Another idea that Ragniliff brought up last night, which might be worth considering (though perhaps somewhere a little down the line after initial implementation): If you have two guilds that have formed a covenant, say the Paladins and the Celestines, it makes a new command available: COVENANT EMBRACE PALADINS or COVENANT EMBRACE CELESTINES. This would allow you to "join" that guild as if a guild leader had inducted you, as long as you are already a member of the other guild in the Covenenant.
Part of this would be that it would remember your guild rank in *both* guilds, so if you switch back and forth you retain your rank- this would allow you to more easily be able to participate in both guilds as far as advancement / authority goes, but you are mechanically only active in one guild at a time.
The following restrictions would apply: 1) You still have to forget any conflicting skills. 2) You cannot use the command as an elected guild official (you would have to resign first). 3) Can only switch once per IC month.
Plus possible additional enhancements; I just kind of liked it, so, I'm presenting it as a more full-fledged idea.
I actually don't mind what Estarra suggested, about the specific guild channels being viewable to the other guild. That really does seem good enough to me. What if maybe you just tweaked GTELLS slightly,
I like: Step 1) Implement properly and move on to the next project.
Covenants should be an aid, in my opinion, for guilds with flagging membership and suffer from it. It shouldn't be a buff, or even necessarily desirable. I think the "unpleasant" aspects like lack of control, another guild being able to advance, sharing guild help files and talks, are parts of that. If you need the help, you've got the option, but there really shouldn't be a reason for two healthy guilds to covenant.
But the RP possibilities are so cool to consider! I would love for it to be all that, yes, but I would also love for it to be some romanticized union of two guilds who share many similarities and goals, and stand against the tide of corruption and decadence. Or for the tide of corruption and decadence, as it might be.
I like:
Step 1) Implement properly and move on to the next project.
Covenants should be an aid, in my opinion, for guilds with flagging membership and suffer from it. It shouldn't be a buff, or even necessarily desirable. I think the "unpleasant" aspects like lack of control, another guild being able to advance, sharing guild help files and talks, are parts of that. If you need the help, you've got the option, but there really shouldn't be a reason for two healthy guilds to covenant.
My two cents, anyways.
Lusternia is an ongoing, evolving game- basically nothing is ever "implemented properly" in the way you are implying, because that is a fire-and-forget mentality. Things are implemented, then players come along and suggest improvements / enhancements / things they'd like to see... and a lot of the time, those things are added!
That's also a huge part of what makes Lusternia special, you guys don't just rest on your laurels all the time and coast (admittedly, sometimes some prodding is required <_< ).
I don't see any reason to approach implementing this in a manner contrary to what it will eventually turn out to be anyways. I really doubt that the initial implementation is going to 100% match the end result that we'll be seeing a year or two down the line.
I do have to agree the point @Eventru makes, that the covenant should be an aid and not a buff. There are already a lot of ways to get buffs in this world, and it doesn't seem to make much sense that a covenant should add more mechanical advantages.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Another idea that Ragniliff brought up last night, which might be worth considering (though perhaps somewhere a little down the line after initial implementation): If you have two guilds that have formed a covenant, say the Paladins and the Celestines, it makes a new command available: COVENANT EMBRACE PALADINS or COVENANT EMBRACE CELESTINES. This would allow you to "join" that guild as if a guild leader had inducted you, as long as you are already a member of the other guild in the Covenenant.
Part of this would be that it would remember your guild rank in *both* guilds, so if you switch back and forth you retain your rank- this would allow you to more easily be able to participate in both guilds as far as advancement / authority goes, but you are mechanically only active in one guild at a time.
The following restrictions would apply: 1) You still have to forget any conflicting skills. 2) You cannot use the command as an elected guild official (you would have to resign first). 3) Can only switch once per IC month.
Plus possible additional enhancements; I just kind of liked it, so, I'm presenting it as a more full-fledged idea.
Another idea that Ragniliff brought up last night, which might be worth considering (though perhaps somewhere a little down the line after initial implementation): If you have two guilds that have formed a covenant, say the Paladins and the Celestines, it makes a new command available: COVENANT EMBRACE PALADINS or COVENANT EMBRACE CELESTINES. This would allow you to "join" that guild as if a guild leader had inducted you, as long as you are already a member of the other guild in the Covenenant.
Part of this would be that it would remember your guild rank in *both* guilds, so if you switch back and forth you retain your rank- this would allow you to more easily be able to participate in both guilds as far as advancement / authority goes, but you are mechanically only active in one guild at a time.
