Official Feedback Thread: Guild Alliances

rgutscheradev

Welcome Guild Members!

On this latest preview build, we’ll be looking at an oft-requested feature: guild alliances. Guild alliances will allow several guilds (max. of 13) to group together in an alliance and help each other out in various ways. We hope that the alliance feature will help small guilds in particular be able to participate in Strongholds more fully -- although we want there to be good benefits for everyone.

Access

You’ll need to be in a Preview Shard guild to test these features. Note that some features (like inviting other guilds to ally with your guild) are for guild leaders only, but many other features are for any guild member.

Features

• Invite other guilds to join your alliance
  
• Alliance chat
  
• Alliance bonuses: benefits that you get based on your overall alliance level (= sum of guild levels), and your guild’s place within that alliance
  
• Visit allied Stronghold maps
  • Join them in doing HEs!
    
  • Group up to tackle the Dragons!
    
  • Shop at their stores! (!!!)
    
• Contribute to allies’ coffers
  

Known Issues

• Players are not properly kicked from ex-alllies map if their guild is booted from the alliance
  
• Initial alliance leader is placed on probation when starting an alliance
  
• Alliance chat channel displays debug text when joined instead of its correct name
  
• Alliance invitations can appear spontaneously when changing maps
  
• “Invitations Sent” and “Invitations Received” buttons appear as active on the UI when they should be greyed out (for non-leaders)
  
• Sometimes the alliance chat channel does not appear as a selectable channel (if you can tell us exactly when, that would be helpful!)
  

Feedback Desired

The guild alliance system is a big system, so we can really use all the testing help you can give us. We’re interested both in bug-stomping and in feedback about the overall feel. Here are just a few of the areas that are worth a special look:

• Do the alliance bonuses work the way they say they do?
  
• (Leaders) Please test all the admin functions you can:
  • Does inviting, kicking, leaving, etc all work correctly?
    
  • Can you set all the various permissions? Do they work?
• When you go to an allied Stronghold, can you do the things you think you should do (eg, accept an ordinary quest like “Defeat the Bulette”, then kill it, then get credit)?
  • Can you NOT do things you should not do (eg, it would be bad if you could start a building on someone else’s map!)?
    
  • If you have feedback on what is and isn’t appropriate to do on an ally’s map, please let us know that as well.
• Is at always clear to you in the UI when you’re seeing information for your own guild, and when you’re looking at info for another guild?
  • Is all that info actually correct?
    
• Alliance bonuses: our design goal is to have the founding guild (“Helm”) happy with their bonuses, and the more junior alliance guilds (“Gauntlet”, with “Sword” in the middle) happy with their bonuses -- so Helm bonuses would be good for big guilds, and Gauntlet bonuses good for small guilds. If you’re in a big guild, do you like the Helm bonuses better? If you’re in a small guild, do you like the Gauntlet bonuses better? If not, do you have any alternative suggestions?
  

Keep in mind guild alliances is a big system (did I say that enough yet?), so just getting it out the door in one piece will be a challenge. Some good suggestions will come up that we don’t have time to do this release. But let us know anyway -- maybe we can do them later on, or maybe there will be a simpler version that we will have time to do. (And if you can come up with good suggestions that *are* easy enough to do for this release, you will make me extra happy. :P)

Here’s how to give feedback:

• Respond to this forum post.
  
• Type: Bug or Feedback (Please only choose one)
  
• Format: Please use boldface text for the Type, and then type your feedback in the body of your post. If you are listing a bug please have this text in RED, and if you are posting an opinion or feedback please use CYAN.
  
• Concise feedback is best
  
• Screenshots are much appreciated
  

Examples of Feedback

Bug: Alliance UI shows another guild as having a Barracks when they don’t
I looked at another guild’s buildings through the Alliance UI and they appeared to have a Barracks. But I didn’t see it on their guild map, and I asked one of their members and they confirmed they didn’t have one. My guild has a Barracks -- maybe I’m seeing my guild’s buildings in the UI for the allied guild?

