kreatyveMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 10,545Community Moderator
Sadly, I do not think that anything can be done with the guild in question. Perhaps the devs can look at some privileges in guilds and tweak things to try to prevent this thing from happening in the future, but I don't think that Customer Service is going to be able to do anything to help the current issue with Kata's guild. (This is just going by my experience as a player, and nothing to do with my position as a moderator - I could be totally incorrect on all of this).
My opinions are my own. I do not work for PWE or Cryptic. - Forum Rules - Protector's Enclave Discord - I play on Xbox Any of my comments not posted in orange are based on my own personal opinion and not official. Any messages written in orange are official moderation messages. Signature images are now fixed!
Well, perhaps one of you two could either pass the idea of binding donations to the player account instead of just to a guild along to the Devs? Or maybe ask the Devs, what they can do to help?
Strongholds are a main part of the game now, so i think it would be good to come up with an plan of action, before this might turn into some kind of "bussiness idea": Letting other players do the building/upgrading for Stronghold, but then sell the leader account for real money.
Guilds can be cesspools of drama and bad behavior...often created by or tolerated by leadership. They can also be very well-run and centered on members' best interests rather than those of the leaders. That said, individual players can certainly be jerks themselves, and if someone takes the time to organize, govern and administrate a guild, they should not be compelled to keep anyone on board who demonstrates bad behavior or who does not contribute to the common good. But they should not be able to give a productive member the boot on a whim or out of spite.
With this in mind, I quite like the idea of binding contributions to characters or player accounts. Guild Marks work this way. If you leave a guild or are kicked, your Guild Marks move with you, they cannot be used while you have no guild, but once you join up again elsewhere, your Guild Marks re-appear in your inventory.
I have personal experience with this. I was in a guild pre-stronghold, and left shortly after the beginning of Mod 7 due to leadership displaying bad behavior and throwing tantrums. I landed with another large and prominent guild immediately, and was given the boot after several weeks for missing a couple of days due to a family member's medical crisis. While I hold no grudge, the guild leader acted pretty poorly in this regard, as I did everything within published guild rules/guidelines in my absence, and there was no communication or inquiry prior to my ejection.
Having finally landed in a guild with a great crew, and one which seems a perfect fit for me, I am very glad my Guild Marks traveled with me. I worked hard for them, and want to be able to use them. Now...I don't know that it would have been fair for loot from my first guild's coffer to travel with me. After all, I decided to leave, and I could have stayed. They have a very loyal member base who gladly tolerate the leadership's quirks, and even seem to enjoy it. Not my cup of tea. No harm, no foul. But the guild which kicked me...I busted my rear for a month or so to stuff their coffers, get boons, build everything up, etc. Donated lots of AD, gold and campaign currency which I will never see again. I would have no problem with the fruits of my efforts following me to my new guild where I am happy and plan to stay for the long-term. After being kicked for little to no cause, I believe that this would be fair. I would rather that my hard work benefit my current guild rather than staying with one which unceremoniously gave me the boot and kept my goods.
If coffer loot followed players who were kicked but not those who leave voluntarily, it would incentivize leadership to keep a stable and happy membership. It would not encourage guild-hopping, as players would not take loot with them if they left voluntarily. Further, it might even help to diminish turnover in general. I would imagine that leadership would vet players more carefully, perhaps even having prospects run with the guild for a while before giving an invite, as no leader would wish to kick players repeatedly and watch coffer balances go up and down based on an unstable member base.
I believe that accounts of guild leaders would not be viable for sale if this were implemented, as any leader who booted his membership in order to sell the guild account would be selling a gutted stronghold. Only if the guild bank were stuffed to the gills with high-value goods would there be any level of interest in acquiring a guild after members were kicked taking their loot from the coffer with them. Or if the bulk of the guild stayed on and were complicit in the sale...not likely.
I would imagine that this might be difficult to implement, as it would require tracking player contributions continually, even after they enter the coffer. Maybe all contributions could simply bind to the player when they enter the coffer, but be counted toward coffer totals for guild purposes? However, if feasible, this would go a long way toward eliminating some of the sketchy behavior which can be present in guilds with poor leadership.
MMO's bring out the most selfish and immoral behavior. I want to be better then so and so. I want to spit out my IL in WoD for a zerg timer. I want to stomp noobies in PvP. Jump around a pack of AFKer on their new mount with a "look at me, look at me."
