Guilds and Beacons


#62

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.


#63

Alongside this I think we should make people who to play solo not need a guild to do all these things necessarily.


#64

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.


#65

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 :slight_smile:


#66

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.


#67

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! :sunglasses:

Edit: You could also tie in the progression model to give an alternative means of gaining pledges or +max pledges for a guild.


#68

I’m not sure how that works? How can they take them and leave them at the same time?


I honestly don’t see this as being any different, really, to the current system … only that you end up with more space being taken up as you now have 2 components that can be used to claim land.

For me personally, if I were to leave a guild for any reason, I would want to take back what was mine (i.e. pledges or beacons) … especially if I only had a limited supply of them for the entirety of my characters existence.


#69

I think i should be able to answer that unless i completely misunderstood his idea

I think you do. after all you said this

the one thing i agree with is that a limited amount of them is just not a good idea. But overall the idea is interesting. The point was that the original system said “donate your own beacons” which obviously people were against. This idea is a suggestion for having a secondary progression, resource thingy which are guild specific beacons precisely so people DONT have to give “their own beacons”

That they would be permanent. so once you give them to the guild you dont get them back. which would lead to people making alts just to sell beacons

Yeah this is the problem. If i ask you “When you leave the guild do you want to get the things back you gave?” obviously most people would say yes. Now imagine it the other way around as a guild leader “When people leave do you think they should be able to take back all of their space that you have already used?” obviously that would be a lot harder to agree on. I think they had the right idea to solve the problem with the original system. Not allowing people to leave guilds. That is the best way to solve that problem for that particular system. which is why the system itself is quite horrible.

@Clexarews I think that fundamentally any idea which forces people to use “unobtainable” materials wouldn’t work even in the slightest. Imagine if beacons were IRREMOVABLE so every beacon you placed could NEVER be gained back. Combine that with a limited amount of beacon. It would be a ton of pressure and doubt wouldnt it? How often would you ever use it? And how would you feel once you have placed all beacons and can NEVER EVER place another beacon? That is the problem with a limited beacon suggestion. The idea would be better if they were tied to your progression/ time charged. But even then i personally don’t like a system that allows a guy to join a guild and then instantly boost it to heavens in terms of space.

I still stand for a system of which progress is gained ENTIRELY within the guild. I dont care if it will be called taxes, guild currency, exp, guild levels. Whatever. Basically the only way to gain progress is by having players actively playing while representing the guild. It could be as basic as when people represent a guild the guild gain a small amount of exp of the exp they gain. or a small amount of gold, or a small amount of guild currency. And then it could be expanded upon by activies, achievements. etc. But the harder part might be making the system without THAT being abused. Forexample killing things and collecting things should be easy to work around. But what about Building and Trading? How could that possibly be done without being abused? this i have 2 suggestions for but would require a special system made by the devs

@ben @james @olliepurkiss look here.

Building: It has already been strongly suggested, if not confirmed that blueprints will be part of the game. Now NPC’s was not originally planned as part of the game but since we know we have The Guild we atleast have some sort of lore excuse we can use. Basically combining money and resources with actual activies. Imagine if there was a daily, weekly or something blueprint. In your guild station or where ever you would get it from you could hover over a blueprint and it would tell you the size, cost of buying, amount of resources needed and reward. The guild leader (or sub guild leader) could buy it and place it on the ground where there is space. Once placed a timer would go off and that is the time you have to perfectly follow the blueprint to build whatever it is you want to build. If you don’t build it in time it all disappears and you lose the materials already placed in it. If you manage to build it within the time limit you complete the challenge. It disappears completely along with the materials (you build for The Guild or whatever) and you gain an amount of exp, guild currency, guild level, whatever. There should prob be something like a small, medium and large build with different costs and different rewards. You can think of it as “proving yourself worthy” as a builder to get more beacons (or currency for beacons). And would allow for some interesting challenges that even the builder guilds can do. Now the problem is obviously the amount of work that would go into making a separate system. But hopefully they would be able to use the already planned blueprint system.

