Forums » Suggestions
OK Incarnate. You asked for details. I'm thinking that setting up a guild would be partially structural (as in setting up # of council and LT's and such) and partially permissions-based (letting X do Y). So, here's my first shot at such a beast, here.
(external link, lotsa horizontal scrolling, apologies...)
(external link, lotsa horizontal scrolling, apologies...)
i'll go have a bottle of nyquil and try reading that again.
Wow! You really thought this out.
Just remember to not force any positions, ie we don't have to have ONE COmmander if we don't want to. otherwise, Lexicon you oold bastid you've done it again!
EDIT: Oh, so it is there. *shuts up*
EDIT: Oh, so it is there. *shuts up*
It's cool but 51% is not simple majority.
Simple majority is when a person has more votes than the others, if you got 3 people for example it would be 33% +1 vote (and not 34% btw). And even if you have 2 people running for a position, it's still 50%+1vote, not 51%.
:D
Simple majority is when a person has more votes than the others, if you got 3 people for example it would be 33% +1 vote (and not 34% btw). And even if you have 2 people running for a position, it's still 50%+1vote, not 51%.
:D
TL;DR
but did give it a quick look and I think it looks great, excepting the limitation ("requirement") that a guild have only one Commander... What if the guild wants 2 Commanders, 3? or even no commanders (run entirely by the board of council members)
but did give it a quick look and I think it looks great, excepting the limitation ("requirement") that a guild have only one Commander... What if the guild wants 2 Commanders, 3? or even no commanders (run entirely by the board of council members)
I think you can give council members the same powers as the commander, effectively making them commanders.
Geez, I dunno. I think "someone" has to initiate the /guild create command. (Or, someone has to be the one entering data in whatever web form we may eventually have.)
I suppose that you could have a guild "commander" be non-essential as long as the councilmembers have the same levels of power as a Commander would, like Zed said. Whoever creates it could immediately resign and become a councilmember.
I guess 51% would also be whatever constitutes a majority, which could be 2 out of 3, 3 out of 4 or 5, 4 out of 6 or 7, etc. You get the idea. For small councils, I guess many of the options could be essentially the same.
I suppose that you could have a guild "commander" be non-essential as long as the councilmembers have the same levels of power as a Commander would, like Zed said. Whoever creates it could immediately resign and become a councilmember.
I guess 51% would also be whatever constitutes a majority, which could be 2 out of 3, 3 out of 4 or 5, 4 out of 6 or 7, etc. You get the idea. For small councils, I guess many of the options could be essentially the same.
I think the color scheme is sexy.
Lexicon, you forgot "Recruit" and "Member-in-Training"! Next time do it right or don't do it at all! You can't go through life half-assing everything...
P.S. Damn Lexicon.... Very nice! That's about what I pictured.
P.S. Damn Lexicon.... Very nice! That's about what I pictured.
[quote]
You can't go through life half-assing everything.
[/quote]
I soooo beg to differ, hell ya you can! :D
And what you mean he forgot? I am sure I saw those.
You can't go through life half-assing everything.
[/quote]
I soooo beg to differ, hell ya you can! :D
And what you mean he forgot? I am sure I saw those.
I even added "Grolar" just for 'ol Genka!
Yes!!!! (we have asked for this type of thing before but not in such detail.)
Incarnate, a web based guild management system would be awesome. I like Lexicon's example, but maybe there might be a need for more structure.
some ideas to add:
1) Guild management web page to include a way for councilors to cast votes, view what votes have been cast, the deadline to vote, and only available to the councilors to see.
2) You do have the right to limit what people choose for names of ranks in order to fit in the genre of the game. So, I suggest to create a few lists of different types ranks. Each list pertaining to different types of guilds:
- Military
- Company (Trade)
- Pirate
- General
Allow the guilds to choose which list they'd like to use, and change it as desired. Make available 15-20 ranks per list, but limit to 7 ranks the guild may actually use. This way, guilds can have a unique ranking system, and fit into acceptable parameters for the game.
3) Split the ranks into tiers, plus the council.
