PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Robinmagus on June 01, 2006, 05:56:01 am
-
Well, yeah. I think we should get a vote option, to impeach a guild master out of his rank, and replace it with a new...
There's been a bit of a discussion going on about this in this thread:
http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=23642.0
I think it would add major realism to the guild system, creating betrayals etc. Backhanded, but very realistic. We'd have seconds betraying guild masters with their own followers, guild masters cleansing the ranks of traitors, it's great ^^
-
Yes. I love this wish. I think that the guild system is currently too stiff and unnatural feeling. Something like this would spice it up!
-
I give 5 points against this idea:
1. People dont want to spend 20k just to be overthrown.
2. This would create many rivalries in the game and on the forums....people will turn chaotic.
3. People will send hateful PMs and talk OOC alot more often.
4. Leaders can make many ALTs and make them all vote himself.
5. Friendships will be lost and many trusted players will become intrusted.
4 reasons for this idea:
1. Adds an interesting twist, like Zanzibar said.
2. Inactive leaders can be replaced.
3. The game will become more exciting as everyone will suspect everyone and this will create more wary people.
4. People who create guilds will think twice before creating unpopular, "easy to take" guilds.
-
I give 5 points against this idea:
1. People dont want to spend 20k just to be overthrown.
2. This would create many rivalries in the game and on the forums....people will turn chaotic.
3. People will send hateful PMs and talk OOC alot more often.
4. Leaders can make many ALTs and make them all vote himself.
5. Friendships will be lost and many trusted players will become intrusted..
For 1. I don't like the 20k thing. I think it's unnecessary, and it promotes OOC behaviour.
For 2. It wouldn't create new rivalries. It might make refresh previous rivalries, but it wouldn't create new ones I don't think. People would only turn chaotic if it was IC for them - ideally.
For 3. I don't see why. There are plenty of ways for people to grief eachother already.
For 4. This already happens.
For 5. Again, no. If people are friends, then they'll stay friends.
-
An addition to the idea, or wish, or whatever,
There's a game I remember back in the day...I think it was called medieval total war . Well, in that, when you have many untrustworthy generals they launch a rebellion and a civil war starts...so we could even have a vote for that, and then one commander takes the rebel half of the guild, and is put to war against the other until one half falls, and the other gains/keeps leadership. Civil wars and such breaking out would be awesome.
We need some betrayal, danger, fear, all that good stuff, right now the game is too...well...happy? Nice? It's like we're being sheltered from the bad stuff, except for a few exceptional RPers, Shalmaneser, umm..You know, starts with a d...had the dwarf haters? I never could remember her name...(I'd add myself, but I just RP a jerk.)
-
this cival war idea is a great one. theres real possibilit there, i think. so called 'evil' guilds can team up and the 'good' one have to try to keep the peace. Its true there is too much um... peace. (not that thats a bad thing, but kinda dull for storytelling)
As for overthrowing a guild leader from the inside, i think this has potential, but the details should be ironed out a bit. i personaly, would never overthrow my guild leader, but my character is lawful good, so there temptation would not be there. Others may find it irrisistable, wich would make for some wonderful drama. I mean, thats what were after, isnt it? A good roleplay has to have lots of drama and excitment.. :D
-
I'm in love with this idea! It could also open up new levels into guild wars, where people could be sent into guilds to try and overthrow the guild leader, take over, and do what they want with the guild. It would be awesome :D Because personally, I trust all of my current guild members, so I'd not have too much to fear.
-
im a bit undecided on this one..
i see benefits and negative points, but the one think i can't get rid of is that each guild is run differently. For example, the Dark Empire is ruled by a queen, whereas other guilds may be run by a high council of some sort. In the high council one, it may be possible to re-elect a new leader if the current leader allows this of course.. But in the guild where the queen rules, this would be a great idea since there is no other alternative way to remove the leader.
Easton Ghent
-
hmmm well I like the idea for RP reasons. I love the idea of a guildleader having to make sure he ha most of the people supporting him or risk a second in command becoming so popular that he would lose control of the guild.