For trader i want to take some inspiration from ArcheAge which had a trader system where a person could take on a pack which made them move slower and unable to mount and then they could transport them to a certain spot of which they would gain a ton of money. Something like that might also be possible. Imagine starting the trade run from your guild house somewhere where the people who decide to help all gets a backpack and move slower. I assume the easiest would be to make a system which places a point at random spot at a certain distance away (Could also be short, medium, long distance). Using portals will make you drop you packs so you have to walk. The people carrying the packs would get a short sprint ability and maybe a sort of heal but they would be unable to attack. This would mean that they would need some warriors to protect them on the way there. whether from the own guild or mercenaries. The caravan would be attacked by a certain amount of enemies per pack over the course of the trip meaning more packs = more enemies = more need for protection. Which could quickly turn it into quite a huge guild event that both fighters and traders could participate in.

As a note there COULD be these sort of daily/weekly tasks for every skill tree and only people with that skilltree who have unlocked a certain talent (forexample trader level 20 unlocks trader missions) could participate in which would be MORE work but MORE specialized and add MORE diversity to the different guilds. Or it would just be a general “everybody can participate”

Those are two potential ways to include builder and trader events as i was asked to give examples of by @Smoothy


#70

I think @zouls is right, keep guild progression entirely within the guild. Donated beacons are very problematic when tied to guild membership, and you can still “donate” beacons to a guild by simply adding player tokens to the beacon and giving access to it that way.

A simple approach would be to have guilds gain beacons with basically the same progression model as the player. As I understand it, players gain beacons by advancing a profession, so why not do something similar with guilds? (Similar, not identical )

Only, rather than gain all of their beacons from 1-2 professions like a player would, have it where each profession can yield (example only) 100 beacons per professional branch. To unlock max beacon potential, the guild must advance in all professional branches. A guild advances in a profession when it’s members do, on some sort of shared xp gain system.

When players leave a guild, that xp stays behind. Players don’t donate beacons or resources, they donate time and xp.


#71

I don’t, that’s why I asked the question.

With either beacons OR pledges, I would want them back after leaving a guild, as there will probably only a finite amount of them per character, and the ability to claim land is obviously a much sought after commodity with player and/or guild growth being a main driving force of the game.

Not necessarily the problem at all - the issue is that you only have a finite amount of beacons (or with @Clexarews suggestion, pledges), if you give those away (and stupidly give most or all of them away), your character basically cannot do anything worthwhile beyond that point, other than be forced to join another guild.

Guilds can always recruit more players or ask other members for beacon donations to fill any gaps that were created by the leaving player.

I think anything that introduces more ways to claim land would need to be very carefully balanced - with possibly the need to stretch out how many or how quickly a player can earn more beacon allocations - otherwise I think people will then start complaining that there is no space for them or new players to build.


Ah, ok - the wording on the original idea was a little unclear then, by saying that “39 of them leave and take their pledges with them”.


#72

as i said

I agree. I don’t believe a finite amount of beacons are ideal. Which is why i looked at the idea and removed the finite beacons just for the sake of argument :slight_smile:

As you said yourself the problem if it is finite is that people wants them BACK. Which is why i don’t believe it could ever work effectively. Nor with the fact that you would easily reach a point where you never ever could give out more guild beacons. want to start your own guild? Well sucks to be you xD

You create a guild. you have 20 members leaving meaning you lose beacons for 20 members. everything now lost is free and everybody can take it. GG progression. This system CAN’T WORK. if you need to donate beacons then it CANT ALLOW PEOPLE TO LEAVE FREELY. You are even yourself saying that you dont want to give away something finite. I think the majority of people feel that way.

Which is why the system either needs to be A) Every beacon/progress towards beacon are pemanent for the guild. B) Players can’t leave out of free will. People strongly disagreed with B (for a good reason) which leaves A.


#73

I’m not saying that I don’t want to donate it to a guild … whilst I’m in the guild - I have no problem with that. BUT (I like caps too), if I have a falling out with a guild for any reason, I should be freely able to leave and not have to wait to be dismissed by the guild.

Throughout this thread, there have been people, myself included, that have suggested that to remedy the issue of players leaving a guild, there should be a cool down period for their beacons to be returned to them (up to 7 days, for example). This will give the remaining guild members time to either find new beacons to fill the gap, or downsize their claimed land.


