That’s really embarrassing. Thatnks for correcting, of course it is what I mean… I will fix it.
So now, comments:
that’s the thing why i just wanted the member barrier on the lowest stage. As a problem just for creating a guild and to stop people from creating individual ones.
Money is not the same as dedication in the way I mentioned. I’m talking dedication to the guild. Not the game. When you talk to the game you make space the sum of the money the people in the guild has. Putting a lot of focus on the individual. AKA guild beacons are nothing more than an extension of personal beacons. Which comes with its own problems. It’s the system of the ones mentioned which is THE MOST selfish or the one which is the easiest to abuse as personal beacons. Also you used the argument “raiding guilds won’t need the space” which is true but not quite. It’s a system where you say to people “if you want more space then you have to focus on making money rather than do stuff together”.
Yeah this is precisely the same problem money based system holds. It’s a bummer to try and work around
True but i recommended then to higher the enefit for raiding.
I have a problem with understanding your interpretation of guild dedication. Give me some examples in which the “inividuals” within the guild don’t use their ingame time to reach goals.
Or what else you mean with it.
Bah, we are again in an endless discussion cycle of 2 -3 people… noone will read that all xD
Gladly. Ever played wow? In that game you can do “guild runs” of dungeons by being 4 from the guild in the dungeon together. Same with raids. There are also guild achievements that they can work together to achieve. Other games has other ways of getting that GC (guild currency) gw2 for example has boss hunts and challenges/ puzzles. Black Desert has timed challenges which can be started (e.g collect x wood in a certain amount of time) the common points are
Now with gold. A guy can have made stupid amounts of gold. Then join a guild and then donate it instantly unlocking several beacons. That has nothing to do with how much he focused on helping the guild but rather just him using some of the gold he won’t need.
Hope this clarifies why I find them different.
I referred here to my own idea, as I wrote it after my idea, you probably read too much into it as I think your saying I’d be referring to yours. I only wrote the post as reply to your post for the diagram part.
I don’t know about complexity, unless you’d be referring to your idea here.
Otherwise if referring to my idea, it could be just that the guild representatives could mark spots that need to be beaconed and then set(unless the pricing couldn’t be controlled by players) price which would be paid for the player who places the beacon/plot. This would work same way as mentioned here how it works between players, so the guild would have limited amount of free plots(which can be raised by the before mentioned way in my first post) to use, but the players should “donate” them as in the guild cannot craft plot placer to use the guild plots, but they must be bought from players, while not taking away from the players own plot limit(I don’t know if that makes sense but I hope it does 
).
Obviously if the pricing is decided by players griefing is possibility, as in ripping off noobs, which I wouldn’t consider a clever/smart way to make riches(only a person who perceive him/her self more intelligent than they are in reality would). But as I finished the idea, it’s still very raw and requires work and more thought to be put in to make it something that could work in the best possible way.
Also since I haven’t heard that how guilds will work in certainty when we reach 1.0, I think the guild leveling could be beneficial in other ways as well as increasing the allowed plots for the guild, not to mention these could be tied to the player count to make it more appealing for people to stick with guilds rather than guild jumping, but I guess that could make it’s own topic.
I believe it’s 3, not 4. Just need a majority.
For me personally, I really do like the way that beacons are mostly planned at the moment.
Beacon allowances will currently be tied to player progression, which will prevent people from building too big, too quickly. Thinking longer term, I believe we will need this progression to keep the game interesting and goal driven (as opposed to just being money driven). I also think a money based beacon system (or even a resource based one) will just open the game up to people coin/link farming and selling it in the real world, for guilds to then get a leg up.
I honestly like the fact that we need to contribute player beacons to the guild to make it bigger and greater, other than just throwing money (or additional resources) at it. For me it shows that players contributing in such a way are dedicated to that guild. It makes players think about their choices.
The only thing I didn’t like about the proposed beacon system, was for you not to be able to leave a guild of your own volition and get your contributed beacons back. I don’t think that warrants the need for a complete rewrite from the ground up of the whole system. I still think that combining options 2 and 3, so that both guilds and players can decide when a player is to leave a guild, is the best route. I also still think that a cool down of up to 7 days for a guild to return any owed beacons to a player (otherwise they get randomly taken from the placed ones) will work as well.
Okay, I got it.
But then tell us too, what kind of group tasks you see and how you would connect in with recieving plots as rewards? Your tasks don’t fit that much to Boundless I guess / and do you think they are worth to achieve beacons?
Tasks I would imagine would be i.e.:
That are nice teamtasks, but worth beacons? and how often do you want to repeat this for further beacon achievements?
The system with money could be by the way also worked out in another way.
When people earn money, while being in a guild, they can decide if the money goes to their own account or to the guilds account. Like this people could not simply invest big savings, they had to sell tons of goods. And probably selling tons of goods are easier in diverse locations with many players, then for a few single players. of course the quality of goods are still a weight, but it makes it also more difficult for small groups.
