Ryzom

I am wondering how an alliance activation will work? I would expect that when one guild declares their intent to attack another, guildleader and high officers of those two guilds then have the option available to call upon their allies. Then in the case of guildleader having sole control, the guildleader (and maybe high officers) are given the option either to answer the call to arms or to decline! When they join their allies then all members effectively become part of the same guild in the PvP region sense. If it is down to each individual to respond to their allies' call, then when one guild calls upon their allies, each player in the allied guild is given the same option: to answer or to decline, and their decision may be known by their actions. I don't think there should be any option to side with the enemy of their ally, a traitor must be invited to ally with an "enemy" on an individual basis, perhaps in the same way as we invite people to join a team.

Or am I making this more complicated than it need be?

*Jamela has confused herself*

mmatto wrote:I voted for guild alliance. If you can't live upto your guild's commitments, then you are in wrong guild.

Individual alliances would be nice to have feature somewhere in future.

aylwyne wrote:Ultimately, I think it would be good to have both. I voted for guild level alliances because it seems more straightforward and I think it'll be good to keep some things simple when outposts first arrive. Individual alliances could be added later.

hmm, i vote for guildalliance mostly for the same reasons as quoted above

1. i really think that it is easier to code
2. i know from many games that guildalliances work out fine
3. personaly i think that individualalliance is good... but well look at point 1

as for individuals being associated, that would be nice to have now, could make the life of our guildleaders easier still
eg.associate a new one to give him access to the guildchat, but nothing else and give him time to know the people/guild
and if he wants to join.. well let him join

IMHO it should be like lvls of access, in rising order

• associated=only access to guildchat/being recognized as associated
• guild=full access to GH/guildforum/overview/ranks
• alliance=an alliancechat, access to the GH of all the guilds

well, just my two dappers

I chose option 3 and would like to see this system:
1.) Guild Alliances, the leader has the possibility to uniformly set the allegiance for the whole guild
2.) Personal Enemy List, each homin has a list where he can put other homins and guilds, this list would have priority over the Guild Alliance and allow him to defend an outpost even tho his guild leader doesn't want the whole guild to participate
3.) Personal Friend List, each homin has a list where he can put other homins and guilds, this list would have priority over the Guild Alliance and allow him to determine those who he would never fight against, so the guild leader can't force him to do something he doesn't want to

I have a few opinions about this subject? Hehe, is that fair? (I guess I’m just a multi-personality individual)

dictionary.com wrote:guild:
1. An association of persons of the same trade or pursuits, formed to protect mutual interests and maintain standards.
2. A similar association, as of merchants or artisans, in medieval times.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

First, I think a guild is a family and a team. We help each other, stick up for each other, team/hunt together… etc, etc. If a guild mate was treated badly by another player, I would stand by my guild mate, and assist in any way possible.

So in that regard, I believe that it would be wise to leave the alliances at the Guild level. This is to unify the guild even more, and help create real factions in a society, rather than meandering chaos.

Now, I don’t think that a Guild is a Monarchy or Dictatorship. I will respect my guild leader, and always do what they ask (within reason) without complaint as it relates to the Guild and such. But if my Leader tells me how to play, and how to think… well, that’s over the line.

The guild leader will act as a Leader in battle. A commander to follow, and give directions. A Guild Leader is a spokesperson for the guild, but the guild leader is not a King or Queen. The guild should make decisions based on the common opinions of the guild, the common ideals shared I the guild. They talk about it, vote even on what is to happen, and the Guild Leader stamps it, and seals the decision. Then leads according to the consensus of the guild.

On the other hand, the Player alliance sounds good because I can choose to ally myself with people outside of my guild that I have built a relationship with. Although this will probably be very complicated and hard to keep track of who is with who… there is some appeal to it. I don’t have to do what my guild does… I can do what I want. (but why am I in a guild then? Is it just for free equipment??)

Now, if my guild leader doesn’t like your guild leader and they get into a PvP battle in PR… that doesn’t sound like a reason to involve the entire guild… yet. Yes I will back up my Leader, and assist if needed. But hopefully the problem can be resolved between the two or few players involved. If the problem does continues and gets more complex, involving more members of the guild, then the Guild should meet and discuss the matter, and come to a consensus…. And then take action, following the Leader, as long as that leader follows the game-plan determined by the guild. The guild leader alone does not say what will happen, and that’s the end of it. Like it says, a guild is an association of persons to protect MUTUAL INTERESTS… the leader doesn’t just proclaim what these interest are without complying with the mutual interest of the guild members.