I don’t think these align with the original post

So no, I’m sorry, I don’t agree with you that “A” is the only option.


#74

I apologize if i came off wrong. I was trying to agree with you actually :slight_smile:

You only halfquoted.

Ollie himself describes the problem. That it can be heavily abused by players. He also went out to say that they decided to go back and reconsider the system.

And what if it is 15 - 20 people who leaves? Would you personally if you were a guild leader like that? A real life example is forexample when i was looking into streaming and donations i found out that people could donate money and then call chargeback meaning you have to pay them all back + the amount paypal already took. If people will go as far as to troll with real money do you not think that they will do the same for beacons?

Now a general question. Why do you advocate so much for having donation beacons and getting them back when leaving which could result in a lot of tension within the guild? I am assuming its because you don’t want to lose something. again something i think people can agree on. But that is why we are trying to look into ways that guilds could get beacons ANOTHER way which both isn’t forcing players to give up something finite but at the same time not easily abused by giving a ton of space in a very short time. Any particular reason you would prefer donation of your own beacons rather than a secondary way for guilds to achieve beacons which would encourage people to join guilds? (This is an ACTUAL question. its not rhetorical)


#75

No worries - I thought we were just debating, so no hard feelings here :wink:

Not really no, but it would probably mean there was something fundamentally wrong with my guild anyway.

The way I look at guilds is that it’s effectively (for me at least) a company. The guild leader is the employer, the members are the employees, with various ranks of management throughout.

If in a company, 20 people in your workforce decide to up and leave, they usually have to work a notice period… in that time, the company has time to reassess all of it’s processes to find out why so many people leave at once. They can also decide whether to recruit more employees to fill the gaps, or they may decide to downsize their holdings, assess what went wrong the first time, and build again.

For the “employee” that is leaving, their notice period either needs to be worked (which, translated to B<, could mean that the guild needs time to find another recruit to fill their position), or you’re put on garden leave (alright, so you don’t get paid for this in B<, but it would mean that the guild has spare beacons which you could get back now and you go your separate ways).

The biggest issue I see with an additional guild beacon allocation per player is that it needs to be balanced. For me that balance comes in the form of the potential amount of space used at progressional intervals for the player within the game. For example (numbers are for example only) …

Scenario 1: Current proposed beacon system
A player starts with 1 beacon allocation, they play for 8 hours, and gain another 2 beacon allocations. They can do whatever they like with these - either use them for themselves or use 1, donate 1 to their guild. Whatever, you get the idea.

Scenario 2: Player Beacons & Guild Beacons
A player starts with 1 beacon allocation, they play for 8 hours, and gain 1 player beacon and 1 guild beacon allocation. They’re not in a guild, so they can only use their 1 beacon for themselves.


Ok, so I’m basing my argument against it on something that may not happen (or could be balanced better), and guild beacon allocations could be spaced out further so it has less of an impact on the player ones, but I personally think it will still be detrimental to the players who just wants to play a more solo role and only be a “token” guild member. With the current proposed system, you don’t have to donate any of your beacons to a guild (unless the guild demands it as a condition of joining - but even then, it’s still your choice to join or not).


On the other side of things, if guild beacons were earned by the guild through achievements, this, I think, would take a lot of additional time and coding to both implement and balance. I’d prefer to see that time and effort put into the other proposed systems prior to release 1.0

For me, a guild should only be as strong as it’s members as a whole - not just the hard-core few that do all of the challenges and get all of the achievements.


#76

A work place is a give and take situation. you provide time for money. and once you leave you dont get anything. its not like working there 20 years makes you get 10 years of sallary instantly. The more fitting analogy would be letting the boss fire employees and go “oh yeah btw. you have to pay back all of the money i ever payed you. you have a week. good luck!” or the employees being able to leave and say “Oh yeah. i want to get 10% of everything that was ever produced in the time period i was here”. Its hard to imagine because it would be utterly insane.

Another analogy would be a refund system where you could refund EVERYTHING at ANY TIME in ANY CONDITION. “Yeah i bought this tv 10 years ago. i would like all my money back right now!”

This i find somewhat ironic or atleast opposite of what you suggest. If we talk a system where you just need to play or to do stuff with your guild then how does that require more involvement than having people donate THEIR LIMITED BEACONS to the guild?