The following restrictions would apply: 1) You still have to forget any conflicting skills. 2) You cannot use the command as an elected guild official (you would have to resign first). 3) Can only switch once per IC month.
Plus possible additional enhancements; I just kind of liked it, so, I'm presenting it as a more full-fledged idea.
This is multiclassing and this is bad.
If you are in the guild, of the guild, and the only real difference is that you don't have to get the leader of the bonded guild (which you already have access to via the covenant) to reinduct you- why? It'd only be available for guilds who have formed a covenant, so it's not like you can switch to anything, just the one that has entered into a closer relationship with your own.
Main benefits are simply that you get to keep your guild rank. Since you're still in the merged-guild either way...
I don't really know how multi-classing works in other IREs, but I feel like it's probably a lot more open-ended (and not at all what I'm looking for).
So I am genuinely interested in why you feel it is "bad," beyond a flat assertion which is compared to something which appears to be a completely different situation on the surface.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Because, along with an artifact, it allows you to bounce back and forth between guilds with virtually no limitations. Instead of guild remaining distinct and unique, it has the possibility of becoming a revolving door for anyone with the credits to buy the cord. I simply flat out dislike the idea of multiclassing in lusternia. It is way to meta, there is really no real RP behind switching guilds with different beliefs repeatedly.
Multiclassing is multiclassing. I don't know why you would even bother trying to redefine the word to make your argument. I'm not biting.
Because,
along with an artifact, it allows you to bounce back and forth between
guilds with virtually no limitations. Instead of guild remaining
distinct and unique, it has the possibility of becoming a revolving door
for anyone with the credits to buy the cord. I simply flat out dislike
the idea of multiclassing in lusternia. It is way to meta, there is
really no real RP behind switching guilds with different beliefs
repeatedly.
Multiclassing
is multiclassing. I don't know why you would even bother trying to
redefine the word to make your argument. I'm not biting.
Too late, you did just bite.
Part of this idea does in
fact lead to guilds being somewhat less distinct (though still unique); the way I'd
envision Covenants, if I was to enter into it with another guild (one
that makes RP sense, of course) it would include rewriting guild ranks one
through five in such a way to expand and build on the combined focus of
both guilds. This would make it far easier for the other guild to be
able to participate and expand upon the early education of my little
novices, and vice versa.
At that point, Guild Rank 5+ would become the more focused Ebonguard orientation of the guild.
It
kind of sounds like you're looking at the overall thing from a
different angle, with the two guilds remaining completely distinct from
one another (aside from sharing a channel and being able to do favours)? I just don't really see how that will end up actually working out, without both guilds having thrown in for a fundamental shared common ground from which to grow themselves.
There would definitely still be uniqueness, but it would be enhanced (at least the way I am envisioning it) from an initial shared experience and the bonds forged therein.
That's why I don't really see anything wrong with the idea on a personal level, because it allows someone to stay within their covenant but serve in both roles (assuming that they've managed to advance in both guilds).
Though admittedly, you're right that it does allow a lot of room for metagaming and abuse, which is sad. And probably a good reason for it to never actually happen. It doesn't change that I feel it has a lot of potential in the non-metagame sense though (and why I object to it being dismissed out-of-hand as "multiclass")! I felt it was worth at least discussing, so thank you for doing so. Even as you say you are not going to.
PS: As a part of this, would it also be possible to rewrite the guildfavour system a little?
I'd kind of like to see it go in this way: 1) Only your own guild can favour someone once they are GR5 (or over); the covenanted guild cannot, and 2) I'd really, really like it if the number of favours to advance someone was brought down drastically. There's no real need for it to take as many favours as it does just to get someone to GR10. Honestly, it shouldn't take more than 2 to 3 Guild Leader weight favours to advance someone a rank, I think.
(#1 would just be a part of coding into the Covenant that allows the tied guild to do the favour, so hopefully would not take much in the way of resources... no idea how difficult #2 will be, kind of depends on how rough the legacy code for guild ranks is to look at)
Edit: All this "Posted edited by" stuff just shows off how much I tweak my posts after I press the "save comment" and review it. Some day I will train myself to review it before saving, to avoid that. Oh well.
0
EveriineWise Old Swordsbird / BrontaurIndianapolis, IN, USA
I'm with those who think the simpler, the better. I think the original proposal by Estarra was by far the best way to go about it. Everything else can be roleplayed much more effectively.
