Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Yes, I think in an ideal world we can say "Let's all give it a little elbow grease and find some new players," and "it's more immersive and interesting if guild leaders do all the advancement and interviews." However, I think we need to be a bit more practical. If a guild has 2 active players, the chances of a starting a character and having zero people in your guild on is pretty high, and how many true novices do you think will stick around in an empty guild? It's a problem that compounds itself, active guilds attract more players, so the quiet guilds stay quiet. The players seem to universally like guilds, and not over the top thrilled with the ideas of factions in their place. So what do we do to keep guilds alive? Are guilds like Cacophony just doomed to inactivity until Mag is on the upswing and the natural trend of people joining the "winning" org gives them a kick in the pants? I say plan for the worst, and hope for the best.
I will say that I did wonder if my leadership style or how I handled things was part of the reason SD population was low, and have thought about it often. However, when actually accused of not caring or dismissing new members as "not my problem" in a recent conversation, the emotional reaction I had was the opposite. Namely because I know I am doing the best I can with what I have, but the reality is my time is a limited resource. I can't scamper behind novices all the time trying to sell how fabulous the guild is and plz oh plz oh plz stay. In the end, I don't believe population within guilds is a result of guild leadership, at least not directly. There are just a huge number of other factors involved, and while bad leaders can drive people away and good ones can get them to stick, the biggest one simply is we have too much for our pool of players to populate. It's like throwing a spaghetti at the wall, most of it will drop onto the floor, but some will stick. Well, the chances of any sticking in a particular area drops when you have a limited amount of spaghetti and an ever growing number of walls to throw it at. It's just math.
I'm not really I understand the "focus on your org" argument. People are still attached and connected to their org. Glom still has the 'all for one, one for all" mindset, and we all interact with one another. But guilds are how we tie in to the org and how we identify with aspects of the larger org. Otherwise we are just all muted shades of purple.
I agree that it's impractical and complicated to gather more players than it is to reassess the current structure of guilds, make changes to it, then see if the situation improves.
You can actually mechanically alter something to improve guilds, you can't force more people to play the game. I'm of the opinion that if you can personally do something about a situation, you should do it instead of waiting for someone else to come help you out.
It's pretty silly to hedge your bets on something as unreliable as player retention afterall.
On a similar train of thought, the faction idea will not work because like other people said, it will just add more complication and does not solve the underlying problem.
So hey, I'm also not sure what else you can do. It's apparently against the Vision to alter guilds in any way, but it's also unrealistic to expect X new players when we implement plan Y to gather more of them.
Kind of hoping that enough discussion about the former will change the admin's mind.
Agree to Shuyin's points above. As a corollary, if the thing that you plan on doing to entice more players to the game is by adding new orgs/guilds, that will exacerbate the problem in the long run.
Just going to chime in and offer my support. I agree wholeheartedly with the statements of Celina, Lerad, and Shuyin. I don't think it's realistically going to work out if new guilds are going to be released regardless of other factors, and droves of new players are expected to materialize out of thin air.
Some change to the base mechanics involved with guilds, making it easier for fewer people to keep them running smoothly and well, and possibly allowing for stronger concentrations of guild based lore (As Saran was saying about philosophical choices versus gameplay/skills choices) would be great.
I'd spitball a few ideas, but I don't think anyone (with deciding power) is really going to hear them!
Estarra's said before we won't be adding more orgs (guild or city/commune) until she feels there's sufficient population for them. I think I'm safe in saying there are no immediate plans to open any new guilds.
I can't speak for Estarra in this, but I'm not entirely convinced the existing guild structure is insufficient or needing to be radically redesigned (or guilds altogether deleted).
I'm not convinced Factions are the answer (or that it will solve much, though I like the idea of them - personally - in general, and think they'd serve we'll in Celest), but the arguments against it (guild identity, the deeply interwoven nature of guilds with the general story arc) are the same things that come to mind with the idea of deleting guilds and multiclassing in houses.
As always the decision is Estarra's, and I may not have the solution, but I don't really like anything that's been suggested so far. The nature of guilds has been around so long and it's interwoven into the lore of the game pretty soundly, I'm not sure it'd work. It would feel really forced and ugly, no matter how you do it (and I'm not sure that's one of those bullets worth biting, and that it won't do more harm in the long run than it resolved in the short).
Estarra's said before we won't be adding more orgs (guild or city/commune) until she feels there's sufficient population for them. I think I'm safe in saying there are no immediate plans to open any new guilds.
