Forums » Suggestions
There should also be a way to change the titles of the positions....
Some would prefer titles such as lord or Willard even.
Some would prefer titles such as lord or Willard even.
Yes.
Thus far then the options available when creating a guild are (based on inputs):
Offices available (check whichever apply):
* CO, Lieutenant, Council, Member
Office Names (for each office picked above)
* Open text field for each office
Office Limits (for each office picked above):
* (I don't know) Permanent, 1 yr, 6mnts, 1 mnt, 1 wk, 1 dy, 12 hours?...something like that. I think I'd prefer a dropdown here, as it'd be a little less chaotic and a lot easier to code. When this period is up, any person can claim the office and force a runoff.
Requirements to Claim Office (dropdown with each office chosen above):
* Checkboxes for each office chosen above to be selected. This defines which people holding current offices can try to claim a new office.
Method for determining who wins after office choices are made (pick as many as apply):
* None (first to choose gets the office)
* Vote (select which offices will vote in determining. 2 options for winning: 1) most votes gained, 2) fixed percentage of available)
* Personal bank account size
* License levels (choose all that apply - total of choices determines victory)
* Combat (would require a special /dueloffice command. Winner gets office)
Number of people who can hold each office defined? (current settings in VO would be: CO=1, Lt=2, Council=9, Member=Unlimited)
Each office thus defined has permissions to change selections of the configuration settings? (Yes - this could be very chaotic, but some guilds might want that) These permissions could differ for each office defined.
Changes in guild structure and holders of offices would not require the intervention of a external agency to take effect. (else what would be the point of term limits?)
Just attempting a little collation here. I just realized however, that we're going to have to completely redesign the rules for creating a guild. Should it be that there is still a required minimum number of people to start a guild, or could 1 person create a guild alone? If each person could be their own guild, what ramifications for game stability would result? (remember that all those guilds still have to be stored in the database)
Offices available (check whichever apply):
* CO, Lieutenant, Council, Member
Office Names (for each office picked above)
* Open text field for each office
Office Limits (for each office picked above):
* (I don't know) Permanent, 1 yr, 6mnts, 1 mnt, 1 wk, 1 dy, 12 hours?...something like that. I think I'd prefer a dropdown here, as it'd be a little less chaotic and a lot easier to code. When this period is up, any person can claim the office and force a runoff.
Requirements to Claim Office (dropdown with each office chosen above):
* Checkboxes for each office chosen above to be selected. This defines which people holding current offices can try to claim a new office.
Method for determining who wins after office choices are made (pick as many as apply):
* None (first to choose gets the office)
* Vote (select which offices will vote in determining. 2 options for winning: 1) most votes gained, 2) fixed percentage of available)
* Personal bank account size
* License levels (choose all that apply - total of choices determines victory)
* Combat (would require a special /dueloffice command. Winner gets office)
Number of people who can hold each office defined? (current settings in VO would be: CO=1, Lt=2, Council=9, Member=Unlimited)
Each office thus defined has permissions to change selections of the configuration settings? (Yes - this could be very chaotic, but some guilds might want that) These permissions could differ for each office defined.
Changes in guild structure and holders of offices would not require the intervention of a external agency to take effect. (else what would be the point of term limits?)
Just attempting a little collation here. I just realized however, that we're going to have to completely redesign the rules for creating a guild. Should it be that there is still a required minimum number of people to start a guild, or could 1 person create a guild alone? If each person could be their own guild, what ramifications for game stability would result? (remember that all those guilds still have to be stored in the database)
I don't know. Would it make sense for a guild to have a selectable national affiliation? This might be longer term, as we'd have to define the benefits/disadvantages of having national affiliation (or none if chosen). Worth some thought though.
If the database can handle X players but not X guilds, the devs have bigger problems to worry about.
Some feedback on the budding requirements would be useful too. I would tend towards allowing 1 person to start a guild by themselves; I would just worry if this would lead to fragmentation of the game. After all, how many people DON'T consider themselves the 'boss'. This problem is mitigated largely by the fact that we're suggesting a much broader definition for guilds than previously. Just wondering though.
The only games I've seen to allow a single player to start a guild are FreeToPlay (PayToWin) games. Every serious MMO I've played has required at 10 people on average to start a guild or equivalent.
Made some changes to the list.
Added selection for determining which guild members could choose an office once the term limit is up.
I am wondering if Guilds should be able to declare thier purpose/faction....
That was part of the thought for declaring national affiliation, but I understand your statement as meaning any faction, not just the 'Big Three' (TM). What I haven't ascertained as yet are what benefits/penalties should accrue for faction affiliation. And there SHOULD be both benefits and penalties.
An obvious benefit should be trade bonuses for trading with the faction in question. These should be graded additionally based on one's standing with that faction. (and another reason I was holding off on suggesting it, since faction standing is such need of revamping) An obvious penalty would be additional losses in trade value for trading with enemies of the faction your guild had declared for.
It's almost like the guild itself would have a faction standing. Your actual standing would be the result of the guild faction standing + your standing with that faction. This would allow for the situations where a guild might not be on speaking terms with a faction, but you might barely be. (e.g. your guild standing = -600. Your standing = +800. How the faction interacts with you = -600 + 800 = +200) If a state of war existed between 2 factions -> -500 perhaps. So if your affiliated faction is at war with a faction whose station you're visiting, the resulting behavior towards you would be = -600 + 800 - 500 = -300. (just a suggestion. I'd hesitate to make war a -1000. Might make it very difficult to get anything done; it WOULD make for good RP though)
An obvious benefit should be trade bonuses for trading with the faction in question. These should be graded additionally based on one's standing with that faction. (and another reason I was holding off on suggesting it, since faction standing is such need of revamping) An obvious penalty would be additional losses in trade value for trading with enemies of the faction your guild had declared for.
