Tagging other guilds as friendly, neutral or hostile, outside the alliance/war system.

Basically, it's about allowing guild leadership to mark other guilds as friendly, neutral or hostile, so a small icon or colored dot or something appears next to the guild tag of players in other guilds. No other ingame effect, just a little visual to help your guildies, instead of them having to look at a long list or asking in guild chat.

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

Would be a good QoL feature

Endowed

Nice idea.

While I understand the guild leader having this option, why couldn't an individual payer set or adjust it for himself if its the same basic system?

CROW3

Yes - and a KOS list. 😈

tautau

Would be a nice feature....but good communication in a guild would achieve much the same thing, wouldn't it?

Nerror

tautau wrote: »

Would be a nice feature....but good communication in a guild would achieve much the same thing, wouldn't it?

Up to a point yes, but once you get past a certain amount guilds, especially if they include alt guilds, all the names can become a bit of a blur. There is no way I am remembering 200 different guild names and their status

Aszkalon

CROW3 wrote: »

Yes - and a KOS list. 😈

Every System that individually "marks" Players independent from Mechanics in the Game like for Example a Mayor declaring Citizens of another Node to Enemies,

can support Freedom for the individual Players who use mentioned "every System".

It could also lead to Misunderstandings and Doom and Drama however, if not used wisely.

Noaani

Yeah, something like this would be good.

I can't think of any other game in which I would think something like this would be actually useful, but since Ashes has a larger population per server than most other games, that means more guilds per server.

George_Black

Why make everything systemic?

Noaani

George_Black wrote: »

Why make everything systemic?

Easy to implement systems that have no ongoing maintainence, improve the game play experience and have no negative implications are always worth it.

Otr

This is needed because players in guilds do politics and relationships should be transmitted easily to their their members rather than make them search in lists saved on discord.
The tagging is useful when corruption is not important and fast decision must be taken if we help players survive or die, on who's side to fight if we see two factions in battle.

It is useful also if alliances are chained:
A allied with B, B allied witch C but A is not allied with C because max limit reached.

Dolyem

absolutely

JamesSunderland

Would gladly accept such helpful visual cues, those would certainly make my diplomatic friends life's way easier.

auremfern

I am all about visuals, I would love something like this. Alliances shift and knowing if you're guild is against another from an icon by the name or some kind of identifier would be helpful. Instead of going through a third-party (discord, etc.) it's right there on your screen.

abc0815

George_Black wrote: »

Why make everything systemic?

Sandbox game is dead. Players of all kind want the hand holding / systemic gameplay

Jhoren

abc0815 wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Why make everything systemic?

Sandbox game is dead. Players of all kind want the hand holding / systemic gameplay

That makes no sense.

Eve Online is/was a sandbox game, much more sandy than Ashes ever will be, and it had the same feature from the get-go pretty much. This proposed feature isn't about handholding, it's about having a good UI that helps players deal with lots of information.

wakkytabbaky

never know they might have something like this and just not shown it, since theres a affiliation thing maybe theres a tab in the guild ui that allows marking stuff like this

Noaani

abc0815 wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Why make everything systemic?

Sandbox game is dead. Players of all kind want the hand holding / systemic gameplay

Sandboxes are built upon game systems. Saying sandbox is dead due to too many systems is to say you don't understand what a sandbox is.

Percimes

Hehe, one more reason for me not joining a guild!

As a general feature, I'm sure it would work well. But I'm worried it's a step into reinforcing the mentality seen in owPvP in hard factions games: hostile tag = enemy faction, must kill if possible. Meaning, I'm afraid players would treat a hostile tag as a sufficient reason to attack someone, even if not doing anything hostile. It would also become a way to have permanent "unofficial" guild wars.

It kills part of the charm of faction-less PvP. It makes it too easy to ignore the ambiguity of other players affiliation. It reduces the incentive to communicate with others and being social in the open (I know, surprising thing to hear from me).

Finov

But what about the accidental murder of a member of the allied guild and the explanation for all this? Then it will work without intrigue and so on.

Arya_Yeshe

I suggested this in some thread, don't remember which one, but basically following the EVE Online's contact's system is a good start, and EVE has a pretty basic system with the simplest options only

Endowed

Percimes wrote: »

Hehe, one more reason for me not joining a guild!

As a general feature, I'm sure it would work well. But I'm worried it's a step into reinforcing the mentality seen in owPvP in hard factions games: hostile tag = enemy faction, must kill if possible. Meaning, I'm afraid players would treat a hostile tag as a sufficient reason to attack someone, even if not doing anything hostile. It would also become a way to have permanent "unofficial" guild wars.

It kills part of the charm of faction-less PvP. It makes it too easy to ignore the ambiguity of other players affiliation. It reduces the incentive to communicate with others and being social in the open (I know, surprising thing to hear from me).

Still have the criminal system.
This would be a "heads up". Not a "red=dead".
People wont take-on criminality easily. The system will get tuned/updated to keep it that way.

Orgagriffith

Guilds being able to set some sort of allegiance indicator on player placards is a good idea.
On the guild social menu you can pick from a set of basic icons & colors to add a rule for guilds, individuals, and/or citizenship. Not all relationships are defined easily so having a way to create rules for that is a good idea. maybe individuals can toggle that UI element (keyboard shortcut) for situations where players dont want that info, such as when they are streaming or if its just clutter in a raid.

Zipp_Adoudel

Guilds should not be able to set anything themselves. Alliances, as a game mechanic, should let you know you are friendly. This will allow super guilds/Alliances. Guilds that want to have max benefits from being in a small guild, but also want to zerg will be able to abuse this system. Just have 10 guilds each and make them appear as friendly and bam no penelties.

Nerror

Zipp_Adoudel wrote: »

Guilds should not be able to set anything themselves. Alliances, as a game mechanic, should let you know you are friendly. This will allow super guilds/Alliances. Guilds that want to have max benefits from being in a small guild, but also want to zerg will be able to abuse this system. Just have 10 guilds each and make them appear as friendly and bam no penelties.

I get what you are saying, but guilds who organize like that will do so regardless, through a similar guildname or a guildtag in the name or something. My suggestion doesn't change that aspect at all, nor does it really help them.

Child Item