In the last Ustream, I'm quite sure Estarra said that the monk guilds will be opening regardless of population status.
Crumkane, Lord of Epicurean Delights says, "WAS IT INDEED ON FIRE, ERITHEYL."
-
With a deep reverb, Contemptible Sutekh says, "CEASE YOUR INFERNAL ENERGY, ERITHEYL."
Yes, I have a vision for Lusternia but it rarely has anything to do with the way some toss out the term "Vision" in a way that is slyly meant as a perjorative for "Estarra's way or the highway". Can we please retire the term as it's not productive and shuts down conversation? (At least it makes me not want to join in the discussion!)
In any event, I like the way guilds are set up and I think they do pretty well despite how thin the population of some. Even if we had a larger population, inevitably some guilds would end up under-represented because of the natural cycle of popularity waxing and waning. I've always maintained that guilds should be seen as political factions within a city and commune and not be the central nexus around which one's RP revolves.
But even if we wanted to radically change guilds (i.e., disabling archetypes from guilds, combining guilds, removing guilds completely, etc.), there are a number of mechanical factors that would make this incredibly difficult. We'd basically have to redesign skillsets, redesign archetypes, redesign city structures, and work with IRE to redesign character creation in their custom clients (which would not make me very popular in IRE for reasons that shouldn't concern you!). And my intuitiion is strongly telling me that if we did any of these radical suggestions, players would end up a lot less happy than they are now.
I think rather than panicking over the fact that some guilds have a lower population than others, it may be more productive to accept that there will always be some guilds with a low population so what could we do make it more interesting to be in a low population guild. In fact some people like being in a more exclusive or less well known guild! I like the idea of automating some ways to guild advance (if guilds want) but is there anything else to do?
The solution is not to delete guilds in favour of Houses; there is so much existing guild RP (and game structure based around it) that throwing it away would be horrible for everyone involved.
I am still a fan of working on a way to merge guilds (ie Monks and Warriors), in a manner that makes sense. The only real guilds where this would present a real RP hurdle would be Ebonguard / Nekotai, but I feel we could work it out (especially since the EG are spirit-oriented- a Scorpion cult would fit in I think).
I know Estarra has said this is not going to happen, but I have been unable to come up with a better solution other than reducing the raw number of guilds. Simply doing away with them completely for something else isn't desired, but reducing total number is something else entirely, to me.
And getting rid of just 4 guilds would be at least be start. Please note that this is not a "delete Monks" idea because they would still exist (as would warriors). They are just condensed into one guild.
I personally really like the semi-automated guild advancement! The automated parts will make things like novicehood not be so unbareable, while the manual tasks would require interaction with others.
I could see this really helping with novices a lot, since a lot of the time, waiting around for someone to do your tests can be a pain.
I agree with @Estarra about keeping the guilds, because I feel that taking any away right now would take away from the game.
But yeah, the main reason of my post was to show support for that automated advancement. Would save both the tester a bit of time (and take away some of the not-so-desirable work like checking vials and such) and the testee, who wouldn't have to wait for someone to show up.
I think rather than panicking over the fact that some guilds have a lower population than others, it may be more productive to accept that there will always be some guilds with a low population so what could we do make it more interesting to be in a low population guild. In fact some people like being in a more exclusive or less well known guild! I like the idea of automating some ways to guild advance (if guilds want) but is there anything else to do?
This, so much. I like Ssaliss's ideas as a starting point, if nothing else it will cut down on some of the tediousness for GAs of constantly updating projects/scrolls listing who's done what task
Hmmmmmmm, going off of Estarra's post, what of some mechanism to fill positions that would otherwise go un-filled? Maybe not GM, but what if GM could appoint a NPC GA if no one contests a vacancy after a certain amount of time? Extending from this, what if the same could be done for GC? And each guild member could use a command...GUILD SAVE or something, when being attacked, to switch places and be replaced with a moderate-high level NPC that would then be aggro against guild enemies or something. I'm not sure if this is feasible, if I've just suggested something that is horribly unbalancing, but it seems okay to me - and it would give guilds with little to no combatants a way to access the GC role.
I have to say, I'm not a huge fan of the idea of overly automated advancement, but maybe a quest or quests that could be done to advance someone that would then send a message to the GA so that person could be rewarded in a way that the GA sees fit, and, should the GA be a NPC, forward the message to the GM.
