Forums » Suggestions
It has been our long-standing plan to improve the game's stability, scalability, administrate-ability and generally polish things to a point where we can do a substantial series of marketing pushes and launches to increase the game's presence. That is not the subject of this thread, but it gives a little background context.
It is likely that, when this comes to pass, the existing playerbase, even in historical aggregate, will become a small minority.
One of my thoughts has been to try and guide new players towards Guilds, relatively early in the game. This would help existing players to guide and inform new players, hopefully help the community as a whole, and potentially increase new-user retention.
My current thinking is to have some kind of "recruitment" board, where Guilds can post that they're open for recruitment (if they are), and players can read some kind of blurb about the purpose and goals of the particular guild (and apply).
New players would then be directed to this board, during some late-stage tutorial, and could submit an application directly from this interface. This application would be asynchronous (not requiring any guild members to be online) and would go to the guild's LTs, who could then read it and respond whenever they next login. We might have some kind of email-notification system that pings the LTs of new applications (limited to once-per-day or something).
We might want to limit the guilds who could list on the "recruitment" board with some stricter requirements.. I'm not sure what, maybe guilds that have been around for longer than X time, have more than Y total members, and more than Z members active in the last 30 days. I don't know what those values would be right now, but basically I don't want newbie-guilds showing up on this system right away, I would want them to have to run a guild for a few months and played the game. Maybe the council of the guild would have to have more than N hours of game-time, each, to limit the "guild of alts" issue.
Because, ultimately, this is about helping to instruct newbies and directing them to well-established, long-lived guilds that are likely to continue being around for awhile. Directing them into a joke-guild that vaporizes after a month would be counterproductive to new-player-retention.
Anyway, I'm looking for feedback and thoughts here from existing, experienced guild leaders and members. Many of you have existing processes for evaluating and integrating new users, and I'd like to try and consider that in the design here.
I am aware that a lot of our guilds are dormant right now, but I need to be thinking about this stuff.. now.
Similarly, factors of scale for guild management (a zillion new-user applications) and potential language barriers should also be considered. We're still in the process of localizing the game, but I suspect once it is, you're going to see a lot more non-English speakers (Russians, in particular, seem to be really into space games).
All the better to think about this advance, and maybe we can experiment with implementing and tweaking some concepts before this actually gets.. intensely used.
It is likely that, when this comes to pass, the existing playerbase, even in historical aggregate, will become a small minority.
One of my thoughts has been to try and guide new players towards Guilds, relatively early in the game. This would help existing players to guide and inform new players, hopefully help the community as a whole, and potentially increase new-user retention.
My current thinking is to have some kind of "recruitment" board, where Guilds can post that they're open for recruitment (if they are), and players can read some kind of blurb about the purpose and goals of the particular guild (and apply).
New players would then be directed to this board, during some late-stage tutorial, and could submit an application directly from this interface. This application would be asynchronous (not requiring any guild members to be online) and would go to the guild's LTs, who could then read it and respond whenever they next login. We might have some kind of email-notification system that pings the LTs of new applications (limited to once-per-day or something).
We might want to limit the guilds who could list on the "recruitment" board with some stricter requirements.. I'm not sure what, maybe guilds that have been around for longer than X time, have more than Y total members, and more than Z members active in the last 30 days. I don't know what those values would be right now, but basically I don't want newbie-guilds showing up on this system right away, I would want them to have to run a guild for a few months and played the game. Maybe the council of the guild would have to have more than N hours of game-time, each, to limit the "guild of alts" issue.
Because, ultimately, this is about helping to instruct newbies and directing them to well-established, long-lived guilds that are likely to continue being around for awhile. Directing them into a joke-guild that vaporizes after a month would be counterproductive to new-player-retention.
Anyway, I'm looking for feedback and thoughts here from existing, experienced guild leaders and members. Many of you have existing processes for evaluating and integrating new users, and I'd like to try and consider that in the design here.
I am aware that a lot of our guilds are dormant right now, but I need to be thinking about this stuff.. now.
Similarly, factors of scale for guild management (a zillion new-user applications) and potential language barriers should also be considered. We're still in the process of localizing the game, but I suspect once it is, you're going to see a lot more non-English speakers (Russians, in particular, seem to be really into space games).
All the better to think about this advance, and maybe we can experiment with implementing and tweaking some concepts before this actually gets.. intensely used.
Great post. TGFT will cooperate fully with this approach.
I would suggest total members doesn't mean much for an old guild like ours. Number of members who have logged in in the past year seems like a good activity metric to me. Twenty-five, I think, is a good number, although I might be argued down to twenty. Below that, too many non-serious guilds would qualify.
You can use the existing guild pages as starter material for a guild sandbox for new players. I suggest posting the number of member logins in the past year, from your own server data. That could be done on the existing guild pages, and available for the whole player base to read. (Might stifle some of the silliness on 100 about whose guild is more active, yada yada.)
Good luck, and we will stay tuned.
-- tsreknor
TGFT Commander
I would suggest total members doesn't mean much for an old guild like ours. Number of members who have logged in in the past year seems like a good activity metric to me. Twenty-five, I think, is a good number, although I might be argued down to twenty. Below that, too many non-serious guilds would qualify.
You can use the existing guild pages as starter material for a guild sandbox for new players. I suggest posting the number of member logins in the past year, from your own server data. That could be done on the existing guild pages, and available for the whole player base to read. (Might stifle some of the silliness on 100 about whose guild is more active, yada yada.)
