Before this is was opening the guild bank to people getting it full then kicking them all and taking the stuff out of the guild bank.........
The outcry over that ended pretty quick since the option there was to not stick things you couldn;t afford to lose in the guild bank. The option here is to not to Donate anything you are not willing to lose into the guild coffers
Eh. So you quote part of my post so that the part directly refuting your post wasn't included ...
Why bother posting this even? You know exactly what will happen to players that don't donate (more specifically the people that don't donate AD).
The OP's scenario (and other variants of it) have happened in other MMOs before. Yes, it's horrible. But this is not some new phenomenon. Outside of implementing a leadership security system to address the problem with guild takeovers/mutinies (they can simply import the one from Star Trek), there aren't any real reasons why the developers would implement any of these other suggestions.
Eh. The whole problem is the reliance on guild leadership. Strongholds require too many resources to have your progress tied to the will of a few people that could go off the deep end at any time. I mean imagine if something like the OP's story happens to someone with a rank 20 stronghold. That would probably be over a year of work down the drain. No matter how many security measures they implement something bad will happen and support will not do jack about it.
That's true, they won't, IF what happens doesn't violate the TOS. I'm sure Cryptic wouldn't characterize it by saying that things are WAI, but these are simply actions that guild leaders are allowed to take because they were designed to allow them. Therefore, it's incumbent on the individual to be aware of what they are doing when they join a guild. Everyone's allowed to join or leave a guild as they so choose. Something feel fishy about leadership? Then just don't donate.
I can only compare this game to the other Cryptic MMO that I play (Star Trek), and I can tell you that if this new reality bothers you, then expect to be bothered by SH and various guild leaders from here on out.
If you don't donate you will get booted before you can blink twice.
I still don't understand why people keep saying that guilds were designed with the intent that leaders be able to do stuff like this. If that's true it just means that guilds were poorly designed.
Who's guild are you referring to that would do that? And in what scenario?
Of course, a hypothetical isn't what you're proposing, but let's say you join a guild and are booted fairly early on for not donating. Without getting into important and relevant specifics such as time-in-guild, I'd say that this guild was likely looking at you as an open wallet anyways. You should be glad to be free. And now you can look for another guild. Perhaps this time you will do research into their reputation, and find out how they are run. Maybe this time you'll have a fairy tale ending, and you can bottle your rage for a rainy day.
So... why would it appear that all manner of nefarious actions are allowed? Because, STO. I've said it before. That game has had the SH equivalent since mid-2012. If they haven't changed it there, what makes you think they'll change anything here? If that means it was poorly designed, then poor design has been A-okay with them for years now.
Bottom line, guild leaders have all the power. They are the rulers of their guild, and thus have the ability to do what they want with that guild, within the TOS. The power that "regular" guild members have lies in the fact that they can leave guilds at will. This whole guild relationship thing is completely voluntary, and if anybody thinks that they're due ownership of a guild as a non-rank 7 member, they are sadly mistaken. And no amount of social engineering will change that.
Who's guild are you referring to that would do that? And in what scenario?
Of course, a hypothetical isn't what you're proposing, but let's say you join a guild and are booted fairly early on for not donating. Without getting into important and relevant specifics such as time-in-guild, I'd say that this guild was likely looking at you as an open wallet anyways. You should be glad to be free. And now you can look for another guild. Perhaps this time you will do research into their reputation, and find out how they are run. Maybe this time you'll have a fairy tale ending, and you can bottle your rage for a rainy day.
Any guild that is actually trying to progress in strongholds. Like say the one this thread was created because of. Saying someone should find a good guild that won't kick them or that they should be glad that they got kicked is simplifying the matter instead of addressing the problem. The fact of the matter is that irregardless as to how much you want to paint the situation as being all rainbows and sunshine stuff like what happened to the OP is going to happen with the current system and that's unacceptable.
Bottom line, guild leaders have all the power. They are the rulers of their guild, and thus have the ability to do what they want with that guild, within the TOS. The power that "regular" guild members have lies in the fact that they can leave guilds at will. This whole guild relationship thing is completely voluntary, and if anybody thinks that they're due ownership of a guild as a non-rank 7 member, they are sadly mistaken. And no amount of social engineering will change that.
