Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Small Guild Leader NO GO on Current Alt Policy
skafftaruss
Member, Phoenix Initiative, Hero of the People, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
AOC Wiki stipulates that Alts on the same account can join different guilds. Intrigue, espionage and intelligence gathering is a legitimate aspect of the game.
In other words, and hypothetically, if I intend on having a small guild, an uber guild can take 30 alts and become members. Then that guild is subject to a hijack, member vacuum, or take over during elections of those 30 alts? My issue is that if evasion is such a big deal on Discord and Forums, why foist this same burden on guild leaders of small guilds? And how can one tell IF the appropriate primary accounts are dedicated to a guild and not alts to be recognized as a guild? This makes me pause and may dissuade others from a) forming a small guild and b) having elections. The risks are too great to invest in hard work, spend money on kickstarter uber packages, with no modicum of risk mitigation. I hope the designers visit this legitimate concern. A spy is one thing, but a coordinated and simple take-over is another. What measures are in place to give the guild founders of a small guild a reasonable comfort level in preventing a devastating sabotage of a raid (where members quit) or a corporate take-over? If the answer is some obtuse non answer like it's risk and reward I say heck no. It's a lot harder to break or take over a big guild from the outside. For your consideration.
In other words, and hypothetically, if I intend on having a small guild, an uber guild can take 30 alts and become members. Then that guild is subject to a hijack, member vacuum, or take over during elections of those 30 alts? My issue is that if evasion is such a big deal on Discord and Forums, why foist this same burden on guild leaders of small guilds? And how can one tell IF the appropriate primary accounts are dedicated to a guild and not alts to be recognized as a guild? This makes me pause and may dissuade others from a) forming a small guild and b) having elections. The risks are too great to invest in hard work, spend money on kickstarter uber packages, with no modicum of risk mitigation. I hope the designers visit this legitimate concern. A spy is one thing, but a coordinated and simple take-over is another. What measures are in place to give the guild founders of a small guild a reasonable comfort level in preventing a devastating sabotage of a raid (where members quit) or a corporate take-over? If the answer is some obtuse non answer like it's risk and reward I say heck no. It's a lot harder to break or take over a big guild from the outside. For your consideration.
3
Comments
I've never been in a guild with rotating leadership. If you choose to use such a system and you let a spy take control then that's on you. I don't think IS needs to protect you from your flawed system.
Edit: this increases the likelihood that the toon is genuinely invested in your node and doesn't have a main somewhere else. Remember citizenship is kinda a big deal.
Otherwise, it sounds like you are risk averse to corporate take-overs and your guild breaking up but those things will happen and they will never feel legitimate if they happen to you tbh. I mean, describe to me one situation in which you'd personally be ok with your guild being taken-over lol.
Maybe guilds should have investment periods where every new member has to work with the guild on a variety of levels before being accepted as a new member? Maybe guilds won't just take everyone to bolster ranks.
If a small number of players have characters that make up a large portion of the guild, enough to be a majority, then maybe it should be their guild. They are obviously way more invested in it than other members.
As for citizenship and alts in the same guild, all alts have the same citizenship, so that likely won't help talk this conspiracy off the edge. All this means is it's more likely all the alts would be in the same handful of guilds present in that node
This would be a good anti-spy technique, not full-proof, but good.
I love the fact that someone is concerned with a small number of players making a large number of alts and just totally f*ing guilds. This might be the best way to keep a mega-guild alliance from actually occurring on the server (to me that would be a bonus). Also my favorite Ashes conspiracy theory to date!
"The risks are too great to invest in hard work, spend money on kickstarter uber packages, with no modicum of risk mitigation. I hope the designers visit this legitimate concern."
Ships already sailed here, kickstarter is over. I mean, that money has either already been spent or can't be spent on a KS.
Also, I don't think the designers should worry themselves with this. The first time this happens all serious guilds will take in house efforts to prevent it.
IS should not spend any resources on hindering this stuff in anyway. This all in house guild stuff. Most games have levels for different members and what they can access, guild bank and so forth. If you suspect foul play then don't let just anyone vote. It is your guild and your rules after all. Set boundaries and stick to them. Just cause someone joined your guild last week doesn't mean they should have a vote on leadership.
But hey it's YOUR guild do what you want.
There was that one player in EVE Online though, "the Judge", who stole all of his guilds assets.
Lol if that's your currency of choice, sure, I gave you one
Nobody is telling you your guild is screwed up, it's simply unconventional. Which is fine, but you can't demand the game to be built for you specifically.
