Question; Should there be a required higher minimum number for guilds?
ArchivedUser
Guest
Ok here is my point:
Guilds really need to be of a good size to really change the world of Verra correct? So if you have a guild size of 10 people, what can they really do? Yes, they can raid towns and make trouble, but world changing, I don't see it.
Can a group of 10 hold a castle?
Can a group of 10 siege a city?
I use this number of 10, cause in past games that was the minimum needed to start a guild. What's the big deal you say? Simple, if you going to have a guild, then have one with a larger number of active min accounts of say 100+ people. I think that's only far to do.
Ok before you flame to crap out of me, doesn't mean you still can't make groups with smaller numbers of people, but lets call these groups something different. I know it's asking a lot, but if you have like 5 friends that play with you all the time, I don't see it as a guild.
IMO it should break down like this:
Guild = 101 to 300
Clan = 51 to 100
Tribe = 25 to 50
Gang = 10 to 24
Club =2 to 9
At the same time when thinking on the larger scale of things, when you want to make an alliance in game, it should take 2 to 5 guilds to form 1 alliance. It's a number I am tossing out there only, I am sure others have their own ideas here, but IMO if your doing an alliance of guilds, then do it some justice with numbers. With the alliance setup, they can control a huge area in the game, or take one down.
Now I know people are saying want about the people who don't have the numbers, and can't make a guild? I say form up with the other smaller groups, and make 1 guild. Until you do, you can't get the guild hall, you don't get all the guild perks, but you can still get a house or two. Along with smaller perks. Just your groups will work on the smaller scale of things vs what the guilds will do.
IMO the guilds should be the world changers, and the other groups will have effects on the local areas only. My 2 cents on the topic.
Just tossing out an idea, doesn't mean it will get used, but it's something I would love to see.
What are your thoughts or ideas? Please lets hear from everyone.
Comments
Ashes will have objectives and benefits for small guilds that are different than the objectives and benefits for large guilds.
People should not have to officially join guilds in order to be world-changers.
A key aspect of being a world changer will be participating in building cities and being involved in government - being part of player guild should not be necessary.
I think my main issue is seeing smaller guilds as you say, and they only have maybe 10 or less active players, how can you be a world changer with a small group? if you say they can claim a town or city, that's a local event, not one on the world level. Changing things within the city limits is just that, a local effect on the area, but can this small group do the same in 2 to 3 different node areas? I don't see it.
As far as the smaller grouping counts, I was just tossing out calling them something else besides a guild. Only to ID them a little better when viewing them on what they have done in the world as a group.
IMO Small to large guilds, the count should still be pretty high to form one. I know people get locked into the idea just call everyone a guild, let them all have equal powers, but really should it do this way in the game?
leaving it as you say a guild of 10 players control a town, then here comes a guild of 300. Who will win the siege of that town?
at the end of the day it's a number games, and what I am thinking to point out is making the smaller groups named something besides a guild, and they have limited things they can do, aka working on the local level of the world only. Where you have the guilds able to do more on the world level. I still don't see a group of 10 changing anything in a major way.
A small guild of 10 might be the leaders of a Religious Metropolis - supported by hundreds of other players.
That would not necessarily simply have a local impact.
I don't understand why you would need to refer to a small guild as something other than a guild. Just as there is no need to call a small raid something other than a small raid.
A 10-person guild could be the leaders of a Metropolis comprised of hundreds of players. So, it's probably not going to matter whether the 300 players sieging the Metropolis are in guilds or all in one guild or in an alliance made up of several guilds.
What's going to matter is how coordinated the players in that Metropolis are when it comes to defending the Metropolis. Guild size is not necessarily a crucial factor in that coordination.
Small guilds will have different objectives/tasks and different perks than large guilds - but that's not necessarily going to prevent a 10-person guild from running a Metropolis.
Just as a Queen or Mayor of a Metropolis can be the leader without belonging to a guild at all.
I think my issue with it is this. When you speak about guilds, I picture ones with over 100, it's why I used that number as a min. Smaller organizations are called by other names, and it's why I used that as an example too.
What I don't want to see is a guild of ONE, it happens a lot in other guys, guild leaders sign up what is needed, and they pay the people to sign up, then kick them all out so they have the guild as a solo player.
Maybe I am looking at it from that angle too, the guild needs to have active accounts on it, or it's not a guild at all. And by increasing the min level, I was figuring it would be one way to help from having the solo guilds of the world.
