Forums » Suggestions
Ironic, that in the last few years of this game developed by Guild Software, the aspect of the game which has seen probably the least development is the guild system.
The limitations in the guild system are often overlooked in favor of pure "gameplay" or "content", but it's time to face it: guilds need love too.
I understand that GUI-operated methods for managing guilds and guild affiliation are somewhere on the soon(TM) list, but how much more are we missing still?
Here is a multi-facet suggestion for where the guild system should ultimately go...
Guild-Defined Command Hirearchy, Structures and Administration
The hard-set guild structures are extremely limiting. As it stands, a guild can only have a maximum of 9 council members who have a vote in reorganizing the command structure; of these, a majority is needed to accomplish anything, and what they can accomplish in of itself is limited -- all they can do is vote commanders and council in and out of office. Guilds are also limited to only 3 people (commander included) who are able to invite or expel members. The council have no direct influence on two of these members - the liuetenants. If there is a problem in the guild, it cannot be dealt with until the commander or a liuetenant is informed of the situation and can get online to deal with it. These are just some of the basic limitations and difficulties in the current system involving one commander, 2 lieutenants and 9 council. There are other less critical troubles as well... for example, what if a guild wishes to be led by two co-founders rather than one commander? What if the guild wants more people as Lts or council to spread around the power, balance their assets or improve their online presence? What if the commander or Lts want a more appropriate title? (such as President, CEO, founder, leader, etc... different possibilities exist for different types of guilds; trading guilds may want a President and two Ambassadors, rather than a Commander and two Lieutenants. Even the council may have their own preference, to be ranked as Trustees or something similar) The point is, there are so many limitations in the command structure of guilds that you essentially have many different guilds, but they're all the same kind of guild. There's no variation, either in structure or abilities, organization or influence. TGFT is the same as CLM is the same as VPR is the same as ITAN is the same as BDC. The only difference is the common goal of the players who join them and the rules the commander lays down for them.
I propose that the core of the guild system be placed in the hands of the guild leaders, where it belongs. This way there can be many kinds of guilds, and they could all be different in their own way. Instead of being limited to specific, pre-defined ranks and titles, guilds woule be able to define their own ranks and titles, and assign positions accordingly. This system would revolve around the idea of a hirearchy of command, with each echelon introducing new levels of power within the guild. The different echelons could be given custom titles, such as Captain, Commander, Lieutenant, President, Ambassador, Citizen, Trustee, Councilor, Arbiter, etc.... The leader(s) of the guild would be able to assign the different powers each position entailed, such as inviting, expelling, voting, promoting, demoting, control of guildinfo page, etc... and also how the position is reached (vote, appointing, earned by seniority, bought by stock shares, etc....) For example: The President (top-level commander) of TGFT could choose to have three Ambassadors, assigned by appointment, and that the Ambassadors would have the power to invite members, expel members, vote on other positions and make guild-sponsored newsposts. Perhaps TGFT also wants a board of Trustees, assigned by voting, capable of voting on their own and other positions, as well as with the ability to promote/demote members in other positions, and to change their titles.
What it all boils down to is this: let guilds manage themselves. I just read all this bullshit drama about some guilds having 3 lts. So what? If guilds want to have a different command structure, or just more of the same, what can it hurt? Just eliminate all the weenie-whiners who complain about someone else's guild having more Lts than their own, and it's all good. It's not going to open up any more doors for sabotage or things like that than were already there, and if anything, it will extend more control to the leaders of the guild who really should be in control. Any intelligent guild leader will take the necessary precausions to insure the security of their own guild and the morale of its members, and anyone who doesn't, well... they lose -- that's life.
In the meantime, remove the limit on the number of Lts in guilds; it can't hurt anything, and it won't create any problems that won't fix themselves. <REF#1> <REF#2>
Also on the agenda for guilds (but lower in priority):
Guild decals on ships
Guild access to special universe/government resources (Capships, weapon discounts, etc.)
Thread with similar ideas:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/6494
The limitations in the guild system are often overlooked in favor of pure "gameplay" or "content", but it's time to face it: guilds need love too.
I understand that GUI-operated methods for managing guilds and guild affiliation are somewhere on the soon(TM) list, but how much more are we missing still?
Here is a multi-facet suggestion for where the guild system should ultimately go...
