|
|
Post by Cyborg on Jun 22, 2009 17:10:16 GMT -5
Honestly I say, three guilds should be fine, no one needs more than those three, and they can survive being in only those three. As for the idea of making newer smaller guilds, I still disagree. I think with those smaller guilds, just like if we had over three guilds per person, it would make the guilds pointless. I also thought about the idea another way, think of it as each guild we have now is....like a tarantula. And all thee new smaller guilds that would be made are random insects. Now you put all these critters into one small container (or in our case a board/sub-board) the tarantulas would just keep eating all the little insects, until all we have are the six tarantulas. Basically what I'm saying is once we add all the little tiny guilds, sure there will be a lot of them, but they'll just die, until we're back to where we bloody started, six guilds. So it really is pointless, and would just make the Guild area soo much more crowded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2009 17:48:24 GMT -5
Excuse me? Well, I had no plans for becoming a Pirate anyways, but it should be known that the children of my horse are also the children of a horse belonging to a defunct Pirate captain. That could complicate our relationship. As for multi-guilders who don't want to declare a main guild, maybe they could compete in each event for just one guild? That would also add a wild card element to the fold, since everyone who belongs to multiple guilds could feasibly compete for multiple guilds at the same time, no one knowing who they'll support in each event until it's underway. Perhaps it might be complicated if everyone does it, but otherwise, it could be pretty fun. I can imagine it now: Wolf: We've got three wins already. If we can win this last event, we'll win the cup. *elsewhere* Hunty: We're sailing high, blokes. One more win an' we'll 'ave four and steal the cup. *later at the stadium, Kat walks in* Wolf: Kat-- Hunty: --we need you-- Wolf: --on our team-- Hunty: --to win! Kat: ^^" It'd sorta be like recruiting people for Karmageddon. ^_^ Never said I approved of the relationship xD I just can't much argue with Shiva. And see, if you'd been more active in GW2, you'd know that Cap'n Hunty hates Knights with a passion (it's that whole 'you lot put up wanted posters and chase us when we're trying to loot peacefully, you do-gooders' thing). S'why I asploded your castle back on the days. And I also made a point of keeping the entire pirate guild together, regardless of any double alliances anyone had and in the end had pretty much the entire show under my paw, but hey, all's fair in war and love and gathering taxes.Other than that, wildcards sound like fun xD (Up until I discover that Kat's been doublecrossing me, anyway.) And 'blokes' is British talk, pirate-talk is 'mates' >> Yeah, I never said I approve of Piracy either. On the contrary, as king I frequently didn't approve of Pirates, just those that were noble enough to take up the mantle of Knighthood. And, uh, yeah. I knew that. >.> But the whole thing with multiple personae anyhow... what if someone had a few separate characters they wanted to portray, but only one in any particular guild? In that case, people could compete for both guild simultaneously as both characters. So long as they have the time to do so, I don't see why it'd be a problem. The only problem of loyalty arises when the same character has double allegiance; then they have to participate for one team or the other. Like, if Wolf joined Spacefleet, he'd have to compete as either a Knight or a Spacefleeter, but when I join Spacefleet and start playing with (as?) Connor Okami, I'd be able to compete as both Wolf and Connor. @cyborg-- I don't think new guilds will arise often, and if/when they do, if they've got a following, they'll in time become a seventh, eighth, etc. main guild. Look at it like evolution: it'd go from tiny insect to giant tarantula and no longer get eaten. However, as others have said, the six guilds we have cover almost everything we could want now, so what more is there to want? Perhaps, after things are said and done, we should consider the possibility of "alliances" or something similar, in which they're not a guild, per se, but an alliance of guild members. Taking Stal's example of a thieves guild, the thieves alliance would ally thieves from all guilds in a single group, and perhaps house some original characters as well. It wouldn't take the place of a guild, but instead fill a niche that the guilds themselves don't cover. I think it was Hunty who first said it, but she said that the guilds are not just characters, but settings: Pirates: The high seas, looting, etc. Mages: Enchanted things, the Manor, etc. Ninjas: Martial arts and secrecy, the Dojo, etc. Knights: Medieval times, the Castle, etc. Spacefleet: Science fiction, the Space Station, etc. Mercs: People for hire...um, that's all I know, sorry >.> New guilds would have to fulfill that unspoken "requirement" or else, chances are, they wouldn't catch on very much. They'd simply fade away without causing any disruption of anything. Natural selection at its virtual finest. On the other hand, if people want to join clubs, there's plenty of clubs for them to join outside of the guilds. Guilds do not equal clubs. That's the only distinction that we have to make. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 22, 2009 18:08:49 GMT -5
