Guilds and Beacons


#22

I still really wonder, why you want players to donate something so limited (and worse maybe permanently)?

Why not just make it dependend from amount of members, like I told before?
Fluctuation has to be managed by leadership.

For me a guild should be like a city in the real world.
The size and structural, governmental milestones are just reached by amount of citizens settled down.
you choose the place to live, the job to work for and the game to play.
None of it forces me to spend something on I cannot take back (except time of my life).

Back to the game world:
If I like the visions of guild leaders, so I can identify myself with it
and
if I can find my role in it - the right job in the right place - then i’d like to join and would apply for it.

But if plans change, so the vision doesn’t fit anymore.
Or my job is useless (think of 100 miners and i am miner 101)…
Then I’d like to leave (whenever I want) and try my luck somewhere else.
And I don’t want to think about the valuable beacons I spent and never get back again…

I can imagine paying tax or spending blocks to the guild, because you can fill up infinite.
This would be a appropriate compensation because the guild leadership has to handle the risk somehow, that I could leave anytime.
But Beacons in this game are something so valuable…


#23

This would be a big problem since every player can join multiple (many) guilds. I think this would just lead to tradechat spam alá “Join my guild and get 5 coins”.
Micro-managing the member/plot fluctuation also sounds like a “pain in the :doug:” activity…


#24

It’s possible to join several?? :scream:
Okay, like this my model does not work.

But why should we be able to join several o.o
I don’t like the idea of joining multiple guilds…
At least it’s no my way…


#25

There was a discussion around it a few weeks ago haha.


#26

I don´t like the idea either but judging from what I´ve read into the shared guild concepts I´d consder guilds in Boundless rather as something like ‘teams’ as as guilds like we are used to them from other MMORPGs.
E.g. Building a bridge? Make a guild for it. Forming group that will run titans regularly? Make a guild for it. Want to keep in touch with some RL friends ingame? Make a guild for it…

I think it would be better if @olliepurkiss would split up the social groups in B< into “real” guilds (1 per player) and teams (multiple per player) that are dedicated to certain projects e.g. bridges, tunnels, etc.
But htat´s an entirely different discussion and OT.


#27

Uh, I was not aware of that…
Mh, I feel like the idea of guilds is really really really messed up at the moment for me :confused:

Really don’t know if i like to handle it the way it’s currently discussed.
I was thinking so much of building nice places and taking my role there, whatever it is (at one guild at once)
But just in one guild at a time, right now the system really seems strange to me… mh


#28

That can still happen. Just because you can be in many guilds at once does not meet you have to.

Edit: from a guild management standpoint, I think the key to this problem is with the guild management system.

Only allow trusted members to donate plots. Get them on a contract or select people you trust and manage your guild beacons by making sure your trusted members are taken care of. That way, you don’t have a constant flux of beacons being donated/ lost to random players joining or leaving.


#29

Okay, I’m with you again. I read about the other posts and what’s the intention of guilds (in dev’s view).
You want people to be able to join several projects. And that’s a nice thought I have to admit!

In this case, I can understand that my concept of “Guild plots” by members in guild is not sufficient.

Maybe the concept would work in the way @Vastar described:

Like this my concept can be implemented:
A guild has an amount of plots based on it’s members. (guild plots - a guild with 1 person should not have any plots).
The amount of plots you get as a guild should start with abou 5 persons, so this concept cannot be abused by small groups to get some extra beacons cheap.
A player can join a guild by allowance of the guild. But just 1 guild at a time!
But he can leave whenever he wants.

The fluctuation of players has to be managed by the guild leaders. Consequence: high fluctuation - use up less of the maximum available guild plots, low fluctuation - use up much of the maximum available. If a player leaves and the maximum available plot amount was used, the last placed plots will disappear. Like this projects / buildings of a guild that have a long history and high usage will not be unprotected, because just the “newer projects” suffer from the fluctuation. So if you have a valuable market place area what is used (and beacon protected) since the first 30 players, it will be not be in danger if you talk about fluctuation between 60-70 players. This also challenges the guild leadership to think about the right chronology of building public things. The more valuable you think something is, the more in the beginning you should start building it! I like challenges! Keeps life interesting

I hope That makes clear, that fluctuation is not a thing that hard to handle.