The problem being that Strongholds makes joining a guild a significant advantage with no substitute. Basically no one wants to own a guild. As you said no one has any power except to leave their guild. That's basically irrelevant because a good part of your reason to join a guild is to get involved in that guild's Stronghold. The only power any player can exercise is at odds with the behavior that Strongholds
So... why would it appear that all manner of nefarious actions are allowed? Because, STO. I've said it before. That game has had the SH equivalent since mid-2012. If they haven't changed it there, what makes you think they'll change anything here? If that means it was poorly designed, then poor design has been A-okay with them for years now.
Because they've made sweeping changes to the economy so Strongholds will probably get changed at some point. The main issue probably has to do less with not wanting to change it so much as not want to spend money doing it. If they're already going to be spending money to change things this is about the only time anyone could get them to do anything about these problems. Actually assuming that they won't change things and not complaining is basically the only way you don't get them to change anything.
That refutes nothing, all that shows is you projecting your Fears on Every Guild in Neverwinter.
With the exceptions of Inactives I think my Guild has booted a grand total of 3 people in the past 2 years. all of them before the advent of Strongholds.But I will agree Larger Guilds that are racing to the finish line will want no Dead weight on their rolls. If that is your fear then maybe they are not the guild for you eh?
You might want to find a nicer mid sized Guild that is moseying along with Strongholds. There are quite a few of them around you just have to look around.
This is precisely the kind of guild that Strongholds encourages players to join and create. If your small guild has no problems it doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Just that it's more specific to guilds where players are making more significant contributions. So the players that are going to lose the most from these problems are the ones that are most vulnerable to them.
So your argument is basically I want to be in a guild that is racing to finish but I don't want to help them except on my terms?
No, my argument is that the guild system as it stands assumes that guild leaders are never going to do anything wrong. Assuming that guild leaders won't abuse their position makes no sense when you're encouraging people to contribute large amounts of resources and time to their guild. If that's going to happen then you need something to protect members so that they don't lose progress.
You don't seem to want to fit in to a place you want that place to fit you. Go make your own guild and ivite like minded people I am sure you can find 30-50 active players with your mindset. then you can all be Rank 7 in the Guild and it can be a democracy.
Stop trying to Change the system to give you the advantage over those that choose to lead guilds.
What exactly is the issue with giving guild members more power? What's the downside? Heck, what's the upside of guild leaders having absolute power? Your entire argument is based around the idea that it's okay that some people will get screwed over because there isn't a solution to that problem.
That refutes nothing, all that shows is you projecting your Fears on Every Guild in Neverwinter.
Obviously. The real question is, how well founded is that fear? Personally, I don't think there are many non-PvP guilds out there that go to extremes to get people to donate or are actively looking to build a guild with the purpose to sell it. It happens and it sucks chocolate balls when you happen to be in a guild that's been sold by the GL, but there's no real way to prevent it. This risk exists in every MMO. The only thing Cryptic can do here, is to make sure that not every effort is wasted by protecting people's SH boons in some manner.
The account h-acking is another matter and it has often been indicated -and proven to support a few times by myself and a few others- over the past 2 years that it's not very difficult to compromise an account in this game and the amazing ARC defender does very little to protect an account and is very easy to bypass. With regards to that, Cryptic or PWE still has a few things left to do.
Currently guild level of civilization is: Despotism=The toughest thug supported by his fellow thugs in power to wrest goods and resources from fellow human beings on any term or whim the Despot chooses to display. He can kill on a whim (kick a guild member without explaination), steal from someone (pile up resources "donated" to guild, then kick the member), and give or not on any whim to his fellow thugs "rewards" ( rank up anyone, rank down anyone, give from vault or not to anyone etc.) without any check or explaination.
We the players would like available to us as we choose other guild level of civilization:
Perhaps Feudalism=Thug (king) supported by fellow thugs (lords/knights) with a set of basic laws (behavior restrictions) that if the king (chief thug) ignores enough, risks the lords(fellow thugs) ganging up and with enough of them concurring, deposing the head thug for a replacement thug. This would be a guild choice were the guild allows some checks in the guild leaders absolute power to reside with the officers, if the GL becomes a onerous HAMSTER? He CAN be replaced if all officers concur.
