PlaneShift
Gameplay => Guilds Forum => Topic started by: bilbous on June 15, 2007, 12:06:15 am
-
As it stands now there is no reason for guild membership to be terminated upon ones death but should it remain that way in the future? Ultimately death is supposed to mean something and it seems to me that this could logically be one of the penalties. I am not suggesting that you could not rejoin your guild once you have clawed your way out of the DR but why should the affiliation extend beyond the grave? Is there room within the guild structure for internal warfare? Could there be an option for an internal war where challenge need not be given? Could you remove the leader by killing him?
I mostly do not join guilds and so am free to think the unthinkable. Is there anything here?
-
Considering there will probably always be bugs where you die suddenly. And how annoying it would be if that happened to all but four of your members...
I'd say no. Maybe have it as an option.
-
I kindof like the idea, but mainly because it gives a way for guild wars to be 'won' instead of a sort of constant bickering until one side gets bored, and opens up the possibility of overthrowing your leader. Perhaps if it worked only when killed by another player? Or have it as a temporary lock out instead of a full expulsion.
-
hmmm I like the idea, but I don't feel one should be booted from the guild, but just have the guildwindow read you as dead so you can't participate in wars and such and perhaps also not show the banner anymore.
The reason I say this is that I would hate to see a new guild go under the minimum requirement becuase two people fall in a bug and die.
Personally I would like the idea that you can't leave the Death Realm right away aswell, but I suppose an idea like that will have to wait untill there is more to do in the Death Realm ;)
-
In the future more "evil" characters and guilds can "live" in the Death Realm. It would be quite sad for those evil persons if they were kicked from their guild once they would return to their home base.
-
An issue to consider is that by having players automatically leave their guild you could possible disband the entire guild by massacring a guild's membercount down to under five.
People are suggesting more and more options to influence guilds without needing to be the leader lately ... sure this might be more realistic but I think the people that made the suggestions don't always know how much time and effort goes into creating and maintaining a good guild. I'm not in the least worried about the guild creation fee but there are sacrifices and efforts put into guilds that go way beyond this fee.
I know that I wouldn't like it if my guild, for which I worked hard to get a background story up, recruited the right types of people and integrated it into the world of Yliakum, suddenly got disbanded or taken over by others. This would, without doubt ruin my gaming experience and possibly make me consider backing out of the game. This is still a game , keep in mind that it should be fun for everyone. Losing something you've put your sweat, tears and blood into is not fun for anyone.
These more realistic options, which make it possible to destroy or take over guilds are, in my opinion, going to be a source of frustration, grieving and intense conflict rather than a source of a more vivid gaming experience. I do know they're meant well, I'm just not convinced they'll be used well.
-
*reads Zans post and nods*
I have to agree with Zan. Eventhough we have a great community around here you'll always have people who enjoy exploiting the gamemechanics to gain some advantage. Some even sometimes seem to enjoy doing things intentionally to ruin someone elses joy in the game becuase they are frustrated with something themselves. If one would implement something like this or ways to "take over" the guild one has to keep a very close eye on how such mechanics might be exploited.
ThomPhoenix also raises a good point with the setting although I personally hate the idea of a guild having a base in the DeathRealm. I mean what value does death have here? Suicide as a normal traveling way to reach your guildhouse? Sounds ludicrice to me. These plans in my eyes would lessen the meaning of death even more then it is already and be honest the people who pop up in the same RP 5 minutes after killing them are normally concidered VERY bad RPers.
The main question here is "What is Death" in PS. The devs seem to be at a loss themselves. Saying at the same time it should be played as something terrible, but at the same time planning to make it just another map and infact making death a traveling tool more then anything else. Realistic? Not in my eyes. Or it's a traveling tool or it's horrific, but it shouldn't be both. That simply doesn't work as current RPs have already shown.
-
The main question here is "What is Death" in PS. The devs seem to be at a loss themselves. Saying at the same time it should be played as something terrible, but at the same time planning to make it just another map and infact making death a traveling tool more then anything else. Realistic? Not in my eyes. Or it's a traveling tool or it's horrific, but it shouldn't be both. That simply doesn't work as current RPs have already shown.
