I don't think most players place a premium on guild rank, especially not above skills. As a guild leader, it's more important to me to have guild members with high ranks than it is to those players, I think. Basically, I'm interested in making it easier to stay for the guild ranks and RP than leave for the skills, rather than having members pay for the 'privilege'.
EDIT: The vast majority of our guild members sit at GR 1 and never advance, even through the advancement isn't particularly hard. At GR1 you're allowed full skill access, and most appear to be happy with that. Many of the folks who really try to advance in the ranks do so only until they hit GR3 and can contest a guild leader position, as that's the only really meaningful ability granted by ranks.
Just like melding some people tend to really like guild advancement and tasks. Still they are generally completely artificial systems which usually have little bearing to any real RP or 'advancement'. Some people love paperwork, but some people like myself do paperwork all day long and I play games to get away from the paperwork, so if you force me to do it I'll resent you and your org. I don't run around telling orgs they can't have tasks, but I also don't feel like I need to be doing more things I don't personally enjoy.
So @Estarra what protections are in place or going in place
to protect people who are paying for this feature? You’re asking for a ton of
money for what seems to be a system in which the control is completely in the
hands of other players. Seems like a lot of money with a requirement I go cap
in hand. In case this seems like exaggerating, what realistically are the odds that anyone is
going to get permission for any guild outside their org, other than the very
rare exception?
If you have all the guild skills are in a guild and then
leave, what happens?
If you have permission from your guild and from the guild
you’re flexing too, if you leave your guild and join another do you have to
reobtain permissions from all outside guilds all over again?
One way to salvage this (in addition to the current
proposal) would be the introduction of generic classes so that people would
always have some class options available to them. Would be a nice way of
getting rid of monk guilds, delete them from orgs, and let anyone pick them. Or
you could even release one of the unrelased orgs as a generic org, quest in the
org gain the favour of one of the original archetypes (druid, guardian, knight)
and flex to them.
Note: Given the way Lusternia is set up, high org conflict
and skills requiring specific power types, this form of ‘multiclassing’ is
almost certainly going to be of less comparable value than the other IRE games
versions.
I don't see any need for any "protections" for the person who classflexes. It has been fairly clear from day 1 that the administration never liked the idea of multiclass, not because of some weird arbitrary reason, but because they value and prioritize the RP integrity of their guild system setup more than classflex as a mechanic. (Whether we agree with that as players is another story, of course, and also irrelevant.) Now that they have finally relented and decided to implement it as a mechanic, it is entirely understandable that any protection that is put in place, will be done so to protect not the classflexer, but the guilds.
Classflexing out of org is not confirmed to be even possible, but even if it is, the odds of realistically seeing it happen should be near to zero. There should be almost nil reason for anyone not of Hallifax, for example, to know how to use a Hallifaxian guild's skills. Allies (or at least non-enemies) as Magnagora and Glomdoring might be, both in current politics and also in traditional RP values, the idea of any Magnagoran using Night abilities should be anathaema to both orgs, and similarly for any Glomdoring using Nihilism skills. Should any guild wish to grant such a permission, it should definitely be an exception, and a very rare one at that, not the norm.
If you get permission from a guild to classflex into their skills, and then quit your current guild to join another, I would say the original permission you got granted should be revoked, if not automatically, then by the leaders who notice your move, until you can prove that your new position is not going to be a threat to their guild. This makes pretty normal sense, because even within an org, tensions between guilds do crop up. If the Harbingers happen to have a grudge with the Shadowdancers, and a Nekotai holding a Harbinger classflex permission jumps ship to the Shadowdancers, there is plenty of reason the Harbingers would want to have to stop that Nekotai-turned-Shadowdancer from being able to use their abilities.
If you want to classflex, you're going to have to learn to lick boots. Simple as that. This is no different from the current system: if you want to hop to a guild to use their skills, you will have to bend over backwards and spread your legs. If you don't like having to do that, or are unable to do so, then you don't really deserve to guildhop into that guild, nor classflex into their skills. I see nothing wrong with this paradigm.
Edit:
In fact, automatically revoking all classflex permissions upon quitting guild should be the norm. This is to keep things in line with current rogue mechanics. As a rogue, you can keep whatever skills you have active when you quit your guild, but you cannot activate ANY skill until you join a guild that supports those skills. This means if you choose to temporarily forget certain skills as a rogue, you will not be able to activate them again until later. Classflexers should have the same mechanic: Until they join a new guild, they should not be allowed to activate any skills.
@Lerad if you don't like what people do with your guild skills then don't give them out in the first place. The idea that once someone has let the horses out of the barn that they should then get a magic button (with no restrictions what so ever) to reach back into my pocket and pickpocket me seems overly much. Why do none of the arguments you propose work the other way, where is the risk to guilds or the RP to come from the bad choices their leaderships might make?