The system you propose leaves the player NOTHING to lose and the guild EVERYTHING to lose. Try to find any downsides to leaving a guild. i dont see any. It also means that guilds are nothing but temporary collaborations. Not even permanent. Temporary. Personally it feels sooo… Flimsy. and like there is a lack of belonging. Big guild the next day can suddenly not matter at one point even after all the work they have done? You would never be able to look at a town and say “This belongs to the shadowclan!” because it doenst. it just belongs to the members.

  1. its an MMORPG. but even then they still allow you to play solo
  2. The entire point of guilds are NOT playing solo

Also what you are suggesting. again as a temporary thing could just as easily be achieved by finding a few people to build with and add eachothers tokens. Where is the incentitive to join a guild? Would it matter? I think guilds should be seperate systems or somehow matter other than just a sense of “oh we build together now”

Yeah it would take more work. But depending on how they do it. im going for what i know is already ingame. Forexample blueprint system as suggested above. We also know we would get achievements ANYWAYS so i assume atleast some of the code could be reused for guild achievements.

This has nothing to do with strength nor dedication then does it? 100 members who barely if at all plays would be much bigger than 10 people who play consistently together. That hardly seems fair does it?

Yeah i also think that it doesn’t necessarily work quite as well. I would again prefer for everything to be achieved WITHIN the guild. So people who play solo wouldnt have to worry but those who wants to build big things would prob join a builder guild which focuses on acquiring more beacons. If the guild cant acquire more things. why would the builder ever bother joining a guild?


#77

I’m fine with this, but it doesn’t do anything about the very valid example @Vastar provided of two guilds creating Guild C to work on a small project. They’re not wanna go off and tackle other projects in order to build up to the project for which they were formed.

I agree. That was the bit I asked for help on in my post. I didn’t say pledges wouldn’t ever return to the players. I said that we need to think, with any system involving beacons/pledges, about how to return the beacons/pledges to the players in a fair way, without it being subject to abuse and without it screwing over guilds.

See above. The goal is to return them to a player in a way that is fair for the guild and fair for the player. So if you want to donate your max amount to a guild and then they kick you, you’re not S.O.L. or anything. But it needs to be handled such that you can’t just invite a bunch of people, they all donate pledges, they all leave, they all keep their pledges and the guild keeps the pledges too. That’s what I was trying to explain that you were confused about.

My idea is the same idea as the beacon idea and faces some of the same problems. But providing a guild-specific plot type as a resource for players should at least address some of the problems people had with giving away personal beacons.[quote=“Stretchious, post:71, topic:4340”]
Guilds can always recruit more players or ask other members for beacon donations to fill any gaps that were created by the leaving player.
[/quote]

The question is, is this a number gap? Like if you have 100/100 plots or whatever (numbers are placeholder) and then someone leaves and you lose 10 plots, do you go to 90/100 and have world regen take out some of your stuff? Or do you go 100/90 and you can’t expand any further until making up those extra spots and then some?

The first is a path to grief, the second is a path to abuse. So it’s a hard area to think about for sure.

As explained above, this wasn’t my intention. Wrote my idea up just before bed, sorry. I was talking about the second path above and how it can be abused. If you have 1 person make a guild and invite 39 people, that’s 40 people. If each person donates 5 “pledges”, that’s 200 pledges. If the 39 people leave and you go to 200 pledges / 5 max pledges, then the first person now has a huge space and probably doesn’t even need to worry about making up the difference before expanding because they won’t really need to expand at this point.

I’d like for players to get their pledges back in my (or any) system. But I’d also like for guilds to not have to scramble to find more resources if a group of 10 people joins them, they build a project using the space those 10 give them, then the ten leave. The 7 day waiting period seems fair and I remember we both proposed it earlier. It would just be difficult for some guilds.[quote=“Stretchious, post:75, topic:4340”]
With the current proposed system, you don’t have to donate any of your beacons to a guild (unless the guild demands it as a condition of joining - but even then, it’s still your choice to join or not).
[/quote]

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but with the current system, someone has to donate beacon space right? Guild beacons don’t just come with their own plots, every space in the guild is a beacon space donated by a player? That’s how I was interpreting it, maybe I need some help.