It's competitiveness that keeps MMOs alive, after end-game, they're all hamster on a wheel from my exp. So it does not shock me at all when cooperation breaks down to either dysfunction or full-blown malfeasance. SH's assumed too much trust in a context that works against trust; Strangers with variable backgrounds, cultures, and ethics, no tangible consequences, permanent anonymity, etc.
...Strongholds are a main part of the game now, so i think it would be good to come up with an plan of action, before this might turn into some kind of "bussiness idea": Letting other players do the building/upgrading for Stronghold, but then sell the leader account for real money.
This - this concept right here is whatcould doom strongholds and guilds alike.
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.
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.
Again, some Dev feedback on this issue would really be helpfull. - Do they see the issue at hand? - Are there plans on doing something about it? - When will they be able to patch a solution?
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.
I still don't understand why you want the resources Back you ALREADY received Guild Marks for them. You are basically asking to double Dip. I get guild marks and I get to Donate TWICE..... I can already see ways to abuse this with just Alt Guilds, let alone other ways I am sure people could think of.
Again... this is about getting kicked from a guild without any good reason.
If a guild leader/officier decides to kick players from the guild and then sell that guild for real money, there is nothing any player can do against it. But if the guild donations are tied to the player account, a guild leader/officier has to think twice about kicking players just for fun.
Q: So, what do you get right now, when you put time and/or money into your guild, and you get kicked from the guild? A: You get nothing.
The important guild benefits are tied to being in that guild.
And how are you going to "abuse" this?
Do you plan on getting into a guild, start donating resources into the guild coffer, but after a while provoke a guild kick, and then try the same act on another guild with your Stronghold Vouchers again? What would be the point of doing that? You would only get your resources back in bound Stronghold Vouchers... nothing more, but also nothing less.
You get Guild Vouchers back and you get to keep your Guild Marks and what ever you bought from the guild store for Guild marks, etc etc etc.......
You want Guild Vouchers back then you should lose all your Guild marks in the process......
YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED PAYMENT for your donations. and yes I can see a guild leader with a guild and a alt guild. Having people join the alt guild maxing their donations then kicking them and then inviting them to the Main Guild so they can continue to build 2 Guild Strongholds for the cost of one.
His solution would take all your contributions away from the guild that kicked you though. So it would just be shifting resources. Guild marks are irrelevant to the issue because they're pretty easy to obtain. The progress on your guilds stronghold is harder to obtain.
IMO there are problems with his suggestion but it's pretty ridiculous to imply that guild marks are in any way equivalent in value to what you contribute to your stronghold.
Value is relative you have already received payment for your donations whether or not they are equivalent to what was donated, the simple fact that he wants to be able to keep his guild marks, whatever he bought with guild marks, and get his donations back if by chance he is kicked either with or without cause. Guilds are DICTATORSHIPS, either benevolent or not that is how they are designed, to try and change the system to benefit the Player is a step backwards, Change the system to protect the Guild not the Guild leader or individual.
The Guild is the Goal in Strongholds, that is what this is all about eventually.
You're basically trying to say that all of the terrible parts of the guild system justify themselves because reasons.
Guilds are supposed to be a system that allows players to work together more easily to finish content. They are inherently supposed to benefit players first and foremost. Strongholds wasn't about guilds. It was about giving players incentives to join guilds. This whole thread makes it pretty clear that there are issues with strongholds that actually discourage players from joining guilds.
And again, guild marks are relatively worthless. If it refunded your dragon fangs along with your vouchers than no one would really have any problem giving up guild marks or their gear.
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. :*
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Any of my comments not posted in orange are based on my own personal opinion and not official.
Any messages written in orange are official moderation messages. Signature images are now fixed!
Or maybe ask the Devs, what they can do to help?
Strongholds are a main part of the game now, so i think it would be good to come up with an plan of action, before this might turn into some kind of "bussiness idea":
Letting other players do the building/upgrading for Stronghold, but then sell the leader account for real money.
With this in mind, I quite like the idea of binding contributions to characters or player accounts. Guild Marks work this way. If you leave a guild or are kicked, your Guild Marks move with you, they cannot be used while you have no guild, but once you join up again elsewhere, your Guild Marks re-appear in your inventory.
I have personal experience with this. I was in a guild pre-stronghold, and left shortly after the beginning of Mod 7 due to leadership displaying bad behavior and throwing tantrums. I landed with another large and prominent guild immediately, and was given the boot after several weeks for missing a couple of days due to a family member's medical crisis. While I hold no grudge, the guild leader acted pretty poorly in this regard, as I did everything within published guild rules/guidelines in my absence, and there was no communication or inquiry prior to my ejection.