Maybe Republic/democracy would be your cup of tea: Everyone of curtain standing/rank get's a vote before something is done to the structure of the guild. Someone can get a "reprieve" from the guild leaders actions if the guild as a majority votes otherwise, or some action by the leader can rescended if enough of guild says no. Maybe a option to have the Leadership role rotate between officers within time frame.
I don't know how hard or how likely a change to the guild system can be coded, but we would really like the option to have a structure in place at a minimum of Feudalism. We would like to evolve please.
On a side note, given the pace of NW's changes in the past, and the way they respond to players wishes....I'm not holding my breath of any change anytime soon, I've grown addicted to breathing and wish to continue in my chosen vice
So your argument is (if I understand it) is: Do nothing, you are going to get HAMSTER here, might as well lay back and "enjoy" it.
A state of Despotism exists and everyone else is Chattel, "don't get above your station you pathetic peon, you need not wish for more, just accept what is, it can and never will change. Now hurry up, put all your animals in this wagon, all your grain in these sacks and have your daughter use a little soap, I like my virgins less aromatic".
Really? we can't do a little better than that?
We are REQUESTING a change in a CHOICE of guild structures, if you and your cronies like despotism, by all means, live (and die by it). We the civilized wish a better status in our leaders, we wish them enlightened and desire a say in our own destinies.
You make our point with: "It is ok that people get screwed if they make bad decisions. I fail to see why we have to have this egalitarian society because all the sudden someone got screwed. The possibility remains for getting screwed no matter how it gets changed. Someone somewhere will always be unhappy ad will want it changed to make them feel better."
If we actually had a say in our "decisions" and then got screwed, yes, live and learn. The only choice as it stand now is: guild or not guild. We are opting for choice #3 guild with structure.
Yes, yes the old "wild" west was fantasticif you had money and all you wanted out of life was to get drunk, gamble and HAMSTER it. But that wasn't so conducive to family life was it? Seems shortly after there was a boom town there was those "annoying" things like: laws and churches and schools and curfews. The "civilized" folks townsmen didn't like there property all shot up or stole, they didn't like their women folk accosted or propositioned, they didn't like their kids exposed to "unsavory" elements of the wild west, they wanted their children to have an education and actually survive to adulthood.
Seems the "wild west" was a bit of promotion and myth huh? Like the gun fight at high noon, between the sheriff and the ner'dowell. The reality was, if the sheriff didn't pistol whip them when they were drunk, then the towns folk riddled there bodies with bullets from some doorway or window, the "sheriff" wasn't a gunslinger he slung a shotgun (less chance of missing).
So we, the "civilized" are asking for less "wild west" and more "civil" in our guild or at least the option of it. Yes, there will always be the in guild or intra-guild disputes, but why not reduce the "potential" for abuse?
The old "that's the way it is and always will be" school of thought no longer suffices for we the civilized.
Yes your asking for a lot for a person that isn;t willing to put his own theories into pla
I already have. Personally I don't think your stronghold should be controlled by the guild. It should be a tab on your character similar to your campaign tab. You manage that and your guilds contributions to the coffers count to all members' Stronghold resources. That way if you leave your guild you don't lose any progress but you're still encouraged to join a guild because it lets you progress at a reasonable rate.
It is ok that people get screwed if they make bad decisions. I fail to see why we have to have this egalitarian society because all the sudden someone got screwed. The possibility remains for getting screwed no matter how it gets changed. Someone somewhere will always be unhappy ad will want it changed to make them feel better.
It can happen to people regardless as to if they're making good decisions or bad decisions. All it takes is one ***hole in position of power. The way you talk it's like you forget that this is a game. Good games don't punish players for other players' actions.
Guilds as Designed are Despotic and the members are Chattel, the Guild doesn't lose progress individuals whom are kicked or leave lose progress(Progress is being equated with boons, you get to keep your marks and any bought equipment)
Not sure why you'd respond with that.
My post essentially was, "Guild leaders can abuse members and that's bad" and you basically responded with "Guilds are structured such that leaders can abuse members". Okay?
And our answer is: It need not be, fix it so it's an option to not be so.
We, if given a choice, choose not to subject ourselves to the whims of Awholes. We want the choice to curb the Awholes potential of negatively affecting us or at least minimizingthe harm they can do.