PS: I would be keenly interested in seeing the results of an in-game poll asking the following question: "Are there too many guilds in Lusternia?"
Then it would no longer be a matter of supposed speculation, but all sides would know where the playerbase stands on this issue.
I'm not sure how that would be productive assuming most people would say yes there are too many. The next step would be to say, well, see, everyone agrees there's too many guilds so we should start combining them! Xenthos, I know you want to combine warrior/monk guilds but when you want something you have a tendency to maneuver conversations so that's all we talk about. Let's table the idea of combining guilds at this time. There's simply no realistic way we can consider it now. (I've said before the WORST time in the world to ask for big changes is at the end of the year!)
When people talk about automating advancement, do they mean for guild ranks or guild novices?
If the concern is for guild novices, then what about allowing collegium professors (including those not in that particular guild) to advance if the guild sets to allow it or not?
If the concern is for guild rank... eh, not against it. But I don't think that will solve anything. At gr1 you can do everything you need skill wise, and the issue people seem to have is a lack of interaction more than anything else if I'm reading correctly.
Celina began the conversation with stress over all the duties she has to do for her less populated guild. (Not sure why a more populated guild wouldn't give guild leaders even more stress but lets set that aside!) Just out of curiosity, what are the duties that people perceive as piling on the stress of guild leaders? Maybe there's a way to automate those duties or perhaps a way to lighten the load but first we need to know what those duties are!
PS: I would be keenly interested in seeing the results of an in-game poll asking the following question: "Are there too many guilds in Lusternia?"
Then it would no longer be a matter of supposed speculation, but all sides would know where the playerbase stands on this issue.
I'm not sure how that would be productive assuming most people would say yes there are too many. The next step would be to say, well, see, everyone agrees there's too many guilds so we should start combining them! Xenthos, I know you want to combine warrior/monk guilds but when you want something you have a tendency to maneuver conversations so that's all we talk about. Let's table the idea of combining guilds at this time. There's simply no realistic way we can consider it now. (I've said before the WORST time in the world to ask for big changes is at the end of the year!)
Well, that assumes that people agree; it could very well go the other way (hence the being "keenly interested" part). It could very well be that the playerbase as a whole doesn't agree, in which case, the issue is dropped entirely.
Also, I completely understand not having the resources to do anything about it right now, but again there would not be any requirement to do anything immediately. It would help to clarify where the playerbase feels Lusternia's focus should go moving forward, however, in the months / year to come.
(PS: Yes, I do tend to focus on the things I feel are important- on the whole, I feel as if that's a good thing, there are many things that we've ended up doing here as a result of continually making sure that they don't slip between the cracks. That doesn't mean I think / expect everything will be done, though! Especially not immediately)
Aside from that, the main thing that I really see people having issues with is guild-mate interaction, and I have trouble seeing how any mechanical solution is going to impact that. Believe me, if I had come up with something, I'd have posted it by now; you know me, and you know how I love to throw my ideas around!
If you have anything to address that specifically though, I'd love to hear it.
I think Celina was more just lamenting the soul-sucking feeling of being in an empty guild, and the fact that because there are so few people, novices that do join, alt or not, don't necessarily find the instruction they require because she can't be around 24/7.
Well, I've seen occasions where due to a lack of population/activity one guild leader has taken on the duties of all three, which is what I think Celina might have been talking about. That's pretty stressful, and inevitably it's one person making everyone happy, trying to retain people and burning out. In more populated guilds you can actually fill all the leadership positions and you can also create many secretary positions to divide the work.
I don't know, what about being able to set up your guild tutor with suggested lesson plans / speeches that they can use, and they would invite a novice to come learn from them (the novice can enter a command to teleport to the guild tutor). That way while they're learning they can be immersed in an initial foundation for what their guild teaches.
And it's completely up to them if they want to opt-in to it or not, instead of forcing them to do it.
Well, I've seen occasions where due to a lack of population/activity one guild leader has taken on the duties of all three...inevitably it's one person making everyone happy, trying to retain people and burning out.
Been there. Twice. It really is a terrible feeling, to love the concept and air of a guild so much, but hate yourself for the torture you endure trying to keep it all together when nobody else seems willing/able to help. This is the kind of stress that's being talked about, @Estarra, not necessarily the stress of coded leader duties.
Edit: Re-reading, apparently I sound like a huge biatch when I type these things, I swear I don't mean it o_o
Crumkane, Lord of Epicurean Delights says, "WAS IT INDEED ON FIRE, ERITHEYL."
