I think that was more or less what Estarra was saying could in theory be done with clans or special clans.

Jello:
If the concern is that some guilds are too small, maybe guilds could get shared communication channels. We could call these Unions and they could use UT to talk.

So for example, the Nihilists and the Geomancers are both concerned with planar pursuits and have the ability to transverse from the nexus. They could share a channel, making a union based on Magnagora's planes.

Meanwhile, the ur'Guard, Ninjakari and Cacophony are more concerned with the prime plane and they don't have the ability to transverse from the nexus. They could share a channel based upon dominating prime.

Organizations could name their union channels and would gain more levels of identity to socialize through.

It might help, but it also doesn't also resolve the issues like frustration of people who are not advancing in the guild because there just isn't anyone to do that for them. I think I saw one guild that had... six active members who were rank 3 or higher and I don't think all of them were officials, if they lose those people what happens to the guild?
How many of their novices are actually going to progress? how many of them are actually just alts, checking in?

I guess for me it's just the response to the first question in the ustream relating to this, it kinda made me want to just give up and quit guild. I'm not going to, but there was definitely a moment of wanting to do so. But there are things that I have started that I would like to see finished, and other projects that I'd like to see how they develop but realistically this is only going to do something if the issues are rp based and given that people seem to hop around for skills rather than rp, it seems more likely that the issue lies with the skills.

Enyalida:
I think that was more or less what Estarra was saying could in theory be done with clans or special clans.

I think some modifications would be necessary, a special clan that's more of a half-way point between what a guild offers and what a clan offers. I am a little sad that the suggestion resulted in considering the possibilities of moving the flavour-focused rp-centric stuff off to such a clan while throwing together something generic and basic for the Hartstone but realistically that seems like it would kill the guild in the rp sense even if people were still in it.

I'm just going to chime in that I found what was said in the Ustream to be somewhat concerning. I personally think our very small population is an excellent reason to hold back releasing monks for the new cities, and it might have even been a great idea not to release the bard guilds either. I understand the frustrations coming from the organizations that feel the want/need to have access to these classes too, but it's really not doing us any good in the big picture. Small guilds are a problem for the reasons Saran already stated. In fact, the poor performance of these guilds in terms of population and leadership is also causing some diminished retention rates and poor first-impressions among new players. There's the issue of people not being able to advance adequately, not having elders to pass on guild-centered RP and culture, even combat strategies and basic training begins to crumble when this happens.
I can say that one of the things that kept me playing Lusternia longer than a couple days on this character (which I've been playing about 2ish years now) is the wonderful experiences I had with what was once a very big and cohesive guild.

Ontop of that, this may seem as a bit of a tangent, but Lusternia is already a ridiculously overcomplicated game. For each guild you release, you're putting more strain on your staff and envoys. Competitive players now have even more to adapt to in a game that's rapidly evolving month by month. As someone who tries to keep up with the combat aspect of the game, I can say it's beginning to get very overwhelming very quickly.

I'll probably wade into this thread a little here.

Rivius:

Ontop of that, this may seem as a bit of a tangent, but Lusternia is already a ridiculously overcomplicated game. For each guild you release, you're putting more strain on your staff and envoys. Competitive players now have even more to adapt to in a game that's rapidly evolving month by month. As someone who tries to keep up with the combat aspect of the game, I can say it's beginning to get very overwhelming very quickly.

The crux of that argument becomes 'change is bad, no new stuff'. I never buy into those kinds of arguments - you're talking about not releasing new skills, new skillsets, new archetypes, new areas, new conflict quests, new conflict mechanics. I also think "rapidly evolving month by month" is a fair bit of an exaggeration. It's evolving on a monthly basis, but 'rapidly' feels a bit much - don't think envoy reports fall into 'rapidly'! Maybe curios/the announcement of new skills and a new skillset are feeding into that perception? The biggest envoy report since the Shuyin change was the change to grace, imo, from last month. And I think that was yours! :P Same with the current round, I see one on PK declaration. Yours too! If anyone's feeding the 'rapid' change, mister Serenguard Envoy...!

On Jello's suggestion, I feel like that kind of misses the point - if you're just grouping guilds on 'we focus on higher planes', 'we focus on more immediate things' then why not just group people by 'we worship xyz god' or 'we belong to xyz city' (which we already do!).