Feedback: Want to Be Able to Slot Allied Guilds’ Boons
I wish we could slot boons from Allied Guilds (maybe at a penalty?). Then different guilds in the alliance could build different boon buildings. Right now everyone always builds the same stuff.

vinceent1

so tell us how it works in STO

daaly

Not sure how next mod will work on paper for SH but with that being said still few issues with SH since the SH fixes went in ...namely still considerable resources needed to construct low level assets and daily influence cap way too low for pve. Other issues seem to have been addressed with campaign currency used to create vouchers which is a real nice improvement.

throsbi

So we are discussing and speculating on speculation of a discussion about discussing speculation here? Or did I miss something?

oliboyph

It would be nice, but it might have bad effects due to the elitist culture we have here in NW. It's very likely that big guilds will only ally with other guilds that they find worthy leaving smaller guilds to try to group up with other struggling ones.

Additionally just as the exclusive channels have made pugging difficult for smaller players, an alliance will probably make a small community for players that will only party with each other.

It really is a good idea, but maybe not for us.

kvet

My first suggestion: Make it work like STO as a baseline. Don't leave out features - use that as the baseline requirement, then add features from there as needed.

My second suggestion: One-up STO and allow direct promotions from one guild to the next in the hierarchy. That is, allow leaders from the parent guilds a measure of control in the child guilds. Make this a setting on the CHILD guild - so when a guild enters an alliance, it can give control to the upper level guilds or not. Meaning, a guild that enters an alliance can choose (and later change it's mind) whether the upper guilds have any power to control things. (So, allow a central authority OR local authority... which provides for federated authority as well).

My third suggestion: Allow guild members to invite non-members to their SH instance (like it is in STO today - like it has been since DAY ONE for fleet starbases, I should say).

My fourth suggestion: Like in STO - commoditize the items in the guild stores and limit the inventory. Make it necessary for guild members to work for their gear - then, make sure guild store gear is always at least on par with the current BiS gear. Perhaps via upgrade tokens members buy from the guild store periodically to keep the stats or abilities up to current standard. By work, I mean, the stores have limited inventory, and members have to run projects to "reload" the inventory as the stores are depleted and can choose what they want to stock and what they don't want to bother with.

My fifth suggestion: Scale the cost requirements based on the size of the guild. Not linear. A smaller guild SHOULD have more challenge than a really big guild getting the SH built out. But based on the median guild size, make it a little harder for bigger guilds and a little easier for smaller ones. (note - this is coming from a leader in one of the bigger ones.... so this would negatively impact my guild, but I think it would be more fair to more players).

Sixth: Guild mounts - top tier (legendary and epic ones). This is on par with Fleet ships in STO which are top tier, if not BiS ships. You have to buy a zen store item to get them along with spending a huge sum of fleet marks, but that's fine - do that here to. Give us guild versions of legendary and epic mounts and companions - feel free to make them cost 20K Marks plus 1500 zen or whatever (can't recall the price of the ship modules off hand).

Seventh Suggestion: Raise the max guild marks characters can hold by double (at least).

Eighth: Add an export roster to CSV button like there is in STO. OMG. DO THAT RIGHT NOW. That was the best QOL addition I've ever seen Cryptic make - I was amazed they'd bother with that, but man oh man it's a vital feature for any guild leader. Then, extend that feature to include all guilds in the Alliance - or perhaps all guilds below that guild in the hierarchy or something like that. (better: allow each guild to choose whether it's roster is visible to alliance members and use that to govern whether someone can export the roster as well).

I'll stop there - I could go on and on with suggestions to improve the guild experience...

adinosii

I am in a fairly large "non-elitist" or "semi-casual" guild. We are doing just fine, but sometimes we might for example be a few players short of being able to do a guild-only Tiamat run. Today we have a joint chat channel (Guild_union) with a few other like-minded guilds..some medium-sized..some small, where we can get a few additional players.

