You have a point there but what keeps “guild leaders” from doing it now^^
The only reason i use the guild system ist the control it gives. When someone joins I explicitly tell them to not give beacon control to the guild. If they like just align.
Guess it depends on guild leadership ship what happens.
I know one thing for sure - it kinda works for me in big cities made of many beacons of many different players and guilds.
It’s annoying when it makes you create names for settlement and then the greater settlement when you are the only owner of all the beacons (and especially when there is only one beacon!!). And equally unnecessary when there are maybe 2-3 players building the settlement and they are all one guild and they sure don’t need to “protect” identity of the individual beacons.
Good point! Haven’t tought of this so far.
It also cleans up settlement boards from redundant double listings.
Also improves readability and clarity of the settlement icons on planets and atlases.
I would love it.
Thats clear as mud to me.So what if Im aligned on one planet and the guilds on another its a guild settlement? I always thought greater settlements/settlements were about the prestige you get from actually building in one area maybe Im misunderstanding the game? Im just not getting what this actually resolves or prevents. I mean maybe its just me but can you in 10 words or less break down exactly what you want or why you want it?
it prevents forced merging. The only way to merge into a settlement would be to join the guild and align the beacon. A person building immediately next to you would not force a merge or gain your prestige or take your name.
thx Kal for the clarity. I still think a in game moderator could quash most of theses territorial squabbles its the easiest solution and will keep things from reaching critical mass.
Yes I agree that situation was bad but I don’t know any details on how it started so I can’t see a link to this system. In other words, I honestly don’t understand how this system would causing anything like that or would be a headache. I was just trying to understand the view point on how this system becomes a headache.
Point A already happens by the settlement aggregation layer.
Point B will not work because it is too complicated in the current programming. I found this out when I talked with James about my Settlement revamp design. So selection just will not really work easily or is worth the time.
Point C is what we agree was the better option. The system was individual beacon (at settlement level) and guild aligned/controlled beacons could just select to opt-out from that server process that tries to merge people. That idea is still being considered and I don’t know when or if it really will happen.
This idea is a bit different in creating a guild type idea for a city. I personally really like it because it aligns to cooperation and people choosing what they join. Nothing is left to some automated guess work on if two things should merge.
A guild is independed of planets and can also have multiple settlements on different planets.
Ultima for example has big guild cities both on Finata and Eresho. They are different guild cities of the same guild.
Guild settlements accumulate prestige as well. Right now guild settlements can be seen as districts in a city.
They behave almost the same as non-guild settlements. The intersting difference is, how guild settlements form is in the hand of all affected players (be aligning beacons) while the formation of non-guild settlements is in the hand of the server.
Most of the settlement systems are from a time long before we got guilds and they still try to solve problems in complicated ways that guilds now solve way better.
I’m questioning if it’s worth dragging these old ways of non-guild settlement handling along with all the problems that they cause or if we should just leave all settlement handling to the new guild settlements.
i would detach guilds from settlements im using the guilds more to invent rent / usage systems and to set them up rather then using them to join a group off people together
i would love if they invent a seperate thing like a city “guildbook”
and then do what kir is explaining
ow and this city book has no member cap 
atm most organized city’s show up multiple times on the prestige list off a world cuase they use guildbooks for diferent reasons then city making
so i love your idea but i would step away from guildbooks and use another thing to make city’s so they can become one rather then being split in 4 things
I’m a bit confused. When you are in a city if your beacon is aligned with another guild you are NOT part of that city. That is how it is and has been since the guild update.
You are part of the non-guild city AND the guild settlement.
You can see that relation under Places -> Settlements -> Current Settlement.
It reads something like:
Guild Settlement Name
Located in...
Non-Guild Settlement NameYou ARE part of that city.
Your prestige still counts towards the warden’s for viceroy purposes, and towards town/city/greater city for footfall purposes. It doesn’t matter whether the warden is an individual or a guild.
Unaligned:
Aligned in the same city:
I see @Kirinvar posted to this effect but i already made the pictures so i’m posting them 
Got cha ok, Yes the prestige counts but it will not say you are a city. Example was in mine they were excluded from the label city until they aligned their beacons. Fante’s was a town of his own. And many other had their own stages to a city.