I think what Estarra's suggestion was more about was fulfilling a deeper RP commitment - the Hartstone would still be the collection of druids who worship the White Hart as a nature spirit and are druids, tenders of the forests and healers of the land. But you might have the Five Leaf Faction, which has strong beliefs on how Serenwilde should progress in its duties, the place of the fae, and how their spirits should be viewed. In other words, a political party. I do think they could provide a great venue for roleplay myself, but I'm not really sure they'd actually be used to any great degree. I certainly think that if we divorced the skills from the guilds, and related skill-specific stuff, you'd find the guilds pretty empty of identity. What would the Spiritsingers be without being a collection of bards who commune with ancestral spirits? The Hartstone if they aren't Hart's druids who heal the land and forest? Etc etc. No, I think Factions would be a far more amicable and pleasurable way to achieve the same ends you're thinking of, without hurting the original guilds.

Of course, I do have the suspicion that people wouldn't really join guilds because of their ideology alone, and they'd all pile into whichever one has busiest/had the most of their friends in it/wasn't "ruled by idiots!". For much the same reason, I'm not too sure you'll find factions taking off. Between orders, guilds, families, I think most ideological divides already exist within an organization. Prove me wrong though! I think Factions is a fun idea that would add an interesting aspect to city dynamics.

The crux of his argument wasn't 'change is bad', it was 'too much anything is bad'. The problem isn't that the game is changing, it's that there is so much of it that interacts in so many complex ways, and because there is so much of it, it gets overwhelming quickly.

As to factions, I don't think they'd ever take off because the 'politics' in this game have very little to do with normal politics, for the most part, as you pointed out. Especially with guildleaders being the ruling council of any given nation, able to perfectly override each other. You'd have to be running elections in every single guild, and hope that it's not just going to be a popularity contest within that (somtimes) very small population. When only 40 vote weight total is in the election, and there are 2-3 active people with 10, the rest with minor vote weight, no amount of jockying is going to work. If the voting bases were much larger, campaigning would actually work.

Though I disagree that 'ideological divides' exist at all within orgs. Not along any sort of IC line, like guilds. In practice, being in a guild doesn't means very little ideologically about you. That's part of the problem. Making guilds more specifically about ideology would help!


To identity: I think it's a very shallow description of the Spiritsingers to call them 'people who sing with spirits', or the Hartstone as 'people who are druids of Hart'. Of course, right now, the primary deciding factor on the difference between Hartstone and Blacktalon is "One guild is in Glomdoring and gets Crow, one is in Serenwilde and gets Stag." Other differences tend to fall by the wayside.

What a lot of people have been saying in this thread (from what I read) is that while the RP differences are significant, the mechanical/skillset differences tend to take primacy when you decide on a guild being fun to play or not. If the mechanics are the same, yes guild atmosphere and RP is a big consideration, but if the mechanics aren't fun, it's not fun to play.

If you were to change the definition of Hartstone to be: "Collection of people who follow Hart's teachings, regardless of walk of life. Mostly druids, not required (mechanically, though the players may decide to limit it on their own, or with patron guidance)." I don't see how that could be a more interesting defining feature. You join for your own reasons, and hear the call in your own way. You could be in the spiritsingers because you believe wholeheartedly in the good of listening to the spirits (I know very little about actual SS lore, does it show?) and their songs, but you are a terrible singer who never really got the flare for the magics of the bards. You keep to your trusty axe. That's just not possible with the game how it is now.

If a character's only tie to guild and guildlore is possession of the skills of that guild, it's a shallow character with shallow RP. I think we agree on that. So why keep it that way. If players should be looking beyond the skillsets to develop RP, why not allow a warrior into a guardian guild? They'd have to look past the skillset to develop RP, just the same as people with the guardian skillset. I just don't see that erasing the identity of that guild. It DOES, however move the identity away from "We all share a skillset or two", into "We all share a set of ideals, and a set of guiding principles. We have the same traditions and goals." I think we agree that that sort of grouping is a good thing. We disagree in that you (and others) think it should be confined to clans/factions, and I (and others) think it should be integrated into the basic political/factional/ideological unit, the guild.

The crux of this argument is as follows:

Admin team is always saying that RP should override and overrule mechanics. The story behind an area, or a skill, or a character should be the first consideration, the mechanics second. How does that apply up to this case? The story inherent to your character being in a guild, and to the lore of that guild should be primary concern. The mechanical skillsets of the characters second. If the game was pure RP (not a good move, I'd say :P), that would be how it ran. You'd align yourself purely on where your character made the most sense.