Everiine is a man, and is very manly. This MAN before you is so manly you might as well just gender bend right now, cause he's the manliest man that you ever did see. His manly shape has spurned many women and girlyer men to boughs of fainting. He stands before you in a manly manerific typical man-like outfit which is covered in his manly motto: "I am a man!"
Daraius said: You gotta risk it for the biscuit.
Pony power all the way, yo. The more Brontaurs the better.
And I don't actually agree that covenants are the answer in the implementation presented here.
All this seems to do is give a group of people information that is potentially all but irrelevant to them, unless they fully merge everything (Which then begs the question of why not simply fully merging the guilds mechanically).
I'm not actually convinced that this addresses the issues that have been raised and that we won't be back in three months complaining about not having enough people in our own guild to run it even though we have lots of people to talk to.
Saran and Xenthos are correct in pointing out that we need to keep in mind our actual goal and problem that we're trying to solve. I agree with Celina that keeping multi-classing out of Lusternia is a good idea. But if Covenants turn out to be just glorified clans, then it's just going to fall flat.
I'm a little late, but I want to explain in a little more detail why I think GHELPs of Covenanted guilds should be merged/shared.
One of the problems Covenants is meant to solve is newbies not finding someone to advance them, either through actual novicehood or through ranks 1-3 (and onwards, with all the RP that it entails). Bringing guilds together via Covenant will allow this to be solved because newbies will ask on their guild channel and be heard by undersecs in another guild, who will be able to help them... except if they can't see the GHELP of the other guild, they're going to be pretty high-and-dry. Alacardael suggested projects be shared, so that it can be optional for guilds to choose what information they want to share.
Why not make it the other way around? Make the GHELPs shared, and the projects individualised. Guilds can then move whatever they want to keep private into projects, and undersecs can instantly access the other guild's advancement instructions right from the moment the guilds enter into covenant.
Another reason I argued for shared GHELPs is that I was envisioning, ideally, a merged advancement tree for Covenants, ie. exactly what Xenthos described (minus the mechanical ability to switch between archeytypes). In my own theory, I can't see a struggling guild find much meaning in a Covenant unless they have their advancement merged with the partnering guild of the covenant, allowing both guilds to interact as a single entity. Instead of a "You're the guild in trouble that my guild is supposed to help" mentality, I was ideally hoping for a "We're two different guilds of ONE COVENANT!" (Ie. think two different advancement paths of a single guild)
I was basically hoping for a guild-merge without mechanical multi-classing. I didn't voice it because I believed how Guilds want to actually administrate their covenants should be left up to them, but since Xenthos wrote it out, I'll emphasize it and throw my voice behind it in support. I'm not pushing for every Covenant to be applied in this manner, but I believe this is the most efficient way of solving our foremost problem. Remember the first paragraph of this post, we need to keep in mind what we're trying to solve, and work towards it!
Keeping on the topic of how covenants are supposed to help, something to ask yourself is if the goal is for two struggling guilds to form a covenant - or if it should be that one larger guild forms one with another smaller one to help out the smaller one.
My concern is if covenants result in a complete culture merging of the guilds, the identity between the two will be lost, and instead you will just have one covenant, with the guild choice not having any meaning beyond skills.
That said, a covenant between say the Shofangi and Serenguard would make sense. A relatively stable guild helping out a smaller guild, both martial guilds with guidance from their own spirits. But if it looks like a covenant is going to just be a complete culture blender of the guilds, there is absolutely no way I would agree to put the Serenguard in a covenant. I imagine some of the other stable guilds will feel the same about helping a smaller guild, though maybe I'm alone in thinking that.
Two smaller guilds might not mind the culture blending, but then you get something like the spiritsingers and shofangi bonding, which you really have to reach to find a RP common ground there.
In short. Covenants aren't really meant for my guild anyways, but I could use it to help another struggling guild. I won't do that if it seems like it'll hurt my own guild's identity.
That's the beauty of the idea as presented; the guilds entering into the covenant would be able to decide for themselves how they want to implement it.
If you want to keep yourselves separate, you can! I just don't really know myself how much that will actually help out in the grand scheme of things. If you want to build off of a shared foundation, allowing both guilds to grow well in the early stage, and then branch off into the more focused end of things later (ie GR5+, when GTS becomes available), you can do that too!