I advise getting a hold of two books. One dealing with the Truths About Death Realm. The second Lies About Death Realm. Pay some attention to such concepts as The Diaboli Game (if I remember the name correctly), True Death and (divine-related) Atmosphere in Death Realm.
The first should explain why people wouldn't fear it all that much. The others should explain why many people would avoid it. It's all worked out.
-
I think there is perhaps another problem here which I have touched on long ago which is that there are player made guilds and then there are the guilds which elect the Octarch according to the settings. Are the two going to be combined, are the electoral guilds going to be npc only or will those guilds be developed into something players can take over and run entirely in-game?
-
It could all be lovely if optional.
-
In the future more "evil" characters and guilds can "live" in the Death Realm.
I'm all packed, just let me know when I can ;D
I would have to agree with Sangwa, Optional being the key word.
-
Who would use it though? I think people have far to much control ingame. There is no element of unpredictability which defeats the point of playing against other humans surely? If anything making guilds harder to run would encourage me to start one because being successful would be something more of a feat. At the moment the only challenge is the very OOC thing of activity. To keep things running smoothly you need to keep people interested so they stick around. Making things more uncertain would do that by itself. Now the death by bugs thing is an issue, but the bugs shouldn't be worked around, they should be fixed.
P.S. About the evil guilds:
Guilds could choose to have members not be lost once they are in the death realm but these guilds could have a different disadvantage such as only being able to recruit people in the death realm or something.
-
These things Bilbous speaks could only be implemented as options. For instance, it makes no sense to have a Crafters guild where you become a leader if you kill the current boss. But in a Tribal warriors guild it could thrilling... Though easily played out without any additional systems. Obviously the people who would choose it would be the same that could bypass it without having it implemented.
You don't control anyone else besides yourself. It's obvious you don't own a guild yet, or you wouldn't think leading a guild isn't challenging. It's easy to have a crappy guild, yes you just need 20000 trias and 4 alts, but a successful one is a very different thing.
EDIT TO ADD:
I think there is perhaps another problem here which I have touched on long ago which is that there are player made guilds and then there are the guilds which elect the Octarch according to the settings. Are the two going to be combined, are the electoral guilds going to be npc only or will those guilds be developed into something players can take over and run entirely in-game?
It's unlikely, seeing as what the developers have mentioned up until now, that players will have any relevant role in Yliakum's government and high level politics. But maybe in a far, far away future that might be possible. Or there might be NPC controlled guilds which players can be a part of.
-
Well of course a lot of my suggestions are of the pie in the sky, ideal conditions sort.
I see no problem with a crafters guild which is run by a hereditary leader who can only be removed by death. In such a guild it might require more than just one death, it might require the death of a family and would likely still require considerable political support to get yourself into the position once it is made empty.
As far as losing your membership due to a 'fatal' bug goes, the guild could work up rules to minimize disruption, members in good standing could be automatically readmitted those who are more suspect could be made to requalify or be subject to some test. It would likely mean that you should act as a traditional hierarchy during warfare in that the cannon fodder is sent out to die first and the leadership stays out of harms way at all costs. I don't have a real problem with it being optional but I do wonder which guild leader would dare take the option if they didn't have to. Perhaps it could be a guild creation option as opposed to a standard guild option so that once the guild is created it is no longer optional. Otherwise I can see a new leader coming in and changing it so he cannot lose power the way he gained it.
-
hmm well sounds a bit to much like a guild who has someone with invite doing nothing but sit around reinviting people would have somewhat of an advantage.
I rather not have them booted but simply remain members but go into an inactive sort of membership. Wouldn't that be a lot less bugstressfull then with death booting you out of the guild?
Looks more profesional atleast in my eyes.
-
I have reasons to not engage in Guild Wars besides the lousy combat system and of lack of manpower. Because unlike others, I know how to accept defeat and wouldn't unrealistically make my "guild" even continue existing after all the members are dead. From me, a radical suggestion, a war that involves two whole "guilds" going in the places where the authorities have less or no control should have as a potential outcome: the complete annihilation of one of the sides. This would definitively make people think twice before getting medieval.