We shouldn't go quite that far abandon guilds and skill connection completely, and I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that. However, if it makes the most sense for your character (who's backstory involves, suppose, learning the arts of subterfuge as a teenage boy in the slums of Magnagora) to arrive at a place where they want to move to another guild, why not let them? The alternative is what we have now. They must suddenly and absolutely forget the use of all the things they have known, potentially for centuries. They must either abandon that knowledge completely or repress it so deeply that they can call up no use from it, and do not even remember the very form of the abilities they once knew. All that simply to follow a different philosophy, to learn the teachings of a different grouping within their own nation.

If the objection is that there would be inappropriate movement and people going to other guilds irrespective of RP, I wish to present a few points:

1st) Why? They would gain no mechanical benefit for doing so. Why would they bother making the move if not for RP reasons?

2nd) It can be limited! You can only do so within your own city/commune for instance. If you have the skill 'Harmonics', you cannot move to Magnagora and set up shop. Something about the entanglement of power, your nexus, and the teachings of the guild. You can even go farther. With the changes, the Celestines have expanded their RP of a priesthood. You are not allowed (by their mandate) to take the skills you've learned in the Celestines to any other guild. Not until you're a journeyman of the cloth! You've got to go through a certain set of IC 'hoops' to get invested for evangelism (I know this isn't the right word.).

While I do want to see Hallifax and Gaudiguch get monks, I agree with Rivius in that small guilds are a problem. I've stubbornly remained a Sentinel because I enjoy warrior combat and I think Hallifax is great, but man, have there been times when I wished I was in a more active guild or org. If it wasn't for OOC org clans, I'd probably have drifted into inactivity. I would say we've definitely suffered retention wise due to low guild membership.

While having a wide selection in choice of guild is great for catering to different play-styles and role-play, I do think retention rates would be higher if there a few less, but more active guilds. Even with the addition of the novice collegiums, I think guilds remain as the lasting 'first impression' novices get, with the collegiums more of a 'get these tasks out of the way' type of thing. I believe most people in Hallifax are good at helping collegium novices not of their own guild, but the novices who -stay- are for the most part either Researchers or Aeromancers, the more active guilds in Hallifax. As this goes on, existing members of less populated guilds can burn out trying to change things or get bored and drift into inactivity/alting.

Obviously, if the playerbase increased this issue could disappear, which does raise what I think is the more pressing issue. While releasing new content for existing players is obviously important, and the profits earned from things like people going mad for curios allows Lusternia to continue as a business and game; it is much harder to see how the admin is actively aiming to increase the playerbase. I'm not saying that there aren't efforts to do so, just that the more visible focus (to me) seems to be on keeping what you have, which I see as a loyal (maybe addicted might be more appropriate! ) playerbase, and less on seeking to expand the playerbase.

Maybe we can set up a guild merger system where certain guilds can choose to merge with each other and gain each other's skills, then.

This gives a better RP system since the guild won't necessarily be 'we are a bunch of guys with druid skills' and more into 'we are a bunch of guys who believe in x, and we happen to have druid and wiccan skills'

This also addresses the low population issue, considering that if you merge small guilds together, they have a better chance of having someone around to help out.

Off the top of my head, I can see a warrior and monk guild merging together, granting its members access to both skills whose RP purpose is protecting their org.

Of course, if you do this, you need to consult with the admin/patron/etc and sort things out before you do so.

I feel like this is a compromise between the current system and certain ideas about completely divorcing skills from guilds.

I think something like that without actually merging would be good too. You set up a 'exchange student' type relationship with another guild, which allows movement between the lines (still not something to be done on a whim though).

My favorite combo would be a warrior/monk guild and a caster guild like a mage or a druid. The idea being that the warriors of that nation are joining up with the casters to protect them in their guild.

Eventru:

/snip
I certainly think that if we divorced the skills from the guilds, and related skill-specific stuff, you'd find the guilds pretty empty of identity. What would the Spiritsingers be without being a collection of bards who commune with ancestral spirits? The Hartstone if they aren't Hart's druids who heal the land and forest? Etc etc. No, I think Factions would be a far more amicable and pleasurable way to achieve the same ends you're thinking of, without hurting the original guilds.