What is so wrong with that? "That's the way it's always been done..." is a non-starter. I'm sure before the circular wheel was invented, the triangular or the square wheel was the way... "it was always done"
My post essentially was, "Guild leaders can abuse members and that's bad" and you basically responded with "Guilds are structured such that leaders can abuse members". Okay?
Yes that is my answer.
Wow, just wow. You have completely lost credibility now.
So, ignoring Jim, I like the credit idea but I also like the idea that guilds can be set to a rulership type e.g. current/council of equals/voting by established membership etc. I also like the thought that a guild should lose access to its facilities if it loses a lot of its membership (i.e. membership tied to credit system)
Please Do Not Feed The Trolls
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Well, i would add to my idea, that you won't get any marks from those refunded Stronghold Vouchers, but other then that... players would at least have the certainty, that the resources they donate are not lost completly, when they get kicked out of a guild.
The issue with getting refunded is....How does the game distinguish with someone getting Kick'd for Good reasons and someone for No reason. :*
If the kick is for a good reason, then the guild leader/officer and the other guild members should have no problem with getting rid of an unwanted member for the price of refilling the guild resources.
If the kick is for no good reason, then the former guild member will at least get his resources back, and can then join and support a better guild.
Anyway, this solution would still be better, then just to say: BS happens, now go and grind new resources for your new guild.
And if someone leave spontaneously? It's a frequent thing, let's not make it a problem.
And if the GM kick him because he isn't playing anymore?
Then the leaving player won't get a "spontaneously" refund. Where's your problem with that?
Why would a GM kick a player from a guild? Besides, if a player is kicked from a guild, either from the guild leader/officier or a GM, then the donated resources go with him.
Well, i would add to my idea, that you won't get any marks from those refunded Stronghold Vouchers, but other then that... players would at least have the certainty, that the resources they donate are not lost completly, when they get kicked out of a guild.
The issue with getting refunded is....How does the game distinguish with someone getting Kick'd for Good reasons and someone for No reason. :*
If the kick is for a good reason, then the guild leader/officer and the other guild members should have no problem with getting rid of an unwanted member for the price of refilling the guild resources.
If the kick is for no good reason, then the former guild member will at least get his resources back, and can then join and support a better guild.
Anyway, this solution would still be better, then just to say:
BS happens, now go and grind new resources for your new guild.
So instead of Donating to the Coffer you are making Temporary Loans to the Guild and the only way to make them Permanent is to Force the Player to leave Voluntarily? Challenge Accepted.
So you have basically turned a Slim Chance for someone to Grief a player into a Long Term Griefing Project that will turn out even worse and the Grief and Material Loss will be built up over the long term.
Hey dude, I get that you don't like this idea. That's fine. Instead of just telling everyone that their ideas suck, can you please provide a better option that SOLVES the problem I just recently experienced.
If you can't do that, I really don't see how you can contribute positively to this thread.
At any rate, I do like the idea of this whole "voucher refund", but it would be tough to identify when and when not to have a refund issued.
So instead of Donating to the Coffer you are making Temporary Loans to the Guild and the only way to make them Permanent is to Force the Player to leave Voluntarily? Challenge Accepted.
So you have basically turned a Slim Chance for someone to Grief a player into a Long Term Griefing Project that will turn out even worse and the Grief and Material Loss will be built up over the long term.
Or if the player want to leave but get a full refund.... lets grief the whole guild until someone kicks me... Not to say about the economy, we used the resources, built the building, lets kick everyone, get the refund on the investment, everyone rejoin with their vouchers or whatever and we build the next building for a fraction of the additional cost.
One thing is to protect the guild from a hacked leader or perhaps a leader went 'rogue', and totally another to make the whole system broken. Like many things in life, people should make a decision to what guild they are donating, member of, and if they trust the leadership or not. If a players don't like the demands, attitude, don't trust people or any other reason, they should find another guild or make one themselves. There are plenty of guilds, and one bad apple is not an indicator of a general behavior.
Edit: Btw, the nested quote looks horrible, and doesn't show the outer quote as quote.
If you kick people from the guild, they would take their resources in Stronghold Vouchers with them. But any building/upgrade in progess would be put on hold, the resources loss would be set as "main contribution target", and nothing could be build/upgraded until that loss is being replenished.