- Tier 1 - New Recruit: i.e. Cadet - Limit 1 rank, No limit to #members.
- Tier 2 - Member: i.e. Ensign - Limit 1 rank, No limit to #members.
- Tier 3 - Officer: i.e. Flight Officer - Limit 2 ranks, No limit #members.
- Tier 4 - Upper Officer: i.e. Lt, Captain - Limit 2 ranks, 2 members per rank.
- Tier 5 - Commanding Officer: i.e. Commander, Admiral - 1 rank, 1 member.
Then tiers 2, 3 and 4 can be in the council as well.
Allow guilds to choose which titles they will use for each rank out of a smaller list of titles allocated to each tier.
4) This idea is little more trivial, but could be a nice incentive for guilds to keep recruiting. Give a bonus for guilds that grow beyond a certain size. Maybe add a tier above commander, or add the ability to use more titles to the tiers of ranks already available.
I think guild powers are good as being defined by the position the member holds. I don't think customizing the guild powers per rank is a necessity. However, levels of access to the guild management web page should be. This way, players will have the ability to configure and manage the guild the way they want. Such as, 343 Guilty Spark mentioned, eliminating the commander position and still function as any other guild.
A lot of good ideas have been mentioned here. And I'm drooling over the concept of new guild features. This could be a major portion of what people are anticipating for future products of the game. If making guild management is available only through a web page so that it is easier for you to implement, then so be it. It wouldn't take away any aspect of the RP value that we would gain. Then at a later date maybe include the features in-game when you can.
Incarnate, a web based guild management system would be awesome. I like Lexicon's example, but maybe there might be a need for more structure.
some ideas to add:
1) Guild management web page to include a way for councilors to cast votes, view what votes have been cast, the deadline to vote, and only available to the councilors to see.
2) You do have the right to limit what people choose for names of ranks in order to fit in the genre of the game. So, I suggest to create a few lists of different types ranks. Each list pertaining to different types of guilds:
- Military
- Company (Trade)
- Pirate
- General
Allow the guilds to choose which list they'd like to use, and change it as desired. Make available 15-20 ranks per list, but limit to 7 ranks the guild may actually use. This way, guilds can have a unique ranking system, and fit into acceptable parameters for the game.
3) Split the ranks into tiers, plus the council.
- Tier 1 - New Recruit: i.e. Cadet - Limit 1 rank, No limit to #members.
- Tier 2 - Member: i.e. Ensign - Limit 1 rank, No limit to #members.
- Tier 3 - Officer: i.e. Flight Officer - Limit 2 ranks, No limit #members.
- Tier 4 - Upper Officer: i.e. Lt, Captain - Limit 2 ranks, 2 members per rank.
- Tier 5 - Commanding Officer: i.e. Commander, Admiral - 1 rank, 1 member.
Then tiers 2, 3 and 4 can be in the council as well.
Allow guilds to choose which titles they will use for each rank out of a smaller list of titles allocated to each tier.
4) This idea is little more trivial, but could be a nice incentive for guilds to keep recruiting. Give a bonus for guilds that grow beyond a certain size. Maybe add a tier above commander, or add the ability to use more titles to the tiers of ranks already available.
I think guild powers are good as being defined by the position the member holds. I don't think customizing the guild powers per rank is a necessity. However, levels of access to the guild management web page should be. This way, players will have the ability to configure and manage the guild the way they want. Such as, 343 Guilty Spark mentioned, eliminating the commander position and still function as any other guild.
A lot of good ideas have been mentioned here. And I'm drooling over the concept of new guild features. This could be a major portion of what people are anticipating for future products of the game. If making guild management is available only through a web page so that it is easier for you to implement, then so be it. It wouldn't take away any aspect of the RP value that we would gain. Then at a later date maybe include the features in-game when you can.
"- Tier 4 - Upper Officer: i.e. Lt, Captain - Limit 2 ranks, 2 members per rank.
- Tier 5 - Commanding Officer: i.e. Commander, Admiral - 1 rank, 1 member."
I thought the whole point of this was to be less limiting with the number of officers that can hold these positions, as well as the roles assigned them. No, I don't think that's a good idea. Guilds that want such a tiered structure can define it as such on their own.
