45 replies to this topic

[Pontifus]

Having mod-run guilds would give those of us on this side of things a little more to do, but I think it'd make the game a little too rigid. I say don't give guilds benefits (such as skills, items, etc.) over the non-guilded, as that wouldn't be fair to people who didn't want to do PvP, and let players make their own guilds as they see fit. The PvP aspect alone would keep guild sizes decent, as someone who just made their own one-man guild for PvP would have a hard time with nobody on their side.

What would be cool, though, were moderator-run factions that guilds could associate with, maybe if they had a certain number of members. Guilds who did join a faction would be allied with other guilds within their faction, and could war with other factions and non-factioned guilds.

It puts more pressure on community

As a fan of solo play as well as community interaction, I don't really like that idea. Pressure is never a good thing. The players rely on us for fun, not for stress.

In this way each moderators' decisions are based mostly on bias and favoratism, which would be awesome (as long as they all remember that fun is fun and !fun = !fun).

Do you mind explaining how bias and favoratism are ever good things? Don't take me the wrong way...I'm not trying to bash your ideas at all...I just don't understand where you're coming from with that.

[Caseyweederman]

As for community, it is one of the main theses of my life. That and ignorance>fear>hate. I think that in today's world, community is just forgotten. Sure, there are "communities", but not in the real sense of the word where everybody acts for the benefit of the group. You may know your neighbour, but if you needed help, would you really ask? Do you really know anybody so intimately well that the majority of your actions are made on their behalf? We live in a society that says there is only one person, the ubiquitous Me. I act for Me, and nobody gets in My way. Bah.
Community should be a highlight.


Regarding bias and favoratism, it's realistic. Everything can be preplanned and executed to a weary point (rigidity), or everything can flow as easily as one person interacts with another. Why did Persia attack Athens? Because the Athenian king called Xerxes a pathetic wiener, along with a bunch of things about his mom. So Athens retaliates, overpowers the massive hordes of Persians. They overcompensate and become an empire. No local war means no support, so they dropped off after a while.

But bias and favoratism are at the core of the human. This is how we deal with the world. Are they good things? Well, no. But they make life so much more interesting.

Again let me state that there are limits, and there shouldn't be any people who take it too personally and get hurt, and retalliate out of darker emotions. But as far as friendly rivalry go, I think some human dirt should be stirred into the soup. Maybe some salt too.

[Drackir]

OK, while I was at work I was thinking about this and here are the ideas I came up with:

1. I think we should change the name from guild/clan because they are very over-used (clan is at least). All I could come up with were: faction, clan, guild, party, cult, group, commune, community, civ, legion. PLEASE think up some more ideas!

2. Would a guild be created by mods or by players? OR would a player create it and a mod have to "OK" it.

3. It will cost money to create a guild and you must be a certain level. This prevents just people creating guilds at random.

4. Will it cost money to join a guild? Also, you will have to be over level 10 or something to join.

5. Each guild member will have Guild Points (GP's) which are gained by: doing quests, pking other guild members, etc. (more suggestions needed)

6. GP's increase a member's guild rank. The ranks are defined by the guild leader in the form of GP's>##=NewTitle.

7. Guilds should be able to merge for w/e reason to share members and what not.

8. Add a vote to the guild options, where a guild leader can hold a vote between each of his/her members and they can vote when they login next. For things like "Should we war with so and so?", "Can you all be on on Saturn's day at 2PM est for battling?", etc.

That's all I wrote down. I like where you guys are going. But I don't think that the mods should lead guilds. And I definently don't want my mods to be biased or choose favourites in anything they do.

[Pontifus]

You made good points, Casey. Thanks for clarifying things for me...honestly, I agree with you about the self-destructiveness of the "me" society, but my political and social theory is neither here nor there. You've made me realize further that the path we take with PvP isn't so much about finding the perfect way of doing things as it is about making the world feel like we want it to feel. Your PvP method would make for a gritty and more realistic world; mine would result in a more idealized land, I think.

In any case, in response to some of Drackir's points, I think guilds shouldn't need to be confirmed by mods, but I agree that there should be a level and money requirement. This would keep absolute newcomers from being PK'd at random, and make guild ownership a sort of status symbol. Players shouldn't have to pay to join guilds, but there should be alevel requirement, and if you want, you could implement an optional tax system similar to the one in Ragnarok Online (if I remember correctly) which entails giving, say, between one and five percent of a guilded character's looted money to the guild fund or guildmaster. Of course, guildmasters should be able to choose to have no tax if this option is implemented.