And resources are used to build/upgrade a Stronghold, they are not just "donations" to get guild marks. They are used to get access to Stronghold benefits.
If you paved the way to those benefits with your time and/or money, then you should indeed receive a refund, when someone just kicks you out of the guild. You're not getting anything double or extra, you only get your time and/or money back you invested in that guild. But you still lose all the guild/Stronghold benefits.
And the same goes for the guild, there is no point in kicking people out of the guild for those Stronghold Vouchers, since the resources they take, have to be replenished before anything else can be build/upgraded.
Anyway, if you want to play the "griefing" game, you can find a lot more easier/other ways to do that. And real GMs should deal with griefers... permanently.
And as allready mentioned, that might work with new guilds, but you will have a hard time to do that to a well established guild... your @handle will be known, and no one will waste time with inviting you.
Last but not least, my idea could be realised with some time and work from the Devs to prevent such actions as stated in the opening post. And i'm not so sure, what is so bad about that...
Just so it's clear on what I'm for, I DON'T support the "refund" train of solution. That path is rife with exploit-ability and grief. So too it's a "donation" not a "loan".
So you and Shela can't seem to make a go of it? You get a divorce, does the court give you all your stuff back 100%? 1/2, 1/3? Or do you count yourself lucky that all Shela got was your property and not your soul? I can't support a "refund" course of action here on this issue. You divorce your guild *for whatever reason* even if you caught her "cheating" on you! You get out with your skin intact and be glad for that, chalk it up and move on. Next time you marry a guild either do some background checks or get a prenup (prenup would be that guild with those structures that protect you from a tyrant guild leader/cheating Shela)
I feel the only way to approach parity and even a modicum of fair, is a guild structure that has some vote/veto to it, THAT is what I support. So Shela want's to divorce you and take everything you ever earned, will earn, and to top it off, your reproductive organs? Put it to a vote... and the jury says...NO! Shela is the one that has to go!
A vote/veto system in guilds, stops the meglomaniacal guild leader from doing just anything they please, it allows for a cool off period, and rational decisions to be made, having some fellow guild mates input is good, after all, it could be them next, if there is no go reason for the boot. Maybe the fellow guilders decide that indeed it would be better for someone to go, but instead of a "out on your ear" approach that some enraged GL might do (and even later regret), with some rational discussion of the fellow guild members, maybe the parting party can go with resources etc. and amicable.
0
darkstarcrashMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,382Arc User
People are trying to re-invent the wheel, when a link was posted long ago of STO's solution to the guild dictatorship problem. If you think it makes sense, ask for STO's system to be used here.
The suggestion that any time a guild leader kicked a player the SH structures would be on hold until you replaced their donations just makes no sense. This means you could never kick people who became inactive without damage to your stronghold -- and with the limited number of accounts/characters allowed in a guild, inactive players are a serious problem.
People must remember that their donations are donations, and stop at a level they feel comfortable with. Spending RL money for SH buildings has got to be money you don't mind losing, like a "loan" to your irresponsible younger brother.
Two reasons, why the refund/guild on hold system will not work.
The first and formost reason, it would need work from cryptic and they cant be bothered to do anything more then really needed (sometimes they even ignore basic changes, that need to be implemented).
Second reason, abuse. Get some whales with deep pockets and get your new rank. In, lets say a year, we will have some Rank 20 guilds. If I am correct in my estimation, most of the highly progressed guilds have 5-10 players who contributed at last 50% of ADs etc, bc they can. Good for them and their guild. Their guild is maxed and a friends guild struggeles with the last boons/ranks. High contributers get kicked (their guild stays at max), join a new guild and wham, they can progress x level. You could even make a profession out of it. Get kicked, make a guild, get it to max lvl from your (and your friends) vauchers, sell it, get kicked and begin again.
Two reasons, why the refund/guild on hold system will not work.
The first and formost reason, it would need work from cryptic and they cant be bothered to do anything more then really needed (sometimes they even ignore basic changes, that need to be implemented).
Second reason, abuse. Get some whales with deep pockets and get your new rank. In, lets say a year, we will have some Rank 20 guilds. If I am correct in my estimation, most of the highly progressed guilds have 5-10 players who contributed at last 50% of ADs etc, bc they can. Good for them and their guild. Their guild is maxed and a friends guild struggeles with the last boons/ranks. High contributers get kicked (their guild stays at max), join a new guild and wham, they can progress x level. You could even make a profession out of it. Get kicked, make a guild, get it to max lvl from your (and your friends) vauchers, sell it, get kicked and begin again.