Maybe it would be also possible to create high win rates with guild internal supply chains based on skills of many diverse profession specialists. That’s on the one hand a nice group task and on the other hand again easier with many players then with less.
But tell me your proposals.
I see @Zouls point that rich people shouldn’t necessarily be able to contribute large amounts of money to a guild if they didn’t do anything for the guild. Perhaps there could be a toggle option, so you can either mine by yourself and kill creatures, etc. this would give you experience and resources for yourself. Or you can gather resources and creatures for your guild, then you would earn experience and money just for your guild. This would prevent new guilds from becoming powerful right away, as new players couldn’t just donate a ton of resources.
Perhaps guild owners could submit orders that needed to be filled (such as x number of a certain block) and players could mark it as “active.”
This could be abused by some owners who want to rapidly increase their guilds power. They might send out a request for 500 blocks of dirt that they don’t plan to use just so the guild receives experience. I’m not exactly sure how to prevent this yet, but I know there is a way.
I like the idea of having money tied to beacons, and have the amount of money needed increase for each beacon.
This might be a bit weird if people can join multiple guilds, but honestly I don’t like the idea of being in multiple guilds at all. It complicates stuff without adding any gameplay benefits.
Yes there will be some people who have someone else set up a guild for them and they pay money, but I don’t see this as too much of an issue. Maybe have an upkeep/tax cost for guilds so a guild doesn’t claim more territory than it can upkeep. I think having an upkeep for a guild is completely fine, as it is incredibly unlikely for every single person in a guild to have several month long IRL issues at the same time. This would both make a natural amount of territory a guild can control for the amount of people&effort involved, and make it so guilds that are either inactive or poorly funded would slowly decay.
Let me start off by saying i do not believe EVEN THE SLIGHTEST that it is possible to have a “player to player” interaction without it being abused to all hell. So i will leave out anything that is called Trading between players or selling from plinths.
To start with examples of the community ideas
I was also considering this the other day, except for the whole voluntary part. We were told already that they plan for many different things to give money and some of the money goes to The guild (like the lore one) I see no reason for there not to be a possiblity of adding taxes from the guild you represent too. If anybody is familiar with Albion online you would know they have such a system. the guild leader can set x% of what people earn as taxes to go directly into the guild. The guild i was in ran 20% tax and then at saturdays they ran 50% and guildruns to collect gold. This would also be a possibility. Whether they make a guild currency that is unique or they just collect gold. the system would be nearly identical. This would mean that it isn’t just the people who sit high and mighty on a pile of gold which can determine everything but the people who are actively playing the game.
But you are right in the fact that it gets alot harder to plan for guild activities in the game since we still havent heard a lot about the RPG elements yet. Only briefly
Why would you want to prevent this in first place?
Guilds are not what we are used to from other games and will probably be focused on very specific tasks (hence the ability to join several guilds).
Slowing down the expansion of a guild would effectively kill the intended use of guilds.
Example scenario:
The guilds A & B have cities that often trade with each other but an obstacle (mountain, river, whatever) slows the trading down.
They decide to build a bridge, tunnel, whatever to boost their economy and in order to be able to help each other while building they found a 3rd guild “C” which all member of guild A & B join.
If player are able to simply donate beacons to the guild they can immediately start to build the bridge, tunnel, whatever but if they have to somehow “progress” their guild they´d have to do specific guild activities together.
The members of guild C are no friends they don´t want to raid titans together, they only want to build a bridge, yet they would be forced into some tedious guild activities.
Besides of that:
Why would it be that important/ bad if a guild would acquire a lot of beacon space very quickly?
The “value” of a guild will probably be determined by its economic power not the space it occupies.
So a new guild would have a “get going” phase by natural limitations like:
With the exception of any that are trying to get the top spot on their world and competing for the bragging rights/potential rewards that may come with that spot.
But yeah, I agree that time doesn’t seem to be a necessary boundary.
thats a very drastic claim. Any proof to back it up?
I assume for the same reason that beacons will be tied to player progression rather than giving every player a ton of beacons when he start? I honestly find it kind of interesting going from topic to topic. Now if i could get you all to look back on the whole “temporary vs permanent beacon” discussion that was going for a while. There were several concerns of THE GOOD and TOO MUCH space being taken up. Yet now you try to argue that space doesn’t matter?
Secondly i can personally see this system just turning into expansion of your character. In wow it’s common for people to set up guilds for themselves just so they can have a massive guildbank. Get a few random people to sign and voilá you now have more space! and that is ignoring the fact that both are gotten with money
Third it seems weird to suggest that guild beacons should somehow be acquired by money when player beacons are acquired with gaining levels / progress. If i can borrow a bit from the original idea
Do you see the natural limitation here? the system is tied to progression because it relies on the PLAYERS progression. I must admit i was a bit confused about your wording
I’m not quite sure if you mean “donate money for beacons” or “donate permanent beacons” i hope you will clarify. If it is the first then i think its a poor system for the above mentioned reasons. Personally I would like to see the guild system abused as little as possible as a way for solo people to gain more space, money, etc.
