Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Amendment to guild structure Idea
ArchivedUser
Guest
@Rune_Relic writes:
The Problem with Guilds...
Guilds should be the building blocks of civilisation and community within Ashes.
Their cooperation and coordination being the focus of the game where complex community problems need solving.
But that is problematic.
I often wonder why people say they prefer to play solo despite the benefits guilds offer.
Especially if an MMO is actually engineered around guilds and grouping.
But many do group, they just PUG with the whole community instead of just 'a' guild, which is a tiny and often insignificant fragment of it.
So in that sense you could argue that guilds actually fragment the whole community and limit access to just a part of it.
Making a 'them and us' environment instead of just 'us'.
For some (maybe even many), guilds are pocket dictatorships.
Their leaders rules and demands are final and sacrosanct.
There is no power sharing.
There is no facility to replace the leadership.
Many leaders become so drunk on such power they become authoritarian.
The questioning of their authority and choices, shot down without hesitation or members banned.
Their demands for recognition, reward and acceptance of their authority or 'right to rule', is often telling.
This is an intolerable predicament to those who believe in democracy, equality and power sharing.
How can you build a game of social bonding based around this guild structure when some players are fundamentally opposed to endorsing their very existence?
For the same reason, many would refuse to endorse any dictatorship.
It matters not if its leader is benevolent, malevolent or indifferent, their nature can, will and does change at any moment.
Just like any king, queen or despot in history.
Saying the players can leave is an option. But....
What if that guild is so huge it actually controls a large slice of the game and sticking with it would be infinitely less painful than working against it ?
Then you get the situation where the members suffer a lot because to not suffer it would be worse.
Often its far better to be on the inside spitting out than the outside spitting in...as the alternative cost is too much.
What of all the time, goods and effort the x members have ploughed into such a guild ?
Do they get to take a percentage of all goods and earning like a divorce settlement ?
Do they get a settlement package like leaving a company ?
The fact the leader merely administrates the guild does not mean it was not built off the back of the hard work of all its members and whose sole existence is 100% dependant on their continued membership.
The fact a guild leader happens to outlive its members should not grant the automatic right to inheritance of control, goods and currency of those that left.
There is nothing stopping any guild leader from building 1000 members, amassing enormous guild wealth and then kicking everyone from the guild for instance.
No doubt some will see this as an attack on guilds and the guild leaders an attack on them. It is difficult for a person to separate their personae from their role.
This is actually a request that the guild model is completely revised to allow its democratisation.
This can not be left in the hands of the guild leaders as they have a vested interest in maintaining their position.
This can not be left in the hands of potential guild leaders for the same reasons.
No one is untaintable by our innate lust for power and control of our future and its corrupting nature when taken to excess.
So I suggest that game mechanics are put in place to automate the democratisation or power sharing process within a guild structure.
I recognise the fact that some members are the submissive/permissive type and actually want to be ruled by the dominant types.
So I suggest a selection of authority systems that is publicly and clearly represented to all potential members of said guilds.
This is a tolerated co existence request, that enables player choice rather than compulsory membership to any particular system of authority.
1. Permanent Dictation guilds.
2. Temporary Dictation guilds - round robin by membership age (term length debatable).
3. Temporary Dictation guilds - elected by popularity or some other mechanism of choice (term length debatable).
4. Shared Authority guilds - polling system.
Some will note that this is sounding remarkably like the religious, scientific, military and economic node leadership system.
So perhaps guilds along that nature will be the right way to go as microcosm versions of the macrocosm system.
Social coordination and collaboration is the fundamental building block of any MMO.
Hence it is imperative the process of community building should function as freely and naturally as possible.
That obstacles in the way of it be removed.
That bridges which aid it are built.
...and no I dont want a damn dragon 
Comments
In every game there are leaders and there are sheep. You're a dragon Cersei, be a dragon!
I don't think a system like this is necessary. If people want a guild like this then they should search out a guild that is run like this. Guilds are made of people and a people could easily imitate this system without it being part of the game.
I also feel like the system you proposed is susceptible to trolling. People sticking around in a guild until the system gives them bank access and they steal everything.