An alliance would work just as well for this purpose and if it gives some additional benefits thats a bonus...I like the idea and hope it turns out similar to what they have in STO.

dfnce

oliboyph said:

It would be nice, but it might have bad effects due to the elitist culture we have here in NW. It's very likely that big guilds will only ally with other guilds that they find worthy leaving smaller guilds to try to group up with other struggling ones.

Advanced guilds will have more room for alts and trial applicants.

phoenix1021

I don't get it. Why not just increase the maximum number of members for guilds? 150 seems like a totally arbitrary number anyway.

bhurab

I think the limited numbers was a way to increase the number of guilds in the game: either to level the playing fields, that there is not a single massive guild in the game; or for Stronghold Siege, to increase participation; or it could have been in preparation of the Alliance-type mechanic. They are all reasonable objectives.

throsbi

defiantone99 said:

It is not speculation. The Alliance chat is already in the game.

So since something someone found in game makes all this good subject matter and not at all speculation. I was hoping someone had a reference to at post somewhere with an ounce of a hint at a future feature. O well, guess feeding the devs ideas on things we would like to see added to the game is fun is it not?

adinosii

phoenix1021 said:

I don't get it. Why not just increase the maximum number of members for guilds? 150 seems like a totally arbitrary number anyway.

My guess is that they did not want the game to be dominated just by a handful of "überguilds".

150 is actually not a bad number, as an average guild of that size can probably manage to get close to 40 people online at the same time - a full Stronghold instance, which is really nice for taking down all 4 dragons. If a guild had 100 members online at the same time, you would have to split people across multiple stronghold instances, which kind-of destroys the feel of doing stuff together. (This is for a guild with average activity, spread over multiple time zones - if you have a guild of above-average active players, or players concentrated in one region, you can easily get 80+ members online at the same time today).

I think you totally miss the point of the discussion, however. Increasing the maximum guild size would do nothing to help the smaller guilds. Some guilds are small by choice (a handful of close friends that do not want to add to the guild), others are small because they appeal only to a subset of the player base (Turkish-speaking, Dwarven role-players only, LGBT-friendly or whatever) , but there are small mainstream guilds that are small because they are stuck in a catch-22: They have a hard time attracting new players because they do not have the structures that give the high-end boons that people are looking for, and they cannot build those structures because the do not have the player numbers.

Yes, active recruiting and good management those guilds can grow, but joining other guilds in an alliance will help them retain their players and grow.

tassedethe13

@defiantone99
Nice work for retrieving informations. I have already read those, but it's still good to read them again.


Now for my concern, actually we are a french guild by choice. First because some of us can't speak english, secondly because we find it more convenient for every one speaking our native language in chat guild or teamspeak.

If we are looking for alliance, it's natural to team with guild close to you by the way of playing, and the level.

In our case, we are actually lvl 17 and close to lvl 18, highest french guild. There is less than 5 french guilds who reached lvl 12, so make a 13 guilds alliance with similar level with the same language will be pretty hard.

So what?
- Make a full french alliance whatever the level of stronghold is?
- Make a multi-language alliance with same level of stronghold?

I'm sure this problem is the same for other Non-english guilds.

I think 13 guilds alliance is too much. 7 guilds ( 1, 2, 4) seems more reasonable.

subnocte

My concern is they're putting yet more stuff in that doesn't actually fix the game's problems: no new content, endless grind.

arabatur

I am my own to guild. But if some big sugar daddy guild wants to treat me like a princess, I'll swallow the deal.

wildfirede

my opinion is fixing old mechanics before implementing new things

http://forum.arcgames.com/neverwinter/discussion/1213312/no-new-module-till-first-few-pages-of-bugs-are-fixed#latest

I feel somehow unhappy seing pets with 15 bonding stone procs up ( can't clarify on official forums how) as to enjoy new things..

mrgiggles651

Seeing how I'm not in a guild not particularly interested in them...