People keep throwing around RP, but you're not talking RP you're talking control. Literature is full of people learning skills from one group and then moving on. It used to be RPers would complain it didn't make sense to have amnesia dust and make players forget knowledge just because they left a guild. Not a single person has so much as even suggested what IC mechanism guilds are using to pull this off.
Given that this is something priced very highly the risk to the player should be only by their own actions and not by the actions or whims of other players. Try kicking players out of your guild for something completely arbitrary and have the admins not step in and then I'll buy there should be no protections.
Kicking players out of a guild is always done for something arbitrary - from the point of the victim. The only time outguilding doesn't end up in drama is when the person quits themselves, and then not even always. There has been plenty of cases where people were kicked out of their guilds for nothing but a petty argument. If you're saying that it's fine for people to lose access to their skills just for a difference in opinion, but then not fine for people to lose access to their skills even when they quit a guild to join another that may be questionable... then I think you might need to re-evaluate the definitions and boundaries of where control ends and abuse starts.
Skills have always been controlled by guilds. Period. You get kicked out, you lose the ability to switch into the guild's skills should you ever decide to swap out. Period. The same should work with classflex, otherwise there is going to be a whole line of people lining up asking for refunds for past outguildings. And that's never going to float. Literature is full of people who learn things and move on, yes, but this isn't literature. RPers used to argue against just simply forgetting skills upon leaving guild, but that has never changed the system either. I don't think the system here in Lusternia will ever shift from one where skills are under the sole provision of the guilds from which they are derived, and that's perfectly fine by me.
You seem to misunderstand, I don't have to argue. If I am arguing with a guild leader then I've done something. You also seem to not understand, that even if I were kicked out of my guild, I would still have and be able to use those skills.
Guild authority is primarily based on being in the guild and is primarily in place to deal with people being disruptive to other people playing the guild. I wasn't aware they existed to force people to do virtual boot licking. Perhaps Lusternia should add that to their tag line and see how many people that pulls into the game.
Several hundred dollar investment shouldn't be subject to being potentially wiped out without good cause and right now it seems entirely possible to do just that. Now, if the lessons are completely refunded then no harm no foul.
I think it is totally, absolutely fair to be subject to the whims of another guild's leadership when you take on their skills.
You are requesting permission to basically represent that guild without being subject to their guild hierarchy. That should not be a free pass to get skills without any sort of repercussions for behaving badly according to that guild's values.
I imagine that a little hoop jumping is not difficult to do to attain skills, even convincingly to the point where the guild in question believes in you, especially if that guild is happy to give them out. It's even easier to turn around once you've got them and spit in their faces, there should be at the very least some sort of safeguard against that.
While I understand that it would be exasperating to spend a large chunk of money and then not get to use it, I would think that would be good incentive to think about how you behave before acting enough of an ass to have somebody say "no, we don't want them representing us anymore"
A whisper from the trees and a frosty presence tells you, secretly, "But you are strong, little
flower, and wise." The voice shifts and expands, becoming more real. "And everything you just said
in the ritual made me feel safer. You should, too."
You seem to misunderstand, I don't have to argue. If I am arguing with a guild leader then I've done something. You also seem to not understand, that even if I were kicked out of my guild, I would still have and be able to use those skills.
I'm sorry, but I understand perfectly well. You appear to be saying "If you argue, then you're at fault! You did something bad that justifies being kicked out!" but also that "If I want to quit my guild and potentially join another one, if I want to change my allegiance or attack the guild which I gained classflex privileges in, I should be able to do so without them being able to revoke their permission, simply because I paid money to do it!"
And I am disagreeing with that.
Also, I do understand that if you get outguilded, you get to keep using whatever skills you have active at that point in time (feel free to go back to my posts to read the parts about the rogues etc where I mentioned this as well). Getting outguilded (or quitting) should do the same thing to classflex as well, (that is also, incidentally, what I said) so that one should not be able to activate any classflexing until they regain permission. Personally, I'd like it to be made so permission can only be given to someone in a guild, but that's up to the admin to decide.
I think it is totally, absolutely fair to be subject to the whims of another guild's leadership when you take on their skills.
You are requesting permission to basically represent that guild without being subject to their guild hierarchy. That should not be a free pass to get skills without any sort of repercussions for behaving badly according to that guild's values.
I imagine that a little hoop jumping is not difficult to do to attain skills, even convincingly to the point where the guild in question believes in you, especially if that guild is happy to give them out. It's even easier to turn around once you've got them and spit in their faces, there should be at the very least some sort of safeguard against that.
While I understand that it would be exasperating to spend a large chunk of money and then not get to use it, I would think that would be good incentive to think about how you behave before acting enough of an ass to have somebody say "no, we don't want them representing us anymore"
I heavily disagree with the idea that just having a guilds skills means that you are representing them.
