Guilds and Beacons


Utterly and completely poor planning. I will wait to hear more about the proposed system. If it is like you suggest i will not let them live it down. If it isn’t like yours and is more focused on being actual guilds i will go make a suggestion called “Contracts” which would function as you desire guilds to function. Just as its own system.


I think “join as many guilds as you want” and "players donating their own permanent beacons"

are completely 100% contradictory to

"guilds competing for world dominance"
and "building the most impressive structures and displaying the most wealth"

This discussion isn’t useful. People are debating the details of how guilds should work without any concrete information about what guilds are supposed to mean/be used for.

We need to know if guilds are:

  • used for small groups of people working on a single project or small area
    -this would encourage the idea of “joining multiple guilds”

  • used for large groups of diverse players, for the purpose of setting up towns, outposts, markets, and supply chains.
    -this would encourage the idea of “guilds = towns” and that a large guilds & alliances of guilds would be powerful enough to have a degree of control over a single world.

I feel that these two are completely separate, and both cannot be contained by a single system without said system being bloated and awkward to use. >B would benefit from having two different ways of players grouping up, not mutually exclusive.

One would be for people looking to set up a town. The claimed area would largely be static, maybe based around # of people in the town or have a tax per plot claimed. Towns would also have a decently large ‘no claim’ area around it to prevent cluttering from other towns. This would let people claim large enough areas to make towns and bring together large groups of people, while also preventing too much abuse as there would be an upkeep cost on the territory.

The other would be halfway between towns and individual claiming, and would be used for small groups of players. These beacons would have a higher up-front cost than town beacons, but no upkeep. These would primarily be used for making group houses, small villages, and guild halls (if not in a town).


@alexanderyou hit the point like many others also already did and like devs mentioned somewhere.

There are 2 ideas, that are basically different.

I will call them now Guild (which create towns and other giant projects) and task force (which are created for a special minor tasks).

A guild should be able to get huge, so progress should be nearly endlessly (in beacons and other advances).
I think my suggested systems of post 80 with kind of currencies could work that out, with hardly being abused. And it requires teamwork.

that’s a point, but can be solved like: You could turn off the tax win for guild members, while buying / selling within the guild.

Now the question is, how should a taskforce work? They are designed for many minor projects. Beacons should be part of them, to be able to cover project. But there need to be limitations. They may not grow as big as guilds and they should also not be a beacon low cost production machine.

I don’t know if that’s the right restriction since people have to make a first big effort to be able to work out their project… I think they should be able to immediately start?

Any suggestions? @vastar strongly fights for multiple guilds for small, single projects. Maybe you got an idea?


I thought they were planning on having a small global tax on buying/selling from stores.


The current guild system allows for both your definitions of guild and taskforce. There aren’t many limits on the current system and I don’t think we should impose any. They allow for players who want to make/be in large guilds to do that. They allow for casual friends wanting to work on a small building like a tavern together to do that. [quote=“Smoothy, post:104, topic:4340”]
They may not grow as big as guilds and they should also not be a beacon low cost production machine.

Basically I don’t think we should impose restrictions such as the above.



The originally proposed guild system allows both, huge guilds, small guilds and what you´d call ‘taskforce’. I don´t see any need to separate the social groups of B< into tedious subsystem, especially with the mentioned “main-guild” feature in mind.

You don´t like the idea of joining 20 “taskforces”? Just don´t join any.
You want to join “the one and only” guild and seek for world dominition? Great I´m sure there will be a guild for you that offers exactly that.



it also didn’t allow you to leave the guild.

No. That is kinda the problem. They are not mutually exclusive but there are definitely some differences. What about all discussing the whole bridge project? shows that systems which could work in bigger / longterm guilds wouldnt work for the small projects.

Interestingly enough i don’t see any reason to hijack a system to do something YOU CAN ALREADY DO.

The main argument i have seen is “we want to build together!”

Lets see what you asked for

-You have a limited amount of beacons
-You can work on projects with people
-You can freely choose when to get your own beacons back
-You should able to do it with a limiting amount of people
-You should be able to do it instantly

Now lets see what the beacon system already have planned.

-You have a limited amount
-You can put player tokens into beacons to allow them to build in them
-You can remove your own beacons again when you desire (Prob for some cost)
-You can decide how many tokens you want to put into the beacon
-You can place the beacons instantly.

what you want guilds to be are literally already things you can do with your own beacons.

You don’t like the idea of joining guilds that requires time/dedication? Just dont join any. You want to just build with a few other people? Great you can already do that with the current beacon system!

Like the planned system already does.

They remove certain aspects which could be part of guilds to cater to people who wants to work in smaller task forces. aka the whole “Its unfair i have to work to gain beacon space when i just want to build something!”

Do you guys not see? The thing you ask for IS ALREADY COMING! What is the point of Hijacking another system to do PRECISELY the same while limiting it to cater to the needs of small players which are already catered to in the main system?

But alright. You use the argument “You can be in many guilds” then i will use the counter argument "Why have they stated that they want guilds to be so big that you can get subgroups of guilds WITHIN the guilds? That really doesnt seem like a system made for “3 man builder teams”. Where does world domination come in? where does economy gain come in? What are the differences between the taskforce system you want and the beacon system already in place?

