Background Image

Suggestion: Clan/guild Management & Customization

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Titus-Fenris, Mar 25, 2015.

?

Would you like to see this concept in-game?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. Yes but it needs work

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Laanshor Laanshor Well-Known Member

    Wow @Kanthric you nailed it as far as I know. Good show sir !

    Only thing I'd clarify (if you don't mind) is that there would be 2 types of 10-man grouping in the dynamic they're looking at, one permanent and the other a PUG in the same vein as a Warband. Nicolas has used the terms "Squad" (Perm) and "Unit" (PUG) in talking about them and they are very different constructs, though he's the first to say that no naming convention has been established.

    He's also said they've looked at different sizes of group: 4,5,8,10 etc but they won't settle until Beta most likely when they can access the team-based needs and how things like Leader Banners/Icons will work.

  2. I really don't understand the need for that permanent 10 man group. Isn't that going to be your guild? I understand there was talk of using a 10 man group to form a permanent compartment(inside a huge ship) or small ship that's in orbit. And that they were looking at combining multiple 10 man ships in orbit to form a "guild hall" per say or a huge compartment within a capital ship.

    If you have three permanent 10 man groups in your Guild, what's the point of keeping them split up into those 10 man groups once the Guild is formed? It's not as if everyone from each separate 10 man group is going to always be on at the same time, thus the purpose of the Guild. You form your fighting formation(s) using whatever Guild mates are online regardless of which 10 man group they were in when they joined the Guild.

    Also, what if you have 30 players in your guild and you want to invite one new player? What permanent 10 man group do they fall in under?

    Maybe I'm just making too much of this without seeing how the mechanics will work. I still feel BHVR is causing some confusion using the same term..... "Strike Force" for Guilds and "Strike Force" for Raids.
  3. Laanshor Laanshor Well-Known Member

    Heraldry and Wargear exchange I suppose ? Squad customization is a thing and swapping weapon/gear patterns between Squad members has been a concept Michael has talked about several times now.

    But probably there are organization benefits. When my guilds play organized PvP/Shooters we treat it like a PvE Raid group: Play on the same days of the week for 3 hrs at a time in stand-alone teams with a balanced tactical dispersal of forces and tiered leadership. In light of that it promotes a team-within-a-team theme, which is something else they've talked about.

    I don't know to be honest and I don't have a "side" really, as long as it's additive. I'll quote Nicolas again* who said that they're not nearly ready to unveil/sign-off on one policy for grouping over the other. I'm sure this is something they'll adapt in Founder's Beta or even Open Beta but if he's feeling nice he might be able to explain why 10 man Squad loyalty and permanence could be beneficial :)



    *And tag him @NicolasBrunoni :p
  4. Nicolas Brunoni NicolasBrunoni Lead UI/UX Designer

    Psychopski is right, it is awkward and we are juggling with various options at the moment. And since we are focusing on Founder's Access we kinda left the whole social Squad/Guild thing in suspension. You'll have more information very soon (couple of weeks) about what the grouping system will be for Founder's Access, Founder's Beta and at Launch. This ranges from Social grouping to Battle grouping.

    Ultimately, we want the Guild to be able to adapt to the circomstances, to send people at various Battles simultaneously, and be able to fill the ranks of these groups on the field with soldiers already there from other Guilds or on their own. There was so much confusion between social Squads and field Squads that I really think that we will move forward and cut the "social" Squads. Squads are on the battlefield, it can be filled with up to 10 members and can be either exclusive to one Guild or mixed.

    David and Brent are reajusting a few things and really want to put emphasis on Guild actions on Arkhona - Guilds making their mark and also taking on several duties. That, and defining at last the whole War Council/Commanders/Warlords stuff. Ouf! Cool things to come my friends!
  5. Sounds very cool Nicolas. We look forward to hearing what you guys have planned.