Zouls is right here, I don’t see an issue with this. If the player is only being solo and knows they don’t want to join a guild, that’s on them. We shouldn’t give them more space to compensate. I’m not saying I want beacons handed out every 8 hours, but if that system was to be implemented, it would be fair across the board. The strictly-solo players would just choose not to use their guild beacons because that’s how they want to play, but at least it doesn’t affect their solo play.


#78

Both you and @Stretchious are right. Effectively to expand your guild you need to donate your own beacons with the currently proposed system. What i was discussing was pretty much a sort of exp, guild tasks, achievement for increasing amount of beacon guilds which would mean that people would actually have to play together. He was saying that with the current system a guy could just be a slacker and not do anythign and it wouldnt harm the guild (paraphrasing XD)

Save some of the beacons. Also i think there is a difference on a collaboration between people and then a guild. Though it feels like people are proposing for guilds to pretty much just be collaborations. Guess im too RPG minded to see that as even remotely attractive i guess.


#79

Well with guilds and factions, I’m sure there are going to be a few powerhouses around for those of us who are more MMORPG minded to join.

Can you please elaborate on this solution some more? I’m not quite understanding how saving beacons from the guilds would help with a neutral project located in an undisclosed location between the two guilds.

It seems like a Guild C is the best solution because if Guild B saves beacons and then sets up the tunnel, they could charge a minor entry tax to Guild A. If they favored their relations with Guild A, maybe they wouldn’t, but they’d be able to. A Guild C allows for fair maintenance and travel to all players (whether that’s taxing players from both guilds or not).


#80

Yeah my bad. read it as the guilds themself using it. Honestly i find the idea of using guilds like that utterly vile. But that is because i’m not a builder. Literally those collaborative builds you are suggesting could easily be done by people just building the beacons and then adding guild tokens to it wouldn’t it? Or by a few people playing together and adding tokens to it? Why do you need a “guild” to do that? if you use your own beacons anyways. I feel like “groups” are more applicable than “guilds” and it is confusing me to all hell.-.-’

i am personally against the very idea of that. of starting guilds and shutting them down as you see fit just as a temporary contract to build stuff. Seems utterly abusive. I wouldnt mind another system like that. but for the love of god dont call THAT guilds. Because its not. its not a community. its a god damn contract.


#81

wow wow wow…this thread drives me crazy as the discussion about permanent beacons. At the 10th last post or something I got an idea, that could be uneasy to abuse and supports guild activity maybe. I don’t know if that was mentioned in the last 10 posts and it’s probably a combination of several ideas.

To make long story short, and my post readable:

Think about the 3 game mechanics that probably drive the game:

  • Economy
  • PVE fighting
  • Exploring

Now the question is, how to integrate this in guild progression and teamwork tasks.
Well:

  • a guild could gain taxes on whatever is sold by their members. I assume that more people are able sell more as a single person, because they can split up their individual selling points more far because of more individual beacons. (economy)
  • a guild could gain experience for monsters slayn in groups of guild members. the bigger the group the higher the benefit (pve)
  • a guild could gain exploration points by exploring unknown territory as a group. the bigger the group the higher the benefit (exploration // this las example is a bit unclear even to me… so there might be better solution)

You can now either make every act lead to one common guild currency, that gets collected to set free diverse guild advances. More guild beacons can be one of it.

Or, To make the abuse for the single person of this system even more difficult, you could say, that each of these actions (economy, pve, exploration) collects different currencies. And just if you get all of these currencies on certain levels you can set free with combinations of them different adavantages.

The second model would make it harder for guilds to specify on a certain gameplay. But in the first model a single experienced player could reach the same progress as many individual unexperienced.

With this model noone has to give beacons and beacons once received from players by currencies stay at the guild.

All levels of advances should get exponential more expensive. I think that’s always a good motivation for ne guilds to catch up, because further developement for long life guilds gets harder and harder.

Sorry if my english has lack in gramma and is rich of writing mistakes. I hope you though got it… The topic is for me same important as for many others, since it will be key element of the game.

What do you think?
I know every model / idea has some weakness. But I tried to make it have as less as possible and refer to different wishes and ideas as well as core game mechanics.