Guild Reform

[+Ark1002]

"...including me..."

[Furamirionind]

Were the benifits of being classified as a great guild ever discussed?

They get an instant seat in the Gov, and I think a larger army of NPCs. (?)

[+Ark1002]

Yes, we are allowed to have armies and the like.

[+Sorana]

But we didn't specify all benefits yet or how large an army would be allowed to be.

[MacThorstenson]

Do we have an opinion on forming houses? Like great houses from mistborn?

[Furamirionind]

24 minutes ago, Ookla the [REDACTED] said:

Do we have an opinion on forming houses? Like great houses from mistborn?

Do you have a specific thought in mind for what that would be? My initial thought when you say this was, "We already have guilds". But I assume you aren't thinking along the lines of guilds.  Like flavor text?

[MacThorstenson]

Just now, Furamirionind said:

Do you have a specific thought in mind for what that would be? My initial thought when you say this was, "We already have guilds". But I assume you aren't thinking along the lines of guilds.  Like flavor text?

I was thinking about the economy of the alleyverse, and I realized it makes absolutely no sense. Namely the cost of the materials necessary for using investiture. In most of not all of the books, people had to have access to vast amounts of wealth so that they could spend time using investiture. You don't get to not work a day and still afford quantities of metal and stormlight. I think that great houses could fix this, a little bit. Essentially they explain the economy of the alleyverse by each having an area that they specialize in. 

They would be entirely in character. All the characters who are members of the house would be siblings/related. Unless you are employed by the house, then that's different.

They would be entirely economic, and not wield any political power. Politics is for guilds. Economics is for the houses.

OOC, they allow a way for people to pass on characters wealth/resources without extreme handwavium. 

However, now that I typed this out, I realized maybe we have enough changes for this era break, and should Iron out these before making any more.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

My character, Tena, worked all during the Sixteen Year Peace, and got a load of money. She works a lot.

[kenod]

Well, for most of the characters who are members of one of the larger guilds will already have access to the required resources, so it would be more about the small guilds and the independent people in this case.

[+Sorana]

I like the idea.

But I feel like we should try to get the guilds running first and then maybe get back to this for era 4.

[Furamirionind]

I feel similarly. I still don't feel like the guilds are flushed out either... Right now I don't think there are enough incentives to be in a guild with only 1 or 2 members... and there is nothing currently to differentiate between guilds of 2, 3, and 4 people... And I think that as being in a great guild currently is bad for an individual, but good for a collective, I am surprised so many people are doing it... I don't expect it to stay that way though.  So we should change something before the system causes the great guilds to crumble.
I think currently, people are going to end up consolidating into 2-3 Great Guilds, and then everyone else will pair up into Minor Guilds of 2, or stay unaffiliated. I don't think we should encourage this. I think it should be a seriously difficult choice to choose where to place yourself. Total control comes from a guild of 1, and the individual gets less and less control, but the guild gets more as it gets bigger...

I think one way of doing this is in the aspect of armies. People want everyone to have them for the most part, but we haven't decided how to decide how powerful they are. For the sake of this, I will be measuring the power of an army based on how many people are in it, but the power is what matters, not how many people.

Idea Overview:

The Alleyverse would have X amount of power total, this number cannot be exceeded (exceptions apply). Let's say X = 100,000 soldiers for the sake of this (This is part of a second idea I ran out of time to talk about).  Every player, by default gets an equal share of those soldiers. If a player is unaffiliated or the leader of a guild, their soldiers belong to themselves. If someone is in a guild, their soldiers then belong to that guild.
If the guild goes to war, but someone doesn't want their soldiers to fight on behalf of their guild, they can recall 25% (number subject to change) of the soldiers they contribute to the guild. This of course doesn't apply to guild leader, who has control of all 100% of their own army.

This however would make minor guilds far too overpowered I think. To counter that, we would weight players that belong to Great Guilds higher. So they would get larger armies/person than the MG players would.

Alternative:

Instead of having each player get a percentage of a maximum soldier count, it would be easier to just say, "Every player gets soldiers with the might of 1,000 troops". Then say that members of Great Guilds get 2,000 each.

This is just an idea I had while at work.  I think the alternative idea is better due to it being simpler... But I don't know if this is even on the track of finding a good idea. Just thought I would throw it out there to see what people think/get people thinking about the problems I think there will be in the future. Feel free to share ideas and criticisms or the idea.

(Was going to post more, but ran out of time)

Edited December 18, 2018 by Furamirionind

[MacThorstenson]

14 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

I feel similarly. I still don't feel like the guilds are flushed out either... Right now I don't think there are enough incentives to be in a guild with only 1 or 2 members... and there is nothing currently to differentiate between guilds of 2, 3, and 4 people... And I think that as being in a great guild currently is bad for an individual, but good for a collective, I am surprised so many people are doing it... I don't expect it to stay that way though.  So we should change something before the system causes the great guilds to crumble.

