Clan and Guild Content

[Johny Reb]

i think guilds should have to be permanently tied to a nation. I also think they perhaps should be specifically for trade and people who want navy specific ships should have to join the nations navy.

Permanently tieing a guild to a nation will accomplish nothing imho. If a guild wants to switch allegiances they will simply start a new guild with a similar name with the new faction.

[Destraex]

That is fine with me. Make them start at zero by creating the new guild.

[Sharpe]

The only thing interesting I can think of is Guild reputation.

 

I figure its going to be easy establish a guild and a guild base. But getting the supplies you need? or selling the goods you have produced at said base? what happens if (for example) a Spanish guild has some of the supplies you need but you cant get them because the Spaniards simply dont like you (because some of your guild mates stole some of their gold) or are at war with you?     

 

 

[Destraex]

news should travel slowly in the age of sail.

[Saintduiex]

That is fine with me. Make them start at zero by creating the new guild.

Agreed...

Otherwise this would start to smell (and play) like stale PotBS

[Cannonball]

Great question,

 

Clans and guilds should be able to own or even create villages. As time progresses and the amount of trade traffic that village should be evolve into a port. Specific zoned areas for physical structures can be built representing shops, lumber mills, cannon makers etc... These specific zoned areas would grow as the port grows into a bustling center for trade.

 

-Cannonball

[BlouBulle]

Organisations from Star Citizen, puns aside you need the following:

 

Ranks

Positions (e.g: trade squad commander)

Chat

Map for org tactics (you can hide yourself from Org Map if you want peace... allows you to send SOS pigeon and spot the map and enemy movements (who said small ships don't have a place!)... at least better then guys on TS all the time and gives guys without TS a chance)

Commission rate, ie a small tax, your org should have multiple so that you could say be a semi-hardcore org player (pay less tax get less protection) or a hardcore fleet player (higher tax for a better group experience).

Reputation/alliances with other orgs and AI factions.

 

 

The orgs should be called Fleets or Task Forces or Admiralty depending on the amount of players and separated into Squadrons.

Max players in a fleet should be 1/25 of total player base and an alliance of fleets max 5/25 of player base (prevents GoonSwarming).

 

 

Players in fleets should have ratings that fleet can see:

Rank: Fleet Rank

Position: Fleet Position

Callsign: I like being able to call things without names in a rush, EG: B2A15 (Ship from ORG (B-for blue/same team), 2nd Line, A Squad, 15th ship)

Skill: Skill Rank

WLR: Win to Loss Ratio

KLR: Kill/Loss Ratio, weighed in cannons (e.g. killing a 20 cannon ship with a 100 cannon ship and then sinking is a 0.2/1 ratio.
Enemy Colours: if you run another fleets flag you get this increasing by one, warning other players can also see this and see that you are a crook.

False Colours: if you attack and damage a fleet ship of your fleet and someone survives to tell the tale (sees you doing it and flees, or survives and escapes). Serious offence.

[Robert de Keith]

Of course we should have the clan tags on our ships  ... uck,uck aye  

[Tyrelli]

Hi All

 

Im brand new to Naval Action, and Have now several battles under my belt ..

 

So apologies if this has been brought up, but as a possible "faction" will there be the East India Company?, who were a huge monopoly and controlled a large fleet to enforce and protect there trade routes.

[ArlindoBerto]

Are you forgetting the other trade companies right?

[_Masterviolin]

Well, perhaps there may be ships designed to carry cargo instead of everyone sailing in ships with their gun decks lined with cannon. East Indianmen, Flyuts perhaps to be a bit out of time period, and some other variations? They could have the advantage of having a significantly greater amount of cargo space/inventory over armed ships like frigates and 1st rates. Who knows really; perhaps there could be trade company factions- you could either protect them or ship their cargo.

[Suttner]

In general guilds need a purpose other than being a group.

Something you can accomplish. Like building your own town/defending it. Maybe even more than one at some point.

Being able to completely control certain areas? Taxation? Maybe even waging war against a nation or declaring independende?

 

Also some sort of in depth crafting mechanic, forcing people to work together to actually achieve something. Player driven economy, let everything be craftable and tradeable.

I much rather fight to defend my sugar mill than just for fun. Give the whole fighting a purpose of some sort ^^

 

That way guilds have a real meaning and there can be all kinds of guilds (Crafters, Mercenaries, Traders...) and the potential to change the world people play and live in

[Jacques de Montagne]

Some great suggestions so far, guilds are a great tool to enrich the game environment and create content on their own. I am in favour of supplying them with the greatest extend of freedom and options possible to allow people to realize their individual ideas and goals in game. So let us not have artificial boundaries like a specific member count required to achieve a certain feature, do not force guilds to grow beyond what people feel comfortable with. Some people play more and achieve the their goals in smaller groups. Please no "guild email feature after reaching ten members" or "guild bank / vault after reaching 100 members". Full functionality of the guild and its communication features should be available from the onset. Unlocks should be reserved to either purely cosmetical features. In order to build structures within a nation, a requirement of a certain degree of favor is in order though.