As has been pointed out there are already guilds that are heavily divorced from their skills, what it means to be one of them, what it means to represent them is more than just happening to have their skills.
Let's face it, you could have Druidry and Stag, but not actually be in the Hartstone if you've quit or been kicked. There is no mechanical way to stop that but it also doesn't mean that you still represent them.
I can easily see some discrimination being built in, such as... "They're a Stag Druid, they are not Hartstone"
It has been said before, but guilds need to stop thinking of themselves as their skills and viewing themselves as more. It is a crutch and it is wrong if it has been allowed to go on this long.
I think it is totally, absolutely fair to be subject to the whims of another guild's leadership when you take on their skills.
You are requesting permission to basically represent that guild without being subject to their guild hierarchy. That should not be a free pass to get skills without any sort of repercussions for behaving badly according to that guild's values.
I imagine that a little hoop jumping is not difficult to do to attain skills, even convincingly to the point where the guild in question believes in you, especially if that guild is happy to give them out. It's even easier to turn around once you've got them and spit in their faces, there should be at the very least some sort of safeguard against that.
While I understand that it would be exasperating to spend a large chunk of money and then not get to use it, I would think that would be good incentive to think about how you behave before acting enough of an ass to have somebody say "no, we don't want them representing us anymore"
I heavily disagree with the idea that just having a guilds skills means that you are representing them.
As has been pointed out there are already guilds that are heavily divorced from their skills, what it means to be one of them, what it means to represent them is more than just happening to have their skills.
Let's face it, you could have Druidry and Stag, but not actually be in the Hartstone if you've quit or been kicked. There is no mechanical way to stop that but it also doesn't mean that you still represent them.
I can easily see some discrimination being built in, such as... "They're a Stag Druid, they are not Hartstone"
It has been said before, but guilds need to stop thinking of themselves as their skills and viewing themselves as more. It is a crutch and it is wrong if it has been allowed to go on this long.
if that were truly the case, then why is Estarra saying we need to have permission from the other guild in order to classflex? If the guilds identity were not thematically tied to the skills, then what is the point of guilds?
From what I can tell, the guilds that are most divorced from their abilities thematically are warriors and monks. Warriors because it's the tertiary skill that marks the difference between warrior guilds between cities/communes and it would be really hard otherwise to come up with 6 separate themes built around the same primary and secondary class skills, and monks because they have been struggling since day 1 to find an identity for themselves (except nekotai)
Moondancers and Shadowdancers are Wiccans, witch is another word for witch. It's built right in. Hartstone and Blacktalon are druids, it's the name of their skill! (wyrden/wildewoods still fit into this theme because they are physically trees.) I have a hard time seeing mage guilds build identities that are completely divorced from the element they are built around - which is again part of their skillsets.
Your example of the Stag druid makes sense for those classes who's skills are not directly the same as the name of the guild. How about Gaudi? Oh, he's a pyromancer, but not a Pyromancer. That doesn't make any sort of sense to me.
The other reason I see for guilds and their skillsets being so enmeshed with each other is for novices. It's very disconcerting to join a guild of mages as a novice and find out that you are the only one that is actually a mage. Or a druid guild and find out that most of them are warriors. Not to mention that those with the same skills are going to naturally gravitate to each other, which means that clans will pop up for that class/archetype and will almost necessitate membership in order to understand how the class works. Spreading the classes out over multiple guilds can only hurt those trying to learn it for the first time. Moving guilds away from skillsets is a bad idea, imho, and I have yet to see a convincing reason why it's a good move for the health of the game.
All of this is completely off-topic of course. So to bring it back to the actual matter at hand, I stand by my original reason for posting: that guilds should have kill switches for class-flexers in order to prevent them from using their skills if they break the personal covenant they made with that guild.
Being in a guild has perks, and you choose not to break the values of your guild because when you are booted from the guild you lose the perks that come with being in the guild. If there weren't perks to being in a guild, more people would be joining guilds to gain archetypes and then bailing once GR 1 is achieved. There are repercussions to breaking with the established laws of your guild. With classflex, once you have achieved your second class, without a kill button there would be no coded repercussions for behaving badly, according to that guild's philosophy, unless your own guild chooses to punish you for it, and that is heavily dependant on the relationships between the two guilds, which can vary widely.
I don't know, maybe you see this as a good thing. I, however, predict that without a kill button, it will be harder to gain a second class, as it is human nature to not want to give up a measure of control (hard coded repercussions) that have always been there.
A whisper from the trees and a frosty presence tells you, secretly, "But you are strong, little
flower, and wise." The voice shifts and expands, becoming more real. "And everything you just said
in the ritual made me feel safer. You should, too."