Also, I think that once(REALLY SOON(TM)) masonry becomes available, making a "government" will be possible once you have resources and manpower to make your way into the Labyrinths(SOON(TM)). This sounds more believable and I think will make less risk of potential griefing than having a group of players controlling the government of Yliakum.
-
I agree that if that was an option (to kill your own leader), then it should be something decided upon it's creation and not something the leader could change. Yet, between crafters it makes no sense to have such "savage" system, as well, crafters are not fighters and their system, as the game in general, should not promote them to be make use of force (and most surely not give superiority in crafter guilds to warrior-crafters).
Once again this is a question of our notion of death. Once the DR is quite bigger, I'm not sure this problem would be posed. If it took weeks (or even months) for members to get out of the DR, the problem of affiliation would be solved by the guilds themselves, depending on what they do to their members' inactivity.
-
You bring up something I do not think has been considered before. In the PS world the DR is just another map and communication with those currently situated there is routine and effortless. Perhaps some system could be developed whereby the only way to communicate past the borders of the DR would be through some kind of divination spell. Thus, guild members within the DR could communicate amongst themselves on the guild channel as could guild members in the living world but without difficult magic the two channels would be completely separate and not accessible from the other realm. The same would go for the other channels as well, people in the DR should be completely cut off from the living world under normal circumstances.
As far as warrior crafters go, most anyone with money could hire an assassin and poison could be as effective as the point of a sword. I am not suggesting your particular guild has to embrace the model but it could be available for others of a different bent.
-
Guild channel is OOC.
You are trying to bring something that is OOC into character. The two don't mix.
-
Guild channel is OOC.
You are trying to bring something that is OOC into character. The two don't mix.
I think probably there are magics in both Yliakum and death realm that allow the dead to communicate with the alive and the alive communicate with the dead, alas, this is one of the real world meanings of the word necromancy(communication with the dead).
-
@neko Well it is and it isn't. The character can only access the guild channel if he is in a guild and the player cannot access the same guild channel with another character that is on the same or another account but not in the guild. It is certainly true that does not require chat that is in character but it is tied to the character all the same. Probably a distinction not worth mentioning but the thought was spurred by my inference from:
If it took weeks (or even months) for members to get out of the DR, the problem of affiliation would be solved by the guilds themselves, depending on what they do to their members' inactivity.
that somehow characters in the DR would be inactive in the guild which would not be the case if the guild could instruct the members in the DR as well as anywhere else which is already the case.
-
now you are confusing player vs character.
player == still in guild and active.
character = in DR, dead.
-
I am sorry I cannot accept either of those equations. I have a character in the klyros, only that character is in the guild (and not very active at that). Outside of the game I can access the guild website but in the game only that character is in the guild. In Character is only In Game except for one or two forums here. I am not at all confused about that.
Characters in the death realm are not dead they are "just visiting." They are only dead when they cease to exist, i.e no longer have the will to leave the DR or even hold their essence together in the DR. At least this is what I inferred from reading the new tomes in the DR library which were written by someone who can no longer leave the DR except under extreme conditions without turning to dust, figuratively and possibly literally. I may be a little confused on this point but the fact that some guilds are projected to make their bases in the DR sometime in the future would seem to rule out your second equation.
Of course all this serves to do is to render the original topic moot so you might as well lock it. You may very well have your cake and eat it too but mine disappears as fast as I cram it down my gullet. :)
-
death realm... death.... dead characters. so they are dead. they may come back from the dead, but while they are there, they are dead. You get a system message when your character dies, telling you as the player, that your character is now dead. where does that character go after that? death realm. so, character in DR = dead character.
dead characters do not talk with the living ones like they are next door neighbors. so, you as a player still have abilities to talk to the guild through the ooc use of the guild channel, but your character most likely does not.
guilds based in the DR are just that. they all have dead members. just like guilds based in the land of the living have all live members. characters may be still in the guild if they move form one plane to the other, but character communication will be very difficult, or most likely none at all, until they return to the plane where the guild is based at. While at the same time, the player behind the character will have full access to the OOC guild channel keeping the player in touch with the guilds other players, but their character will not have decent communication with the other guilds characters. so the player is active in the guild, the character may not be. my stupid little equation post stands. (in the preceding paragraph, plane refers to DR or land of living.)