Guild-Defined Command Hirearchy, Structures and Administration
The hard-set guild structures are extremely limiting. As it stands, a guild can only have a maximum of 9 council members who have a vote in reorganizing the command structure; of these, a majority is needed to accomplish anything, and what they can accomplish in of itself is limited -- all they can do is vote commanders and council in and out of office. Guilds are also limited to only 3 people (commander included) who are able to invite or expel members. The council have no direct influence on two of these members - the liuetenants. If there is a problem in the guild, it cannot be dealt with until the commander or a liuetenant is informed of the situation and can get online to deal with it. These are just some of the basic limitations and difficulties in the current system involving one commander, 2 lieutenants and 9 council. There are other less critical troubles as well... for example, what if a guild wishes to be led by two co-founders rather than one commander? What if the guild wants more people as Lts or council to spread around the power, balance their assets or improve their online presence? What if the commander or Lts want a more appropriate title? (such as President, CEO, founder, leader, etc... different possibilities exist for different types of guilds; trading guilds may want a President and two Ambassadors, rather than a Commander and two Lieutenants. Even the council may have their own preference, to be ranked as Trustees or something similar) The point is, there are so many limitations in the command structure of guilds that you essentially have many different guilds, but they're all the same kind of guild. There's no variation, either in structure or abilities, organization or influence. TGFT is the same as CLM is the same as VPR is the same as ITAN is the same as BDC. The only difference is the common goal of the players who join them and the rules the commander lays down for them.
I propose that the core of the guild system be placed in the hands of the guild leaders, where it belongs. This way there can be many kinds of guilds, and they could all be different in their own way. Instead of being limited to specific, pre-defined ranks and titles, guilds woule be able to define their own ranks and titles, and assign positions accordingly. This system would revolve around the idea of a hirearchy of command, with each echelon introducing new levels of power within the guild. The different echelons could be given custom titles, such as Captain, Commander, Lieutenant, President, Ambassador, Citizen, Trustee, Councilor, Arbiter, etc.... The leader(s) of the guild would be able to assign the different powers each position entailed, such as inviting, expelling, voting, promoting, demoting, control of guildinfo page, etc... and also how the position is reached (vote, appointing, earned by seniority, bought by stock shares, etc....) For example: The President (top-level commander) of TGFT could choose to have three Ambassadors, assigned by appointment, and that the Ambassadors would have the power to invite members, expel members, vote on other positions and make guild-sponsored newsposts. Perhaps TGFT also wants a board of Trustees, assigned by voting, capable of voting on their own and other positions, as well as with the ability to promote/demote members in other positions, and to change their titles.
What it all boils down to is this: let guilds manage themselves. I just read all this bullshit drama about some guilds having 3 lts. So what? If guilds want to have a different command structure, or just more of the same, what can it hurt? Just eliminate all the weenie-whiners who complain about someone else's guild having more Lts than their own, and it's all good. It's not going to open up any more doors for sabotage or things like that than were already there, and if anything, it will extend more control to the leaders of the guild who really should be in control. Any intelligent guild leader will take the necessary precausions to insure the security of their own guild and the morale of its members, and anyone who doesn't, well... they lose -- that's life.
In the meantime, remove the limit on the number of Lts in guilds; it can't hurt anything, and it won't create any problems that won't fix themselves. <REF#1> <REF#2>
Also on the agenda for guilds (but lower in priority):
Guild decals on ships
Guild access to special universe/government resources (Capships, weapon discounts, etc.)
Thread with similar ideas:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/6494
Good post. I agree with what you're saying. It'd be nice to have a flexible guild system that is defined by the creators. It wouldn't be that hard, they'd just have to spend a bit of time writing up a new interface for it.
I could see a guild creation page. It'd look a little like the mission editor. A bunch of buttons labeled rank would open to a list that offers "Commander", "President", "Lieutenant.", "Council", etc... as options. Then each one of those buttons would have another set of buttons next to it, labeled powers. Their lists would have "member inviting", "member booting", "MOTD setting", etc...
I'd also like to see guilds have the ability to set their own KOS lists that apply to all their members:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/14732
I could see a guild creation page. It'd look a little like the mission editor. A bunch of buttons labeled rank would open to a list that offers "Commander", "President", "Lieutenant.", "Council", etc... as options. Then each one of those buttons would have another set of buttons next to it, labeled powers. Their lists would have "member inviting", "member booting", "MOTD setting", etc...