Parua like Lerad you've completely missed the point. As of how things are explained right now you can be striped of the skills for doing nothing, even while living up to whatever standard you yourself might find worthy. Right now all it would take is a change in leadership who simply decided that no one outside of the guild should have those skills, then suddenly you're sitting on potentially thousands of unusable lessons. When I used 'whim' I meant whim, I didn't mean justified, though personally I think it is only fair to adopt a 'cat out of the bag" policy. Anyone outside the org is already using a very gimped skillset.
You seem to misunderstand, I don't have to argue. If I am arguing with a guild leader then I've done something. You also seem to not understand, that even if I were kicked out of my guild, I would still have and be able to use those skills.
I'm sorry, but I understand perfectly well. You appear to be saying "If you argue, then you're at fault! You did something bad that justifies being kicked out!" but also that "If I want to quit my guild and potentially join another one, if I want to change my allegiance or attack the guild which I gained classflex privileges in, I should be able to do so without them being able to revoke their permission, simply because I paid money to do it!"
And I am disagreeing with that.
Also, I do understand that if you get outguilded, you get to keep using whatever skills you have active at that point in time (feel free to go back to my posts to read the parts about the rogues etc where I mentioned this as well). Getting outguilded (or quitting) should do the same thing to classflex as well, (that is also, incidentally, what I said) so that one should not be able to activate any classflexing until they regain permission. Personally, I'd like it to be made so permission can only be given to someone in a guild, but that's up to the admin to decide.
No you are still not getting it. You're starting with the assumption that anyone kicked out of a guild did something or was perceived to do something. While I'm pointing out that people could be blocked for simply being a member of the group of 'not actually in the guild'. It is great for people to convince themselves that this game is played with funny money, but we're talking some serious bucks, if @Estarra's plan is to let guilds do whatever then it would only be fair to add in something to refund the lessons so they can be used elsewhere.
Your concern seems to be about the fact that this makes you feel like
you're being hung over an abyss, because said guild leaders CAN yank
your classflex privileges away from you, despite you spending a load of
money. Well, news flash, this is the case now as well. At any point in
time, your guild leader can punt you out of your guild, and you lose the
ability to activate your three guild skills should you deactivate them
for any reason. You claim that I am labouring under the assumption that "anyone kicked out of a guild did something or was perceived to do something". I'm sorry, but that's the opposite of what I am assuming, and what I am saying. Guilds can and have kicked people out for nothing beyond batting an eyelid. And when they do that, the player faces 1000 credits worth of lessons thrown into
jeopardy. More if the person has skillflexed terts or secondaries. That's 300 dollars ++ if you buy it from the website. This is
also "serious bucks", mate. This is nothing new. Classflex just increases the stake you stand
to lose while increasing the privileges you get to enjoy.
Being a member of a guild is a big thing in Lusternia. It forces you to play by certain rules set down by said guild for certain other privileges, including RP opportunities and the usage of a certain set of skills. If you're not in a guild, whether it be by choice or whether it be because you are a victim of unreasonable player drama as I described above, you're neither bound by said rules, nor do you deserve to get those privileges. This is the system that has been in place since Lusternia was set up, never once has there been an exception.
Classflex should not change that in any way. Just because this is not "funny money" and is "serious bucks" doesn't mean players should suddenly get carte blanche to throw the integrity behind the guild system to the winds. If you're not playing by the rules of a guild, you don't get to enjoy the privileges. By getting permission to classflex, you are essentially being forced to join the guild (via their leaders) without actually being mechanically in the said guild. You get to be a druid without actually, mechanically being in the Hartstone guild, you get to retain your guild rank in whatever guild you are mechanically a member of. This doesn't mean that the Hartstone guild should have zero power to dictate what rules you play by. They reserve the right to tell you what you can do or cannot do while you are a "member" via classflex. If you fail to comply, they reserve the right to remove your privileges. That's pretty straightforward and pretty reasonable.
Did you know that it only takes three ( less than 50% !) members of the ruling council to boot a Vernal Ascendant from the organization, stripping them of all their sparkly Vernally powers and leaving them a regular Demigod again?
I think you're missing out on this fact... this sort of thing already exists. Those same 3 people could boot someone out of the organization and render every single one of the class-flexes moot (since you can't flex into a guild when you're not in the org, at least as far as I am aware).
While it would be nice if this changed to at least require a majority, at some point you do have to come down to trusting the people around you. It is a multiplayer game, and you're supposed to RP / work with these people. The fact that it would take 3 members acting in concert to make the decision prevents it from being a dirty personal "I hate you," but must actually be a decision presented, made, and argued... and one that you can argue back against too.
Basically, I think you're making a bit too much of this particular aspect of the proposal.
At the end of the day rarely are people ever kicked from guilds or orgs, and when they do they've done something monumentally stupid to warrant it.