Actually, Wolf, I was raising multiple personae to indicate why there might be an issue with three limit. Because if you've got a Ninja/Merc/Mage character and then want a Knight character, you'd be blocked by the current three-top limit. And Hunty actually argues the settings don't matter. I tried to make the same argument as to why a Thieves' Guild wouldn't necessarily overlap with a Pirates one because they could be entirely different settings/background. And Cyborg, by your logic, if they'll die anyway, why is that any reason to disallow it?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cyborg on Jun 22, 2009 19:43:14 GMT -5
Well Stal I just think, it would be a lot of wasted effort we could put toward something more interesting and useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Jun 22, 2009 20:01:44 GMT -5
Actually, Wolf, I was raising multiple personae to indicate why there might be an issue with three limit. Because if you've got a Ninja/Merc/Mage character and then want a Knight character, you'd be blocked by the current three-top limit. And all the better. The guilds are more serious business than they look. I've always considered captaining a full-time job, and with the indepth textwallish roleplays we get, I have my hands full with the supporting NPCs as it is. If not for a limit, a newcomer might go WHEE and join all guilds at once and try to keep up with everything at once, and then all of a sudden discover that lo, it's actually not as easy as it seems. Once again the 'jack of all trades, master of none' thing. Try to focus on many different things at once and you'll get nothing done properly. And a person like that wouldn't be an asset to any guild. But force 'em to decide and they'll have to decide which guilds they really like best and would like to dedicate themselves to. ...plus, with your example, they could just drop out of the Mages >> It's entirely possible to be a mage in any other given guild. I think half my crew dabbles in magic. |
|
|
|
Post by Cyborg on Jun 22, 2009 20:04:55 GMT -5
Actually, Wolf, I was raising multiple personae to indicate why there might be an issue with three limit. Because if you've got a Ninja/Merc/Mage character and then want a Knight character, you'd be blocked by the current three-top limit. And all the better. The guilds are more serious business than they look. I've always considered captaining a full-time job, and with the indepth textwallish roleplays we get, I have my hands full with the supporting NPCs as it is. If not for a limit, a newcomer might go WHEE and join all guilds at once and try to keep up with everything at once, and then all of a sudden discover that lo, it's actually not as easy as it seems. Once again the 'jack of all trades, master of none' thing. Try to focus on many different things at once and you'll get nothing done properly. And a person like that wouldn't be an asset to any guild. But force 'em to decide and they'll have to decide which guilds they really like best and would like to dedicate themselves to. ...plus, with your example, they could just drop out of the Mages >> It's entirely possible to be a mage in any other given guild. I think half my crew dabbles in magic. Exactly Hunty! (And some of your ex-crew aswell ) |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 22, 2009 20:11:41 GMT -5
Actually, Wolf, I was raising multiple personae to indicate why there might be an issue with three limit. Because if you've got a Ninja/Merc/Mage character and then want a Knight character, you'd be blocked by the current three-top limit. And all the better. The guilds are more serious business than they look. I've always considered captaining a full-time job, and with the indepth textwallish roleplays we get, I have my hands full with the supporting NPCs as it is. If not for a limit, a newcomer might go WHEE and join all guilds at once and try to keep up with everything at once, and then all of a sudden discover that lo, it's actually not as easy as it seems. Once again the 'jack of all trades, master of none' thing. Try to focus on many different things at once and you'll get nothing done properly. And a person like that wouldn't be an asset to any guild. But force 'em to decide and they'll have to decide which guilds they really like best and would like to dedicate themselves to. ...plus, with your example, they could just drop out of the Mages >> It's entirely possible to be a mage in any other given guild. I think half my crew dabbles in magic. But shouldn't that be up for them to decide, and if they realize they can't keep up do something about it themselves? Now, if a guild magistrate would want someone to forcefully commit for any persona, that's fine. But if someone wants to actually put the time and effort into working with other characters/guilds, then why stop 'em? How you handle/treat things isn't necessarily how everyone else does. @cyborg: But it ain't your effort being wasted, is it? So why should that matter to you? Generally, I'm leaning with remove the limit, let people make those choices individually. Let the system work itself out without us trying to impose anything on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cyborg on Jun 22, 2009 20:24:32 GMT -5
