep and can get stuff from them, but another association might put you on their hit list.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course, we can always organize out of game if we want, for instance to create a crafting organization. This is essentially what we are doing with our library. We want it to be a community effort, so we are allowing members of any charter (or none) to apply to be a scribe; giving them write access to our out of game wiki. This wiki would be so much better as a virtual library in game that anyone could contribute books to (that is what we would prefer), but...
I could definitely see a charter independent crafting guild form and be run in a similar way...especially if crafting is as full, complex, and layered as many of us hope. Or...even new churches, philosophical, or other goal oriented organizations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*Casting Revive Thread
I was hoping to see if there has been any change on this notion of being part of multiple guilds. I am hoping to start a small company that is mostly a financial endeavor, and the 'member's are merely just a listing of clients who are on active status - I want to use the charter system because of the ability to create multiple bank accounts with different limits in order to control influx and payout of funds. I won't be able to do that if I can only join one group.
Having played Guild Wars 2 since launch, I can say that they are doing multiple guilds just fine - and as these previous comments show I would be fine with allowing guild to determine for themselves if they want to have exclusivity or non-competition clauses.
In addition, I would be fine with players being only able to join one settlement/kingdom (being part of a nation state is different than of just a company)
I am of the opinion that being able to be able to organize is VERY important, but becomes hindered if you limit yourself to one organization. Is there a way to give charter leaders who want dedication what they want, and people who want varied services and memberships what they want as well?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My experience is that while this sounds interesting, in practice it will not be acceptable to a wide range of organizations. Guilds want commitment from their members. They want them to focus on the Guild to the exclusion of other activities. Many guilds do not even permit their members to have alt characters.Please allow a single character to be an active member simultaneously in a large number of guilds. This will allow the player base to naturally form hierarchies and very large, loose organizations.
Ryan, let guilds manage that on their own. Considering how low you are setting the max number of guild members I think this would be worth your time.
It worked very well in GW2. You could belong to a number of guilds and choose which one you were representing at any given time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Guild Wars 2 lends itself to multi guilding because it's a PVE game and the main PvP is WvWvW.
In PFO guilds go to war against each other and the outcome of said wars can make or break a guild so it's serious bizzness. So not sure how multi guilding would work here.
I'm open to it, but wary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Zetesofos and @Rafkin,
In essence, all "Guilds" will be out-of-game, so there's nothing stopping you from being a member of multiple organizations in that sense.
There will Chartered Companies, Settlements, and Player Nations in-game, and I think it's a given that we won't be able to be a member of more than one of each. I expect this is at least partially due to the simplicity of storing a single CC_ID or SETTLEMENT_ID on the character record, rather than having to join to a one-to-many table.
I would jump up and down and do a happy dance if they supported membership in an arbitrary number of organizations, but I also understand that could seriously complicate efforts to determine who is Hostile or Friendly or Neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing i would like to see would be a robust alliance system in the game. Allow charter companies to ally with other companies and with settlements. Allow guilds to share (some, definable by the guild) some resources or what not. For example if there are NPC vendors, allow allied companies to get discounts.
That way you can give mechanical benefits in game to those. Perhaps limit how many of a certain type you can have.