    I'm wondering if your team is considering Guild ownership of specific installations such as ouposts, groups of linked outposts, firebases(fortified strategic hilltops or fortified locations that are key to controlling specific choke points or MSR's), Factories, Mining facilities, Production Plants, Harbors, Airfields, Space Ports, Garrisons and so on. One or more guilds being able to claim or being assigned to defend those installations depending on the size and location of each facility. Having your guilds name and banners attached to a physical location in a game has a huge impact on immersion. It also raises the ire of many a player when their guilds honor is challenged via the facility they're charged with defending comes under attack.

    Warhammer Online allowed Guilds to take ownership of keeps and those Guilds would physically patrol and Defend that zone along with defending the keep in addition to paying for keep upgrades. The system was pretty basic and it didnt take a rocket scientist to be able to figure out how to manage those upgrades. In the rare instances in which a Guild would claim but not upgrade and/or actively defend a keep and nobody from that specific guild was onlilne we had to contact a GM in order to reset ownership. In cases like I just described perhaps this is where the War Council could come into play by either assigning or overseeing ownership of facilities by a specific Chapter and/or Guilds. The WC would also be able to to override ownership of a facility if the Chapter and or guild(s) assigned to defending a location didn't have an online presence.
    NicolasBrunoni likes this.
  6. Laanshor Laanshor Well-Known Member

    Don't you think that would compromise the overall unity in a 4-way Faction dynamic ? I don't know, I played a lot of RvR in W:AR, it worked well but here I'm not sure it's a fit as anything but a cosmetic effect with Guild banners.
    Psychopski likes this.
  7. Tarl68 TARL68 Arkhona Vanguard

    and how would this "guild ownership" be affected by the 24 hr open world system,

    would guilds lose "ownership" if they have no-one online at the time or would they be allowed to "own" bases for a period of time even when they have no members online?

    or will we have guilds whining about how they had "their stuff" ninja'd off them while they were asleep

    ie: you running a guild from your time zone and at about 2am while all your members are asleep or at 11am when they are all at school/work and players from a different timezone seize control of "your stuff"

  8. Agree.... to an extent.

    Definitely a different dynamic. 4 Factions in EC versus 2 factions in WAR.

    However there will still be quite a few similarities. It's RVR(Realm versus Realm), campaign based, control of territory.

    Ownership and your guild being tied to actual territory in the game world is much, much bigger than the simple cosmetics or "owned by" tag on the map. As I stated earlier, when the installation YOUR guild owns(or is tied to via game mechanics) with YOUR guilds name written across the front door... when that installation comes under attack I'd imagine everyone will stop whatever else they're doing and rally to the Guild banner that's flying over the besieged keep.

  9. By the WC assigning 2 or 3 different guilds to each facility, or allowing 2 or 3 different guilds to lay claim. Eventually the WC will have a pretty good idea of which guilds are on during the 24 hour cycle. Plus I did state there should be a game mechanic in place to allow the WC to relinquish control of a facility from one guild to another due to a guilds inactivity.

    Brainstorming here guys, help me out... Perhaps there's a way to tie ownership to the various Chapters, Clans and Craftworlds along with integrating Chapter Ownership along with Guilds from each Chapter?

    I don't think you can deny the fact that your guild owning or being assigned control of actual territory in the game world would make you feel more responsible for that territory versus other random areas of the game world. No different than what you'd imagine in the 40K universe a Chapter/Company being tied to an area of operation they've conquered or an area where their Chapter's/Companies current base of operation is located. They don't want their Primarch, Chapter or Company to be disgraced by losing what they own while their Chapter banner or Company Colors fly overhead.
  10. Tarl68 TARL68 Arkhona Vanguard

    To be honest my opinion on guild ownership is rather coloured by my negative opinion of guilds in general,

    I dont have any real intention of running with a guild, but thats a personal choice,

    I do know however that by further segregating a factions community into "our guild/their guild" you do run the risk of people acting out of spite and refusing to help a different guild then the one they are a member of, while this poor sportmanship isnt a given it does occur (i've seen it in action in MMO arenas)

Share This Page