PDA

View Full Version : Suggestion thread for Guilds/Diplomacy


otomotopia
02-10-2010, 08:17 PM
When I searched this, there were a ton of threads that I didnt want to necro, mainly because they veered off topic or were unproductive/uninformative.

What I've decided to do is make a general suggestion thread for guilds/diplomacy, encompassing all aspects of the game.

On with the Discussion!

I would suggest NOT having an option to teleport allied units a battle with an army, pre or during the battle. I would, however, love the option of 'delaying' the start of the battle so that reinforcements can physically travel to the battle. I would love defender's reinforcements to come from outside the walls, unless they own a port.

For major NPC towns that are owned by the guild, I would suggest having an ajustable guild tax on that area that can be redistributed to all Guildmates, or select guildmates, by the guild leader. This includes all resources and money taxed from the populace.

I would suggest having quests geared to teams available.

I would love to have an option to start with a group of players, instead of a random area.

Swift sword
02-10-2010, 09:15 PM
There are group quests availiable right now, although I think they're meant for 3-4 people tops. Still guild-friendly for the most part. Also, regarding diplomacy, you can set up trade routes with other players. I didn't know you could own an NPC town though-haven't seen that yet.

As for starting with a group of players-do you mean several cities in one instance? You choose the area you want your city to be, you know, so you can be as close to friends as you like. Shouldn't be anthing random going on about it, although I'm not sure how the surrounding terrain around your city is created.

welshie
02-11-2010, 10:31 AM
I like the idea of NPC guild owned cities! would make it cool to show off how cool and mighty your guild is!

Negthareas
02-11-2010, 08:51 PM
NPC Guild cities - great idea! They would be controlled by a level of AI, but when attacked, online Guild members could be notified and come to its defense. Guild treasuries, as well as POWs and any "special bonuses" picked up by guild members could be "stored" there. And plundered from there.

However, delaying battles - Big no-no. Online players will want battles, and having them wait for them is a horrible idea. Still, NPC Guild City -WOW!

Swift sword
02-11-2010, 09:14 PM
I think that's a much more elegant idea than allowing multi-combat PvP, actually. I got a little worried by the thought that I could be attacked by three players at once-I just want to be able to do my own thing single-player, without guilds. Maybe some trade routes, but for the most part, I'm a loner.

metman
02-19-2010, 10:36 AM
Guild owned NPC cities is a great idea. :D

blackfang
02-19-2010, 02:18 PM
that we can visit with a hero, find the weakspots, and pwn em.

zach12wqasxz
02-19-2010, 02:40 PM
i really ike the idea of a giuld being able to own an npc stronghold. like getting bonuses just because i hold the city would be awesome. and having like the whole server drooling over my castle would be awesome as well. id make my entire giuld defend it, and set up camps around the caslte with there armies, that way nobody could even touch my caslte without having to go through dozens of armies, and IF they manage to break through they would have a very tough time actually takeing the castle. it would be awesome to see a coalition of giulds attack all my outlying camps at once and then come for the city....only to lose :D

DarkMaster
02-19-2010, 04:10 PM
Guild-owned cities - Count me in on this notion:). It'd be great to have supersized stronghold as like the "capital" for your guild. This could be the place where you trade with others in your guild without having to actually go to each individual's home city. Also, I think that each player should have the option of stationing some of their own troops at the city, as part of the garrison. This way, they would get a share of the loot after a successful defense. There's a dozen other potential features.

Swift sword
02-19-2010, 05:46 PM
As long as it doesn't force players to be part of a guild or lose any and all matches, I'm fine with it. Guilds should be a social thing, not a balance changer.