Simply put, don't f--k it up, and you'll be fine. Players (generally excluding a small minority which you can politick around) are not in this game to spite you, the few that are quickly get the notoriety from the masses get the reputation of being an ass, and find themselves contested and voted out. At the end of the day, if you invest heavily into class-flex and then find your investment null and void when you're hoofed out of the guild, it's going to be based on something you did.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
... (since you can't flex into a guild when you're not in the org, at least as far as I am aware).
If you can link to where that has been specifically said by the admin it would be appreciated since that specifically addresses what I am asking rather then what players assume the system will be.
At any point in
time, your guild leader can punt you out of your guild, and you lose the
ability to activate your three guild skills should you deactivate them
for any reason.
HIGH ELDER GUILDMEMBER - It will take votes from all three elected guild officers to outguild you.
Really, just go back and read post 43 without reading into it. Note the part where I specifically ask about other orgs.
While it would be nice if this changed to at least require a majority, at some point you do have to come down to trusting the people around you. It is a multiplayer game, and you're supposed to RP / work with these people. The fact that it would take 3 members acting in concert to make the decision prevents it from being a dirty personal "I hate you," but must actually be a decision presented, made, and argued... and one that you can argue back against too.
Basically, I think you're making a bit too much of this particular aspect of the proposal.
So you're in favor of some protection, but me asking for the same is making too much of the proposal? When someone says batting an eye, I assume they're exaggerating and mean instead doing hardly anything but doing something (like batting your eyes at your guildleader might be a sign of disrespect). When I said, doing nothing, I meant exactly that -- that your skills could be stripped for little more than a political change of view having nothing whatsoever to do with anything you personally did or said. In org, vs org, it doesn't even have to be something your own org did. Within the same org (city or commune) there are already in place some hardcoded and political political protections.
Simply put, don't f--k it up, and you'll be fine. Players (generally excluding a small minority which you can politick around) are not in this game to spite you, the few that are quickly get the notoriety from the masses get the reputation of being an ass, and find themselves contested and voted out. At the end of the day, if you invest heavily into class-flex and then find your investment null and void when you're hoofed out of the guild, it's going to be based on something you did.
Mork, you're making my point! Most the time you lose guild skills it is because of something you do. Under this system unless there's more protections added you could lose your investment for things you didn't do. Under this system there's the meta group of 'outsider' or not actually in the guild and I don't think it is too much to ask a company to not let some random player who for as little reason as they don't like the concept to have the unilateral ability to stick other players with unusable skills.
I agree that if you cannot get out of org skills than most of these situations (bug up a GL's butt, shifting alliances, etc) won't happen. However, if you can flex into other orgs, then I'd rather see the ability to recover all lesson added.
I agree with Xenthos and suggest it take three GL to strip you of your skills. It need not be lightly given, but nor should it be lightly taken.
I think this is a very valid concern, although so long as we go with the 3 vote rule, there will not be any issues around idiots stripping skills by booting people. It's all well and good saying that this is already a possibility, but this applies to the current guild/org mechanics. We are yet to see how this change is going to affect people and stating precedence in matters that are only very loosely related is a bit silly.
I'd like to say that we as a player base have generally shown ourselves to have a fairly low tolerance for other players intentionally misusing power or being in the positions they shouldn't be. Chances are, if someone does somehow change the policy and get your guildflex privs stripped from you out of spite, then they aren't long for office and you can appeal to the next group. If there's some reason that three people in an allied guild decide to revoke your privilege to flex into that guild at the same time, then 1) you probably (but not always) did something stupid and/or d--kish to earn it, 2) If the skills are currently active there's still no way to make you forget them and if not then they'll still be available as a dormant skill (which is the same as it currently stands), and 3) you can always appeal in character to them to find out why and/or restore access, and 4) this is no different than anything that's already in place.
Seriously, the only change this will make to the game as it stands is that you'll be able to retain your ranks in one guild and have skills from a different one. That's it. You're essentially a member of two guilds who only has ranks in one of them, and I fail to see why or how that should be protected any more than your ability to switch between two guilds already is. At most, the command to strip or grant privileges to other people should require that the initiating guild leader include a reason and it show up in guild logs (IE: GM command is "GRANT HONORARIUM Shaddus We know he's in the guild as an alt anyway." "READLOG NINJAKARI: Kaina has called a vote to grant Shaddus honorary status as a guild member, saying "We know he's in the guild as an alt anyway". Caighan has consented to grant Shaddus honorary status as a guild member. [ He states "Yeah, that's true."] Rastamutti has consented to grant Shaddus honorary status as a guild member. [ He states "Can't argue with facts."] Shaddus has been granted status as an honorary guild member.)
At any point in
time, your guild leader can punt you out of your guild, and you lose the
ability to activate your three guild skills should you deactivate them
for any reason.
HIGH ELDER GUILDMEMBER - It will take votes from all three elected guild officers to outguild you.
Really, just go back and read post 43 without reading into it. Note the part where I specifically ask about other orgs.