I “teams” or “groups” you could implement your (@olliepurkiss) introduced system.
Player can donate their plots. But although I would not do it permantly, that’s a real big obstacle to join a group. What can be permantly is donated items. If a block / item / coin is placed within the “group inventory” or you placed it in the teams beacons, it’s gone for personally you forever. Just the leader(s) of the team can remove it or give it back to you.

With these 2 concepts “guilds” could be used to create big cities, with hundreds of members.
With the growing amount of members the city will grow in functionality and the leadership will get more and more complex by hierachy (exciting!!).
Also this would lead better to you idea of guilds competing in “server domination” (also super exciting thought!!).

I really hope you can warm your hearts for these ideas.

Of course the ideas are not final yet and details have to be defined (like amount of plots by members). Or how to handle a group inventory. @olliepurkiss what do you and the others think?


#30

I think the existing guild framework is robust enough to provide small groups and large organizations the tools they need to get the job done, at least on a higher level.

As for the above, I and others have suggested on one of the other beacon threads allowing 1-7 days for the guild time to acquire new plots before the one they lost becomes open to scavenging/regen. Otherwise you could get a group of 10 people to join a guild, wait for a bit, and then all leave at once and make a larger project very vulnerable.


#31

@T4LCOMX I like this. Its elegant.


#32

We consider the ability to join many Guilds of different sizes to be quite a key benefit of a looser Guild system, and I’m not sure if coming up with another system alongside the Guilds is a benefit. One thing that Ben is keen on is making people designate a “Primary Guild” which is the one they align themselves closest too, and the ones that appears next to their name. We could look at expanding that concept into other benefits too.


#33

Nice, I think this would be really beneficial for the atmosphere of the game

Yes please. :heart_eyes:


But this doesn´t solve the problem with not being able to leave a guild.


#34

Agreed. In fact, not being able to leave your chosen Primary Guild would be an even bigger problem.


#35

the point was to keep individual and guild beacons separate from eachother and the donation simple


#36

@olliepurkiss: I have to agree with a lot of other voices in this topic. I reject the idea that players can’t leave guilds categorically!!! This is a huge game-breaker for guilds in my opinion. I support the ideas of @Vastar with a “beacon dept” to leaving players or the ideas of @Smoothy. There are a lot of ideas in relation to this topic in a lot of other topics - i don’t like to cite them all, but nearly all are better than this.

@olliepurkiss, @james, @ben: May i made a petition for this. Before you decide the final system, please make a community survey about the complete “guild beacon” problem.


#37

Maybe they can even create an official petition or survey they already did with beacons. Then they can (according to all these suggestions) create the questions they want to have answered themselve.
I think the topic deserves it!

Even when I sometimes think, that these surveys give space for interpretations sometimes which lead to “unreal” results… But I am with you, something official has to be done here.


Request for information Update
#38

So Wonderstuck towers have been abuzz with discussion about this (or rather James, Ben and I have had a couple of chats about it) and we’ve come to the conclusion that we’re not 100% sure what to do, but given the feedback, the answer is not what we originally proposed.

What we have decided though is that you will be able to leave any guild that you have joined when you choose to. We still need to work out the details of what that means for the beacons (and there are some good suggestions in this thread), so we’ll discuss some more and get back to you with another plan.


#39

Leave it to the players to break otherwise nice ideas :smile:


#40

I mean not being able to leave a guild isn’t a nice idea tbh :stuck_out_tongue:
I’m definitely for guild beacons being based off # of residents.


#41

Well it really wouldn’t be a problem if people actually treated each other nicely, so again players ruining an otherwise good idea.