-
With a deep reverb, Contemptible Sutekh says, "CEASE YOUR INFERNAL ENERGY, ERITHEYL."
Automating a bit of the advancement would alleviate some of the stress off of anyone in any position. This would give them ultimately more time to socialize with their novices, rather than just doing it when tests are needed.
There have been multiple suggestions of partial automation to help guild novices, and I think that this is an excellent idea.
The option to have some guild advancement tasks be potentially autochecked and noted within the guild log or scribed on a ledger somewhere is great. The best part of testing guild novices is discussing guild lore and philosophy. Checking if someone has certain herbs, or deposited so-so much gold, or other such things feel very binary and boring as you're essentially running through a check-list. Not all things may neccessarily be able to be automated, but it'd be wonderful if some things could be automatically checked.
Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
For GMs and to an extent, GAs, you become the 'face' of the guild and there's the feeling that you're somehow responsible for the health of the guild (ie, population), and that if there's not enough people and not too many novices sticking around, then it becomes a problem that you have to resolve. That's stressful!
If it's broken, break it some more.
2
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Celina began the conversation with stress over all the duties she has to do for her less populated guild. (Not sure why a more populated guild wouldn't give guild leaders even more stress but lets set that aside!) Just out of curiosity, what are the duties that people perceive as piling on the stress of guild leaders? Maybe there's a way to automate those duties or perhaps a way to lighten the load but first we need to know what those duties are!
Rivius, Eri, and Astraea nailed it. It's not so much you have a task list a mile long, it's that if anything needs to get done it's you or the other guy. The reasons you play the game for your own enjoyment take a backseat to what keeps the guild's head above water. With medium or large guilds you can juggle and delegate. You don't HAVE to be the one to chase after the novice or risk them not seeing anyone else for 12 hours. It's hard to pin down exactly, but there is a lot of pressure associated with being a leader of a tiny guild. I think a lot of it is trying to watch everything. Especially what novices come through. Typically you can kick someone who is good with novices in their direction, but it becomes really uncomfortable when you feel like it's your job to make sure they stick around and answer everything all the time and are responsible if the guild never grows.
On the flip side, it sucks for novices because it's kind of a shot in the dark whether they start playing when Crek or I are around or not. We can't keep novices we never see.
I mean, there's small, and then there is non functional. Where people are literally in roles they shouldn't be in because there is litereally, no exageration, no one else. I had to absorb GC into my own role, and while it sucks there are no other combatants coming through, it's a bit of a relief that I don't have to do that too. Where you give the only active person in the guild that is not a leader security, even though he's a non com, so someone can summon guards.
So, again, what are you chasing after a novice for? Could we add shared duties to other collegium professors not in your guild? I was asking what things because in case others in the city/commune could help out those guilds (small favors or whatnot to help with GR?). Anyway, I'm not sure what the novices are needing which is why I'm asking!
I understand your frustration, but, on the other hand, it's kind of exciting for some people being in the small guild that's struggling. You should play that up! Why not tell newbies or make it clear that the guild is small, secretive, select and elite, and they could expect not to see others often or have to do things on their own. Trust me, there are many players who would be drawn to that. I think you may be making more drama than there needs be, though!
Believe it or not, I've been a GM in empty guilds before. This was in other realms but honestly I don't recall ever feeling the stress you are putting on yourself. I was more excited than anything when a novice joined because finally I had company! I was also big on recruitment. If my guild was low, I'd do whatever I could to poach newbies from other guilds, to bribe established players to join me, and do whatever it took to bring back numbers (okay, so I wasn't exactly nice cakes). Sure, it's a challenge, but it can be fun!
Let’s talk about how guilds have… devolved over the years.
Back in the day the Moonies were one of the biggest guilds, if not biggest, in the game. I’ve already mentioned how their guild was divided up. These divisions were things like… the team for handling novices, the team for doing culture ministry type things for the guild, the team for teaching people how to fight, etc, etc. There were so many people around that the guild leaders managed them, and then they handled the sections of the guild they were best at.
On a smaller level, when I was in the Hartstone initially I was a novice teacher and then I was the leader of the doe path(one of four paths, this one dealing with influencers/designers) as a secretary, it wasn’t anyone else’s responsibility, if there needed to be changes or chasing or advancements to be done then it was my duty to do them.
