Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3.7K All Categories
- 3K The Midnight Age
- 757 Announce posts
- 125 Newbies
- 6 Class Guides
- 804 Harpy's Head Tavern
- 57 Echo Canyon
- 310 Self-Affirmations
- 163 Town Crier
- 135 The Exchange
- 167 Sparring Grounds
- Combat Guides
- 30 Combat Logs
- 188 Idea Box
- 9 Classleads
- 578 Roleplay Logs
- 107 Aetolia Development
- 5 The Void
- 744 Miscellaneous
- 9 Announcements
- 417 OOC Chat
- 217 Tech Talk
- 47 Scripts
Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
Comments
Gr3 means, literally, that you've learned the 'skills' enough that you would remember them when you leave. Why not make full guild membership at 7 or 8 or 10, if you want to maintain that elitist sort of feel? Maybe less respect, no votes, shitty missions, what have you. I would have no problem with that as a member, and feel like it would make getting somewhere meaningful.
I think it's just time to stop worrying about sets of mechanical skills and figure out how to validate and legitimize the guilds with role.. and play. The Carnifex do it well. So do the Sentaari, and the Daru. I think Templars as well, considering most of the people who pk with it aren't Templar, and most of the members do not. Maybe those guild masters should set up a clinic.
I'm going to agree with there being too many guildranks. They kind of stop feeling important after GR10, and feel like they're just...there. And most of the guild privs get assigned to earlier ranks. It might be better to just reduce the number of guildranks or add in more perks that can be assigned to higher ones.
We focus highly on qualities that make you a cabalist and not the other way around how it is interpreted and how it is explained by your perspective understanding making no two cabalists a cookie cutter copy and I think that's absolutely wonderful
It's not really a big problem, but I know I personally, when joining the Sentaari, worked a bit with them being like, hey, since I pretty much meet these specific requirements, why don't I do this alternative task instead? Granted, I wouldn't say I went over and beyond, but if an alternative requirement route other than the meet circle x, get these curatives, etc. had been laid out for me, I would have really enjoyed it.
If they can, and it's someone who has previously been in the guild and created enough of an issue that they were subsequently forbidden from said guild again, are we not allowed to work in our best interests and remove said person under those grounds?
Yeah there are players I would rather guild quit than share a guild with. And I was there first. Certimene needs to not induct non-novices if all these restrictions are going in - some players are toxic to the extent that they actively hurt a guild, and while there aren't many active NOW...
At first I was a bit daunted by this, for me, new way of doing things. I imagined myself stuck forever at GR2 unless I managed some huge accomplishment to mark myself as remarkable all over the game world. This, however, was not the case and it was kind of easy to just discuss all the details of what was required, bend a little, twist a little and make it fit my character as well as the guild.
I don't think there's a problem if guilds want to set up a separate route for old players compared to new players, as long as it's not -more difficult- or -more time-demanding- than what is for a new player. Keep things reasonable. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, not restrictive.
Make a clear line of progression up to GR10 or something instead of just GR3, so that they're really have to work for it in order to be in a position where they could upset the foundation of the guild if they're a questionable entrant. Just having class shouldn't be a point where they're gonna drastically upset the status quo - really all that means is: yes, I could quit now and still use these skills I've invested effort into.
The other benefit to this is that it'll, likely, actually keep more progression happening. players will feel like they're getting rewarded throughout the process instead of having a huge load of tasks to accomplish with one measly GF at the end of it all. Overall better for membership, fun, and maintaining activity. All while not impacting the functionality of the guild!
I do have a question though: It is stated anywhere what acceptable reasons for denying guild entry are? AKA: if you're, ya know 90% sure someone will merely join, get class, then quit, are you allowed to tell them "not until you've proved you're sincerely interested in staying here"?
Seeing the kinds of tasks people DO get put through, as non-novices joining guilds, super glad alternate advancement is optional. Really what I'd like to see is more incentives for gaining higher ranks so that people have some reason to want to earn more ranks past 3. I guess that's something for guilds to work on internally though. Probably.
I'm fairly certain that everyone has characters that they wouldn't want in their guild, for what ever reason. This game has been around for a long time and everyone has a history. Now, I know people can change, people can grow up, and people can move on; so in that spirit, perma-banning or denying shouldn't be allowed. But how do you tell if someone has indeed changed?
You could challenge/test/or parole them before entering, but to me that seems severely unfair. I wouldn't want to be orgless for x time to prove myself worthy of entering, that is worse than stupid hard reqs.