 

I do not like the idea of handing out artificial boni (+X % XP / loot / tax /) or even ship access based uppon guild membership. A guild itself carries great advantage with it especially once they can interact with the economy and own buildings or even ports. Still solo play must remain and feel viable for those who prefer it.

 

Other than that I like the guild bank or vault to come with a log. The name and roles of guild ranks should be allowed to be set freely.

[Kaaru62]

I think it should take a guild/clan/organization to be able to field the big capitol ships by having clan members donating money to a fund. individuals should only be able to reach a certain level of ship. this would stop the "everyone has a victory" syndrome.

 

personally I think the max size ship for a lonewolf should be around a Snow class. and that limitation should come in the form of cost to operate.

[Schuetzengel]

I think it should take a guild/clan/organization to be able to field the big capitol ships by having clan members donating money to a fund. individuals should only be able to reach a certain level of ship. this would stop the "everyone has a victory" syndrome.

 

personally I think the max size ship for a lonewolf should be around a Snow class. and that limitation should come in the form of cost to operate.

 

this would be a ponzi scheme, also the lonewolf would eventually quit the game, in lack of a perspective

 

 

i would rather have a system, where the ammount of SOLs is limited by the system (how big is the port/settlement and amount of ports of that guild) with exceptions being captured ships.

[Rifleman57]

I've been in a few clans. Total war Empire and World of Tanks.

It comes down to the right time zone. I'm in PST, WoT was played late so I joined a CST clan to get done by 10:00 my time.

Training was my big request. I join clans to get better, so head sets, team battles and clan wars.

Hope to be with you guys soon.

[Saintduiex]

Hope to be with you guys soon.

 

We'll leave the light on for ya  

[Johny Reb]

Lets not rehash the SoL numbers debate here. There are more than one thread that has beaten this argument to death. Just my two cents.

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

Some great suggestions so far, guilds are a great tool to enrich the game environment and create content on their own. I am in favour of supplying them with the greatest extend of freedom and options possible to allow people to realize their individual ideas and goals in game. So let us not have artificial boundaries like a specific member count required to achieve a certain feature, do not force guilds to grow beyond what people feel comfortable with. Some people play more and achieve the their goals in smaller groups. Please no "guild email feature after reaching ten members" or "guild bank / vault after reaching 100 members". Full functionality of the guild and its communication features should be available from the onset. Unlocks should be reserved to either purely cosmetical features. In order to build structures within a nation, a requirement of a certain degree of favor is in order though.

 

I do not like the idea of handing out artificial boni (+X % XP / loot / tax /) or even ship access based uppon guild membership. A guild itself carries great advantage with it especially once they can interact with the economy and own buildings or even ports. Still solo play must remain and feel viable for those who prefer it.

 

Other than that I like the guild bank or vault to come with a log. The name and roles of guild ranks should be allowed to be set freely.

This /\, just this.

[SueMyChin]

I think the clans/guilds should be to the nations what the East India Company was to the Royal Navy. A group of captains working under one or a number of persons, responsible for organising them and giving them tasks.

 

System

How I would do this:

• As a neutral player when you take a town you can then create the guild/clan to control it. This is now the equivalent to a nations home port, though it will remain capturable.
• Each clan/guild have a simple communication system like a clan chat, and PM system and some kind of 'tactical notice board' that only designated players see/can edit.
• You also have a clan/guild list to which you can add players.
• Players can apply to join by coming into the town.
• The 'leader' can designate ranks to the players.
• The top rank gives the player the same authority as the 'leader'.
• Any subsequent ranks have descending levels of authority, for instance adding to/kicking players from the guild. Ability to see 'tactical strategy board' or sets of commands given to other players.
• The leaders use the communication tools to organise the players. Some examples - SueMyChin > patrol here. SueMyChin > escort convoy to X. SueMyChin > obtain X amount of lumber. SueMyChin > form convoy and capture X.
• Commissions given by a clan/guild would work like navy orders. You would be paid (and could be supplied by the clan) but money would go to the clan/guild to spend on wages, supplies, port improvements etc.

This sort of system would have players working together to gather resources, defend their port(s) and merchant convoys, explore new areas to gain intelligence. They can either work together or fight each other as they see fit. They aren't forced to either be solely merchants or aggressive PVPers, they have the choice to be creative and strategize. The most organised will thrive.

 

'Power'

I would argue against any system with guild 'ranks' or 'levels' which come with experience gained or numbers of members etc. They incentivise actions that wouldn't otherwise be desirable. For example large clans grouping up on smaller ones for easy experience.