As people and populations slipped away, there was a slow change in these. Suddenly, there wasn’t a secretary for x position and so one of the guild leaders had to take up that responsibility. Slowly guild leaders became directly responsible for more and more aspects of the guild, and are now finding themselves responsible for things that are the responsibility of other guild leaders.
I suppose it is comparable to if all the admin disappeared one day except for one. Everything that the admin do behind the scenes still exists, still needs to be done, envoys still need to be handled, designs still need to be approved, events need to be run, bugs need to be addressed, etc, etc. This doesn’t go away, it has just suddenly gone from a team of people down to the responsibility of one person.
Now I understand that the design of the game is what we had and if we had a much larger player-base there wouldn’t be any issues with it, but I do think also that unfortunately the design does not scale. Every other game is now in a situation where it very much appears that if their player-base expands then they can add more organisations and guilds, while at the same time if they happen to lose players then they can remove organisations and guilds. These games have the potential to change over time in ways other than new areas being released.
Now I have to question…
Why do we need to re-design skillsets or archetypes? Celest would still teach its Mages water magics, Gaugiguch would still have its fleshy guardians, Druids in Glomdoring would still follow crow, they just wouldn’t be bound to a specific guild. On the flip side, there is actually a benefit here in that you could redesign them if you wanted to but I cannot see an actual need to do so.
Would the city structures change that much? You are just reducing the number of people on the council, if you reduced back to three each it would be exactly what we survived with before Bards came along.
Now players are always going to be unhappy, this is a fact of… well it’s a fact of the information technology industry when you’re dealing with users. But one thing that I have noticed, I might need to search the forums to confirm, is that people are growing unhappy with the current arrangement. I think it was at most four months ago but more likely three that we had the last thread on this subject and I have a feeling that Celina was happy with her guild size at the time and was making the comments like “Some people just like being in a smaller guild”, now we have this thread.
Ultimately, moving away from the current, rigid guild structure means opening up opportunities that right now are just impossible. It means that the possibility of more archetypes exists, without damaging the other organisations. Perhaps the Moon skill could be restricted to a faction of Moon followers in serenwilde where the Wiccans form the priesthood while the warriors form a more militant arm of the coven. There could be a church of the light with a similar set up but with some bards serving as their choir. The institute could maintain power over harmonicists by restricting access to its laboratories and the spheres, which in turn makes these organisations potentially more relevant than they are right now.
This discussion might die, this thread might be closed, but until the issue is addressed these threads are going to keep happening.
So, again, what are you chasing after a novice for? Could we add shared duties to other collegium professors not in your guild? I was asking what things because in case others in the city/commune could help out those guilds (small favors or whatnot to help with GR?). Anyway, I'm not sure what the novices are needing which is why I'm asking!
I understand your frustration, but, on the other hand, it's kind of exciting for some people being in the small guild that's struggling. You should play that up! Why not tell newbies or make it clear that the guild is small, secretive, select and elite, and they could expect not to see others often or have to do things on their own. Trust me, there are many players who would be drawn to that. I think you may be making more drama than there needs be, though!
Believe it or not, I've been a GM in empty guilds before. This was in other realms but honestly I don't recall ever feeling the stress you are putting on yourself. I was more excited than anything when a novice joined because finally I had company! I was also big on recruitment. If my guild was low, I'd do whatever I could to poach newbies from other guilds, to bribe established players to join me, and do whatever it took to bring back numbers (okay, so I wasn't exactly nice cakes). Sure, it's a challenge, but it can be fun!
You keep saying that guilds must remain, but then the solutions you are offering is to move more and more of what they do away from them. What are guilds? Why do they exist? Why can we resolve this by moving them away? How does that not diminish whatever importance they have?
You seem to be under the impression that somehow being in a small guild makes you an elite, this is not correct and in many cases it is the exact opposite. It’s in no way fun that you can’t manage to do anything that requires more than one person(there is a ritual that needs three people, that’s all. One of the four times it was performed we had to have a moondancer stand in because otherwise that person never would have had it done), it is not fun that you need to bend over backwards for every person that even looks like that they might join your guild. Seriously, there have been times where I’ve considered offering people the credits for the changeover if it would mean that they end up joining the guild.
There is a very big difference between a small guild and the state that some of the guilds are in right now, or have been in.
I may be the only person here that feels this way, but, I always kinda enjoyed being in Hartstone when it was small, and I was the oldest active person in it. It was fun trying to remember stuff, working things out we used to know, going to Everiine and asking him about the Serenguard side of the Grutina Oakvine thing, bantering with Xiran about how the Moondancers steal all the novices.