Good luck, and we will stay tuned.
-- tsreknor
TGFT Commander
This thought of yours, it actually more of moving the community upon guiding these newbies to how does VO works since we all know other than existing factions and NPC etc, the whole things are based on how the community act.
I do have same concern about "guild of alts" when the game would be localized or filled with more and more players when time would come. Though, language barrier, true. It is much concerning when we would be up against players who really, and by mean really, sticking themselves into their native language and group with among themselves. While some doesn't mind, it can cause a bit of problem when it comes to communication since again, VO is community based, from what I see for all this time.
But I understand, this feature doesn't come in an instant. We all know there would be some test or small feature to experiment this whole up but whatever happens, we will try our best to give feedback to you all developers.
I do have same concern about "guild of alts" when the game would be localized or filled with more and more players when time would come. Though, language barrier, true. It is much concerning when we would be up against players who really, and by mean really, sticking themselves into their native language and group with among themselves. While some doesn't mind, it can cause a bit of problem when it comes to communication since again, VO is community based, from what I see for all this time.
But I understand, this feature doesn't come in an instant. We all know there would be some test or small feature to experiment this whole up but whatever happens, we will try our best to give feedback to you all developers.
Qualified guilds should be at least 3 months old. I think if you see an influx of a particular "foreign" user base and you have a way of communicating with them, you could make an exception if you thought it would help further retain / help those who only speak that language. But generally speaking 3 months is long enough. You don't want to restrict any of the new players from creating their own guilds (and accessing the zillion user flood) before they get tired of the game and quit.
Any more restrictive and you get into playing favorites and perpetuating existing politics onto the new players.
Any more restrictive and you get into playing favorites and perpetuating existing politics onto the new players.
Do you guys have any particular questions that you ask prospective members, or are there particular requirements or ways of interviewing people in the application-process, that might provide insight on how I would present an "application" to new users?
I don't want to ask the new person very much, as any additional complexity will reduce overall "conversion" (into guild applications).
Structurally, I think I would limit any given character to having one application "in-flight" at a time (ie, once you had applied to one guild, you have to wait for them to respond, not apply to all the guilds at once). There would probably be some reasonable timeout in which the guild would need to respond.. like maybe 2 days or so? Then perhaps their application would be removed and they would be free to apply to another guild, or re-apply to the same guild.
Whenever a guild "accepted" a given application, they would be automatically added to the guild. If a guild "declined" the application, the character would not be able to re-apply to that specific guild (but it would be per-character, so they could make another one).
Though, language barrier, true. It is much concerning when we would be up against players who really, and by mean really, sticking themselves into their native language and group with among themselves.
There's nothing I can really do about that, given that we have a single-universe, global game, and we aren't "regionalizing" servers the way other games do. There are likely going to eventually be channels dedicated to specific languages, but I intend for 100 to be the "standard" and for English to be the "expected norm" (and for 100 to be English-only).
Some countries and cultures have much stronger English presence than others. Eventually we might get into a place where we try automatic translation (linking in Google Translate somehow), but that's not a current goal.
I don't know how Guild leadership will manage the language barrier with new applicants, or how that will work, but I just wanted to note that it's likely to "become a thing" more than it's been in the past.
I don't want to ask the new person very much, as any additional complexity will reduce overall "conversion" (into guild applications).
Structurally, I think I would limit any given character to having one application "in-flight" at a time (ie, once you had applied to one guild, you have to wait for them to respond, not apply to all the guilds at once). There would probably be some reasonable timeout in which the guild would need to respond.. like maybe 2 days or so? Then perhaps their application would be removed and they would be free to apply to another guild, or re-apply to the same guild.
Whenever a guild "accepted" a given application, they would be automatically added to the guild. If a guild "declined" the application, the character would not be able to re-apply to that specific guild (but it would be per-character, so they could make another one).
Though, language barrier, true. It is much concerning when we would be up against players who really, and by mean really, sticking themselves into their native language and group with among themselves.
There's nothing I can really do about that, given that we have a single-universe, global game, and we aren't "regionalizing" servers the way other games do. There are likely going to eventually be channels dedicated to specific languages, but I intend for 100 to be the "standard" and for English to be the "expected norm" (and for 100 to be English-only).
Some countries and cultures have much stronger English presence than others. Eventually we might get into a place where we try automatic translation (linking in Google Translate somehow), but that's not a current goal.
I don't know how Guild leadership will manage the language barrier with new applicants, or how that will work, but I just wanted to note that it's likely to "become a thing" more than it's been in the past.
TGFT used to require a formal interview and guild forum registration. We have recently abandoned this approach as too cumbersome.
Currently, we ask for agreement to a short list of guild policies. No piracy or nationalism, no shooting at anyone except in defense of the guild, combat allowed with the hive, agreed duels, or in defense of TGFT. We state our forum URL and weekly meeting time, and ask for participation in these.
I could give you a more formal list of policy requirements if desired. Probably in private would be best, for now.
We'll discuss how we would work with a large number of non-English speakers in the guild. I have noticed more than once that playing with TGFT for a few months results in significantly improved English skills. I think non-English speakers likely will want their own guilds.
Currently, we ask for agreement to a short list of guild policies. No piracy or nationalism, no shooting at anyone except in defense of the guild, combat allowed with the hive, agreed duels, or in defense of TGFT. We state our forum URL and weekly meeting time, and ask for participation in these.