The reason I don't like the idea is for OOC reasons. It just seems way to easy in most cases to make misuse of it. With votes for example a second in command you could delete all loyal members to gain advantage in such a vote. This would be a gamemechanic way as IC you would need good reason to get someone officially kicked so he can't vote.
I also fear that OOC behavior would be a great influence. People making alts to get more voted and people using alts to infiltrate a rival guild and simply try to do damage.
If everyone would stick to IC I would think it a great idea but reality is that most people simply don't do that and the alure of power I think would be to great.
My conclusion it sounds like something that should be made possible becuase it adds realism, but I haven't seen a system yet that would allow it without it loosing all perspective on how hard it should be to overthrow a guildleader and would lead to a lot of OOC actions what wouldn't add realism either.
-
With votes for example a second in command you could delete all loyal members to gain advantage in such a vote.
That happens in real life.
-
hmmm well I like the idea for RP reasons. I love the idea of a guildleader having to make sure he ha most of the people supporting him or risk a second in command becoming so popular that he would lose control of the guild.
The reason I don't like the idea is for OOC reasons. It just seems way to easy in most cases to make misuse of it. With votes for example a second in command you could delete all loyal members to gain advantage in such a vote. This would be a gamemechanic way as IC you would need good reason to get someone officially kicked so he can't vote.
I also fear that OOC behavior would be a great influence. People making alts to get more voted and people using alts to infiltrate a rival guild and simply try to do damage.
If everyone would stick to IC I would think it a great idea but reality is that most people simply don't do that and the alure of power I think would be to great.
My conclusion it sounds like something that should be made possible becuase it adds realism, but I haven't seen a system yet that would allow it without it loosing all perspective on how hard it should be to overthrow a guildleader and would lead to a lot of OOC actions what wouldn't add realism either.
then it should be done IC and no game mechanics were needed to be used...
-
1)Maybe instead of paying 20k to make a guild, maybe it could be that when you reach a certain power level (Like the system monitoring your damage) and maybe if you once do more than 300 damage or something,2) you can go to some NPC, ask him for a form to fill out to make a guild, and Whala, a guild is formed. 3)And if you go to the NPC too early, he says "You don't look strong enough to be a leader yet... I don't think you'll make it "
That's my 3 tria for THAT. :detective:
-
Erm, what has that to do with guild leader impeachment?
-
After considering and reconsidering I'm for this idea as well.
The biggest contra is, as already stated, the problem that every guild has a different system. If a system allows an impeachment ICly, there would be no need in normal gameplay for such an extension. If you have an authoritarian guild system, an impeachment extension would be senseless.
However, that extension would solve a problem that happens in "non-normal" gameplay, when the leader is gone vacant for instance, or got banned.
At the moment there is no solution how to get a vice guildleader or how to get the guildleader replaced, except by direct edition of the database, which is a hassle.
Not even GMs can change guildlevels, so I think such an extension, with which players can get their leader removed without involvement of GMs or Devs, is the best way, even if it has no justification in normal, IC, gameplay.
Edit:
Impeachment of a guildleader must be, regarding the game mechanics so far, a direct replacement. So you don't just impeach the leader but elect a new one at the same time. One should have that in mind.
-
1)Maybe instead of paying 20k to make a guild, maybe it could be that when you reach a certain power level (Like the system monitoring your damage) and maybe if you once do more than 300 damage or something,2) you can go to some NPC, ask him for a form to fill out to make a guild, and Whala, a guild is formed. 3)And if you go to the NPC too early, he says "You don't look strong enough to be a leader yet... I don't think you'll make it "
That's my 3 tria for THAT. :detective:
Kinda unrelated mate, but you can start a topic on that, or search for one, seems like an idea that may go places.
About the whole not impeaching a guild master but electing a new one, I agree. maybe a vote option, where you place a vote for the guild master, one with the most wins....I can't explain it well, but I mean like the politic system in Kingdoms of war: www.abandonedcastle.com If you research into that, you'll get the idea.