Comments
Yes, I think in an ideal world we can say "Let's all give it a little elbow grease and find some new players," and "it's more immersive and interesting if guild leaders do all the advancement and interviews." However, I think we need to be a bit more practical. If a guild has 2 active players, the chances of a starting a character and having zero people in your guild on is pretty high, and how many true novices do you think will stick around in an empty guild? It's a problem that compounds itself, active guilds attract more players, so the quiet guilds stay quiet. The players seem to universally like guilds, and not over the top thrilled with the ideas of factions in their place. So what do we do to keep guilds alive? Are guilds like Cacophony just doomed to inactivity until Mag is on the upswing and the natural trend of people joining the "winning" org gives them a kick in the pants? I say plan for the worst, and hope for the best.
I will say that I did wonder if my leadership style or how I handled things was part of the reason SD population was low, and have thought about it often. However, when actually accused of not caring or dismissing new members as "not my problem" in a recent conversation, the emotional reaction I had was the opposite. Namely because I know I am doing the best I can with what I have, but the reality is my time is a limited resource. I can't scamper behind novices all the time trying to sell how fabulous the guild is and plz oh plz oh plz stay. In the end, I don't believe population within guilds is a result of guild leadership, at least not directly. There are just a huge number of other factors involved, and while bad leaders can drive people away and good ones can get them to stick, the biggest one simply is we have too much for our pool of players to populate. It's like throwing a spaghetti at the wall, most of it will drop onto the floor, but some will stick. Well, the chances of any sticking in a particular area drops when you have a limited amount of spaghetti and an ever growing number of walls to throw it at. It's just math.
I'm not really I understand the "focus on your org" argument. People are still attached and connected to their org. Glom still has the 'all for one, one for all" mindset, and we all interact with one another. But guilds are how we tie in to the org and how we identify with aspects of the larger org. Otherwise we are just all muted shades of purple.
I'd spitball a few ideas, but I don't think anyone (with deciding power) is really going to hear them!
-
I can't speak for Estarra in this, but I'm not entirely convinced the existing guild structure is insufficient or needing to be radically redesigned (or guilds altogether deleted).
I'm not convinced Factions are the answer (or that it will solve much, though I like the idea of them - personally - in general, and think they'd serve we'll in Celest), but the arguments against it (guild identity, the deeply interwoven nature of guilds with the general story arc) are the same things that come to mind with the idea of deleting guilds and multiclassing in houses.
As always the decision is Estarra's, and I may not have the solution, but I don't really like anything that's been suggested so far. The nature of guilds has been around so long and it's interwoven into the lore of the game pretty soundly, I'm not sure it'd work. It would feel really forced and ugly, no matter how you do it (and I'm not sure that's one of those bullets worth biting, and that it won't do more harm in the long run than it resolved in the short).
-
Yes, I have a vision for Lusternia but it rarely has anything to do with the way some toss out the term "Vision" in a way that is slyly meant as a perjorative for "Estarra's way or the highway". Can we please retire the term as it's not productive and shuts down conversation? (At least it makes me not want to join in the discussion!)
In any event, I like the way guilds are set up and I think they do pretty well despite how thin the population of some. Even if we had a larger population, inevitably some guilds would end up under-represented because of the natural cycle of popularity waxing and waning. I've always maintained that guilds should be seen as political factions within a city and commune and not be the central nexus around which one's RP revolves.
But even if we wanted to radically change guilds (i.e., disabling archetypes from guilds, combining guilds, removing guilds completely, etc.), there are a number of mechanical factors that would make this incredibly difficult. We'd basically have to redesign skillsets, redesign archetypes, redesign city structures, and work with IRE to redesign character creation in their custom clients (which would not make me very popular in IRE for reasons that shouldn't concern you!). And my intuitiion is strongly telling me that if we did any of these radical suggestions, players would end up a lot less happy than they are now.
I think rather than panicking over the fact that some guilds have a lower population than others, it may be more productive to accept that there will always be some guilds with a low population so what could we do make it more interesting to be in a low population guild. In fact some people like being in a more exclusive or less well known guild! I like the idea of automating some ways to guild advance (if guilds want) but is there anything else to do?
I am still a fan of working on a way to merge guilds (ie Monks and Warriors), in a manner that makes sense. The only real guilds where this would present a real RP hurdle would be Ebonguard / Nekotai, but I feel we could work it out (especially since the EG are spirit-oriented- a Scorpion cult would fit in I think).