It matters to me, becaue this forum matters to me. These guilds matter to me, these forumers matter to me. And I personally think, we should be putting our effort toward reviving the guilds we already have, not just adding new ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Jun 22, 2009 20:50:01 GMT -5
And all the better. The guilds are more serious business than they look. I've always considered captaining a full-time job, and with the indepth textwallish roleplays we get, I have my hands full with the supporting NPCs as it is. If not for a limit, a newcomer might go WHEE and join all guilds at once and try to keep up with everything at once, and then all of a sudden discover that lo, it's actually not as easy as it seems. Once again the 'jack of all trades, master of none' thing. Try to focus on many different things at once and you'll get nothing done properly. And a person like that wouldn't be an asset to any guild. But force 'em to decide and they'll have to decide which guilds they really like best and would like to dedicate themselves to. ...plus, with your example, they could just drop out of the Mages >> It's entirely possible to be a mage in any other given guild. I think half my crew dabbles in magic. But shouldn't that be up for them to decide, and if they realize they can't keep up do something about it themselves? Now, if a guild magistrate would want someone to forcefully commit for any persona, that's fine. But if someone wants to actually put the time and effort into working with other characters/guilds, then why stop 'em? How you handle/treat things isn't necessarily how everyone else does. @cyborg: But it ain't your effort being wasted, is it? So why should that matter to you? Generally, I'm leaning with remove the limit, let people make those choices individually. Let the system work itself out without us trying to impose anything on it. Annnd this is where I refer you to our NPC-Makers Anonymous support group. We run a crochet class each Wednesday. Fact: won't work. Sad but true. Once you've created a guild character... it's there to stay. You can't get rid of it. You can dismiss it but it'll still be there floating on the sidelines, asking for allowance every once in a while, coming home for dinner, and even when it's long left home, it'll still call once in a while to tell you it's okay. So once someone's started out working with a bunch of characters, they won't just drop 'em on spot once they realize it might be too much. They're far more likely to just keep and keep on using the characters and if there's a really big bunch, it's generally the quality of the guild-activity that ends up suffering. It's a writer thing, methinks. Once you have a bunch you know like your own children, you don't just kill them off. Same reason why I have nine neopets and not about to drop any even though feeding them is more of a chore than anything, come to think of it. ...yegads, we're really pretty devoted geeks down here, ne? Long story short, we need some rules in the guilds. We may not actually use them much, but they're there to ensure at least some level of quality, and differentiate the guilds from clubs. Maybe I'm being elitist here, but the quality of the guilds is probably what I'm most proud of here: the legacy, the elaborate plots of the recent roleplays, all the time and effort put in the guilds by the current fairly few active guilders, stuff like that. ...*soppy moment* I WUVS YOU GUYS :3 *really needs sleep* |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 22, 2009 21:40:37 GMT -5
It matters to me, becaue this forum matters to me. These guilds matter to me, these forumers matter to me. And I personally think, we should be putting our effort toward reviving the guilds we already have, not just adding new ones. That has no relation to any of this. We're not talking about starting new ones--we're talking about letting people start new ones, as well as letting people join as many as they want. If you want to revitalize current guilds, awesome... do it. But if someone else wants to create a new one OR create a new character for the existing guild, let them go about revitalizing things as they see best. Hunty: it's rather simple, really... the character dies. Or leaves. Or is exiled. Or is written out. Is put on a long over seas mission. You can fix many things... you just have to put the effort into doing it. As well, I'd like to point out that if we're looking at revitalizing the guilds, one of the things that have been in place are these rules. These rules that have been in place, they've done a great job at keeping the guilds running and active, haven't they? Take out the restrictions. See if these thing become a problem. As Elcie already said--it takes care of itself. If I want to have two different guild characters (say, Stalos and Kaizer), and each of them in two separate and different guilds, that should be up to me and not you just because you don't think it could work. Let people make these choices themselves. Don't force them into something just because you don't think it can work for you or others. Some rules/guidelines are a must. The concept of guilds, yes. The type of guilds made, yes. The purpose behind guilds, yes. A restriction on starting a new one, no. A global limit to how many you can join, no. An individual guild joining restriction, sure? That is, if Pirates would refuse