-
It seems to me the whole disagreement we are having is semantic in nature and as such is rather pointless. Dead men tell no tales but in this game they age (slowly unless magically bound), write books, amass libraries. Things are born, live and die in the death realm (carkerasses, wrathrats, whatever it was whose bones make up part of the citidal). What is considered to be true death has no part of the DR, prisoners executed by the crystal do not go there. People in the Death realm are more undead than dead except the state is not permanent. To me dead characters do nothing but rot.
If you want to preserve the illusion that it isn't just another map you should really disallow the OOC channels from being effective across the divide. Let dead people talk to other dead people in their guild but not to living ones. Anything else invites abuse. The help channel is the only one that needs to be worldwide. If they want to communicate across the divide they can do so outside the game, an irc channel, teamspeak or whatnot. The game does not need to allow it.
What good does it do to kill that spy that overheard your plans before he can report when he can report from the death realm? Heck, he was probably reporting as you went along so it is already too late. How many guilds will be able to ignore such ill-gotten information? How many will be able not to when faced with enemies who do?
So if you want to define death as you have fine, and if you want to say that the guild channel is OOC that is fine too but you will not convince me that the reality is that simplistic but by definition you are correct.
-
Its not the games fault that people can't distinguish between what is OOC and what is in character. Why would you want to limit what people can do in game becuase a few people can't separate the two? Don't you think that's limiting the people who can tell the difference?
-
I think this is a question for the Settings team: Whether there are(hard to attain of course) magics that allow the dead to communicate with the alive and so on or not. The answer to this question will have influence on the question pointed in this thread. However probably most won't have access to such chanels of communication if they exist, so it's safe to say that in most cases, those who die lose contact with their guilds while they are dead. And as bilbous said, being dead is not so literal, because it is being dead in Yliakum while being "alive" in the Death Realm. And if there are tenuous links between both realms, it is not something impossible that exist ways of communication between them.
-
I would code for human nature and not for ideal situations. I do not see why it is such a problem for you, you can argue against it all you like if it should be discussed amongst the devs. Certainly I won't be privy to those talks in the off chance they even occur. I do not make suggestions because I expect them to be adopted, I make them because they seem logical to me and they have no chance of being adopted if I don't. Of course my logic isn't always on the button.
You haven't said yet why being cut off from your living guild-mates shouldn't be one of the penalties for dying, you just assume that because it is an OOC perk for a supposedly IC function (guilds) that it cannot be affected by an IC situation. I think it is a hybrid IC/OOC function to begin with and am adding an IC constraint.
Maybe I just like it because it isn't likely to affect me much in any event, and it is a slight restriction on something that goes against the putative emphasis on Role-Play. Why do you need to talk to dead people?
-
:) I'm not for or against your idea. Quiet frankly, I don't really care either way. I just am trying to point a flaw in your logic.
Why do you need to talk to dead people?
Again, I repeat, you aren't talking to dead people. You are talking to other players who may have dead characters. Your character may not be talking to the dead characters, but why should that limit you from talking to your fellow guild mates? Again, you are trying to bring an OOC channel, IC and that simply shouldn't be done.
-
So guilds are OOC? That is the only conclusion I can come up with if I can talk to my guildmates regardless of IC considerations. Somehow I do not think you will agree with this conclusion but this is the apparent contradiction. An OOC channel can be attached to an IC function but should not have IC restrictions applied to it.
Really I don't care either but I am trying to understand. We seem unable to see it the same way, perhaps someone else could take a stab at explaining it to me.
I suppose the big difference between our outlooks is that you seem to think there is a distinction to be made between a character and its player whereas the only distinction I can see is between the various characters of the player. In other words the character is always the player but the player is not always the character. This of course depends upon the player respecting the no-sharing rules, without that caveat all bets are off.
So what do I tell people who try to use the guild/group channel for role play, that they are breaking the rules? Is the Auction channel OOC as well? I was chided yesterday for yelling at my buyer when I mentioned a price in that channel to someone who had already agreed to buy my merchandise. Apparently IC/OOC contradictions abound in the world.