EDIT: You might be right. Maybe they are doing guilds as nothing but a hollow shell focused entirely around catering builders. But if that is the case. then its the second worst decision they have ever made (after the exclusive gameplaychanging race) and they WILL Alienate a part of Maybe the majority, maybe not. But it would be just another system catering to builders. and honestly? i think there are already waay too damn many of those in the game. And i will fight with my very soul against it. But we need official confirmation first. @olliepurkiss if you read this. Think about the question “If the system is nothing more than what vastar suggest, a puny builder contract. What difference would it make? After all it is still all achievable with what is already planned?” I dont believe it is just that. the devs are not stupid, nor are they new at making games. So i simply do not believe that they are proposing a system that is simply identical to an already planned one.


…I’m pretty sure this was my point. Which means I probably missed the point of your post.


To clarify

You: The guild system suggested by the devs is already fitting both sides

Me: The BEACON system which is entirely seperate from any potential guild system can already do the same.

Am i misunderstanding? In case im not. i’m not saying that “the guild system suggested is good enough”. I’m saying that if we WERE to scrap the entire guild system. poof. gone. never going to be ingame. Even with that you could still achieve the whole “build together” with the current beacon/token system. Which is why i find it redundant and more than anything rude to suggest that a potentially good guild system should cater entirely to the builders. even though the system is already in place (outside of guild systems)

Is that a bit clearer? Or am i misphrasing something? (i might be)


If guilds were only going to be used for building projects, I’d say you’re right and that beacons would serve all purposes.

I’m doubting that’s the case though.


So, let’s say we remove beacons from guilds. Now beacons and guilds are stand alone separate things. How would a guild leader manage the beacons under his guilds control? I’m assuming that the placer of a beacon has irrevocable rights to that beacon, thought they can share permissions within the area.

So, how does a guild leader manage projects inside of beacons they did not directly place? Does that not leave them entirely at the mercy of the owner? Is that really that great of a concern, or just a natural check and balance?

I get the feeling that this question may be similar to what lead to the original beacon/guild plan.


Precisely. I am saying that is what @Vastar is arguing for with his “join 60 guilds” and the whole idea of guilds working like “a taskforce” thats why i say its utterly redundant to want guilds to work just like that. He did say he would have “3 main guilds” which i think should be the focus. the “main” guilds that you want. the guilds you join for the social activities or to have shared objectives/resources with. And the problem is that you can say it covers both. but if we use a diagram

Red is the “proper” guild which is the classic “We make a guild to play together and bond!” and the blue is the “Taskforce”. The green area is the overlap. That is where you said “Look at the overlap!” and i say “Yeah… But look at how much DOESNT overlap”. As greatly discussed above. Forexample a guild progression system requiring achies, guild currency whatever lies in the red circle. But that would be against the blue circle which focuses entirely on “instant create guilds for small projects”. At the same time if we talk about “Allow people to take their beacons with them” due to the sort of “quick demand” nature of the blue circle then the red circle is more focused on “As a guild we should expand together and we need the other”. And since there is another overlap that looks like this

Which has an overlap that makes them nearly identical. i say scrap the blue part of the original diagram because then we can focus purely on the sort of “main guild” which potentially removes quite a few barriers which had to be there so the blue circle could still exist before.


My personal opinion is that its impossible. The only way to counter it is by not allowing people to leave and take their beacons with them. Not saying thats the “best system” but rather that its the ONLY system i could see working covering for the originally planned of “donate beacons”. Which is fundamentally flawed as can be seen when the only way to have a chance at it is to NOT allow people to leave.

EDIT: An example to those who can’t imagine being in the guild leaders position. Imagine you build a project as 3 people. you all put beacons together, gathered materials and started. once it was almost done one of the guys went “nah i dont feel like it” and just takes all of his beacons. leaving 1/3 of your build vulnerable (which he could very well take for himself). that would freaking SUCK. Now imagine this in a case of maybe 10 out of 100 beacons or 20 out of 100 beacons. Its quite a few materials and space even if its a smaller percentage.


There’s really nothing to stop them taking all the blocks already, if they have the permission within the beacon to do so. Just wait for the other 2 players to go offline and start farming… I’m pretty sure they would voluntarily kick that player from the guild after that.


Here in lies the reason for the originally proposed “sub-guild”. Put your trusted members in your main Guild where hopefully they won’t betray that trust, and sub-guild where the members only have limited (and likely temporary) permissions.


I haven’t caught up on this thread for a while, but I just had a thought. Most serious guilds will probably decide to rent their own server (with potential to turn off regen), would this change the decisions in terms of beacon rules?


Not to me. Regen is invaluable to me for resource regeneration. I would infact do much the opposite, restriction on the entire world with the exception of guild members. No beacons except for my own to be used solely for the HQ.


Were I leading a guild, this is what I would do too. Regen is crucial. Don’t want miners and gatherers wasting valuable time travelling further and further away to find stuff.


Back when I played minecraft, my favorite town running program was towny. This was because:

  1. People can leave whenever they want
  • you can invite people or leave it open
  • you can give different permission levels to people
  • you can set per chunk permissions & ownership
  • the max # of chunks claimable was based on how many people you had
  • each chunk had an upkeep cost as well as a buying price

This is pretty much exactly how I want the >B guild/town/w.e system to work, with the main ones being 1, 2, 4, and 5
I do not see a problem with people claiming a lot of land if there is a large group with a lot of money (I’m leaning towards a flat beacon cost)


Towny is pretty solid.