And Lexicon, I meant that some guilds may want to vary the number of leading commanders, or just remove them completely. There is the assumtion that "the one commander" is not the only person with access to the guild management system -- that would be a feature that could be assignable to any ranking officer of the guild. Perhaps a guild wants two commanders - why not? It wouldn't hurt anything to have two people with the same top level of control in the guild, provided they can operate without a marriage councilor...
Point is, there's no need for any restrictions in the assignable ranks within a guild, excepting perhaps to enforce a democratic structure in guilds that operate that way (i.e., any guild that operates via democratic process would necessitate a certian number of people capable of performing the voting function, to ensure a fair representation in the guild.)
- Tier 5 - Commanding Officer: i.e. Commander, Admiral - 1 rank, 1 member."
I thought the whole point of this was to be less limiting with the number of officers that can hold these positions, as well as the roles assigned them. No, I don't think that's a good idea. Guilds that want such a tiered structure can define it as such on their own.
And Lexicon, I meant that some guilds may want to vary the number of leading commanders, or just remove them completely. There is the assumtion that "the one commander" is not the only person with access to the guild management system -- that would be a feature that could be assignable to any ranking officer of the guild. Perhaps a guild wants two commanders - why not? It wouldn't hurt anything to have two people with the same top level of control in the guild, provided they can operate without a marriage councilor...
Point is, there's no need for any restrictions in the assignable ranks within a guild, excepting perhaps to enforce a democratic structure in guilds that operate that way (i.e., any guild that operates via democratic process would necessitate a certian number of people capable of performing the voting function, to ensure a fair representation in the guild.)
Agreed, 343.
I have not read any of the rest of this thread, but would allowing guilds to define their own structure not be the best way to go about guilds in the long run?
Antz, that WAS the point
What I want to see sooner than anything else for Guilds is a Guild version of the buddy list, that you don't have to manually add to. When someone joins, it's put in the list, when someone leaves, it's taken out. Apart from that, it's exactly the same, telling you which guildmates are online when you log in, and which guildmates log in and out.
If I start a guild, I can already call it something naughty, or spelled wrong, so I don't see a reason to limit what a rank is called.
From what I've seen of the Devs most excellent DOM skills (Mission editor of DOOM), making a very dynamic guild structure is not at all out of reach.
As for the ingame<->web thinking, I seriously think it's better to have it on the website as that would make it accessible even without logging in. [edit: err... I mean without loading the game and logging in there. Logging in to the website would of course still be required >.< ]
I'd like to be able to cast Council (Board of Directors!) votes while at work, for example.
In Vendetta the game exists even when we're not logged in to the 3D client. I'm still Zathras, a Council Member in TGFT, even though I'm not currently looking at a fancy 3D engine.
Blurring the line between ingame and out-of-game is great!
From what I've seen of the Devs most excellent DOM skills (Mission editor of DOOM), making a very dynamic guild structure is not at all out of reach.
As for the ingame<->web thinking, I seriously think it's better to have it on the website as that would make it accessible even without logging in. [edit: err... I mean without loading the game and logging in there. Logging in to the website would of course still be required >.< ]
I'd like to be able to cast Council (Board of Directors!) votes while at work, for example.
In Vendetta the game exists even when we're not logged in to the 3D client. I'm still Zathras, a Council Member in TGFT, even though I'm not currently looking at a fancy 3D engine.
Blurring the line between ingame and out-of-game is great!
Lexicon - you seriously should just work for them. They get paid to do that sort of stuff you know... make a few bucks on the side, and help them get stuff like this done.
A beautiful presentation, execution, everything is changable.
One thing I must say though, and it's not included in the presentation, how do you change back to a single leader from multi-leader, or change the #? Is there some kind of voting that could remedy this by polling guild wide, including lower members?
A beautiful presentation, execution, everything is changable.
One thing I must say though, and it's not included in the presentation, how do you change back to a single leader from multi-leader, or change the #? Is there some kind of voting that could remedy this by polling guild wide, including lower members?