I could give you a more formal list of policy requirements if desired. Probably in private would be best, for now.
We'll discuss how we would work with a large number of non-English speakers in the guild. I have noticed more than once that playing with TGFT for a few months results in significantly improved English skills. I think non-English speakers likely will want their own guilds.
re: Questions for newb applicants / limits on applications
I don't think there should be any questions, nobody wants to read more than they have to. Rather, newbs would be presented with a list of potential guilds (with very brief descriptions) with checkboxes to indicate interest.
If a newb checks a box, then guild leaders would get a message indicating interest and they could reach out via some kind of messaging mechanism to discuss further if they'd like.
If there is mutual agreement/interest in joining, guild leader could issue an invite via the interface or through the normal /guild invite command and the newb would get an "green light" JOIN button next to their check box which they would then accept somehow (or they could alternatively type the join/accept command).
An indication of average response time of a guild would be helpful for newbs who are interested in multiple guilds so they don't just jump into the first guild that offers them a spot.
-^This way multiple guilds could be applied to at once, and guilds would be incentivized to actively monitor their applications.
-^This way reduces reading requirements and makes the process as quick as possible
I would strongly caution against denying re-application if denied initially. Requests for joining guilds are denied and reconsidered all the time. Seems pretty arbitrary to only give them one chance to join and also seems like it would invite a zillion requests for exceptions. The system above would mitigate any annoyances caused by serial applicants since they are easily ignored.
I don't think there should be any questions, nobody wants to read more than they have to. Rather, newbs would be presented with a list of potential guilds (with very brief descriptions) with checkboxes to indicate interest.
If a newb checks a box, then guild leaders would get a message indicating interest and they could reach out via some kind of messaging mechanism to discuss further if they'd like.
If there is mutual agreement/interest in joining, guild leader could issue an invite via the interface or through the normal /guild invite command and the newb would get an "green light" JOIN button next to their check box which they would then accept somehow (or they could alternatively type the join/accept command).
An indication of average response time of a guild would be helpful for newbs who are interested in multiple guilds so they don't just jump into the first guild that offers them a spot.
-^This way multiple guilds could be applied to at once, and guilds would be incentivized to actively monitor their applications.
-^This way reduces reading requirements and makes the process as quick as possible
I would strongly caution against denying re-application if denied initially. Requests for joining guilds are denied and reconsidered all the time. Seems pretty arbitrary to only give them one chance to join and also seems like it would invite a zillion requests for exceptions. The system above would mitigate any annoyances caused by serial applicants since they are easily ignored.
I think guild commanders should be able to turn recruitment on and off at will. It should default to OFF, so the recruitment is opt-in. This would largely eliminate the issue with gag guilds wasting newbs time. While the community may not be as freindly as it used to be, I highly doubt anyone will really try to abuse that.
There should be some way guilds can specify languages, so for instance CLM might want to be English-only while TGFT might want players who speak English, Hindi, and Russian.
Guilds should be able to specify a minimum age as some of us may be more willing or just more or less patient with the younger newbs.
There should be a list of guild types, IE piracy, Anti-Piracy, Trade, Nationalist.
The guild founded date should be listed. Some players may want to join an older guild, some may want to join a younger guild.
The number of characters in a guild that have logged in over the past 30 days should be visible, along with if possible a graph similar to the active player weekly graph, so newbs can see if a guild has steady activity, or is mostly a weekend guild. I can understand how some people could prefer one or the other. This would also help players select guilds that are active around the same time of day as them.
Aside from that, I have a question. Is there any reason this application system needs to be only available to characters that have only just started? Can this system be generally available at ALL stations to ALL characters? Some guilds may not be interested in dealing with players with 2 hours game time experience.
Edit, just read greenwalls post. His final point about re-applying is a good one, maybe a re-application cool-down period would help with that, while avoiding people becoming irritating beggers.
There should be some way guilds can specify languages, so for instance CLM might want to be English-only while TGFT might want players who speak English, Hindi, and Russian.
Guilds should be able to specify a minimum age as some of us may be more willing or just more or less patient with the younger newbs.
There should be a list of guild types, IE piracy, Anti-Piracy, Trade, Nationalist.
The guild founded date should be listed. Some players may want to join an older guild, some may want to join a younger guild.
The number of characters in a guild that have logged in over the past 30 days should be visible, along with if possible a graph similar to the active player weekly graph, so newbs can see if a guild has steady activity, or is mostly a weekend guild. I can understand how some people could prefer one or the other. This would also help players select guilds that are active around the same time of day as them.
Aside from that, I have a question. Is there any reason this application system needs to be only available to characters that have only just started? Can this system be generally available at ALL stations to ALL characters? Some guilds may not be interested in dealing with players with 2 hours game time experience.
Edit, just read greenwalls post. His final point about re-applying is a good one, maybe a re-application cool-down period would help with that, while avoiding people becoming irritating beggers.
You need to talk to Darth Nihilus about how TRI does recruitment. They will have some good insights here and (as I understand it) they've taken a very soft approach to recruitment where it's easy to get inside in the first instance. Then after you're in, you are kind of a probationary/initiate member until you complete a series of tasks. The way Darth explained it to me, they had a lot of success lowering the barrier to entry to things like guild chat etc so people could ask basic questions away from 100, and then having the kind of 'permanent member' criteria from there. I hope Darth posts and can elaborate on this.