I'd also like to see guilds have the ability to set their own KOS lists that apply to all their members:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/14732
<sigh> Do I need to make a "Master Chief" or "Cortana" screen name for the forums?
Anyway, 343, the reason that having 3 LT's is unfair is because that gives THAT guild more opportunity to recruit players. Only LT's and Commanders can recruit new players (/invite them). Therefore, SCAR was being given an unfair advantage in recruitment with 3 LT's instead of 2.
(Not that it fully matters with the number of players available now, but the principle does matter.)
Regardless, I agree that a flexible guild structure system would be neat. Having an out-of-game web interface for the guild management would be neat as well; managing things like guild money, invites, voting, etc. The ingame command-line structure is so out of place that it annoys me. I know changes are coming, though. I hope this is addressed.
Anyway, 343, the reason that having 3 LT's is unfair is because that gives THAT guild more opportunity to recruit players. Only LT's and Commanders can recruit new players (/invite them). Therefore, SCAR was being given an unfair advantage in recruitment with 3 LT's instead of 2.
(Not that it fully matters with the number of players available now, but the principle does matter.)
Regardless, I agree that a flexible guild structure system would be neat. Having an out-of-game web interface for the guild management would be neat as well; managing things like guild money, invites, voting, etc. The ingame command-line structure is so out of place that it annoys me. I know changes are coming, though. I hope this is addressed.
Number one priority in my eyes for the guild system is a buddylist-like online alert. Bob logged off, Joe logged on. Such a change is instant, small, and an immeasurable improvement.
it's called /buddy
Um, yeah, we have that.
Although, again, a GUI interface for the same command-line functionality is necessary.
Although, again, a GUI interface for the same command-line functionality is necessary.
Instead of having a list of a lot of different names for positions, just make it so that you can type in the name yourself. That way the guild can use any name for its ranks. This should be true for members as well so that the guild could give the members some other name besides members.
exDragon, the problem then is that people will have dumb titles that are spelled like they are blind with 2 broken hands. I can see it now...
ambasseder: dethmann
Lutenant: Billbob..of_pane!
Supreem cloWn mastre: jiglEs89
hed Cownseler: dEaThBrNgEr12
Cernle: TeanyWeany5
I think the game should keep its dignity by offering a nice broad palette of predefined options. I don't trust peoples' spelling and/or ability to make proper titles. I know they are their own guilds, but they shouldn't be able to pick completely ridiculous titles.
ambasseder: dethmann
Lutenant: Billbob..of_pane!
Supreem cloWn mastre: jiglEs89
hed Cownseler: dEaThBrNgEr12
Cernle: TeanyWeany5
I think the game should keep its dignity by offering a nice broad palette of predefined options. I don't trust peoples' spelling and/or ability to make proper titles. I know they are their own guilds, but they shouldn't be able to pick completely ridiculous titles.
1. Hook up a spell checker to the "Guild Configuration" page
2. Sprinkle the various faction, system, planet and historical figure names from the backstory into the "user dictionary" for consistency's sake.
3. Penalize characters for each attempted use of mIxEdCaSe or 1337-speak in the character or guild creation process (not required, but I think it'd help us all maintain a little sanity)
2. Sprinkle the various faction, system, planet and historical figure names from the backstory into the "user dictionary" for consistency's sake.
3. Penalize characters for each attempted use of mIxEdCaSe or 1337-speak in the character or guild creation process (not required, but I think it'd help us all maintain a little sanity)
I don't have any problems with this general concept, giving guilds more control over defining their own structures and governmental types.
However, I would like to see more specific discussion on how to practically implement this kind of idea (much as you guys are doing.. I'd just like more). Things like, would a web-based creation and maintenance page be sufficient, or would we need to put a lot of functionality in-game (more time consuming). Whatever mechanism would require that people not be able to make titles and things that end up being foul or offensive or anything. So I also support having a list of possible title choices, rather than having wacky guilds ruled by "The Grand Poobah of Asskicking" or some such.
So, let the suggesting commence. I agree, the Guild system needs a lot of improvement and reworking, and I would like to get feedback from our guilds to find out what sort of specific features and structures would be most useful to them.
However, I would like to see more specific discussion on how to practically implement this kind of idea (much as you guys are doing.. I'd just like more). Things like, would a web-based creation and maintenance page be sufficient, or would we need to put a lot of functionality in-game (more time consuming). Whatever mechanism would require that people not be able to make titles and things that end up being foul or offensive or anything. So I also support having a list of possible title choices, rather than having wacky guilds ruled by "The Grand Poobah of Asskicking" or some such.