zibadawa

You can stave off the "uber guilds ally together, and weaklings group with weaklings, furthering power disparity" by actively rewarding alliances with weaker guilds and reward the advancement of weaker guilds. Like a boon (in addition to the three already, maybe) that gives stats based on the the difference between the "main" guild's Guild Hall level and the guild hall levels of subsidiary guilds (with some minimum imposed on the guild hall level; all treated as at least level 10, maybe, even if level 1's can join), and then exactly compensate for guild hall advancement while in the alliance. So a level 20 main guild has a level 10 satellite, so everyone gets a boon at a level 10 boon structure level. The satellite increases to 11 without leaving the alliance, and the boon bonus doesn't change. But if they entered the alliance at 11, they'd get a boon as with a 9th level boon structure. Then do something like an average over satellites, maybe allowing one to be ignored if they want two strong guilds to ally, but otherwise making powerful guilds find lots of low-rank guilds to ally with and help advance and establish long-term bonds.

This rewards stability, and means you don't have to have a token unused crud guild to maintain the bonus.

deathbeez

wildfirede said:

my opinion is fixing old mechanics before implementing new things.

I feel like they have just given up on trying to approach fixing bugs, infact, I think they're inventing new ones faster then the older ones disappear. 3 larges ones (that I know of) in just the last tiny update.
This game should offer free respects forever, because you can't believe something is working as designed till you can prove it.

oliboyph

zibadawa said:

You can stave off the "uber guilds ally together, and weaklings group with weaklings, furthering power disparity" by actively rewarding alliances with weaker guilds and reward the advancement of weaker guilds. Like a boon (in addition to the three already, maybe) that gives stats based on the the difference between the "main" guild's Guild Hall level and the guild hall levels of subsidiary guilds (with some minimum imposed on the guild hall level; all treated as at least level 10, maybe, even if level 1's can join), and then exactly compensate for guild hall advancement while in the alliance. So a level 20 main guild has a level 10 satellite, so everyone gets a boon at a level 10 boon structure level. The satellite increases to 11 without leaving the alliance, and the boon bonus doesn't change. But if they entered the alliance at 11, they'd get a boon as with a 9th level boon structure. Then do something like an average over satellites, maybe allowing one to be ignored if they want two strong guilds to ally, but otherwise making powerful guilds find lots of low-rank guilds to ally with and help advance and establish long-term bonds.

This rewards stability, and means you don't have to have a token unused crud guild to maintain the bonus.

As good as that might sound, it's highly exploitable. I'll just make a mock guild with lvl 10 everything (or whatever the mninimum is). I mean the whole reason of the alliance is to make other guilds better, but in this system your are just giving member of the smaller guild a "premier guild" to aspire for. I doubt guild leaders would find that attractive.

It is very challenging to make this inclusive in a society that values high output over everything else. Just look at our PVP.

The truth is I really don't know how to make it work for NW. If I did I would have suggested it. If anyone can figure out how make it both inclusive and exploit proof, I'd say it's a good thing to work towards. But, for now, just try to iron out existing issues pls.

regenerde

+ A massive cost reduction on all lower ranking stronghold structures. And maybe add a longer building time to those structures for balance. Or the more resources you donate, the faster something gets build.

+ A system that binds donations to the players, and not just to the guild. You kick the player, you kick the donations out of the guild as well.

+ Better/more customer support and/or active GMs to go after scamming around guilds.

zibadawa

oliboyph said:

As good as that might sound, it's highly exploitable. I'll just make a mock guild with lvl 10 everything (or whatever the mninimum is). I mean the whole reason of the alliance is to make other guilds better, but in this system your are just giving member of the smaller guild a "premier guild" to aspire for. I doubt guild leaders would find that attractive.

It is very challenging to make this inclusive in a society that values high output over everything else. Just look at our PVP.

The truth is I really don't know how to make it work for NW. If I did I would have suggested it. If anyone can figure out how make it both inclusive and exploit proof, I'd say it's a good thing to work towards. But, for now, just try to iron out existing issues pls.