In terms of my experience, when we had active recruitment of RED, the idea was for it to be very exclusive and discriminate based on combat ability.
There are no questions we asked new recruits, they were hand-selected Serco pilots based on demonstrated combat ability. We were also looking for enthusiastic resilience in the face of adversity (our interpretation of the 'Serco way'). Many pilots we recruited were the ones that one of our experienced pilots killed repeatedly in safe UIT nation space or in grey. They were the ones that relished the challenge and who fought back valiantly against the odds.
Incidentally this is how I was first recruited into FAMY - Savet and Footballprophet blew me up alot and I wanted to learn how they did it.
I think this is interesting in the context of this new system, because if we were to bring more exclusive combat guilds back (and we would with a wildly active player-base) it would need to adapt in light of any new system. I would be interested in a system where eligibility may be based on a certain number of PvP kills for Itani players, or kills on players with specific standings, or even on specific targets. If players could manage kills on our more experienced pilots, that would be a basis for eligibility in my guild.
So for any application process, my interest would be in how we can present as a more exclusive guild and set out some things that are tough goals to aspire to, in order to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Sure, this might not mean that newbies will get straight into a guild as desired, but even having the objective to get into a guild perceived to be exclusive might have the safe effect on player retention if we can communicate some really interesting goals for them to try and achieve.
In terms of my experience, when we had active recruitment of RED, the idea was for it to be very exclusive and discriminate based on combat ability.
There are no questions we asked new recruits, they were hand-selected Serco pilots based on demonstrated combat ability. We were also looking for enthusiastic resilience in the face of adversity (our interpretation of the 'Serco way'). Many pilots we recruited were the ones that one of our experienced pilots killed repeatedly in safe UIT nation space or in grey. They were the ones that relished the challenge and who fought back valiantly against the odds.
Incidentally this is how I was first recruited into FAMY - Savet and Footballprophet blew me up alot and I wanted to learn how they did it.
I think this is interesting in the context of this new system, because if we were to bring more exclusive combat guilds back (and we would with a wildly active player-base) it would need to adapt in light of any new system. I would be interested in a system where eligibility may be based on a certain number of PvP kills for Itani players, or kills on players with specific standings, or even on specific targets. If players could manage kills on our more experienced pilots, that would be a basis for eligibility in my guild.
So for any application process, my interest would be in how we can present as a more exclusive guild and set out some things that are tough goals to aspire to, in order to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Sure, this might not mean that newbies will get straight into a guild as desired, but even having the objective to get into a guild perceived to be exclusive might have the safe effect on player retention if we can communicate some really interesting goals for them to try and achieve.
TRS makes great points even if they are outside the bounds of this thread.
A recruitment board would be very wonderful, both for pushing new pilots to more interaction with the community at large (the current community and the larger community of the future), and for cleaning up HOW recruitment works. I’m just going to spitball a whole bunch here, but I hope some of it at least helps you come to whatever decisions you are contemplating.
> How TRI works, and how we handle recruitment
For TRI, we have Automata providing a role-management system that better demarcates “positions” within the guild. The guild’s ‘admins’ are its standard Lieutenants and the role-based Sergeants; basically, everyone within this group is a mix of Council and Commander. There’s also Corporals, who are *only* capable of inviting others. Anyways, probably not super important.
When we want to invite someone to the guild, we generally push our invite through automata to the person first; we get them in the guild, and that gives them our MOTD wall - our expected TRI behavior and mission statement, more like. If the person agrees, then we leave them in, chat with them some, help them out… whatever. However, having to invite them to show that ‘wall’ is a bit clunky when we’re talking to pilots who’re still trying to get their bearings in VO, undecided on any kind of ‘role’ they’d like to be…
Nihilus can explain it a hell of a lot better than I can, this and anything else about how TRI runs.
> How I would like a social board to work
Before I start talking about a guild recruitment board, I'd like to poke a little about how I'd like the social related systems of VO to be concentrated into their own area of the upcoming UI. My ideas are related to how the UI presents social game aspects in another MMO I've been revisiting. In it, You have your friends list, guild recruitment, group search, mentorship, and other things all in the same dialog. This makes finding any individual social element much easier.
> How I’d like a guild recruitment board to work
Guilds with >(some number) of total users can elect to pay a monthly credit fee from their guild bank to push their guild’s recruitment information to a board like shown here. The guild selection interface includes their guild’s name or short code, and a single line blurb. When selected, the guild’s “about” text is pulled up, possibly along with some guild stats. They can then apply to the selected guild. If they have already applied to a guild recently, a dialog would pop up telling them what guild they are waiting on, and how long until they can post a new application.
This would allow guilds to remain opt-in, like some people have requested, and start where guilds as a whole have to start paying for services (Though I don’t imagine the recruitment fee to be particularly large or anything). The monthly fee also keeps dead guilds out of the system. This system would allow for your ease of invitation to experienced guilds, but the bulk of advertising a guild would still be done through player interactions.
> How TRI works, and how we handle recruitment
For TRI, we have Automata providing a role-management system that better demarcates “positions” within the guild. The guild’s ‘admins’ are its standard Lieutenants and the role-based Sergeants; basically, everyone within this group is a mix of Council and Commander. There’s also Corporals, who are *only* capable of inviting others. Anyways, probably not super important.