Eh. They could easily make it pointless to exploit if they wanted. Like you said the main problem is getting Cryptic to work on anything (especially anything that would actually benefit players).
Comments
Why bother posting this even? You know exactly what will happen to players that don't donate (more specifically the people that don't donate AD).
Of course, a hypothetical isn't what you're proposing, but let's say you join a guild and are booted fairly early on for not donating. Without getting into important and relevant specifics such as time-in-guild, I'd say that this guild was likely looking at you as an open wallet anyways. You should be glad to be free. And now you can look for another guild. Perhaps this time you will do research into their reputation, and find out how they are run. Maybe this time you'll have a fairy tale ending, and you can bottle your rage for a rainy day.
So... why would it appear that all manner of nefarious actions are allowed? Because, STO. I've said it before. That game has had the SH equivalent since mid-2012. If they haven't changed it there, what makes you think they'll change anything here? If that means it was poorly designed, then poor design has been A-okay with them for years now.
Bottom line, guild leaders have all the power. They are the rulers of their guild, and thus have the ability to do what they want with that guild, within the TOS. The power that "regular" guild members have lies in the fact that they can leave guilds at will. This whole guild relationship thing is completely voluntary, and if anybody thinks that they're due ownership of a guild as a non-rank 7 member, they are sadly mistaken. And no amount of social engineering will change that.
The problem being that Strongholds makes joining a guild a significant advantage with no substitute. Basically no one wants to own a guild. As you said no one has any power except to leave their guild. That's basically irrelevant because a good part of your reason to join a guild is to get involved in that guild's Stronghold. The only power any player can exercise is at odds with the behavior that Strongholds
Because they've made sweeping changes to the economy so Strongholds will probably get changed at some point. The main issue probably has to do less with not wanting to change it so much as not want to spend money doing it. If they're already going to be spending money to change things this is about the only time anyone could get them to do anything about these problems. Actually assuming that they won't change things and not complaining is basically the only way you don't get them to change anything.
This is precisely the kind of guild that Strongholds encourages players to join and create. If your small guild has no problems it doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Just that it's more specific to guilds where players are making more significant contributions. So the players that are going to lose the most from these problems are the ones that are most vulnerable to them.
This is pretty much all I'm asking for : |
Despotism=The toughest thug supported by his fellow thugs in power to wrest goods and resources from fellow human beings on any term or whim the Despot chooses to display. He can kill on a whim (kick a guild member without explaination), steal from someone (pile up resources "donated" to guild, then kick the member), and give or not on any whim to his fellow thugs "rewards" ( rank up anyone, rank down anyone, give from vault or not to anyone etc.) without any check or explaination.
We the players would like available to us as we choose other guild level of civilization:
Perhaps Feudalism=Thug (king) supported by fellow thugs (lords/knights) with a set of basic laws (behavior restrictions) that if the king (chief thug) ignores enough, risks the lords(fellow thugs) ganging up and with enough of them concurring, deposing the head thug for a replacement thug. This would be a guild choice were the guild allows some checks in the guild leaders absolute power to reside with the officers, if the GL becomes a onerous HAMSTER? He CAN be replaced if all officers concur.
Maybe Republic/democracy would be your cup of tea:
Everyone of curtain standing/rank get's a vote before something is done to the structure of the guild. Someone can get a "reprieve" from the guild leaders actions if the guild as a majority votes otherwise, or some action by the leader can rescended if enough of guild says no. Maybe a option to have the Leadership role rotate between officers within time frame.
I don't know how hard or how likely a change to the guild system can be coded, but we would really like the option to have a structure in place at a minimum of Feudalism. We would like to evolve please.
On a side note, given the pace of NW's changes in the past, and the way they respond to players wishes....I'm not holding my breath of any change anytime soon, I've grown addicted to breathing and wish to continue in my chosen vice
Do nothing, you are going to get HAMSTER here, might as well lay back and "enjoy" it.