Never seen this thing. Additionally, I don't see how any guild member should have more "power" than an elected guild leader as it takes two guild leaders to outguild a third, but what you're saying is that to outguild a former elected official, it takes all three? That makes absolutely no sense at all. If it really does exist, I'd say it needs to be reported as a bug and looked into.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Let's say I'm GR19... i.e. I was a guild leader at some point, I have that ability in my guild privs.
Current guild leaders do NOT have it. They're ranked higher and they have less privs than someone they might have replaced? How does that make sense at all? It takes two guild leaders to outguild a guild leader. It should never, under any circumstances take three to outguild a guild member. Pretty much, it should work the same way where it takes two city council members to kick out a CR5 ( I think it was at CR5 anyway), but it takes three to kick out a city council member. Higher ranked individuals should have higher permissions than lower ranked individuals, not the other way around.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Let's say I'm GR19... i.e. I was a guild leader at some point, I have that ability in my guild privs.
Current guild leaders do NOT have it. They're ranked higher and they have less privs than someone they might have replaced? How does that make sense at all? It takes two guild leaders to outguild a guild leader. It should never, under any circumstances take three to outguild a guild member. Pretty much, it should work the same way where it takes two city council members to kick out a CR5 ( I think it was at CR5 anyway), but it takes three to kick out a city council member. Higher ranked individuals should have higher permissions than lower ranked individuals, not the other way around.
How would you propose changing it? Because upping the requirement to kick a GL out, like 2 of the guild leadership and a GR 19 would be utterly dependant on having somebody in guild being GR 19
The only other solution would be to make GR19 need just 2 guild leaders to kick.
A whisper from the trees and a frosty presence tells you, secretly, "But you are strong, little
flower, and wise." The voice shifts and expands, becoming more real. "And everything you just said
in the ritual made me feel safer. You should, too."
9.0.12 THE CLASSFLEX SYSTEM The ability to classflex allows one to use the skills of a different guild while remaining in your guild. You must have permission from the guild you wish to classflex to before you can take those skills. Also be aware of any policies that your guild may have with regard to classflexing. You may only classflex once per Lusternia year (i.e., every 300 hours). Also, in order to learn new skills from a classflexed guild, you must be taught by a guild member of at least rank 3. You can of course choose from any dormant skills you may have from skillflexing, though all limitations to skillflexing still apply. Note that though you can hold any guild leadership position while classflexed, champion items will only work if you have the skills of your guild. It costs 200 lessons to classflex or 100 lessons if the target guild has a covenant with your guild. GUILD LEADERS ============= o GUILD CLASSFLEX ALLOW <player> - Allow someone to classflex in your guild o GUILD CLASSFLEX REVOKE <player> - Revoke someone's permission to classflex in your guild o GUILD CLASSFLEX REPORT - Review who is allowed to classflex in your guild and who may currently currently be classflexed in guild GUILD MEMBERS ============= o CLASSFLEX LIST - Lists all guilds you have permission to classflex - Also notes the costs for lesson cost (if any) You continue reading: o CLASSFLEX CHOOSE <guild> - Costs 200 lessons to classflex (or 100 lessons to a covenant guild) - May only classflex once per Lusternia year (every 300 rl hours) - You must forget any incompatible guilds first - After choosing, can select skills from new guild (skillflex limitations apply) or reactivate dormant skills - May only learn classflex skills from a guild member of the classflex guild of GR 3 or higher o CLASSFLEX FORGET - Costs 200 lessons to classflex (or 100 lessons to a covenant guild)
I don't know if it was answered, but when you classflex and skills dormant, do you still need to skillflex those skills active? I can't imagine you do, but you never know..
Is there ever a case where you can CLASSFLEX CHOOSE without using CLASSFLEX FORGET, or is it essentially a 400/200 lesson cost to classflex no matter what?
Comments
So @Estarra what protections are in place or going in place to protect people who are paying for this feature? You’re asking for a ton of money for what seems to be a system in which the control is completely in the hands of other players. Seems like a lot of money with a requirement I go cap in hand. In case this seems like exaggerating, what realistically are the odds that anyone is going to get permission for any guild outside their org, other than the very rare exception?
If you have all the guild skills are in a guild and then leave, what happens?
If you have permission from your guild and from the guild you’re flexing too, if you leave your guild and join another do you have to reobtain permissions from all outside guilds all over again?
One way to salvage this (in addition to the current proposal) would be the introduction of generic classes so that people would always have some class options available to them. Would be a nice way of getting rid of monk guilds, delete them from orgs, and let anyone pick them. Or you could even release one of the unrelased orgs as a generic org, quest in the org gain the favour of one of the original archetypes (druid, guardian, knight) and flex to them.
Note: Given the way Lusternia is set up, high org conflict and skills requiring specific power types, this form of ‘multiclassing’ is almost certainly going to be of less comparable value than the other IRE games versions.