When we want to invite someone to the guild, we generally push our invite through automata to the person first; we get them in the guild, and that gives them our MOTD wall - our expected TRI behavior and mission statement, more like. If the person agrees, then we leave them in, chat with them some, help them out… whatever. However, having to invite them to show that ‘wall’ is a bit clunky when we’re talking to pilots who’re still trying to get their bearings in VO, undecided on any kind of ‘role’ they’d like to be…
Nihilus can explain it a hell of a lot better than I can, this and anything else about how TRI runs.
> How I would like a social board to work
Before I start talking about a guild recruitment board, I'd like to poke a little about how I'd like the social related systems of VO to be concentrated into their own area of the upcoming UI. My ideas are related to how the UI presents social game aspects in another MMO I've been revisiting. In it, You have your friends list, guild recruitment, group search, mentorship, and other things all in the same dialog. This makes finding any individual social element much easier.
> How I’d like a guild recruitment board to work
Guilds with >(some number) of total users can elect to pay a monthly credit fee from their guild bank to push their guild’s recruitment information to a board like shown here. The guild selection interface includes their guild’s name or short code, and a single line blurb. When selected, the guild’s “about” text is pulled up, possibly along with some guild stats. They can then apply to the selected guild. If they have already applied to a guild recently, a dialog would pop up telling them what guild they are waiting on, and how long until they can post a new application.
This would allow guilds to remain opt-in, like some people have requested, and start where guilds as a whole have to start paying for services (Though I don’t imagine the recruitment fee to be particularly large or anything). The monthly fee also keeps dead guilds out of the system. This system would allow for your ease of invitation to experienced guilds, but the bulk of advertising a guild would still be done through player interactions.
Dude, come on man.
I think guild commanders should be able to turn recruitment on and off at will. It should default to OFF, so the recruitment is opt-in.
Yes, I agree, and that is the intent. I'm not auto-adding these guilds to the system. But, I do *not* consider this sufficient to prevent somewhat "trivial" raw-newbie guilds from also recruiting newbies, which I want to avoid. We've all seen well-intentioned newbies who start guilds on their first day in the game, and have no idea how anything works, and that doesn't benefit my goal of helping new people find experienced advice on getting grounded in the game.
Again, I have no problem with guilds getting onto this system after the guild has been around for a couple of months and has some grounding in active membership. I'm all for "new" guilds being formed too. But I want the minimum bar to be fairly "reasonable".
Strictly speaking, we could even say that newer-guilds could be allowed to post themselves to the recruiting system, but not actually be "visible" to users under Level 4 Combat, or some basic newbie-bar. So, they could recruit existing players, but not raw-newbies right out of the tutorial.
There should be some way guilds can specify languages, so for instance CLM might want to be English-only while TGFT might want players who speak English, Hindi, and Russian.
Yeah, I was thinking this too. There might be some guilds more open to non-English speakers than others. I'm not sure about a language picker, but.. possibly.
There should be a list of guild types, IE piracy, Anti-Piracy, Trade, Nationalist.
Rather than try to define these roles myself, I would rather let the guilds speak for themselves in the "Blurb" section (description / recruiting ad). If we truly get so many guilds that we need further sorting, we can probably visit that later.
Is there any reason this application system needs to be only available to characters that have only just started? Can this system be generally available at ALL stations to ALL characters?
The intention is for it to be generally available as a system, to all. It's just that a tutorial would directly funnel people into the system, providing a guaranteed supply of "newbies", so to speak.
His final point about re-applying is a good one, maybe a re-application cool-down period would help with that, while avoiding people becoming irritating beggers.
I did intend on a cooldown, not on permanently preventing an individual from ever re-applying. Just that there should be some limited process to stop someone from scripting some bullshit to annoy a guild they don't like.
Then after you're in, you are kind of a probationary/initiate member until you complete a series of tasks.
Yeah, I figured some guilds would have some kind of probationary system. I'm not sure if I'll be able to directly provide features around that in the near term, but it's worth thinking about.
I would be interested in a system where eligibility may be based on a certain number of PvP kills for Itani players, or kills on players with specific standings, or even on specific targets. If players could manage kills on our more experienced pilots, that would be a basis for eligibility in my guild.
That would be interesting. I wouldn't have any problem with guilds setting minimum standard "bars" to be met to apply. They could be displayed on the list, but greyed out somehow. And we'd have to have mechanics to match against certain character parameters. Again, probably not a first-gen thing, but an interesting concept.
We would just need to make sure we had a good assortment of genuinely "open and welcoming" newbie-friendly guilds to balance out the more "exclusive" ones, otherwise the value of directing the newbies there starts to diminish.
In it, You have your friends list, guild recruitment, group search, mentorship, and other things all in the same dialog.
Some of this is going to be mobile-friendly in design. I agree with the general concept of what you're describing, but I'm not sure I'll actually have enough room to do all of that, in a mobile-friendly design.
But, yes, we will probably move towards a design with more social mechanics in the same general area. That's getting a little far afield from the goal of this thread, though..
haxmaster writes lots of stuff
Umm, well, like Greenwall "said", that's really far off-topic. I mean, interesting concepts, and yes, I am very familiar with the design of most prominent MMORPGs; but let's try to stay on the specific topic of:
A GUILD RECRUITMENT SYSTEM, SPECIFIC TO THE NEEDS OF VO
That's it, that's what we're here for. Not player marketplaces or character-class systems. We aren't here to talk about Guild salaries either. Just recruitment, that's it.
Otherwise I end up losing my mind. Or not reading the thread.