 

I am of the opinion that guilds of one person shouldn’t count as guilds. 

I mean no offense to those who have one man guilds, but a guild is a group of people. This has been a constant since the beginning. If you want to fly solo, you can do so. Open up a shop or start an organization, but it’s not a guild unless you get more than one person. 

I also don’t think that the great guilds are in danger of failing anytime soon for a variety of reasons. 

The first is in terms of power. Being in a group of a lot of people affords some protection. You have people to support you and are part of a group that can influence things. 

The second is the community aspect. Each guild is a community. The DA is about hemalurgy, I love hemalurgy and everything about it. I stay with them because the other guilds aren’t like that, they are about other things.

I fail to see how joining a great guild is bad for you, could you explain that a little bit?

Finally I personally see guilds with 2 people very different than guilds with four people. This is less about terms of in RP power, and more of the rules of RPing. Four people generally trump one person when it comes to telling the story. A four person guild will always have more clout in telling a story than a one or two person guild. No matter the size of the army that the one person has.

Im sorry that I did a bad job of explaining this, it didn’t quite come out the way I wanted it to, but at least from all the RP’s that I’ve been in the side that has more RP’ers always has more power then the other side, no matter how strong the other side is on paper. 

[Furamirionind]

Fair enough, you have more experience in this area than I do. Some of your points I don't think work as they seem to be more about the social part of guilds rather than the RP part...

I wasn't referring to "one-man-guilds" but "one-man-guilds-according-to-the-census". Perhaps you were too, but I feel like if a guild has 20 people/characters in it, yet only has 1 according to the census, it should still be a guild. Currently I am afraid some guilds will just disband as they don't have anyone's vote in the census.

Sorry, this post is a bit rushed.)

Edited December 18, 2018 by Furamirionind

[MacThorstenson]

3 minutes ago, Furamirionind said:

Fair enough, you have more experience in this area than I do. Some of your points I don't think work as they seem to be more about the social part of guilds rather than the RP part...

I wasn't referring to "one-man-guilds" but "one-man-guilds-according-to-the-census". Perhaps you were too, but I feel like if a guild has 20 people/characters in it, yet only has 1 according to the census, it should still be a guild. Currently I am afraid some guilds will just disband as they don't have anyone's vote in the census.

Sorry, this post is a bit rushed.)

Don’t worry about it. 

Personally, I think that a one mans guild should be the same as a one mans guild according to the census.

The goal of the census shouldn’t be to try to make as many guilds work as possible, it should be for each person to determine which guild they support and will put effort toward making sure it’s active.

Right now we have massive inflation in terms of guild membership, where someone who is part of 5 guilds can’t possibly put in enough effort into keeping all of them active. I’m planning on massively simplifying he amount of guilds I’m in soon, and cutting out, because I can’t support the keepers, thieves guild, craftsmen and DA at the same time. I would hope that people would try to do the same.

[+Sorana]

Could someone please sum up the whole voting part for me? Because I thought that a guild with more members had more votes or something like that? If that's still the case, that's another reason to support a great guild? Sorry, I miss a lot of this discussions while asleep and I try to keep uptodate, but sometimes it's confusing.

[Furamirionind]

It was recommended that the every guild gets the same votes, except great guilds get no votes.

I am still iffy on the great guilds getting no votes, but idk.

[Gancho Libre]

Why don't they get a vote?

[Darth Woodrack]

No idea. Are we still doing the membership limit, or is it now that you can only represent one guild?

[MacThorstenson]

I think that you could always only be counted toward one guild. I think that also it would make sense that you could only rep a single guild. 

[Darth Woodrack]

I actually think in the old system you could be counted towards any guilds you wanted. I was wondering if s=you could join, but not be counted towards, as many guilds as you like.

[+Sorana]

Has anybody an overview over the state of this discussion? Because I feel like I'm not the only that is a bit lost, or understands something differently from others.

And if yes, could you please sum it up?

[Darth Woodrack]

@Furamirionind, do it. Please?

Edited December 19, 2018 by Darth Woodrack

[+Ark1002]

10 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

It was recommended that the every guild gets the same votes, except great guilds get no votes.

I am still iffy on the great guilds getting no votes, but idk.

Wait, no. No one ever said Great Guilds get no votes....

[Steel Inquisitive]

After much debate we all come to an agreement! Now we just have to figure out what we all agreed to.....

Edited December 19, 2018 by Steel Inquisitive

[Darth Woodrack]

Actually it was said that Great Guilds get more votes...