-
It would be nice to have a sort of "vice guild leader".
Someone who is picked to replace the guild leader if somethign were to happen. [to give an example: there is an RL problem with the guild leader so he has a trusted person to take over in his lead. But i have no idea how this should be run.
But really, I think that each guild leader should be smart. If they want to be safe, they should give one person the permission to edit permissions. this way they can at least get some basic things done if the actual leader is incapacitated. I know a guild who has lots its leader for a while now, and they are stuck not being able to invite new people to the guild because they do not have the permission. if only they had the edit permissions option, they could at least keep the guild with sufficient numbers.
Easton Ghent
-
@zanzibar
That happens in reallife aswell? When? I have never seen that a overtaker declared that 95% of an organization wasn't a member anymore and then declare himself leader of the organization with just the flick of a few buttons. If someone would try that normally the 95% would laugh in his face and declare him a fool.
The few cases I can imagine somewhat resembling this would be when force is used to supress the opisition and although this may be an option it is in no way easy and more often fails then succeeds.
I haven't seen any system where there aren't huge holes in how this will be used OOC. As I said RPwise I think it should be possible. But Gamemechanicwise it's just not that simple.
-
@zanzibar
That happens in reallife aswell? When? I have never seen that a overtaker declared that 95% of an organization wasn't a member anymore and then declare himself leader of the organization with just the flick of a few buttons. If someone would try that normally the 95% would laugh in his face and declare him a fool.
The few cases I can imagine somewhat resembling this would be when force is used to supress the opisition and although this may be an option it is in no way easy and more often fails then succeeds.
I haven't seen any system where there aren't huge holes in how this will be used OOC. As I said RPwise I think it should be possible. But Gamemechanicwise it's just not that simple.
Committees, governments, boards, and councils. Underhanded dealings, betrayals, and people stabbing eachother in the back for the sake of personal gain is not limited to the RPG universe.
Let's say you're part of a board that elects a director for something like a summer camp. Let's say that you want the camp to move in a particular direction and you have a director in mind. What someone might do is:
- find reasons to kick people off the board who don't think like you
- get elected to the board people you can control
then:
- schedule the meeting for a time which is inconvenient for everyone except you and your friends
- make sure that all your friends on the board are aware of the meeting where the director will be elected
- don't bother to tell the rest of the board about the meeting if quorum has been met
1)Maybe instead of paying 20k to make a guild, maybe it could be that when you reach a certain power level (Like the system monitoring your damage) and maybe if you once do more than 300 damage or something,2) you can go to some NPC, ask him for a form to fill out to make a guild, and Whala, a guild is formed. 3)And if you go to the NPC too early, he says "You don't look strong enough to be a leader yet... I don't think you'll make it "
That's my 3 tria for THAT. :detective:
Oh dear.
Yes, I can hit for 300, therefore I get a discount when making guilds! It makes perfect sense!
And yes, strength! The only kind of strength which is important in a social context is how hard you can hit!
-
True but I'm not saying that it shouldn't be possible Zazibar I'm saying I don't see a system that represents the effort it would take to overthrow someone and would also be fair.
I mean for example
- find reasons to kick people off the board who don't think like you
- get elected to the board people you can control
These things you can already do and are already done you don't need a gamemechanic for that. The question here is how a gamemechanic should work to remove a guildleader without his cooperation. If for example you are sure noone is kicked out a council without having to find reason you could have an election about it, but with it being only a press of a button the person doesn't need a reason exept that he finds the button so aluring so voting doesn't work in my opinion.
The problem is that gamemechanics are absolute. In RL there are many shades of how you can do things and how people can respond to it even outside the rules. In RP you can find this.
-
Oh dear.
Yes, I can hit for 300, therefore I get a discount when making guilds! It makes perfect sense!
And yes, strength! The only kind of strength which is important in a social context is how hard you can hit!
I'm about to start loving your irony, Zanz :flowers:
I dislike the idea of having a guild restriction based on stats, too. It would _so_ promote powerleveling and discourage RP at the same time.