Yes, I agree, and that is the intent. I'm not auto-adding these guilds to the system. But, I do *not* consider this sufficient to prevent somewhat "trivial" raw-newbie guilds from also recruiting newbies, which I want to avoid. We've all seen well-intentioned newbies who start guilds on their first day in the game, and have no idea how anything works, and that doesn't benefit my goal of helping new people find experienced advice on getting grounded in the game.
Again, I have no problem with guilds getting onto this system after the guild has been around for a couple of months and has some grounding in active membership. I'm all for "new" guilds being formed too. But I want the minimum bar to be fairly "reasonable".
Strictly speaking, we could even say that newer-guilds could be allowed to post themselves to the recruiting system, but not actually be "visible" to users under Level 4 Combat, or some basic newbie-bar. So, they could recruit existing players, but not raw-newbies right out of the tutorial.
There should be some way guilds can specify languages, so for instance CLM might want to be English-only while TGFT might want players who speak English, Hindi, and Russian.
Yeah, I was thinking this too. There might be some guilds more open to non-English speakers than others. I'm not sure about a language picker, but.. possibly.
There should be a list of guild types, IE piracy, Anti-Piracy, Trade, Nationalist.
Rather than try to define these roles myself, I would rather let the guilds speak for themselves in the "Blurb" section (description / recruiting ad). If we truly get so many guilds that we need further sorting, we can probably visit that later.
Is there any reason this application system needs to be only available to characters that have only just started? Can this system be generally available at ALL stations to ALL characters?
The intention is for it to be generally available as a system, to all. It's just that a tutorial would directly funnel people into the system, providing a guaranteed supply of "newbies", so to speak.
His final point about re-applying is a good one, maybe a re-application cool-down period would help with that, while avoiding people becoming irritating beggers.
I did intend on a cooldown, not on permanently preventing an individual from ever re-applying. Just that there should be some limited process to stop someone from scripting some bullshit to annoy a guild they don't like.
Then after you're in, you are kind of a probationary/initiate member until you complete a series of tasks.
Yeah, I figured some guilds would have some kind of probationary system. I'm not sure if I'll be able to directly provide features around that in the near term, but it's worth thinking about.
I would be interested in a system where eligibility may be based on a certain number of PvP kills for Itani players, or kills on players with specific standings, or even on specific targets. If players could manage kills on our more experienced pilots, that would be a basis for eligibility in my guild.
That would be interesting. I wouldn't have any problem with guilds setting minimum standard "bars" to be met to apply. They could be displayed on the list, but greyed out somehow. And we'd have to have mechanics to match against certain character parameters. Again, probably not a first-gen thing, but an interesting concept.
We would just need to make sure we had a good assortment of genuinely "open and welcoming" newbie-friendly guilds to balance out the more "exclusive" ones, otherwise the value of directing the newbies there starts to diminish.
In it, You have your friends list, guild recruitment, group search, mentorship, and other things all in the same dialog.
Some of this is going to be mobile-friendly in design. I agree with the general concept of what you're describing, but I'm not sure I'll actually have enough room to do all of that, in a mobile-friendly design.
But, yes, we will probably move towards a design with more social mechanics in the same general area. That's getting a little far afield from the goal of this thread, though..
haxmaster writes lots of stuff
Umm, well, like Greenwall "said", that's really far off-topic. I mean, interesting concepts, and yes, I am very familiar with the design of most prominent MMORPGs; but let's try to stay on the specific topic of:
A GUILD RECRUITMENT SYSTEM, SPECIFIC TO THE NEEDS OF VO
That's it, that's what we're here for. Not player marketplaces or character-class systems. We aren't here to talk about Guild salaries either. Just recruitment, that's it.
Otherwise I end up losing my mind. Or not reading the thread.
I'd just worry about how this could hurt new guilds or people wanting to start a guild by giving preferential treatment to older and more established guilds.
I agree with Boda... which is why I suggested the only requirement being a 3 month old guild. If you try to make this about "newbie helping guilds" then we get into really muddy waters of guild politics:
Who determines who the "newbie helping guilds" are? Anyone left out of that mix is going to lose out on massive recruiting power.
TGFT, for example, has long been the premier landing zone for most newbs. But a lot of people also hate TGFT and would object to them being elevated to newb-clearing-house level, such as ONE. But ONE also helps (serco) newbs. But then if you have ONE you also have to have ITAN, right? And what about TRI? And before you know it you basically have all the established guilds vying for a piece of the new meat. And then new guilds that want to pop up have even greater difficulty getting established (because what newb wants to be with some tiny new guild?).
You either have to take it upon yourself and figure out a way to sanction a small selection of existing guild (or guilds) as "newbie helper" according to some criteria that doesn't give you mountains of hatemail (good luck with that), or you just open it up to any guild that has been around for a little bit. If a guild wants to portray itself as a newbie-helper-guild, let them. So what if the list is long? Only the active guilds interested in recruiting are going to respond anyway. If the influx is going to be as plentiful as you suggest, getting people to man the recruiting offices of guilds and sift through applicants shouldn't be a big task.
Who determines who the "newbie helping guilds" are? Anyone left out of that mix is going to lose out on massive recruiting power.
TGFT, for example, has long been the premier landing zone for most newbs. But a lot of people also hate TGFT and would object to them being elevated to newb-clearing-house level, such as ONE. But ONE also helps (serco) newbs. But then if you have ONE you also have to have ITAN, right? And what about TRI? And before you know it you basically have all the established guilds vying for a piece of the new meat. And then new guilds that want to pop up have even greater difficulty getting established (because what newb wants to be with some tiny new guild?).