I really like the GP idea and the in-guild voting, but I'm a little confused about the merging. Would the guilds simply become one guild, or would they sort of ally with one another under a common faction? Are both options viable?

You're right about guild and clan being overused. I think we should reserve "faction" for allied guild organizations (if implemented), but I like legion. Or maybe guard or protectorate...or phalanx, if they stand in a box formation

[Drackir]

I really like the GP idea and the in-guild voting, but I'm a little confused about the merging. Would the guilds simply become one guild, or would they sort of ally with one another under a common faction? Are both options viable?

Yeah well it would be like if a smaller guild wanted to join a larger one to make a bigger one. Yeah this would be different than your "Faction" idea. Read my staff forum post maybe it will have some significance to this.

[Caseyweederman]

Just a short note regarding level requirements.
I was kind of thinking that the player would be in a guild from the start, and these people would help him/her started in the game. For example hints and tips, something that only a more experienced player would know.
A friend of mine playing Diablo II didn't realize that "scroll of identify" meant that you could identify an item with it, so he was carrying around a bunch of garbage, not equipping and not selling so he could get a better price or something. I candidly pointed out that it is possible to right-click on the scroll, and then left click on the unidentified item. Relating this example to the game, I would be a player in the same Corporation, looking out for all my Platoon buddies.
Of course, the question now is how to keep n00bs from getting PKd? Hm.. Hm..
How about a buddy system? An experienced player would have the choice to have a n00b tag along and grab some l00t and experience. I would like to say that there would be bonuses for this kind of behaviour, but then players would be motivated by the wrong reasons and it would turn into something else.
So. Point. The n00b and the pr0 have agreed to go co-adventuring. A PKer pops up and targets the n00b for an easy kill. In this system, the PKer is referred to the more experienced player. Buddy system.

As for Focus Group creation, I had in mind just five or six premade Parties, and the members would make of them what they would. This way the Passels have a collective life, and they last as long as the game does. Back again to the individualist society, everybody thinks that their way is better. Thus we will have myriad Splinter Cells with each only one member. The real Congregations would be depleted, the 'loner' would be missing out on all the community action, not realize what he/she is missing and leave.
Is this a rigid system? A little. But it encourages people to fit in and contribute to a Company. And the Syndicates would be whatever the members make of it, which would influence who joins, and in the end each Association would mold into idividual Crews with their own methods and goals and views. Over time, those people move on with life, new people join, over time those goals and ideals will change. Community.

[Drackir]

The whole point of the guild, in this kind of a system is for PVP/protection. I don't think you should be forced into a guild from the start. That's not really fair, it's like forcing you to pvp when you may want to just go it alone. Which is perfectly fine, I'm not prepared to force anyone into anything.

On another note, maybe we should have another requirement to start a guild: you need two (three? four?) other players who are going to be in the guild before you can make one. So that one person does not just split off and create their own leaving us with a bunch of single person guilds.

P.S. Way to use the thesaurus.

[Caseyweederman]

I admit, I did use the thesaurus. But some of them were mine.

Re guild:
I didn't make my idea clear. I didn't mean force the player, I just mean that guilds would be available for joining from the start. A jump start.

How about killing off dead guilds? Guilds which have dwindled to an average of one player per day would be encouraged to join other groups.

Ben's point: A guild needs more than two (or three or four) players to branch off. Smaller numbers wouldn't survive.
For... Even four or five people would barely ever manage to synchronize their timing to be online at the same time. Larger numbers of members means higher chance of more than one online at any given time. A clan with only one member "would be utterly mundane, because it wouldn't be a clan, it would be a punk. Or maybe like a ronin. Would it be like a ronin?"

More Ben thoughts.
Perhaps supply a level limit for creating a guild.
Criteria:
At least one player who is at least a level 10 (arbitrary number) and nine other players.

Well, I think Ben is now a member of mb.drackir.com. He may be posting later.

Summary:
A player who is the only player online of his guild is a solo player. Thus guild is pointless.

[Pontifus]

I think it'd be okay if there's a level limit for guild creation, but not for people who want to join. I mean, it's really up to them if they want to get ganked at level 1 on every other quest.