And another reason why I added if players want to play in this way, make the smaller groups with the other names. It's not the all might power of a guild, but they would still effect the world around them.
This whole world changer topic don't get me wrong on this guys, I am all for it, we will all do our parts to change the world of the game, be it solo or in a huge guild. I am just tossing out an option to just having small to large guilds, ones that can make better since.
And no I still don't see 10 guys sieging a city alone. HAHA
A guild is a coming together of certain people looking to work towards a common goal. It doesn't matter how large or small as there is no requirement to have a goal to work towards there is no requirement to enlist associates in aiding you in that goal.
Ok the name thing I understand, it was mainly just breaking down an idea. I think my main issue is having guilds in game, that don't have active accounts, and those are the ones that take up space that can be used by others who are more active.
At the end of the day, as long as the numbers game of the guilds plays out, so you don't have 1 or 2 people taking advantage of it, it's ok with me.
Your misconception is that every guild is out to change the world at the same scale. That aside, I have never once been in a guild in any MMO whatsoever with over 100 different active players (alts excluded) that felt anything like a collection of people with a common goal and the comradery that should follow.
And that's totally cool. Because some guilds are just small groups of friends who banded together to take advantage of guild perks. Some guilds like to stay small and exclusive. One of the top guilds on my WoW server during WotLK was a 30 person guild who devoted their time to making BG premades. They were very well known for this and never grew because they preferred the smaller numbers. So small guilds can still make a name for themselves.
I don't think upping the guild requirements really adds anything to the game.
Nodes are not a guild specific mechanic, most guilds will want members of multiple nodes, and most nodes will want members of multiple guilds.
What's the difference between having one more small guild versus one more large guild?
I like the part where groups of different sizes are called differently. That sounds attractive imo.
What I don't want is to nerf smaller groups by not letting them have perks. They are already at disadvantage by having lower amount of people.
Before in another thread I was against nerfing larger guilds just because of number of members, now I am against nerfing smaller guilds for the same reason.
No guild should be nerfed just because number of friends is different in certain group. All guilds should get to have similar perks.
That being said, calling different sized groups differently could actually be nice, and make sense in same time.
I also wouldn't restrict differently sized guilds from forming alliances. Every guild size should be able to form alliance with whoever they want.
***************
My vote YES, is simply to a "name" here, because yes, it makes sense that group of 5 people could be called differently than a "guild" and that could sound more attractive and fitting.
As in, the Cult of Azathoth!
Alliance = 2+ Guilds
Guild = 60+
Raid = 10 to 60
Party = less than 8
While a major point of the game is to impact the world around you, Guilds have traditionally been about more than just a means to better progress through game content. Restricting Guilds to larger organizations restricts the function and diversity of Guilds that can exist. Not everyone wants to be one of dozens or hundreds in an expansive Guild.
Renaming or classifying such a traditional element of an MMO implies that people who feel this way are not deserving of the Guild title that they may have possessed in other game. It excludes and divides people in a game that strives to bring them together.
I do agree that there need to be requirements for how many people it takes to form a guild, i.e. 5 or more signatures from characters of unique accounts.
Just my personal opinions.
- Sikuba
Each organization would have 5 choices, based on their group size, how to call themselves. This would fit into "4 node types + outlaw style" atmosphere (feel). When group size changes and moves into next level, a new tag would have to be chosen.
GROUP SIZE = OPTIONS (Militaristic / Economic / Scientific / Religious / Outlaw)
2 - 10 = Unit / Firm / Team / Praying Group / Gang
11 - 50 = Division / Commerce / Department / Sect / Ring
51 - 100 = Legion / Enterprise / Institute / Cult / Cartel
100+ = Army / Corporation / Society / Religion / Syndicate
I might replace Praying Group with Church, though. You could also have Firm as the second tier of Economic and Department as the first, because Commerce doesn't really seem to fit.
Really good thoughts though. It would definitely stress the importance of the time of Node you're in.
- Sikuba
Because it's bullshit. Plain and simple. This is not thought trough at all and wrong on so many levels. I'm only going to give one example because of how much bullshit this is.
What relevance does it have to the "real" guilds aka. the world changers (holy hill of bullshit, numbers equals the ability to change the world now?) when a small group has a 2% gathering exp benefit? They are already way smaller ergo benefit less from it while simultaneously needed more time to unlock it. What relevance does it have and balancing issue to make it necessary to lock a social progression away from "non real guilds"?
Because it's bullshit. Plain and simple.