You either have to take it upon yourself and figure out a way to sanction a small selection of existing guild (or guilds) as "newbie helper" according to some criteria that doesn't give you mountains of hatemail (good luck with that), or you just open it up to any guild that has been around for a little bit. If a guild wants to portray itself as a newbie-helper-guild, let them. So what if the list is long? Only the active guilds interested in recruiting are going to respond anyway. If the influx is going to be as plentiful as you suggest, getting people to man the recruiting offices of guilds and sift through applicants shouldn't be a big task.
I'd just worry about how this could hurt new guilds or people wanting to start a guild by giving preferential treatment to older and more established guilds.
There is some degree of tradeoff there. I mean, it is something that can be adjusted down the road, as well, if it actually becomes a problem.
We also aren't talking about insurmountable obstacles, here.
I agree with Boda... which is why I suggested the only requirement being a 3 month old guild.
Well, my initial thought was actually two months. But I do think there's merit to some guild-membership activity requirements, because I want people to be applying to guilds that might actually respond, for one thing.
So what if the list is long? Only the active guilds interested in recruiting are going to respond anyway.
Oh, I definitely don't care if the list is long. I care if the list is stale and full of "nonexistent" alt-guilds. As long as they're answering applications, that's fine.
I do not want to funnel newbies to guilds that are non-responsive, and no, the whole "just submit to all of them" is not appealing to me. People should be able to be reasonably selective about what they want to do in the game, and expect the given player-organization is going to respond to them, if it's presented by tutorial-driven in-game mechanic.
So, there could just be a cost to any guild that goes "dark" and doesn't respond to applications, for a given time (say, like, a week): they lose their listed status for newbies. Of course, then that means we have to have some "new" way for them to get it back again. Maybe they just can't opt back-in for 30 days, maybe there's some other requirement, I don't know.
But, I do want the applications of newbies to be answered; and I want the guilds they're applying to, to not be completely brand-new themselves. Those are important goals.
There is some degree of tradeoff there. I mean, it is something that can be adjusted down the road, as well, if it actually becomes a problem.
We also aren't talking about insurmountable obstacles, here.
I agree with Boda... which is why I suggested the only requirement being a 3 month old guild.
Well, my initial thought was actually two months. But I do think there's merit to some guild-membership activity requirements, because I want people to be applying to guilds that might actually respond, for one thing.
So what if the list is long? Only the active guilds interested in recruiting are going to respond anyway.
Oh, I definitely don't care if the list is long. I care if the list is stale and full of "nonexistent" alt-guilds. As long as they're answering applications, that's fine.
I do not want to funnel newbies to guilds that are non-responsive, and no, the whole "just submit to all of them" is not appealing to me. People should be able to be reasonably selective about what they want to do in the game, and expect the given player-organization is going to respond to them, if it's presented by tutorial-driven in-game mechanic.
So, there could just be a cost to any guild that goes "dark" and doesn't respond to applications, for a given time (say, like, a week): they lose their listed status for newbies. Of course, then that means we have to have some "new" way for them to get it back again. Maybe they just can't opt back-in for 30 days, maybe there's some other requirement, I don't know.
But, I do want the applications of newbies to be answered; and I want the guilds they're applying to, to not be completely brand-new themselves. Those are important goals.
Again, we're talking about the specifics of having a guild recruitment board, and funneling newbies towards that board in the early game.
We are not talking about "why do guilds exist", or a myriad of other subjects. If you want to talk about that, start a different thread. Don't drag mine off-topic.
We are not talking about "why do guilds exist", or a myriad of other subjects. If you want to talk about that, start a different thread. Don't drag mine off-topic.
Have you given any thought about incentivizing intake of newb applicants?
On the surface the idea of massive amounts of newbs flowing in sounds nice given how bare many of us feel the universe has been. But on the flip side, a never ending flow of zillions of newbs could get extremely exhausting to handle/train. It might be that some guilds would like to be listed initially but then soon after want to back off and be more exclusive after witnessing the horde of inexperience.
Are you hoping that the chance of losing out on new players is enough to keep enough guilds interested in maintaining a newb-training (or more precisely, "newb-accepting") presence?
*****
Also..
I do not want to funnel newbies to guilds that are non-responsive, and no, the whole "just submit to all of them" is not appealing to me. People should be able to be reasonably selective about what they want to do in the game, and expect the given player-organization is going to respond to them, if it's presented by tutorial-driven in-game mechanic.
I think limiting newbs to a single application at-a-time is going to be frustrating for them. What if they apply and the guild just waits until right before the cutoff for a penalty to respond and then denies them? What if they are interested in multiple guilds equally, either because there are several guilds offering the same thing or because the newb is interested in various playstyles... why force them into only applying to one? It strikes me that the application process would be much better if it offered a way to show interest in joining and allow, if needed, a dialog with multiple guilds before a decisive choice is made. Forcing them to apply, wait, and then, if denied repeat the process over and over might have an effect that is opposite of the intention of the board.
*******
Also, might there be a way for the recruitment board to have a self-contained messaging system? This would make it more effective for guild leaders who cannot be online 24/7.