It may just be me, but I find this incredibly disturbing. The Hartstone perhaps could have been the attendants of the White Hart, not just keepers of secrets but also those that ensure that the secrets of the forest are protected and kept hidden. They could have been a guild of druids and warriors, the followers of the White Hart (i.e Hartstone warriors couldn't chose moon at least) and his teachings, when bards came along their shared connection to the spirits and the song of the forest might have meant that they would combine with the Hartstone, giving them a new way to commune with the forest and path to walk with the White Hart.

Right now, I can't actually remember where the connection between ephemeral spirits and wiccans or communal spirits and druids came from in an ic sense.

Of course, I do have the suspicion that people wouldn't really join guilds because of their ideology alone, and they'd all pile into whichever one has busiest/had the most of their friends in it/wasn't "ruled by idiots!". For much the same reason, I'm not too sure you'll find factions taking off. Between orders, guilds, families, I think most ideological divides already exist within an organization. Prove me wrong though! I think Factions is a fun idea that would add an interesting aspect to city dynamics.

I may just try, hrm... if only to actually see if we can prove you wrong :P

Ushaara:

Obviously, if the playerbase increased this issue could disappear, which does raise what I think is the more pressing issue. While releasing new content for existing players is obviously important, and the profits earned from things like people going mad for curios allows Lusternia to continue as a business and game; it is much harder to see how the admin is actively aiming to increase the playerbase. I'm not saying that there aren't efforts to do so, just that the more visible focus (to me) seems to be on keeping what you have, which I see as a loyal (maybe addicted might be more appropriate! ) playerbase, and less on seeking to expand the playerbase.

I feel that measures to increase the player base may actually run into issues if guilds are not able to retain novices... it might actually work against these aims by throwing potential customers into a situation where they are likely to end up dissatisfied and not return.

Sojiro:

Maybe we can set up a guild merger system where certain guilds can choose to merge with each other and gain each other's skills, then.

This gives a better RP system since the guild won't necessarily be 'we are a bunch of guys with druid skills' and more into 'we are a bunch of guys who believe in x, and we happen to have druid and wiccan skills'

This also addresses the low population issue, considering that if you merge small guilds together, they have a better chance of having someone around to help out.

Off the top of my head, I can see a warrior and monk guild merging together, granting its members access to both skills whose RP purpose is protecting their org.

Of course, if you do this, you need to consult with the admin/patron/etc and sort things out before you do so.

I feel like this is a compromise between the current system and certain ideas about completely divorcing skills from guilds.

I can see potentially HS and SS merging, though I my impression of the cities is that their bards might merge better with their guardians.

Monks and warriors should really merge, too.

There really is a huge issue with so few people existing in (most) guilds. It leaves the game feeling like a ghost town at times, and newbies do need to talk to their guild first and foremost for more specific questions. The collegium... it really doesn't work out for specifics in the end, and if you can't get guild advancement you begin to feel "abandoned".

I'm pretty sure the only Monk guild that would really have major issues merging with their respective warrior guild is the Nekotai, because they have some hard-core adherents who are really into their RP stance.

I'm not entirely sure how we'd work that out, but... really. We have too many guilds (guilds, not skillsets) which spread people out too much even within their own org (given our current playerbase).

Something should at least be considered to address this.

Right, which is why I feel that allowing a formal guild merging system would be great, everyone wins.

You get better RP because you won't solely be defined by skills anymore, the multiclassers get to multiclass if their guild merges with another, it doesn't completely divorce skills from guilds like what the admin want, it increases the activity of the merged guild by virtue of the fact that it will literally be bigger, -and- it doesn't add yet another ideological divide; if anything, it reduces it.

Furthermore, it's completely opt-in. If you can't work out a RP reason to merge with x guild, you don't have to! You can keep going on your merry way.

I would even argue that certain orgs would probably prefer one or two 'super' guilds as opposed to 5 smaller ones given their ideologies about Everything For The Org.

This whole idea would work really well in Glom, NMBG and all

We're not merging guilds, heh. Where that idea came from I don't know, but it's pretty out there. I'm pretty sure there's no intention to move from the one-archetype-one-guild setup.

I'm a little skeptical that empty guilds is harming novice retention. If the collegium system isn't working, maybe we should expand it - consider getting rid of the guild administrator/undersecretaries/secretaries abilities to interact with novices and instead give that power to the Ambassador and their aides, to reinforce that novices should be a city-wide responsibility, not a guild-specific one.