And then lastly. Even with exponential cost would it matter? After all we can join “enough” guilds. Whats to prevent people from just creating a ton of builds to have a massive castle for themsellf? Would you like to see that in the game? Because i thought we had a beacon limit PRECISELY for the reason that the devs want to avoid it.
Alongside this I think we should make people who to play solo not need a guild to do all these things necessarily.
I wrote my post under the assumption that guilds acquire beacon plots solely through ‘plot donations’ from their members (like it says in olliepurkiss description of the system), not by purchasing them for money/resources.
This answers most of your post I think.
“Donate beacons” means donate beacons, not money.
That discussion was about unused space while this one is about actively used space. A big difference imo.
Ah. My bad. You were replying to the discussion which we were having about the game using currency/resources as the way to acquire beacons. So i assumed you were talking about the currency model too 
I don’t necessarily have an issue with players donating beacons as soon as they join, but I do think that the system that measures how a guild progress should occur over time (mirroring solo players) so that it is not as easily abused.
Perhaps we’re all overthinking this, and it won’t really be an issue if a guild can instantly receive resources from their new members. We won’t have PVP at the moment, so it’s not like a large, powerful guild can capture another player’s resources and beacons.
But I do think that a slower progression for guilds would be better. It will be more rewarding in the long run if your guild takes a month to become large, rather than one day. I can see it becoming meaningless and empty to make a guild if they can just instantly become powerful, and you don’t really have to do much work to earn that power. That’s why it might be an issue for new members to donate large amounts of resources.
Disclaimer: this is not a fully fleshed out idea.
With that disclaimer out of the way, I was just thinking about sort of implementing two systems. We’ll call these “players” and “pledges”.
Pledges are SORT OF like beacons plots, but not quite. Essentially, in addition to the number of actual beacons you get, players receive a number of GUILD-ONLY ‘pledges’. These are basically pseudo beacon plots you can give to any guild you want, but you only get a certain amount (i.e. 20 (the number is a placeholder)). They’d be controlled via a guild beacon (they’re basically beacon plots that you can only donate to a guild beacon and they’re separate from your personal beacon plots).
So I could give:
5 pledges to Guild A
7 pledges to Guild B
8 pledges to Guild C
The “Players” system is a tiered system that UNLOCKS different pledge totals for your guild. This can be linear progression or whatever you want (exponential or some other system, whatever seems balanced).
So 1 player could equate to +5 pledges or something.
For example: 5 Players start a guild. Each donates 5 pledges to this guild for their build/project/HQ/whatever. They recruit some more people.
Player 6 is heavily involved in other projects and only donates 2 pledges.
Player 7 really likes the project and isn’t involved in too much else. They want to donate 10 pledges, but with 7 members and 27 pledges accounted for, he can only donate 8 (to get a total of 35 (5 times 7)).
Player 8 joins and donates 3 pledges.
Player 7 donates 2 pledges. The guild is now at 40.
Doing something like +5 to the guild max pledges per player joining encourages joining multiple guilds. And since this system doesn’t use player beacons, people don’t have to worry about losing their beacons or whatever. They could still donate their beacons to the cause and use the permissions system or maybe some other system to allow different groups to join. But pledges would basically be like adding pseduo-beacon plots to a guild beacon controller without taking away from player-specific beacons.
With players leaving guilds, their (players) beacon total is not affected in any way. There’s no mess of trying to figure out how to give beacons back to players or any timeline for the guilds to figure out how to protect their projects after losing a member.
This would allow for abuse though. A guild could get 40 people to join, all donate 5 pledges. Boom, 200 pledges. 39 of them leave and take their pledges with them. Some guy just got a guild with 200 pledges.
So there’s still an issue of what to do in case someone leaves, but at least it’s not tied to beacons so it seems like it may be a little easier to handle. You could just say that the debt needs to be made up before you can add the next 5 (or however many) to the total, but that doesn’t prevent the abuse described above.
This bit still needs worked out (see disclaimer above). But I think it’s nice because it doesn’t allow for someone to donate a BUNCH all at once, like @Marlaney is saying (gives a sense of progression, especially if it’s something like +50 pledges for every 10 new members (instead of +5 for 1). It doesn’t tie progression to strictly money or strictly resources or strictly players, like @Zouls was saying. And it doesn’t affect personal beacons so you can still have a nice house or cool project on your own or with a guild.
Lemme know what you guys think (especially any thoughts about beating the abuse), it was just a thought that flashed in my mind as I was about to shut down my computer and head to bed. Definitely could use some work, but I think it’s a nice middle-ground maybe! 
Edit: You could also tie in the progression model to give an alternative means of gaining pledges or +max pledges for a guild.