Classflexing out of org is not confirmed to be even possible, but even if it is, the odds of realistically seeing it happen should be near to zero. There should be almost nil reason for anyone not of Hallifax, for example, to know how to use a Hallifaxian guild's skills. Allies (or at least non-enemies) as Magnagora and Glomdoring might be, both in current politics and also in traditional RP values, the idea of any Magnagoran using Night abilities should be anathaema to both orgs, and similarly for any Glomdoring using Nihilism skills. Should any guild wish to grant such a permission, it should definitely be an exception, and a very rare one at that, not the norm.
If you get permission from a guild to classflex into their skills, and then quit your current guild to join another, I would say the original permission you got granted should be revoked, if not automatically, then by the leaders who notice your move, until you can prove that your new position is not going to be a threat to their guild. This makes pretty normal sense, because even within an org, tensions between guilds do crop up. If the Harbingers happen to have a grudge with the Shadowdancers, and a Nekotai holding a Harbinger classflex permission jumps ship to the Shadowdancers, there is plenty of reason the Harbingers would want to have to stop that Nekotai-turned-Shadowdancer from being able to use their abilities.
If you want to classflex, you're going to have to learn to lick boots. Simple as that. This is no different from the current system: if you want to hop to a guild to use their skills, you will have to bend over backwards and spread your legs. If you don't like having to do that, or are unable to do so, then you don't really deserve to guildhop into that guild, nor classflex into their skills. I see nothing wrong with this paradigm.
Edit:
In fact, automatically revoking all classflex permissions upon quitting guild should be the norm. This is to keep things in line with current rogue mechanics. As a rogue, you can keep whatever skills you have active when you quit your guild, but you cannot activate ANY skill until you join a guild that supports those skills. This means if you choose to temporarily forget certain skills as a rogue, you will not be able to activate them again until later. Classflexers should have the same mechanic: Until they join a new guild, they should not be allowed to activate any skills.
People keep throwing around RP, but you're not talking RP you're talking control. Literature is full of people learning skills from one group and then moving on. It used to be RPers would complain it didn't make sense to have amnesia dust and make players forget knowledge just because they left a guild. Not a single person has so much as even suggested what IC mechanism guilds are using to pull this off.
Given that this is something priced very highly the risk to the player should be only by their own actions and not by the actions or whims of other players. Try kicking players out of your guild for something completely arbitrary and have the admins not step in and then I'll buy there should be no protections.
Skills have always been controlled by guilds. Period. You get kicked out, you lose the ability to switch into the guild's skills should you ever decide to swap out. Period. The same should work with classflex, otherwise there is going to be a whole line of people lining up asking for refunds for past outguildings. And that's never going to float. Literature is full of people who learn things and move on, yes, but this isn't literature. RPers used to argue against just simply forgetting skills upon leaving guild, but that has never changed the system either. I don't think the system here in Lusternia will ever shift from one where skills are under the sole provision of the guilds from which they are derived, and that's perfectly fine by me.
Guild authority is primarily based on being in the guild and is primarily in place to deal with people being disruptive to other people playing the guild. I wasn't aware they existed to force people to do virtual boot licking. Perhaps Lusternia should add that to their tag line and see how many people that pulls into the game.
Several hundred dollar investment shouldn't be subject to being potentially wiped out without good cause and right now it seems entirely possible to do just that. Now, if the lessons are completely refunded then no harm no foul.
And I am disagreeing with that.
Also, I do understand that if you get outguilded, you get to keep using whatever skills you have active at that point in time (feel free to go back to my posts to read the parts about the rogues etc where I mentioned this as well). Getting outguilded (or quitting) should do the same thing to classflex as well, (that is also, incidentally, what I said) so that one should not be able to activate any classflexing until they regain permission. Personally, I'd like it to be made so permission can only be given to someone in a guild, but that's up to the admin to decide.
Being a member of a guild is a big thing in Lusternia. It forces you to play by certain rules set down by said guild for certain other privileges, including RP opportunities and the usage of a certain set of skills. If you're not in a guild, whether it be by choice or whether it be because you are a victim of unreasonable player drama as I described above, you're neither bound by said rules, nor do you deserve to get those privileges. This is the system that has been in place since Lusternia was set up, never once has there been an exception.
Classflex should not change that in any way. Just because this is not "funny money" and is "serious bucks" doesn't mean players should suddenly get carte blanche to throw the integrity behind the guild system to the winds. If you're not playing by the rules of a guild, you don't get to enjoy the privileges. By getting permission to classflex, you are essentially being forced to join the guild (via their leaders) without actually being mechanically in the said guild. You get to be a druid without actually, mechanically being in the Hartstone guild, you get to retain your guild rank in whatever guild you are mechanically a member of. This doesn't mean that the Hartstone guild should have zero power to dictate what rules you play by. They reserve the right to tell you what you can do or cannot do while you are a "member" via classflex. If you fail to comply, they reserve the right to remove your privileges. That's pretty straightforward and pretty reasonable.