However, I'm not for the impeachment idea at first hand because it's possible in RL to kick peoples butts, betray and powerstruggle; all that could be RPed out. As said, I find it more important to have that option for OOC reasons. If it can be used for RP, the better :)
To be true, I haven't thoroughly thought about the pros and cons of the vize leader idea, yet. Wouldn't an impeachment system make having a vize leader redundant? Just pondering..
-
Vice-leader who can in some cases impeach a guildleader
Pros I see: You can get rid of inactive guildleaders
Cons: OOC-misuse: From Guildleaders who don't appoint one or one of their alts so they can't be impeached. To Vice-leaders who deletes all members exept himself to be the only one who is able to vote for the impeachement when he knows the guildleader is on vacation.
-
Oh dear.
Yes, I can hit for 300, therefore I get a discount when making guilds! It makes perfect sense!
And yes, strength! The only kind of strength which is important in a social context is how hard you can hit!
I'm about to start loving your irony, Zanz :flowers:
I dislike the idea of having a guild restriction based on stats, too. It would _so_ promote powerleveling and discourage RP at the same time.
However, I'm not for the impeachment idea at first hand because it's possible in RL to kick peoples butts, betray and powerstruggle; all that could be RPed out. As said, I find it more important to have that option for OOC reasons. If it can be used for RP, the better :)
To be true, I haven't thoroughly thought about the pros and cons of the vize leader idea, yet. Wouldn't an impeachment system make having a vize leader redundant? Just pondering..
You either insulted me, or misused the word "irony".
The problem with RPing a takeover of a guild is that everyone "involved" at the top has to consent to it. You're basically forcing everyone in a position of power to be the "dungeon master", so they can't really enjoy things unless they're the kind of person who enjoys writing out a script then acting it out online.
-
You either insulted me, or misused the word "irony".
I think he misused irony :P
-
Having a kind of vote system in the guild would be cool. You would be able to hold simple polls about guild decisions. But also polls which will actually affect the guild. The second in command would be able to hold a poll about betraying the guild leader, if the poll would succeed the guild leader would be auto-booted out of the guild, if it failed the second in command would be auto-booted out of the guild.
[I'd really like this myself, adds realism, but also avoids problems with inactive members. I'm in a guild myself were the guild leader just quit playing PS. I'm second in command so I can still do everything, but I'd really like to be able to set up alliances and such and have the rank for RP reasons. One option is this system, another option is me tracing him down and prod him about making me leader]
Another option is making a official second in command or "vice president". If the guild master hasn't come online for 2 months, all power is transferred to second in command.
Impeachment would be handy in both RP and RL situations.
-
I think noone seems to really think it's a bad idea for it to be possible. The big question however is how? With a vote? or a vicelader that can take control when the leader hasn't been on for a certain amount of time? And how do we make sure misuse doesn't happen.
Personally I like the idea of a vote for when the guildleader has not been on his account for something like two/three months. For thhis to work however I would think that deletions should be disabled while the vote is taking place so you don't get strange OOC behavior. Would still allow alert viceleaders to delete people just before the vote ofcourse but atleast then he wouldn't be sure the vote would actually start and would have some trouble if the guildleader returns before the deadline. I also said last on the account for a reason and not last on that character as that way the viceleader couldn't be tottaly sure when the deadline would be.
Perhaps make the vote a little random having the vote start +/-5 days from the deadline to make it even more unpredictable.
-
Maybe there could be different things you could vote for as part of the game mechanics.
Maybe there could be different kinds of guilds (totalitarian, tribal, egalitarian).
Then, different kinds of guilds could have different things members could vote for.
-
Maybe there could be different things you could vote for as part of the game mechanics.
Maybe there could be different kinds of guilds (totalitarian, tribal, egalitarian).
Then, different kinds of guilds could have different things members could vote for.
Agree on the first sentence, disagree with the third.
This would fix guilds beforehand in their structure, making internal changes unnecessary difficult.