So, let the suggesting commence. I agree, the Guild system needs a lot of improvement and reworking, and I would like to get feedback from our guilds to find out what sort of specific features and structures would be most useful to them.
incarnate, I think having it web-based would be fine. I'm sure that'd be a lot easier than writing an in-game interface. You guys did a great job with the mission editor. Maybe later tonight I'll try to post something more specific as to the format of the UI, what it would need to do, and what it might look like.
I agree. The website seems like an integral part of the game, having a web page for guild management might actually make things easier.
Honestly, a web interface like I caught a glimpse of during that bug would be fine. Of course, expanded with some of the suggestions here, like making more ranks and giving powers to said ranks.
Also, while in the future council will be useful, they aren't really now. Not many, if any, guilds can get majority votes in 24 hours to pass resolutions and appoint people and what not.
Oh, and a way to do away with the CO, splitting the power between the Lieutenants, would be awesome, to have a Guild co-run.
Also, while in the future council will be useful, they aren't really now. Not many, if any, guilds can get majority votes in 24 hours to pass resolutions and appoint people and what not.
Oh, and a way to do away with the CO, splitting the power between the Lieutenants, would be awesome, to have a Guild co-run.
The "Player Guild Setup" webpage could look something like this:
[rank] [max#] [power] [power] [power]
[rank] [max#] [power] [power] [power]
[rank] [max#] [power] [power] [power]
This would be for all the possible things a member could be promoted or elected to. Options for [rank] would include Commander, President, Lieutenant, Council, Commodore, Ambassador, Member, Pilot, Ensign, etc...
Options for [power] could include "voting members to rank", "appointing members to rank", "setting MOTD", "inviting", "expelling", "modifying webpage", "modifying player guild setup", "none", etc...
Then there would be a place to define what normal invited members are initially called. It would just have a list of titles or ranks. Every new member would be assigned this title. These titles might include Recruit, Member-in-Training, Pilot, Member, etc...
[starting title]
This way, if you want, everyone could become an "Officer" after a while. For instance, set your [starting title] to "Recruit". Make one of your official ranks "Member". Set [max#] to "infinite", and [powers] to "none". Then once a new recruit has put some time in and earned some trust, you can promote him or her to "Member". No official powers would come with this promotion because you set [power] to "none". It would be for recognition.
There would have to be a [rule] variable for things like requiring a majority Council (or whatever) vote to elect new Officers and other stuff like that.
[rule]
[rule]
[rule]
This "Player Guild Setup" webpage might only appear once, when the guild is first created. The Commander (or whatever) would set this system and would never really have to go back.
Anyway, I hope this helps at least a little bit.
[rank] [max#] [power] [power] [power]
[rank] [max#] [power] [power] [power]
[rank] [max#] [power] [power] [power]
This would be for all the possible things a member could be promoted or elected to. Options for [rank] would include Commander, President, Lieutenant, Council, Commodore, Ambassador, Member, Pilot, Ensign, etc...
Options for [power] could include "voting members to rank", "appointing members to rank", "setting MOTD", "inviting", "expelling", "modifying webpage", "modifying player guild setup", "none", etc...
Then there would be a place to define what normal invited members are initially called. It would just have a list of titles or ranks. Every new member would be assigned this title. These titles might include Recruit, Member-in-Training, Pilot, Member, etc...
[starting title]
This way, if you want, everyone could become an "Officer" after a while. For instance, set your [starting title] to "Recruit". Make one of your official ranks "Member". Set [max#] to "infinite", and [powers] to "none". Then once a new recruit has put some time in and earned some trust, you can promote him or her to "Member". No official powers would come with this promotion because you set [power] to "none". It would be for recognition.
There would have to be a [rule] variable for things like requiring a majority Council (or whatever) vote to elect new Officers and other stuff like that.
[rule]
[rule]
[rule]
This "Player Guild Setup" webpage might only appear once, when the guild is first created. The Commander (or whatever) would set this system and would never really have to go back.
Anyway, I hope this helps at least a little bit.
Branching out on this as well, what if there were specific types of guilds that revieved the mentioned specific benefits? So, just two for example, one could make a trading guild and as a result all members in the guild would get a discount on commodities. Or one could make a nationalistic military guild and get discounts on repairs/weapons or something of the like.