Financial power and resources should be the determining factor dictating the size of a clan's/guild's port(s) and outreach. If you want to improve the city/port with better facilities (shipwrights, armourer, forts, hospitals, schools which improve the skill of the officers etc.c) you should pay for it with an initial payment and subsequent upkeep costs. If you're attacked the port and it's buildings may be damaged and they will need rebuilt. This will promote active clan/guild activity and reward the most active.

 

You won't get the above scenario of large groups attacking small ones unless the small clan/guild have lots of resources, it will encourage conflict only where there is reward and should help balance 'ganking' on a clan level to some extent.

If you have money you can pay more captains and pay them better. If you blow all of your resources on a fleet of first rates and struggle to supply them it will have economical knock-on effect to the rest of the clan. This way you grow organically and every action has consequences for every member of the clan.

 

 

EDIT
Having back-read though the previous pages to counter a clan/guild becoming competitive on a national level, I would suggest that the clans/guilds are limited in the number of captains. They can increase this by improving their port but there is still an upper limit. Every subsequent port the clan/guild captures will increase the captain limit too but by a smaller figure.

 

Let's say the limit is 30 players for one port (rising to 50 when they have the best facilities) each subsequent port adds a further 5-10 captains to the limit. This way there is no theoretical limit to the number of players each clan/guild can have however, as they branch out it will become increasingly difficult to maintain.

 

The exact numbers would have to be worked on in testing obviously.

Edited April 1, 2015 by SueMyChin

[Johny Reb]

     I think your idea is well thought out Sue. I won't spend much time sharing my thoughts since I have written a detailed write up some time ago that explains my vision and I think the two ideas should just stand. I may take some of your good ideas and add them to my original post to make it more comprehensive.

 

     The only thing I will comment on is the guild port being able to be targeted. I've thought a lot about this and have yet to find a comprehensive solution. In essence if a guild port becomes a major econ hub of a nation then enemies should have the ability to try and "flip" that port like any of the other ports that can be conquered. Otherwise, a nation will found all its main economy in unconquerable society ports so that their economy can't be touched. So, I think its obvious that society ports of a certain size, at least, can be "flipped" but this unleashes problems of its own.

 

     Griefing would be the first one. A port will be attacked over and over even if its not practical just because the other team dislikes that society. This isn't the end of the world though. In Potbs the ports with the deep natural harbors were the number one targets and therefore attacked quite often. The issue arises with the infrastructure the society has created. In Potbs a society that set up in a port lost nothing when the port was captured. What it suffered from was higher taxes from the occupying nation. I guess this game could follow in those footsteps and allow the society to still operate but at a cost but how would that work if port npc population has anything to do with the amount of infrastructure that can be built. Who is responsible for maintaining the population and who does the infrastructure benefit after a take over?

     If your society built a fort which was damaged in the take over, then is it gone or taken by the invaders? If the invaders take it over they then have to upkeep and stock it yet there will be no enemy society set up in your port so no one with the infrastructure to maintain a fort. This would theoretically mean that it is easier for you to retake a port than it was for the enemy to take it in the first place. Is this ok with us?

 

     This also raises the question of the cost of port infrastructure. If the cost is high and requires larger successful societies to maintain then chances are they won't have the resources to maintain another large port worth taking. If the cost is low then every society with 10 people will have a mega port with multiple forts and multi-society ports working together to build the port up will be unnecessary.

 

     I think the infrastructure of a port built by your society should remain for you to use in the future should you take the port back. Maybe repair costs could be applied to infrastructure after a port battle has been lost or maybe the ability to grow your ports/societies infrastructure is frozen as long as the enemy controls it. This would expand the decisions a society would have to make as a part of its management. Should they move the society and build up somewhere else or should they organize the retaking of the port?

[Grim DeGrim]

Hi Johny, do you mind linking your prior post?

[SueMyChin]

Hi Johny, do you mind linking your prior post?

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/82-clan-and-guild-content/page-2#entry17592

[BlouBulle]

I prefer the name organization such as in Star Citizen as different groups may be set at doing different things in the open World.

 

I think I have already posted on this, but I am going to again. Their are two main parts of the clan strategic and tactical.

Strategic clan options:

Clan Tax
Clan Name
Clan Type
Port Control
Clan Ranks
Clan Squads/Groups
Clan Forum Section
Clan Flag
Clan Medals and ribbons

Tactical clan options:
In Game Chat to members in Squad
In Game Chat Between Squads and HQ
Order of precedence (if a squad leader quits battle then the next in line takes his place automatically).
Clan and squad ships are different colours on game map and mini map
move orders can be made on mini map for clan ships (Ghost Recon had a pretty good system, BF is similar).

Built in Clan VOIP (if the game does well, otherwise the cost isn't worth it).

Target system allowing you to look at an enemy and tell the rest of the squad to target it (like in World of Warships Beta).

 

[Lyric]

Player Statistics. So you can check on how efficient your members are.

 

Victory/Defeat Ratio

Kills/Loss Ratio

Convoys Attacked / Lost Ratio 

etc