I think you're missing out on this fact... this sort of thing already exists. Those same 3 people could boot someone out of the organization and render every single one of the class-flexes moot (since you can't flex into a guild when you're not in the org, at least as far as I am aware).
While it would be nice if this changed to at least require a majority, at some point you do have to come down to trusting the people around you. It is a multiplayer game, and you're supposed to RP / work with these people. The fact that it would take 3 members acting in concert to make the decision prevents it from being a dirty personal "I hate you," but must actually be a decision presented, made, and argued... and one that you can argue back against too.
Basically, I think you're making a bit too much of this particular aspect of the proposal.
Simply put, don't f--k it up, and you'll be fine. Players (generally excluding a small minority which you can politick around) are not in this game to spite you, the few that are quickly get the notoriety from the masses get the reputation of being an ass, and find themselves contested and voted out. At the end of the day, if you invest heavily into class-flex and then find your investment null and void when you're hoofed out of the guild, it's going to be based on something you did.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
- It will take votes from all three elected guild officers to outguild you.
Really, just go back and read post 43 without reading into it. Note the part where I specifically ask about other orgs.
I agree that if you cannot get out of org skills than most of these situations (bug up a GL's butt, shifting alliances, etc) won't happen. However, if you can flex into other orgs, then I'd rather see the ability to recover all lesson added.
I agree with Xenthos and suggest it take three GL to strip you of your skills. It need not be lightly given, but nor should it be lightly taken.
Seriously, the only change this will make to the game as it stands is that you'll be able to retain your ranks in one guild and have skills from a different one. That's it. You're essentially a member of two guilds who only has ranks in one of them, and I fail to see why or how that should be protected any more than your ability to switch between two guilds already is. At most, the command to strip or grant privileges to other people should require that the initiating guild leader include a reason and it show up in guild logs
(IE: GM command is "GRANT HONORARIUM Shaddus We know he's in the guild as an alt anyway."
"READLOG NINJAKARI: Kaina has called a vote to grant Shaddus honorary status as a guild member, saying "We know he's in the guild as an alt anyway".
Caighan has consented to grant Shaddus honorary status as a guild member. [ He states "Yeah, that's true."]
Rastamutti has consented to grant Shaddus honorary status as a guild member. [ He states "Can't argue with facts."]
Shaddus has been granted status as an honorary guild member.)
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
Let's say I'm GR19... i.e. I was a guild leader at some point, I have that ability in my guild privs.
Current guild leaders do NOT have it. They're ranked higher and they have less privs than someone they might have replaced? How does that make sense at all? It takes two guild leaders to outguild a guild leader. It should never, under any circumstances take three to outguild a guild member. Pretty much, it should work the same way where it takes two city council members to kick out a CR5 ( I think it was at CR5 anyway), but it takes three to kick out a city council member. Higher ranked individuals should have higher permissions than lower ranked individuals, not the other way around.
Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it.
It is, however, somewhat awkward design.
9.0.12 THE CLASSFLEX SYSTEM
The ability to classflex allows one to use the skills of a different guild while remaining in your guild. You must have permission from the guild you wish to classflex to before you can take those skills. Also be aware of any policies that your guild may have with regard to classflexing. You may only classflex once per Lusternia year (i.e., every 300 hours). Also, in order to learn new skills from a classflexed guild, you must be taught by a guild member of at least rank 3. You can of course choose from any dormant skills you may have from skillflexing, though all limitations to skillflexing still apply. Note that though you can hold any guild leadership position while classflexed, champion items will only work if you have the skills of your guild. It costs 200 lessons to classflex or 100 lessons if the target guild has a covenant with your guild.
GUILD LEADERS
=============
o GUILD CLASSFLEX ALLOW <player>
- Allow someone to classflex in your guild
o GUILD CLASSFLEX REVOKE <player>
- Revoke someone's permission to classflex in your guild
o GUILD CLASSFLEX REPORT
- Review who is allowed to classflex in your guild and who may currently
currently be classflexed in guild
GUILD MEMBERS
=============
o CLASSFLEX LIST
- Lists all guilds you have permission to classflex
- Also notes the costs for lesson cost (if any)
You continue reading:
o CLASSFLEX CHOOSE <guild>
- Costs 200 lessons to classflex (or 100 lessons to a covenant guild)
- May only classflex once per Lusternia year (every 300 rl hours)
- You must forget any incompatible guilds first
- After choosing, can select skills from new guild (skillflex limitations
apply) or reactivate dormant skills
- May only learn classflex skills from a guild member of the classflex guild
of GR 3 or higher
o CLASSFLEX FORGET
- Costs 200 lessons to classflex (or 100 lessons to a covenant guild)