A typical problem with MMO's is the structure of Guild Politics. Creating Kingdoms is an amazing concept but when the leaders of a Guild go missing it causes the guild to slowly die. I saw this happen in ShadowBane and every other MMO, so I would like to ask, what will Pathfinder do differently?
I had a suggestion, if anyone working at Goblinworks is willing to take the feedback from someone who missed out on kick starter. What if guilds could be formed with different kinds of governments, ranging from direct democracies in which members voted on everything, to representative democracies where members elected leaders, to republics monarchies and caste systems.
The typical guild is a caste system, the guild leader(s) hold absolute power and each rank down is a rigid ladder caste under the leader(s), which causes all sorts of problems but would be interesting if it were only one of several ways a guild could be structured in the game. There could even be different flavors of guilds, such as hoards, tyrannies, theocracies, and kingdoms made up of multiple guilds which members could pay or earn their way into, with guild councils formed through natural rank progression as guilds became established.
A lot of ideas to throw out, to be sure, but if this game copies the same formula for guilds that has been in place since days of old, it will have the same problems that have killed all the best Kingdoms in similar games.
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's already planned, at least according to an earlier blog. Hopefully there's more ideas as well, however. Some of the ones you gave sound nice.
Allocation of settlement votes:Feudal: One character has all the votes
Oligarchy: A limited group of characters have votes as apportioned by the charter
Democracy: Every member of the settlement has an equal voteThe political structure of a kingdom has the following options:
Democracy: Every player character member of the player nation has an equal vote
Executive: One settlement has all the votes
Federation: Each settlement has one vote
Star Chamber: A limited group of characters have votes as apportioned by the charter
Security Council: A limited group of settlements have votes as apportioned by the charter
Kingdom: One character has all the votes
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
WoW implemented the "hostile takeover" of guild leadership for guilds whose leader was absent for an extended period of time. I don't remember the exact number of days, but I am thinking 30. Once you logged in after the Guild Master had been absent for that length of time, you could click on the GM's name in the Guild Roster and it stated "Your Guild Master has been absent to 30 days. Do you want to assume the role of Guild Master?" It felt pretty uncomfortable when you had a nice person as GM but they went AWOL. But for guilds that had no way to manage daily functions (cleaning bank, assigning access and roles, etc...) having someone present to manage daily affairs was critical. This helped many guilds tremendously.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be neat to have a multi-tiered guild system too, like instead of a straight up ladder there could be multiple branches that are equal which members could join or be elected into/through. The whole hostile takeover concept could also be cool, if guilds could have their own internal revolutions.
Imagine the potential, it could open up whole new ways of playing the game. There could be an in game revolution spanning multiple guilds, it would introduce real subterfuge and conspiracy, it would make having stealthy spies handy a legit part of the gameplay.
And if there were different kinds of guilds, things could get really interesting in terms of guild politics.
For some reason, in most MMO's, the structure and politics of guilds get the least amount of attention and that's tragic because how the guild system works can have a huge impact on the game, after ask anyone playing an MMO the number one reason they stick around and usually their Guild is one of the first things they mention.