A state of Despotism exists and everyone else is Chattel, "don't get above your station you pathetic peon, you need not wish for more, just accept what is, it can and never will change. Now hurry up, put all your animals in this wagon, all your grain in these sacks and have your daughter use a little soap, I like my virgins less aromatic".
Really? we can't do a little better than that?
We are REQUESTING a change in a CHOICE of guild structures, if you and your cronies like despotism, by all means, live (and die by it). We the civilized wish a better status in our leaders, we wish them enlightened and desire a say in our own destinies.
You make our point with:
"It is ok that people get screwed if they make bad decisions. I fail to see why we have to have this egalitarian society because all the sudden someone got screwed. The possibility remains for getting screwed no matter how it gets changed. Someone somewhere will always be unhappy ad will want it changed to make them feel better."
If we actually had a say in our "decisions" and then got screwed, yes, live and learn. The only choice as it stand now is: guild or not guild. We are opting for choice #3 guild with structure.
Yes, yes the old "wild" west was fantastic if you had money and all you wanted out of life was to get drunk, gamble and HAMSTER it. But that wasn't so conducive to family life was it? Seems shortly after there was a boom town there was those "annoying" things like: laws and churches and schools and curfews. The "civilized" folks townsmen didn't like there property all shot up or stole, they didn't like their women folk accosted or propositioned, they didn't like their kids exposed to "unsavory" elements of the wild west, they wanted their children to have an education and actually survive to adulthood.
Seems the "wild west" was a bit of promotion and myth huh? Like the gun fight at high noon, between the sheriff and the ner'dowell. The reality was, if the sheriff didn't pistol whip them when they were drunk, then the towns folk riddled there bodies with bullets from some doorway or window, the "sheriff" wasn't a gunslinger he slung a shotgun (less chance of missing).
So we, the "civilized" are asking for less "wild west" and more "civil" in our guild or at least the option of it. Yes, there will always be the in guild or intra-guild disputes, but why not reduce the "potential" for abuse?
The old "that's the way it is and always will be" school of thought no longer suffices for we the civilized.
Not sure why you'd respond with that.
My post essentially was, "Guild leaders can abuse members and that's bad" and you basically responded with "Guilds are structured such that leaders can abuse members". Okay?
It need not be, fix it so it's an option to not be so.
We, if given a choice, choose not to subject ourselves to the whims of Awholes. We want the choice to curb the Awholes potential of negatively affecting us or at least minimizing the harm they can do.
What is so wrong with that?
"That's the way it's always been done..." is a non-starter. I'm sure before the circular wheel was invented, the triangular or the square wheel was the way... "it was always done"
Wow, just wow. You have completely lost credibility now.
So, ignoring Jim, I like the credit idea but I also like the idea that guilds can be set to a rulership type e.g. current/council of equals/voting by established membership etc. I also like the thought that a guild should lose access to its facilities if it loses a lot of its membership (i.e. membership tied to credit system)
Xael De Armadeon: DC
Xane De Armadeon: CW
Zen De Armadeon: OP
Zohar De Armadeon: TR
Chrion De Armadeon: SW
Gosti Big Belly: GWF
Barney McRustbucket: GF
Lt. Thackeray: HR
Lucius De Armadeon: BD
Member of Casual Dailies - XBox
If the kick is for no good reason, then the former guild member will at least get his resources back, and can then join and support a better guild.
Anyway, this solution would still be better, then just to say:
BS happens, now go and grind new resources for your new guild.
Where's your problem with that?
Why would a GM kick a player from a guild?
Besides, if a player is kicked from a guild, either from the guild leader/officier or a GM, then the donated resources go with him.
Hey dude, I get that you don't like this idea. That's fine. Instead of just telling everyone that their ideas suck, can you please provide a better option that SOLVES the problem I just recently experienced.
If you can't do that, I really don't see how you can contribute positively to this thread.
At any rate, I do like the idea of this whole "voucher refund", but it would be tough to identify when and when not to have a refund issued.
|| Axios Guild Leader || Neverwinter Trade Forum Moderator || Infernal Paragons ||
Check out my foundry, titled "Akro's Gone Wacko", featuring our ex-CM Akromatik!: NW-DL8J7BY5T
Erza Moonstalker | Lara Moonstalker | Julie Marvell | Erza Moonhunter | Annie Hellangel | Jenn Moonstalker
Thaumaturge's Time To Shine: A Complete Guide
Not to say about the economy, we used the resources, built the building, lets kick everyone, get the refund on the investment, everyone rejoin with their vouchers or whatever and we build the next building for a fraction of the additional cost.