Alternatively, you could grant them a 100% free and clean slate. If you do, kudos because you're a better person than I am. I am pretty confident there are not many people who will truly be nonjudgmental.
The third option, and the one I've been promoting is parole. Let them in, let them up to gr2, but let them wait 1 or 2 years, 2 being the max. Everyone gets to meet them, experience them, and see how they currently play their character. By then the guildmates should have an idea if the player either benefits the guild (good), is a neutral element (still fine by me), or is harmful (bad).
The negatives of the third option, players have to wait a week or 2 for leaving the guild with class or running for secretary/gm. I don't see that as unreasonable.
What you've been hearing: "I want to put up the hardest reqs possible, or severely long wait times on people I don't like, and if I don't get that then I will never let anyone in my guild."
I promise you that is not what I mean, nor will I ever play like that. The people I said I'd vote no to fall under the category above.
We recently had this arise, a particularly problematic person was given a chance in the guild. They rushed through their progression to gr3 (though there were some issues with those interviews overly-skimming due to their age). They wanted to move on to gr4 which is the entry stage of the Knighthood process (Aspirancy).
For us, GR3 is full entry level membership - you have a vote, you can keep your skills, but you also aren't a student any longer in the sense that you are fully 100% responsible for your actions and are not given the leniency Pages and Squires are given.
In this case, the person hadn't changed or grown up at all since joining, so failed their first examination. They came back and tried again, and still hadn't grown at all, or addressed the issues, so failed again.
While it's a game and fun, we are responsible for what we do, and for Templar, Knighthood's the big shebang. Not going to Knight someone who isn't ready - already given too many free passes and had that come back to bite us. After gr3, we've given additional work outside of our gr5 progression for folk who struggle or aren't really putting in the work/time/thought.
You guys can do this, just after gr3. If you're pinning everything solely on class, there's other issues that need to be addressed.
Personally, I wish this sentiment would change and that people would focus more on the guild's RP and ideals being more precious than the skills.
I'm not sure if the code reflects, or how exactly it works, but why not just up the minimum rank for secretary/running for a leadership spot? Like I said, make becoming a full member something harder to achieve, and -that- can be reflected in roleplay, not the class.
I dunno. I could just think differently, here.
We've had quite a few people come in that I really didn't want to be there, but my job to the game's to give a chance and to at least give opportunities so I can say I tried. And that has bitten me in the butt a few times (like the coup). I definitely have deep reservations about some people - and if their behaviour is so wholly against my guild and its values, I will reject them, or encourage them to seek apprenticeship since their living behaviour is very different than their spoken intentions, and we cannot in good faith embrace them in the guild until there is consistency. But people that are in the middle? Other than the coup and passing moments of facepalming, it doesn't cost me anything but time (time I'm already dallying away in the game) to give them a chance. And giving them a chance, even if it gives me headaches, at least makes me feel better for the trying.
Then the person isn't becoming a full member any time soon - maybe not probation, but there's nothing wrong with ICly making sure a they know exactly how you feel about them. All these requirements are doing is making sure people aren't being ridiculously blocked from getting the class until everyone in the guild feels sufficiently 'convinced' that they're deserving. Because, let's face it. That's subjective as heck.
Newb requirements are newb requirements - easy to get to GR3 means they're excited about the game, and the guild. If progress slows down after that, well. They were bound to run into an obstacle at some point. At least they're vested and not discouraged at this point. And if it's an older player, they'll either be interested in the guild and not being a jackass, in which case they'll apply themselves, or not. In which case you give them the hairy eye and make them mop the floors until they quit or straighten up.
I'm probably a bit harsher in my ideas of what constitutes booting. I've always been a 'let them in, give them a chance, because kicking them out takes me 1 second' sort of dude. I mean, if a person is trying to complete their tasks and isn't being disrespectful or breaking guild laws, I'd say you'd have a hard time justifying the boot. But breaking laws, arguing with members, refusing to shut up when told to shut up multiple times?
Boot them. Worst case, they issue and you'll get your answer then.
Many guilds as of now seem to struggle with getting members to do anything beyond GR3. If you'd like to have a super special/rigorous path to be considered a 'full member', do feel free, but simply make it beyond GR3.
If anything, bumping anything that contrasts the current policy up a couple of ranks will simply encourage people to actually continue working beyonds GR3, which is far from a bad thing whatsoever.