I know Estarra has said this is not going to happen, but I have been unable to come up with a better solution other than reducing the raw number of guilds. Simply doing away with them completely for something else isn't desired, but reducing total number is something else entirely, to me.
"Are there too many guilds in Lusternia?"
Then it would no longer be a matter of supposed speculation, but all sides would know where the playerbase stands on this issue.
I personally really like the semi-automated guild advancement! The automated parts will make things like novicehood not be so unbareable, while the manual tasks would require interaction with others.
I could see this really helping with novices a lot, since a lot of the time, waiting around for someone to do your tests can be a pain.
I agree with @Estarra about keeping the guilds, because I feel that taking any away right now would take away from the game.
But yeah, the main reason of my post was to show support for that automated advancement. Would save both the tester a bit of time (and take away some of the not-so-desirable work like checking vials and such) and the testee, who wouldn't have to wait for someone to show up.
Celina began the conversation with stress over all the duties she has to do for her less populated guild. (Not sure why a more populated guild wouldn't give guild leaders even more stress but lets set that aside!) Just out of curiosity, what are the duties that people perceive as piling on the stress of guild leaders? Maybe there's a way to automate those duties or perhaps a way to lighten the load but first we need to know what those duties are!
Also, I completely understand not having the resources to do anything about it right now, but again there would not be any requirement to do anything immediately. It would help to clarify where the playerbase feels Lusternia's focus should go moving forward, however, in the months / year to come.
(PS: Yes, I do tend to focus on the things I feel are important- on the whole, I feel as if that's a good thing, there are many things that we've ended up doing here as a result of continually making sure that they don't slip between the cracks. That doesn't mean I think / expect everything will be done, though! Especially not immediately)
Aside from that, the main thing that I really see people having issues with is guild-mate interaction, and I have trouble seeing how any mechanical solution is going to impact that. Believe me, if I had come up with something, I'd have posted it by now; you know me, and you know how I love to throw my ideas around!
If you have anything to address that specifically though, I'd love to hear it.
And it's completely up to them if they want to opt-in to it or not, instead of forcing them to do it.
-
Automating a bit of the advancement would alleviate some of the stress off of anyone in any position. This would give them ultimately more time to socialize with their novices, rather than just doing it when tests are needed.
The option to have some guild advancement tasks be potentially autochecked and noted within the guild log or scribed on a ledger somewhere is great. The best part of testing guild novices is discussing guild lore and philosophy. Checking if someone has certain herbs, or deposited so-so much gold, or other such things feel very binary and boring as you're essentially running through a check-list. Not all things may neccessarily be able to be automated, but it'd be wonderful if some things could be automatically checked.
Rivius, Eri, and Astraea nailed it. It's not so much you have a task list a mile long, it's that if anything needs to get done it's you or the other guy. The reasons you play the game for your own enjoyment take a backseat to what keeps the guild's head above water. With medium or large guilds you can juggle and delegate. You don't HAVE to be the one to chase after the novice or risk them not seeing anyone else for 12 hours. It's hard to pin down exactly, but there is a lot of pressure associated with being a leader of a tiny guild. I think a lot of it is trying to watch everything. Especially what novices come through. Typically you can kick someone who is good with novices in their direction, but it becomes really uncomfortable when you feel like it's your job to make sure they stick around and answer everything all the time and are responsible if the guild never grows.
On the flip side, it sucks for novices because it's kind of a shot in the dark whether they start playing when Crek or I are around or not. We can't keep novices we never see.
I mean, there's small, and then there is non functional. Where people are literally in roles they shouldn't be in because there is litereally, no exageration, no one else. I had to absorb GC into my own role, and while it sucks there are no other combatants coming through, it's a bit of a relief that I don't have to do that too. Where you give the only active person in the guild that is not a leader security, even though he's a non com, so someone can summon guards.
So, again, what are you chasing after a novice for? Could we add shared duties to other collegium professors not in your guild? I was asking what things because in case others in the city/commune could help out those guilds (small favors or whatnot to help with GR?). Anyway, I'm not sure what the novices are needing which is why I'm asking!
I understand your frustration, but, on the other hand, it's kind of exciting for some people being in the small guild that's struggling. You should play that up! Why not tell newbies or make it clear that the guild is small, secretive, select and elite, and they could expect not to see others often or have to do things on their own. Trust me, there are many players who would be drawn to that. I think you may be making more drama than there needs be, though!