GPS51
02-19-2010, 06:32 PM
I'd love to see a section of a sever be it DOF's or otherwise that could be devoted to guild wars. Where the entire world is split 50/50 and then we see who can take the most of the world :)

zach12wqasxz
02-20-2010, 12:06 AM
I'd love to see a section of a sever be it DOF's or otherwise that could be devoted to guild wars. Where the entire world is split 50/50 and then we see who can take the most of the world :)

lol like giuld world domination, wow i just thought up a question, im gonna start a new thread about it

raving
02-20-2010, 03:15 AM
love the idea of guild city's ^^. sounds verry nice :D

DarkMaster
02-20-2010, 02:41 PM
At the very least, they should have some sort of headquarters/meeting place in one of the regular NPC cities.

GPS51
02-20-2010, 03:00 PM
With the guild's leaders each sitting standing around a table in a building/tent. Then you can walk up and join. They could have jesters with sandwhich board signs advertising in front of the tents :D

metman
02-20-2010, 08:28 PM
Why does it seem like everyone has a weird obsession with sandwich signs? :D

GPS51
02-20-2010, 09:36 PM
I just see far too many whenever I drive somewhere in the area. Seriously! Why do these people loiter along the sidewalk clogging it.:)

metman
02-20-2010, 10:25 PM
They want to share their sandwiches.:D

Negthareas
02-21-2010, 09:42 AM
But it would work - people have the option of joining a guild because of its benefits. They can garrison troops in the Guild city if they so desire, they will want to because - if the Guild city is plundered, they lose X amount of resources, and there is a temporary loss of Guild bonuses.

That is if the city can only be plundered, and not actually captured.

I think Plundered is better. Otherwise there will end up being a few massive guilds that wipe out all of the smaller guilds before they have a chance to get going - aka we want the MMORTs to be viable for future players in the years to come.

Zeluk
03-02-2010, 03:48 PM
I think I would prefer just keeping whatever city or stronghold I start out with. As much as a notion of a Guild Capital might appeal to me. I think that there is a lot of room for this to be pulled off in a painful way. I mean would it be a pre-generated NPC city similar in construction to most everyone else? Or will they be unique blips on the map? Will there be one per guild, with a seemingly limitless number of them (in theory of course). Or will they be a commodity that guilds will have to band together to keep and hold? And what will the immediate benefits of owning one be? A hang out spot, as mentioned previously? I believe having a guild chat would do the same thing as far as communication. As for visibly 'seeing' one another in game, in my opinion, it would be cooler to go to your guildies home-turf and 'knock' on their door.

/2cents

blackfang
03-03-2010, 07:24 AM
OOOOOOh Ohh Check this out! You have guild cities right, they appear On the map! However they are more expensive for every one that is placed, and they can hold larger armies than others. You can always conquer one but it is hard, then you got two choices to get one, build one by gathering resources or conquer an existing one. All the power to guilds:D

welshie
03-03-2010, 07:27 AM
OOOOOOh Ohh Check this out! You have guild cities right, they appear On the map! However they are more expensive for every one that is placed, and they can hold larger armies than others. You can always conquer one but it is hard, then you got two choices to get one, build one by gathering resources or conquer an existing one. All the power to guilds:D

well then i hope the prices are really high other wise we'd be swamped in them :)

zach12wqasxz
03-03-2010, 07:33 AM
i think this is a really good idea and should be integrated into the game

nickson104
03-03-2010, 07:34 AM
well then i hope the prices are really high other wise we'd be swamped in them :)

Perhaps there could only be one guild with layout A, one with layout B etc...
That would keep down the number of guild cities and make owning one more prestigious and more competitive...

Negthareas
03-05-2010, 06:46 PM
I think Guild cities are a good idea and should definitely be implemented.

-They should come at a hefty cost
-Guild members should share in its defense, which should be hefty
-Guild members should have something hefty to lose if guild city falls
-Guild cities should give hefty bonuses

Thus - Guild cities should be hefty. Period.

Swift sword
03-05-2010, 06:53 PM
I elaborated my thoughts on them in my suggestion thread, which sort of states what Neg does-they should be very expensive intitially and only for higher level players. I don't want the map swamped by guild cities-they should be a minority.