[Off-Topic]
[/Off-Topic]
May I suggest a guild structure similar to the clan structure of the (hilarious) online game Kingdom of Loathing?
I don't have a ton of time, so I won't post in-depth about it, but you guys might like their system (and maybe even like the game).
[/Off-Topic]
May I suggest a guild structure similar to the clan structure of the (hilarious) online game Kingdom of Loathing?
I don't have a ton of time, so I won't post in-depth about it, but you guys might like their system (and maybe even like the game).
I like the ferocious toothed Lime. Rawr!
Ah, yes, the Sabre-Tooth Lime. Deadly.
I, of course, am partial to the Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot and the Baby Gravy Fairy as my familiars, though a good Cocoabo is nice too.
For those of you concerned with leveling fast, I might suggest a Blood-Faced Volleyball. Be forewarned, the game won't let you name it Wilson. It automatically changes it to something odd.
I, of course, am partial to the Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot and the Baby Gravy Fairy as my familiars, though a good Cocoabo is nice too.
For those of you concerned with leveling fast, I might suggest a Blood-Faced Volleyball. Be forewarned, the game won't let you name it Wilson. It automatically changes it to something odd.
"Anyway, 343, the reason that having 3 LT's is unfair is because that gives THAT guild more opportunity to recruit players. Only LT's and Commanders can recruit new players (/invite them). Therefore, SCAR was being given an unfair advantage in recruitment with 3 LT's instead of 2."
Actually I was referring primarily to CLM when I discussed the multiple Lts issue, though you can feel free to blame it on SCAR if you want. The point was that the number of Lts shouldn't matter, and the limitation to 2 Lts was more a problem than a solution. If anyone had "unfair advantage" in recruitment, it was CLM, since they've had 3 Lts longer than SCAR's even been around. It's not as if the mods gave SCAR any more freedom than they would have given any other guild that had asked, at least until some loud-mouthed children decided to make an issue of it on the forums demanding it stop.
And yes, I use this character name in-game
Inc: if people want to have a silly guild, I say good on 'em, and let 'em have it... that'll be their problem to deal with when they actually want people to take them seriously and join. I think fundamentally, I'm against forcing a list of available titles on guilds as a constraint, since there'll always be some appropriate title that nobody making the list thought of. Perhaps if instead any changes to guild titles simply needed approval from a guide before the changes could take effect?
I don't see any problem with a web-based interface for top-level guild management... in fact, I think it may be easier for the guilds in a lot of ways, since all their other logistical resources will be right there (guildinfo page, guild sites/forums, memberlists, emails, etc...)
The interface could in fact be fairly simple... allowing the guild leader(s) to input a title, check off the different abilities the title holders will have access to, the method for selection, and max number of positions (if applicable)... compare it to a phpBB system where groups are named and their access levels determined from the admin panel.
Actually I was referring primarily to CLM when I discussed the multiple Lts issue, though you can feel free to blame it on SCAR if you want. The point was that the number of Lts shouldn't matter, and the limitation to 2 Lts was more a problem than a solution. If anyone had "unfair advantage" in recruitment, it was CLM, since they've had 3 Lts longer than SCAR's even been around. It's not as if the mods gave SCAR any more freedom than they would have given any other guild that had asked, at least until some loud-mouthed children decided to make an issue of it on the forums demanding it stop.
And yes, I use this character name in-game
Inc: if people want to have a silly guild, I say good on 'em, and let 'em have it... that'll be their problem to deal with when they actually want people to take them seriously and join. I think fundamentally, I'm against forcing a list of available titles on guilds as a constraint, since there'll always be some appropriate title that nobody making the list thought of. Perhaps if instead any changes to guild titles simply needed approval from a guide before the changes could take effect?
I don't see any problem with a web-based interface for top-level guild management... in fact, I think it may be easier for the guilds in a lot of ways, since all their other logistical resources will be right there (guildinfo page, guild sites/forums, memberlists, emails, etc...)
The interface could in fact be fairly simple... allowing the guild leader(s) to input a title, check off the different abilities the title holders will have access to, the method for selection, and max number of positions (if applicable)... compare it to a phpBB system where groups are named and their access levels determined from the admin panel.
A command to appoint a councilor from the Lieutenant or Commander would be nice, for the short term. Otherwise, ask the guides yourself how many times they have to switch councilors around because the guilds don't have enough active ones to do so themselves.