Believe it or not, I've been a GM in empty guilds before. This was in other realms but honestly I don't recall ever feeling the stress you are putting on yourself. I was more excited than anything when a novice joined because finally I had company! I was also big on recruitment. If my guild was low, I'd do whatever I could to poach newbies from other guilds, to bribe established players to join me, and do whatever it took to bring back numbers (okay, so I wasn't exactly nice cakes). Sure, it's a challenge, but it can be fun!
Let’s talk about how guilds have… devolved over the years.
Back in the day the Moonies were one of the biggest guilds, if not biggest, in the game. I’ve already mentioned how their guild was divided up. These divisions were things like… the team for handling novices, the team for doing culture ministry type things for the guild, the team for teaching people how to fight, etc, etc. There were so many people around that the guild leaders managed them, and then they handled the sections of the guild they were best at.
On a smaller level, when I was in the Hartstone initially I was a novice teacher and then I was the leader of the doe path(one of four paths, this one dealing with influencers/designers) as a secretary, it wasn’t anyone else’s responsibility, if there needed to be changes or chasing or advancements to be done then it was my duty to do them.
As people and populations slipped away, there was a slow change in these. Suddenly, there wasn’t a secretary for x position and so one of the guild leaders had to take up that responsibility. Slowly guild leaders became directly responsible for more and more aspects of the guild, and are now finding themselves responsible for things that are the responsibility of other guild leaders.
I suppose it is comparable to if all the admin disappeared one day except for one. Everything that the admin do behind the scenes still exists, still needs to be done, envoys still need to be handled, designs still need to be approved, events need to be run, bugs need to be addressed, etc, etc. This doesn’t go away, it has just suddenly gone from a team of people down to the responsibility of one person.
Now I understand that the design of the game is what we had and if we had a much larger player-base there wouldn’t be any issues with it, but I do think also that unfortunately the design does not scale. Every other game is now in a situation where it very much appears that if their player-base expands then they can add more organisations and guilds, while at the same time if they happen to lose players then they can remove organisations and guilds. These games have the potential to change over time in ways other than new areas being released.
Now I have to question…
Why do we need to re-design skillsets or archetypes? Celest would still teach its Mages water magics, Gaugiguch would still have its fleshy guardians, Druids in Glomdoring would still follow crow, they just wouldn’t be bound to a specific guild. On the flip side, there is actually a benefit here in that you could redesign them if you wanted to but I cannot see an actual need to do so.
Would the city structures change that much? You are just reducing the number of people on the council, if you reduced back to three each it would be exactly what we survived with before Bards came along.
Now players are always going to be unhappy, this is a fact of… well it’s a fact of the information technology industry when you’re dealing with users. But one thing that I have noticed, I might need to search the forums to confirm, is that people are growing unhappy with the current arrangement. I think it was at most four months ago but more likely three that we had the last thread on this subject and I have a feeling that Celina was happy with her guild size at the time and was making the comments like “Some people just like being in a smaller guild”, now we have this thread.
Ultimately, moving away from the current, rigid guild structure means opening up opportunities that right now are just impossible. It means that the possibility of more archetypes exists, without damaging the other organisations. Perhaps the Moon skill could be restricted to a faction of Moon followers in serenwilde where the Wiccans form the priesthood while the warriors form a more militant arm of the coven. There could be a church of the light with a similar set up but with some bards serving as their choir. The institute could maintain power over harmonicists by restricting access to its laboratories and the spheres, which in turn makes these organisations potentially more relevant than they are right now.
This discussion might die, this thread might be closed, but until the issue is addressed these threads are going to keep happening.
You keep saying that guilds must remain, but then the solutions you are offering is to move more and more of what they do away from them. What are guilds? Why do they exist? Why can we resolve this by moving them away? How does that not diminish whatever importance they have?
You seem to be under the impression that somehow being in a small guild makes you an elite, this is not correct and in many cases it is the exact opposite. It’s in no way fun that you can’t manage to do anything that requires more than one person(there is a ritual that needs three people, that’s all. One of the four times it was performed we had to have a moondancer stand in because otherwise that person never would have had it done), it is not fun that you need to bend over backwards for every person that even looks like that they might join your guild. Seriously, there have been times where I’ve considered offering people the credits for the changeover if it would mean that they end up joining the guild.
There is a very big difference between a small guild and the state that some of the guilds are in right now, or have been in.