There's no punishment for existing allies advancing. You can work in an explicit reward for advancement of allies, as well. And literally everything is exploitable. If a top guild has to create 10 placeholder guilds and manage them up to certain ranks and then have their guild farm up to advance these other guilds just so they can get the best benefits (and if they're a top guild, it's pretty much guaranteed they want those), then I say: good for them. If they really want to go through all that trouble to keep the goodies to themselves, just let them. The immense grind of Strongholds is already prohibitive. If they want to go through that 10 more times, why should you be concerned? Other than that they are obviously massive masochists and are probably whipping themselves with a rusty chain while we type? Otherwise what it does is make premier guilds look for 10 or whatever lesser guilds to take under their wings and watch grow. Eventually the weenie guild will have cool structures and its members will have cool boon bonuses, and everyone in the alliance gets alliance boons to be happy with.

And if you're so flippant about just creating a fresh guild with level 10 structures, then what the hell exploits are you using and why haven't you been banned for using them?

oliboyph

zibadawa said:

There's no punishment for existing allies advancing. You can work in an explicit reward for advancement of allies, as well. And literally everything is exploitable. If a top guild has to create 10 placeholder guilds and manage them up to certain ranks and then have their guild farm up to advance these other guilds just so they can get the best benefits (and if they're a top guild, it's pretty much guaranteed they want those), then I say: good for them. If they really want to go through all that trouble to keep the goodies to themselves, just let them. The immense grind of Strongholds is already prohibitive. If they want to go through that 10 more times, why should you be concerned? Other than that they are obviously massive masochists and are probably whipping themselves with a rusty chain while we type? Otherwise what it does is make premier guilds look for 10 or whatever lesser guilds to take under their wings and watch grow. Eventually the weenie guild will have cool structures and its members will have cool boon bonuses, and everyone in the alliance gets alliance boons to be happy with.

And if you're so flippant about just creating a fresh guild with level 10 structures, then what the hell exploits are you using and why haven't you been banned for using them?

Well... more of an abuse than an exploit. I guess it doesn't matter what we think anymore. I'm just presenting possible issues at this point.

You're suggestion is actually ok, don't get me wrong. I'm just stating that we keep asking things for cryptic only to complain about it later on. So it's better to air all the possible concerns. We can argue that this is an ego thing, but look around, plenty of big egos here in Neverwinter.

I really hope they have something good in mind for the alliance mod. I'd hate to know that every guild just allied with other guilds in their respective "3k zerg" channels.

wylonus

remember, they said about EE patch, and then Stronghold 2.0v, after that is done, they said they are going back to Icewind for new retouch contents and redo some quest set ups.

since my main (GF), never got his black ice gauntlets from heroic encounters when it was launched, tried for 2-3 months and got burn-out, and just last month, it was a big insult, my OP went to icewind pass and got involved with epic encounters and got gauntlets on first trip and hadnt been able to collect more ice for new armor set, but had to let it go since it is outdated and already have his own drowcraft set.
they are planned for this fall but no date set yet.

i was hoping for spooky adventure, like a haunted house quest, maybe an event.

micky1p00

kvet said:

Eighth: Add an export roster to CSV button like there is in STO. OMG. DO THAT RIGHT NOW. That was the best QOL addition I've ever seen Cryptic make - I was amazed they'd bother with that, but man oh man it's a vital feature for any guild leader. Then, extend that feature to include all guilds in the Alliance - or perhaps all guilds below that guild in the hierarchy or something like that. (better: allow each guild to choose whether it's roster is visible to alliance members and use that to govern whether someone can export the roster as well).

@kvet

You can do this already.
in chat console: /ExportGuildMemberList filename (do filename.csv so it will open directly in excel )
You will find the file in the NeverWinter\Neverwinter\Live directory.

It also has fields that not available in the ui in a clear way, like rank change date, join date..