Having finally landed in a guild with a great crew, and one which seems a perfect fit for me, I am very glad my Guild Marks traveled with me. I worked hard for them, and want to be able to use them. Now...I don't know that it would have been fair for loot from my first guild's coffer to travel with me. After all, I decided to leave, and I could have stayed. They have a very loyal member base who gladly tolerate the leadership's quirks, and even seem to enjoy it. Not my cup of tea. No harm, no foul. But the guild which kicked me...I busted my rear for a month or so to stuff their coffers, get boons, build everything up, etc. Donated lots of AD, gold and campaign currency which I will never see again. I would have no problem with the fruits of my efforts following me to my new guild where I am happy and plan to stay for the long-term. After being kicked for little to no cause, I believe that this would be fair. I would rather that my hard work benefit my current guild rather than staying with one which unceremoniously gave me the boot and kept my goods.
If coffer loot followed players who were kicked but not those who leave voluntarily, it would incentivize leadership to keep a stable and happy membership. It would not encourage guild-hopping, as players would not take loot with them if they left voluntarily. Further, it might even help to diminish turnover in general. I would imagine that leadership would vet players more carefully, perhaps even having prospects run with the guild for a while before giving an invite, as no leader would wish to kick players repeatedly and watch coffer balances go up and down based on an unstable member base.
I believe that accounts of guild leaders would not be viable for sale if this were implemented, as any leader who booted his membership in order to sell the guild account would be selling a gutted stronghold. Only if the guild bank were stuffed to the gills with high-value goods would there be any level of interest in acquiring a guild after members were kicked taking their loot from the coffer with them. Or if the bulk of the guild stayed on and were complicit in the sale...not likely.
I would imagine that this might be difficult to implement, as it would require tracking player contributions continually, even after they enter the coffer. Maybe all contributions could simply bind to the player when they enter the coffer, but be counted toward coffer totals for guild purposes? However, if feasible, this would go a long way toward eliminating some of the sketchy behavior which can be present in guilds with poor leadership.
I want to be better then so and so.
I want to spit out my IL in WoD for a zerg timer.
I want to stomp noobies in PvP.
Jump around a pack of AFKer on their new mount with a "look at me, look at me."
It's competitiveness that keeps MMOs alive, after end-game, they're all hamster on a wheel from my exp.
So it does not shock me at all when cooperation breaks down to either dysfunction or full-blown malfeasance.
SH's assumed too much trust in a context that works against trust; Strangers with variable backgrounds, cultures, and ethics, no tangible consequences, permanent anonymity, etc.
Again, some Dev feedback on this issue would really be helpfull.
- Do they see the issue at hand?
- Are there plans on doing something about it?
- When will they be able to patch a solution?
No matter how many security measures they implement something bad will happen and support will not do jack about it.
If a guild leader/officier decides to kick players from the guild and then sell that guild for real money, there is nothing any player can do against it.
But if the guild donations are tied to the player account, a guild leader/officier has to think twice about kicking players just for fun.
Q: So, what do you get right now, when you put time and/or money into your guild, and you get kicked from the guild?
A: You get nothing.
The important guild benefits are tied to being in that guild.
And how are you going to "abuse" this?
Do you plan on getting into a guild, start donating resources into the guild coffer, but after a while provoke a guild kick, and then try the same act on another guild with your Stronghold Vouchers again?
What would be the point of doing that?
You would only get your resources back in bound Stronghold Vouchers... nothing more, but also nothing less.
IMO there are problems with his suggestion but it's pretty ridiculous to imply that guild marks are in any way equivalent in value to what you contribute to your stronghold.
Guilds are supposed to be a system that allows players to work together more easily to finish content. They are inherently supposed to benefit players first and foremost. Strongholds wasn't about guilds. It was about giving players incentives to join guilds. This whole thread makes it pretty clear that there are issues with strongholds that actually discourage players from joining guilds.
And again, guild marks are relatively worthless. If it refunded your dragon fangs along with your vouchers than no one would really have any problem giving up guild marks or their gear.
In short in suggests a player credit system that follows the player. You can check it out here:
arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1206089/suggestion-for-making-guilds-fairer-come-mod-7
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
Neverwinter Wonderland
Neverwinter Wet & Wild
Neverwinter 2nd Anniversary Montage
Neverwinter Anniversary Montage
Protector's Jubilee Speech
Oh the Carnage
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.
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.
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.