I disagree also with the proposal of Pestilence, to record the off-time of the leader and base the voting on that.
If the leader got banned or left for good, so there is little chance that he will come back to change guildstuff, there is no reason to wait for 2 months or longer, as it is already clear that he won't come back.
I propose following system:
The voting system is used to overrule any privilige a leader has (name of the guild, motd, secrecy, changing privileges, alliances and war, promoting somebody to any level including lvl 9 (exchanging the leader = impeachment).
Anyone opens a voting (maybe it is best to restrict the possibility to open votings by setting a privilege for it, even if it sounds strange).
A dialogue pops up, to choose the purpose of the voting, looking like this:
[ ] toggle secrecy
[ ] change guildname to .........
[ ] propose *somebody* else for *level* #*somebody* is a list of members, *level* a list of the guildlevels
[ ] change motd to ......
[ ] propose alliance with ...
[ ] propose war with ....
(changing priviliges dont look that easy on first glance)
One can only choose one item and also has to choose the deadline (minimum should be fixed to 3 days =72 hours).
When the voting has started, an email automatically is sent to each account of the guildmembers, stating the deadline of the voting and the item.
While the voting is running, a popup opens for a guildmember who logs on with the voting and the possibility to vote with yay, nay and abstain if he hasn't voted yet.
All Yay and Nay votes are counted while the voting is running, only the votes cast are counted, the maximum number of members in the guild are disregarded as there can be a lot of inactive people.
On the deadline, the system counts the votes. If the yay votes are over a given (percentage) line, the system automatically executes the item of the vote. If the yay votes are not over the given percentage, the system doesn't execute the item.
For both possible results (50-50 votes should be counted as nay, i think) another automatic email is sent to the emails associated with the accounts of the members, stating the result.
I propose to set the percentage limit to 50% per default but can be changed by the leader in a range of, let's say 30% to 70%.
A totalitarian leader would set the percentage to max in order to make it as hard as possible to get kicked, an egalitarian leader would set the percentage to min because he wouldn't have to fear opposition.
This system would make it possible to restrict the ability to open votings to only one level, which can pretty much be seen as choosing a vize leader.
Of course, it should be discouraged to think that one can live without and not allowing anyone to open votings as it would create the situation we have today.
This system allows the use in egalitarian guildsystems as regular means to change things by direct democracy, and by setting the percentage limit to max it serves the impeachment function in totalitarian systems.
-
Well if someone is banned ofcourse an exeption can be made but it that case asking a GM is already an option is it not? I mean I hope that wouldn't happen so often one would have to make that the main argument for something like this.
As for leaving. Normally the problem is that the guildleader left without telling so you don't know that he really left till he is really gone for a while. If that happens the members will normally wait a while to see whats up anyhow so 2 months isn't that long really.Specially if the members know that vote is coming
OK
scenario 1: Viceleader wants control. He waits till the leader goes on vacation deletes all members exept himself and the guildleader ofcourse and starts the vote. He is the only member who can vote he wins
scenario 2: active guildleader is being a jerk and someone starts a vote. The guiildleader deletes all oposing and uses his alts to win the vote using multible accounts. (4 per account wouldn't take him that much effort)
Scenario 3: viceleader wants control. He somehow is prevented from deleting. He "recruits" several alts and wins the vote. He takes the privilidge to start a vote away from anyone but his alts.
As I said I like the idea but how do you stop things like massdeletions and massaltrecruiting? I mean these are extreme examples but getting in a few alts to make sure votes go your way I fear will be comon practice this way.
And how do you make sure the leaders don't change things like the guildname right back after the vote? I mean if they agreed their wouldn't be a vote afterall. ;)
I mean in democratic guilds this might not be a real big problem, but I don't think those guilds need this gamemechanic as much as the guilds where the leader keeps all the power to him/herself. And in those guilds the leader might not even give anyone the priviledge to start a vote or give it to an alt.
-
As I said I like the idea but how do you stop things like massdeletions and massaltrecruiting? I mean these are extreme examples but getting in a few alts to make sure votes go your way I fear will be comon practice this way.