One thing is to protect the guild from a hacked leader or perhaps a leader went 'rogue', and totally another to make the whole system broken.
Like many things in life, people should make a decision to what guild they are donating, member of, and if they trust the leadership or not.
If a players don't like the demands, attitude, don't trust people or any other reason, they should find another guild or make one themselves.
There are plenty of guilds, and one bad apple is not an indicator of a general behavior.
Edit:
Btw, the nested quote looks horrible, and doesn't show the outer quote as quote.
If you kick people from the guild, they would take their resources in Stronghold Vouchers with them. But any building/upgrade in progess would be put on hold, the resources loss would be set as "main contribution target", and nothing could be build/upgraded until that loss is being replenished.
And resources are used to build/upgrade a Stronghold, they are not just "donations" to get guild marks.
They are used to get access to Stronghold benefits.
If you paved the way to those benefits with your time and/or money, then you should indeed receive a refund, when someone just kicks you out of the guild.
You're not getting anything double or extra, you only get your time and/or money back you invested in that guild. But you still lose all the guild/Stronghold benefits.
And the same goes for the guild, there is no point in kicking people out of the guild for those Stronghold Vouchers, since the resources they take, have to be replenished before anything else can be build/upgraded.
Anyway, if you want to play the "griefing" game, you can find a lot more easier/other ways to do that.
And real GMs should deal with griefers... permanently.
And as allready mentioned, that might work with new guilds, but you will have a hard time to do that to a well established guild... your @handle will be known, and no one will waste time with inviting you.
Last but not least, my idea could be realised with some time and work from the Devs to prevent such actions as stated in the opening post.
And i'm not so sure, what is so bad about that...
So you and Shela can't seem to make a go of it? You get a divorce, does the court give you all your stuff back 100%? 1/2, 1/3? Or do you count yourself lucky that all Shela got was your property and not your soul? I can't support a "refund" course of action here on this issue. You divorce your guild *for whatever reason* even if you caught her "cheating" on you! You get out with your skin intact and be glad for that, chalk it up and move on. Next time you marry a guild either do some background checks or get a prenup (prenup would be that guild with those structures that protect you from a tyrant guild leader/cheating Shela)
I feel the only way to approach parity and even a modicum of fair, is a guild structure that has some vote/veto to it, THAT is what I support. So Shela want's to divorce you and take everything you ever earned, will earn, and to top it off, your reproductive organs? Put it to a vote... and the jury says...NO! Shela is the one that has to go!
A vote/veto system in guilds, stops the meglomaniacal guild leader from doing just anything they please, it allows for a cool off period, and rational decisions to be made, having some fellow guild mates input is good, after all, it could be them next, if there is no go reason for the boot. Maybe the fellow guilders decide that indeed it would be better for someone to go, but instead of a "out on your ear" approach that some enraged GL might do (and even later regret), with some rational discussion of the fellow guild members, maybe the parting party can go with resources etc. and amicable.
The suggestion that any time a guild leader kicked a player the SH structures would be on hold until you replaced their donations just makes no sense. This means you could never kick people who became inactive without damage to your stronghold -- and with the limited number of accounts/characters allowed in a guild, inactive players are a serious problem.
People must remember that their donations are donations, and stop at a level they feel comfortable with. Spending RL money for SH buildings has got to be money you don't mind losing, like a "loan" to your irresponsible younger brother.
The first and formost reason, it would need work from cryptic and they cant be bothered to do anything more then really needed (sometimes they even ignore basic changes, that need to be implemented).
Second reason, abuse. Get some whales with deep pockets and get your new rank. In, lets say a year, we will have some Rank 20 guilds. If I am correct in my estimation, most of the highly progressed guilds have 5-10 players who contributed at last 50% of ADs etc, bc they can. Good for them and their guild. Their guild is maxed and a friends guild struggeles with the last boons/ranks. High contributers get kicked (their guild stays at max), join a new guild and wham, they can progress x level. You could even make a profession out of it. Get kicked, make a guild, get it to max lvl from your (and your friends) vauchers, sell it, get kicked and begin again.