On the surface the idea of massive amounts of newbs flowing in sounds nice given how bare many of us feel the universe has been. But on the flip side, a never ending flow of zillions of newbs could get extremely exhausting to handle/train. It might be that some guilds would like to be listed initially but then soon after want to back off and be more exclusive after witnessing the horde of inexperience.
Are you hoping that the chance of losing out on new players is enough to keep enough guilds interested in maintaining a newb-training (or more precisely, "newb-accepting") presence?
*****
Also..
I do not want to funnel newbies to guilds that are non-responsive, and no, the whole "just submit to all of them" is not appealing to me. People should be able to be reasonably selective about what they want to do in the game, and expect the given player-organization is going to respond to them, if it's presented by tutorial-driven in-game mechanic.
I think limiting newbs to a single application at-a-time is going to be frustrating for them. What if they apply and the guild just waits until right before the cutoff for a penalty to respond and then denies them? What if they are interested in multiple guilds equally, either because there are several guilds offering the same thing or because the newb is interested in various playstyles... why force them into only applying to one? It strikes me that the application process would be much better if it offered a way to show interest in joining and allow, if needed, a dialog with multiple guilds before a decisive choice is made. Forcing them to apply, wait, and then, if denied repeat the process over and over might have an effect that is opposite of the intention of the board.
*******
Also, might there be a way for the recruitment board to have a self-contained messaging system? This would make it more effective for guild leaders who cannot be online 24/7.
Have you given any thought about incentivizing intake of newb applicants?
Basically, that falls under "out of scope, future development". If that becomes a problem, we'll look into that. But I think there's a good chance that it won't actually be a problem. Player organizations tend to be very adaptive. If there's a huge influx, perhaps they'll organize on-boarding of users into large group events, and there'll be some other system they'd prefer that we build. I don't know.
That's something I would rather improve as it evolves, than try and predict every detail in advance.
I think limiting newbs to a single application at-a-time is going to be frustrating for them.
I think we're going to be looking at a whole lot of different types of users, and varied archtypes. It's my experience that "simplicity" is best and the easiest to understand. There are a couple of factors:
1) The absolute minimum the player needs to understand, to make an application. More complex systems require greater understanding, and investment of time. "Pick a guild" is simpler than "Respond to some guilds, who will then say something eventually, and maybe you can join one of them." I would prefer, for the moment, to assume that any Guild that opts-into newbie applications, is likely to accept the ones they receive.
2) The absolute shortest time-period between application and joining. In this way, I would rather have a system where:
- the player says "I apply" and the guild says "I accept!". Boom, now a member.
instead of
- the player says "I have interest" and the guild says "we have interest" and the player says "I accept".
The latter has a whole extra level of login requirement, notification, and so on, in order to make the guild-join "conversion" happen.
I'm interested in the maximum simplicity here, because I believe it will result in the best net effect. There are definitely player archtypes that will prefer a more nuanced, careful, and balanced set of considerations and options in reaching out to Guilds. And hey, maybe that's a non-Newbie interface to the same set of data, that works a bit differently. But for funneling newbies, I would like to be to as extremely simple as I can get.
Also, might there be a way for the recruitment board to have a self-contained messaging system?
"Possible", yes. "Likely".. probably not? I agree it would be useful. More out-of-band systems would be really helpful in making these mechanisms more effective. But that will probably be out of scope for an initial implementation.
Basically, that falls under "out of scope, future development". If that becomes a problem, we'll look into that. But I think there's a good chance that it won't actually be a problem. Player organizations tend to be very adaptive. If there's a huge influx, perhaps they'll organize on-boarding of users into large group events, and there'll be some other system they'd prefer that we build. I don't know.
That's something I would rather improve as it evolves, than try and predict every detail in advance.
I think limiting newbs to a single application at-a-time is going to be frustrating for them.
I think we're going to be looking at a whole lot of different types of users, and varied archtypes. It's my experience that "simplicity" is best and the easiest to understand. There are a couple of factors:
1) The absolute minimum the player needs to understand, to make an application. More complex systems require greater understanding, and investment of time. "Pick a guild" is simpler than "Respond to some guilds, who will then say something eventually, and maybe you can join one of them." I would prefer, for the moment, to assume that any Guild that opts-into newbie applications, is likely to accept the ones they receive.
2) The absolute shortest time-period between application and joining. In this way, I would rather have a system where:
- the player says "I apply" and the guild says "I accept!". Boom, now a member.
instead of
- the player says "I have interest" and the guild says "we have interest" and the player says "I accept".
The latter has a whole extra level of login requirement, notification, and so on, in order to make the guild-join "conversion" happen.
I'm interested in the maximum simplicity here, because I believe it will result in the best net effect. There are definitely player archtypes that will prefer a more nuanced, careful, and balanced set of considerations and options in reaching out to Guilds. And hey, maybe that's a non-Newbie interface to the same set of data, that works a bit differently. But for funneling newbies, I would like to be to as extremely simple as I can get.
Also, might there be a way for the recruitment board to have a self-contained messaging system?
"Possible", yes. "Likely".. probably not? I agree it would be useful. More out-of-band systems would be really helpful in making these mechanisms more effective. But that will probably be out of scope for an initial implementation.
Something else I've thought of. Some "neutral" or "non nationalist" guilds are not straight down the middle neutral. CLM for instance is definitely more biased towards the serco, but will happily pirate some serco pilots as well. There should be some way for guild commanders to set things like 'leans serco' or 'leans itani' rather then just serco/neutral/itani.