A leader who would do that won't be leader for much longer, as his members will just leave the guild.
If you try to overrule a leader by such unfair OOC means you will have to expect him to react accordingly by kicking you off the guild, for instance.
You, as leader, wouldn't allow your members the possibility to vote with the minimum limit and giving everyone the "right" to open a voting, if you don't trust your members that they won't do anything that appearantly is against your mind.
If you don't trust your members in that case, you need to raise the limits, that simple. A voting that appearantly is against the leaders mind won't have any chance if the leader wasn't able (by checking the mail and getting ingame) to react accordingly. He can undo every possibility in voting, except an "impeachment".
Edit:
I mean in democratic guilds this might not be a real big problem, but I don't think those guilds need this gamemechanic as much as the guilds where the leader keeps all the power to him/herself. And in those guilds the leader might not even give anyone the priviledge to start a vote or give it to an alt.
Programmers try all the time to create fool-proove programs.. the universe tries all the time to create greater fools.. so far the universe is winning the race.. ;)
-
*laughs*
True indeed, but I think these are pretty big holes. Trying to make it fullproof will obviously not happen as I know what I suggested still has big holes aswell, but you should never make things to easy or appealing to cheat a little.
I mean the votes about all the other things I don't think need high security, but impeaching someone shouldn't be something easely manipulated as it's not something that can be simply reversed and affects the whole guild.
-
Then you recommend an additional security for voting, especially for impeaching?
-
Well yeah. I mean it shouldn't happen everyother day that someone gets impeached. Thats not really the goal of it I think. It should be used to be able to get rid of inactive guildleaders or guildleaders perhaps that aren't doing anymore what the majority of the guild wants.
So if you want a vote on impeachement you have to think of a way so that it can useally only be used in the way you intend it to be used.
The alt recruiting and the deletion possibilities I think are big drawbacks in the current system to have fair votes. In the normal votes people wont go through the effort becuase people will figure it out and then you have a reputation to loose and little to gain really
With impeachement you have the power in the guild to gain so people will often risk reputation and I don't want it to become a strange who recruits the most alts kind of competition.
I mean things like that would be highly distuptive from the beginning. Not to count how unstable a guild would be if every few days the leader would change becuase of that.
I think that atm votes like that would only work with GM supervision and with anyone caught using alts to swing a vote or to be deleting members would be banned. This way you have it to work.
Otherwise you would have to do strange things like make when the vote is unpredictable and have deletions and invites unavailable during the vote. This so people can't prepare becuase they don't know whats coming and when they do they can't do anything anymore.
-
i think there will be alot of fighting and coruption if people vote for a GM
i think its a bad idea :thumbdown:
becuase someone would want this person to be a GM the other would want a other person
to be a GM and that starts fights :offtopic:
the system now is much :beta:
-
Were talking about voting for a Guildleader perhaps supervised by GMs ;) Not talking about voting for a GM ;)
-
I hoped to reduce the need to call for GMs by such a system, not amplify ;)
I find your concerns about manipulating votings reasonable, but wouldn't like to block invitations in the meanwhile of a voting.. Maybe it is a better idea to give the a vote per account (in one specific voting), not character. This way it would rule out to have alts on the same account voting in the same guild. Of course it doesn't stop people to create more accounts, but the more of an effort in doing so lowers the risk to an acceptable niveau.
If this isn't enough of a security against alt-votings, one could consider to block characters in votings with under 10 online hours, for instance. That would make it pretty hard to just create an alt for the voting on another account, get it in the guild, vote and delete the char again.
As for removing chars of the guild, I don't think it is wanted or even possible with a reasonable solution to restrict that, even for votings.
-
A voting system should be completely in-guild, not supervised by anyone outside that guild, not even GM's.
2 types of votes could be called:
- Vote type with predetermined result (if vote succeeds then guilleader is auto removed for example, or if vote succeeds then Member A with rank B is auto promoted to rank C. These voting templates could be addes by the devs, built into the voting system.