I don't think we should enforce a mandatory minimum number of members after the guild creation process. If a guild wants five members, so be it; there won't be enough players in the beginning to have huge guilds anyway. My theory is that the constant GvG will keep guilds big enough on its own, as only those who stick together will be able to hold their own versus other guilds. We don't really need to intervene beyond the member requirement for guild creation.

A player who is the only player online of his guild is a solo player. Thus guild is pointless.

I don't think that can really be a blanket statement. He's only solo for the time being. The other members still exist; they're just working or sleeping or whatever, and if they bothered to be guilded in the first place, they'll probably play together when they can. Initial level, member, and money requirements will make guild creation enough of a pain in the ass that people shouldn't just run around making them for no reason.

That made me think of something though. Do you think we should give soloers a PvP option? Maybe a single arena-type map that allows PvP for everyone, no requirements needed.

[Drackir]

@Casey:
RE guild:
I see. OK well I was thinking in terms of Deloria (another game) and how they had a level 5 pvp limit. Aka you had to be 5 or above to be pked or get pked. It was like a safety thing for new players.

RE: killing off dead guilds
No. The play base will not be large enough to expect every guild to have two members at a time on for most of the day. Or only one member on per day. What if some people go on vacation or something? Also, then I would have to keep tabs on people which I don't want to have to go to the trouble of doing.

RE Ben's point:
What are you talking about branching off? A guild is for multiple ppl to be together, not to branch off. And smaller numbers would survive if the other guilds were likewise small which they would be.

The problem only becomes what happens when one guild gets too powerful? I suppose just let it grow until someone overtakes it. In which case maybe we should have some kind of warring thing where if a guild loses and is the strongest guild they are disbanded? With some limitations on recreating a guild and what not. Maybe overall GP's are tallied to find out the strongest guild or something of the like?

RE More Ben thoughts:
The level limit for guild creating has already been suggested.

Overall you guys are assuming this game is going to have A LOT of people. It's not gonna be an MMORPG, just MORPG. At the beginning there will probably only be 5 players on a time, and half (yes, 2.5) will be staff.

[Moose]

just a thing with the guilds i think it would be a good idea to start a guild by having to do a quest with 2-5 members in a party. this quest could make a lvl requirment
another idea is getting lvl grades. this would detemen the lvl avrage of a guild so they would not be able to pk lower, weaker guilds.
im not sure if this has been done but we should b able to tell wat lvl other players r. in alot of mmorpg ppl faked there lvls to fools newbies.
sry if sumone has already suggested these...

[Drackir]

These are both great ideas! I really like the quest idea. The only problem I see is that if they'd have to be able to attack *somewhat* lower/weaker guilds otherwise lower guilds could attack them and they couldn't attack back. But yeah these are good ideas I will definently take into account.

P.S. Names:

brotherhood, club, company, corporation, federation, fellowship, fraternity, league, lodge, order, organization, profession, society, sodality, trade, union, affiliation, alliance, band, brotherhood, bunch, circle, clan, clique, club, coalition, combination, combo, company, confederacy, confederation, congress, cooperative, corporation, crew, crowd, family, federation, fellowship, fraternity, gang, guild, hookup, league, mob, order, organization, outfit, partnership, pool, rat pack, ring, society, syndicate, tie-in, tie-up, tribe, troops, troupe, union, zoo, alliance, association, clan, clique, club, community, comradeship, coterie, fellowship, fraternity, guild, league, order, secret society, society, sodality, union, alliance, association, brotherhood, bunch, circle, clique, company, crew, faction, fellowship, fraternity, gang, guild, hangout, league, lodge, meeting, mob, order, outfit, ring, set, society, sodality, union


There are a few doubles because I copied it from multiple thesaurus entries.

[Faselei]

As usual I miss the best part of debate...

Alot of these ideas depend on the overall 'storyline' or 'context' of the game especially with regard to the specific term used for a guild don't you think? Is it based on guilds? Is it based on factions? Whats the overall story behind it all?

Before i go down the guild v guild avenue which i think you guys have covered: Generally like casey (btw loved the Athenians v's Persians point) i'm what you'd call a 'carebear' in terms of mmo's and with a full time job etc a 'casual' player. From that point of view i would expect myself to agree with Casey full stop, but nothing gets the heart pumping like openish PvP! Most commercial games have taken out open PvP specifically to cater for players like myself and frankly i apologise.