to accept anyone that's already in three, that's up to the pirates. But if Mages were fine taking in everyone, that should be up to the Mages. Not all people will see them the very same way you do... and some people will handle things differently. Let everyone be themselves and not pigeonhole them. That kind of pseudo-elitism is what has helped to stifle and kill the guilds as is. And being resistant to letting things change isn't going to help you see the resurrection you want--as has already been clearly shown through the history, the current set up isn't conducive and if you want to keep guilds alive, bring in new activity, new members, etc, then you need to open them up more. Otherwise you're doomed to repeating the same failed things as before. I think if you want to demand that kind of attention and quality from your own guild, go for it. Run your guild that way. But don't force that viewpoint on everyone else if maybe they'd like to be more lax on something. |
|
|
|
Post by Elcie on Jun 22, 2009 22:12:23 GMT -5
It matters to me, becaue this forum matters to me. These guilds matter to me, these forumers matter to me. And I personally think, we should be putting our effort toward reviving the guilds we already have, not just adding new ones. But do keep in mind. Aside from what Stal said, that it's not really what we're talking about anyway... when has anyone in this discussion seriously suggested what one of these dreaded "new guilds" would even be? They're not gonna be popping up like rabbits as soon as the new system is in place. The guilds-per-person limit is probably more pressing, in my opinion, but even that isn't likely to change too much at this moment in time. The existing guild members - the ones who are immediately involved in the revival in the first place - probably have their choices pretty set already, and will be too busy reviving their existing guilds to change up their guild roster just yet. Hopefully, newcomers will be eventually attracted by the new wave of activity - and that will be when any new or removed guidelines will be tested. I'm pretty confident that making it more flexible is the way to go, though... it'll moderate itself as I've said before, and it's good for the indecisive ones.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kengplant on Jun 23, 2009 0:49:23 GMT -5
I propose an entirely NEW section of boards to be called "Planning Stuff we Intend to Someday Do/Organize.... maybe."
I've noticed we've been doing a lot of planning lately, we may as well just DO stuff. Be spontaneous, start something and just hope it works out. Or we can keep being talk-avists.
... or screw it, TALKAVISM FTW!
Maybe I'm just being over nostalgic... but I do like the way the current setup is with each guild having it's own board. It feels very guild-y. That's about where that ends though. Generally Sub-Boards see less action then the main board. So while I REALLY like the 'club house' set up we have now... it might be more beneficial to all the guilds/threads if we pooled it all onto one guilds board, maybe with a sticky listing the guilds and who's in them (to be updated more by whenever we feel like posting a new list than some one person who would have to keep track of everything as that wouldn't be fair to that one person or other when that one person gets busy).
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 23, 2009 1:55:45 GMT -5
XD Keng, you're kind of behind.
The one thing that has been decided for sure is that this coming weekend, the subboards will be deleted and all the old threads moved in here (obviously not in that order). People will have sticky threads to serve as a main Guild hub, and can create other threads as needed.
Also that plenty of attention needs to be given to actually doing things. Right now we're just hammering out some of the finer points while the guilds get ready; primarily as to just how much freedom we give. Generally speaking, most are in favor of doing away with the requirements of starting new guilds. Now we're discussing whether or not to get rid of the "Max of 3" limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kengplant on Jun 23, 2009 3:14:53 GMT -5
Well then you haven't been following the redemption RP now have you? We had a whole babble of space time continuum messing about, it's only natural that some of us get a little behind the times  But yea, I do intend to eventually read through all this. Thanks for the summary though Hmm.. maybe a simple rule like "must wait 1-2 weeks between joining a second/third/fourth etc. guild"? Gives that person time to get used to being part of one or two guilds a little before they decide if they can handle more, with maybe a footnote reminding people that it's a lot to keep up with. |
|
|
|
Post by Cyborg on Jun 23, 2009 10:04:50 GMT -5
Stal, the 3 guild limit is one that makes sense. Like Hunty has stated numerous times the "Jack of all trades, master of none" sorta thing. I think 3 guilds should be good enough. And you can even leave certain guilds after you've decided you don't want to be in said guild anymore. Heck I've left the Mages and Pirates to join the Knights and Spacefleet. So I think the 3 guild limit is absolutely fair, that's atleast 3 different characters. I have four characters over three guilds, so the wanting different characters thing is not even a problem.
|
|
