So hopefully everyone knows the basic guild structure: Leader, officer, standard member, the new guy we need to blame everything on. Well, I’ve heard talk of people wanting to be democratic about their guilds, and I’m sure there are other layouts that folks have thought up for their guilds. Basically I want you guys to discuss that here so we can stir the pot of boiling ideas.
As far as my ideas go, flowing with the “no single person should be all powerful” I think being able to create sub-guilds within a guild would allow a different member to lead different sections, but be equal to the other sub-guild leaders. So you run it like a standard guild almost in that you are in charge of your section and your followers only answer to you, but for major decisions (war, disbanding, economy, who gets to wear the fanciest wig) all of the leaders would have to debate to vote on the whole guilds future path. So one of you can be the Head Farmer and another the War Chief and another the Craft Lord. The War Chief could ask the other heads for extra funding or resources for an upcoming battle, letting the other two take into account their own struggles with resources before deciding yay or nay.
Feel free to come up with crazy ideas, just try to sum it up to something the devs can work with.
I would like to just have a flexible guild setting, where you have a table with options where you can set those for each Rank and also create new ranks. Options would be like …
Recrute new Members
Put and/or take something into/from the guild bank (money/lesser items)
Put and/or take something into/from the guild vault (greater Items)
Use Guild Bonus items
Use guildleader sub-chat
set taxes
build guild beacons
build/take stuff in guild beacons
… (and many more)
So at the beginning there is just a basic set of ranks (like leader/member/noob), but you can create ranks and distributes the rights for each one seperately. On this way its flexible and you can do whatever you want, even let everyone do everything (even if that would be real stupid ^^). Sub-guilds can be an option too, but may be handled with flexible ranks as well
I also hope that each character can become a member of more then one guild (like in Guild Wars 2), so that you can play as a standard member in your main guild, but also can switch over to a pvp guild if you want to have quick fun with your pals of the pvp-branch. But that is another topic I think ^^.
I’d love a sub-guild layout, and that could make a really cool hierarchy, but there should also be sub-ranks, such as lower officers, and vice-leaders.
If you have the option to create ranks and rights for those independently (even up to “- can make ranks and change those”), you can do the sub-guild system as well. Would be cool when a guild can have more then one chat channel, so that the sub divisions can communicate without spamming the others
The ideal guild layout rank wise for me and The Watchers would be “Founder”, “Counsel Member”, “Officer”, “Division Heads”, “Members”, etc, etc… Then the rest would be customize-able. As much coding as it might take, I would like guilds to be as customize-able as possible, even to the point of having some things only accessible to those in their division, or those of a certain rank.
the guild have 3 branches, crafters, fighters and explorers.
i pick 3 leaders of these branches
they should be able to do everything within that branch they are leader for as a guild leader, maybe even do everything the guild leader can other than kick him. something like that.
Another way to approach the sub-guild idea is that instead of having different jobs(farming, fighting, etc) you could have a sub-guild for each world. Because some resources are obviously supposed to be more or less present in some worlds, having your table of leaders could allow strange trade routes to exist (strange because everyone probably made portals into each world by now).
Of course creating as many branches as you would like would be ideal ( branch per world plus branch for job types within those).
Off topic: Now that I’ve thought about it, I wonder if there will be carts or wagons that can be made for the purpose of trade caravans. Tons of extra inventory space plus PvP potential for caravan raiding (raiders hear about caravan and ready themselves, traders hire mercenaries from guilds to protect their stock, big battle commences).
If a guild leader isn’t all powerful could that person’s guild be taken from them by their own people?! In this age of freedom I think it should be fully guaranteed by our rights to be a horrible dictator. Would you infringe on my right to be a dictator?! How Dare you!
(actual opinion: The actual guild system shouldn’t be so complex as to call it a government. It’s more like a collection of people who are all voluntarily teaming up to gain mutual benefits. There should be ranks in the system, but purely for management reasons.
If we want to run a government it’s up to us as players to organize it by means other than a structured in game system.)
It is a game so I don’t think that it should go that far as most guild leaders are not that bad and also the members have the option to leave at anytime
also it would suck if people started taking over good guilds
Like griefers come together to take over the guild then just start kicking people out and take to guild beacon and then destroy the town.
It never ends well if you allow somebody else to wrest control of a guild. Guild coups just ruin the fun for players not involved and ultimately, why should they even be necessary? If there is a fracture in the guild, more often than not the guild splits into another guild and everybody is happy. Also, Guilds tend to invest some money into things like teamspeak servers and websites, so an in-game coup would be ineffective at a true take over of the guild’s real world investments.
I don’t think you really think that should be possible, but I’m just expanding on the idea while it’s out there.
Allow guilds that rent a world to give the guild leader total control of that world, within fair standards. Allow the guild leader to decide if the world is public or private, maintain and moderate grief protection and world bans, white-listing, etc. If a guild wants to rent their own world, they should be supreme rulers of that world.
Indeed, I was going under the assumption that guild owned worlds were financially backed either by the GM or by the guild’s combined contributions. In most cases, that would put the stewardship of the world on the GM.