What is your optimal solution? Every character has an (alt) or (main) beside their name? How would one determine that? The guild can't ever be broken up? The leader cannot have another toon in another guild? There is no real solution because you're in the realm of human social interaction. Just like you can't demand people be your friends for moral reasons, you can't demand people to conduct themselves to your idea of fairness in your guild. You can set up rules and surround yourself with those who agree with you and uphold your rules, but that's personal choices and decisions, nothing IS can do for you buddy. But by all means, I'd love to hear a solution you'd be happy with, just keep in mind what you propose must be applied uniformly, it can't be super context dependent.
You're just re-stating the problem you see. Ignore its validity, tell me a solution. Here I'll even help you: so you think alts shouldn't be able to vote. Then define an "alt" for me. How do you determine if a toon is an alt. Order of creation? Time played? Most money?
Meaning no disrespect, but you're being quite over-dramatic. This is neither profound nor existential. Small guilds like the one you describe exist in bunches, it's not that they are so rare people can't sympathize, people just don't demand protection from possible social consequences because it's not possible. This is your recognition of a problem that has no solution because it requires knowledge of the intention behind a player's actions. There is no definition of alt that can be uniformly applied. There is no piece of code IS can write to prevent some of the things you (validly) worry about. Hopefully you can find players that want a guild like you do, and hopefully you don't lose sleep over alts trying to take over your guild and can enjoy yourself. Cheers.
I dont really see ANY reason for a major guild to infiltrate a smaller guild tbh. Guild unions are supposed to consist of max 3 guilds, it would be bad for a big guild to waste a slot for a small guild that would bring nothing else to the table (difference would be if the smaller could was a merchant or crafting guild with specialized and really rare item recepies)
Very few games limit accounts to only being able to join one guild. EQ2 certainly didn't.
If a guild holds regular elections for leadership positions, a "takeover" of some form is a real risk for them, and it a part of the consequences of such a system (we all know elections can sometimes go bad).
There is no more of a risk of it happening in Ashes as there is of it happening in any other game.
@skafftaruss the only real solution I see, that should be reasonable for IS, is to divide a single vote (1) into the number of alts that have the option to vote related to the same account. This could also be done with voting for mayor (in the right node) along with buildings to construct and so on.
If you have a small guild of buddies that like to take turns running the guild, make them a leadership council/pool. All players can vote for those characters only. If you want it to be more of a democracy^ than a republic, allow access to the council after x-number of years in the guild.
I believe these should be things done, as others have said, in house.
IS should not be responsible for helping you regulate how people act in your guild, friend or foe^. After all, there is nothing about Ashes that says you *have* to own a guild. Although the argument can be made you will likely *need* to be in a guild, it's not true. You and your buddies can do things as a team without Ashes having you listed as an official guild in the game (I think, I have yet to hear that you can't adventure with other peeps unless you are in a guild).
If it was mandatory to own/operate/join a guild, I would be more apt to agree with you that IS should take a more hands on approach to regulating member actions.
^edits
At this point, I'm betting that any major damage people would want to do to another guild could be done more efficiently with their mains acting on information gathered by a single spy rather than pouring an immense amount of time and energy on numerous alts.
You solve this issue by recruitment and member management. If you're letting in 30 alts from another guild, that's 100% on you to determine they are alts and to kick them.
I see this problem with guilds that mass recruit, throw invites randomly and who don't purge their inactive roster with some frequency.
This issue is completely on the guild leader to manage.
If you choose to have a rotating leadership and a guild leader gets elected and then takes over and does whatever they want with the guild, well I guess they are entitled to do that since they are in fact the guild leader.
Try the stuff with scrubbing bubbles
What you call AoC's 'undoing' is the same thing that keeps fueling EVE Online and keeps it as one of the most compelling games in the genre. I for one hope that AoC will be able to produce the same legendary stories of betrayal and subversion that EVE does.
Why would someone want to take the time to take over and raid a smaller guilds bank? Seems like a lot of time and effort just for the lol's. Doesn't mean someone won't but personally from my perspective it sounds like you want IS to use resources to protect your guild from a might maybe could happen situation.
They should leave as much stuff to player agency as they can. This is one of those things. People do weird things sometimes. I have been in guilds that silly things happened when I was off line log in and no guild anymore.
I guess my real question is why should IS be responsible for what happens in YOUR guild?
Our friend Skatagories has a propensity for the alarmist dramatic.