Speaking for myself, I really like the idea of the latter. I feel that it adds a huge amount of potential to both guilds, and enables both of them to have a large pool of people with a common starting place so both sets can help out the novices and young. Once you're GR5+, it's not really as much of an issue if it's a bit slower to find someone for your advancement, because you're already enmeshed into the guild and you've already passed the point in time where you decide if you're going to stick around in Lusternia or not.
Certainly there will be culture dilution. Some niche RP will be no doubt lost. But we go back to the first thread about identifying the problem, and we come to the conclusion that there just isn't enough people to support the number of different guilds we have at the moment. If we want to make a solid step toward resolving guilds with unacceptable low levels of membership, then we will have to swallow some sacrifice in the variety of culture.
Whether or not it will be a complete cultural homogenization is going to depend on the implementation. I doubt that either the players or admin will make that possible, nor will it even be actually possible unless guilds are outright deleted/merged. On the other hand, if you're arguing for a system where non undersecs or novice aides of a guild can ignore the existence of a Covenant and see the "helping out" of the struggling guild as a duty of only the undersecs of the Covenant, then I suggest we scrape this plan and just work on enlarging the mechanical capabilities of the Collegium. There's no need to waste the admin's time with extra coding in that case, since the collegium can perform in that capacity. Whether or not that will solve the problem of struggling guilds suffering from low population... well.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
I didn't bite about your attempt to redefine or distinguish between types of multiclassing. It is what it is. I'll happily discuss why multiclassing is terrible, I'm just not going to argue what multiclassing means.
Covenants are supposed to link two guilds under a common ideal or goal, not fuse them together and allow players to bounce in between them and treat them as if they are tertiary skills. I think that undermines the whole idea of guilds, and takes a big leap towards Achaea houses which people don't seem fond of in the least. Covenants aren't supposed to replace guilds, that is really the core argument against multiclassing, and really goes well beyond the scope of why we were attracted to covenants.
Comments
If you have two guilds that have formed a covenant, say the Paladins and the Celestines, it makes a new command available:
COVENANT EMBRACE PALADINS or COVENANT EMBRACE CELESTINES.
This would allow you to "join" that guild as if a guild leader had inducted you, as long as you are already a member of the other guild in the Covenenant.
Part of this would be that it would remember your guild rank in *both* guilds, so if you switch back and forth you retain your rank- this would allow you to more easily be able to participate in both guilds as far as advancement / authority goes, but you are mechanically only active in one guild at a time.
The following restrictions would apply:
1) You still have to forget any conflicting skills.
2) You cannot use the command as an elected guild official (you would have to resign first).
3) Can only switch once per IC month.
Plus possible additional enhancements; I just kind of liked it, so, I'm presenting it as a more full-fledged idea.
Step 2) Tweak and improve.
Step 1) Implement properly and move on to the next project.
Covenants should be an aid, in my opinion, for guilds with flagging membership and suffer from it. It shouldn't be a buff, or even necessarily desirable. I think the "unpleasant" aspects like lack of control, another guild being able to advance, sharing guild help files and talks, are parts of that. If you need the help, you've got the option, but there really shouldn't be a reason for two healthy guilds to covenant.
My two cents, anyways.
That's also a huge part of what makes Lusternia special, you guys don't just rest on your laurels all the time and coast (admittedly, sometimes some prodding is required <_< ).
I don't see any reason to approach implementing this in a manner contrary to what it will eventually turn out to be anyways. I really doubt that the initial implementation is going to 100% match the end result that we'll be seeing a year or two down the line.
Main benefits are simply that you get to keep your guild rank. Since you're still in the merged-guild either way...
I don't really know how multi-classing works in other IREs, but I feel like it's probably a lot more open-ended (and not at all what I'm looking for).
So I am genuinely interested in why you feel it is "bad," beyond a flat assertion which is compared to something which appears to be a completely different situation on the surface.
Part of this idea does in fact lead to guilds being somewhat less distinct (though still unique); the way I'd envision Covenants, if I was to enter into it with another guild (one that makes RP sense, of course) it would include rewriting guild ranks one through five in such a way to expand and build on the combined focus of both guilds. This would make it far easier for the other guild to be able to participate and expand upon the early education of my little novices, and vice versa.
At that point, Guild Rank 5+ would become the more focused Ebonguard orientation of the guild.
It kind of sounds like you're looking at the overall thing from a different angle, with the two guilds remaining completely distinct from one another (aside from sharing a channel and being able to do favours)? I just don't really see how that will end up actually working out, without both guilds having thrown in for a fundamental shared common ground from which to grow themselves.
