Ryzom

Since I am so good at making poll (I pwned poll!), I'll do eeet for you, Xavier.

Xavier wrote:To explain the difference, let's take the example of Guild A trying to defend its outpost against Guild B. With guild alliances, Guild A could invite Guild C to help; if accepted, all the players in Guild C would be automatically tagged as defenders. With individual alliances, each player could join, independently, either side.

There are advantages with both: guild alliances are simpler and gives more power to the guild leaders, while individual alliances give more freedom to each player, is more challenging for guild leaders (they have to make sure their troops follow them) and allows treason.


What do you think? If you were us, which would you implement first? Or would you try it a third way?

So basically, Guild Alliance I am assuming if your guild leaders decide to ally with each other, you as part of the guild automatically become the defender or attacker of the outpost if you're in the zone of combat. You have no choice over the matter except to smack yer guild leader upside the head for making the alliences,

vs

Individual Alliance, where you get to choose yourself wether you want to be an alley to the guild personally, and not depending on your guild leader.

Personally, I think the individual alliance is more complex and be more interesting to play out, so I voted that, although I fear that if they choose to go this method, they will delay the Outposts some more (I can see how much simpler coding wise the 1st option would be).

There's also the question of: what is the purpose of being in a guild if you aren't uniform in your alliance decision?

I like both, but I'm leaning towards individual. Not that I'm looking to commit treason agaisnt my allies, but the option should be there for other less moral characters


Why should it be any harder to code? I'd think, if anything, it'd be harder for guild alliances, it has to has to seek out all members of the guild and tag them. But if it's individual. Someone clicks "yes" and their position alone is set.


As long as it's a simple process, so it doesn't take an hour to to ally a whole guild of 20 people or some sort just by clicking through redundant screens or something.

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.

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.

sehracii wrote:I like both, but I'm leaning towards individual. Not that I'm looking to commit treason agaisnt my allies, but the option should be there for other less moral characters

This would also allow unguilded players to ally with whomever they choose in whichever battle.

EDIT: Besides, what if the guild leaders are not on, or I am just looking for a fight? I might want to join up with a friend we are not allied with.

P.S. When Jena shows up she is on my side

Noin.

Leading a successful guild is already very challenging and time consuming. Making alliances work for individuals would make guild leadership even more difficult than it is now. Imagine if you not only had to track alliances with 10 or more guilds, but also had to keep in mind which individuals from each guild were actually in the alliance.

I would hope at the very least that if an individual is allowed to form alliances independent of the alliances set up by the guild leader, that the leader could somehow 'see' the alliances each of the guild members have... so they could expel members who allied with enemy guilds or who declined to follow guild rules in forming alliances.

There is no point to guilds at all if the individual members cannot be in any way held accountable for following the rules of the guild and the mandates of the guild leadership. Without that, a guild is nothing more than a collection of random items in the guild hall, a cool title and symbol next to your name, and a private chat tab where more than nine people can talk.

varelse wrote:I would hope at the very least that if an individual is allowed to form alliances independent of the alliances set up by the guild leader, that the leader could somehow 'see' the alliances each of the guild members have... so they could expel members who allied with enemy guilds or who declined to follow guild rules in forming alliances.

There is no point to guilds at all if the individual members cannot be in any way held accountable for following the rules of the guild and the mandates of the guild leadership. Without that, a guild is nothing more than a collection of random items in the guild hall, a cool title and symbol next to your name, and a private chat tab where more than nine people can talk.

So I guess the CIA has a little list that says who all is working for the other side currently. Seems you should have to figure that out.

I do beleive in the bond of a guild. However, it seems those loyalties would become meaningless if they were forced upon the members.

This, after all, is a game of choices. You do waht you want, when you want. It seems the entire essence of our play is built upon choosing our own path.

Granted, joining a guild is part of that choice, but the options shouldn't end there.

It shouldn't be necessary to get a list of who is aligned with who. I imagine it will be fairly obvious when you see your own guild symbol attacking you from the other side of the outpost walls. And then any traitors can be dealt with as the rest of the guild sees fit.

marct wrote:So I guess the CIA has a little list that says who all is working for the other side currently. Seems you should have to figure that out.

Hehe, remove /tell command and sanction all direct player to player contact outside game and this point might be valid.

EDIT: Also to add that guild loyalties are not forced for members as they are free to resign from guild at any point and join new one e.g. just before, during or after outpost battle...

Allowing individual and guild alliances coexists would result in mess. What alliance would precede in case of conflicting interests? If you have individual alliance with a guild that gets into a war with your guild, should your alliance with enemy guild precede over your guild membership? I think that would be unwanted in most cases.

sehracii wrote:I do beleive in the bond of a guild. However, it seems those loyalties would become meaningless if they were forced upon the members.

This, after all, is a game of choices. You do waht you want, when you want. It seems the entire essence of our play is built upon choosing our own path.

Granted, joining a guild is part of that choice, but the options shouldn't end there.

It shouldn't be necessary to get a list of who is aligned with who. I imagine it will be fairly obvious when you see your own guild symbol attacking you from the other side of the outpost walls. And then any traitors can be dealt with as the rest of the guild sees fit.

I'm of the same opinion.

This could create some room for interesting internal conflicts/politics with guilds. Every guild will still have the option to act according to the will of its leader/majority. Guilds will be able to adapt their own policy, and which one that will form the internal guild culture could, in the longer run, even be a recruiting matter