Eventru:

We're not merging guilds, heh. Where that idea came from I don't know, but it's pretty out there. I'm pretty sure there's no intention to move from the one-archetype-one-guild setup.

The idea came from the following logic.

1) Guilds are the focus of "personal" RP; your skills are based around them, you advance in them, they are an essential part of your character (or should be). A newbie trying to get in the game is helped by having a strong guild experience.
2) We have so many guilds in Lusternia that the playerbase is stretched thin. As noted, elections often have a whole 20-40 points of voteweight in them. This is absurdly low. People for positions are scarce, novices don't get their guild-experience handled, and the few people in those guilds have difficulty spending a lot of time with novices simply because if they did, they'd be the only one.

It's actually quite disheartening to see even from a long-term player perspective; imagine what it feels like for a new player.

So what do you do? One option is to divorce skills from guilds (an idea already poo-pooed, and one that doesn't really fit in with Lusternia's lore / background / setup anyways). The most palatable alternative is condensing guilds down that have similar structure (ie monks and warriors) into something that can help address the population issue.

It's hard to say that Lusternia's population is not spread thin. It's also really hard to say that there's not a ton of focus on Lusternia's guilds (despite the implementation of the Collegium), and without a strong guild-oriented focus... there's less of a hook to help new players stick around.

Though that's not to say you all might not have other ideas. I think that's kind of the point of this thread!

It's important to at least consider options.

Xenthos:

The idea came from the following logic.

1) Guilds are the focus of "personal" RP; your skills are based around them, you advance in them, they are an essential part of your character (or should be). A newbie trying to get in the game is helped by having a strong guild experience.
2) We have so many guilds in Lusternia that the playerbase is stretched thin. As noted, elections often have a whole 20-40 points of voteweight in them. This is absurdly low. People for positions are scarce, novices don't get their guild-experience handled, and the few people in those guilds have difficulty spending a lot of time with novices simply because if they did, they'd be the only one.

It's actually quite disheartening to see even from a long-term player perspective; imagine what it feels like for a new player.

So what do you do? You either divorce skills from guilds (an idea already poo-pooed, and one that doesn't really fit in with Lusternia's lore / background / setup anyways). The most palatable alternative is condensing guilds down that have similar structure (ie monks and warriors) into something that can help address the population issue.

It's hard to say that Lusternia's population is not spread thin. It's also really hard to say that there's not a ton of focus on Lusternia's guilds (despite the implementation of the Collegium), and without a strong guild-oriented focus... there's less of a hook to help new players stick around.

Though that's not to say you all might not have other ideas. I think that's kind of the point of this thread!

It's important to at least consider options.

Sure, consider all the options one likes. Personally the notion of combining guilds is awkward - mostly because the objective is the ages old 'delete bards/monks' complaint. I don't really think small guilds is the problem - I think the problem is the perception guilds need to be large. People should focus more on the city than the guilds themselves, IMO.

And while suggestions are certainly welcome, I really get the impression we're not considering anything that involves deleting one or more guilds.

Eventru:


Sure, consider all the options one likes. Personally the notion of combining guilds is awkward - mostly because the objective is the ages old 'delete bards/monks' complaint. I don't really think small guilds is the problem - I think the problem is the perception guilds need to be large. People should focus more on the city than the guilds themselves, IMO.

And while suggestions are certainly welcome, I really get the impression we're not considering anything that involves deleting one or more guilds.

The age-old "Delete Bards / Monks" objective is to destroy the skills, really.

Merging them would not do so (at least not in the way being discussed), so it doesn't really fulfill that goal at all. At most someone could tongue-in-cheek say "Hey they were deleted!" to which anyone else would roll their eyes and say, "No, they're still here, they just are in a new place." Or at least, anyone else who thinks like me (scary thought, I know) would.

This isn't being suggested to remove any of the work done by anyone on concepts, RP, or skills... but as a way to try and re-build a sorely lacking guild experience caused to a great extent by dilution.

Especially if it is up to players to decide how (or even if) it should be done, and sorting out the RP angles... it shouldn't be a heavy-handed "this is the way it's going to be, we're just deleting these guilds, goodbye!" kind of thing, but one that is worked out with the actual people involved. That is, at least, the suggestion for merging presented above.

Small guilds are a problem.