There would definitely still be uniqueness, but it would be enhanced (at least the way I am envisioning it) from an initial shared experience and the bonds forged therein.
That's why I don't really see anything wrong with the idea on a personal level, because it allows someone to stay within their covenant but serve in both roles (assuming that they've managed to advance in both guilds).
Though admittedly, you're right that it does allow a lot of room for metagaming and abuse, which is sad. And probably a good reason for it to never actually happen. It doesn't change that I feel it has a lot of potential in the non-metagame sense though (and why I object to it being dismissed out-of-hand as "multiclass")! I felt it was worth at least discussing, so thank you for doing so. Even as you say you are not going to.
I'd kind of like to see it go in this way:
1) Only your own guild can favour someone once they are GR5 (or over); the covenanted guild cannot, and
2) I'd really, really like it if the number of favours to advance someone was brought down drastically. There's no real need for it to take as many favours as it does just to get someone to GR10. Honestly, it shouldn't take more than 2 to 3 Guild Leader weight favours to advance someone a rank, I think.
(#1 would just be a part of coding into the Covenant that allows the tied guild to do the favour, so hopefully would not take much in the way of resources... no idea how difficult #2 will be, kind of depends on how rough the legacy code for guild ranks is to look at)
Edit: All this "Posted edited by" stuff just shows off how much I tweak my posts after I press the "save comment" and review it. Some day I will train myself to review it before saving, to avoid that. Oh well.
I'm a little late, but I want to explain in a little more detail why I think GHELPs of Covenanted guilds should be merged/shared.
One of the problems Covenants is meant to solve is newbies not finding someone to advance them, either through actual novicehood or through ranks 1-3 (and onwards, with all the RP that it entails). Bringing guilds together via Covenant will allow this to be solved because newbies will ask on their guild channel and be heard by undersecs in another guild, who will be able to help them... except if they can't see the GHELP of the other guild, they're going to be pretty high-and-dry. Alacardael suggested projects be shared, so that it can be optional for guilds to choose what information they want to share.
Why not make it the other way around? Make the GHELPs shared, and the projects individualised. Guilds can then move whatever they want to keep private into projects, and undersecs can instantly access the other guild's advancement instructions right from the moment the guilds enter into covenant.
Another reason I argued for shared GHELPs is that I was envisioning, ideally, a merged advancement tree for Covenants, ie. exactly what Xenthos described (minus the mechanical ability to switch between archeytypes). In my own theory, I can't see a struggling guild find much meaning in a Covenant unless they have their advancement merged with the partnering guild of the covenant, allowing both guilds to interact as a single entity. Instead of a "You're the guild in trouble that my guild is supposed to help" mentality, I was ideally hoping for a "We're two different guilds of ONE COVENANT!" (Ie. think two different advancement paths of a single guild)
I was basically hoping for a guild-merge without mechanical multi-classing. I didn't voice it because I believed how Guilds want to actually administrate their covenants should be left up to them, but since Xenthos wrote it out, I'll emphasize it and throw my voice behind it in support. I'm not pushing for every Covenant to be applied in this manner, but I believe this is the most efficient way of solving our foremost problem. Remember the first paragraph of this post, we need to keep in mind what we're trying to solve, and work towards it!
If you want to keep yourselves separate, you can! I just don't really know myself how much that will actually help out in the grand scheme of things. If you want to build off of a shared foundation, allowing both guilds to grow well in the early stage, and then branch off into the more focused end of things later (ie GR5+, when GTS becomes available), you can do that too!
Speaking for myself, I really like the idea of the latter. I feel that it adds a huge amount of potential to both guilds, and enables both of them to have a large pool of people with a common starting place so both sets can help out the novices and young. Once you're GR5+, it's not really as much of an issue if it's a bit slower to find someone for your advancement, because you're already enmeshed into the guild and you've already passed the point in time where you decide if you're going to stick around in Lusternia or not.
Whether or not it will be a complete cultural homogenization is going to depend on the implementation. I doubt that either the players or admin will make that possible, nor will it even be actually possible unless guilds are outright deleted/merged. On the other hand, if you're arguing for a system where non undersecs or novice aides of a guild can ignore the existence of a Covenant and see the "helping out" of the struggling guild as a duty of only the undersecs of the Covenant, then I suggest we scrape this plan and just work on enlarging the mechanical capabilities of the Collegium. There's no need to waste the admin's time with extra coding in that case, since the collegium can perform in that capacity. Whether or not that will solve the problem of struggling guilds suffering from low population... well.