As a non (or semi?) commercial game Fondusu can break the mold and allow the PvP which sooo many players seem to crave. Again it seems its more about what you lose by being killed than the act itself. I think some sort of beta where its made VERY clear these things are being tested may help to strike a balance. You guys really do seem to know what your talking about, but i hope my humble comments help!

I like 'moot' as a word for guild btw.

[Moose]

lol funny words like 'zoo'.... "u ppl can all be in my zoo if u wana join?"
but 4 da game 'alliance' would be good.

[Nalyid]

you guys are all crazy ....@Faselei I am not sure if I understand what you are saying, but don't worry about balace, we want this game to apeal to everyone! I am not a huge pvp fan, but my reasons are more because no one has ever really created a good pvp system (That I know of). We don't just want people to go around scalping peoples heads for profit...I personally would like there to be a high risk to players who choose to take un provoked life...also there will not be pvp allowed on all maps for players who really want nothing to do with mass slaughter and pilaging.

~Plus testing will clear up all new infant game booboo's

MuShuShoes may make a good guild name

[Caseyweederman]

Hm... Well... Maybe instead of focusing so much on pvp for now, let's turn instead to overall gameplay. Most likely in the end the pvp system will just make itself apparent after everything else is in place.

Drackir? Any chance you could start a new thread and state all gameplay info and goals at some point? I'm sure that after we all had the full picture we could make better points.


Back to the current conversation... Pvp.
Well, it seems that most people's opinions are polar - all in favour or completely against. So let's step back and take a look.

For PVP:
Well, PVP sure adds a whole lot of gameplay and general amounts of fun. Why? Because after all the npc enemies are gone, who's left? Who acts according to seemingly random biases and nonsensical logic? Who can speak (more or less) intelligently and carry out full conversations? All of these things are attributes held by homo sapiens. In the end a computer program just can't stand up to the pressure.
So increased player interaction does help in this way.

Against PVP:
I belong here. While there are a lot of benefits, in the end I just don't like people taking advantage of people. It is not only possible but likely that new players will get frustrated and stop playing. And at times like this I look at Nalyid's post number and see it hideously below zero. It makes me laugh, because I know who's behind it.

In the end, regardless of the restrictions that are put into place, it comes back to these opposing sides. A sudden flash of seeming insight shoots into my brain like flaming rocks flung from a Mangonel siege engine.
Dual server.
One is just the normal game sans PVP.
The other does have PVP, but other than that is the same.
These are both the same game engine, with one variable holding up any and all cases of PVP (or not, respectively).
Expanding on this, the people who enjoy preying on people choose the PVP server. Otherwise, those interested in normal gameplay would not.
However, characters would be interchangeable. A player started in the nonPVP would be able to swtich at any time. It just depends on which server was loaded.

My sentence structure is disintigrating. All I can hope for is that I more or less made my ideas comprehensible.

[Pontifus]

I'm for PvP myself, but on a very limited scale provided there's only one server.

But two servers...yeah, if the character data is stored at a central location that both servers can access, then players can just choose one or the other at login...I really like that idea. It was basically Ultima Online's solution, more or less, and it worked really well. We just need to be absolutely sure that both servers are identical with the exception of PvP.

And if money and getting the hardware are problems, can we just start out running two instances of Fondusi's on one server machine? I'm not sure if that would work, but if it does it might be a nice alternative to blowing money on an extra server comp.

[Drackir]

What is the difference between that and just being able to flag pvp on or off when you login or out. And what's to stop someone from just closing the client if they are losing and then logging back in in the non-pvp one and running back to town?

[Nalyid]

lol...finally someone noticed my post count! and the idea of 2 servers sounds poopy to me..that seems to take away because you then devide the game population into 2 groups.. I want to be able to hear and know what is going on with all the players of fondusi's, if it is split you only get to exspirience one group of people before you have to log out and move to a new server based on your mood of gameplay...that seems to break the flow...i dont know..

[Faselei]

My point was that i'm not a big pvp player and that i would always be on the receiving end, but it adds an element to gameplay that so many are cyring out for.

I suppose the main point was it is not the principle of PVP thats an issue (its a good idea to have pvp). It is what you lose / gain from it.