- Vote type with no automatic result. (Should we declare war to guild A? Vote results can be viewed by anyone, or maybe a few predetemined ranks, the guildleader and his crew can choose to do with it whatever they want.)
And yes, a few security rules should be added. A minimum in-game time and a minimum in-guild time should prevent people who want their vote to succeed from using alt's or inviting random people for money, only to vote and then leave. A vote could last for a predetermined time, a week, or a day or an hour for things on very short notice. A vote could also last until a predetermined number of people or percentage of the guild members have cast their vote.
-
I think thats a very good idea indeed Kerol. Having both an ingame time and an inguild time you have to have before being able to vote would definately make using alts a lot harder. Specially if you only give one vote per account that I think would make it hard enough for it not to happen. Not at jumbo scale atleast.
Might also be a way to giv e the priviledge of voting. If you have been a member for a long time you can start a vote no matter what rank you have.
As for the replacing I would think that perhaps the one starting the vote should chose someone. This way the people who vote know who the replacement is and you don't get that only the second in command could replace the guildleader who might be an alt or might be part of the problem.
You would still need to win the vote afterall.
Only problem that I see is the deleting misuse atm. This would be highly disruptive to the guild if it would happen often so think we'll need to figure something out to counter that although I can't think of an idea I have to admit. You don't want to hinder normal affairs in a guild, but the problem is that you can delete someone or you can't. There is not something like "only if someone is inactive or if someone broke a rule you can delete them" option I'm afraid.
-
- Vote type with predetermined result (if vote succeeds then guilleader is auto removed for example, or if vote succeeds then Member A with rank B is auto promoted to rank C. These voting templates could be addes by the devs, built into the voting system.
- Vote type with no automatic result. (Should we declare war to guild A? Vote results can be viewed by anyone, or maybe a few predetemined ranks, the guildleader and his crew can choose to do with it whatever they want.)
Sorry, I don't see any difference there.. :-\
-
Vote one: something happens depending on the results.
Vote two: it shows what the majority of the guild wants but the guildleaders can still chose for themselves if they'll do it or not.
-
A voting system as I proposed it doesn't make much sense with case II.
You can do that always on forums, for instance.
For case I it isn't possible to use other means than such a system.
-
A voting system as I proposed it doesn't make much sense with case II.
You can do that always on forums, for instance.
While i agree 100% i think its not a bad idea because it emphasizes people having to actually come in game to make a difference in the guild, as opposed to just going to the forums, voting, and leaving.
-
All good suggestion but far simpler to go get 20000 Then form own guild with disgruntled members. Saves all the hassle of scheming and corrupting and so on. After all guild leader did all the hard work putting guild-together in first place, or is it the intended guild leader is to lazy to do all that work for themselves, in the case of a guild leader being banned or away far to long then a simple in guild vote should be service to sort it out, a absent leader deserves to lose all the hard work they put into the guild if they don't post a reason for being absent. With the resent banning of a guild leader I am shore that a way to remove them from guild can be implemented by a Dev. Just my thoughts on this.
-
- Not all guilds have to be democracies. If the system forces it, it's a limitation to guilds organisations like councils, hierachies based on achievements, ...
- Using the damages done in 1 hit by the leader is meaningless regarding a religious guild, a mining one, brewing guild, animal training, ...
the 5 members limit is more a way to prevent forming of random guilds than a way to get rid of empty ones. Anyone with a few alts of inactive members recruited on the first day who never connected since can have a running "guild". A guild can exist without an active leader. But it allow you to leave your guild, create another one as long as you find 4 allies inside or outside your guild.
So there can be betrayals and conspiracies within the guild while you try to find the 4 allies you need to create you own guild in order to recruit the majority of the members of your previous one. Leaving the leader alone can be part of your plot.
Guildleader in game mecanics is one thing. the lead of the guild is another one. A guild can be leaded by 1, 2 (1 leader+1vice) or any number of people. You can decide it's a democracy and allow polls on your forums...this is already possible.