It's almost like the guild itself would have a faction standing. Your actual standing would be the result of the guild faction standing + your standing with that faction. This would allow for the situations where a guild might not be on speaking terms with a faction, but you might barely be. (e.g. your guild standing = -600. Your standing = +800. How the faction interacts with you = -600 + 800 = +200) If a state of war existed between 2 factions -> -500 perhaps. So if your affiliated faction is at war with a faction whose station you're visiting, the resulting behavior towards you would be = -600 + 800 - 500 = -300. (just a suggestion. I'd hesitate to make war a -1000. Might make it very difficult to get anything done; it WOULD make for good RP though)
It would be cool if guilds had faction standings. Might create some strategy in the game, as systems could be Itani/Serco controlled.
This discussion is going into interesting direction. I always said we must integrate Guilds with Faction system, with resulting IFF changes, standing bonus/penalties, etc.
For me, each Guild should have 4 "axis" to choose from, or remain neutral: Serco, Itani, UIT, Gray.
You can think of this either as 2 "sliders" forming a cross, and when creating the guild you choose your position, where you can align with up to 2 parties, resulting in guilds' alignment, bonus with favoured parties resulting in penalties with opposing ones.
Example, you can have 3 pro-Serco Guilds: Serco+UIT, Serco+Gray, Serco only. The later is a true nationalist, while the first is trade-oriented and the later aims piracy. This affects on others' IFF: Members of all 3 Guilds appears as enemies for itanis, S+U are foes for Itanis/Grays and S+G are red for Itanis and UIT also.
Grays? What grays? Anyone member of a guild aligned with Grayspace party will be a Gray. Automatically hated by UIT, and S/I depends on the other axis, hated by both if neutral.
Next, we have to deal with treason: What to do if a Guild declares itself pro-X, but their members hunt X players/NPCs? The simplest solution is Guilds' Standing. Just like a player, the whole Guild should have a standing with each of 4 factions, and this values change with Guild members actions. And treat treason heavily, like in above case, each Serco killed by a pro-Serco guild will lose some 100s of points, whole Guild, even making possible to lose the pro-Serco status.
TL:DR:
-Guilds must be aligned and have standing with each Faction: Serco, Itani, UIT, Gray
-Actions of each Guild member reflects on whole guild's standing
-Guild standing affects IFF/Radar more than native nation.
For me, each Guild should have 4 "axis" to choose from, or remain neutral: Serco, Itani, UIT, Gray.
You can think of this either as 2 "sliders" forming a cross, and when creating the guild you choose your position, where you can align with up to 2 parties, resulting in guilds' alignment, bonus with favoured parties resulting in penalties with opposing ones.
Example, you can have 3 pro-Serco Guilds: Serco+UIT, Serco+Gray, Serco only. The later is a true nationalist, while the first is trade-oriented and the later aims piracy. This affects on others' IFF: Members of all 3 Guilds appears as enemies for itanis, S+U are foes for Itanis/Grays and S+G are red for Itanis and UIT also.
Grays? What grays? Anyone member of a guild aligned with Grayspace party will be a Gray. Automatically hated by UIT, and S/I depends on the other axis, hated by both if neutral.
Next, we have to deal with treason: What to do if a Guild declares itself pro-X, but their members hunt X players/NPCs? The simplest solution is Guilds' Standing. Just like a player, the whole Guild should have a standing with each of 4 factions, and this values change with Guild members actions. And treat treason heavily, like in above case, each Serco killed by a pro-Serco guild will lose some 100s of points, whole Guild, even making possible to lose the pro-Serco status.
TL:DR:
-Guilds must be aligned and have standing with each Faction: Serco, Itani, UIT, Gray
-Actions of each Guild member reflects on whole guild's standing
-Guild standing affects IFF/Radar more than native nation.
Aye but the system has to be flexable enuff to handle stuff that doesnt exist yet.....
Alloh. You aren't the only one who has made the suggestions you've listed, and if you would please read the thread first if you're going to be late to the party. Almost everything you mentioned, is somewhere above in a quantified way.
It doesn't have to be so complicated or convoluted. GS creates a matrix of relationship modifiers (like in VegaStrike) between the factions. The guild upon creation declares an affiliation (which of course can change based on the term limit defined upon setup as well). This defines the guild's initial location in the matrix with actions (which have a +/- effect) are multiplied along the row and column of the guild's intersection to determine the actual effect on standing. Thus an action can have rippling effects across the various factions - negative for some, positive for others, not to mention that a negative effect for a faction can have lesser negative effects for that faction's allies. In time, GS can then define a simple algorithm for defining the relationships between the factions in a possibly dynamic way to describe a more fluid system without having to get very complicated.
Note: I realize that a matrix would seem complicated, but people do the same thing all the time in a spreadsheet.
It doesn't have to be so complicated or convoluted. GS creates a matrix of relationship modifiers (like in VegaStrike) between the factions. The guild upon creation declares an affiliation (which of course can change based on the term limit defined upon setup as well). This defines the guild's initial location in the matrix with actions (which have a +/- effect) are multiplied along the row and column of the guild's intersection to determine the actual effect on standing. Thus an action can have rippling effects across the various factions - negative for some, positive for others, not to mention that a negative effect for a faction can have lesser negative effects for that faction's allies. In time, GS can then define a simple algorithm for defining the relationships between the factions in a possibly dynamic way to describe a more fluid system without having to get very complicated.
Note: I realize that a matrix would seem complicated, but people do the same thing all the time in a spreadsheet.
Oddly enough A way to set a guild color to render stuff like tags in ....