So, to sum it all up…. I think that these alliances should be between guilds, and not players. But this does not mean that its up to the Guild Leaders to decide who, where, and when. The entire guild, and every guild member should be involved. If you find yourself in a guild that is for the majority completely different from your interests, or the Guild Leader insists you act, think, eat, smell, and play how they want you to… maybe you should look for a new guild. One that will respect your opinion, and you will respect in return.

Did I go way off track or what? (I’m sure only a handful of the people reading this… read the entire thing due to its lengthy… boring nature. Hehe, oh well.)

larwood wrote:So, to sum it all up…. I think that these alliances should be between guilds, and not players. But this does not mean that its up to the Guild Leaders to decide who, where, and when. The entire guild, and every guild member should be involved.

I agree with the sentiment behind this, but just wanted to comment that this is an internal guild issue and not an issue for the devs. They should not have to create a system that requires voting by all guild members. They should simply implement based upon the leader's say-so and it's up to each guild to decide how to make such decisions. I agree that if you find yourself in a guild that decides what you shall do without consulting you, you may want to reconsider your membership. But, I don't want to see the programmers get bogged down with implementing that into code.

(I'm not saying you are calling for that kind of change, but I saw it as open to interpretation, so I wanted to add this thought to yours)

Another thought: People get painted with guilt-by-association all the time in this game. If you have a guildmate going around ganking people for no reason, then, eventually, the entire guild will get the reputation of supporting ganking unless they do something to discipline that character. Your actions reflect upon your guild. Therefore, if you're allowed to ally with a friend without your guild, the "enemy" will see your guild tag and assume you're opposition to them translates into a guild opposition.

Since that's going to be the assumption anyway, let's just leave it as guild level alliances only. If we have a concern about rogue leaders, then enforce a rule that all alliances must be ratified by the leader plus one high officer. I don't have that concern personally, but I'm just one voice.

There's also the option to quit the guild you're in if you don't like the decisions or the directions taken by the leader.

The guild I'm in now has a democratic process for major decisions such as alliances, declaration of war, adding new members, and changing or adding to the charter (rules).

We have standards of behaviour that must be followed by everyone in the guild, including the standard that once a decision is made by majority vote, we're all required to abide by it.

Our leader acts like a chairman or elected governor and not like a dictator, and that's because not only does he lack the ego or arrogance to dictate to others, his guild also has not one single person who would jump when a leader said frog. We're all strong minded people who are used to thinking for ourselves.

My main issue with individual alliances as opposed to guild alliances is that I see it leading to chaos not only causing a management nightmare for less democratic guilds, but also causing strife and confusion in guilds like ours which are more democratic in nature.

Once a guild reaches a decision, be it democratic or imposed by the 'high command' that decision should be honored by all members of that guild, for as long as they remain part of it. Unless, of course the guild itself is structured such that there are no rules, guild level alliances, or requirements for membership. Many such guilds exist on Arispotle. I don't, however, see them having much success taking or defending outposts. The people who will succeed will be united, organized, and determined to do so.

How I see an individual alliance system is that the game mechanics will then be setting up all but the most ruthlessly organized and selective guilds for failure in any effort where a real alliance, as opposed to a collection of individually chosen allegiances, gives a decisive advantage in competition.

A couple of questions.

1. Does "Guild Leaders" mean leader, leader + high officers, any officer etc..

2.What sort of duration are we looking at.. fixed term, until log off, until the members choose to end it, forever ?

As second in command of a one-man-guild, there is no difference for me between individual and guild alliances, as I usually dont have much trouble attaining consensus , however I dont have access to the Guild leader functions.

The system I am envisaging involves guild level alliances.... which can be over ruled by individual TEAM membership
So the guild leadership sets policy, but the membership has the option of going their own way. Also allows neutral guilds to have members participate.

This will require teams to be set to a faction, rather than just full of players of a faction.

If Nevrax uses Guild Decision, will non guilded players be able to participate?

I suppose they could be considered a One Person Guild by the ally system for outpost purposes.


I would be very happy with that system. As others have mentioned, there is always the choice to quit guild.


I suppose the only thing that would be missed is the option for players to help personal friends that their own guild as a whole weren't familiar with and didn't care either way about their outpost battles.

Like always, I vote for the whole slew of options:

The guild leader shoudl set suggested alliance, and you can set things like follow person "Fyrx" alliance, or Follow guild alliance, or Ally guild "LPD", using a UI like the macro maker. This I beleive would fall under individual alliance so I voted for that.

iwojimmy wrote:A couple of questions.

2.What sort of duration are we looking at.. fixed term, until log off, until the members choose to end it, forever ?

While the allied guild owns outpost, until it is taken away or the alliance is dissolved.

Thats an important point, I think alliances should have the option of being made on a per outpost basis. And shoudl be confirmed by at least one member of each guild